That’s a fascinating topic. For instance, should we honor someone who was drafted in WWII (The Good War), served out their time, and then left military service forever, more than someone who volunteered during the cold war, when it looked like WWIII would break out any moment, but never saw combat, vs. someone who volunteered and then fought in a morally questionable war like the present one?
I also have trouble judging someone who is actually over there fighting right now for not being sufficiently anti-Bush. However hard it is for Americans as a whole to come to the realization that their president is screwing them, it might be MUCH harder for someone who, by dint of BEING there and LIVING it, is so a part of the war, who must so want his or her actions, and the lives of his or her buddies, to have meaning.
Nonetheless, this is really a hijack from the main topic of this thread…
I have no doubt that he will be complaining about something next week. But there’s a big difference between “you are such a Republican blowhard that you will always find something going on that you want to complain about” and “you are such a Republican blowhard that you will always find something to complain about in any situation, no matter how blameless all liberals involved were”. The first is probably a fair accusation about a number of people on both sides of the isle. The second, however, just reminds me of one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen Republicans say, which I will mention despite it having the risk of opening back up one of the dumbest debates ever, which was “Oh, you liberals, and Michael Moore in particular, complaining about how Bush sat there in the classroom reading about the goat for seven minutes… you hate him so much that if he had gotten up and stopped reading immediately, you’d be yelling and screaming about how he had traumatized the poor kids”. Riiiiiiiiiight.
I don’t think we have. I think there are a few partisan posters on both sides who will leap on what they perceive to be a transgression by the Other Side, and will post exactly this sort of crappily conceived OP. Acrimony ensues, and more divisiveness is fostered. I’m fucking sick of it. Mr. Moto is perfectly capable of rational thought, and yet he wastes his and our time with this complete bullshit, just as Reeder and december used to do, and rjung and the like continue to do. It’s the sort of thing that made this place utterly uninhabitable a year ago, and I have absolutely no compunction in “dogpiling” him for continuing what I think is a positively shitty trend that is way past its sell-by date. No, he didn’t start it, and no, he won’t end it. But he can bloody well stop adding to it, and I fucking wish he would because I know he’s capable of better.
I see what you’re saying. Really his conservative view point and his joy of complaining are two seperate things. There are plenty of people who just like to complain about everything. Heck come to Cafe Society and see people complain about movies that won’t come out for a year.
Others have ably addressed Mr Moto’s replies to my previous post, so I have nothing to add there. But I also saw this post and it seems to be making the same mistake of saying that being anti-war is the same as being anti-servicemen. The activities Ravenman described were all opposed to servicemen being killed. What exactly was the opposing viewpoint that Ravenman wanted represented? A pro-KIA speaker advising potential enlistees on how to get shot? Would that make for a fair and balanced counterpoint?
Hey, maybe this explains the lack of protective armor all those servicemen were complaining about in Iraq this time around. The Bush administration was just showing its respect.
In my reading of this thread, I’ve only seen evidence that three of the supervisors said that they voted against the Iowa because of US involvement in Iraq or because of US policy about gays in the military. The SF Gate article linked earlier mentions explicitly that one or more supervisors voted against it because they didn’t think it made sense financially.
Actually, no, there isn’t. Unless by “right now” you mean something other than “while Bush is President”.
If the liberal dolts rejected the memorial “due to its clear military nature”, then they are doing exactly what Mr. Moto said they were - dissing veterans because they are military, and military is icky. If they rejected it as a protest against the war in Iraq, and they did, then there is no practical difference between that and “no veterans memorial because Bush sucks”.
Another example of the mixed message dear to the hearts of a certain kind of moron - “we support our troops, who should be ashamed of themselves”.
I defy you to explain how a claim that the military pushes into its ranks young, naive individuals who are more suseptible to brainwashing, knowing that they’ll never be able to pull the wool over the eyes of smarter, more worldly college graduate-aged folks, is in any way, shape, or form a “pro-serviceman” viewpoint.
In terms of opposing viewpoints, I suppose a few people who could have provided a different view would be: an Assistant United States Attorney to advise that it is illegal to evade the draft; a veteran of any war to state his pride in making a career in the Armed Forces, along with a statement that he didn’t join because he was stupid; perhaps a political science professor to state his view that its a good thing for the UN to lead a real coalition of nations against unprovoked aggression; and I’m sure that other views could be representated as well.
