(no subject)
Yet another Myspace blog that's got my panties in a bunch.
Why is it that everyone automatically equates protesting the war in Iraq with protesting our troops? Will (a friend of mine) asks this question in his comment, but I find her response unsatisfactory. Supporting the troops does NOT mean supporting the president, or being nice to him, or holding our tongues when we disagree with him. I'm all for discourse and dialogue of rational minds. I really don't care for anyone who goes off all half-cocked ALL the time (it is, occasionally, warranted). But these people need to get their causal relationships straight. Or something.
I understand that Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. I understand that members of the armed forces have to be all about him. But I disagree that an attack on him is tantamount to an attack on the troops. If the Duke Lacrosse teams turns out to be rapists, that doesn't make me one too. Or any other athlete at the school. In addition to being their president, just like he's ours, he's also their boss. That's it. He's not their father, he's not their third grade teacher, he's not the guy who took them aside when they were ten, sat them on his knee, and set their life "down the right path." He's just their boss. Now, I understand the concept of loyalty. When you feel loyal to someone, you take attacks against them personally. If that's what she was saying, then I'd have to grant her that. She's actually contradicting herself, saying it's okay to disagree, and be of the complete opposite opinion, while basically calling anyone who doesn't support the troops, and by extension, the president, as someone who doesn't appreciate the fact that they're fighting for our liberties. And such.
By the way, if I hear that shit one more time, I'm gonna scream. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT ABOUT OUR LIBERTIES. IT'S NOT ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OR LIBERTY. At least, not ours. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq didn't start this particular war. And I fail to see how, in any way, soldiers dying in Iraq impacts my right to say whatever the hell I want to. Or bear arms, if that were my thing. Or vote. But I digress.
What was I talking about? Loyalty. Okay. So I understand if, since he's literally got their lives in his hands (or in our blogger's case, the life of someone she loves), you want to be all buddy-buddy on his good side. You want to believe in what he's saying and doing. You want to feel good about the decisions he makes. I get it. But you don't have to support him. It's not written in stone. And I certainly don't have to either. And if you choose to take attacks against him personally, then that's your choice. What I can't understand is why people like her don't realize that protesting the war is ACTUALLY in her best interests. Because if we weren't at war, then her husband would be home, and she wouldn't have to be up nights wondering if he were alive. Simple as that. When people protest the war, they're not saying "Damn those troops for going over there!" We know they got sent. We understand they had no say in the matter. Protesters are critizing the people who did have a say. The very people who are currently putting troops' lives in danger. NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM WHEN TROOPS BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. All that blah blah about protecting our rights and freedoms? That was the time to make that argument. But that argument wasn't necessary then, because everyone recognized the attack on our freedoms and liberties, and everyone was on board. This is different. Iraq is different.
And that crap about save your mudslinging and hand out a flyer? Do something during election time? Um, hello? We did all that during election time, and we still lost. Obviously, that particular approach didn't work. Maybe screaming bloody murder for four years will, though. We'll have to wait and see.
Now, if you read her blog, you can see where she's coming from. She points out in the beginning that her "open letter" is at least in part a response to people talking shit about the troops actual personal behavior. That I have no comment on. That's a whole separate topic.
Why is it that everyone automatically equates protesting the war in Iraq with protesting our troops? Will (a friend of mine) asks this question in his comment, but I find her response unsatisfactory. Supporting the troops does NOT mean supporting the president, or being nice to him, or holding our tongues when we disagree with him. I'm all for discourse and dialogue of rational minds. I really don't care for anyone who goes off all half-cocked ALL the time (it is, occasionally, warranted). But these people need to get their causal relationships straight. Or something.
I understand that Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. I understand that members of the armed forces have to be all about him. But I disagree that an attack on him is tantamount to an attack on the troops. If the Duke Lacrosse teams turns out to be rapists, that doesn't make me one too. Or any other athlete at the school. In addition to being their president, just like he's ours, he's also their boss. That's it. He's not their father, he's not their third grade teacher, he's not the guy who took them aside when they were ten, sat them on his knee, and set their life "down the right path." He's just their boss. Now, I understand the concept of loyalty. When you feel loyal to someone, you take attacks against them personally. If that's what she was saying, then I'd have to grant her that. She's actually contradicting herself, saying it's okay to disagree, and be of the complete opposite opinion, while basically calling anyone who doesn't support the troops, and by extension, the president, as someone who doesn't appreciate the fact that they're fighting for our liberties. And such.
By the way, if I hear that shit one more time, I'm gonna scream. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT ABOUT OUR LIBERTIES. IT'S NOT ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OR LIBERTY. At least, not ours. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq didn't start this particular war. And I fail to see how, in any way, soldiers dying in Iraq impacts my right to say whatever the hell I want to. Or bear arms, if that were my thing. Or vote. But I digress.
What was I talking about? Loyalty. Okay. So I understand if, since he's literally got their lives in his hands (or in our blogger's case, the life of someone she loves), you want to be all buddy-buddy on his good side. You want to believe in what he's saying and doing. You want to feel good about the decisions he makes. I get it. But you don't have to support him. It's not written in stone. And I certainly don't have to either. And if you choose to take attacks against him personally, then that's your choice. What I can't understand is why people like her don't realize that protesting the war is ACTUALLY in her best interests. Because if we weren't at war, then her husband would be home, and she wouldn't have to be up nights wondering if he were alive. Simple as that. When people protest the war, they're not saying "Damn those troops for going over there!" We know they got sent. We understand they had no say in the matter. Protesters are critizing the people who did have a say. The very people who are currently putting troops' lives in danger. NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM WHEN TROOPS BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. All that blah blah about protecting our rights and freedoms? That was the time to make that argument. But that argument wasn't necessary then, because everyone recognized the attack on our freedoms and liberties, and everyone was on board. This is different. Iraq is different.
And that crap about save your mudslinging and hand out a flyer? Do something during election time? Um, hello? We did all that during election time, and we still lost. Obviously, that particular approach didn't work. Maybe screaming bloody murder for four years will, though. We'll have to wait and see.
Now, if you read her blog, you can see where she's coming from. She points out in the beginning that her "open letter" is at least in part a response to people talking shit about the troops actual personal behavior. That I have no comment on. That's a whole separate topic.