gg, I say let's make this the DNC's 2006 platform

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column

Quote :

"January 24, 2006 Warriors and wusses by Joel Stein I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on. I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of. But I'm not for the war. 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. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward. 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. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake. Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach." The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that. I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful. After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood. But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives. I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel. But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany. I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book. 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. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."

1/24/2006 1:46:04 PM

Quote :

"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

Dead on.

1/24/2006 1:56:32 PM

so how long before Bill O'Rielly and/or Pat Robertson say something like "and Osama bin Laden: if you want to attack Joel Stein's house, at 144 East 32nd St, Malibu CA, go ahead - we won't stop you. While you're at it, send some bombers to his kids elementary school and snipe his wife on her way to work. Of course, he's probably a flaming queer Jew, so just run a jet into his synagogue while he's at Temple with his Hollywood boyfriend."

1/24/2006 2:02:08 PM

not long. but, I agree, partially.

however, though some people have the ability not to follow orders in the military, you have to remember that some are supporting their families as well as themselves, so they have to sacrifice what's right for others for what's right for their families.

1/24/2006 2:05:27 PM

Quote :

"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

This is 90% of what I've been saying since the war started. The only difference is that I feel that people who oppose the war should still support those troops that actually believe in what they are doing in Iraq.

But its stupid to support a soldier who feels that the war is morally wrong (as opposed to tactically). EVEN IF YOU SUPPORT THE WAR - how can you support someone who is fighting in a war they personally feel to be morally wrong?

1/24/2006 2:11:40 PM

indeed, and also, an army that won't follow orders is useless.

the blame falls on politicians and high-echelon military commanders.

1/24/2006 2:11:50 PM

^^
I think DirtyGreek answered your question before you even asked it

1/24/2006 2:14:25 PM

1) His answer is unacceptable and 2) my question was rhetorical.

1/24/2006 2:21:31 PM

why is my answer unacceptable?

I agree that it's awful, but to me, if it was the only way to keep my family afloat, I'd do whatever I could. I mean, I don't know that I COULD kill anyone, no matter what the reason, but if I could and I needed to, I would

1/24/2006 2:24:15 PM

Quote :

"Excoriator: 2) my question was rhetorical"

ah, self-pwnt on my part then

1/24/2006 2:47:19 PM

Quote :

"indeed, and also, an army that won't follow orders is useless."

I'll take "useless" over "professional butchers, or anything else, if that's what is ordered" any day of the week.

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : a]

1/24/2006 2:48:00 PM

Quote :

"I agree that it's awful, but to me, if it was the only way to keep my family afloat, I'd do whatever I could. I mean, I don't know that I COULD kill anyone, no matter what the reason, but if I could and I needed to, I would"

I'm sorry for you and your family. That's a perverse attitude to have.

1/24/2006 2:50:19 PM

^^ i wouldn't expect anything less from a pussy

1/24/2006 3:03:40 PM

I mean, his name is TULIP lover

1/24/2006 3:11:25 PM

I enlisted in the Marine Corps before coming to State, and loved every minute of boot camp. I'm no pussy.

And even if I was, it's irrelevant. You'd prefer murderous drones to volunteers with a conscience.

1/24/2006 3:30:11 PM

well, don't forget that what I'm saying is coming from a point where I've never had to support anyone and have never needed to kill anyone

again, I couldn't kill anyone anyway, so it's sort of moot

1/24/2006 3:38:24 PM

you said you would do anything, if you were in a situation where that was the only way to support your family.

you would steal from people, you would scam, you would debase yourself, you might even murder someone.

1/24/2006 3:40:53 PM

So you are saying Mr. Excoriator, in the future, when a gunman is holding a glock to your wife or kids head, you would do nothing to stop him?

1/24/2006 3:49:24 PM

I read this: Communist steps up for teh L3ft

And seriously, does Joel Stein = Donovan?

Quote :

"Universal Soldier He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four, He fights with missiles and with spears. He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen, Been a soldier for a thousand years. He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain, A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew. And he knows he shouldn't kill, And he knows he always will, Kill you for me my friend and me for you. And he's fighting for Canada, He's fighting for France, He's fighting for the USA, And he's fighting for the Russians, And he's fighting for Japan, And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way. And he's fighting for Democracy, He's fighting for the Reds, He says it's for the peace of all. He's the one who must decide, Who's to live and who's to die, And he never sees the writing on the wall. But without him, How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau? Without him Caesar would have stood alone, He's the one who gives his body As a weapon of the war, And without him all this killing can't go on. He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame, His orders come from far away no more, They come from here and there and you and me, And brothers can't you see, This is not the way we put the end to war."

1/24/2006 3:53:35 PM

Quote :

"Each of us has a natural right to defend his person, his liberty and his property. Then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness- is based on individual right. Thus, since the individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual, then common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups -Bastiat"

If you go along with this libertarian approach, at the basic level, the soldier must believe personally he/she is defending hearth and home during the battle.

But because Mr. Stein believes the war to be baseless and wrong, he demands disdain upon each and every soldier fighting it- disregarding their individual motivations. This was the kind of justification used as I watched people spitting on returning troops from Vietnam. The author tries to duck this action, but he still can't hide his hate for the military. He would deny our returning soldiers a parade, or any type of recognition of service. He would deny the very people charged with his protection the simplest act of a "thank you."

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2006 4:18:13 PM

Imagine that. He doesn't want to thank them for doing something he didn't want them to do in the first place.

Who'd of thunk it?

1/24/2006 4:19:49 PM

Quote :

"Imagine that. He doesn't want to thank them for doing something he didn't want them to do in the first place."