Your allegation that the only other possible view to be represented is one in favor of US troops getting killed is a comment worthy of a grade-A idiot. Your narrow-minded, snotty, and offensive comment about “the other side” wanting US troops to be killed really taints my view of you, since I regard you as a poster who usually has his feet feet well-grounded in reason and common sense.
It sounds eminently pro-serviceman to me. Anti-service, to be sure, but the sentiment is entirely founded in the desire for the well being of those enlisted in the armed forces.
Incidentally, every school I’ve ever attended, from pre-school through college, has been in the Bay Area, and I never heard anything remotely similar to what you experienced from any of my schools, nor have I ever heard of anything remotely similar to it at any of the schools attended by my friends. Sounds like quite the aberration to me.
Don’t send them into combat without a good reason.
Don’t send them into combat without the best preparation possible.
Pay servicemen a good wage and give them decent benefits.
Help the families of servicemen when they’re serving on active duty.
Help the families of servicemen who are killed in service.
Help servicemen find good jobs when they leave the service.
Give servicemen and their families access to proper medical care.
Send letters and gifts to servicemen.
Have entertainers give free performances for servicemen.
Throw servicemen a nice parade and invite them to a picnic.
Give servicemen a discount card for half off on DVD rentals.
Buy servicemen a beer.
But turn a WWII battleship into a tourist attraction? That’s pretty far down the list.
He was saying they simply aren’t as important as the other things he listed, not that they are inappropriate. How the fuck did you get “inappropriate”?
I think he may be implying that one might want to try to find solutions to the other problems on the list before worrying about the placement of memorials.
The USS Arizona memorial wasn’t dedicated until 1962, at a time when we had the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War and the conflict in Vietnam to worry about. Would anyone at the time have seriously suggested that that memorial be deferred until those problems were solved?
The real question is not whether someone would have suggested it. The question is whether, if some very anti-war anti-nuke person HAD suggested it, they would have been accused of being “anti-veteran”. (And, I suppose, whether that accusation would have been accurate, which I don’t think it (necessarily) would have been.)
To repeat a point I made earlier, there is a HUGE difference between a memorial to military dead, ie, the Vietnam Wall or the WWII memorial in DC, and a floating military history museum, which, while perhaps partly serving as such a memorial, is also in many ways a monument to the military itself. Which is not necessarily a bad thing… the US military has done some amazing and cool and awesome things. BUT, it does mean, in my opinion, that objecting to a military monument is not prima facie evidence that one is anti-veteran.
A false dilemma is more typically a dichotomy (either this or that). There are costs involved with berthing this ship, along with the use of other resources. There is nothing false about rank ordering priorities. Just because you believe that spending money and time on a memorial is more important than “[not] send[ing] them into combat without a good reason” or “Pay[ing] servicemen a good wage and giv[ing] them decent benefits” doesn’t mean it is false to propose such a hierarchy.
As for your “we didn’t start the fire” counterargument that there were other world events going on in the past - I don’t see critical events in Little Nemo’s list. Do you feel that a memorial should be given greater priority than not sending armed forces into combat without a good reason? Do you feel that it is more important to memorialize previous conflicts than it is to pay a reasonable wage to current servicemen and women?
Remember, your assertion is that this decision is evidence that liberals disrespect the military. I think conservatives/war supporters disrespect the military because they are unmoved by concerns for the actual well-being of service members (i.e. putting them needlessly in harm’s way, providing them with reasonable pay and benefits…). Our priorities differ.
My assertion all along was that this decision was evidence that some liberals disrespect the military and veterans. I think the evidence is pretty strong that some do, and that San Francisco is overrepresented by this type.
C’mon, Hentor, you know Pittsburgh as well as I do. Would this decision have been made by those Democrats that run that place?
Not in a million fucking years.
And I certainly don’t deny that there are some conservatives that disrespect the military. This conservative does not, however, and you’ll be hard pressed to find evidence here on these boards that I do. I have supported greater pay for them, and better equipment. Indeed, I personally have done more in this area for the military than nearly anyone you’re going to meet. I can cite a medal citation for work I’ve done to help improve the Navy’s shipboard Tomahawk systems. I continue to work with this program today as a civilian.
And let’s be clear, I have always felt that this war was needed. Therefore, I wouldn’t think soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq were there needlessly.
Your blanket statement that conservatives don’t care about the military is, frankly, untrue and offensive. It is as bad as an assertion that all liberals don’t care about them, which I have never believed, and have never asserted here.