Dang it, somebody please cite where Cecil made a comment against our soldiers. Because I don’t see that at all. I see a comment against the war, but not against the soldiers and marines and pilots and other military. Nowhere does he comment upon them, their combat skills, or their behavior in carrying out the policies dictated by the government. Nowhere does he insult them or belittle them or infer that they are bad or wrong.
His comment is against Bush, and against the administration. If you can’t separate the ones giving the orders from the ones carrying them out, you’re a blithering idiot.
Supporting the soldiers does not necessarily mean supporting the orders they’re being given by their superiors. I support the troops, and desire their well-being. I want to see them safe at home. I do not support the war, which is another matter entirely.
I only added the "Supporting our troops part, as a cover-my-ass move. Whenever someone has not supported the war, some yahoo decides to throw into the mix (And to move away from actual points) that we have to support our troops so how can you say you are not for war.
Cecil never said anything about the troops. He just commented on the war.
I was just trying to stress that you can approve one and not the other, if only to try and keep the subject on track.
Fool is a perfectly good (if informal) adjective, meaning “foolish”. If you say, well, it’s informal, so it’s no good, I say, yet. Cecil is just ahead of his time.
Has anyone ever seen any statement more exactly characteristic of the Straight Dope? Serious discussion going on, and some yahoo (I mean that in the best way) comes up with a totally unrelated but relevant overly-technical ntpick. Stick around, Roger_Mexico, you’ll fit right in.
