Since I got such a response to my last post, I thought I would post my replies to the comments for all to see. Enjoy and remember that it is the soldier who has fought and died for our freedom of speech not some journalist in a comfy corner office. I apolgize for the lengh, but I do rant and rave. Later..............
Boy, I don't know where to start. First, thanks to all of those who posted anonymously. I can tell your political leaning just by your display of personal responsibility by not brothering to leave your name or URL.
Question, why are you so afraid of an open exchange of ideas or opinions that you have to hide behind "anonymous". Here's my answer, perhaps you know what a destructive force Moore has been on your party and your really not sure you still believe his bullshit, but you want to be the "good soldier",(no disrespect to the real soldiers that read this blog, thanks for your service) so you post anonymously.
Enough of that. Thanks to Ellie and Aurorealis for your comments. Now my response, comment by comment.
Anonymous #1 said...
You know. If we pull out or lose this war like we did in
Yes, I would be would be willing to die for my country regardless because I have faith in the American People that this war does mean something. You and I today can only speculate whether this war will "mean something". I believe that regardless of the outcome, we have helped enough people in
Anonymous #2 said...
I am blown away by the depth of your intellect and am left speechless.
Anonymous #3 said...
So Michael Moore is wrong to list the names of the people who died in Irag, but it's okay for G.W. to use the war to help him get re-elected? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Perhaps as evidenced by your spewing of a democratic talking point, you and I are not talking about the same post. Nowhere in this post of on this blog for that matter have I ever said that it was ok for the President to use the deaths of our military for political means. The war was a valid point of discussion during the election as shown by the many positions your candidate took on it, not to mention the numerous public opinion polls that listed
Ellie said...
Moved from
Thank you for you kinds words Ellie. I am sure
Aurorealis said...
I only wish it was the death knell of the Dems... but somehow I don't think we'll get that lucky. Then again, that could be because I live in Calipornia.
Thank you for your comment Aurorealis. Take heart,
Anonymous #4 said...
Pissed off the wrong people? Give me a break. I understand this woman is upset and needs to find meaning in her son's death but he did not die for Americans' freedom of speech or any other right. He died fighting in a poorly planned and executed unnecessary war to dethrone a thug that was absolutely no threat the
My first response to this comment was one of anger due to this person’s cowardice and lack of understanding of why people join the military and fight for this country. Then my feelings turned to pity, pity for this person, sitting behind their Mac, somewhere in
Webster defines Hero as
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heroes : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL
I like 1d, but here’s my definition: One who puts aside all personal concerns to perform a service or duty for the greater good of a larger group or society with no expectation of reward. Every single man and women who serves this country in the armed forces deserves our respect and admiration for their daily sacrifice and service to us, the American citizen.
9 comments:
"I understand this woman is upset and needs to find meaning in her son's death but he did not die for Americans' freedom of speech or any other right. He died fighting in a poorly planned and executed unnecessary war to dethrone a thug that was absolutely no threat the US. At best, he was fighting for the rights of Iraqis."
Amen to your reply, but may I also ask if "fighting for the rights of Iraqis" is an ignoble thing? Is it beyond the commenter's ability to understand that America, whether he likes it or not, has looked at terrorism and decided that it is fundamentally an ideology based on denying the rights of others, and decided to fight it by fighting for the rights of others? In fighting for the rights of Iraqis, the man died in defense of American security.
As for Saddam Hussein being absolutely no threat to the US, bullshit. He said he was. He demonstrated in the past that he had WMD and was willing to use them. He sought alliances with the terrorists. Ask the Kuwaitis if they thought he was no threat. Ask the Saudis. We had two choices - clear out and leave Saddam Hussein sitting triumphantly in control of the future of Iraq, or to depose him and his party of thugs. The Iraqi people were not a threat to us, but Saddam Hussein was a threat both to sizeable minorities in his own country and to us.
The only way I can understand this commenter's point of view is to regard it as a species of causism - that habit of structuring every political issue as a question of defending the rights of an abused minority. In this case, it is not applicable, and I agree that it is wrong for Michael Moore to attempt to appropriate these deaths to bolster his pocketbook or his moral pretensions.
Their families may speak against the war, and ask if it was a just one. Anyone may speak against the war, and ask if it was just. But you don't take another person's life and ultimate sacrifice, a person who is voiceless due to having lost his life, and attempt to ascribe your meaning to his life. You don't take their picture and superimpose your voice. It is flat wrong.
Great response. You did an excellent job focusing on what type of computer I use and where I might be using it. You definitely scored a point or two there! Good job! You really missed the mark on the personality analysis, but it really helped your argument..
Now to the actual issue. First, I agree that there are some people that join the military as a result of "a sense of duty and responsibility to his country." I know some people like that. At the same time, there are many more reasons why people enlist. People enlist because they think it will give them discipline, job training or money for school. In fact, most people I know that have served or are serving cite these reasons rather than "a sense of duty and responsibility." Did the dead kid whose mom you cited serve for any of those reasons? Sure the military pumps up these soldiers, telling them how they're about to die in the name of their country and in the service of freedom. Does that mean that is why these people enlisted? Does it mean that is why they're dying in Iraq? Did anyone sign up to die for Iraq? Of course not. Iraq is a war of convenience, not necessity, that hasn't made us safer. The death of our soldiers there is a tragedy that could have been avoided.
