Adam Ash

Your daily entertainment scout. Whatever is happening out there, you'll find the best writing about it in here.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Adam's blogbox: why “support our troops” is a crock

Come with me to a gathering of the faithful. A gathering of Congress, say. Democrats and Republicans as far as the eye can see. Bickering, posturing, name-calling. Then one of them utters this phrase: “support our troops.”

What happens? Suddenly, the sound of a heavenly choir is heard. All hands on deck are placed automatically on all hearts. The assembled eyes cast their assembled gaze heavenwards. In their minds’ eyes, Democrats and Republicans alike fall to their collective knees and bow their collective heads as if God Himself deigned to speak to them. A look of the utmost piety bonds them all in a holy consensus of bipartisanship, hammered by angels into hoops of steel.

What a total crock.

“Support our troops” has got to be the most cynical use of language since a serpent told Eve that an apple would be good for her digestion.

I’m happy to say that as a proud patriot, I don’t “support our troops.” At all. Ever. Not in the slightest. Not with a single cell in my body. Not, that is to say, in the accepted use of the term.

I believe the only way to support our troops is to keep them back home with their loved ones, where they can have a life like the rest of us. I’m happy to pay for their livelihoods via my taxes when they stay home, because I think every country needs a deterrent force. In other words, our troops are our first line of self-defense, there to discourage others from attacking us by their mere stay-at-home presence (like a never-to-be-used nuclear deterrence).

However, when our troops are used to attack others, I don’t support them at all.

Because what is really going on? I’m not being asked to support them to have a good life. No, I’m being asked to support them getting themselves killed. And for what? For some dubious political agenda.

Let me explain the difference between supporting our troops for real and “supporting our troops” for BS.

Take World War Two. This was a war where the allies had to defend themselves against an unholy threat, the Nazis under Hitler, who attacked first. That’s how you know someone is a threat: they attack you or your friends. If I had been alive then, I would’ve had no problem supporting our troops. In fact, I would’ve become one of them.

Vietnam and Iraq are a different story. They’re examples of political agendas that are further removed from defending our country than Paris Hilton is removed from Gandhi.

They’re attacks on nations nowhere near us, and nowhere near a threat to us. I have never seen a threatening Vietnamese or Iraqi in my neighborhood, and I live in New York, where you get all sorts.

When Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or my best friend tells me I should “support our troops,” or that they “support our troops,” I want to draw them over my lap and spank them with the Constitution of the United States till they cry uncle and promise never to “support our troops” again when our troops are fighting for Big Oil or god knows what in some foreign land.

Hillary and Barack and John and Rudy are being pious hypocrites who should burn in hell every time one of our troops is killed or wounded. They should have their tongues torn out and eaten by cannibals. Shame on them.

The inference is that now that our troops are in harm’s way, it’s our duty to supply them with funds and body armor and whatnot to help them survive the terrible position they’re in. I call BS on that. The way to support them is to get them the hell out of there. Don’t support them with funds. Starve them of funds so they can’t fight anymore, and so their leaders have no option but to bring them home, which they should never have left in the first place.

“Support our troops” is a species of sloganeering made up to replace rational thought. It sits on top of a big heap of claptrap phrase-making, which includes “taking the fight to the enemy,” “culture of corruption,” “war on terror,” (a biggie), “war on drugs,” “fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here,” “ownership society,” etc. You know, polspeak. Orwellian propaganda. The opposite of common sense.

When a pious Democrat says, “support our troops,” he or she wants to say, I don’t support our president but I support our troops. The implication is that unlike our president, our troops are innocent, and that supporting their innocence proves that this pious Democrat is a good patriot for whom you should vote. What a cynical use of the plight of our troops to boost a politician’s self-righteousness. (Off-topic but interesting: since our military code says no US soldier is obliged to execute an inappropriate order from a superior, a case can be made that being ordered to go kill Iraqis is not all that moral, which means the innocence of our troops is open to debate. Then again, a better case might be made that our troops are being duped.)

When a Republican who backs Bush (not many of them left) says, “support our troops,” he’s trying to insinuate that those who attack the policy aren’t supporting American kids trying to stay alive. It’s total BS. It actually masks a flat-out betrayal of our troops. Of course, Bush is the Betrayer-In-Chief of our troops. You don’t send kids to get killed for BS reasons and then ask everyone to support them. Bush is really saying, “support me.” Translation: “support my failure.” It’s like a kid killing his parents and asking for mercy because he’s an orphan.

“Support our troops” is a species of sickening piety. It’s the good liberal trying to claim he or she is all for our soldiers but against what they’re fighting for, a kind of personality-splitting madness. It’s the crazy warmonger’s excuse to continue warmongering. I imagine some US general dying in Iraq like a latter-day Kurtz out of Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness”, but instead of his last words being “the horror, the horror,” he moans “the piety, the piety.”

This pious monstrosity about our sacred duty to “support our troops” must be unmasked for the cynical hypocrisy it is. Because what lies behind it? Over 600,000 Iraqis dead. Women and children blown to smithereens with your tax dollars. 3,050 US troops dead. Thousands of them crippled, brain-damaged, faces blown off, armless, legless, traumatized for no good reason (unless you think oil is a good reason) and by now, worst of all, simply to save US face. Kids sacrificed so the feelings of the worst President in history won’t get hurt.

If you want to support that, go ahead, “support our troops.” Put your hand on your heart while you do it. Enjoy your piety. Support their continuing death, maiming and trauma.

But I absolutely, completely and totally refuse to “support our troops.”

61 Comments:

At 1/29/2007 7:31 AM, Blogger Patti said...

Because of the American soldier, we can live in freedom each and everyday.

And not have to fear the consequences for our beliefs, or for the words we choose to say.

Because of the American soldier, we can worship God in whatever way we feel called to do.

And we can lift them up to the Almighty asking for His Guidance to protect them and, in spite of all the obstacles they must face, pray that He will see them through.

Because of the American soldier, we can still reach high to fulfill our destiny and to live out our dreams.

And, when considering the difficulties they endure in those war torn lands, we realize that our lives are not quite as bad as it so often seems.

Because of the American soldier, "Old Glory" continues to fly proud and high.

And "Lady Liberty" still clutches that torch tightly in her right hand as she hoists it into the sky.

Because of the American soldier, we need not live a life of worry, dread, or fear.

For they are fighting to defeat the enemy and prevent them from bringing their hatred for America and their terrorism over here.

Because of the America soldier, you can rest assured we are going to win this fight.

For they will never give up, never give in, they will keep taking it to the enemy even when victory seems so far from sight.

Because of the American soldier, I cannot help but believe that America will prevail.

