LA Times writer: "I DO NOT support the troops"

[BurningMan]

Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

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

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


I like this article, ill tell you why.
It counters the BS about "GW is a oil loving hawk who sold our sons souls for oil in iraq omgwtf hes so dumb he cant even read. OH BUT I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ GOD BLESS THEM"

Because supporting the troops mean you want them to do their jobs and then come home. If you want them to do their jobs, which is the war, then you support them fighting the war and winning it so they come home sooner. So i think this addresses a hypocrisy that has been pretty common among those not wanting to help in the war effort because of their personal views, but also dont want to look heartless to those military families because those military families vote.

discuss!

[annihilation]

I support my troops and I support their effort in Iraq NOW. I support a stable Iraq NOW because the troops are in there. I support our actions in Iraw NOW because we are in there NOW.

But given the chance to do this all again would I send the troops there in the first place. No I wouldn't have because the reasons going there were not good enough for me.

[Pille1234]

INteresting read, thank you. And somehow I feel I have to agree with him.

[Kersh]

Wow, this guy is a major tool. I disagree with everything he says. I would love to see him say this to families of soldiers fighting overseas.

[.666 Caliber]

I agree fully but your title throws people off a little.

I though it was one of those idiots who has a unreasonable hate for our soldiers.

[BurningMan]

...
I though it was one of those idiots who has a unreasonable hate for our soldiers.


he doesnt support the troops. he doesnt like them being there, he doesnt like the war, he wont give them a damn parade. I dont think my title throws ppl off.

it just wants me to throw a huge parade, in my home town, for the 20 or 30 men we have in iraq. COMPLETE TRAFFIC JAM would be good, so this guy would have to just sit there, while people who will go down in history because of the sacrifice of their personal lives roll past him, waving.

[soprano]

this guy sucks my balls!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ed316]

This guy doesn't look around him or the country he lives in. With out the sacrifice of the military the US wouldn't be as strong or prosperous as it is now. He will never understand the freedom he has to critisize or hate the people that ensures his rights. It's a free country and I served so people like him can express his views no matter how much I disagree with him.

PS. I think he's a ****, but that my view in a free country.

[Resevoir Hogs]

I'd like to ask this writer if he supported the regime of Saddam Hussein. I'd love to see him weasel his way out of that one.

[SMilJKD]

Great read, I love hearing different views on things and this sure was a different view. Side note for people who say that President Bush is driving this country into the ground.... The president is only a representitive of one of the three branches of this government. He is not "in charge" of this country... technically we are. I'm sure that we all know that there is more going on in politics than the channel 4 news tells us. What I do know is that I am American, and I have the right to join the military if I want to, and I have the right to persue any path of life that I decide. I can travel anywhere in this country and I can leave if I don't like it. If you don't like what our President is doing, than tell your friends and yourself not to vote for him again, if that doesn't settle your stomach, than you be president. :) anyways..... interesting article.

[.666 Caliber]

Well....... You all hate him but he had a FEW good points and thats about it.

[American Patriot]

It's the LA Times

[JoaMei]

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence.

Actually this statement was complete Bull****, does this guy seriously think the intel they had was false and the leadership was deceived by this false intel? The Bush administration wanted that war at all costs and knew their statements about WMD and links to al quaeda were Bull****.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm totally onboard for his position of not supporting the war=not supporting the troops and at least have the courage to admit it. Indeed, if the war is immoral, then those waging it must be immoral.

But presumably Stein is a smart feller, and is able to follow that reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the war is immoral, and being fought by immoral people - well, after all, he's paying for it. How does that leave him with clean hands?

Not only that, by penning articles about it, the war serves as a revenue stream for him. Here he is decrying the war, condemning our troops, yet he doesn't offer to pay more for his gas, he doesn't reject any of the fruits that our imperial adventures provide him with, and he writes anti-war articles with one hand, while accepting money for them with the other.

[Dexx]

I'm totally onboard for his position of not supporting the war=not supporting the troops and at least have the courage to admit it. Indeed, if the war is immoral, then those waging it must be immoral.

But presumably Stein is a smart feller, and is able to follow that reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the war is immoral, and being fought by immoral people - well, after all, he's paying for it. How does that leave him with clean hands?

Not only that, by penning articles about it, the war serves as a revenue stream for him. Here he is decrying the war, condemning our troops, yet he doesn't offer to pay more for his gas, he doesn't reject any of the fruits that our imperial adventures provide him with, and he writes anti-war articles with one hand, while accepting money for them with the other.

