Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Charlie Daniels, A Good Man

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by 1SG Bowie, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. 1SG Bowie

    1SG Bowie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Charlie Daniels, A Good Man

    The old posts went belly-up while I was writing this but, Charlie Daniels was flamed by some and, I would not feel right if I did not post a response to such unfairness.

    1) On the question of Charlie Daniels being a good man. I may as well add my thoughts to this matter.

    He was quite active in something called Farm-Aid. For those who don’t know what this is let me explain. It was a series of fund raisers, albums and, songs where money was given to help poor family farmers keep their farm. People who are not farmers would have a hard time understanding just what is involved in such a life. Farmers do not do what they do for the money because there is dam little of that. The conditions are harsh and, the work day long. Farmers endure it because they share a special relationship with the land. (I doubt that most are capable of understanding this.)

    Charlie Daniels did in fact associate with what is commonly called the average man or blue collar workers. It would seem that not only did he understand them but, that he shared their beliefs. Unlike so many he did not just use them when he needed some press coverage, unlike some others are apt to do.

    Charlie Daniels even when tired after a concert would take time for others. He was never too tired to offer a kind word or speak with others.

    2) On the subject of what Charlie Daniels wrote.

    There is more than a little frustration in there and more than a little truth.

    Charlie Daniels was more than likely fed-up with hearing the mantra coming from Hollywood and, people of this nature. The name calling of those who supported deposing a brutal dictator; War-Mongers. Since when is it that a person is a War-Monger when, he cares enough to do something about such evil? Those who made this claim also had no solution to this situation but, that did not stop them from berating others.

    Hollywood is the land where illusion and, fantasy rule. That is more than true but, perhaps it would be a better place if reality crept in. Maybe Hollywood should have just sent a Super-Hero to talk Saddam Hussein into submission.

    3) As far as Charlie Daniels being an extremist.

    He is not even close. I know what an extremist is and, he is not one. Perhaps he was also upset with those who would use that little piece of propaganda also.

    4) As far as not being upset when this type of person dies.

    With some people I am not even this charitable. I have a far greater wish for them than death. I wish them to live forever and, with their own kind. It would be a place where those who have no real solutions try to convince each other how marvelous they are. (I wonder if the only way they can do this is like they do now and, cast stones at others.) It would be a place where people would not be inclined to help others if it may require sacrifice and action. It would be a Hell that they paved the road to.






    I have more than a little experience in judging human nature and, I can’t find much fault with Charlie Daniels. He did not just talk about doing something, he did something; he helped others. If you think that helping others and caring about them is not the mark of a Good Man then I wish you life everlasting.

    I also very much doubt that any of those who talked bad of Charlie Daniels will ever, do a fraction of what he did for others. Based on what he did for others if you still think he is not a Good Man then, what does that make you.
     
  2. nnndave

    nnndave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    346
    Damn, jumping straight into the fire.

    I agree with you, and I'm watching a documentary about him right now. He's a good guy.


    And the devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said BOY LEMMIE TELL YOU WHAT!!
     
  3. Pierrot le Fou

    Pierrot le Fou IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Thanks for making this thread. I was gonna do it, but you beat me to it while I was fixing up the homosexuality debate (I think it needed to be summarized anyway).

    As far as Charlie Daniels is concerned, nice or not isn't the issue. I could be the nicest man in the world, but if I say "the sky is green" being a nice guy doesn't make it true. If Einstein said that people grew from the top down like in the Phantom Tollbooth, then he'd be wrong despite being brilliant.

    Charlie Daniels wrote a nice caustic article filled with vitriol and very little substance. He did not support his claims, he did not explain his condemnation with any facts, he just called someone a traitor. Now I don't really care enough to know what Sean Penn has done charitably, but if he turned out to be a nice charitable guy, then are we supposed to believe him too? He's over there fighting for Iraqis (or so some would believe), does that mean that Charlie Daniels is the wrong one for calling him a traitor?

    The fact is that rhetoric doesn't prove or solve anything, and both Mr. Daniels and the people defending him seemed to believe something to the contrary. The content of the character who makes a statement cannot invalidate the truth just as the nicest person or smartest person in the world is still fallible. I have noticed a lot of people defending his viewpoint and those who share it without using logic but appealing to such things as their blue-collar backgrounds and whatnot.

