Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Are "Liberals" Pro-Veteran?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone here watch the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC recently? (And those crusty conservatives who are inclined to sneer at the very suggestion of tuning in Rachel Maddow can feel free to refrain from replying merely to register their contempt for her) Well, of late Ms. Maddow has been on a curious Let's throw a ticker tape parade in every town and metropolis across the country to honor Iraqi War veterans kick. Why, pray tell, has she chosen to become such a staunch advocate of heaping honor and hoopla upon the participants in an exceedingly dishonorable and monetarily-motivated bit of American militarism? Mm-hmm, why does she keep doing segments in which she somewhat emotively engages in singing the praises of the men and women in uniform who've been a party to the morally criminal occupation of Iraq, and in sticking it to politicians who for whatever reasons haven't been enthusiastically in favor of a public celebration of their non-service to the country?

Well, one possible reason for Ms. Maddow's bizarre boosterism of military veterans could simply be that she sincerely believes that they've somehow earned our patriotic gratitude. But this isn't really a very deep or satisfying explanation, as it only raises the troubling question of how anyone could possibly believe that "the troops" have served their country or defended the democratic way of life by militarily subjecting the innocent people of Iraq to American hegemony. So then, what other conceivable explanation might lie beneath Ms. Maddow's choice to patriotically embrace the cause of welcoming veterans back home with ceremony and confetti?

You can accuse me of being harsh if you like, but could it possibly be that Ms. Maddow and others on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum are taking a conventional pro-veteran line because they, because so-called "liberals", aren't as progressively enlightened as they're popularly portrayed to be? That is, doesn't the readiness of "liberals" to jump aboard the in-vogue middle-class bandwagon of "supporting the troops" egregiously point up the fact that they, our dear conformist "liberals", aren't at all the critical-minded, dissident leftists they're supposed to be?

Say what? Yes, I know, in our society we're wont to identify and equate "liberals" and "leftists". These two terms are often used as if they are completely interchangeable synonyms. But they most certainly are not. A "liberal", in the modern and American sense of the word is merely someone who is moderately critical of the inherent injustices of our capitalist status quo. He/she is in favor of reforms and regulatory measures that strike "conservatives" as radical, but that in fact are relatively moderate and leave the fundamental capitalist power structure entirely intact and unthreatened.

"Liberals" also advocate social programs to aid the worst victims of the capitalist status quo, i.e. those living below the poverty line, the unemployed, the homeless, et al. "Liberals" are certainly to be commended for this, for having their hearts in the right place vis-à-vis the need to reduce the cruelty of capitalism. But, alas, the "liberal's" head is not in the righteously critical place of recognizing our socioeconomic system to be the endemically and irremediably inequitable, unfair, corrupt, and anti-humanistic system that it is. The "liberal" fails to appreciate the depth of capitalism's moral and spiritual rottenness, because he/she simply isn't that radically inclined.

Actually, both "liberalism" and "conservatism" are variations on the same theme then, they're both intellectually bourgeois belief structures, conventional cognitive systems that start from the un- or insufficiently questioned premise that our form of society is, despite its flaws and need for reform, fundamentally good. Which is to say that both "liberalism" and "conservatism" are versions of our society's dominant ideology – i.e. the received wisdom and secular mythology of our society that serves the function of justifying its faults and evils, of pacifying our consciences and quelling dissent. Our dominant American ideology, for instance, tells us that the good ole USA is a land of opportunity and that the poor are poor because they lack the ambition and initiative to take advantage of their ample opportunities to prosper. Thus millions of people living in chronic poverty is not viewed as a black mark against American capitalism, the onus of the pauperism generated by capitalism is placed on the victims. Or, upon individual capitalist bad guys in the headlines, but never on the fundamental nature of the "free enterprise" system itself.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" buy into this self-justifying civil religion of Americanism equally, simply with different emphases. A "liberal" of course focuses responsibility for mass poverty on specific corporate villains and the lack of government regulation to rein them in; and the "conservative" predictably assigns all blame for mass poverty to the shiftless masses themselves! But either way capitalism is let off the hook. Yep, it somewhat paradoxically turns out that both "liberalism" and "conservatism" are indeed forms of the same dominant ideology; "liberalism" is, you might say, a soft and fuzzy form, and "conservatism" a flinty hard form. And both effectively protect the system and its power structure from criticism of too trenchant a nature.

