Go to War News You Won't See in the Mainstream Media
- Add a comment
- Go to Words to ponder
Damon, you raise a paradox or two here
First off, if you are not against the military, then you need to be concerned about their morale. Otherwise you become one of those proverbial friends with whom one does not need enemies. And while your concern for their safety is laudable, it is the nature of military operations to be in harm's way.
Let's compare Bush's "militarism" to Clinton's reliance on law enforcement. How many terrorists did Bubba bring to justice? How much information was freely shared between the law enforcement, intelligence and military communities? (See my post tonight on Able Danger for discussion of that.) How many American civilians have died in terror attacks since we took the fight to them? And would the world be safer if we simply ignored terrorism and hoped it would go away, as the Clinton administration essentially did? Answer int he affimrative, and you betray a complete ignorance of terrorism and terrorists.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 20, 2005 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
As I've...
...written elsewhere tonight - I am not against the military. They do their job (though I have to say that their morale is of no real concern to be, but their safety is, unlike some presidents we could name).
What I am against is the militarism displayed by Bush and his cronies. He has to be hell-bent on stirring the Middle East up, otherwise he wouldn't have gone in to the hornets nest flailing about with a big stick after being sting by a hornet. Which, no matter what his dwindling band of supporters may say, has undoubtedly made the world less safe.
Another Bush promise out the friggin' window.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 20, 2005 at 9:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!
Damon, you have me wrong. Always interested in hearing what others think. But understadn that I always reserve the right, as you do, to dispute it. We obviously don't agree, but you are welcome to share your opinions so long as you are willing to have them challenged.
Thatsoldierswife nailed you perfectly. It isn't that the critics shouldn't be criticizing. They have every right to do so. The problem is that these crticisms are expressed in such a way as to be derogatory to the troops.
If Michael Moore supports the troops, then I support the terrorists. Remember the line from Forrest Gump about "stupid is as stupid does?" (Being a Bush hater, you should be intimately familiar with it as it uses the most cliched insult to him.) Supporting the troops is as supporting the troops does. If you want to criticize the war, do so. But criticizing the troops and using rhetoric that attacks their morale, either by design or accident, is something else entirely. Do not tell me it hasn't happened; my own son has been confronted by protesters bent on turning him agaisnt his government and his country.
As far as what's fully accepted, fully accept what I put up in this blog tonight. Fully accept the fact that the Iraqi people, Sunni and Shiite alike, have turned out in overwhelming numbers to ratify their new constitution in fulfillment of one of the objectives of the war. Another Bush promise kept, my blinkered friend.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 17, 2005 at 6:37 PM
| link to this | reply
No one...
...is suggesting the guys on the ground are not doing their job.
What more and more people are suggesting that the guys NOT on the ground - particularly the so-called "commander-in-chief" who is safely tucked up in the White House or, more often, his ranch - has sent them to do the Wrong Job.
It's now fully accepted that Bush lied to get troops into Iraq, and he continues to lie to keep them there.
If he was my boss, I'd resign in disgust.
I hope your loved one comes home safe.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 17, 2005 at 7:39 AM
| link to this | reply
oh yea...
"If a person wants to go to Iraq and fight for Iraqi freedom and risk getting their arms and legs blown off or worse yet lose their life and they think it's worth it then let them. They should go with the understanding that one of the freedoms they are fighting for is the freedom to criticize the war or any war for that matter that the U.S. gets itself into. If they can't stomach that then they should not go."
I have a hard time reading this. It's not about being able to "stomach" the critics. Yes there is obviously the risk of death or serious injury in this war and trust me, all soldiers know better then anyone that they fight for an American's right to say what they want. That doesn't mean that the soldiers can't be pissed off for fellow American's bashing our government. What the protesters and critics need to realize that it's a great insult to these men and women. When they hear statements that we're not winning this war they tend to take that personally. Why? Because it says to them that they are not doing their job. What a way to kill morale.
posted by
thatsoldierswife
on October 14, 2005 at 6:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks
Thank you for adding the responses to that soldiers letter. I am hoping that there were more positive responses to his letter then there were negative ones.
posted by
thatsoldierswife
on October 14, 2005 at 6:08 AM
| link to this | reply
In Answer...