Your statement might be logic in itself but is far far away from reality. With your line of arguments you could say that all tax paying people are feeding the war machine with their money. You, Sir, are way way off a reasonable argument.

[Bugalugs]

I dont think it folows that if the "war" is immoral, those fighting it are immoral. It depends what they think as individuals as to whether they are acting immoraly.

If the soldiers reasonably believe they are doing the right thing, they are acting within a positive moral framework.

Its like an act in self-defence on the street - if you reasonably believe you have to act with lethal force to protect yourself, its your reasonable belief that matters - not whether in the course of events you realise it hadnt been necessary.

I don't think its reasonable to expect all the soldiers to make judgements as if they had degrees in politics and sociology and international law. Though I am sure many do.

I do see his point that holding parades for returning troops can be used as a bolster bythe hawks - I don't think its a good enough reason to halt the parades though.

i think it is relevant but not mentioned in this article that the Iraq situation it is not a WAR anymore - it is a UN sanctioned multinational stability operation.

just my quick thoughts on a very complex subject

[fng]

We must put an end to IslamoFacism. I wonder... would Joel Stein prefer conventional forces or nukes?
Soup or Salad baby, what's it going to be?

[joe mama]

Your statement might be logic in itself but is far far away from reality. With your line of arguments you could say that all tax paying people are feeding the war machine with their money. You, Sir, are way way off a reasonable argument.

In a way, all tax paying people ARE feeding "the war machine" as you put it. And if you don't support the war, and think the troops shouldn't either, as this guy apparently does, and they should refuse lawful orders and be imprisioned for it, which I belive is what would happen, and which, by implication, this guy supports, then why doesn't he refuse to pay his taxes (his portion of contribution to the war) and accept the consequences for his actions?
He has no problem exercising the rights that he only has because soldiers have fought and died to secure and protect them. If he was a soldier (laughable, but let's pretend), would he stand by his oh so righteous convictions and refuse to deploy to Iraq and go to jail for it? If he feels so strongly that he would do so, and advocate that others should (at least by implication), then why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and stand by those convictions here at home?

I have NO problem at all with someone who doesn't support this war. I may or may not disagree with their arguments, but they're entitled to them. But they should all remember that the only reason they get to entertain those arguments is because there were and are soldiers willing to fight for their rights and follow orders in ****ty situations that aren't going to always be as obviously right as fighting invading Nazi's (for example).
Fcuk this guy. I hope he gets attacked by a violent criminal and a soldier is nearby and doesn't help because the soldier can't be sure of the whole situation and doesn't want to interfere in case it might be morally wrong and might be based on faulty intelligence.

[Bugalugs]

We must put an end to IslamoFacism. I wonder... would Joel Stein prefer conventional forces or nukes?
Soup or Salad baby, what's it going to be?

I think we (as in the west) are kidding ourself if we think that military force alone is the way that this going to be achieved. Its an element in the equation to be sure, but I think we are better served in trying to make sure it is as small an element as possible.

[socom6]

I support my troops and I support their effort in Iraq NOW. I support a stable Iraq NOW because the troops are in there. I support our actions in Iraw NOW because we are in there NOW.

But given the chance to do this all again would I send the troops there in the first place. No I wouldn't have because the reasons going there were not good enough for me.

Thats how I see it right there. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and still am to a certain extent. The reasons for going in there wasnt clear enough to warrant a fullscale invasion of a sovereign nation even though I dont like Saddam Hussein and his Baathists thugs.

But I am a supporter of US and Allied forces. Many countrymen of mine not to mention schoolmates are now serving with US and UK forces. That and the way how the Iraqi insurgents and foreign Arab jihadist have carried on their murderous operations in Iraq have led me to support the nascent Iraqi democracy and Allied forces even more. I may have doubts about the invasion and the reasons for it. But I have to respect what the coalition is trying to do there right now.

That LA Times writer has every right to say what he wants in an article. Too bad young men and women have died so he can blow off his stinking fart in peoples noses.:cantbeli:

[ElHombre]

the writer misses a central point and that is accountability. it is not the troops fault they're stuck on the sharp end of decisions made by inept leadership, so why blame them?

