Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

How to Deal With "Peace" Activists

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I had a lengthy post prepared, but the computer ate it.

Either Emerson or Thoreau said that I may not agree with what a man has to say, but I will defend with my life his right to say it. I believe in this with great conviction. Let him or her preach abortion or not, let him or her rally against capitol punishment, or fight to see it installed. Let the individual and the masses publish peace, or cry war. It is their right under our flag to do so. I will defend that right. I may or may not agree, but I will defend that right.

For those who would burn the flag, these have no such right. The flag has been bought with too high a price. In it is wrapped the blood of fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, friends. No cost may be laid to it's fiber. The right to protest and to assemble under the flag has been bought at dear cost to life, with the breath and hope and dreams of tens of thousands of young men and women...not one of whom will ever have the chance to curl their fist in anger, or shed a tear at the burning of that flag.

The freedom to protest has roots in acceptance and right only so long as those who oppose enjoy the same opportunity. This is not so in burning the flag, for those who bought that right lay cold and silent. To burn their honor and reject their gift is to steal that which cannot be purchased, that which is beyond price.

Those who oppose freedom are my enemies; those who burn the flag are terrorists. Terrorists who sacrifice their freedom and their right in their vile act; such deserve no quarter, such are unworthy of the great gift that flies in each thread and each color of that flag.

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, again. And again. And in that pledge I hope for the peace that it offers, that has been bought at so high a price, so many times. I pray for the day, though I do not expect to see it in this lifetime, when we shake hands rather than squeeze triggers. When the open hand replaces the closed fist, when we look upon the flag with a head bowed in reverent rememberence, rather than curled around a cigarette lighter or a match. When those who enjoy freedom can remember to be grateful for it, to appreciate the cost, and to live worthy to receive it.

When one protests for peace, he or she may not revile. He may lay down, pacifistic in the act, and I will protest along side him. She may stand firm in the face of opposition, against those who would decry the right to protest. I will stand before her, and I will defend with my life his or her right to have their say. Under the flag that waves above my free right to do so, I will defend with my last dying breath that sacred right.

Burning the flag is not a wish for peace, nor a democratic statement. It is a treasonous act of terrorism. Such I will fight against, and will not defend. Peace will never be found in spitting upon the symbol of ultimate sacrifice, of liberty, or justice, of freedom. Protest only has value when dedicated to positive change. There is nothing positive in the unholy desecration of the flag and the nation for which it stands. In this there is no peace. I pray for peace, never wavering in my resolute willingness to pay the price to earn and keep it.

The true value of our republic is opposition; we are free to oppose. Where one value rises, there will be balance. One presses for removal of the ten commandments on the steps of a courthouse, another opposes. Votes are cast, we live together, think together, work together. One nation, filled with individuals who have right right and privilege to oppose, to reach a balance. When one burns the flag that balance may never be reached, for those who have earned the right to have a voice in it's defense are most silent; in this there is no democracy. Those who would burn the flag would rob the dead in their filthy act of cowardice, where the dead lie in quiet honor with no voice. No such freedom exists; those who burn the flag are terrorists, freedom takers, enemies of peace.

On no uncertain ground I stand for peace. Wage peace. Peace is active, it requires effort; it must be bought and maintained, and there is no small cost. The only excuse for war, is to make peace. Where there is war, my prayer has always been that it be short, that the end be achieved, that right prevail, and that the flag still stand. Beyond that, this affiant sayeth naught.
 
Quotes

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire


-OR-

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." --- Voltaire , letter (1770)
 
Last edited:
Legal or not, I think flag burning is a BS move and I applaude anyone who puts a stop to it when they see it.

Whenever I hear about something like this, it reminds me of something I heard Bob Hoover talk about once. He thought it was very disrespectful when he would witness people who didn't remove their hats when the flag was presented or the National Anthem was played. I don't remember specifics, but he referred to the time he spent as a POW, how it felt to be deprived of the sight of that flag, and how overjoyed he was to see that flag again after his escape. That's enough perspective for me.

In my un-PC opinion I think anyone burning a flag deserve a boot in the ass and a brick to the head, but that's just me.
 
First, I didn't take the time to read all of the responses to the JOKE I posted but I am sure there are some good ones. But I bet there are replies to my post that just help prove my point. As far as, should we have gone into Iraq to do what we did? How many of you liberals would have supported Billy Clinton if he would have said that he wanted to go into Afghanistan to kill a crapload of wackos that are planning to get into an airliner with innocent people onboard and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and The White house? But Bill was a little busy with the interns to doing anything about bin Laden. He knew about bin Laden! What did that get us? OVER 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DEAD!!!!
Boy, peace worked there. Maybe we should find bin Laden and apologize for his terrorists that died and can we do anything to help him ease the pain of his loss. I am all for cutting out that cancer before it could possibly become a problem.
 
It is time to take a serious look at our involvement there. Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on the TV are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there? The land is too large to secure all of it. The bad people causing this damage can roam anywhere, and we can't possibly police the whole place. Why are we still there?

We occupy this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there? Their government is unstable, and in the process of changing. Why are we still there?

Refugees are fleeing by the thousands, driven from their homes. Why are we still there? It will cost billions to rebuild, which we can't afford.
Why are we still there? We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?
And to repeat. Every day we hear of more Americans killed in this dangerous land.

It is clear! We must abandon California.
 
Time out, children.

Turn off the computers for the rest of the day and come back tomorrow when you can think clearly. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick".
 
It is clear! We must abandon California.

Ahhh ... something we agree on.