With the courage and heroism they so often display, how can we as a nation possibly fail?

Because of the American soldier, I will always remember them whenever I take the time to pray.

And I will ask God to give them the victory so that they can return home to a grateful nation and, in the love and care of their families, forever stay.


God bless the American Soldier; Liberator and Defender

So be glad you can spill your tripe..
for it is because of MY SON and others like MY SON, who have allowed you to be so obtuse.

 
At 1/29/2007 9:34 AM, Blogger Chuck said...

Your premise of keeping our military within our borders (isolationism) didn't work well during the First World War, and didn't work during the first four years WWII (1938-1942). In the end, it cost more lives and materiel to play catch-up than it did to be proactive.

Now lets look at a reactionary foreign policy than a preemptive one. Being reactionary puts us always on the defensive, always reacting to enemy actions. One of the nine key principles of war (originally described by Sun-Tsu in the Art of War and later delineated by J.F.C. Fuller, and later still adopted by the military in 1949 as doctrine)is initiative, which you want to surrender to our enemies.

Putting ourself in a situation where you only respond to your enemies' action is a sure-fire way to lose any fight. A second principle of war, surprise, is also surrendered based on your plan, as the enemy retains initiative, and is able to strike at the time and place of his choosing.

I could enumerate the other seven principles, but they would be lost on you. You have no idea what it takes to defend a nation. You have no concept of sacrifice, other than to sit behind a keyboard until your ass is sore, or go without doritos for a couple hours until your mommy gets home.

Sorry, I'll save the personal attacks for later. You fail to understand tactical and strategic warfare. You don't agree with the President's decision. Wonderful. See you at the polls.

But you disparage the soldiers who go, where they are told and when. That is beyond me. Soldiers enlist for eight years, usually in a combination of active, reserve duty, and inactive ready reserve duty. The don't get to choose where they go, where they fight. Those same soldiers that you want staying at home defending the house go where they are told to go, fight where they are told to fight. If it was left up to the individual soldier about where they would go, what would happen when they didn't want to leave Massachusetts to fight in Connecticut?

Since terrorists seem to have no problem with martyrdom, we would only be able to kill the ones actively attacking, leaving the rest to continue planning and refining tactics and techniques until their next strike. If I understand correctly, you would want our military to only shoot in self defense, right.

Do you think the Pacific campaign in WWII would've been won if we'd only repelled Japanese attacks, and not gone after their supply lines, fleets and airplanes?

No defense has ever outlasted a determined attacker. The great wall in china protected the population for some time, but cost hundreds of thousands of lives and vast resources to build. In the end, the Mongols still came through. The Maginot line was another colossal waste of resources, it was defeated in days, after taking years to build. To be effective, a defense must only be a temporary halt in offensive operations. defense isn't a principle of war, either. There's a reason for that.

All that being said., I don't give two shits whether you support me or not. I don't fight for you or your ilk, I fight to uphold and defend the constitution of these United States. The president is my boss, and I go where he tells me. You don't understand, at the most basic level, the sacrifices made by our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines. You choose to not support them because you don't support the current government. They don't fight the war the way you want them to, so you withhold your support. "If we don't play my way, I'm going to take my ball and go home." Support for soldiers isn't an If...Then kind of thing. You either dom, all the time, or you don't all the time. If you hedge, then you can't be trusted to support when we need you most. If we can't trust you, we don't need you. If we don't need you, we damn sure aren't going to risk our lives defending your right to not support us.
You want to cut off funds so leaders have no choice but to pull us back? How many soldiers need to die because they are ill-equipped to fight? How man need to starve because you've cut off rations, or be taken prisoner and beheaded because you saw fit to cut their ammunition allocations? The leaders in the military don't decide when and where we go, either. The President does. If he sends troops, we go with the assurance that we will get what we need to fight and win. If you don't support our president, that's your choice. If you don't support the military, that's also your choice. Just don't expect me to gleefully keep someone from killing you and yours. You can't have it both ways. Support all the time, or not at all; and if not at all, then go fuck yourself.

--Chuck

 
At 1/29/2007 10:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to go Chuck!!Supporting you and all the troops till they all come home.
Lori

 
At 1/29/2007 10:58 AM, Blogger Tracy said...

I absolutely agree with Chuck and Patti. I made my way here from Chuck's Blog, From My Positin. . .On The Way (http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/)

There are so many things wrong in your post I don't even know where to start. Patti and Chuck hit on the most important points. I agree with everything they have to say. I'd also like to add that Clinton's ignoring the terrorists and their attacks on the U.S. (not on our soil but our embassies and ships) for 8 years didn't do a thing to keep us safe did it? They came here to our country and killed over 3.000 of our countrymen. Have they attacked on our soil since the war has started? No.

I am so angry I can't type anymore. This post made me want to puke.

 
At 1/29/2007 12:28 PM, Blogger HollyB said...

Adam, you say you only support the troops here at home. You don't support them when they are "attacking" in Iraq. But what you fail to realize, you little dweeb, is that they are NOT attacking offensively. They are NOT killing civilians indiscriminatly.
When our soldiers are "attacking", they are going after the INSURGENTS who are killing Iraqi civilians! Insurgents and Jihadists who have sworn to convert or kill all NON-muslims! First in the Middle East, then all over the World. So Adam, unless you are ready to become a Muslim and live under Sharia law instead of constitutional law, you better support our troops, b/c they are the only ones who can protect you from the Jihadists!
I also came here from Chuck's site http://tcoverride.blogspot.com

 
At 1/29/2007 1:45 PM, Anonymous SFC Swartzy said...

Adam,

Without the American Soldier, you better learn to blog in Arabic.

 
At 1/29/2007 2:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best defense is a good offense. Look at it this way, would you rather fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, the PI, or would you rather fight them in Cincinatti, New York, San Francisco, Miami, and Los Angeles? Based on their ideology, either way there's gonna be a fight. Personally, I don't like gunfire on my streets and I'd rather take care of business over there.

By the way, get a clue.

 
At 1/29/2007 3:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you really that stupid or is it an act? Something you picked up from being an entertainment scout perhaps?

 
At 1/29/2007 4:12 PM, Blogger Kat said...

Ditto to what chuck, patti, tracy, and all the other military supporters have said!!!! This is outrageous.... completely despicable and reprehensible... Our family firmly supports our troops-past, present, future, stateside or deployed. We owe them our freedom...they give up so much on our behalf. They deserve nothing less than our utmost respect, love & gratitude. PERIOD!

 
At 1/29/2007 4:13 PM, Blogger Kat said...

BTW - i came here via "From My Position...On the Way!" blog.