...to the first question, I think it comes from National Review Online - here's the link http://media.nationalreview.com/066369.asp
Meanwhile, I found some interesting responses to this on a forum on the History Channel site. Here are a few of them, all different writers...
"If a person wants to go to Iraq and fight for Iraqi freedom and risk getting their arms and legs blown off or worse yet lose their life and they think it's worth it then let them. They should go with the understanding that one of the freedoms they are fighting for is the freedom to criticize the war or any war for that matter that the U.S. gets itself into. If they can't stomach that then they should not go."
"So this individual has no problems having his death exploited as long as its only by his favourite political party. I have seen numerous times in speeches that cowboy say that the deaths of soldiers was for a noble cause and freedom rah rah rah. It seems to me that Bush has used the deaths of soldiers to glorify his war and also justify it. How is this different from what 'liberals' do?"
"I think it's a sad commentary on our times, that a man going into combat would even concern himself on that level with the pundits of the opposition. It was never a priority when I was in the military. Everyone I knew concerned themselves with doing their job, taking care of themselves and their comrades, and getting back to their loved ones. The political issues were not even on the personal radars of most of the people I served with; that is, if they were, I didn't know, because my comrades never expressed it as a concern or a priority to me."
"It always has amazed me how whenever we get ourselves involved in a war it's always for "Freedom" "Aren't we lucky not to have a government that decides what film makers can and can not make" people have said over the years. Yet when a filmmaker like Michael Moore makes a film ala Fahrenheit 911 and it doesn't jive with the fancy of the conservative movement whackos he's a traitor or commie etc. Banana heads like this joker Capt. William Guenther in Baghdad say these things to get the rah rah flag waving attention they think somehow will reward them later. Who knows they think God is going to pat them on the head at the Pearly gates or something and say "Good boy you fought well for my favorite nation down there, killed a lot of the baddies I made didn't ya?" This same horses rear end years from now will be one of those saying with tears in his eyes "I thought we were there to do some good. I see now it was all for nothing. We were just being used by the administration that was in the White House" But if he wants to fight for Iraqis who just a few years ago were our mortal and hated enemies let him."
"point: I have no doubt in my mind that Michael Moore would rather hear a report that 600 soldiers were killed last month in Iraq rather than 60"
response: I am afraid that statement says much more about the writers lack or objectiveness than Mr. Moores.
I would be very interested to see what exactly you base sure a claim on. I personally feel your statement lacks credibliity, and is nothing more than propaganda of the meanest porportions.
You must realise by now that it was President Bush who lied us to war, he's the only reason your there now, not Mr. Moore."
"What it translates to is: Michael Moore is against the war and if one is against the war then they are against Bush if one is against Bush they are against conservatism if they are against conservatism then they are wrong!"
""Good boy you fought well for my favorite nation down there, killed a lot of the baddies I made didn't ya?" haha brillent observation. I always heard during the war from the 'religious correction officers' how we were the army of god and his divine justice. Yes god the supreme being, creator of the the universe and all life as we know it needed a bunch of of guys with G3 rifles to protect him and carryout his will. Its all just silly."
It's highly likely you're NOT interested in what anyone else thinks, but here it is anyway.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 13, 2005 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for reviving an old blog!
It's been so long, I had to go peek to see what you were referring to. This was sent to me as part of a newsletter that includes updates to the war. My contact has been online only intermittently, but I will be sure to post whatever I get from him in support of your husband and all others who are serving out country.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 10, 2005 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Excellent!
Can I ask where you got this quote from?
posted by
thatsoldierswife
on October 10, 2005 at 9:53 AM
| link to this | reply