[Pai Mei]

I am wondering what it actually means to "support the troops." I would think that it is a concern (which is acted upon, not glued onto your bumper) for their welfare, morale, reintegration to society, disabilty payments for the seriously wounded... or sending them things they cannot get over there.
How does looking out for the guys who executed foreign policy encourage the policy makers to continue on the present course, thereby lengthening the war? Non Sequitur, big time.


Joel Stein:
If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
[...]
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.

Here's a thought -- maybe supprting the troops, giving them what they need to win (material or psychological) will shorten the war, and bring back more of them sooner.
/end rant

[joe mama]

the writer misses a central point and that is accountability. it is not the troops fault they're stuck on the sharp end of decisions made by inept leadership, so why blame them?

Because he's typical of the people who find how easy it is to criticize the troops and say how the troops are at fault for obeying orders and they'd only fight in a just war when they'll never be in position to risk getting a hangnail to defend their fellow soldier or anything else.

[panzerjager]

At least he has the cashews to admit how most leftists really feel instead of hiding.

I like how he digs not serving the nation. Pure douchebaggery.

[Clarsachier]

I have more respect for this guy & his 'honesty' than I do for the droves of those whose support for the troop is for the purpose of social acceptance and comformity.

[ogukuo72]

I agree with Clarsachier. At least he was honest about it. Many people who are opposed to the Iraq war have to engage in mind-boggling contortions to both be against the war and support the troops at the same time. It's like saying, "You are doing wrong, but I support you anyway."

[Resevoir Hogs]

I agree with Clarsachier. At least he was honest about it. Many people who are opposed to the Iraq war have to engage in mind-boggling contortions to both be against the war and support the troops at the same time. It's like saying, "You are doing wrong, but I support you anyway."

What I don't get is why people think it's okay to say that killing murderers like Uday and Qusay Hussein and capturing Saddam Hussein is "doing wrong."

Maybe its just a state of moral ignorance that allows opponents of the invasion to say it was immoral for the US, UK and Australia to act but that it was not immoral for they themselves to support the continued existance of a brutal dictatorship by preaching inaction.

Well that's my thought for the day.

[BlackRain]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/home/images/columnist/stein_big.jpg

He grew up in Edison, N.J., went to Stanford and then worked for Martha Stewart for a year.

[annihilation]

What I don't get is why people think it's okay to say that killing murderers like Uday and Qusay Hussein and capturing Saddam Hussein is "doing wrong."

Maybe its just a state of moral ignorance that allows opponents of the invasion to say it was immoral for the US, UK and Australia to act but that it was not immoral for they themselves to support the continued existance of a brutal dictatorship by preaching inaction.

Well that's my thought for the day.

Im not opposed to the over throw of saddam as much as how we went about it. Saddam was a brutal dictator and it is good that he has been removed (I wont argue that).

But did we have to do it the way we did? Why did bush have to push us into getting into Iraq so fast? France asked for 3 more months to preform reviews. Why not give it to them? Where was saddam going? Its not like this was all new considering that Iraq had been under sanctions for 10 plus years. If it took 1 year of full on negotiations with the UN and the world (those nations we didn't pay for support) then so be it. I just didn't see the need to jump into Iraq with my eyes closed. Especially when nations like Iran and North Korea are 10 times more qualified for invasion in there current aspect. Yet Bush has decided to negotiate and allow the UN to take more time with them.

[ogukuo72]

You do have a point, Annilhilation, but we can look at it this way: the problem has been there for twelve years, since after Iraq was defeated Desert Storm. The sanctions and Oil for Food programme was not working any more, leaking like a sieve, and its the ordinary people who were suffering. Saddam Hussein was still there and the intelligence seemed to indicate that he was able to get round the sanctions to continue with his weapons programme. Every few months, there was a crisis in which UN agencies were barred from this site or that, and quite a few UN resolutions had been passed again and again, without much impact. I don't think it was undue haste. Rather, it was about time.

[sir-chimp]

I fully support more people on the left expressing their honesty about not really supporting the troops. Hell, I will donate to that cause.

[WARPIG]

The article is the same old BS. Just because he throws himself under the wheels of guilt and humility, doesn't mean his article is any more enlightening than any other. We aren't just blind, stupid, second hand people that couldn't get to college. I have the same power as this guy does when it comes to supporting or not supporting the war. I vote. I can vote for the guy that will put me in harms way, or vote for the guy that will pull troops out. I can also, not re-enlist. Notice how he doesn't know what the outlook of the troops is? See any mention of what kind of things our military is doing in Iraq?