This is certainly the case when it comes to this nation's neocolonial policies and open military aggressions against the Third World. The ego-boosting American dominant ideology tells us that this is a noble land of freedom loving people that only attacks weaker countries with valuable resources for perfectly altruistic and lofty reasons. For instance, Iraq was invaded and occupied not because of modern industrial capitalism's addiction to oil, and not so that certain profiteering companies could practice the shock doctrine to their greedy heart's content, but to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny, never mind that Saddam's tyranny never much bothered several administrations until he crossed the line by invading Kuwait's oil fields.

Nope, according to its casuistical dominant ideology America's wars are never manifestations of outright and unmitigated evil, at worst they're mere quagmires and good intentions gone awry. And the military personnel who take part in them, well, they're all good guys (and gals) of course, boy scouts with guns and bombs, and we mustn't ever be ungratefully critical of them. Heck, no matter how immoral the wars they fight in we should throw them parades! Right, Rachel Maddow?!

Yes, a "liberal" such as Ms. Maddow is hardly the sort of outside-the-box critic of power who will ever recognize America's bad wars as truly evil, and who will expect those in the armed forces to refuse to be windup toy soldiers who kill for the likes of General Dynamics and Bechtel. Sure "liberals" of the Rachel Maddow variety realize that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that "the troops" didn't actually protect us one little bit from terrorism by occupying the land of Iraq, but the dominant ideology is so profoundly ingrained in them that they still see fit to advocate welcoming Iraq War vets back with festive fanfare, rather than promoting a national campaign of conscience for truth & reconciliation to help us all honestly come to terms with the reality of the military's sins against humanity.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conclusion

No doubt Ms. Maddow and those of her milquetoasty "liberal" ilk will not see the error of their adherence to the dominant ideology any time soon and will continue to rationalize fawning over "the troops". Yes, the rank and file of the military are mere pawns of the plutocratic powers that be, cogs in the grand corporate-government-military gestalt of globalized capitalism, but even the lowliest private possesses the free will and rudimentary moral intelligence to be held to some degree of accountability for his/her complicity in the mass murder for money that most of this country's wars have amounted to. For "liberals" to gloss over this, and for them to overcompensate for the stereotypical notion that they aren't patriotic, and to atone for the behavior of Vietnam-era anti-war protestors who denounced returning "servicemen" as baby killers by becoming fervent proponents of parades for those who have "served" in Iraq, well, is downright disgraceful. Authentic leftists, such as yours truly, who certainly do not approve of honoring veterans of evil capitalist wars, would like to make it very clear indeed that once again leftists should not be loosely lumped together with "liberals".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:44:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
why does she keep doing segments in which she somewhat emotively engages in singing the praises of the men and women in uniform who've been a party to the morally criminal occupation of Iraq, and in sticking it to politicians who for whatever reasons haven't been enthusiastically in favor of a public celebration of their non-service to the country?:

Liberals learned that spitting on troops that came home from Vietnam is dangerously counterproductive. The new liberal has learned that one may be able to not support a war while still honoring the troops.

Well, one possible reason for Ms. Maddow's bizarre boosterism of military veterans could simply be that she sincerely believes that they've somehow earned our patriotic gratitude. But this isn't really a very deep or satisfying explanation, as it only raises the troubling question of how anyone could possibly believe that "the troops" have served their country or defended the democratic way of life by militarily subjecting the innocent people of Iraq to American hegemony.:

I'm sorry but not all of the troops are pricks who join to murder innocent people. Those that do deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Case-by-case basis.

You can accuse me of being harsh if you like, but could it possibly be that Ms. Maddow and others on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum are taking a conventional pro-veteran line because they, because so-called "liberals", aren't as progressively enlightened as they're popularly portrayed to be? That is, doesn't the readiness of "liberals" to jump aboard the in-vogue middle-class bandwagon of "supporting the troops" egregiously point up the fact that they, our dear conformist "liberals", aren't at all the critical-minded, dissident leftists they're supposed to be?:

Not all leftists have to be hysterical moonbats in order to be liberal. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you're simply on the fringe left when it comes to areas such as this?

Actually, both "liberalism" and "conservatism" are variations on the same theme:

I'll buy that. I've often thought they present false dichotomies, as if they weren't as interconnected as they really are.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:53:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So because she honors veterans, she's not considered left?

