Letters to the Editor
-
Hoodwinked
I'm sorry, but I really don't believe you can oppose the "war" and support the troops - this is just another disingenuous, back-door way to get people to support the actions of this morally bankrupt administration. Who do you suppose came up with this master-stroke? My guess is it wasn't the Democrats.
The troops are not the issue - these are not conscripts, they're career volunteers, with all that implies.
And btw - it's not a war, it's an occupation gone badly wrong.
-
Supporting the troops
The whole "support the troops" mumbo-jumbo is a Republican creation to make it look like Democrats are weak on national defense. It is crap, just like everything else Republicans force down stupid people's throats.
-
Not so long ago
it seemed that public figures — politicians in particular — were concerned with being politically correct, that is, displaying deference to the ideals of fairness and plurality. As this article seems to imply and as the most recent Republican presidential debate so clearly illustrated, in the American public sphere political correctness has given way to martial correctness and its requisite deference to militarism.
-
To hell with the American Legion
They're a bunch of fat old guys who sit around guzzling beer and haven't done jack for anyone under the age of 55.
-
I thing this is a great idea
Better yet, let's have a memorial for troops who have not been killed yet. We should think about what we could have actually done to support the troops.
-
"support the troops" = "support the war"
"Support the troops" is as empty and meaningless as when concervative Christians spit out "Jesus." My two macaws use speech in a more cognative fashion.
"End the War" that's all you need to say.
-
Yes, you can oppose the war, and support the trops
I think it's very reasonable to oppose the war and still stupport the troops. While I imagine I disagree with most of the troops about the the war, it doesn't mean I'm wishing them ill will. I rather be wrong than have more suffering to prove my point. There's nothing disingenuous about that.
It's like having a disagreement with a friend, you can disagree with them a still support them as person. Especially with troops, they are but cogs in the machine. They have to go where the Government tells them to go given the chain of command.
-
Sorry Joe
I don't agree with your criticism of Edwards. I have ALWAYS found that Memorial Day glorifies War first, while indulging only a small portion of the day in honoring the troops' "sacrifice." The Sacrifice referred to euphemistically covers up the death and maiming of our troops for the misguided militarism in the Vietnam era continuing to Iraq II, as well as a selective memory of the horrors of the so-called "Great War."
Memorial Day is precisely the right day to demonstrate our love for our sons and daughters and protest the illegal war of choice that is taking them away from their legitimate service to this country.
-
The only people that this will offend
are those weak in the head and unable to reason for themselves. Unfortunately for all of us, that seems to be a majority of Americans.
As an example of the inability to reason, consider that the people that claim to 'support the troops' are the ones that want to continue seeing them shot at, bombed, mortared, blasted with rpg's and generally assaulted and killed in every way possible.
On the other hand, those that want to bring them home to be safe, to be able to support and raise their families in their own country, those people are the ones characterized as hating the troops.
Go figure.
-
Cowering in a corner is a worse idea
Protests that may eventually drive home the idea that the American public is currently in favor of ending the war are good - better to protest now than to honor more fallen soldiers in the years to come. I agree with a previous poster about the glorification of militarism - even though some (but by no means all) of the fallen soldiers thought they were helping Iraq, that doesn't make their deaths more desirable. Soldiers dying in a poorly planned war/occupation with no end in sight represent a tragic sight and any reasonable means of ending this useless series of deaths are OK by me.
We have no plan in Iraq, no political leverage, no idea how to quell the civil war and stop the ethnic cleansing. Iraq's middle class has been obliterated and a new middle class cannot form in the middle of a sectarian war. We need to pull back, sit down with people we don't like from Iran and Syria and identify some common interests that may persuade them to help Iraq settle down. The time of overgrown frat boys in the administration is over - let them take their toys and go home, bring in the seasoned diplomats and let's pray for a minor miracle that may take years to happen. Oh, and bring our troops home, they're dying needlessly at this point.
-
Oh please
Joe, are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't protest on Memorial Day because it isn't polite?? In case you haven't noticed, this entire WAR isn't polite. War is filthy, nasty and obscene - what makes you think being polite about protesting is going to do a damn thing to make it stop?
And Memorial Day being "sacred"? Oh, give me a break. Armistice Day was sacred. Memorial Day (weekend - nobody celebrates the holiday anymore) is, for the vast majority of people, the first three-day weekend of the summer, and the weekend when the first big summer blockbusters hit the theaters. Most people have no idea what it is that's being memorialized, even.
If you want to keep Memorial Day "sacred" (a holiday which started as an extremely solemn commemoration of those who died in World War I), I can think of no better activity than holding protests against yet another orgy of carnage. It's the best possible memorial to those who've died: a day of American voters shouting unequivocally, "We don't want any more death in war!"
-
Support the troops
Actually, supporting the troops shouldn't even be something you have to say, it's pretty much a given. I have a friend at work that was a Bush voter, she hates him now, better late than never, I guess. But she said she was against the war, but supported the troops, I told her she didn't need to qualify that, it's like saying you're against cancer, or your for rainbows, of course you support the troops. Of course, the republicans had no problem understanding this concept when Clinton was president, now they pretend that such a thing is impossible.