Funny, he packages the "for the troops but not the war" as the words of leftis cowards. Yet, I am far from the left and even further from being a coward and I am for the troops but not the war. I don't know many soldiers who are "for the war."

Yup, same old trick. Magicians aren't the only con artists that use the old "force and misdirection" trick.

[mi35d]

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country

Exactly asshat. Do something other than bitch.

[Mr.K]

I agree with him, little yellow ribbons aren't much of a help for a soldier, they need armor, and social benefits when they come back home. Those who disagreed with the author, are you supporting under equipped troops that no one will care about when they come back?

[sir-chimp]

LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (*******) - A Los Angeles Times columnist who infuriated conservatives by writing that he does not support American troops fighting in Iraq -- and calling those who do "wusses" -- stood by the article on Tuesday.

Joel Stein said he has been "bombarded" by hate mail over the incendiary article -- which was headlined "Warriors and Wusses" and held that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were "ignoring their morality" -- but does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

"I don't support what they are doing, and I don't the see point of putting a big yellow magnet on your car if you don't," Stein told ******* in an interview. "I don't think (soldiers) are necessarily bad people. I do plenty of things that are wrong too. But I don't agree with what they are doing so I don't see the logic of supporting it."

The article, which ran on the Times opinion page on Tuesday, was quickly linked on conservative sites across the Internet, where readers poured scorn on Stein, on the newspaper and on liberals in general.

"If I ever run into the a**hole, I'm going to knock his frickin' block off," one man wrote on the Little Green Footballs (www.littlegreenfootballs.com) Web site, one of nearly 500 people who had commented on the article by mid-afternoon.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as "one of the most loathsome people in America." The Irish Pennants (www.irishpennants.com) site slammed him as "slime" but gave credit for honesty, adding:

"At least he is straightforward slime."

A Times spokesman said he could not immediately determine how many complaints the newspaper had received or if any readers had canceled subscriptions.

Stein said that, despite the fact that his e-mail address was not made public by the paper, he had received some 100 "hate e-mails" by noon.

"They're telling me to leave the country, which sounded good at first because I thought they meant a vacation. But they didn't mean a vacation," he said. The columnist said he suspected the reaction was largely fueled by the Web sites, adding: "My guess is that it will die down pretty quickly."

Stein said he had long considered the issue and that whenever a politician opposes the war but supports the troops "I just always think they are covering their ass."

Asked if he had regrets, he said: "No, because I'm against the war. (I have no regrets) if this helps us get out of that war and bring our troops home safely."



source (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24212064.htm)
damn pajamahideen at it again.

[ogukuo72]

Just when I thought that there's a leftist who would be courageously honest, Joel Stein had to buy the usual leftist crop out and used the line about "bringing OUR troops home safely".

[usm2b]

most asinine author...pretty much ever. The troops don't decide where they go, so this argument works for the president, but not the troops. Everybody can and should support their troops for the simple fact that they serve us and protect our freedoms.

just cause your unhappy cause you got a speeding ticket doesn't mean that you don't support our police officers. Sooner or later you are going to need them and if you don't, it's because they are doing their damn jobs. Same goes for our troops. So to that author, I hope you get invited to all of micheal moore's parties and feel like a hero, and what-not, but you sir are a disgrace, but when I get the chance to put on the uniform, I will still protect your right to say that... even though I might piss on you.

[Dexx]

What disgusting witch hunt. So much for the unlimited freedom of speech. It might not be limited by the laws but rather by a McCarthy style witch hunt that every spoken word that is not in line with your thoughts has to be attacked in order to be eliminated in silence. Incomparable!

[ogukuo72]

Hey, that's part of the game! Everybody has the right to express their own opinion, but don't expect to get a free pass when people don't agree with one's views. :)

[tsuri]

The Article is great. His Opinion is reasonable. Too bad many people do not read past the eye catching headline before sending hatemail.

[Karmapolice]

To Support the troops is an American way because with out are volunteer force we would be a weak nation and would be unable to enjoy our way of life. You have to look at it this way we can sit here and argue that we should of or shouldn't of invaded but that’s the past it can't be changed we need to focus on the future and not forget the past but realize we can't change it we can only prevent it from repeating. I support any person that believes in something if they truly believe it is right to them because to know thy self is the most important thing to me. I fully support the troops; I will more than likely be one soon seeing as I'm a dep for the Army Reserves.