 
At 1/29/2007 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam's pile of piety dated January 28 is a pious monstrosity. It is sickeningly pious in its piety. Pious for piousness sake, shouts Adam wrapped in a cloak of piety all his own.

 
At 1/29/2007 6:31 PM, Blogger Uncle Jimbo said...

Adam you silly little fuzzz-brained wanker. Here is a bit of love for you at Blackfive.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/not_supporting_.html

Cordially,

Uncle J

 
At 1/29/2007 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston Churchill:

“… If you will not fight for right
when you can easily win without bloodshed;

If you will not fight
when your victory will be sure and not too costly;

You may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

There may be even a worse fate.

You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Churchill had to fight Hitler during WWII AFTER Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
Appeasement caused WWII and the Holocaust because England did not stand up to him.


John Stuart Mill:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things:
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight;
Nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety;
Is a miserable creature who has not chance of being free,
Unless made and kept so by the exertions and blood of BETTER men and women than himself.”

Adam, they are better than you.

Joe Sackett

 
At 1/29/2007 7:27 PM, Blogger Ebony Ghost said...

Well Adam, it looks like you have genuinely garnered a gathering of the faithful. It's a pity that, while they may have read your words, they did not hear a word you said. Somewhere along the way, the ability to differentiate between support our troops and "support our troops" has been lost. I suspect that many of them truly believe that you are somehow denigrating the sacrifices that our brave soldiers are making. Sure, they do their part and they do it admirably. I challenge anyone to find anywhere in this post where you say otherwise. Of course, in order to do that, they'd have to read it again. I would suggest taking a deep breath, slowing down, and noticing the use of parentheses where the emphasis in not on the troops, but the people who are using the phrase. These people are doing it for their own reasons and the prospect of sending more of our soldiers into the meat grinder is little more than a consideration of collateral damage.

It's safe to say that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens are going to die in the coming few years. That's going to happen with or without a U.S. military presence in the region. Not safe to say is that they will ever submit to military occupation or how long the fighting will continue once we leave. The term generational war implies that you can go to your local nursery school and see future victims of whatever it will be called in 10, 15, or 20 years. If your idea of supporting the troops is to idly sit by while they die for dubious reason, well, that's your prerogative. I believe that Adam's position is, if they have to be put in harm's way, we should demand that it be done for right and honorable reasons; with enough firepower to get damn near every last one of them home safe and sound. I would hope that a careful reading of this piece would open a few eyes.

EG

 
At 1/29/2007 7:56 PM, Anonymous Heather said...

I don't think I have ever wanted to puke in someone's shoes before today. Most of my friends are or have been in Iraq and Afghanistan defending your rights and life (including Chuck - "From my position...on the way). Do you realize that if our Heroes were not over there fighting to keep us from having to be in a war zone we would be in a living Hell right now. Adam, you should be kissing the ground that our soldiers walk on for saving your sorry butt!!

 
At 1/29/2007 8:12 PM, Anonymous Pilgrim said...

EG and Adam -

I read his piece and completely understand what he is saying. He doesn't have a serious beef with the individual soldier. He *IS* holding them accountable for the mission they have been given. THAT...reveals a serious misunderstanding of how our armed forces operate and due to that misunderstanding he has placed himself in an untenable position.

Let's say for the moment that Adam is President Adam and he decides to bring every last GI Jane and Joe home. So President Adam lines up the boats along the southern shore of Iraq and starts round the clock armored columns heading to those boats and round the clock chartered flights out of Baghdad. I'm sure the barbarians will take some pot shots at those columns and flights, killing any innocent iraqi they can in the process. Would President Adam allow them to fire back in self defense or in the defense of the innocents caught in the cross fire? What about the stream of those innocent Iraqis chasing after the columns and flights trying to save their own lives? Are those lives worth a single american soldier if it would guarantee their freedom and security? Would 100,000 of those innocent Iraqis be worth a single American Soldier?

President Adam is prepared to bring them all home. What does that mean for the 3000+ Americans that were killed there? What exactly did they give their last full measure for? A buddy of mine has said that there isn’t anything in Iraq worth a single American life and that seems to be Adam's position as well. Is the future of the children of Iraq worth 3,000 American lives? What could possibly be worth the lives of 360,222 Americans then?

as I said here:

For those lives approximately 3,950,528 people of african ancestry were liberated. I ask you, Adam, were those lives worth it or would you have sided with General George McClellan in the 1864 election? His position was very similar to yours...talk with the enemy and bring the boys home. No one ever suggested that McClellan was unpatriotic in fact the lads in the Army of the Potomac loved him. He loved his army a little too much though and forgot what they had all (mostly) volunteered for. The American Soldier has served to liberate people since they first liberated themselves. They give their lives so that others can have the hope of freedom. It's what they do. You can make your choices as to whether or not you support them but as Chuck and Jimbo have said, it's not an If...Then kind of thing. You either support them for what they have given you and continue to give you or you don't.

You have chosen. I cannot possibly disagree more with you but I am damn glad that the American Soldier has fought and died for your right to say such incredible things.

 
At 1/29/2007 8:38 PM, Anonymous Chris M said...

Kudos to Chuck & Patti.

see http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/ for some common sense.

Chris

 
At 1/29/2007 9:16 PM, Blogger Adam said...

The piece was more about "support our troops" as a political ploy than anything else.

Those who get really angry about what I wrote are, I believe, falling for the implications of "support our troops" that I was trying to point out -- in other words, they are allowing themselves to be duped by those who are betraying our troops by putting them in harm's way for no good reason.

Our troops are dying in vain, while politicians use the phraze "support our troops" to avoid their own responsibility for this illegal, immoral and mismanaged war. By the use of this phraze, they are misleading and duping people, by using their own humanity against them -- by cynically using our own natural empathy for our soldiers against us.

I refuse to support this avoidance of responsibility and misleading of people. I refuse to join in the circus of what "support our troops" means. I want our troops to live and die for a good cause, not for a bad one. I refuse to be misled into supporting a bad cause by being told it's the only way to "support our troops."
Adam

 
At 1/29/2007 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How clever and magnanimous of you. Throw the baby out with the bath water. That'll show them!

Run along now, Adam, your latte awaits.

 
At 1/29/2007 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I come by way of "From My Position... On the Way", tcoverride.blogspot.com.

Adam, I believe you purposely use the phrase to offend the reader into trying to discover why you say it, and thus they read your entire post.

Chuck and Patti are true Americans who appreciate the depth and breadth of that special status. You do not demonstrate you have the same personal understanding, so you are at a disadvantage.

