Public Humiliation
I expected that some Republicans would be upset by my pointing out that they are hypocritical cowards if they have failed to volunteer to fight the optional war for which they voted. It is, admittedly, a provocative thesis.
I wasn't, however, expecting a comment as downright stupid as this anonymous effort:
Yes, that is brilliant. Only soldiers who vote for the sitting president should fight. If only you had been 60 years earlier you could have issued your words of wisdom to Republican soldiers who did not vote for Roosevelt. I doubt even you can make sense of your incoherent statements. Had your man (sic) Kerry managed to win the war would be going no better, and in fact far worse. After all Kerry voted for the war, but you perhaps you can justify that action by claiming that he voted against it before he voted for it. You have no grasp of history, a liberal characteristic- read something aside from the NY Times, and other leftist publications, and you might find a viewpoint that originates from outside of the Upper East Side.This comment is so wildly ridiculous that I thought I should address it in the body of the blog rather than in the relative privacy of the comments section. The gutless anonymous commenter deserves a little public embarassment.
First off, A, my comments are addressed to Republicans who are not soldiers. That was the point. If you claim to support this president and his optional war, then you should become a soldier. If you oppose this president and his neo-con lunacy, then you are not under a similar obligation.
Your attempt to liken this war with WWII is offensive and historically inaccurate. The United States entered WWII only after being attacked by Japan. Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? And then, we went to war against Japan, not some other nation that was more convenient or that possessed more impressive oil reserves.
Even then, though, Americans of all stripes enlisted, just as I am calling upon the Republicans to do. There was also a massive draft, which may well be coming to Bush's America, but has not been announced yet. Republicans enlisted or were drafted after our country went to war with nations that had attacked us, and did not doubt the legitimacy of the war. Perhaps, A, your family had a different experience, and your family has a long history of cowardice extending back to WWII, but most Americans acknowledge that WWII was a legitimate war, not a neo-con white paper come to life.
Your attacks on Senator Kerry are bizarre. Are you attempting to question his manhood? If so, why? Please explain.
Finally, your attack on my grasp of history and on the breadth of my reading is humorous, in light of your comlete misunderstanding of WWII, and in light of the fact that the article I linked to came from the coast opposite the Upper East Side. I have no idea what you read, and I don't care to speculate, but I hope that whatever it is, you do so with a great deal more insight and intelligence than you brought to my blog.
The quagmire that your president has created could be helped out if trolls like you would step away from your keyboards and head on down to the recruiting stations. We're waiting. Anything else is just hot air and cowardice.
posted by Dan at 6/15/2005 06:02:00 AM
9 Comments:
As seen on a bumper sticker-
I think, therfore I vote Democrat
I have to grant you that Anonymous' comment was pretty moronic. However, you essentially accuse all Republicans of being single issue voters. Has it occurred to you that there could be men and women who voted for Bush or against Kerry for reasons other than Iraq? Has it occurred to you that there are men and women who voted for Bush who are not happy about his handling of the Mideast?
Fair enough, Res. All Republicans who defend Bush's chosen war should enlist. Those Republicans who have opposed Bush's war are not under such an obligation.
Stop being so darn reasonable. This will start to look like an intelligent discussion.
Then again, maybe that's your strategy for getting rid of trolls.
Because you've been so reasonable on my blog, I'm going to do something I've never done before. I'm going to link to your blog, even though you link to the detestable Kos.
I take issue with your thesis however, and I expanded upon my reasons in my last comment in the thread you and I have been discussing, but for the benefit of your readers, who are clearly not mine as well, I'll do so here as well.
One aside - I blog anonymously for one reason. I think my ideas should stand on their own merits, without the "benefit" of my curriculum vitae. If someone has a problem with my remaining anonymous, it is theirs, not mine.
As a veteran of the US Navy, I do not believe that all men (and women) are called to serve. That is why I'm a strong supporter of an all volunteer force. No one should be forced to serve if they don't want to, and I would never accuse someone of cowardice if they chose not to.