The reasons I support the troops is because there goal isn’t to fight for the sake of fighting their goal is to achieve peace and they try mostly in a nonviolent way but sometimes it requires violence and you don’t join the army just to fight you join because of the men and women already there and to be a apart of that family and to be there to support them. Wars come and go as long as there is man there will be wars and so therefore there will always be a need for soldiers and we have to realize that they fight for their beliefs and the people they love and that is an honorable thing no matter what nation you are from. And that is the case whether or not they even agree with the war they are fighting in because regardless if they fight or not there will be others that do or others that will have to fight and no matter what the overall war is there are another million wars going on in the minds of people and with smaller groups of people inside a war.

[annihilation]

I agree with him, little yellow ribbons aren't much of a help for a soldier, they need armor, and social benefits when they come back home. Those who disagreed with the author, are you supporting under equipped troops that no one will care about when they come back?

That would be great but talk to congress and Bush about giving that to them. I agree they need better benefits during and after the fighting is done. I do think that all soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghan should be eligible to continue receiving their combat salary for 9 months to a year after returning home and being discharged back to civilian life. Allowing them a chance to transition back to normal life more easily. Those family who have love ones in combat in Iraq and Afghan should also be allowed to pay a reduced tax rate during the soldiers service. All should be provided counseling if they request free of charge also.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What disgusting witch hunt. So much for the unlimited freedom of speech. It might not be limited by the laws but rather by a McCarthy style witch hunt that every spoken word that is not in line with your thoughts has to be attacked in order to be eliminated in silence. Incomparable!

Well now the last time I looked, freedom of speech worked both ways. If you're going to express values and opinions that are seriously at odds with the community around you, you had better be ready for some freedom of speech to come back at you. That goes double when you tell your neighbors that their sons and daughters are immoral, and that you do not support them. The fact that he seems to delight in the fact that he's a rich guy and enjoying the society propped up by the troglodyte soldiers, and makes his living off something he claims to oppose only makes it more fun to dislike him.

I wonder why he would want all these immoral people, committing immoral acts "brought home safely" - presumably he would not want to be around such people. Or is he trying to pretend that military people are robots who only do immoral things while in uniform, but once they're back home, are perfectly normal folks?

Back to the war vs. the troops. That's a really interesting concept IMHO. I maintain that in our society, you must take wars and the troops as a package deal - either you support them both or oppose them both. Our wars are started and waged using our laws, our rules, and our morality as a guide.

Our military is all-volunteer, is comprised of people from our society, and functions using our laws and morality. If an individual American therefore finds one of our wars immoral, then I would submit that their personal morality is seriously at odds with our communal morality. They would likely find a majority of our people, customs, and traditions immoral as well. That's perfectly fine - we get to do that -as long as we don't break any laws. Jails happen to be full of people that we put away because they function under a unique morality.

Public outcry over Stein's article bears this out. His statements are perfectly acceptable to him - he finds no problem with his viewpoint, but it is quite evident that a great number of people in our culture find him reprehensible.

[high psi]

I'm pretty sure we havn't faced an invasion from Mexico or anyone else because we have that Army... because people sign up and defend this country. The military is defending the country by just being here.

[pathfinder82]

What disgusting witch hunt. So much for the unlimited freedom of speech. It might not be limited by the laws but rather by a McCarthy style witch hunt that every spoken word that is not in line with your thoughts has to be attacked in order to be eliminated in silence. Incomparable!

they only like freedom of speech when it applies to them, you should no that by now at least.

[LaoSexMachine]

The Article is great. His Opinion is reasonable. Too bad many people do not read past the eye catching headline before sending hatemail.

Yeah the article is a god send for the anti-war people. We see what we want to see. To not support the troops is to undermine their mission. He has a right to his opinion and so to the people that think the article is crap.


" Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me. "George Orwell

[Resevoir Hogs]

Im not opposed to the over throw of saddam as much as how we went about it. Saddam was a brutal dictator and it is good that he has been removed (I wont argue that).

But did we have to do it the way we did? Why did bush have to push us into getting into Iraq so fast? France asked for 3 more months to preform reviews. Why not give it to them? Where was saddam going? Its not like this was all new considering that Iraq had been under sanctions for 10 plus years. If it took 1 year of full on negotiations with the UN and the world (those nations we didn't pay for support) then so be it. I just didn't see the need to jump into Iraq with my eyes closed. Especially when nations like Iran and North Korea are 10 times more qualified for invasion in there current aspect. Yet Bush has decided to negotiate and allow the UN to take more time with them.

