|
Coming clean...
Quote:
This guy says what a lot (not all of course)of the left feels. Honesty is good, but does it cross the line at times? |
Joel Stein is a satirist. You can't take what he says at face value.
|
Quote:
|
Essentially, Mr. Stein seems to be awfully critical of a group of people he knows little to nothing about. This becomes apparent even if you do not take the time to read through my Host-like post. Some people just need to think before they speak.
|
And so it begins again, but in light hearted self depreciating form in order to soften the initial blow.
|
Quote:
|
My issue with his, ilconcieved column is when he says, "And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition."
I would argue that most who are against the war in Iraq are not pacifists. They have other reasons to not support the war which have been well trodden. If Stein didn't have a platform like the LA Times he would be called a troll. Like most trolls he would be banned from the TFP. Don't feed the trolls. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hey politicophile. Long time no see.
Ya wanna kinda condense that mess up there? I just rubbed my scroll wheel finger raw. Either that, or just give the basic gist, in your own eloquent words, and post the link. Cool. Thanks. |
Quote:
His use of such terms were to soften the blow of the article, to unfocus the anger that many would feel if he just said he doesn't support the troops straight out. It was amazingly masterful really, he didn't make me mad, I almost pitied him, the feeling is the of the kid who gets his lunch money taken from him by the bullies. I was most impressed. |
Hmm, I think if you examine it in a way it is hypocritical to support the troops and not support what they are doing, although I think the sentiment of "supporting the troops" has more of a meaning that you empathize with the men and women in the army and that one genuinely appreciates their situation and position while at the same time disagreeing with what they are doing. I don't know...I think the article is a little over the top, maybe this person wants to garner attention.
|
Quote:
|
I totally agree with Joel's seeming fundemental point.
I read his words to mean - if you were against the war it is inconsistent to support what allied troops are doing in Iraq. I thought it was wrong to go to war, because I was totally unconvinced that there was any real evidence of danger to anyne outside of Iraq. Now the allies have ripped the country a new asshole they've turned over every rock and found little that indicates the Iraqis could be a danger to a foreign country. Admittedly, the Iraqi government regularly kidnapped people and tortured them, but what can you expect? They were trained by the CIA. That's the point. The more I learn about the way the American government conducts itself the more I wonder that the real danger to the world is the US government. This will be taken as controverial, but maybe the day that China can play on the world stage and hold back the US the world will be a safer place. I agree with Joel that the americans would be better off not trying to police the world. Trying to make the world safe with american troops is like herding cats - it wastes your time and upsets the cats. |
Quote:
|
Sounds like he was just trying to get some publicity by being outrageous. Why would he go on the Hugh Hewitt show unless he wanted to stir up controversy by pissing off the right-wingers. He doesn't even try to defend himself. He's just playing along.
I agree with the Charlatan, he's a troll. |
Quote:
Going into Afghanistan was nessassary, Iraq was not. Mistreating the returning solders from Vietnam was wrong, I'm glad people have realized that. Talk about going after the wrong people. As far as Joel Stein' article goes... He make's a few good points, he make's more points I disagree with. But as a good friend (and career millitary man) once told me: "I totally disagree with that statement, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it" |
Welcome back, Adam! :icare:
|
Quote:
Clearly the pacificsts are a fringe element and not central to this discussion (despite your efforts to the contrary). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I've never heard of Joel Stein, but I think his position makes sense. It doesn't seem at all outrageous to me. I mean you are either for the war or you are not. What does it exactly mean to say that you are against what the troops are doing, but you still "support" them?
I mean it certainly makes sense to say that you are against the war, but you don't think that troops themselves are responsible for the waging of the war. It also makes sense to say that you are against the war, but you don't like seeing American men and women dieing needlessly. It also makes sense to say that you are against the war, yet empathise with what the troops have to go through. It's certainly possible to say a lot of things about the troops, but these things are not the same as supporting them. When you are against what they are doing and the reasons they are doing it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that you "support" them, at least not by my understanding of supporting a group of people. Is there anyone here who is against the war in Iraq, yet "supports the troops"? If so, could you explain what you mean by "support"? (Honestly curious, not trying to troll or start a flamewar) |
Quote:
My support comes from an historical perspective which is based on how dreadfully many of our returning Viet Nam vets were treated, including my first husband. I did not participate in the demeaning of our troups, nor did I have strong beliefs regarding the war in those early years ('68-'69). I did believe it outrageous that we could vilify a soldier for serving in the war. I have constantly held very strong beliefs against the war in Iraq, but our soldiers did not start this war. I respect the young men and women who are members of our military and to that extent, I am in "support" of them. I don't see a contradiction in being against the war itself and the respect I have for our soldiers, where ever they may be serving. Someone commented on the notion of "collective guilt" which may very well be in play for a good many people. I'm not one of them. |
I'll second Elphaba's comments,
and ask to identify myself with them. with the exception of the returning vietnam vet was my father not husband. |
Quote:
(For what it's worth; not American, but believe the war in Iraq was wrong, but don't blame it on American soldiers and don't harbour any ill will against them - but even so, don't consider myself a supporter of them or their actions) |
You know we could argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin forever.