And what's your problems with vets again? Have you ever considered that maybe some people fight in wars, not because of a loyalty to their country, but they fight because they can not allow men like Hitler to do what they want? Tell me, should America have allowed the Germans to kill as many Jews as they wished? Should we have allowed the attack on the world trade center pass without retaliation. You have to understand, not everyone is a coward like you. Some men and women are willing to do more than sit on their fat @sses, and type away on the internet. That's why we should honor veterans. Because they aren't you.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:20:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Veterans are respected because they are willing to give their lives based solely on the determination of their superior which, in theory, directly translates to state interests.

Soldiers have little if any control over where they end up.

Some of these soldiers commit war crimes and should be condemned. However, the majority follow orders given to them.

It's like blaming a customer service representative because the CEO of the company decided to have a no refund policy.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:53:47 PM, MarquisX wrote:
So because she honors veterans, she's not considered left?:

Yeah, exactly. Because she isn't completely radicalized she must not be a "true" lefty. Apparently you have to be as bat sh*t leftist as Charles is in order to qualify.

And what's your problems with vets again?:

He assumes that all veterans (myself included) are blood-thirsty monsters. He then strawmans the hell out of it by pointing to the fact that they're all off fighting rich, white men's wars... even if that's the case, and I tend to agree that politicians use them to achieve their own ends, does that somehow negate THEIR genuine motivations? We're the men who joined the war effort after Pearl Harbor just blood-thirsty bastards or did they feel an honorable obligation to protect their neighbor?

It's an instance where he has no compunction in deriding the American military and the CIA for its involvement in a pseudo-war with Che Guevara, but I'm willing to bet that Che and his military is curiously left off the list.

People like Charles like to sit in ivory towers and wag their finger at others from the safety and security of their home at people who are in some third world sh*t hole risking life and limb. Whether the troops are horribly misguided or not is irrelevant to the point that they genuinely, to the best of their ability, are willing to sacrifice their lives for his.

But you know what, Charlie? It's not the critic who counts...

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
MarquisX and Wnope summed up my feelings on this, and you, better than I could have.

Go move to Somalia, and then tell me our troops are horrible.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:42:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He assumes that all veterans (myself included)

Your a veteran?

*respect levels increased*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:47:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:20:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Veterans are respected because they are willing to give their lives based solely on the determination of their superior which, in theory, directly translates to state interests.

Soldiers have little if any control over where they end up.

Some of these soldiers commit war crimes and should be condemned. However, the majority follow orders given to them.

It's like blaming a customer service representative because the CEO of the company decided to have a no refund policy.

So, dear Wnope, you essentially portray military personnel as flesh & blood robots with no ethical responsibility whatsoever for their participation in evil wars! At least I view the "boys" and girls in uniform as conscience-possessing human beings, and therefore hold them to a degree of moral accountability for exercising their free will by choosing to be complicit in a manifestly merecenary action such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq and all the military mass murder entailed.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:15:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:01:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
Why, pray tell, has she chosen to become such a staunch advocate of heaping honor and hoopla upon the participants in an exceedingly dishonorable and monetarily-motivated bit of American militarism? Mm-hmm, why does she keep doing segments in which she somewhat emotively engages in singing the praises of the men and women in uniform who've been a party to the morally criminal occupation of Iraq, and in sticking it to politicians who for whatever reasons haven't been enthusiastically in favor of a public celebration of their non-service to the country?

B/c people hate you and she doesn't want to be associated with you.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, dear Wnope, you essentially portray military personnel as flesh & blood robots with no ethical responsibility whatsoever for their participation in evil wars! At least I view the "boys" and girls in uniform as conscience-possessing human beings, and therefore hold them to a degree of moral accountability for exercising their free will by choosing to be complicit in a manifestly merecenary action such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq and all the military mass murder entailed.:

You really shouldn't speak on things you have absolutely no clue about. You obviously live in a fantasy world about what the military is like. You're no better than the uber-conservative who filters out all negative aspects of military life to paint this glorious picture. You're the opposite extreme, where you filter out anything that might be positive to conform to a worldview you've created in your mind.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:15:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2012 9:01:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
Why, pray tell, has she chosen to become such a staunch advocate of heaping honor and hoopla upon the participants in an exceedingly dishonorable and monetarily-motivated bit of American militarism? Mm-hmm, why does she keep doing segments in which she somewhat emotively engages in singing the praises of the men and women in uniform who've been a party to the morally criminal occupation of Iraq, and in sticking it to politicians who for whatever reasons haven't been enthusiastically in favor of a public celebration of their non-service to the country?