While I tried to follow your twisted arguments, my intellect, sense of decency, patriotism, pride and self-respect kept pulling me back from the gnarly mass that you heaved onto this blog space, saving me from being infested. Whew.

As the saying goes, if you have to ask what the price is, you can't afford it.

alexa kim

 
At 1/29/2007 10:31 PM, Blogger Tracy said...

sorry Adam, but your second explanation hasn't changed my mind. I still want to puke.

 
At 1/29/2007 10:44 PM, Anonymous Sgt Taylor said...

Adam,

You are sadly mistaken and have obviously grown up being fed a steady diet of drivel.

I'm not "angry" at you. I feel pity for such a sad outlook in your life and lack of a true man Father figure in your life.

Chuck hits it on the head, but American Heroes are NOT "dieing in vain".

In 2002, before the Iraq War, it was reported that the NSA satellites had taken satellite photos of Iraqi Convoys leaving suspected chemical facilities and going into 3 sites in Syria.
Saddam Hussein’s #2 Iraqi Air Force General, General Sada, testified that Chemical Weapons were transported into Syria disguised as a “humanitarian” aid into Syria in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion:.
http://newyorksun.com/


These 20 planeloads are what General Sada said contained the Chemical Weapons:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ACOS-64BRQW?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=syr


Saddam Hussein said those 20 planeloads contained “humanitarian” assistance, but he was under U.N. Sanctions?!
He said he didn’t have enough humanitarian supplies, which is what he used for the excuse to let his own people starve??!!
But he had enough to send 20 planeloads of “humanitarian aid” to Syria??!!
——————————————————————————————————————————



And this was further validated by Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf).
“A Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, 2004, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. ”
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php


————————————————————————————Now if you want to talk about chemical weapons/anthrax getting into the hands of al-Qaeda or insurgents that has been done by Syria as recently as 2004.

10 al-Qaeda terrorists were captured in Jordan with more than 20 tons of Chemical Weapons. The reported targets were the Jordanian prime minister’s office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence, and the U.S. Embassy.

It has been reported that up to 100,000 could have been killed in the Terrorist Bombing.
Many of the chemicals had only been produced by Iraqi Scientists! And Syria gave them to al-Qaeda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.chinadaily.net/english/doc/2004-04/27/content_326599.htm


IN a live televised Jordanian interrogation those al-Qaeda terrorists admitted to receiving the 20 tons of WMDs from those three Syrian Sites reported by General Sada and seen by NSA satellite photos.The al-Qaeda terrorists also received training at those Syrian Sites.———————————————————————————————————-
You also want to talk Diplomacy? Saddam Hussein signed a Cease Fire agreement and agreed to disarm and agreed to inspections. He broke both agreements.
Let’s look at Saddam’s track history of non-compliance to inspections:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/etc/cron.html


Not only did Saddam Hussein have a 12 year history of not complying to his own Cease Fire Agreement he shot down a U.S. Plane 1 month before 9/11!
That is an act of WAR in itself. Saddam was asking for war and he got it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1511540.stm

Tariq Aziz even bragged that they were able to upgrade their anti-aircraft technology with brand new technology illegally purchased during the U.N. Sanctions.
Saddam got what he deserved and you idiots posting your Liberal moral relativism makes me puke.

 
At 1/29/2007 10:51 PM, Anonymous redc1c4 said...

"I want our troops to live and die for a good cause, not for a bad one. I refuse to be misled...."

you wouldn't know the difference between a good cause and a bad one if it bit you on the ass. as for refusing to be mislead, you're more lost than a 2LT on a land nav course with a magnet on his compass and a Tenino map.

i have more respect for a Taliban fighter than for you, if only for the fact that at least *he* is willing to man up and stand for something, regardless of how wrong and evil it may be.

you, OTOH, sit behind a computer, safely cynical and oh so sophisticated, kept safe in your ignorance by those you mock. you aren't worth the sweat on an 11B/19D's balls...... even a broken down old NMC one like me.

redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious.

 
At 1/29/2007 11:08 PM, Blogger Bode Miller Jokes said...

"Support the troops" was and is a rightwing meme to keep questioning Americans in the tank, as it were, in the run up to the disastrous war on Iraq.

It's basically meaningless in the real world. I support the troops in that I want them to have universal healthcare and that I want them to be home, as at least 72% of them have told surveyors.

For this I have been called a traitor, but then, I work with veterans every day who agree with me.

 
At 1/29/2007 11:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That’s how you know someone is a threat: they attack you or your friends."

Tell me, Adam, is Al-Qaeda a threat to us? They attacked and killed over 3,000 innocent civilians, including little babies. But maybe none of the 3,000 were your "friends".

Al-qaeda is in Iraq, Sweetie, they've been there for a while. They call themselves "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Clever, huh? Other cults of Islamic extremism are there, too - including the Iranians of "we want nuclear weapons" fame. These are the murderers we fight.


"They’re attacks on nations nowhere near us, and nowhere near a threat to us. I have never seen a threatening Vietnamese or Iraqi in my neighborhood, and I live in New York, where you get all sorts."

But you have seen Islamic terrorists kill people, right? There in New York? Or do you have Alzheimers? As Bill Clinton aptly demonstrated, leave them alone over there, and they come and kill us over here. It's not theoretical; it happened.

And we're not attacking nations, we're attacking the terrorist insurgents trying desperately to topple a legitimate, democratic government. Actually, we're trying to DEFEND Iraq against these madmen.

We did attack Afghanistan, when the Taliban government that ran the place harbored the mass murderer responsible for all those deaths on 9/11. You know, Bin Laden. He used the Middle East as one big safe house from which to plan attacks against us - attacks that killed Americans.

"...a case can be made that being ordered to go kill Iraqis is not all that moral, which means the innocence of our troops is open to debate."

No, it means a case can be made that the terrorists (you know, the ones we're fighting?) that kidnap, kill, blow up and torture innocent Iraqis are morally reprehensible.

So, for you it's not all that moral to kill a man who kidnapped an Iraqi civilian, crushed his kneecaps, power-drilled through his eyeballs and countless other atrocities? I say a case can be made that it's immoral NOT to kill such a man.

Odd that Clinton, Janet Reno, and the rest of the liberals didn't apply this special brand of morality to the compound in Waco, where Reno's agents burnt lots of little children and their parents to a crisp. Those poor children didn't even get the benefit of a trial. And they hadn't actually hurt anybody yet, when the agents surrounded them and launched a firefight. But then, they weren't terrorists, so maybe they didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt like Bin Laden and gang.

"This was a war where the allies had to defend themselves against an unholy threat, the Nazis under Hitler, who attacked first."

