Warriors and Wussies

[Cowperson]

So, I was reading this column in the LA Times this morning and I was thinking: "Oooops, this guy is going to get a lot of hate mail." Then I went about my business.

The gist of it is that not only should you not support the Iraq conflict (fine, that's hardly controversial) but you should also be booing the troops there and calling them "wussies" (the oooops part).

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...home-headlines

Well, he did get a lot of hate mail. Already. By noon. The Times seems to be portraying the outrage as coming from the right but I would suspect it might be coming from all sides.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Should you also be booing the soldiers on the ground if you disagree with the political masters who put them there?

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow, I guess its easy to be a critical commentator who actually has no real life experience at all.

Fact is that what he said did have some grain of truth, but he takes the easy way out in the whole argument by going after people that believe that they are doing the right thing, and do it under some of the most difficult conditions possible.

I'd like to see this idiot sitting down and talking to the parents of some of the soldiers that were killed or badly wounded.

Soldier's don't create policy, they execute it, its as simple as that. If you have a problem with the policy then go after the ones who wrote it, not some 21 year old kid who just took a bullet to the lungs.

However, one of the things that soldier's died for was the right to free speech and the freedom of expression, but it also gives us the right to cancel our subscriptions to his paper, and harass this idiot as much as possible.

Because, you know, somebody gave his or her life for that right.

[HOZ]

What an elitist-leftwingnut weasel. So safe and sound in his own home.

I'm sorry he served on jury duty . What a hero!!! The only redeeming feature in this opinion piece is he is(yet?) not advocating that we spit on returning veterans.

Has the Full-forcefield-powered-Leftwingnut blinders on too
Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
Yes we stopped on genocide and replaced it with another there.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because, you know, somebody gave his or her life for that right.

And those soldiers are celebrated and have parades and all that and everybody (maybe even this writer) are eternally grateful.

I know it's a cliché that George likes to trot out, but they aren't fighting and dying in Iraq to protect American freedoms or more specifically that writer's right to say what he wants.

This guy should have left out the bit about the morality of the soldiers, but he makes at least one point that is defendable. The war was a bad idea. A mistake. It shouldn't be celebrated, it should be ended and the people that went over there should be returned home and looked after.

And HOZ, he didn't serve on jury duty.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And those soldiers are celebrated and have parades and all that and everybody (maybe even this writer) are eternally grateful.

I know it's a cliché that George likes to trot out, but they aren't fighting and dying in Iraq to protect American freedoms or more specifically that writer's right to say what he wants.

This guy should have left out the bit about the morality of the soldiers, but he makes at least one point that is defendable. The war was a bad idea. A mistake. It shouldn't be celebrated, it should be ended and the people that went over there should be returned home and looked after.

And HOZ, he didn't serve on jury duty.

I stand corrected....he is even more of a dink.

[Buff]

Isn't it grounds for treason or some sort of military charges for a soldier to refuse to ship out with his unit? The soldiers have no say in where they go. They are trained to do as they are told and not to question orders. If you got a beef with having soldiers dispatched to a certain part of the world, take it up with the proper level of gov't.

[Flame On]

I'm not for the war, but I don't think you boo soldiers, really under any circumstances. Its not like they're commiting attrocities over there. (I hope)
Hell I just saw a news report about soldiers coming home and running as democrats against the war as govenors and that there are larger numbers than normal doing that. So the soldiers aren't necessarily happy either!
Booing soldiers is about as lame as calling a police officer a pig or something, for enforcing the law as if they really have a choice in that.

[RougeUnderoos]

I think there is something of a misconception here that he is advocating the soldiers get booed. He isn't.

All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return.

I don't read "boo the soldiers" in there.

Nor is he saying the soldiers are wusses. Quite the opposite in fact. The wusses in the article and in the title are people that are opposed to the war but also want to celebrate the troops as heroes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Buff

Isn't it grounds for treason or some sort of military charges for a soldier to refuse to ship out with his unit? The soldiers have no say in where they go. They are trained to do as they are told and not to question orders. If you got a beef with having soldiers dispatched to a certain part of the world, take it up with the proper level of gov't.

Nope, because the defense that I was just following orders has been killed off Soldiers have a right to object to orders and even refuse deployment, however they have to have a fairly valid reason for it, the key ones being religion based.

However there is no draft, and soldiers volunteer, and its likely that most combat soldier's are going to go to Iraq, so if you have a problem with the war you simply don't join.

There are a lot of men and woman over there that believe they are doing the right thing by being there, does that make them immoral?

[Vulcan]

I don't have much of a problem with the soldiers in Iraq. They at least walk the walk. I have a problem with the politicians and everybody who supports them [this includes a number of our posters] and sits over here saying yeah, lets invade Iraq. They should put Bush and his ilk on the frontlines and see how many wars we'd have.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think there is something of a misconception here that he is advocating the soldiers get booed. He isn't.

All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return.

I don't read "boo the soldiers" in there.

Nor is he saying the soldiers are wusses. Quite the opposite in fact. The wusses in the article and in the title are people that are opposed to the war but also want to celebrate the troops as heroes.

What about here?

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea.

Or here?

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.

Why bother supporting them when they are back home safe if you aren't going to support them in Iraq? This guy obviously has no respect for the military, or the people who died protecting his freedoms.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

What about here?
Or here?


Why bother supporting them when they are back home safe if you aren't going to support them in Iraq? This guy obviously has no respect for the military, or the people who died protecting his freedoms.

