(Dumbass LJ won't let me post a long reply. I have to split it up. *sigh* So read all 3 before you hop on any of it, because I may address what you're wondering further down into another ... LOL)
I think the hardest thing anyone can do is find a way to convey they're being respectful of someone as a person but still say "I don't agree with that." Because I think it means you're disagreeing with the person's reasoning, and many (if not most) people take offense to that. Sometimes I do, and I don't know if you do, but you might. So be aware that I disagree with your reasoning or conclusions sometimes, but don't associate your arguments with you as a total person - if that makes sense. *G* There was a time when as a country we recognized there are grades of good and bad, shades of gray (no, that that awful fanfiction book), but we've lost a lot of that in the last 20 years or so. (And while one might be able to put some blame on both sides NOW, the fact is I've been alive long enough to remember it was the elder Bush & Co. who kicked the whole "you're with us or agin' us" notion into high gear in the late 80s. I remember because there was a time in my youth that I did lean more Republican than Democrat, amazingly enough. There are things that pushed me away from that side of the center, though a centrist by and large, I remain.)
I don't disagree with everything you have here, but there are a couple, and I'll start with the main one that jumps out at me. At best you can say the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan was misguided, if well-intended and had some halfway standable logic behind it regarding bin Laden at the time. But move over to Iraq, and there's no question it was not justified - it was an act of war unsupported by any solid evidence of anything you're supposed to go to war over. There were officials in the administration at the time who never denied charges in later years that they manipulated WMD information and outright lied about much of it in order to justify the invasion to the U.S. citizenry. To me, lying in your official capacity to justify an act of war against another nation is a war crime.
My own mother, a lifelong Republican who never let any of MY opinions influence her in more than 30 years of my existence, was one of many who turned against Bush & Co. later in their terms because of this very thing - only, she didn't even wait until his second term. She changed her vote at the last minute in 2004 because she couldn't stand the idea of so many people being killed in a war that did not happen for the reasons the administration stated it was begun. This was based on her observations and news consumption (hence my remark about my opinion not mattering) and sense of right and wrong. She did not enjoy being fooled, especially on something like that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 09:42 pm (UTC)I think the hardest thing anyone can do is find a way to convey they're being respectful of someone as a person but still say "I don't agree with that." Because I think it means you're disagreeing with the person's reasoning, and many (if not most) people take offense to that. Sometimes I do, and I don't know if you do, but you might. So be aware that I disagree with your reasoning or conclusions sometimes, but don't associate your arguments with you as a total person - if that makes sense. *G* There was a time when as a country we recognized there are grades of good and bad, shades of gray (no, that that awful fanfiction book), but we've lost a lot of that in the last 20 years or so. (And while one might be able to put some blame on both sides NOW, the fact is I've been alive long enough to remember it was the elder Bush & Co. who kicked the whole "you're with us or agin' us" notion into high gear in the late 80s. I remember because there was a time in my youth that I did lean more Republican than Democrat, amazingly enough. There are things that pushed me away from that side of the center, though a centrist by and large, I remain.)
I don't disagree with everything you have here, but there are a couple, and I'll start with the main one that jumps out at me. At best you can say the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan was misguided, if well-intended and had some halfway standable logic behind it regarding bin Laden at the time. But move over to Iraq, and there's no question it was not justified - it was an act of war unsupported by any solid evidence of anything you're supposed to go to war over. There were officials in the administration at the time who never denied charges in later years that they manipulated WMD information and outright lied about much of it in order to justify the invasion to the U.S. citizenry. To me, lying in your official capacity to justify an act of war against another nation is a war crime.
My own mother, a lifelong Republican who never let any of MY opinions influence her in more than 30 years of my existence, was one of many who turned against Bush & Co. later in their terms because of this very thing - only, she didn't even wait until his second term. She changed her vote at the last minute in 2004 because she couldn't stand the idea of so many people being killed in a war that did not happen for the reasons the administration stated it was begun. This was based on her observations and news consumption (hence my remark about my opinion not mattering) and sense of right and wrong. She did not enjoy being fooled, especially on something like that.