War is a nasty business. Some, many perhaps, do not handle it well. If you're at all familiar with the veterans of WWII (and having gotten to know you somewhat, I suspect you are), then you are familiar with the stories of men who had to deal with the demons of war their entire lives. Those men should never have been placed in the position of being forced to fight. It is the rare individual who can look another man in the eye and kill him with no remorse, yet remain civilized and genteel to his core.
Those who cannot, should not have to serve. But to denigrate them for not serving simply because they hold opinions that value the need for war is unfair. We're all Americans. We have the glorious freedom to disagree vociferously with each other and with our government. But unless you know someone personally and know their reasons for not enlisting are cowardice (and true cowardice often doesn't show its colors until the pressure is really on and sometimes cowardice is nothing more than the natural fear of facing death), then you should not condemn an entire class of citizens simply because their opinions differ from your own.
That is SUPPOSED TO BE what America is all about.
Hey anonymous again. Your response was something even Michael Moore would have chosen not to write.
You are a predictable bore. A relic of a lost generation whose anti-Americanism and penchant for conspriacy theory have long overriden your reason.
First, we have more than enough soldiers in Iraq- they far outnumber the enemy, and are far superior in training and equipment. More soldiers would only raise the casualty count.
A war is always optional in as much as you can surrender or run away, however with terrorists this is a poor option for any patriotic American.
Your constant use of the buzzword suggests you have little idea of its proper denoation- but favor its connotation as a liberal slur.
My attempt to liken this war to past US wars is reasonable and neccessary. Your main man in the Senate, Dick Durbin has actually beeen the one to misuse World War II. After Pearl Harbor, the US went to war against Japan, and Germany and Italy who did not pose any threat whatsoever. But how quickly a liberal forgets. Ditto for Clinton's war in Bosnia, which was no threat in any way shape or form.
Yes, you have been shrieking about a draft for a while- guess what notgonna happen.
My family has a strong miltary history going back to the Civil War, and ever one since. They are hardly cowards. Perhaps you can tell my cousin who serves a major in the Marines in Iraq he is from a cowardly family. I'd like to hear it.
Yes, I am questioning Kerry's manhood. He is a "kept" man and has a built a fortune out of dead men's widows.
The Upper East side was an analogy for leftist thought- LA is only different in geographical terms.
Finally, there was no public humiliation. In fact, my post was the most insightful and intelligent post on your page in forever. Here's another.
Anonymous - you certainly do not disappoint. I was kind of afraid that you had decided to hide in shame after you realized how dumb your earlier post was, but I was hoping you would return and embarrass yourself further. You exceeded my hopes.
Your first two paragraphs are substance-less, ungrammatical silliness. No need to respond.
If we have enough soldiers, why is the military putting up recruitment goals that they cannot meet? There are so many holes in your facts and logic regarding troop numbers that I won't even ask you to back up your contentions on the size of the insurgency or on the surprising effect that superior force strength would have.
War is also optional in the sense that you do not need to attack countries that have not attacked you. It is also optional in the sense that if you need to fix the evidence around your goal of going to war, you should not send American troops to their death.
I'm not sure which "buzzword" I constantly use, or what its proper "denoation" would be. Perhaps being so impossibly vague as to deny the opportunity for response is your best strategy. You should stick with it.
What makes you think Senator Durbin is my main man in the Senate? Actually, I think he wimped out, and he should have smacked the snot out of anyone who wilfully took his words out of context and twisted them into a false comparison of our troops and the Nazis. That's not what he said, nor what he meant. But your desperate attempt to divert this conversation into an analysis of Durbin's comments shows either attention deficit disorder or complete intellectual dishonesty. Are you stupid, or are you dishonest?
Your lack of historical knowledge is impressive. Have you ever read a book about WWII, or are you relying on 3 Stooges episodes for your background? We declared war on the other Axis powers AFTER they declared war on the United States. You really should try reading up on some of this stuff. You'd be surprised at the stuff you could learn.
You are 100% correct that I have been concerned about a draft for a couple years now, and I hope you are 100% correct that it is truly not going to happen. I will happily acknowledge that I have been mistaken thus far, and I hope that we manage to get through the next several years without a draft. I would rather be wrong on this point, A, so more power to you being right!
