Weakest Generation
What a turd.
Seriously, read that article.
I don't even have the words to express how ..... Grrrrrrr.
I knew it.
If you're a pseudo-liberal, who only likes some aspects of the ideology, it might be time to reject this madness.
I freakin' knew it.
-----------------------------
Update: the Washington Post is still at it.
William M. Arkin has a follow-up article titled: “The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out”
I don’t think he means himself.
------------------------------
Another Update: He still won't repent.
Arkin does an interview and tells the world exactly how it is from the liberal point of view.
------------------------------
Video Update.
Seriously, read that article.
I don't even have the words to express how ..... Grrrrrrr.
I knew it.
If you're a pseudo-liberal, who only likes some aspects of the ideology, it might be time to reject this madness.
I freakin' knew it.
-----------------------------
Update: the Washington Post is still at it.
William M. Arkin has a follow-up article titled: “The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out”
I don’t think he means himself.
------------------------------
Another Update: He still won't repent.
Arkin does an interview and tells the world exactly how it is from the liberal point of view.
------------------------------
Video Update.
posted by brando at 12:04 AM
18 Comments:
Highlights:
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army.
Uhh huh... Even those...citizens...wearing a uniform.. Thanks.
But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Wow. So he supports them having opinions, but doesn't support them having certain opinions.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
lllloooolllll
hey brando, was it fun pretending to play soldier "manning the parapets" while you were over in iraq to delude yourself into thinking you were a professional soldier? musta been just like playing guns as a kid huh! if ida known how naive you guys were out there i would have sent you some coloring books explaining what was going on when you were out there, or maybe just explained it to you in a real childlike manner while we were talking on yahoo messenger. all cut off from society and whatnot.
what an asshole this guy is. ace was right -- his argument is pretty incoherent. i know what he's trying to say, but i think it's only because i unfuck poorly written english all day long. specially for this paragraph, which is completely ridiculous:
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.
Huh? Wha? and ummmm save the nation from the people? Does he think that by throwing in "If I weren't the united states," he can pretend like he doesn't mean what he obviously means? Just how does one save a democracy from its people? Overthrow it and install a monarchy?
aaaaaaaaaaand get real.
This guy's an asshole and an idiot.
"Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order."
We've indulged you, Brandon, you rapist and baby killer.
Now kindly shut the fuck up and quit making me feel guilty because I'm a coward.
He seems to think that the "American People" and "those who wear the uniform of the United States Army" are separate, different things.
I know you think I am a fakey liberal brando, but I ain't and I have been rejecting this madness for some time now..you must know we are not all this wretched as this Mr. Arkin. But yes I do accept that his view is not one of the minority, I know I am the minority.
Here is an exchange I had with a democrat (something I am NOT) as far back as 2004 in a debate on the Fallujah Offensive..
Democrat: Yeah, I am arguing that Iraq is a mistake and I am arguing that the people in charge don't know what they are doing because I don't care about the soldiers. I posted and have participated in the Books For Soldiers link in the resources section because I don't care about the soldiers. *hint he is being sarcastic, I had questioned his support for the troops, so he got snarky
bucket: I didn't say you or anyone else doesn't care for the soldiers in Iraq I said it is conditional. See when the soldiers are victims or needy, like in need of books then the care and concern is abundant. Yet when they are the aggressors as in this little comment you made "Well we haven't exactly had prisoners for lengthy periods of time (when we take them at all), so before you say we have learned our lesson lets wait and see if we actually have. Give it 6 months and we'll see what humanitarian organizations have to say about the insurgents that were captured."
Now the soldiers are the aggressors, they have stormed a city and taken prisoners, which happens to be why they are in Iraq...not to read books. Now where is your support? You seem to have little care that these men and women are professionals and will follow the code of war and do their job with pride. Seems you are more apt to view them as human rights abusers than you are as someone you care for or have respect for.
Bucket: In my book, you are most certianly not a liberal.