Doesn't bother me if he doesn't want to show any gratitude. But he's advocating an wide-spread denial of thanks. He claims to know what a soldier needs, they also need our thanks...and that's the least I can give.

Quote :

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 4:53 PM. Reason : more .]

1/24/2006 4:49:50 PM

Quote :

""would deny the very people charged with his protection the simplest act of a thank you.""

Why would I thank the enforcement arm of an entity that, against my will, makes me both poorer and more unsafe?

I don't hate the military (excluding those with stars on their shoulders). I pity them - misguidedly sacrificing so much in order to have something their efforts actually prevent.

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 5:19 PM. Reason : d]

1/24/2006 5:17:18 PM

again, excoriator,

Quote :

"I don't know that I COULD kill anyone, no matter what the reason, but if I could and I needed to, I would"

and since I probably can't, it's not really an issue

that said, i'm talking about going into a war I don't believe in to support my family. if there was someone holding a gun to someone I cared about's head, I wouldn't hesitate.

1/24/2006 5:30:02 PM

Quote :

" But its stupid to support a soldier who feels that the war is morally wrong (as opposed to tactically). EVEN IF YOU SUPPORT THE WAR - how can you support someone who is fighting in a war they personally feel to be morally wrong?"

A soldier's sentiments are irrelevant. They arent able to grasp the moral entirety of their actions and consequences. As long as they follow orders and do their job to the best of their ability, they are deserving of support.

1/24/2006 6:41:18 PM

^you can't be serious

1/24/2006 6:49:02 PM

I look at it like this. I support the troops and what they are doing. I didnot support going into Iraq, but now that we are there we cannot simply bow out. We blew up their country and now we have to fix it. If someone blew up my house, I certainly would want it fixed. You break it, you pay for it.


As far as killing someone, I myself try to avoid physical confrontation whenever possible but would not hesitate to put someone down if they tried to harm me or destroy or harm my property.

1/24/2006 7:17:51 PM

You see, what TGD's saying (and has been saying for going on 3 years now), is that I can't support my uncle because I disagree with the President.

1/24/2006 8:08:54 PM

Quote :

"I watched people spitting on returning troops from Vietnam."

the urban legend returns....

1/24/2006 10:03:24 PM

It is not an urban legend. My uncle experienced it.

fucking liberal motherfucking hippy fucking revisionists

1/24/2006 10:23:36 PM

My cousin experienced this urban legend as well upon his return.

1/24/2006 10:32:49 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: You see, what TGD's saying (and has been saying for going on 3 years now), is that I can't support my uncle because I disagree with the President."

ok I'm formally confused...

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ---]

1/24/2006 11:21:19 PM

EarthDogg starts out boldly asserting that

Quote :

"I watched people spitting on returning troops from Vietnam."

In reply to the charge that the "spitting on troops returning from Vietnam" talk is nothing more than an urban legend, the valiant Excoriator insists:

Quote :

"It is not an urban legend. My uncle experienced it."

Now, instead of standing by his original claim that he actually witnessed anyone spitting on returning Vietnam troops, SnoopDoggy says:

Quote :

"My cousin experienced this urban legend as well upon his return."

Curiously, the stories are almost all like this. Seems that very few, if any, people ever stick by the claim that they saw this behavior, but they're damned sure that their uncle, or cousin, or a friend, or somebody who served in the friend's uncle's unit was on the receiving end of the famous protester spit. Even more curiously, media coverage and police reports from the era offer no evidence that such a thing ever happened. And still more curiously, the reports about protesters spitting on soldiers don't begin to circulate until a decade or more after the war ended and the defeated troops returned home. The only person who ever looked into the myth of the spitting protester says its all a myth.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/national/012006/JerryLembcke.shtml

Maybe the protesters also threw "Kentucky Fried Rat" at the troops?

1/25/2006 11:33:33 AM

yeah, i've only had one person who was actually in vietnam say that he himself was spit on. When i asked him about it another time, he said he'd never said it. other than that, it's only been hearsay

Quote :

"Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place."

http://www.slate.com/id/1005224/

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=0814751466

1/25/2006 11:45:48 AM

Quote :

"media coverage and police reports from the era offer no evidence that such a thing ever happened."

He didn't file a police report..he was still pretty tired from fighting for his country. When it comes down to it, I believe my cousin the veteran before I believe J-Garcia.

1/25/2006 11:48:50 AM

my uncles and coworkers said they were welcomed when they got back
im sure some people spit but i think the point is it wasnt as common as some people claim

1/25/2006 11:52:49 AM

EarthDogg, it's a lot easier for your cousin to despise the protesters than it is for him to face the disallusioning truth.

1/25/2006 11:58:46 AM

Quote :

"ok I'm formally confused..."

Logic 101:

1. I do not support George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
2. My uncle was a troop serving in said war.

According to you--for quite some time--I cannot support my uncle (wishing him the best, writing him emails, sending pictures and care packages) without supporting the war he was sent to, its aims, and intentions.

1/25/2006 4:04:22 PM

Quote :

"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel."

someone ought to spit on this guy. fucking jews.

1/26/2006 6:29:31 AM

Quote :

"it's a lot easier for your cousin to despise the protesters than it is for him to face the disallusioning truth."

The sad thing, Bridget, is that he was really disillusioned when he came back. And then he had to face the ill-targeted hatred of people-most of whom were his age. Pretty sad.

This op-ed is one big symbolic gob on all of our troops. It's disgusting...but at least the guy is honest. He's not using the wimpy excuse of "I reject the war but support the troops" that many hide behind. It's very valuable to show the rest of us the banal underlying hatred of Bush and disdain for the military that props up the modern American socialist movement.

1/26/2006 11:01:54 AM