As for your chose definition of hero, what exactly was the greater good that our soldiers are being sent to die for in Iraq? Whose freedom? I find it extremely hypocritical that the pro-war right gets all worked up with concern and anger over the rights of Iraqis but were unconcerned over roughly 20 years of Hussein's US supported totalitarian rule. Of course, when the original rationale for the war is gone (possession of WMD, ties to al Qaeda, threat to US) I guess you have to reach for whatever there is to legitimize this poor plan. Regardless, it is after-the-fact justsification and completley disingenuous.
Yes, Iraqis deserve freedom too. Yet, the people talking about Iraqi freedom are the same group of people (the right) that supported Hussein up until he invaded Kuwait. These are the same people that thought is was perfectly ok for Iraqis to *not* be free and to be victims of Hussein's tyranny in the past. Oh, but its different now, right? There is no hypocrisy in Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam then and denouncing him now, tight? Bullshit. It is the same faction of the American political system that thought he needed more weapons (conventional and WMD) and not less. Personally, I would be offended if I were a soldier and was ordered to go die fighting a tyrant my own country propped up for so long. Where is the moral clarity there? Of course, you call someone that questioned a hero, right? You seem to prefer those that obey blindly.
As for MaxedOutMama, you obviously embrace this hypocrisy too. Nice job puking up GWB's talking points. Yep, but Bush & Co have forgotten to tell you that most of the right's leadership in government and in think-tanks didn't mind his use of WMD's until they needed a diversion from their failed terrorism war. In fact, they embraced it because he was fighting another nation we helped push into the depths of tyranny: Iran. Yet again, though, the right and the American public are too busy being 'patriotic' and worshipping soldiers to ask how we can avoid the deaths of soldiers and this sort of geopolitical mess in the future.
Michael Moore is a douche, to be sure. However, you people that just embrace whatever military action our government engages in as heroic, patriotic and morally correct just because someone waves a flag over it are just as bad if not worse. You push our society toward the type of militaristic, nationalist society we found WW2 to avoid.
It is clear you don't respect our soldiers because you would let them die for near-sighted foreign policy that repeats the failed policy of the past.
On your annonymous posters, they could be like me, I do have a blogger account but like right now when I try to log-in, blogger will not let me, thus forcing me to be annonymous. However, I always leave my blogger site address AND my main site URL. My thought is this, I have been on the net for about 14 years and I welcome any and all comments annonymous or not. Any comment at all lets you know someone has taken the time to read your site. I don't always like the comments I get, but hey, at least someone cared enough to bother right?
Dariana
http://dariana.tblog.com (Main Blog)
http://dariadonovan.blogspot.com (Blogger Site)
"I can tell your political leaning just by your display of personal responsibility by not brothering to leave your name or URL."
Yeah, I'm going to rush to sign up for Blogger just so I can comment on your blog. Don't be ridiculous. Commenting with anonymous has nothing to do personal responsibility. It has to do with being unwilling to sign up for an account I don't need. Once again, great way to divert attention from the issue. Better to deal with whether or not posters thought of a spiffy internet nickname than with the substance of their argument. Good job. You're a real hero.
As Brin said, 'TheMadTech' isn't anymore revealing than anonymous either. Despite the nick', everything you have is anonymous. So, what's your point again?
Lou, poster of the two anonymous comments you don't like.
Here is an email address:
lou_cipher123@yahoo.com
Does that make you feel better now? Are you going to write me love letters now?
Oh and:
"...we found WW2 to avoid." should be 'we fought..."
Oops.
Thanks to all who left comments, anonymous or not. I do value them even if I don't agree with them.
My point was not to slam folks who post anonymous, but simply ask this. If you truly want a two way dialogue on an issue it's polite to leave at least your name or a web address so those who wish to respond may get an idea of your position from your other writings.
As for the anonymous name that I use, it is strictly to protect myself from backlash at my workplace since I have on occasion slammed my employer and co-workers. I am sure that most people could understand that, especially after what happen to the Queen of the Sky. See http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/ for more on that subject.
I have in the past posted my email for a number of reasons and it can be found off my profile so if anyone wanted to have a personal exchange of ideas or just rip me in private, the opportunity awaits.
Again, thanks to all for you comments. It's obvious that this issue continues to divide us and nothing either side says here will change anyone's mind.
And last but not least. Lou, nice to "meet" you, but no I won't be writing you love letters, my wife would get angry, but thanks for your comments. Brin, welcome back. Dariana, thank you for your comment. I pray for the safety of your son and thank him for his service. MaxedOutMomma, thank you for your continued support of my feeble writing efforts.
By the way, anyone wanted more information about Savage family and why Jeremiah joined the Marines could drop by the blog of his aunt @ www.dizzy-girl.net.
The Mad Tech
t.d.miller@gmail.com
Perhaps the poster does not have an account on your silly little blogger service. The only alternative is to post anonymous. How many blogger services do you expect a person to belong to?
People, read the freaking reply correctly. I never said everyone should have a damn blogger account. So what if you don't, leave a name or your url. It's only polite and maybe your blog or site is something I may want to visit or my readers may want to visit.
Nah, nothing against Macs. In fact I work with Mac users and they are great people as I am sure you are Volcanpoas.
The Mad Tech
Wow. I use the mac, I have a blogger account, and I'm republican. Oh yeah, the hat trick. hehe
The reason Kerry and the moonbats didn't win was because assuming the crash postion isn't a widely used military tactic - enter one swift boat. Quacky Moore has lots to do with that.
Dems are so clueless.
J
http://joepublicus.blogspot.com
Post a Comment