My dear, your chronology is off. 9/11 happened BEFORE we started fighting Al-qaeda. THEY attacked first. Clinton was never big on fighting terror, or even defending against it.

And you imply that these Islamic fanatics we are fighting in the Middle East are not an "unholy threat". I'm sure those stoned, tortured, and beaten under Sharia would beg to differ. I'm sure your fellow New Yorkers' who died at Al-qaeda's hands would also beg to differ.


You, Adam, are a victim of severe group-think. You have gone without hearing the other side for so long, you can no longer even logically answer their arguments.

 
At 1/29/2007 11:18 PM, Blogger Bode Miller Jokes said...

If supporting the troops means I have to swallow the utter BS that Iraq was a threat to us then yeah I don't support the troops.

 
At 1/30/2007 12:41 AM, Anonymous patrick said...

all i can say is interesting perspective but think about a war that has been going on for the past 50 + years i am over here in South Korea, i have been to the DMZ, spoken to the people of the Republic of Korea; if the US and her Allies stayed at home back then and today these people would be starving not a strong economic power that it is today. that could be Iraq and Afghanistan in a few years but with out the troops still there. just think how many countries are what they are today thanks to a US solider, sailor, airman, and marine. i came from "from my position ... on the way"

 
At 1/30/2007 4:30 AM, Blogger Rich Casebolt said...

Adam (and BMJ) ... let me educate you:

Why we were justified in attacking Iraq ... in the simplest of terms.

What we have ALREADY accomplished in Iraq.

And finally ... my take on your views.

 
At 1/30/2007 5:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam did what he wanted. He posted something that he knew was going to draw attention to him and get him his 15 minutes of fame.

Move along now, nothing more to see here.


Jon The Mechanic (combat veteran, current member of the National Guard)

 
At 1/30/2007 6:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No accounting for Stupid Shit heels. I think Adam writes of what he knows nothing about. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. There is only one way to define Support Our Troops, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! I come from a family of Military members. My father (3 tours in Vietnam), 3 Uncles(Also Vietnam), Father in law (WWII), Mother in law (WWII), Wife (Current Air Force. 20+ years) and myself(Separated Air Force after 6 years). My son is also getting ready to join the Air Force. We are believers in "If not us, who? If not now, when. Unfortunately, people like us, are getting tired of defending cowards like you. I hope you and yours like being the new "Third World Country" because with out us all you will do is whimper and die.

I came here From My Position... On The Way http://www.tcoverride.blogspot.com

CAR USAF Vet

 
At 1/30/2007 6:10 AM, Anonymous Leanne said...

I have to wonder if you are writing this CRAP to get a little publicity. As you say I am one of those people who do not like this war or the premise it was started on however, I wholeheartedly support our men and women in uniform. My husband serves si I take great offense at you wanting to cut-off the money for them. You are know advocating for there deaths. Without this money they do not recieve armor, water, food the very things they need to survive. Without this money the Iraqis do not get the things they need for survival and reconstruction. Many of these men and women do support what they are doing however many do not...but they do it because they are told to, they signed the dotted line and they love there country and it's citizens...even people who feel the way you do...to protect you and your speech. So feel free to thank any of the vets who have posted on this page or my husband who continue to defend your rights. I wonder if you had a loved one deployed in harms way if you would be so willing to cut them off? The next time you hear of a solider dying be thankful that you did not have to do anything for your country because what you are doing here on this blog is only hurting. Leanne

 
At 1/30/2007 7:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam you're the two year old who shits on the floor to get attention, we'll you've got your attention. Now clean up your mess, and stop being such a dupe of the LLL.

 
At 1/30/2007 7:07 AM, Blogger "Frankly Opinionated" said...

Adumb:
I pity your poor, sorry self. You self-serving sheeple, have no faith in our military, no concerns for their welfare, and not a single clue about what all of this is about. You would piss yuorself if you had to spend even a few minutes living like our troops choose to live while serving you and the rest of our country. And, serving you they are in Iraq, where George W. Bush and Osama bin Ladin agree that the central war against jihadis is being fought. When your sort causes us to have to take a loss in Iraq, and the jihadis follow our troopships back to America, (and they will if we cut and run), I pray that it is your street that is first on their agenda. You could use a little Dhimmitude, a little Sharia, you sorry little slimy jerk. Now to sign off and go back to Major Z and the rest of the patriots. http://tcoverride.blogspot.com
nuf sed

 
At 1/30/2007 7:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your screed has inspired some great responses but there is one aspect I think needs to be hammered home: Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences are obvious and can be ennumerated, sometimes they aren't. Count up the number of "civilians" killed in Iraq (forget for now that that a lot of insurgents and foreign fighters get a pass and are counted as civilians) and other "innocents". Those are obvious casualties of the war. What no one seems to count are the casualties of peace. All those Kurds and Shia that Saddam and his henchmen killed. All those women raped in front of their husbands and children. All those people that have had their lives destroyed because the world stood by and did nothing. Those casualties aren't mounting any more, thanks to our troops. If our troops weren't there those casualties would still be going up, and it is those uncountable casualties that you would be responsible for if your ideas were policy. Yes, I have to accept my share of responsibility for the troops maimed and killed in the fighting, and I do. But people like you don't want to take any responsibility at all for your actions, or inactions. You want to have all of the benefits and rights Americans have always had without any of the responsibilities. You are a child. A whining, miserable little brat who needs a solid dose of the real world, as well as a good ol' ass-whuppin.

 
At 1/30/2007 10:24 AM, Anonymous Nancy said...

Terrorism - Fight it over there or fight it over here . . . I'll vote to fight it over there any day.

I'll stick to reading blogs that make sense: (http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/)

 
At 1/30/2007 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if 60 years of staying home brought us 9/11, ie a war in our own house, your solution of more of the same will work? The terrorists will be "deterred" because we will REALLY get mad if you kill more of us? Then we'll get REALLY, REALLY mad? The old saw about repeating the same actions and expecting different results being the definition of insanity seems operative Adam. You are delusional. The choice is not whether to fight them, it is to fight them there or fight them here. And if we can help a nation that for the most part wants to part with their delusions, so much the better. Grow up Adam.

 
At 1/30/2007 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I made it over here from Chuck's blog........ I find it interesting that you can justify supporting troops in WWII because of Hitler's behavior. Aren't the Iraqi people our friends? Indeed aren't all peoples of the world our friends? War is completely justified by man's inhumanity to man. The dictatorship of Sadaam Hussein was inhumane. He murdered, tortured and gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Not to mention invading his neighboring countries. Therefore, the war in Iraq is justified and frankly long overdue. WMD's aside. It's shameful that the world stood by and allowed those things to happen to innocent people for 30 years. I am proud that America finally stood up and did something. And as the most powerful democracy in the history of the world, if it falls on our shoulder's to be BIG BROTHER, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, then so be it. I am proud of our troops, including MY HUSBAND, who are over there trying to protect innocent people from those who wish to destroy them.