B/c people hate you and she doesn't want to be associated with you.

Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:56:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.

AT ALL.

Meaning, NOBODY. INCLUDING FROM YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:01:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:57:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
So, dear Wnope, you essentially portray military personnel as flesh & blood robots with no ethical responsibility whatsoever for their participation in evil wars! At least I view the "boys" and girls in uniform as conscience-possessing human beings, and therefore hold them to a degree of moral accountability for exercising their free will by choosing to be complicit in a manifestly merecenary action such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq and all the military mass murder entailed.:

You really shouldn't speak on things you have absolutely no clue about. You obviously live in a fantasy world about what the military is like. You're no better than the uber-conservative who filters out all negative aspects of military life to paint this glorious picture. You're the opposite extreme, where you filter out anything that might be positive to conform to a worldview you've created in your mind.

It was actually Wnope who demeaningly characterizes military personnel as downright Nurembergian automatons who shouldn't be morally faulted for their participation in unjust wars because they're only capable of "following orders" ("befehl ist befehl", and all that jazz).
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:03:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.

Not exactly, PL. I certainly consider Charles a friend and a quality member of DDO...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I reject war outright and thoroughly; however, if we are AT war, I would only ne retarded to reject those protecting me. Two different things.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:08:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:03:09 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.

Not exactly, PL. I certainly consider Charles a friend and a quality member of DDO...

I like Charlie. He and I are like this *twists index around middle finger*. He's the index finger, because I am quite tall.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:21:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:08:20 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/12/2012 6:03:09 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.

Not exactly, PL. I certainly consider Charles a friend and a quality member of DDO...

I like Charlie. He and I are like this *twists index around middle finger*. He's the index finger, because I am quite tall.

Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:03:09 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 2/12/2012 5:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.:

Pay attention... nobody likes you on DDO. Literally, no one.

Not exactly, PL. I certainly consider Charles a friend and a quality member of DDO...

Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:52:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:08:08 PM, Ren wrote:
I reject war outright and thoroughly; however, if we are AT war, I would only ne retarded to reject those protecting me. Two different things.

But one of the fundamental points of my post is that we the people and our ostensively democratic way of life are most certainly not being protected or served 99.99999999999999999% of the time when this country's military engages in aggression against a Third World nation. For instance, in the Philippine-American War did "the troops" actually protect John & Jane Q. Public in Minneapolis by slaughtering Filipino freedom fighters in Manila? Likewise, when this country's military waged the Banana Wars to make Central America safe for U.S. corporate interests what were "our boys" in uniform protecting the American public from?! The same question can be asked right down the line about most of the conflicts in this warlike country's history. So, seriously, how can one fall back on the historically rubbishy line that "I support the troops because they are our heroic protectors and it would be foolish not to show gratitude to those who defend us against all the foreign bogeymen out there"? It's the U.S. and its military that's the international bogeyman, and if the day ever comes that the American armed forces are used in a major way against the American citizenry, well, perhaps then you'll belatedly recognize this grievous reality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 5:46:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:15:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2012 9:01:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
Why, pray tell, has she chosen to become such a staunch advocate of heaping honor and hoopla upon the participants in an exceedingly dishonorable and monetarily-motivated bit of American militarism? Mm-hmm, why does she keep doing segments in which she somewhat emotively engages in singing the praises of the men and women in uniform who've been a party to the morally criminal occupation of Iraq, and in sticking it to politicians who for whatever reasons haven't been enthusiastically in favor of a public celebration of their non-service to the country?

B/c people hate you and she doesn't want to be associated with you.

Well, rightist libertarians hate me, but, well, I suppose that means that I'm doing something right.

no, no, no... Maddow's not concerned about rightist libertarians hating you..

By They I mean everyone.. and by You I mean people who hate the military.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:01:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:52:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the U.S. and its military that's the international bogeyman, and if the day ever comes that the American armed forces are used in a major way against the American citizenry, well, perhaps then you'll belatedly recognize this grievous reality.