:D

Minh
 
737 Driver said:
<snip snip>
Refugees are fleeing by the thousands, driven from their homes. Why are we still there? It will cost billions to rebuild, which we can't afford.
Why are we still there? We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?
And to repeat. Every day we hear of more Americans killed in this dangerous land.

It is clear! We must abandon California.

That's funny. I am saving that for future use.
 
I guess "peace" is a relative term. Although we were not at war with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia at the time, in Saudi Arabia we were heavily supporting a corrupt, non-democratic regime (the Saudi Royal family). In Afghanistan, the CIA was doing plenty of covert operations and the U.N. had severe economic sanctions in place...just because there is no war doesn't mean we aren't pissing off a massive group of people somewhere in the world.

So, I'd have to disagree and say there was "peace" in the Middle East during Clinton's time.

Secondly, I'd disagree with your assumption that the Afghan War and Desert Storm II are going to help us with anti-terrorism/peace in the long run. While some wars have brought about long lasting peace once they were concluded, even our own CIA has admitted before and after Desert Storm II that it is probably just going to bring about more anti-American feeling.

Economic control is the real issue here. Not liberation, freedom or peace. Unfortunately (and I hope I'm wrong here) I think we are in this until the U.S. gives up economic control in that part of the world, or the entire reservoir of oil in the Middle East goes dry.

Once all the oil is gone, the Middle East will be about as wealthy or interesting (to our government, anyway) as sub-Saharian Africa.

Datafox
 
737 driver is a flamebaiter. Does he have no aviation input, or is this the sole extent of what he has to offer?

This is an avaition board, you know.
 
I think we are in this until the U.S. gives up economic control in that part of the world, or the entire reservoir of oil in the Middle East goes dry.

So do you advocate surrendering these resources to the extremists that want to destroy us or controlling it ourselves?

I don't care how much it pisses 'em off, I say we exercise control. The Middle East in the long run will be a more stable place with a large US military presence. I would bet that you will see some serious changes in the region over the next 5 years, particularly in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Will it come with some sacrifice?Yes. Is it in the world's collective long-term best interest? We could debate this, but I strongly believe the answer is yes.

Anyone on this board who thinks oil is not that important ought to seriously examine how they live their lives and make their living. Would you have a job if oil prices doubled or tripled tomorrow? Until you personally cut your consumption by about 40 to 70%, I will not take your position on opposing our Middle East policy seriously.
 
This is an avaition board, you know.

Oh give me a break. People talk about whatever the hell they wanna talk about here; it's not aviation-specific.
 
737 Driver,

There is a big difference between one on one self-defense and QUESTIONABLE wars. There is absolutely zero applicability in your far reaching analogy.

That wasn't even a good try.

Way to go Avbug!
 
avbug said:
This is an avaition board, you know.
One wouldn't think so with all the religion, politics and other flaming that goes on around here. I understand people have their strong opinions, and so do I. (I'm not directing this at you Avbug) But I don't waste my time trying to influence them on others. This forum is great when there are several good aviation topics going on, but lately I've noticed that things are going down the toilet.

Yes, this is a "General" forum, so it's open to a wide variety of topics, but I think it's healthy for this website to keep things on the "aviation related" track. I dont think there is room here for "Bible thumpers that must save you from the dark side" or those who are overly intolerant of those who have religious beliefs. There are plenty of other boards out there for those topics as well as politics. So please, take this stuff to either www.freerepublic.com or www.democraticunderground.com.

Spank you.

Grunt out.
 
This is an avaition board, you know.

Actually, the board is Aviation Communications.


The "communicating" is done by aviators.

Aviators communicate about a wide range of topics. That's why you see the threads you see.

Think politics isn't important to your career, your life, or your freedom?

Get a grip, my friends.

Do you think the current court system of justices has your basic American (according to the founders, "God given") freedoms at heart?

Think again.

If your motto has ever been "kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" then you need to hear something about that being. I have never beaten anyone about the head, and frankly, "thumping" a Bible is bad for its binding. If, however, you demonstrate a contempt, a lack of understanding, or a good faith interest in certain topics, I will be happy to volunteer as much time as it takes for you to get the facts straight. Not according to ME, but according to Him.

Otherwise, you can happily click away, seaching valiantly for the latest RJDC or PFT thread.

And I'll see you there.

:)
 
Last edited:
There is a big difference between one on one self-defense and QUESTIONABLE wars. There is absolutely zero applicability in your far reaching analogy.

That is your opinion. Because we have fought wars in the past, you have the freedom to express that opinion. I encourage you to continue to consider these ideas.

Interesting, isn't it?

The analogy as stated is actually a good one. It demonstrates the difference between having a "conviction" about a situation that has no direct impact on you, and how your view can change very quickly once you become involved intimately.

In the analogy, the direct and "intimate" involvement is the punches in the nose. The effect of this analogy is twofold: one, it demonstrates the difference between a feel-good idea like pacifism and the reality of the world we live in, and two, it demonstrates that we must often come to grips with the dichotomy between our desires for a peaceful world and the current conditions and the required responses to those conditions.

The terrorists could have decided against attacking us, and had long and peaceful lives. They decided to follow a different path. Now that they have dictated the initial phase of this conflict, it is up to us to either roll over and play dead, lowering our guard in the name of "civil liberties", of which we will have none if we are destroyed, or to dictate the course that will be taken from this point forward. Already, an old enemy, having seen our resolve, has decided to disarm and sit at the grownups' table.

Freedom will never fail as long as we never fail freedom.
 
Last edited:
Some people are really touchy, huh?

One person near the beginning of this post has his satire-detection equipment off (if it was ever installed).

Emotional reactions betray a poorly formed viewpoint. Much as cussin' does.

737 makes a great point.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top