Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'll just leave this here and see what happens.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/09/you_don ... democracy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This guy took one step with most reasonable people in the debate. The problem is that he took 3 or 4 steps beyond that and found himself on the other side of the debate.

I actually agree with him, to a point - not every person who dons a uniform is a hero. However, it's guy's like this, who in the '70's found it cool and intellectual to bombard returning vets from Vietnam with chants of "baby-killer" and other wonderfully pleasant diatribes, because he felt he was right and by any and all means he was going to make people known he was right, that so horrified normal people that we have gone almost completely the other way and now probably over-compensate like the guy said in the article with this idea that everyone who serves is due some level of hero worship. (wow, that was really a run-on sentence if I've ever written one).

But geez, that guy really has some anger issues - he could post on this site with that kind of drama.

An uber Liberal author on a Liberal website. He knows his audience... Cat, DB1 and houndawg are pulling a Kalm/Taibbi in the bathroom right now.

GannonFan wrote:I actually agree with him, to a point - not every person who dons a uniform is a hero. However, it's guy's like this, who in the '70's found it cool and intellectual to bombard returning vets from Vietnam with chants of "baby-killer" and other wonderfully pleasant diatribes, because he felt he was right and by any and all means he was going to make people known he was right, that so horrified normal people that we have gone almost completely the other way and now probably over-compensate like the guy said in the article with this idea that everyone who serves is due some level of hero worship. (wow, that was really a run-on sentence if I've ever written one).

But geez, that guy really has some anger issues - he could post on this site with that kind of drama.

I don't entirely disagree with him, either. I'm not a person that thinks every war we get into is a comic book battle of good versus evil. Anybody who puts their life on the line to do the bidding of military leaders who are supposed to look out for the interests and security of America should be praised, though.

I also wonder about his allusion to WWII, as if a war where we sided with a butcher like Stalin is somehow different because the people that ran the Axis powers were bad. We usually are butting heads with bad governments.

BTW, Along that line of reasoning I think you could make a good case for involvement in Korea. Just think that North and South Korea were not much different in terms of standard of living 60 years ago and now look at those two countries.

89Hen wrote: An uber Liberal author on a Liberal website. He knows his audience... Cat, DB1 and houndawg are pulling a Kalm/Taibbi in the bathroom right now.

Classic O.D.D. nonsense.

Blind Patriotism is a mind closing exercise...
(Also) Everything he said in this article can be said in one paragraph
And I completely agree with the premise of his observation


We don't fight wars for freedom
We fight for Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo American Rare Earth Mining Corp.
Which are two Global companies most Americans have never heard of

Chizzang wrote:We don't fight wars for freedom
We fight for Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo American Rare Earth Mining Corp.
Which are two Global companies most Americans have never heard of

Where were the riches in Vietnam?

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We don't fight wars for freedom
We fight for Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo American Rare Earth Mining Corp.
Which are two Global companies most Americans have never heard of

Where were the riches in Vietnam?

In the second and third homes of defense contractor execs.

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We don't fight wars for freedom
We fight for Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo American Rare Earth Mining Corp.
Which are two Global companies most Americans have never heard of

Where were the riches in Vietnam?

Are you going to argue it was a war for Democracy
Even after Eisenhower already admitted it was NOT

Also: Winners List
Check with Atlantic Richfield / British Gas and Mobil Corp...
The Department of Defense Pentagon and Military industrial complex

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: Where were the riches in Vietnam?

Are you going to argue it was a war for Democracy
Even after Eisenhower already admitted it was NOT

Also: Winners List
Check with Atlantic Richfield / British Gas and Mobil Corp...
The Department of Defense Pentagon and Military industrial complex

It could also have been one of the many mistakes countries make when they are fighting a different kind of ware that last for 40+ years. Doesn't make it better or different, just one of those things we have to watch for. We struggle with the same thing now.

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: Where were the riches in Vietnam?

Are you going to argue it was a war for Democracy
Even after Eisenhower already admitted it was NOT

Eisenhower's stance was that Communists would have won a democratic election at that time because the Vietnamese people didn't know anything but Communism. But that still doesn't answer where the riches were.

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We don't fight wars for freedom
We fight for Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo American Rare Earth Mining Corp.
Which are two Global companies most Americans have never heard of

Where were the riches in Vietnam?

On Michelin's rubber plantations.

"No American freedom is currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. The last time the U.S. military deployed to fight for the protection of American life was in World War II – an inconvenient fact that reduces clichés about “thanking a soldier” for free speech to rubble. If a soldier deserves gratitude, so does the litigator who argued key First Amendment cases in court, the legislators who voted for the protection of free speech, and thousands of external agitators who rallied for more speech rights, less censorship and broader access to media."

Frankly, I stopped reading at, "white."

But, for some odd reason, when skimming to find the end of this cesspool, I found the above bit of truth.

CitadelGrad wrote:

89Hen wrote: Where were the riches in Vietnam?

On Michelin's rubber plantations.

Beat me to it.

There are accounts of soldiers being ordered to NOT return fire they were receiving from the Michelin plantations. Higher ups didn't want to hurt the rubber trees. Can't have good trees being cut down...so we simply ordered our troops to avoid the area...and we conveniently didn't carpet bomb profitable assets...even if they were infested with the enemy.

Plenty of money exchanged hands in Vietnam...on a huge scale.

Cluck U wrote:"No American freedom is currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. The last time the U.S. military deployed to fight for the protection of American life was in World War II – an inconvenient fact that reduces clichés about “thanking a soldier” for free speech to rubble. If a soldier deserves gratitude, so does the litigator who argued key First Amendment cases in court, the legislators who voted for the protection of free speech, and thousands of external agitators who rallied for more speech rights, less censorship and broader access to media."

Frankly, I stopped reading at, "white."