Saying you support the troops but not the war, or don't support the troops or the war makes no difference in your actions as far as I can tell. Both are attempting to undermine the US war effort. At this point, reguardless if you think the war was needed or not is a moot point, the US has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. You may not have approved of the war but it happened, you can't take it back, and advocating anything but victory at this point will harm the US both directly and indirectly. This is why such 'supporters' have their patriotism questioned. With friends like that, the enemy is half way to victory already., |
Quote:
My question is at what point can we tell the President (he's CiC, he gets the grief) to stop doign stupid shit with the military? Do we have to wait until Iraq is COMPLETELY finished (great well my grandchildren can tell him)? Or do we wait until the Army actually is stretched too thin (I don't think it is yet, but we do seem to be heading that way)? At some point critisism has to acknowledged and considered. And I do mean constructive critisism not pointless bitching. For the record, my opinions: Afgan - Good move (except we didn't FINISH) Iraq - could've been a good move in time after Afgan was finished and if the ENTIRE Iraq occursion had been considered. |
Quote:
There are, of course, some people who "support our troops" but think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. That position makes significantly less sense because it seems to me that supporting the troops includes supporting their mission. Even so, however, I think it is possible to argue that one can support the troops by hoping they leave the dangers of the battlefield behind. Alternatively, if you hope that the Iraqi insurgents ("minutemen" in obese traitor-speak) defeat our soldiers, I don't see how you could possibly say you support the troops. Thus, it seems that the vast majority of people who do not support the war could conceivably support our troops. It all depends on precisely what you mean when you claim not to support the war. |
Quote:
I was against going to Iraq in the first place, But now we are there. there is no use pretending we have no responsibilty to the Iraqi peoples, and their neighbors. Now, I DO NOT want to see a "cut and run" I would hope we have learned that lesson from Vietnam as well. I do think we should start withdrawing one city at a time. Keeping enough troops around in case the Iraqi's fail to keep control. As the hand over progress's each city will become easier. Start in the north, where it is the most stable. by the time we are leaving the more dangerous southern areas the locals will understand the drill. |
Fuck, i don't support the troops in any meaningful way. Neither do most of you. If i believed in this occupation i'd most likely be helping with it. I wouldn't be sitting on my ass here in america, pretending i had some sort of notion about making the world a better place that didn't involve me making zero sacrifices.
I like the idea that people, not just our troops, won't die unnecessarily. I like the idea that somehow some amount of regional stability will come out of our ill advised little affair in iraq. I like the idea that whoever ends up in power in iraq won't be as bad as saddam. I just don't necessarily believe that there's much hope for any of these things to actually happen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I was againts the war in Iraq but I am certainly not advocating that the US troops pull out. The USA should clean up what it started, failure to stabilise Iraq will lead to unnecessary hardship for the Iraqi population in the long term and another "messed up" state in the middle east. I do not think supporting the troops means much to me, firstly my nation does not have troops in Iraq, secondly I do not see what supporting the troops means other than wishing that they fufill their task of making Iraq into a "sane" state (that is democratic with a minimum of human rights abuses and no erratic behaviour that threatens us all). Of course I also hope that this is accomplished with the least possible loss of life because I do not like it when people are killed or injured.
|
Quote:
Sadam has been removed from power His millitary, goverment....well everything has been destroyed. Why shouldn't we leave? Why can't we start leaving in a orderly, stratgic manner? Does anyone even know what sucess means? No set goals, No game plan, How are we supposed to follow the carot at the end of the stick, if we can't see the carot? Heck, we don't even know if it's a carot or a stone. I had a thought about the support issue earlier today. Even the anti-war protesters are supporting the war, That is...if they are paying their taxes. That goes for citizens of any nation who have troops in theater. |
Quote:
By this, I am not implying that everyone who wants us to cut and run from Iraq wants to see the U.S. fail, although I am definitely saying that some people who hold that view would like nothing better than for the insurgency to strengthen and begin to kill more of our soldiers. Additionally, even those who fall into the former category would have their ends furthered if the insurgency were to begin winning. Provided, of course, that there were still enough soldiers alive to bring home. My quandary is this: if you believe that the best thing to do in Iraq is to pull out all troops ASAP, how can you support the troops if the very success of those troops would prevent them from coming home? If the options are failure and a swift withdrawal or success and a substantially later withdrawal, which option is preferable? Alternatively, is success compatible with immediate withdrawal? How? |
Quote:
You make accuations of people wanting to see a failure You spout the standard flag waving parrotism. Yet no concept of what success is. Is withdrawl at anytime ever failure? I would very much like to have anyone define what success in Iraq means. |
Quote:
If withdrawal would weaken the new democratic government (it would), then withdrawal jeopardizes success. |
I have to give this guy credit;
He makes a valid point, and I applaud him. I have to also chastize the person who edited his interview. As I have said before, I have been misquoted by the press, and that is what is happening here (with all of the '...'s going around) Hey, what is wrong with this position? Oh, we aren't supposed to criticize the guys in theatre, because they are just doing their jobs. We learned this lesson in Vietnam. Okay. I understand that. I didn't hear any criticism here. He is not supportive. Cool. At least he has the balls to say it, and not hide behind a fridge magnet. |
Quote:
The presence of foreign troops only serve the "image" of a puppet goverment. If anything a highly publized, city by city, strategic withdrawl will strengthen the democratically elected goverment. The right wing millitas will settle down only when they see their goverment in the hands of Iraqi's. Our actions against terrorists have been like plucking grey hairs, every hair plucked regrows three. the longer we wait, the higher the probability of a panicked withdrawl. That is failure. I don't want to win the failure. |
I'm not sure why one would think that withdrawing from Iraq would weaken the insurgency. After all, the insurgency is already killing substantially more Iraqis than Americans. While it is certainly true that the insurgents use anti-American rhetoric to justify their actions, those words look more and more like hot air with every Iraqi death at the hands of the insurgents. OF COURSE the insurgents would like to turn Iraqi public opinion against the United States: a U.S. withdrawal would leave the minimally trained Iraqi Police as the only force maintaining order in the country. The U.S. can begin a gradual withdrawal beginning this year, but only in proportion to the number of available trained Iraqis.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project