So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.
Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?
The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.
The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?
What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough shit, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.
As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
We all learned recently that the Bush administration instituted its policy of global torture during quaint White House meetings. And we already know this war was started with lies. Shame on them. But what about the people who physically carry out these atrocities? We’ve seen bad apples punished and CEO despots walk free, but all verbal and written denouncement is focused on our leaders. Surely, they deserve that and more—decapitation, really. But why can’t we be critical of the people who have actually tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? We deride private contractors like Blackwater for similar conduct—why are the troops blameless?
...
Again, what is heroic about involving one’s self in a foolish war, being a shitty pilot or getting tortured? Yeah, it must have sucked, but getting your ass kicked every day for five years doesn’t make you a hero—it makes you a Bad News Bear.
Here’s where America’s military lust becomes a true perversion. If we truly valued military prowess, John McCain would be viewed as a failure. But duty alone is enough to inspire our gratitude. Hence the left’s tendency to obligatorily praise the troops while decrying the sum of their actions. Good thing, too, because this war is unwinnable.
...
How despicable must a military campaign be before Americans turn on their beloved troops? After chiding the “War on Toddlers” as fool-headed and pointlessly barbaric, would Keith Olbermann still thank the troops for their service? After the “Great Grandmother Slaughter of 2010,” will the press remove the fat military cock from its mouth? Following “Operation Murder Fluffy Kittens,” will the left finally nix the “honored service” crap? No. No, they won’t.
Pat Dollard has this asshat's contact info. The piece originates out of Buffalo, New York and the author is Ian Murphy. Here's his contact info:
Ian Murphy
ian@buffalobeast.com
This little shithead doesn't understand why so many Americans have such respect and reverence for the military. Maybe it's because of the incredible sacrifice they make on a daily basis -- the risks they put themselves in, the lives they give up, the danger they face daily -- all to defend the freedoms this asshat so thoroughly enjoys.
And he's apparently not content to say he doesn't like our troops -- oh, no. He's gotta smear and slander them while he's at it. Apparently they're raping their fellow female soldiers, sodomizing Iraqis, and murdering civilians right and left.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, huh?
Oh, and apparently, John McCain's incredible sacrifice of being tortured daily for five years as a POW in Vietnam is meaningless -- not just meaningless, but stupid and unworthy of our gratitude.
If this guy can't understand the service our troops are making for this country, then he's an idiot. And if he can so cavalierly accuse them of such despicable acts without even a modicum of proof to show that these things are actually happening on a regular basis (which, of course, they aren't), then he isn't just stupid.
I just cannot understand what makes so many on the left hate our military so much. I just don't get it.
There's really no deep commentary I can give to you about this, beyond to say the obvious -- that this guy is a disgusting idiotic creep who must have some kind of mental disorder to look at our military the way he does. The only thing I really can say is this: that every day, I am grateful for the sacrifices that our soldiers have made, because were it not for the fact that they have been so willing to be stronger and more selfless than I am, I wouldn't have the life I had today, and I wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms I enjoy every day. And it is all thanks to our military.
Maybe this asshat should remember who it is that gives him the freedom to say such horrible things.
Hat Tip: Ace of Spades
14 comments:
Maybe this asshat should remember who it is that gives him the freedom to say such horrible things.
Begging your pardon, but we're not talking about 4,000 Ben Franklins, Paul Reveres, or Thomas Jeffersons here. I'm just not convinced that they're defending our freedom.
I'm the most liberal person you'll probably ever hear from, and I'm deeply torn on this issue.
On the one hand, soldiers and sailor do sign on to defend these United States, and that is admirable.
However, this war was, and is, prosecuted on lies and it is increasing clear that the war not only does NOT help our national security, the war is hurting our national security and creating enemies that did not exist before.
If I were a soldier, I'd be furious that I'd been duped in that way. Many men and women in uniform ARE furious at the way that they'd been duped.
So are soldiers responsible for buying the line of bullsh*t that we were fed before the war? Hard to say. I didn't buy then, and I don't now. But on the other hand, we all believe the things we want to believe.
I've never put much stock in beliefs. I prefer ideas because beliefs are very difficult to change. I don't know who said that, but it sums up nicely.
The Beast is a local free rag here in Buffalo. They're basically a bunch of sniveling socialist wannabes sipping lattes at Spot coffee.
I don't know if this is really this guy's opinion, or if he just wrote this bit to provoke a reaction-neither would surprise me.
Baz,
While some may argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made us less safe, the fact is that the people we elected to ensure the continuation of our way of life, and our freedoms, have decided that these wars are, in fact, necessary to the protection of that way of life. To that end, they are protecting our freedoms.
Rational people can discuss whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, and I believe that people who honestly evaluate the facts could come to either conclusion. However, now that we are there, the first question is purely academic. We are now engaged with terrorists, and leaving now would place is in a worse position than staying.
Soldiers don't get to choose which conflicts to get involved in. Do you really want foreign policy via a 1 million person committee?
There are unlawful orders, and you can be prosecuted for carrying them out, but as a soldier you don't have the privilege of deciding whether or not the case for an entire war is just. We elect congress and the President to make those calls, and those who have volunteered are bound by those decisions.
Finally, that bit about beliefs and ideas? It's from Chris Rock's dialog at the end of "Dogma".
We are now engaged with terrorists, and leaving now would place is in a worse position than staying.
Leaving outright would do that, yes. A new plan that includes regional diplomacy is needed. Democracy is a bottom-up system, not a top-down one. The military simply cannot do what they've been tasked with. It's a job for diplomats and competent advisers.
A new plan that includes regional diplomacy is needed.