But, for some odd reason, when skimming to find the end of this cesspool, I found the above bit of truth.

Agreed,
Its over the top - but also true - and a painful truth at that...



I've expressed this truth here many times and get called a HATER and COMMUNIST
Which I must admit I enjoy

My dad was in the Military for 22 years
and was a doctor in Vietnam
and he has expressed this same truth many times

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:"No American freedom is currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. The last time the U.S. military deployed to fight for the protection of American life was in World War II – an inconvenient fact that reduces clichés about “thanking a soldier” for free speech to rubble. If a soldier deserves gratitude, so does the litigator who argued key First Amendment cases in court, the legislators who voted for the protection of free speech, and thousands of external agitators who rallied for more speech rights, less censorship and broader access to media."

Frankly, I stopped reading at, "white."

But, for some odd reason, when skimming to find the end of this cesspool, I found the above bit of truth.

Agreed,
Its over the top - but also true - and a painful truth at that...



I've expressed this truth here many times and get called a HATER and COMMUNIST
Which I must admit I enjoy

My dad was in the Military for 22 years
and was a doctor in Vietnam
and he has expressed this same truth many times

HATER

COMMUNIST

I served a long time...I am not a hero...

But we have(wrongfully in my opinion) mixed the politics behind a war/conflict with the heroic actions of those ordered to fight said war/conflict...

The Salon piece takes some nuggets of truth...over spices them with liberal/progressive positions aimed at the target audience and comes out with piece of crap...

IMHO, this is a worse hit piece on LEOs than it is on the military...

Masciotra overstates his case. There should be an attitude of respect for the common soldier, not hero worship. Thanking a young army private for his/her service is no more than that: respect. Discouraging everyone from entering the military is counterproductive, because (as even libertarians admit) we need armed forces for national defense. If you oppose US foreign policy, that's a political point to be made politically. So are matters of military strategy, to some extent. Demonizing the armed forces is no solution. All in all, a pretty cynical piece of work.

Ivytalk wrote:Masciotra overstates his case. There should be an attitude of respect for the common soldier, not hero worship. Thanking a young army private for his/her service is no more than that: respect. Discouraging everyone from entering the military is counterproductive, because (as even libertarians admit) we need armed forces for national defense. If you oppose US foreign policy, that's a political point to be made politically. So are matters of military strategy, to some extent. Demonizing the armed forces is no solution. All in all, a pretty cynical piece of work.

I agree. Happy medium between hero worship and outright disdain.

Cluck U wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
On Michelin's rubber plantations.

Beat me to it.

There are accounts of soldiers being ordered to NOT return fire they were receiving from the Michelin plantations. Higher ups didn't want to hurt the rubber trees. Can't have good trees being cut down...so we simply ordered our troops to avoid the area...and we conveniently didn't carpet bomb profitable assets...even if they were infested with the enemy.

Plenty of money exchanged hands in Vietnam...on a huge scale.

Why would the US be concerned with a French tire company. Hell, it being French would be all the more reason to mow down those rubber trees..

Ivytalk wrote:Masciotra overstates his case. There should be an attitude of respect for the common soldier, not hero worship. Thanking a young army private for his/her service is no more than that: respect. Discouraging everyone from entering the military is counterproductive, because (as even libertarians admit) we need armed forces for national defense. If you oppose US foreign policy, that's a political point to be made politically. So are matters of military strategy, to some extent. Demonizing the armed forces is no solution. All in all, a pretty cynical piece of work.

Agree - Respect for the enlisted, but no need to lionize every single soldier, etc.

I am certainly not going to read his whole article, he lost me pretty early. He doesn't get it and never will and I am OK with that. He doesn't have to thank our Veterans and they didn't serve for anything close to that reason. This guy can't seem to separate politics, police and war. I really don't know why it is such a tough concept for this guy to say, thanks for doing what your country sent you to do while completely disagreeing with sending them. Dont like it, elect different leaders, it really is a simple concept.

I am around a lot of veterans and very few think they are heroes so I am not sure where he even comes up with his concept. We have a WWII vet in my post that did 45 combat bombing runs over Nazi Germany in a B17 and you won't hear him asking for anything resembling wanting to be called a hero. He still goes and plays the bugle at funerals when he is feeling well enough.

Some people just won't ever understand and that is OK. You do it for the man next to you, you do it for the future generations, you do it because you owe something back for the freedom you have. He has the right to be a dumbass and not get it.

Points to Col H, Ivy, and GFSIU. All terrific posts.

I'd offer something to the post but I'm really tired from the four free Veterans Day meals I ate today. I need to go get a free coffee. I'll walk into Starbucks and tell the barista to hook a hero up!

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I am certainly not going to read his whole article, he lost me pretty early. He doesn't get it and never will and I am OK with that. He doesn't have to thank our Veterans and they didn't serve for anything close to that reason. This guy can't seem to separate politics, police and war. I really don't know why it is such a tough concept for this guy to say, thanks for doing what your country sent you to do while completely disagreeing with sending them. Dont like it, elect different leaders, it really is a simple concept.

I am around a lot of veterans and very few think they are heroes so I am not sure where he even comes up with his concept. We have a WWII vet in my post that did 45 combat bombing runs over Nazi Germany in a B17 and you won't hear him asking for anything resembling wanting to be called a hero. He still goes and plays the bugle at funerals when he is feeling well enough.

Some people just won't ever understand and that is OK. You do it for the man next to you, you do it for the future generations, you do it because you owe something back for the freedom you have. He has the right to be a dumbass and not get it.

And I agree with your point - only an idiot is angry at the soldier
But I think maybe YOU don't get it

He's writing it at people who continue to believe we're the honorable defenders of the enslaved around the world or that America is fighting for its own freedom...

"No American freedom is currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people"