 
At 1/30/2007 1:31 PM, Anonymous joeybear said...

Adam,
You and your like are fools, plain and simple and your reasoning is flawed from the start.
The standard line of the left and you have chosen has been, this is a bad war to wage. You then contrast iraq with WWII as the standard "good war". You yourself volunteered for service.
What exactly made WWII a good war to fight? Was it the GERMAN totalitarian regimes, the genocide, lack of human rights, tourture chambers, secret police, a political party that dominated the politics of the country and kept itself in power thus perpetuating all the aforementioned evils? You probably said yes and justifiably so.
GUESS WHAT??!? You just described Iraq under Saddam. SO what makes a good war? Feeing a people from oppression and genocide sounds like a good reason and that is what we did in Iraq. Whether you agree or not, that is what we ended up doing. Even thought people continue to die there today, at least they die in public and not in the tourture chambers and at least there is a glimmer of hope for their future. But THEY must fight for it and they dont stand a chance if we cut and run.

 
At 1/30/2007 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Afternoon Adam,

"From My Position... On the Way", tcoverride.blogspot.com. is one of my favorite blogs. I go there a lot because I believe in the American military and all that they do and stand for.

Personally, folks, I think Adam is feeling a bit neglected and decided to throw all of his hysteria and misconceptions into one post because he wanted everyone to notice him. Ok, so it is negative attention. I guess that is better than none for the likes of him.


Adam, with all due respect, grow up and grow some basic male genitals please. I know that you must be intelligent enough to know that spouting all that blather is totally ridiculous. No truly intelligent, articulate, thinking adult would really believe that. And if you do, honey, you really need to get with a good shrink or spend a month in Iraq with some of our soldiers. Yeah, about a month on the back of a humvee dodging bullets and bombs ought to shake you out of your pit of self pity.


BTW, my son is a reserve Marine and serves his town as a cop for his day job. He protects your whiny behind on a daily basis, here at home, while his buddies protect it over in the war zone. I know, your jealous of the real men who do that, but honey, like I said, grow some real ones and maybe you won't feel so immasculated. After all, women are over there protecting you too. Suck it up baby, everyone has already had enough of your tantrums.

Karrontwlfmq

 
At 1/30/2007 5:19 PM, Blogger JCarson said...

So in the upcoming Super Bowl you would tell your team to play defense only when the enemy is at your twenty yard line?

No, sir! You play defense even when the ball is on the enemy's one yard line. You would rather fight them in their territory than to wait until they are in yours.

Your argument is moronic; your strategy, suicidal.

 
At 1/30/2007 8:42 PM, Anonymous AMZ said...

I too came here from tcoverride@blogspot.com -Thanks Chuck for all you are and all you have said believe and defend, any place at any time.
I looked it up and in all languages the definition of Patriot is: One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
Notice this statement doesn't say just within its borders, or city, or house. It doesn’t give a date time or place because there may come a time that the soldier will have to step out of his comfort zone to protect his home and comfort zone and make sure you will always have yours...If you are not a Patriot, then exactly uhm what should your label be...coward, traitor?
Have you forgotten that not only does America have soldiers fighting but so do many other countries? They too have left their homes and cities and countries because they are Patriots and you have blindly insulted these soldiers? Patriots are what Chuck and Pattie and many of us are. Willing we defend our freedom here and there and everywhere,even in blog space.No boundries for our Patriotism.

 
At 1/30/2007 9:58 PM, Blogger Bode Miller Jokes said...

You hyperventilating retards will forget about this and move on to the next un-P.C. thing that offends you.

For a bunch of militarists, you guys sure are pussies.

 
At 1/30/2007 10:33 PM, Blogger Cav Tanker said...

OK, for ALL you jackasses who don't support "our troops", YOU ALL ARE COMPLETE JACKASSES. I have but one REAL question for you. How many terrorist attacks have happened in the United States since we have been in Iraq? Anyone? Anyone have an answer? Why do you think we are over here? Oil? Do you think I like the beach? Maybe I enjoy killing people ( which would make me a cold-blooded killer, and being an Eagle Scout who believes in GOD, I highly doubt that)? You are so caught up in this being about Bush that you neglect to see the real and whole picture, IT IS NOT! Even Al Qaeda has stated that Iraq was a definitive battleground. Who the hell do you think we are fighting, Iraqis? Nope. I happen to know personally that 75% of the insurgents are NOT Iraqis. And im being conservative on that number. Pay attention for Christ's sake. And quit being pussies. If you want to make a difference, Join Up! No wait. Then you would move to Canada to avoid coming over here. Wait again. Then that would mean hopefully you will renounce your citizenship and become a canadian. Yeah, we don't want you in the US anyways. Bastards!

 
At 1/31/2007 12:04 AM, Blogger Bode Miller Jokes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/31/2007 12:06 AM, Blogger Bode Miller Jokes said...

Cav Tanker, methinks you are full of shit. CENTCOM says 90 to 95% of the rebels are the Ministry and Former Iraqi Army personnel that Bremer fired. Meaning, Iraqis.

 
At 1/31/2007 1:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW... First off I would like to say that nothing I say here represents the Air Force or any other military branch as a whole. These are my thoughts and opinions on the matter. That being said... This might be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long long time. I am serving my country proudly in Iraq right now and why you may ask? I love my country, my family and my friends. I don’t want them to end up like those who died on 9/11. Those people came into our country and killed innocent Americans. People funded by Sadam. If you don’t think he has anything to do with this then you are pretty oblivious to anything going on here. At the beginning of the war you could find paintings of him all over with the twin towers in the background and him with his thumbs up filled with satisfaction in his eyes! You honestly think that if we didn’t come over here that these people wouldn’t have come to us? And no... You don’t see a threatening Iraqi in your neighborhood... why... because we chose to take care of them over here after they chose to start it by helping Al-Qaeda get to America! And in WWII which you say you would have joined up... were there all kinds of Germans in NYC running around killing people then? And saying that we are here for oil?? When was the last time you saw a single bit of the oil over here brought to the US? With the money we have spent over here, there isn’t enough oil in this country to help us get that money back! We are not here for the oil. We are here for a good reason whether you like how we got here or not. I could go on forever about this but this is where i will stop. Ignorance can be helped by gaining knowledge, stupidity is forever and you... you are stupid! alab32@yahoo.com I arrived here from http://mikegulf.blogspot.com/ I am one of the dog handlers in one of the posts.