You and ron paul should join up and give talks about this.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:52:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2012 6:08:08 PM, Ren wrote:
I reject war outright and thoroughly; however, if we are AT war, I would only ne retarded to reject those protecting me. Two different things.

But one of the fundamental points of my post is that we the people and our ostensively democratic way of life are most certainly not being protected or served 99.99999999999999999% of the time when this country's military engages in aggression against a Third World nation. For instance, in the Philippine-American War did "the troops" actually protect John & Jane Q. Public in Minneapolis by slaughtering Filipino freedom fighters in Manila? Likewise, when this country's military waged the Banana Wars to make Central America safe for U.S. corporate interests what were "our boys" in uniform protecting the American public from?! The same question can be asked right down the line about most of the conflicts in this warlike country's history. So, seriously, how can one fall back on the historically rubbishy line that "I support the troops because they are our heroic protectors and it would be foolish not to show gratitude to those who defend us against all the foreign bogeymen out there"? It's the U.S. and its military that's the international bogeyman, and if the day ever comes that the American armed forces are used in a major way against the American citizenry, well, perhaps then you'll belatedly recognize this grievous reality.

That contention is slightly different... and it refers to a separate problem.

You see, you're separating "society" from "the military" and "the government," while forgetting that they're all comprised of members of our society. In other words, the military and the government are our society, in many ways. This isn't to say that every single person in this society agrees with the government and the military it uses as an instrument for its ends, but it is to say that enough agree with the military and government, as well as the decisions they make, for them to exist in the first place.

I used to be a lot like you, in that I used to criticize the government and politics and whatnot, acting as though this society is some sort of distinct victim cowering in the corner while all these big, powerful men make decisions about their lives.

But, when you think about it enough, you'll see that it's actually this society together in a room doing a bunch of shtt, and a minority of us disagree with what the majority is doing. However, because, we're a minority, it isn't going to change.

So, if we were actually decent and mature Americans, we would find out about it and change it. However, if we're people like everyone else in the world, then we'll simply assess the situation as a whole and realize that we would never want to completely uproot our lives for something that could conceivably be less comfortable and easy, just so we can help people we've never met against the people we leave responsible for us.

It is truly paradoxical; an impossible situation.

So, when it comes down to it, if we don't like what the government uses the military for, then we should stop joining the military or paying taxes or acknowledging the law. It wouldn't even take the majority, but a large enough proportion over the majority of our territory. Just make sure you have something to replace it all with, because otherwise, we're just a bunch of children in the middle of a big chunk of land sitting together looking at each other, while the rest of the world is willing to act together to take our natural resources.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:53:47 PM, MarquisX wrote:
So because she honors veterans, she's not considered left?

And what's your problems with vets again? Have you ever considered that maybe some people fight in wars, not because of a loyalty to their country, but they fight because they can not allow men like Hitler to do what they want? Tell me, should America have allowed the Germans to kill as many Jews as they wished?

Ah yes, the ole lame tack of apologists for American aggression of using WWII as the supposedly representative example of American warmaking. Well, when the U.S. military waged the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Banana Wars, the second invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, the Vietnam War, Operation Urgent Fury against that worthy adversary Grenada, the Persian Gulf War to make the oil fields of Kuwait safe for democracy, et al, in all of these and other instances was the U.S. doing anything at all along the lines of protecting the "free world" from another Hitler?!

Should we have allowed the attack on the world trade center pass without retaliation.

The attacks of 9/11 provided a pretext and put the American public in the right collective state of mind to launch the invasion/occupation of Iraq, other than that this country's violent imposition of its hegemony over the people and the economy and energy resources of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with righteous retaliation for 9/11. Mm-hmm, recall the tiny factoid that it was after all Osama, not Saddam who was responsible for 9/11. One can only view the invasion/occupation of Iraq as a justifiable response to 9/11 if one has the kind of racist mentality that views all Arabs as the enemy.

You have to understand, not everyone is a coward like you. Some men and women are willing to do more than sit on their fat @sses, and type away on the internet. That's why we should honor veterans. Because they aren't you.

Such hostile ad hominems do you and your point of view no honor at all.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:11:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:16:19 PM, Ren wrote:

You see, you're separating "society" from "the military" and "the government," while forgetting that they're all comprised of members of our society. In other words, the military and the government are our society, ...