So what you are saying is you are not against the war, simply the way it was conducted. That's fine and I cannot comment on why administrations foreign to me made what decisions.

But what I don't like is these pacifists who were against the war and refuse to acknowledge that that means that they were in favour of continuing to allow Saddam Hussein to rule.

To me whether you approved of the war or disapproved of the war and therefore approved of leaving Saddam in power, both decisions result in equal human despair and suffering. But I chose the war because at least then there is the slight chance of ending a brutal dictatorship for good.

[joe mama]

What disgusting witch hunt. So much for the unlimited freedom of speech. It might not be limited by the laws but rather by a McCarthy style witch hunt that every spoken word that is not in line with your thoughts has to be attacked in order to be eliminated in silence. Incomparable!

Since when does freedom of speech mean no one can criticize him? The freedom of speech that protects his right to express his opinions also protects my right to say his opinions are idiotic.

[ABNINF]

Well, while I disagree with him personally, I have to give him some respect for taking a stand. Where I live, many people say that, "I don't agree with the war, but I support the troops." and that's total BS.

[annihilation]

So what you are saying is you are not against the war, simply the way it was conducted. That's fine and I cannot comment on why administrations foreign to me made what decisions.

But what I don't like is these pacifists who were against the war and refuse to acknowledge that that means that they were in favour of continuing to allow Saddam Hussein to rule.

To me whether you approved of the war or disapproved of the war and therefore approved of leaving Saddam in power, both decisions result in equal human despair and suffering. But I chose the war because at least then there is the slight chance of ending a brutal dictatorship for good.

I agree either situation results in human despair and suffering. But lets be honest, America is not put on this earth to provide the freedom to everyone and anyone. (We are here to provide fast food and clog arteries.) If that is the case we have another dozen countries we need to help "liberate". People are truly suffering in Africa, should we go in there also and restore order? Plus that policy hasn't been followed much in the past if at all. We are also going to find that democracy doesn't always work for our best interest. Sure we gave the people the right to vote and help get the elections going. Buy those same masses we helped, chances are they hate us and will vote a politician more inclined against the USA.

Now look at Iraq. What was the initial reason for going into Iraq. It was to fight terrorism, not to give democracy, not to topple a democracy. If saddam actually allowed the inspectors into those palaces and did everything that was requested. Do you think we would have still gone in to free the people or would we have left him in power? You can even tell in the way they planned the whole war they had no idea or interest in the aftermath on how to rebuild Iraq. Freedom and democracy only became a staple of this war till after all other arguements failed and it has been beaten to death. Its the number one arguement to defend the war even though it wasn't the number one issue for going into it.

Also not supporting the war doesn't mean supporting saddam. It means compliancy in the situation, ie they don't care if saddam is in power or not he doesn't effect them. Granted a crappy position. Personally I'm happy he is removed from power but it should have taken a more international effort. If the world wants to drag its feet so be it. I'm not going to stick my neck out because then situations like the one in Iraq come about (and our relationship around the world).

[Resevoir Hogs]

I agree either situation results in human despair and suffering. But lets be honest, America is not put on this earth to provide the freedom to everyone and anyone. (We are here to provide fast food and clog arteries.)

America or any nation is on this earth ultimately to get what it wants done. People ask what the meaning of life is, well I say it is making sure that the things you find wrong and immoral in the world are dealt with. If that means using force at times then so be it. It is sometimes hard for people to understand that this war can be justified very easily, however no war is moral, so why debate whether it is or not. Killing is never moral, however sometimes it is justified.

The supporters of the war do not have the moral side because utimately they are supporting the killing of people both innocent and guilty. However, the opponents of the war do not have the moral side either, because ultimately they are supporting the continued existance of a regime which kills in the thousands.

[sir-chimp]

they only like freedom of speech when it applies to them, you should no that by now at least.


Of course it does

[WARPIG]

How many of you "anti-war," freedom of speech, sideline warriors have bought a soldier armor? Oh, what about write your congressman about giving more benefits to the soldiers returning home? What? I can't hear you over all the complaining. The body armor arguement doesn't wash. If you listened to the soldiers that are over there you would understand that those yellow ribbons, and the patriotic signs and any other show of support is exactly what they hope to see when they get home. Yeah, we have some beef with the politics up on the hill, but the real kick in the nuts comes from these ****ed up organizations that picket our military funurals. Going to war with out body armor, not knowing why we are at war, not agreeing with going there, and losing my brothers while doing it is nothing compared to coming home to protests and the bull**** media twisting the truth and using our sacrifices to sell stories. If this asshole author doesn't want to support the troops, I really don't care. It isn't an original thought anyway, George Carlin made a joke out of the same line several years ago saying that "if soldiers didn't exist, who would fight?" So, I guess if we didn't volunteer to serve and protect our country and way of life, there would be no war? Oppression maybe, but no war. Anyway, military families don't get to choose whether their loved ones are soldiers or if they go to war. They have to sacrifice just as much and this article spits in the face of all those families with patriots serving their country.

[annihilation]

Like i said , I believe in more benefits troops fighting and there families. I have bought care packages and I think I will do it again today. Lets see what the USO has.

About people protesting at funerals. I think the only ones doing that are those freaks at the "god hates gay people" church. And those idiots deserve to be beaten to an inch of their life.

[sir-chimp]

LTC Steve Russell sent me his reply to the Times, which it may or may not print.

LTC Russell commanded Task Force 1/22nd Infantry in Iraq (bagged Saddam) and is currently Chief of Tactics at the Infantry School.

John B. Dwyer 1 25 06

Here is what LTC Russell wrote



Mr. Stein’s commentary on soldier support is remarkable because it reflects more than just his opinion. It may even express a viewpoint.

While most of Mr. Stein’s commentary is indicative of a man who has enjoyed our freedoms with none of the responsibility (by his own admission), he has at least one point of merit. He does not conceal his true conviction. When one considers those that say they support the troops but not the war, it is hard to distinguish which is more harmful to the soldier.

Mr. Stein alludes to this as trying to have it both ways and implies this is a moral cop out. He may be right. It can also be viewed as similar to telling the trash man, “Thanks.” It is seldom sincere. It is just so the trash will keep being taken away by someone willing to do it so one does not have to get his hands dirty.

Mr. Stein’s tragedy is not his clear conviction but rather that he steals freedom from his sacrificing countrymen. He sees no moral dilemma with that—which is indicative of an attitude prevalent among some self-proclaimed, high-browed, educated types that believe there is somehow a moral superiority in non-involvement. To defend his position, Mr. Stein is critical of what he calls ‘American imperialism.’ To borrow what he surely intended as a denigrating analogy, we can indeed see parallels in attitude if not government and conquest.

Rome had its internal critics. So did Greece. But when the vast majority of Romans began to view the finer points of life as morally superior to the lower points of necessity, Roman youth lost their appreciation for what held Rome together in the first place. Soon, hired or conquered levies replaced Romans in the ranks. Why should Romans fight wars that they could not see any reason for fighting? After all, what impact did they have in Rome?

Eventually, the theory of a moral superiority in non-involvement met the cold steel of non-theoretically superior sword thrusts from Vandals and Huns that replaced Romans in the Roman empire.

I take exception to Mr. Stein’s comment about soldiers ignoring their morality. And as a soldier that has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, none of those experiences ever made me feel ‘lucky.’ The noble ‘wars’ and ‘fights’ are seldom noble for the soldier. They involve pain and human suffering on a grand scale. Mr. Stein I am quite certain has never killed a man and is proud of that. I have had to kill several men in desperate, close combat while I watched my opponents facial expressions change as life ebbed out of them. I am quite certain that I am not proud of that.

But what separates him from me is certainly not education. Nor is it conviction of purpose. It is indeed morality. But of a nobler kind. No greater love has a man, than he lay down his life for his friends—even when they act and write unfriendly.

As an American, I no longer draw a distinction of who qualifies to be one or is best suited to appreciate democracy. After serving nine years overseas and on multiple continents, I do not see white or black or Hispanic or Indian or oriental or educated or simple-minded Americans. I only see Americans. Even the unfriendly kind. And when I am old, I will be able to look in the mirror and know that I acted on my convictions to preserve what others will not. Cannot. Do not. And what I will see is a man with a clear conscience and a moral sense of purpose.

I am thankful I do not have to look into Mr. Stein’s mirror.

LTC Steve Russell



source (http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4272)
. .

[Bugalugs]

man, I hope he had a box of tissues handy when he was writing that. It not a counter to the article, its just....well.....


im seeing both sides here, but articles like that dont value-add much

[ogukuo72]

I thought it was a rather good reply to the Mr Stein's article. I especially agree with this:

Mr. Stein’s tragedy is not his clear conviction but rather that he steals freedom from his sacrificing countrymen. He sees no moral dilemma with that—which is indicative of an attitude prevalent among some self-proclaimed, high-browed, educated types that believe there is somehow a moral superiority in non-involvement.