I'm glad to hear your family is not cowardly. I can't help wondering why in the world you are not fighting this war you claim to support, then. That was the point of my whole post, and you have totally dodged the question. Why are you not fighting this war you claim to support?
Kerry, who you claim is not manly enough to please you, went and fought in a war. Why don't you show the same level of courage? As for your contempt for him having married wealthy widows, would it have made him more manly to have married poor ones? Your hatred is far stronger than your logic here.
Your sloppiness in confusing Seattle with LA is indicative of your general laziness. You don't know about WWII, and you don't bother to learn about it. You don't know military strategy, but you claim that more troops would mean more casualties. You claim your family has a noble history of military service, but you're sitting here safely stateside, posting anonymous comments on blogs you're probably not smart enough to understand in the first place.
But, dude, I hope you can continue to razz my ass about my mistake on the draft. You're welcome to do so for as long as you can.
Anonymous is back!!
So as not to offend your strong regard for flawless spelling within an internet blog comment section I will restate the first two paragraphs of my last post.
Your response was something even Michael Moore would have not let slip out.
You are a predictable bore. A relic of a lost generation whose anti-Americanism and penchant for conspriacy theory have long ago overridden your reason.
You see... now you may care to address the statements. Do your political positions flow from a failed sixties mindset? I believe they do. Are you anti-American? A look at your blog postings reveal a blame America first dispostion. I suspect the average American would find your opinions to clearly be anti-American. Do you indulge in conspiracy theory as ersatz reason? Your taking of the bait on pre-election chatter of a draft suggests, among other embarrassing theories suggests that you do.
You sir, know less than nothing about military strategy or history. That is where you know not, you wrongly infer. Troop numbers are important only in as far as they are used tactically. Witness the victories of Alexander the Great at Guagamela or the Greeks at Salamis. I realize this may take an attempt at reading some of the classics on your part, but you can be sure they are prime examples of tactical superiority. Taking into account the vast numerical superiority of the US, UK, private security contractors other allied forces, making no mention of Iraqi defense and police there are entirely adequate numbers for a desperate and dying insugency.
The military is putting up recruitment goals because that is what military recruiters do. They set goals on recruitment, and the numbers were not met beacuse not enough people signed up. Common sense is useful. Troops are finishing their commitments and there is a shortage to replace them. Not one key figure in the administration has suggested that troop levels in Iraq need to be raised.
Like any lost liberal you seem to have theories than are largely unempirical. You failed to defend the decision to enter Bosnia when Clinton was in office. As we know there was no threat in the Balkans to America and there never would be. Using your unempirical theories how can pre-emptive be unacceptable. Further down your road of absurdist conspiracy you make the assertion that, "to fix the evidence around your goal of going to war, you should not send American troops to their death."
I suspect this refers to WMD alleged intelligence forgery. Once again this is the path of the conspiracy theorist who finds himself at a dead end street, with an amount of facts and evidence that would not fill up a post-it note.
To the waywar liberal it may come as a shock, but there were many reasons on the resolution to go to war. Evidence of WMD, which was not disputed at the time was only one on the list. The administration's only mistake was to give the issue more weight
than many of the other legitimate reasons for use of force. Which of course Senator Kerry agreed with at the time.
The buzzword is of course "neo-con," which you fail to place in a proper context. Could you provide a history of this term? I think not.
Senator Durbin is of course a disgrace, and even the national level Dems could not stand with his anti- American sentiments. Perhaps you have not heard or read ver batim his prepared comments on the Senate floor, which were that the actions of are troops were comparable to Soviets, Nazis, or other evil regimes. Your support of his initial comments suggest a radical, seditious individual of no worth to this republic.
As for my historical knowlege of World War II, it is not in short supply. I have read a book- John Keegan's The Second World War not long ago. You would do well to pick it up. Easily the best single volume history of the war.
You seem to favor attempts to insult my intelligence as a riposte to ideas and actions you cannot defend. These simplistic and ill-informed charges reveal far more about their sender than their receiver.