"if ida known how naive you guys were out there i would have sent you some coloring books explaining what was going on when you were out there"
Paul, if you were trying to make me wet myself with laughter, then mission accomplished.
I don't want to address this article because... well.. I couldn't actually stomach the douchebaggery to actually read it all the way through. What I do want to ask you guys about is the idea of soldiers expressing political beliefs.
I have been under the impression that a military runs more smoothly if active soldiers keep their opinions to themselves until they are no longer knee deep in the repercussions of various political actions with a gun in their hands. In other words, should soldiers try to keep as a political as possible while active?
I'm wondering what you guys with some experience think about this. It seems logical, but sort of impractical. Kind of like asking Paul not to masturbate at work. He'd probably be a lot more productive but how do you really ask Paul to go more than 30 consecutive minutes without shaking one out?
Quick question, but answer carefully because it's an important one. In your mind can a person support the troops without supporting the war? If not, then can you lay out for me the a logic behind that?
That being said, this particular author is a knucklehead and in more than one "argument" employs some piss-poor logic. If you want to go after liberal writers, go after the better ones - this guy's almost too easy.
Glad to see from Paul's comment it wasn't just me scratching their head at the "I can imagine some post-9/11 moment..." paragraph. That thing was written so poorly I had to reread it a couple of times just to figure out what his crackhead argument actually was.
I may have to tease this out a bit over at my own piece of electonic real estate, but I maintain that you can support the troops without supporing the war. However, if you disagree I'm willing to have a reasonable debate on the subject.
hahahaha, Tony, that was awesome.
Don't turn away from the article, T-man. Read it in all of it's liberal glory. He's openly stating what other liberals try to mask with double speak and euphuisms. I think you really want to read it. At least to say to yourself. “That doesn’t represent me.”
As for making political statements.
This is the best way I can put it. The military serves America and is sworn to uphold the constitution. It is not a personal fighting force for a political party. As the commander-in-chief changes from election to election, the military stays in place.
If someone is interviewing you, and you are in uniform, whatever personal views express will be construed as official military doctrine. Is that fair? No. Is that the way it is? Yes. The biggest thing is not saying anything that the enemy can use, and often US news agencies are propaganda tools for the enemy. It blows my mind that any news agency from any civilized culture would choose to be a propaganda tool for al-queida.
The best advice I would give my Marines was “Speak only about things you know, and don’t commit opsec violations.” Don’t guess. Don’t spread rumors. Don’t extrapolate.
It’s pretty unprofessional to make statements about political parties, because, well, we have all the weapons. “The Military” isn’t a political party, and we should keep it that way.
Imagine if the military decided that we’d make better national leaders then elected civilian ones. (This has actually happened in some countries) We go into Congress with a belt fed machine gun, and just mow em down. Destroy the executive branch, and wipe out the supreme court. Then the Joint Chiefs set up shop, and consolidate all assets and decisions. Nobody could stop ‘em, because they have all the physical power. The only real restraint is self restraint.
So the big no-no is to make statements about political parties, simply because of the power you wield, and it may appear as though you are speaking for the entire organization. Of course you can have opinions, and vote, because you’re a citizen too. It’s just a good idea to be mindful that reporters will gladly use an offhand comment to undermine your mission, and to get you killed. The Washington Post claimed that US troops shouldn’t voice opinions in support of their mission, and against terrorism.
The short version is that the troops are noticing that “liberal” is often synonymous with “pro-terrorist”, and the troops state that observation when they are interviewed. How can so many Americans be simultaneously “for the enemy”, and “for the troops”? There’s certainly nothing unprofessional about pointing that out.
Hammer:
I'll do my next post on that very topic, and I'll get into it as detailed at I can, and I think we can have a good talk about it.
"If you want to go after liberal writers, go after the better ones - this guy's almost too easy."