I agree with the George Orwell's quote offered by Ezerkiel:

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me. "

I thought this is a very good point. Those who oppose the war have to swallow the whole bullet. They can't do it half-half and say that they don't support the war and they don't support Saddam Hussein either.

By opposing the war, they are in practice supporting the continuation of the Baathist regime. By opposing the war now, they are in practice supporting the the abandonment of Iraq to men of violence.

[Bugalugs]

I would agree with you if the objective of the war was to despose the Ba'athist regime because it was a dictatorship.

It wasnt. It was a "by - product" of other, far less valid agendas. Its those agendas that I think the writer is attacking as immoral.

I'd possibly be quite happy to see a coalition of the willing do a "tour de force" of the world to knock off every single dictatorship one-by-one, if force was the only way to do so. But it isnt, and it wont be how we eventually bring democratic ideals to the rest of the world.

I think i made a point earlier that opposingthe invasion of Iraq (i.e. the "war") and the current situation (better described as a stability op) are two differant hings, and that is where the flaw lies in his reasoning. support them now, for Gods sake, the past is gone and we need to get the hell on with what we are doing over there....

[caridon]

I thought this is a very good point. Those who oppose the war have to swallow the whole bullet. They can't do it half-half and say that they don't support the war and they don't support Saddam Hussein either.

By opposing the war, they are in practice supporting the continuation of the Baathist regime. By opposing the war now, they are in practice supporting the the abandonment of Iraq to men of violence.

sorry but I belive you are totaly wrong here. Because if this was true then a war-proponent would be able to take the war-oponents hostage by initiating the war and then claiming that "if you dont support it you are aiding the enemy"

This reasoning would justify ANNY war. you could even use it to justify natzi germanys war against russia. because if you dont support it then you support Stalin. (yes deliberate godwin).

you can be against a war without being for the opponent. it is as simple as that.
/C

[shocker1]

Well my service to my country has been trodden under foot by alot of you folks. Using the freedom of speech line. Speech isn't free, it depends on the sacrifice of our military. It is ok to debate but the words coming from some in the anti-war crowd give aid and comfort to those who would kill our men and women over there. These enemies would also like to destroy America and if you think that can never happen you are dead wrong. So please respect those in the military no matter what your opinions are.:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

[annihilation]

Well my service to my country has been trodden under foot by alot of you folks. Using the freedom of speech line. Speech isn't free, it depends on the sacrifice of our military. It is ok to debate but the words coming from some in the anti-war crowd give aid and comfort to those who would kill our men and women over there. These enemies would also like to destroy America and if you think that can never happen you are dead wrong. So please respect those in the military no matter what your opinions are.:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

X2.......................

[Roids]

sorry but I belive you are totaly wrong here. Because if this was true then a war-proponent would be able to take the war-oponents hostage by initiating the war and then claiming that "if you dont support it you are aiding the enemy"

This reasoning would justify ANNY war. you could even use it to justify natzi germanys war against russia. because if you dont support it then you support Stalin. (yes deliberate godwin).

you can be against a war without being for the opponent. it is as simple as that.
/C

Perhaps I need to be "enlightened". I think stein is another asshat like the rest, but at least hes being honest about what the true intentions(or at least effects) of the anti-war party. I have to agree with him in that people are not being honest with their own views in fear of political ridicule.

I dont care if you are personally opposed to the war. If you feel that the war is immoral than fine. But how can one be for the troops and not support their mission? When you are against the mission than you wish it to fail and when the mission fails that means G.I. Johnny ends up in a body bag. It just doesnt make any sense.

I can see being against the war because of personal moral views (I say that getting rid of saddam is enough moral justification for me) but if you want to support the troops than you must say that " I hope that the troops secede in their effort and what they are fighting for is just(not necessarily moral folks), in hopes that they can return home as soon as possible". To do anything else is too hinder their effort and be counter-productive. To not support the war is to hurt the morale of the troops and give fuel for our enemies, much like in vietnam.

Unless im just an idiot and "support the troops" does indeed mean "I support what your doing even if I am totally against all that your fighting for and think you are part of a wasted effort".

Its either your for it or against it, no "middle ground". Pick your side.