    What does that have to do with his argument?

    Your post seems to spend a lot more time condemning those who disagree with your view than it does bolstering Mr. Daniels' arguments with fact. The latter is far more important. Just because I disagree with his arguments doesn't mean I think he's a bad person. What I do believe is that if he calls me a bad person because I don't agree with him, then he's not a nice person for disagreeing with my viewpoint by the very same principle. So long as he doesn't prove it, it's only bile.
     
  4. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Bzzt. Wrong answer.
     
  5. Lone_C

    Lone_C IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Figures. As much as you try to bring Charlie Daniels into this, this thread is really about your stance on the Iraq war. Face it, there are some who agree with you, and some who don't, but one thing is for sure; noone is likely to change their mind.
     
  6. 1SG Bowie

    1SG Bowie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Pierrot le Fou:

    As you pointed out my post was in part a rant and, in part a defense of Charlie Daniels. That was in fact its main objective because I not only admire the man but, I was also more than a little angry with those who would attack his character.

    I am put in the place of voicing what he believes or, what I am under the impression that his beliefs are. I will do the best that I can with this project.

    1) I do not think that Charlie Daniels thinks that all people who disagree with the war are evil. I do however think that he thinks that they are wrong, just as they think he is wrong.

    2) As I understand the situation there is some reason for calling Sean Penn a traitor. What he did was contact a nation that we would be at war with and, express the opinion that he and others were against such an act. This would serve to not only provide propaganda to this nation but, would also in fact indicate that this nation is not resolute in this matter or that it was not firm in its resolve. Such an action would probably result in the foreign nations soldiers fighting with more vigor and, causing a higher cost in human lives. Since that will be most likely be the case with more soldiers from this nation receiving more injuries or even death, it would not be totally unfair to call such actions traitorous in nature.

    3) The actions of many of those from Hollywood were also highly questionable in nature. Even if they did not contact the nation themselves they did send by way of Sean Penn their messages with him expressing the same attitude as the messenger. I am sure that Sean Penn did not only express the opinion of those who asked him to do so but, that of others as well. This is where I find a distinct difference. I find there to be a vast amount of difference between those who asked that Sean Penn carry the message and, those who simply disagreed with the war.

    4) Charlie Daniels did not in post reasons for his statements. Most people who think somebody else is an A-Hole will not give a list of reasons for this belief; they will more likely just call them an A-Hole and move on. This is what I think Charlie Daniels did in this regard but, it was using the word traitor. I do not think that his message was intended to be instructional on the reasons for his belief but, rather as simply a message to show how much he despised such actions and those who undertook those actions.

    5) From the limited exposure that I have had with him, I would say that he was as much of a dreamer as a realist. He saw the United States more in the aspect of the promise and, hopes that it embodied and, less so in the reality. I think he saw his nation as a strong nation that had an obligation to help others who were oppressed or in need. The type of people with whom he was most often associated with were the type of people who helped their neighbor in times of need and, I think this colored his view of the world. I do not wish to imply that he did not understand the nature of the world but, rather that compassion often guided him in his actions just as much as it clouded his vision. I don’t think he was able to understand people who did not act on their compassion. I tend to share a similar view in that, a choice to do nothing is still a choice.




    I have not attempted to supply anything other than the reasons for such a belief. Even if you disagree with the conclusions reached, the reason that they exist has some validation in its own right.
     
  7. 1SG Bowie

    1SG Bowie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62


    I have yet to be informed of such a workable solution. Perhaps I missed it.
     
  8. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    You mean like actually investigating and exhausting all other feasible diplomatic avenues and not pissing the international community off?
     
  9. 1SG Bowie

    1SG Bowie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62


    I saw that part but, it was the very valid questions that were raised as to how they were supposed to get anything done. If there is no logical way to answer those questions then you may just as well have said that it would be accomplished by magic. If anybody can offer a real answer to even the simple questions here then it would go far in helping me understand how this works. If it can not be at least in part accomplished then my statement holds true in that I say no workable solution was offered by those opposed to the war.