What do you mean by that, precisely? and will you allow that not all nation-state players with interests in the region will be honest brokers?
Democracy is a bottom-up system, not a top-down one.
Did you not count all the purple Iraqi fingers?
The military simply cannot do what they've been tasked with.
Which is what, exactly? they've been tasked with stabilizing the security situation, assisting with the rebuilding of the infrastructure, providing the training, logistics and advice to the Iraqi Security Forces.
It's a job for diplomats and competent advisers.
However, this war was, and is, prosecuted on lies and it is increasing clear that the war not only does NOT help our national security, the war is hurting our national security and creating enemies that did not exist before.
What a great and popular bumper sticker slogan that is.
Over the years, I have learned that simply demanding some evidence that solidly supports it, is a challenge sufficient to put a good sized dent in it.
Demanding proof, is a challenge sufficient to shred it to pieces.
Iraq has always had significant strategic value for both sides in this conflict. It will for the foreseeable future. The thing of it is -- prior to 2003 the U.S. didn't control the area, and now, it does. So things are better now.
When someone gives me a good reason to look at that a different way, I'll consider it. Meanwhile, what's written in the paragraph above captures the situation entirely. It's NO more complicated than that.
Hardly shocked they would support speaking of our Troops in such a way.
What is even more impressive, when you think about it, is that any of those 4,000 would do it again if it mean saving the poster's life.
The poster would, I suspect, run as fast as possible and leave them to die.
"If I were a soldier, I'd be furious that I'd been duped in that way. Many men and women in uniform ARE furious at the way that they'd been duped."
And yet, they still serve, because it is their duty. Anyone who signed up and thought they wouldn't have to fight SHOULD be allowed to leave, because they are dangerously stupid.
But I ask you... Who do you think they would treat with more respect... The poster, who is at best indifferent to the deaths (and at worst GLAD, though I'll give the benifit of the doubt here), you who seems to think they are dupes and fools, or people who actually think and speak well of them.
btw, Cassy... My DD214 should be here soon (I hope). Wish me luck with the classification I ended up with...
Hey Cassy,
I found this posting via Rachel Lucas. I also found this asshole's address and crap. I've posted it to my Blog.
http://chucksplace.wordpress.com
Pat is my middle name, BTW...
I'm no Republican, Not by a long shot, but this asshole has ZERO right to post crap like this, it's just fucking wrong, period.
Thanks for posting about it.
-Chuck Adkins
Great...
Cassy, it appears the basement-dwelling set has decided to read your blog now...
Did you not count all the purple Iraqi fingers?
No, I didn't. Did you? Voting and building a democracy is the difference between driving a car and building one. And it was complicated by the fact that culturally, Iraq is not ready for democracy. There's no frame of reference in their memorable history. So there's that. If it's going to be successful, it must be built for Iraqis, by Iraqis. Yes, yes, there's the Iraqi government, but they not experienced or trained, and their mandate has been dictated by the US government, not by Iraqis.
And mistakes like putting a 23-year-old with no work experience in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi stock exchange isn't exactly helpful.
The military simply cannot do what they've been tasked with.
Which is what, exactly? they've been tasked with stabilizing the security situation, assisting with the rebuilding of the infrastructure, providing the training, logistics and advice to the Iraqi Security Forces.
Firstly, they're soldiers, not police, not sanitation departments, and they're not sociologists. Their training is designed for western culture and usage patterns. The military implemented many things that failed because of a lack of understanding of how Iraqis operate, and frankly, without consulting Iraqis on what their needs, plans, usage patterns, or desires are. Try telling someone what they should want. It doesn't work.
And yet, they still serve, because it is their duty.
Duty to what, exactly? Duty to superiors? Duty to nation? Duty to the President? Duty to the Iraqis that we're supposed to be helping? I know what you'll say: they're all the same thing. But they're not necessarily. In this case, I think they're quite at odds.
Anyone who signed up and thought they wouldn't have to fight SHOULD be allowed to leave, because they are dangerously stupid.
Duh. They're soldiers. That's what they do. Not sure why you felt the need to write this. Apropos of nothing, really...
What do you mean by [regional diplomacy], precisely? and will you allow that not all nation-state players with interests in the region will be honest brokers?
I would allow for that, absolutely. Any competent diplomat would have a deep understanding of the other party's motivations, culture, and desires and can 1) spot the dishonesty and 2) build in incentives and disincentives to promote honesty and predict the effects of dishonesty. See the prisoner's dilemma.
That's diplomacy 101. Any professional who says it can't be done is just not trying.
I can't decide if the current administration is incompetent or just lazy. Possibly both...
mkfreeberg - I see that your post regarding proof was generally ignored. Didn't expect it to be addressed, anyway, though.
mkfreeberg - I see that your post regarding proof was generally ignored. Didn't expect it to be addressed, anyway, though.
Because his thinking is too deeply flawed to even get into.
Seriously? Proof is a burden? Before sending thousands of troops into combat, and spending trillions, let's say that together -- trillions -- of taxpayer dollars, let's not worry about proof, because why? It's too much trouble? You slay me.
The thing of it is -- prior to 2003 the U.S. didn't control the area, and now, it does. So things are better now.
Empire, anyone? Not that we actually do control much in Iraq, only the news about it (see the NYT expose of the Pentagon's retired-generals-for-hire propaganda machine). Iraq is a... what's the word... oh yeah, a clusterf*ck. Better than what? Bubonic plague?
Ugh. As a recent Marine vet, it's not surprising and even a little refreshing to hear this opinion said aloud. I always got the impression if you pushed hard enough you'd hear it anyway.
At any rate it's at least a change from the more common liberal position, which is generally pitying the troops and considering them victims and not heroes.
Post a Comment