Yes, of course I realize that the declaration of war was Axis followed by the US. But the fact remains that Germany and Italy never attacked US soil. Thus, we once again pre-emptively attacked.
Further, many Arab- Muslims in the Middle have issued a declaration of war on the Great Satan years ago, and they of course did attack us.
My bone of contention with Kerry's gigolo act is that it is not the actions of a man fit to be commander in chief. Would I rather have had him marry impoverished women? Well if that meant one less sanctimonious, condescending, intellecual mediocrity from Mass. on the floor of the US senate, my answer is yes. Really, scrupulous logic I think.
In addition, LA and Seattle both operate in the same mental climate. The distinction is irrelevant. My view that increasing troop levels would raise casualties is not based on some Napoleonic strategy it is pure and simple common sense. Most of the casualties are the result of IEDs,(Improvised Explosive Device)from roadside ambushes and having more patrols on the roads would mean more targets. While many liberals call for exit, you seem to advocate raising troop levels. I am sorry you are lost to the point of incoherence.
Since your simplistic theory was already debuked by antimedia I will cut to my personal situation.
Why do I not fight this war I support? My country does not need me to fight this war. And this country certainly does not need you.
Michael - first off, thank you for your service. I hope you're having a great Fourth of July - you deserve it.
We disagree strongly on tactics in the Middle East. I don't think that installing an occupying force in a resistant country is going to "spread democracy" and eliminate terrorism. Thus far, I think it has shown more of a tendency to spread terrorism and eliminate democracy (an admittedly hyperbolic reference to the PATRIOT Act).
I didn't claim that previous wars have only been fought by those who support them - I'm just calling on the Yellow Elephants to get out there and back up their talk. And, if you look at history, there has been a movement of war supporters to volunteer at the beginning of wars. We haven't seen as much of that from the Yellow Elephants when their AWOL president called, though.
And Anonymous, thank you for returning. If you, or anyone else, thinks I'm anti-American, you and they are horribly mistaken. I've lived overseas, and I am well-aware of how great this country is. I understand, however, that your position requires slander and off-the-wall generalizations to gain traction, though. So, even though you cleaned up the grammar and spelling, your first paragraphs show a closed, jingoistic, simplistic mindset. If you want me to call you names, though, I can, but I don't think that will accomplish anything. Instead, I will grant that I have no reason to believe that you are not a patriotic, moral, non-bore. Now, let's get to what you have to say.
Good for you to come up with a couple battles where inferior numbers triumphed. You slipped up a little, however, in failing to explain how a couple battles are relevant in describing how to maintain an occupation.
Next, you accuse our military of making up artificial recruiting goals. I don't appreciate your using this site to slander our military. Shame on you.
You are basically correct when you point out that no current member of the administration is calling for increased troop levels in Iraq. But, if you look at people who are no longer employed by Bush, you'll see a little dissension, from wild-eyed liberals like Colin Powell and Paul Bremer.
You admit there is a shortage of recruits, and yet (I assume) you remain distant from your recruiting center. Why?
I have no response to your attempt to argue about Bosnia. I have forgotten the 1600+ American troops lost there, the multi-year occupation with no end in sight, and the billion dollar a week expenditure of tax money.
My reference to fixed intelligence was to the Downing Street Memos. Sorry if you didn't understand. Read them and get back to me.
Why did we go to war? Can you state a reason? The Yellow Elephants keep on changing the theory - I'd like to see someone explain why we went to war, without the threat of WMD.
Next, you accuse me of being of no worth to this republic. Umm, whatever. If that's what you think, then go ahead and think it. I don't presume to be able to identify who is worthy of our great country and who is not. I think you have a wide variety of flaws, but you're welcome to stay in our country. Happy Fourth of July!
Why didn't you just admit that you had your history wrong with WWII? We both know you screwed up, and your attempts to fog the issue are pathetic.
Your country needs you, A. Just ask the military if they need more recruits, and they will assure you that they do. Why not you?
You say this country doesn't need me. You hurt my feelings, but I'm sure it needs you.
Post a Comment
<< Home