I think this is a concept that I think is important to all conflicts. Who is the aggressor and who is the defender? I, of course, don't perceive that I'm "going after" this guy. I'm simply calling a foul, and asking those in the liberal camp to 'police their own' or 'abandon the camp'.
I didn't mean "go after" as an aggressor type deal. It was just an informal way of saying "debate."
That's the problem with online debates or electronic communications in general. Nuance and subtlety go right out the window. I mean, people I know well in real life know what I mean, but since you and I have never even met, much less had much face-to-face conversation, all you have to work with are the words right there on the screen.
The problem with informal mediums such as blogs is that there's a certain off-the-cuff looseness that goes hand-in-hand with them, and in the end I still think I prefer it that way.
But yeah, if you and I were going nerd-toe to nerd-toe in debate club, I'ddd choose my words a little more carefully.
In short, point taken. But since these are blogs, and as Jinxy continues to remind us, "blogs are gay," I wasn't expecting the Spansish Inquisition.
But then, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO68fUMWx3g
What about this.
I got no problem with that. I mean maybe a knee-jerk liberal who checked their common sense at the door would start spewing off at it, but let's be reasonable here.
While I believe that a democratic society has to adhere to certain rules of engagement that their enemies will likely not follow, I don't believe we need to impose "rules of accessorization." (Except for maybe "No white combat boots after Labor Day." That's just tacky.)
hahahaha.
I like you Hammer.
Brando, that's basically what I thought. I think in a democratic society it's important to make sure the people with the guns aren't the ones deciding who gets shot. In the general sense of course.
I don't have to read that entire article to be able to state conclusively that it does not represent me. Just like I don't have to watch a gay porn to know whether or not I will like it... of course I will.
I don't know exactly how I feel about not supporting the war and supporting the troops. I have from discussions with other's heard plenty claim they support the troops but not the war and then turn around and make a lot of assumptions about the troops...dumb, poor, ignorant, lusting to kill, rape and pillage etc.
They might not use those words, altho. some do, just like Mr. Arkin didn't exactly say "shut up" but they don't have to...
I disagree with hammer on this point, on the internet I don't feel like people are being all that off the cuff or relaxed in political discussions and instead often group together like pack animals. It is almost like the new human social experience, for us to communicate like this..and it isn't really one on one it is more or less tribe on tribe and so little comes out on a personal level. Instead people become emboldened by the words of others, they feel incited and then they turn around and repeat what made them feel that way and so on and so on until it just becomes like a language of it's own. That Arkin guy was speaking their language, and I am sure many love him for it.
Brando, you briefly stated that the military's job is to support the constitution. Could you please explain more on this, in regard to this or any other conflict that could question the validity of this. Thanks
and brando...stu's report should be completed and on his desk by 9 sharp
I wanted to add that the fact this artcle comes off the backs of WaPo and then with that story you posted about people spitting and I am sensing a trend...it looks like some are become increasingly emboldned.
Do you think it is the elections? Or the troop surge debate? Iran? Or what?
Imagine if the military decided that we’d make better national leaders then elected civilian ones. (This has actually happened in some countries)
Well, in the case of Pakistan I would have to agree. People who are for democracy in pakistan give me a good chuckle, after I recover from being paralyzed by fear that is..
i have nothing to add to your "marines being interviewed" by the media thing. in the stan we all just decided to avoid any media exposure at all, avert faces when cameras were about, etc..
Ton-Loc:
I love the gay videos too. It's great. High Five!
Stu:
Sure thing. I was talking about the Oath of Enlistment which goes as such.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
What's important to note is that you are swearing to support and defend The Constitution, and that the President is merely a role within that larger construct.
If you swore on The President, you'd have to retake the oath after each election, which wouldn't be a very good setup.
Bucket:
I agree with what you're saying, but I couldn't give a cause for the crazy talk. At least not one particular cause. People just do what is considered "cool" by their groups. We just need to challenge the "coolness" of certain things.
Paully:
I was sort of thinking of Kenya.
Post a Comment
<< Home