Posts
September 11th
At a place where soldiers are encouraged to come and relax, I figured it was only fitting to pause to remember this terrible day that occurred six years ago. I'm sure we will all remember where we were, and what we were doing, when we first heard or saw these events unfold.
What happened to all the "patriotism" we saw from actors, musicians, politicians, etc... a few years back.
It seems more in style these days to heckle four star generals who have dedicated their lives and careers to serving our country. How appropriate Cindy.
'08 will be an interesting year.
8 comments:
I think the patriotism would be more intense if Iraq wasn't being torn apart by sectarian violence as a result of the war we are waging there. Don't forget Afghanistan either. This is no reason, however, not to display legitimate sentiments of patriotism, or morn the loss of those who died on September 11th, just an explanation for why there may not be as much flag waving these days.
Who is Cynthia?
...or Cindy.
Sheehan
"torn apart...as a result of the war we are waging there."?!
Is this to say that Iraq used to be a land of peace, happiness, and prosperity and now, because of the the mean Americans, they're being torn apart by violence? Pull your skirt up and quit acting like America is the destroying force behind an otherwise peachy place.
I'm not suggesting that our country is totally without flaw, but it's statements like yours that fuel the anti-America fire.
Uh, I think I'll go to a different conversation. Sounds like you two need to work a couple of things out.
I knew a Cindy once. Nice!!!
"Is this to say that Iraq used to be a land of peace, happiness, and prosperity and now, because of the the mean Americans, they're being torn apart by violence?"
Nothing of the sort. Under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein Iraq was not torn apart by sectarian violence; now it is. Iraq is hardly more peaceful under the weak Maliki government that our intelligence community tells us is influenced by Iran. You can't have a peaceful society when you don't even have a rule of law.
The coalition forces are not the driving force behind the sectarian violence but they did rip the lid off age old sectarian divides among the Iraqi people that Saddam kept under control.
How is stating that people may not be as enthusiastically patriotic because they believe Iraq is not going well for our military - or for the Iraqi people - fueling "anti-American fire?" Even our own President acknowledges things are not going well in Iraq. Is he fueling anti-American fire?
...or are you just baiting me?
Hook, line, and sinker...
I guess if you consider "peaceful" and "beat into submission" as one in the same, then you're correct. However, I hardly consider Hussein's rule as lawful, but I won't speak for his subjects - that would be forcing my silly American Christian ways upon them. (yes, American and Christian can still go in the same sentence) I know, I know...I should be more sensitive of their culture, what's right for me is not necessarily right for them...wait, I think I might be starting a whole other debate.
As for fueling the fire, there's nothing the matter with saying something's not going well, in fact, when war is the topic, over-enthusiasm should be curbed all together. But that's a far cry from all the condescending, arm-chair quarterback, make peace not war, fancy pant, hippy comments like "torn apart" and "ripping the lid off" that have such a negative connotation to them and becoming so boring.
I liken it to the "goth" teenagers that say they want to be "unique" or "left alone" or "anti-hip". I say bull-crap. They're justing trying to fit in by standing out. Pretty soon the "unique" kids are just run of the mill...and boring.
This is much better than YouTube.
I did not use the word peaceful to describe pre-invasion Iraq, so I don't know why that keeps being attributed to me.
Rule of law and lawful are two different things. One rules with the rule of law, while one behaves lawfully. The first is a manner in which one rules and the second describes how one obeys those rules or laws. Judging whether Saddam behaved lawfully has nothing to do with American and/or Christian values being forced on anyone. All you have to do is look at the record to see whether he subjected himself to the law, which he did not.
Saddam ruled by rule of law but himself behaved unlawfully.
All week I've been sitting through an Army Symposium in which speakers have readily described the current situation in Iraq with what you describe as "fancy pant" "hippy" "condescending" language. I wouldn't be so bold has to call Generals in the U.S. Army "arm chair quarterbacks" or "hippies."
Sarge, I wonder if you're upset about something other than how people describe the current situation now called the "The Long War." If you feel my language and the language of others on here is too pretentious, and nothing more than the outgrowth of pretend alienation that's one thing - but judging from your comments you have absolutely no idea what my position on Iraq is. I think you'll find it very different that what you assume.
I agree. This is much better than Youtube. Keep firing away.
Thanks for the definitions...
I simply think that the catch phrases with negative connations leave a poor impression, implied or not, on those who are exposed to them - that's my beef. I guess it's similar to Del Tackett's approach to educating the masses on "Truth".
I wouldn't fathom of summing up one's true and complete position on anything based on a few off-the-cuff remarks, nor do I really care to. However, you must also remember that perceived, or assumed, reality has a funny way of quickly becoming just plain "reality".
All that aside though, without the pretentious, or even ostentatious, comments, this too would be boring.
Post a Comment