Adam

 
At 1/31/2007 4:33 AM, Blogger Amy said...

My comment is simple... a person may NOT agree with the why our troops are deployed (ANYWHERE) let alone with the president, but the ARE risking their lives for what they believe as well as OUR rights ad they our troops DESERVE our support

 
At 1/31/2007 5:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam,
I can see from your post that you thrive on negative attention. Why else would you post such a piece on Chuck's blog? I write today on behalf of a soldier who is fighting in Iraq who hates to have to fight for assholes like you.

What happened on 9/11 is no different than a person breaking into your home while you are peacefully sleeping and attacking you and your family with the intention of killing you all. No doubt anyone put in that position would fight the bastard even if it meant getting killed in the process. YOU WOULD DEFEND YOUR FAMILY. You wouldn't sit him down and have a civilized discussion about how he should just go back home. YOU surely wouldn't call the cops to protect you....because as YOU said, "I’m happy to pay for their livelihoods via my taxes when they stay home". What you've said about the military staying home instead of defending our country, is the same as saying you would rather the police stay home instead of capturing the intruder who wanted to murder your family. AL-QUEDA ATTACKED US AND MURDERED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE....MAYBE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN? IT IS EASY TO RANT AND RAVE WHEN YOUR FAMILY WASN'T MURDERED THAT DAY AND WHEN YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO DEFEND THE FREEDOMS YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF.

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE and YOU DISGUST ME.
Audri

 
At 1/31/2007 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're spot on. They're not 'our' troops. We just pay for them.

The military could just about perhaps maybe arguably be said to have been defending the US in WWII but since then they have been used only as a tool of empire. 'We' have not been threatened even once. It's a lie to keep the powerful where they are and the dumb recruited and shot at.

Support our factory workers, miners, school teachers, firemen, sewage workers, doctors, activists, concientious objectors but our troops? No, they are the tools of war profiteers and capitalism in general and if the dumb patriots writing here don't like that then too bad, they can go back to their bland sappy 'Lady Liberty clutches her flashlight' cliches that they were taught as an alternative to thought back at their mother's knee.
Phil

 
At 1/31/2007 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good lord - Phil and Adam you both are delusional.

Phil: these "tools of war profiteers" are volunteers you idiot. How can they be "tools" if the volunteer to do what they do? They possess a well of honor and courage that you can only dream about. Then again, maybe not..."alternative to thought" means having a differing opinion.

Adam: I'd say your 15 minutes are just about up. DING!

And big ole thank you to all the troops, their families and friends for the sacrifices you all make everyday. And for Chuck Z. at "From My Position", for being the take no prisoners kind of person he is.

 
At 1/31/2007 12:41 PM, Anonymous Dustoff917 said...

If some asshole breaks into my home I shoot him, some asshole crashes a plane into a building in my town, I go hunt down his buddies.

If you come into my country to hurt people my government should have the right to hurt you and then go to your country and hurt you more.

Now this is logic, not politics, I would do this without government approval if need be.

What most of you dumbasses do not understand is that this whole mess is being misrepresented as a holy war, religion does not have a damn thing to do with it, its just a bunch of idiots wanting to be warriors and they don't really care who they attack, when or where, but to justify their cause they claim its religious.

So when I get my chance to get back at one of these self proclaimed religious warriors, after I place several well aimed 357 slugs into him, I will hold a press conference and tell them I did it for my religion. Bet the press will eat that shit up.

Now if someone with common sense put a news blackout on all this bullshit so these religious warriors did not get any press coverage, alot of it would come to a screaming halt. Or we could have open season on reporters.

This is my view, if you don't like it then tough shit. And don't even compare Iraq to Vietnam or any other conflict unless you have been to those places in person as a combat soldier. I've been there do that and have the t-shirt and scars to prove it and my PH's were real wounds not Kerry bandaids.

 
At 1/31/2007 3:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your an asshole and I hope they start the draft just so you have to go to Iraq. I hope the insurgents capture you and keep you there pull out each finger nail one by one. While everyone here supports you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 1/31/2007 5:31 PM, Anonymous Cassy said...

I came here from Chuck's blog... tcoverride.blogspot.com.

Dude, your whole post is incoherent rambling which makes no logical sense whatsoever. All you really did is look at posts from other bigger liberal blogs and spout out the same liberal rhetoric. Everything Chuck's comment said was common sense. You are a paranoid moonbat who doesn't deserve the sacrifices of our troops.

But our troops are still there, fighting for your freedoms too, so that you can be a moonbat asshat and call yourself a patriot. Just keep on drinking your little frappucino from starbucks and put a little daisy in your gun while you denounce our troops and George Bush and feel all special and important.

 
At 1/31/2007 7:16 PM, Blogger Sara said...

I am another one only here because of Chuck's blog... tcoverride.blogspot.com. Chuck you are a personal hero, you probably don't know how many members of Soldiers Angels admire you and are grateful for your service and your sacrifice. I feel badly that someone so negative and mean spirited towards our deployed men and women can garner so much attention but I suppose that was his point.

As someone more on the liberal side I'd like to point out that the kind of ranting done by Adam helps no one, helps no "side" or cause. It is just mean spirited and pointlessly hurtful. You don't have to be conservative to find this distasteful and ugly.

I have continuously supported "the troops" for 4 years this March. They deserve our support because they are our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sons and daugthers, not some anonymous "they". Who does not know someone with a friend or loved one deployed or returned, or fallen. They are part of us, in harms way, far from home and in need of support and encouragement. If you chose not to help provide this support, it is your loss, because you have chosen not to reach out to those who need our support. But leave alone those of us who chose to provide support and encouragement, without a political agenda, because we are helping our neighbors who are in need. You are neither interesting nor inflamitory. You are just a cliche.

But thanks for rallying the pro-troops folks, your foolishness really got the word out to more people that you can imagine :-) WAY TO GO CHUCK-YOU ROCK!!!

 
At 1/31/2007 8:53 PM, Anonymous dee:) said...

i'm here from chuck's blog at tcovverride.blogspot.com

ditto patti and chuck:)



........i'm GRATEFUL TO MY HEROES in uniform to NOT be wearing a burkha under penalty of losing my head!!

i 100% SUPPORT our heroes with WHATEVER IT TAKES to do what they do on our behalf........i also 100% SUPPORT the other heroes, their families:)

dee:)

 
At 2/01/2007 5:39 AM, Anonymous Pilgrim said...

