LA Times op...'I DON'T SUPPORT our troops'

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
1

<p>I guess this post will open a can of worms here....nontheless, I thought some of you might be interested to read an op/ed from the LA Times in which the author clearly states he does NOT support our troops.....
Particularly offensive is his comparrison of those who enlist due to their concerns regarding terrorism in a post 9/11 world and his own frustration when he opens a pop-up ad!
One last note ... please spare me the free press & freedom of speech lecture.</p>

<p>"Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.</p>

<p>I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. </p>

<p>And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.</p>

<p>But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.</p>

<p>Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake. </p>

<p>Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach." </p>

<p>The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.</p>

<p>I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful. </p>

<p>After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood. </p>

<p>But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.</p>

<p>I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.</p>

<p>But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. </p>

<p>And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany. </p>

<p>I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book. </p>

<p>I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.</p>

<p>Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Did you read any of this guy's other stuff? He's clueless. Let it go.</p>

3

<p>What a dumb freak! Too much smog in his brain.</p>

4

<p>I'm all for "hospitals, pensions, mental health" for our armed forces, too, but that's about all I can say that is kind in any way. Thus </p>

<p>"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." – from Bambi </p>

<p>Our collective silence says it all...</p>

5

<p>Puke, hurl <spidermom wipes="" her="" mouth=""> Sorry, guys. I truly get sick when I think about our troops going in harm's way to protect the likes of that spoiled, clueless punk.</spidermom></p>

6

<p>I have to give the guy credit: at least he's being honest. Although I disagree with his statements it is better than listening to the protesters telling me that they support me, but my commander-in-chief is a lying coward. Or that they support me, but they don't support what I do (the war in Iraq). I'm sick of listening to people moan about the war, but make sure to tack on at the end..."oh, but I support our troops." I call BS. Thank you Joel Stein for at least showing your true colors.</p>

7

<p>1) He went to Stanford - a school with left-wing professors who complain that our military doesn't represent the country but doesn't permit ROTC on campus.
2) He spent a year working for Martha Stewart, a convicted felon.
3) I wonder if he'd support the troops - since he obviously can't defend himself - if an Islamofascist had a bayonet at his throat. But I guess he wont' worry about that - since it will take some time for them to get here.</p>

8

<p>Joel Stein is advocating nothing more than the "Negative Reinforcement" concept -- Any attention, even that which is negative, makes this type of a person feel worthy. He probably loves the fact that he is able to stir up debate. --I agree with LFWB dad -- just let it go, and don't respond any more to this thread concerning Joel Stein's remarks.</p>

9

<p>I agree Mamma but I gotta say one more thing: YACK!
Well maybe two. Bet this guy can make a mean serious cheesecake Martha style. Thats all he's good for.</p>

10

<p>The few people at Stanford that I know, while against the war, would call this guy an idiot as well. I have met few people of any political persuasion who would say they don't support the troops regardless of what they think about Iraq and its relevance (or non-relevance) to the war against al-queda and international terrorism. Rest assured this individual is in a VERY small minority. I doubt the folks at Stanford are holding him up as a shining example of their alumnus. I doubt Condy Rice thinks of Stanford as a bastion of left wing thought either given her stated desire is to return there after her stint in the Bush administration---I believe she taught there as well. Given that fact, I suspect Stanford has a few right wing professors there as well as left wing.</p>

11

<p>i liked the article</p>

<p>:-P</p>

12

<p>Everyone stand back. I'll say it for you: Shut-up Taffy! You noodle head. Good thing you live on an opposite coast. I'd so noogie your head so bad. Do try to behave. You must drive your parents nuts. Mr. funny man.</p>

13

<p>I'm sure I'll get branded a caaaraaaazy liberal commie for saying this, but... at least he made an argument (good or otherwise.) So far, the best I've seen mustered up by the posts in this thread is, "he's an idiot! LOL! Jingoism!"</p>

<p>I can't say he's right, but then again, if all you guys can do is insult him, use red herrings and/or straw men, how can you say you're right either?</p>

14

<p>I think someone made it pretty clear that the article didn't deserve too much consideration in taking it seriously. If you want intelligent debate, this would hardly be the article to begin it with. Its a little, oh I don't know.... Stupid.</p>

15

<p>The best way to lose an argument is to just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it'll go away.</p>

<p>Whether or not it's a bad argument, it's winning by default because we haven't seen any good rebuttals.</p>

16

<p>I didn't know "we" had entered into a competitive debate where there is a winner and a looser with this one silly article. UCLAri, I can say in all honesty that I just can't seem to build up enough desire to make an argument. We are parents of kids who serve or will serve this country and we're pretty proud of them. Not sure I understand why you've chosen this particular thread to visit. What pretense are you standing on?</p>

17

<p>UCLAri - let's use "fingers" - the best argument against Stein are the photos of the smiling Iraqis coming out of the polling places holding their inked fingers in the air. A small number of evil men 9 50,000 in a country of 23-million) are holding Iraq hostage. Stein just doesn't get it - Bush does - democracies don't go to war with each other. Don't you see the evil axis. Yesterday Castro orchestrated a march of thousands in front of the US Mission because the US had the temerity to turn on a moving headline board. This "board" gave Cubans uncensored news. The Taliban recently cut off the head of a schoolteacher because he was teaching women. The President of Iran is calling for the extermination of Israel. The Grand Poobah of North Korea is a mental case but has nuclear weapons. </p>

<p>I love having a free press and the Bill of Rights. But it's not the press or the liberals or Hillary or Teddy K that preserves our rights. It's not America-hating Harry Belafonte hobnobbing with our enemies or Michael Moore. It's not the New York Times. IT"S THE TROOPS!</p>

<p>W.H. Auden: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?" So go back to sleep. And pray before you sleep that America continues to produce the young men and women who respect our Constitution, who love their country and all the good things it stands for, and are willing to do their duty.</p>

18

<p>Nicely said BigGreen!!</p>

19

<p>Big Green...</p>

<p>ditto ...very nicely said indeed.</p>

20

<p>Jamzmom,</p>

<p>I just find it funny when people argue using logical fallacies. I had once idealized a world where adults tried to steer clear of such nonsense, but this website has proven me wrong.</p>

<p>BigGreen,</p>

<p>Thank you for making an argument. I pretty much agree. At least you've used some sort of logical reasoning to counter what he said. Regardless, your silly liberal-bash paragraph was not necessary. You may not think that the NY Times is preserving our rights, but I believe that a press is absolutely necessary to maintaining a free government. How can we claim any moral superiority if we don't look to our press as an important feature of our democratic landscape? Unfortunately, I find that many people in America today would seemingly rather quiet the press and let the President run the show without any watchdogs. No president, Democratic or Republican, deserves such trust. No politician deserves our unbending support. </p>

<p>Whether or not you guys agree with any of those dastardly commies in the Democratic Party, they are serving a vital function in a democracy.</p>