I agree that it's not only members of the ruling class to whom a portion of responsibility ought to be assigned for this society's crimes against Third World humanity, against its own poor, against minorities, etc. I absolutely agree that individuals, whether they be sell-out politicians or soldiers guilty of betraying their oath to defend the country by instead fighting in wars that serve only the interests of Halliburton and General Dynamics, who are the economic elite's minions ought to be held morally accountable. This is precisely why I advocate thinking critically about the so-called "service" of today's "servicemen" and women.

As for the view that when America engages in being a bad actor on the world stage it does so as an amorphous entity throughout which responsibility is diffusely distributed, well, such a sharing out of blame can leave the ruling class with way too light a share and the little guy with a heavy guilt complex about things he had no real control over. Well, within the amorphous entity that you view our society as, i.e. within our society's status quo there are plutocratic powers that be who definitely stand out as deserving the harsh judgment of history for this country's sins far more than the man on the street, who only bears partial moral responsibility when he/she's directly complicit in their execution – e.g. members of our all volunteer military who are fully responsible for their willing complicity in our capitalist greed-driven wars. No, ultimately your We all share the onus of our society's moral failings defense does not shield soldiers or anyone else from individual moral criticism for their role in America's unrighteousness.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:04:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Charles,

Do you see any value in having a strong military?

American national interests are complex and don't always have a linear relationship with our democracy ideals. And while I disagree with many of the military engagements America has had, I don't think that servicemen are complicit with carrying out out a Capitalist agenda; they aren't necessarily aware of the machinations that have lead to the conflict.

War is the option of last resort, and should never be used capriciously or for conquest; but the undeniable truth is that we must always be ready for war. This doesn't imply that there is a tacit agreement that all military action is warranted or justified; it is just an acknowledgement of the reality that nations compete for political dominance and physical resources, which may or may not have anything to do with Capitalism. It is important to point of that leftist governments also start wars or quell independence movements. Examples include the First Indochina War and Algerian War that marred the French Fourth Republic.

I suppose the question is how do we hold the establishment accounted for immoral actions?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why should everyone be Pro-Veteran? Simply because soldiers are willing to die to protect you and me.

It is irrelevant whether the war is moral or immoral. The country the United States wages war with is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is would you be willing to die for your country? Would you be willing to go into some h3ll hole and risk your life for your country? If the answer to either of these questions is no you must respect Veterans, that does not mean you must agree with veterans, but, you must respect them for their willingness to risk their life for yours, from the cleric to the infantry man.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:23:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/11/2012 9:53:47 PM, MarquisX wrote:
So because she honors veterans, she's not considered left?


Ah yes, the ole lame tack of apologists for American aggression of using WWII as the supposedly representative example of American warmaking. Well, when the U.S. military waged the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Banana Wars, the second invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, the Vietnam War, Operation Urgent Fury against that worthy adversary Grenada, the Persian Gulf War to make the oil fields of Kuwait safe for democracy, et al, in all of these and other instances was the U.S. doing anything at all along the lines of protecting the "free world" from another Hitler?!


Should we have allowed the attack on the world trade center pass without retaliation.

The attacks of 9/11 provided a pretext and put the American public in the right collective state of mind to launch the invasion/occupation of Iraq, other than that this country's violent imposition of its hegemony over the people and the economy and energy resources of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with righteous retaliation for 9/11. Mm-hmm, recall the tiny factoid that it was after all Osama, not Saddam who was responsible for 9/11. One can only view the invasion/occupation of Iraq as a justifiable response to 9/11 if one has the kind of racist mentality that views all Arabs as the enemy.

You have to understand, not everyone is a coward like you. Some men and women are willing to do more than sit on their fat @sses, and type away on the internet. That's why we should honor veterans. Because they aren't you.

Such hostile ad hominems do you and your point of view no honor at all.

Lets get down to brass tax here. I'm not saying our every war was justified. No one is. Our point is these people, our vets are not these blood thirsty monsters you wish they were. And should any threat rise against the U.S they put they're lives on the line to save others. To save yours. And all you can do is sit back and talk about how much better you are than them. If a nation attacked us tomorrow, would you fight Charles? Could you? I don't care if its an ad hominem, nor do I care about whether or not a "man" such as your self is offended. You are a p*ssy, a coward and a weakling. The world is better off without you.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive