Regarding spitting at Vietnam vets. I doubt very much the guy is saying it never happened because he’s searched diligently for one provable event and found nothing. I believe he’s saying that it wasn’t a normal event; it’s probably overhyped. With that I agree.
This I think is the premier example of one (1) anti-war view at the time, and how it could easily have resulted in inciting hostility to the point of spitting fury, on both sides. I’ll leave it up to you to decide though.
Christ, what a clusterfuck this thread has become. hawthorne, I don’t think Weirddave’s statement really comes off as hypocritical… if you wish to re-label it with some other pejorative, go right ahead. However, if you had deigned to continue reading his post you would have seen that his gripe was about people who ignored (parts of) previous posts just so they could foster their own agenda.
Weirddave, I think your mini-rant would have been better directed just at Zoe, since she seemed to be the only one outright accusing you of trying to shut down dissent. Making that kind of accusation, with clear evidence to the contrary, is indeed utterly despicable.
Re: OP, I think chula was perhaps a little out of line, but not worth a pitting.
Yet if she shows up to explain that was not her implication she is guilty of your “classic sniper” technique??? She looses either way. Her brief post was obviously interpreted in different ways, making her, at worst, guilty of ambiguity.
Are your words NEVER misinterpreted? If no, would you be guilty of the aforementioned technique when you correct the misinterpretations?
[poster hat]There’s a time and a place for everything, and I think that chula’s post was rather inappropriate. She has freedom of speech, and while I don’t wish to censor her, there is such a thing as tact and diplomacy, and her post displayed neither.[/poster hat]
[wife hat]Y’all, please remember one thing. Airman is going overseas to fight in a war. He joined the Air National Guard knowing this was an active unit, and that there was an excellent chance he’d end up deployed. I married him knowing this, as well. In particular, this war isn’t terribly popular. Airman knows this, as well.
That said, this is a very difficult time for us. Airman can get his notification at any time. Once that happens, he’s got at most a few days to get his affairs in order, kiss me and Aaron goodbye, and go.
Consciously, I know he’ll be okay. He’ll go and come back and life will go on. On a more emotional level, though, I keep focusing on the people who don’t come home. I am terrified that Airman will be one of those people. Sadly, for us, and for every military family, there may be a notice from the Defense Department that our loved one has been killed.
So, what I am asking is that y’all keep this in mind. If you want to take a stand, please do so in an appropriate GD thread. Please don’t trivialize my husband (or any other servicemember) by directing a potshot right at him. He’s making too huge a sacrifice, and he doesn’t deserve it.[/wife hat]
Robin
Airman,
Thank you.
El Gui, you obviously have misunderstood my remarks. Please let me try to explain myself better.
Communication is a two-way street, and it is not enough to vomit out words and not be responsible for their effect. The speaker is responsible for expressing herself in a manner that her intent can be heard and understood. The listener is responsible for trying to understand what is being expressed. I try always to express myself as clearly and directly as possible. If I do not, and someone misinterprets my intent as a personal attack, then I apologize for causing offense, and restate myself more clearly. I expect others to do likewise.
She does not lose either way. As I said earlier, I would like to think better of her, but given her posts in this thread and the referenced one, my opinion of her motives and intents stand. If all she meant was that she wishes he agreed with her point of view, then she only had to say it, and her comments on the relative harmfulness of words vs. weapons and, “too bad you’re not tired of the latter,” are poorly expressed at best, and completely unnecessary and inflammatory at worst. Then, when others interpreted her remark as a personal attack, her “where’s the insult?” response sounded flippant and deliberately obtuse to me, rather than an attempt to clarify.
The pattern of her behavior is certainly classic, and I feel comfortable enough in calling it when I see it. “Sniper” isn’t a term I made up, I refer you to Robert Bramson’s book on coping with difficult personalities, which I read several years ago and have found useful in dealing with some of the very strong personalities I work with.
But I could be mistaken. I hope I am. If she wants to come back and explain herself and her motives a little better, I am happy to listen. If she explains that she meant no offense, that her intent was not to make a potshot, and that she was not making light of someone else’s pain, then I will certainly retract my statements and apologize for the misunderstanding. If she apologizes for any further pain she may have caused with her poorly worded comments, then I will absolutely think better of her.
Oh man. I hope Bluesman doesn’t see that post about Hanoi Jane or you’ll be able to feel the flame on Planet X.
::dons asbestos house::
Well, I apologize for beating a dead horse, but
I didn’t misunderstand your remarks, tmwster. We disagree on this: "If I do not [express myself as clearly and directly as possible], and someone misinterprets my intent as a personal attack, then I apologize for causing offense . . . ". I would instead apologize for not expressing myself as clearly and directly as possible. Unfortunately, my attempt would perhaps be a bit half-hearted (if made at all) if someone not only misinterprets my intent as a personal attack on someone else, but responds in a diatribe such as the OP’s.
But see how civil things can be when you and I make such attempts to understand each other’s POV? If only the OP had done a similar thing initially, we wouldn’t be here.
If I misunderstood Weirddave and he really does cherish the freedom of others to dissent and honors that right, then I must certainly apologize. If, however, he continues to see anti-war protestors as abusing that freedom (his word), then he demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the intent of that part of the Bill of Rights.
Flyboy88, I hope that you will be kept safe in the days to come. May you and your companions in the military be shown every respect for your service to this country.
MsRobyn, I’m glad that you are here to read these posts. I didn’t have a chance to convey my concern for your husband’s welfare before. I wish you both strength for the days to come and safety from harm.
I’m with Weirddave on this one. I thought chula was out of line in that thread. Although I was surprised that that was the extent of the kneejerking that happened in Airman Doors USAF’s thread. I also think Dave is right on point when he says that this thread proves exactly what Airman was lamenting, that nobody can perceive that there even is a middle ground in this disagreement. Give it a rest, people. Airman was trying to say something diplomatic and chula made a snippy remark.
Like I said in his thread, Airman is stepping up for what he believes in, and to protect us all, in a way that most of us never will. All he wants is a day of peace, and we can’t give him that? That’s sad.
At this rate I’m going have to start giving out “WL Fuck-You Bucks” or something. But I’d like to offer chula a sparkly “Fuck You” for peeing in a thread that in my opinion cast Airman in a way that I hadn’t seen before, and another hearty “Fuck You” to anyone trying to make this thread into another trainwreck. Have a little respect.
The way Airman’s thread was characterized here, I thought I had failed to read his post. To me, it’s is clearly about his frustration with the debate over the war. It sounds to me like something any of us could have posted after having spent too much time in GD. I can understand that sentiment. I spend a lot of my life making arguments, and other people are always telling me, “Why do you bother? Who cares?” I believe the arguments do matter, because they’re part of the struggle to get people to understand each other. It struck me as strange that someone would give up on this fight but would be perfectly willing to engage in a real fight. His sentiments sound similar to those of a pacifist: “I’m tired of all this conflict. Why can’t we resolve this peacefully?” and pointing out that irony was the hidden meaning in my statement that so many of you are looking for. I hadn’t thought of it as an analogy to what the US government is doing, as mhendo suggested, but that works for me. I don’t see my post as being especially ambiguous: I think fighting with weapons is worse than fighting with words, as sailor put it. It seems that some of you don’t want to deal with the reality that war involves the killing of innocent and not so innocent people. If you support the war, that’s what you support. My post in no way implies that Airman was motivated by some sadistic impulse to kill people. It’s pretty clear it comes from a misguided belief that killing some people will benefit the survivors enough to justify the death and destruction.
Some of you have read Airman’s post as being about his worries and fears about going to war and leaving his family. I don’t see that. He says that he is upset about the debate over the war, not the war itself. I don’t see why I should feel bad for the guy because he’s tired of people disagreeing with him. That said, I understand that he may not have wanted to come out and admit his real fears, hoping that his friends and other people sympathetic to what he’s going through would read between the lines. If those were the feelings that motivated that thread, then I apologize for posting there at all. When people post about their personal problems seeking consolation, they should be able to expect that only people interested in comforting them will respond.
I do believe that this thread is a way of silencing anti-war sentiments. To some of you, any statement that criticizes the military’s actions is a personal insult against individual servicemen. You people act like anyone with a military uniform on is beyond reproach. Brace yourselves, because the criticism is only going to get more heated once the killing starts.
On a final note, fuck you too, White Lightning. And of course fuck you Weirddave - I’ve been remiss in not saying that until now.
This is exactly why I thought your post there was inappropriate (sans the ever-so-slightly condescending attitude). I see that it was because of a difference in interpretation of his OP. I still think the ‘think twice, post once’ rule should have forestalled your attitude there.
I didn’t think his thread was about stifling debate, but was an explanation for his bowing out of a debate that had gotten more heated than he was comfortable with. He went so far as to start a new thread to make that statement, clearly allowing all the other war threads to continue unhindered.
I don’t think this thread is about stifling debate, it seems pretty clear to me that it’s about Weirddave’s irritation at you for being rude in Airman’s thread.
chula, for Airman and others in his position, the debate isn’t a coffeehouse exercise in logic and rhetoric. It’s real. That’s why he’s fed up with the discussion. Our dinner-table and pillow talk these days is all about the war he knows he’s going overseas to take part in. He’s just given up trying to convince the members of the SDMB.
And, quite frankly, I don’t agree with Bush’s stance on Iraq. Although Saddam Hussein has violated the UN resolutions and the terms of the Persian Gulf war, I’m not entirely sure that we’ve allowed for a fully peaceful resolution to the issue at hand.
That said, however, there’s a vast chasm between expressing a valid political viewpoint, which you certainly have, and pissing all over someone who doesn’t deserve it, which you certainly did. Airman’s unit broadcasts information in the hopes that enemy combatants surrender peacefully. (Cites: Here, here, and here) Their goal is to preserve the peace, if possible and keep casualties on both sides to a minimum, if hostilities should occur.
I wish I could convey what I felt this year during the State of the Union address and Powell’s address to the UN. The best I could come up with was fear. For the first time in my life, the events half a world away are coming to rest right on my doorstep. I have a vested interest in the activities of men in uniforms with shiny silver stars on their shoulders, because they have the authority to order my husband overseas to a theater of war.
I’m not asking you to do a 180 and support Bush and war. All I’m asking you to do is to show some respect to the people who have to go over and fight that war. Because, to them, it isn’t an exercise in intellectual masturbation. It’s a job that must be done, and it’s going to be done as best they can. They sure as hell don’t deserve the title of “killer”.
Robin
I don’t believe this thread is attempting to silence any anti-war sentiments. There are lots of other threads in GD clearly dedicated to that cause. :eek:
I also don’t feel that there is anything wrong with criticizing military action. But when you attack a single serviceman - not for his ideals, but for what you perceive to be his desire to fight (rather than debate) - then you are IMHO dishonoring the individuals who make up our Armed Forces. It is just as wrong to group together all soldiers as “excited about fighting” as it is to group together all protesters as “scared to fight.”
That being said, I don’t think this qualifies you as “an ass of truly astronomical magnitude.” But it would be nice to see you understand the offense taken.
White Lightning: I meant this thread, the one we’re in now. It’s Weirddave’s attitude that stifles debate.
Thinking about my post a thousand times wouldn’t have changed anything. I knew it might annoy some people, because most people who were going to post there were going to be pro-war. I don’t think I should be expected to take his post at anything other than face value, as an expression of his frustration with the debate over the war.
MsRobyn: it sounds an awful lot like you’re putting words in my mouth. I never called anyone any names. Your husband’s specific role in the operation is irrelevant to my statement. My statement could have been directed at anyone who believes war is the solution.
Second, you have no right to tell everyone who is not involved in the military that we are just engaging in mental masturbation. We all live on this planet and have a stake in what goes on. It affects my life when innocent people die, when tax dollars are spent on weapons instead of schools, when the next generation lives in a world still full of war. Do you think these debates would get so heated if people didn’t feel that way? And people in the military aren’t the only ones who put their lives on the line for a cause. People who work in my field are frequently harassed, jailed, kidnapped, and murdered for what they believe in. Every time the U.S. military kills people overseas it increases the chances that I’ll be a target while traveling abroad. In fact, any of us could be targets of retaliation without even leaving our homes.
Here’s the thing: I never said that he was “excited about fighting.” My perception that he wishes to fight is based on (1) his voluntary enlistment in the military and (2) his strong support for the war.
I’m starting to think people are misinterpreting the word “tired” in my statement. Would it be clearer if I changed that sentence to “I wish you were giving up on the latter rather than the former”?
You can repeat this all you want, have it tatooed across your forehead if it makes you feel better, but the fact remains that it’s simply a self serving LIE. My exact words:
What I took exception to was:
You persist on claiming that I am trying to “stifle debate about the war”, in spite of the fact that you are participating in another thread where I have invited, and engaged civily in, exactly that: A debate about the merits of war. Unfortunately your grasp of reality in that thread is a tenuous as your grasp of the truth here. Just because you keep repeating something over and over dosen’t make it true, no matter what your classmates in the 3rd grade might say.
You might wish to enroll in a course in Logic, PDQ, chula. I see Airman’s strong support for the war if Iraq doesn’t honor its commitments. I also see that Airman will be very happy if Iraq does honor its commitments and thus avoids a war. I really don’t see where you see a “I want to fight and kill” attitude in Airman.
I also don’t think most people in Airman’s thread were pro-war. I thought there was a huge contingent in that thread of people that were against the war but supported Airman. I’m against the war. I posted in that thread because I wanted Airman to know that I respect him personally.
Most people weren’t pro-war, but they were all respectful. You weren’t. Ergo, this thread. Just like Dave said.
This isn’t (to my mind) a pileon. I, and I think most others here, see your point of view. We just think you expressed it inappropriately.