    Diplomatic Solutions; I have yet to understand how people expect that talking to Saddam Hussein was going to work.

    1) He was not what I would call open to any ideas that did not include him as absolute dictator. He craved power and, would not be willing to sacrifice it at any cost to others. How would a diplomatic solution eliminate his craving for power?

    2) He knew what he was doing when he had so many people tortured and killed. I doubt very much that talking to him would convince him of the error of his ways. In the past he demonstrated that he would claim he was going to do better but, nothing ever changed. How many people being would be killed while the diplomatic solutions were continued would be acceptable?

    3) Just what were these other diplomatic solutions other than just attempting to talk him into seeing the error of his ways? Talking may be all well and good but, it does require that the person being talked to is willing to do more than agree with you in order to convince you for the moment that he has changed and, then by his actions demonstrates that nothing has changed.

    4) How long should diplomatic talk last before it is evident that they are not going to work? To my understanding it had already been going on for a few years.

    5) Diplomatic solutions are a kind of give and take and comprised of compromise for the most part. What can be offered to a man who only wanted power for himself?

    Sanctions against Iraq; Is this supposed to be a solution.

    6) In the past sanctions may have slowed him down but, in no way has it changed Saddam Hussein’s attitude. What would cause such a solution to work now?

    7) In the past any sanctions against the nation have mainly affected the people of Iraq. How would this change anything when he was more than willing to let others suffer?

    8) How do you plan to implement sanctions against a leader of a nation without it affecting the people of that nation when the leader is willing to let them suffer in order that he may enjoy luxury?

    So the International Community is pissed is it; Since I am more than a little pissed at them and their failures in the past why should this worry me? In a previous event forces from the international community attempted to do something but they failed and, then let others suffer for their failure. When they made the last foray into this arena many of the people of Iraq saw this as an opportunity to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein but, after lending them false hope they then pulled out. The international community then proceeded to do nothing as Saddam Hussein tracked down and killed these people by the thousands. I find such actions disgraceful and despicable. The United States was a part of this action and, not only it but all other nations involved should be ashamed by that affair.

    Peace may be a very lofty goal but, sometimes the price of that peace is to high. When the price of such peace is freedom and life then the price has reached that point where it is far to high.

    My reasons for support of the war were because of the shameful lack of action by the international community during the previous war with Iraq. The international community allowed so many to suffer and die as a result of their failure. I say again that the United States and all other nations should be ashamed that they lent false hope to the people of Iraq and then watched them did nothing more than watch them die.
     
  10. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    I think this is a common misperception. "Diplomatic solutions" is not wholly defined as "talking to Saddam Hussein".

    The fact is, we went into Iraq with extremely little support from other countries. Congress authorized action on the premise that we would first exhaust out diplomatic options - we didn't. Every single weapons inspector said all they needed was 6 more months. Was it absolutely essential to not wait those 6 months? Nope. Was that "imminent threat" valid? Nope. Would I have a problem with being in Iraq if we had waited those 6 months and garnered support along the way? Nope. Is there any question that our actions were hasty? Nope.

    You don't have the first clue as to what the first Iraq war was about then. It wasn't about freeing Iraq. It wasn't about stopping Saddam Hussein. It was about freeing Kuwait, and it was about containing Saddam Hussein.
     
  11. Intolerance

    Intolerance IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    467
    It's not like our country has a history of avoiding military intervention when innocent people are suffering until it directly benefits us. Clearly, had we not taken immediate military action, it would have been the very first time that we watched from the sidelines as atrocities were commited against innocents elsewhere in the world.
     
  12. 1SG Bowie

    1SG Bowie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62

    Very sad and, very true.
     
  13. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Apart from Rwanda, East Timor, Yugoslavia, and a handful of other places, yes, it would have been the very first time.

    You hit the nail on the head in your first sentence, however, we have allowed many (millions?) innocent people to die in these places because there was no perceived benefit to the U.S.
     
  14. Intolerance

    Intolerance IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I was being sarcastic. How about the Jewish Holocaust?
     
  15. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Sorry about that. I didn't catch the sarcasm.
     
  16. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Don't worry, Intolerance, I caught the sarcasm.
     

Share This Page