After reading that crap piece in the WaPo yesterday I felt compelled to donate to Soldier's Angels in Mr. Arkin's name as well as yours. I forwarded an apology on your behalf because these kinds of outrageous remarks simply must be the product of frustration of one kind or another and not the product of any rational thought.

Fear not Mr. Ash...I'm here for ya. The more you slander our military, the more we'll donate to support them in real, tanglible ways.

 
At 2/01/2007 6:18 PM, Blogger jdkchem said...

adam ass and bode miller jokes

FUCK YOU

 
At 2/06/2007 6:25 AM, Anonymous Kate said...

Hold on you guys...now lets really think this through.....he is entitled to say what he wants because of freedom of speech....and we have that because...oh yea, someone fought for it. I read his views, and some of it made sense, however I really feel that he is just a really MAD LITTLE BOY that couldn't get accepted in the Military and decided that he would write this piece of crap to get attention. Okat Adam you got it, now move on. I am sure that there is yet another gay magazine sprouting up somewhere that you can get a job writing articles for. Leave the fighting for our country to the real men and women.

Proud Mom (and former wife)of a US MARINE!!

PS: Oh Adam, be glad that you don't live near me, even at my age I would kick your ass!! Is that a threat??...you bet yor ass it is, and because someone fought for the right of free speech, I can say that!!!

 
At 3/16/2007 8:41 PM, Anonymous DTW 06 said...

Support Our Troops - Watch Iraq War Memorial

 
At 4/14/2007 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam - You got it totally right man.

Patti - on the other hand, exposed herself to be brainwashed AND lobotimized. US troops killing Iraqi children has nothing to do with protecting anyone's 'freedom' except perhaps the freedom of the Bush Crime Syndicate to continue to loot the US Treasury and transfer tax dollars to the personal accounts of War Profiteers.

The Death Merchants in this country - you know them, right? The remaining profitable domestic industry here in the Former USA, who have installed their little puppet boy, George W in der Weis Haus, have one skill and one skill only - that is how to make money producing the tools and implements of INDUSTRIAL SCALE MURDER. In order to do this and keep their bloody scheme profitable they need two things: a COMPLAINT group of idiots to support their wholesale slaughter and bloodlust (that would YOU, Patti) and a designated 'enemy." Currently their designated enemy is an Islamic fundamentalist preferrably from the Middle East - since the former Soviet Union resigned from that unenviable role in 1989. The second group is used to threaten the first group into staying compliant.

That litany of propaganda points Patti posted is straight out of the their playbook: "How To Distract and Frighten the Rubes" - A small but vocal portion of the domestic population - roughly 25-30% - still sucks that Kool-Aid thinking (mistakenly) it has something to do with "Gawd and Country" or freedom and liberty.

It is nothing of the sort. It is in fact a way to continue to profit from murder. Their ONLY business is killing and their intended target is - as always - poor people. Poor people in Grenada. Poor people in Vietnam. Poor people in El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, The Phillipines, the Poor people in Afghanistan and now Iraq. ALL these are places where, in the last few decades, the US has launched drive-by killing sprees that resulted in the murder of thousands (hundreds of thouands) of... poor people.

Historical note: the US ONLY went to war against Iraq AFTER ten years of economic sanctions which brought their economy to its knees! THEN - after we had starved thousands of (poor) people in Iraq to death, we started killing them with bombs and missles.

The US military is now made up of 'volunteers' - also typically poor people who have few options except to seek employment as paid mercenaries for the corporations who manufacture weapons and weapons systems. The keep those troops, their families and a small portion of the population compliant and cooperative they are fed a steady diet of EXACTLY the propaganda points Patti has listed above. It's all bovine excreta. Even a large and growing portion of 'the troops' do not believe it.

 
At 5/15/2007 10:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand what Adam Ash was trying to say. I also understand, sadly, why many don't seem to understand it.
The novel 1984 explains it all too disturbingly well.
The truth is too grey, people want black and white. They want simple. They don't want to have to seriously consider the rightness or wrongness of a war. Slogans help create an illusion of simplicity that is hard to resist, and many see no reason to question things when simple acceptance allows them to keep their routine life even if that life becomes steadily more empty and difficult. They take pride in the difficulty in order to ignore the emptiness, and pain. Besides, ignorant bliss makes getting by each day much easier than a complicated examination of what's really going on in the world and the inevitable anger, and hopelessness the realizations bring.
So slogans help to warp what truth can be found with this war. They help people live day to day, and ignore unpleasantness.
Do I support our troops? Good question. It cannot be truly and fully answered with a simple yes or no. For example, when reading the replies to this post by many people who indicated that they were currently serving in the military or had in the past, I noticed a trend I didn't like. They held up unqestioning loyalty as a virtue, and I could never see virtue in accepting anything without questioning, and testing it first using my belief, and rational intelligence. I think I may understand why they do though. The military requires a certain amount of unquestioning obedience to function efficiently. However, this does not and should not work in a civilian society based on democracy. If people don't question anything democracy is lost and whoever is the elected leader merely becomes a king or dictator.
I also noticed many posters closely involved with the military had a very bloodthirsty, and us versus them mentality when it came to talking about America's enemies. I agree that there are terrorists that want to bring destruction to the western world including the United States. However, I also believe that a man's humanity is lost when killing becomes easy. My friend's father in law boasted of spending his entire time in Irag killing "rag heads". I realize that a certain amount of dehumanizing of the enemy is standard fair in soldier conditioning. However, this type of bloodthirsty violence craving dehumanization of the enemy has no place in the civilian world, and despite this, I get the impression that many in the military want civilians to have the same mind set. I'm actually of the belief that you can be a great soldier, and still question an overall mission, and also regret the taking of any life whatsoever. That does not mean you won't follow orders. It also doesn't mean you won't kill the current enemy. It does mean that you are more than a mindless killing machine. If you are a soldier of that more chanllenging but far more virtuous ilk, than yes, I support you fully and lament that your current mission may be a futile one. That's not your fault, your heart is pure and though your hands may not be clean, your concious should be clear.
However, if you are a soldier that has gotten a taste for killing, and an enjoyment in dehumanizing the enemy, and worse, are masking that delight in violence with a facade of patriotism, I could never support you. I could only pity you, and somewhat understand the reasons behind your corruption.

As to a much earlier post insisting that there were/are WMD's in Iraq, I would like to pose a very simple question. If that is true than why hasn't the current administration proved so at the first opportunity, or if they can't prove definatively, then why haven't they at least used the information you provided in the links to back up their claim? Why have they instead dropped the subject all together except to blame everything on bad intelligence? Why have they said that the real reason for going to Iraq was not WMD's but to bring democracy?

Thank you Adam, for your bravery and refusal to be an unqestioning ditto head.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home