Where do you get the idea that he has no respect for the people that died protecting his freedoms? Maybe he doesn't respect them, I don't know, but I don't see any mention of those soldiers in the article. He's writing specifically about the Iraq war. The soldiers over there in Iraq are not protecting his freedoms.

Who really supports the troops more? The guy who wants to bring them home so they can stop being killed or injured, or the guy who wants them to send more and more troops to be killed and injured?

I guess it depends on your opinion of why the war is being fought in the first place.

[Daradon]

Wow,

Soldiers are ordered to fight. That's their job. Not only that, but there are life altering or life ending reprecusions to refusing to do that job.

I'm sure their are TONS of soldiers over there who don't feel right about what their doing. We've heard fom some already as they've come back from tours or duty.

But it's not their choice. It's not like all the soldiers an get together and say, 'hey this isn't right, let's revolt.'

Someone should send Mr. Joel Stein to boot camp for a few weeks and see how he feels about sticking up for his morals then. I'm thinking he'd just do whatever they told him to, to get the job down quicker. To go home sooner.

He was actually making some good points about the apathy and guilt avoidance of the general public, and the fact that the whole thing has gone about 180 degrees from where they thought it would be and no one is taking the blame.

But to take it out on the troops? He has obviously oversimplfied the issue.

He should be using his position to go after the guys in charge, not the poor souls holding the guns.

[Daradon]

Nice to see them spinning it into a Con vs Lib, us vs them. I'm sure many liberal were right ****ed off too.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

He's writing specifically about the Iraq war. The soldiers over there in Iraq are not protecting his freedoms.

Maybe not directly, but they are protecting the freedoms of the Iraqi people, and making the world safer in the process. That's the way I see it. It doesn't look that way right now, but in time it will get better.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who really supports the troops more? The guy who wants to bring them home so they can stop being killed or injured, or the guy who wants them to send more and more troops to be killed and injured?

The one that beleieves they are fighting a just cause, and will not let their friends/loved ones/soilders die in vain. To bring them home now, and let Iraq fall to the terrorists, would do just that.

[Coolsurfer79]

I think that many people have skipped over this part of the article, but I think it is the most important.

"Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else."

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow, I guess its easy to be a critical commentator who actually has no real life experience at all.
However, one of the things that soldier's died for was the right to free speech and the freedom of expression, but it also gives us the right to cancel our subscriptions to his paper, and harass this idiot as much as possible.

Because, you know, somebody gave his or her life for that right.

Give me a break. None of those soilders dying and fighting in Iraq are doing so for his rights of free speech.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Coolsurfer79

Give me a break. None of those soilders dying and fighting in Iraq are doing so for his rights of free speech.

No, but hundreds of thousands did in WWI and II for that right.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't have much of a problem with the soldiers in Iraq. They at least walk the walk. I have a problem with the politicians and everybody who supports them [this includes a number of our posters] and sits over here saying yeah, lets invade Iraq. They should put Bush and his ilk on the frontlines and see how many wars we'd have.

You must realize, of course, that many decorated war veterans - men who have seen the horror of war - on both the Democrats and Republicans voted in favour of going into Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing beforehand thousands would die as a result of them raising their hand.

Just like John F. Kennedy, who certainly knew the horrors of war, went to Vietnam and wanted to escalate the conflict.

Meanwhile, pacifist governments in Europe watched and did nothing while concentration camps sprang up in Europe in the 1990's, not to mention peace activists in the 1980's who marched by the millions in Europe calling for unilateral disarmament as a good will gesture towards the Soviet Union.

In other words, it could easily be argued by both sides that each are equally dangerous, one for aggression and the other for Chamberlain-like passivity.

About four or five years ago on this board I asked a theoretical question of moral ambiguity of whether we should start an action we knew would kill tens of thousands so that hundreds of thousands might be saved and millions freed OR should we save tens of thousands of lives realizing that hundreds of thousands more might be killed in the future as a result of inaction and millions remained enslaved.

Well, tens of thousands have died and thousands more have yet to die but I remain in favour of the decision to go into Iraq for the principle reason of the changes that are being wrought in a backward and dangerous part of the world, both electorally and media-wise. I even love the election of Hamas in Palestine yesterday frankly, provided they face a second ballot down the road.

Sticking a fork in that part of the world has been long overdue and I think as the century turns over to 2100 we'll look back and see it as one of the more profoundly positive turning points of the century . . . . . yet tens of thousands will have died.

The issue is whether or not you had to kill tens of thousands to achieve that momentum and the final results. Given the nature of a region stuck in a time warp that wasn't likely to change otherwise, I think you did. You think otherwise.

As to the guy writing the article, I think you can boo soldiers if they're baby killers . . . . . but I don't think you boo all soldiers if one or two are baby killers which is what happened with Vietnam and why this is such a sensitive topic.

Boo the politicians if you feel agrieved.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You must realize, of course, that many decorated war veterans - men who have seen the horror of war - on both the Democrats and Republicans voted in favour of going into Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing beforehand thousands would die as a result of them raising their hand.

Yeah, but things have changed. They voted in favor of the war because they were told all sorts of things that turned out to be false, and I'm sure (at least I hope) that they voted in favor of the war because they believed there was some sort of a plan for the aftermath.

Re: booing the soldiers -- there is a big difference between booing the soldiers and just not cheering them.