Sharp as a Marble - Liars. Each and every one of them

<< Kick comparison | Home | Woo hoo flexeril! >>

Views , Wingnuts and Moonbats

They no more 'support the troops' than Tom Cruise supports anti-depressant use.

It's been said before, but I will repeat it here because it pisses me off to no end. You cannot support the troops unless you support their mission - The troops are their mission! The troops are the ones pulling the triggers. They are the ones guiding the bombs. They are the ones planning the attacks.

If you disagree with what's going on, then you do not support the troops, period. It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. While I consider it distasteful, you're more than welcome to state that you support the troops doing X but not Y. At least you're being honest.

However, I cannot understand how insane one must be to sit across from a military hospital waving signs that say you support the troops but refuse to even talk to them. That takes a very special kind of asshole.

Hat tip Bill.

posted @ 9/13/2006 9:22:29 AM

Comments

Craig says:

on 9/13/2006 10:59:59 AM

Wow, I don't think I can agree with your assessment. But I guess it comes down to what you mean by "support". It could mean something like "respect" or "appreciate" or "feel sympathy for". Or it could mean something more like "agree with". If the latter, then it gets really tricky, because I bet there's at least one soldier over there who thinks the whole thing is a mistake, and that the mission is fundamentally flawed. Probably a minority, but generalization is dangerous all the same.

Or "support" could mean something else.

Generally, I find that these sorts of ideological arguments come down to one side saying, "X because Y", and the other side saying, "No, Z because Y" when they don't even agree on the definition of Y. Of course, most of the time, there is no one definition of Y.

So do those protestors "support" the troops? Well, you'd have to get them to define "support" for you. Clearly, it doesn't meet your definition of the word, but hey, we all get to pick what we mean by something.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/13/2006 12:33:53 PM

But I guess it comes down to what you mean by "support". It could mean something like "respect" or "appreciate" or "feel sympathy for".

That's like saying it depends on what the definition of is, is. Yes 'support', according to Merriam Webster, has 6 definitions of the transitive verb, but none of those have anything to do with respect, appreciation, sympathy, or agreement. If that was what they meant, then "I Sympathize / Agree With / Respect the Troops" would have been the appropriate sign.

because I bet there's at least one soldier over there who thinks the whole thing is a mistake, and that the mission is fundamentally flawed

And he / she has no obligation to fight the battle then. Yes, there is jail time for being a CO, but then they'd be standing by their principles. So I have no sympathy for soldiers who fight wars they disagree with. As far as tactics go, though, a soldier has no say in the matter and should know that.

Or "support" could mean something else.

Then use another word. You can't replace language with random meanings and expect the majority to comprehend.

Clearly, it doesn't meet your definition of the word

Which is based in a generally agreed upon definition. See Webster or any number of dictionaries.

but hey, we all get to pick what we mean by something.

Not really. You can yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater and I bet the judge isn't going to believe you when you tell him you meant "be quiet in the back". If we willy nilly assign random meanings to every word then communication becomes impossible. We agree to a base set of definitions and variations from those definitions take time to assimilate themselves and invariably generate confusion (and thus require explanations of intent). And when the soldiers they so "support" ask them, they ignore them.

They're lying. Pure and simple.

Haacked says:

on 9/13/2006 1:24:02 PM

But Robb, have you never worked on a project at work that you thought was flawed. Perhaps a project you felt was mismanaged and heading in the wrong direction?

Or maybe you've worked on successful project, but at a company whose direction as a whole you felt was heading in the wrong direction.

Yet you probably supported your coworkers in that situation, no?

I don't accept the idea that because I feel the leadership has bungled managing the operation that I can't then claim to support the troops. The troops are not the leadership. The troops are the troops.

As you pointed out, support has many definitions:

5: to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage.

Another dictionary has the definition - to give aid to and comfort.

I totally agree with you that in the particular article you linked to that ignoring the soldiers while claiming support is terrible and disingenuous.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/13/2006 3:04:52 PM

Well, Phil there's a major difference in working on a project that may or may not benefit a company and vounteering for a war that affects countries, economies, and countless numbers of lives.

However, I should update this post to add a bit of clarity. I totally agree with the following statement by Jon Henke of Q&O

The short version is this: if you oppose the mission on moral grounds — that is, you believe that the mission is, itself, immoral — than you ought not claim to "support the troops". After all, you believe what they are doing is immoral. But if you oppose the mission on practical, strategic or cost/benefit grounds, then it’s perfectly consistent to say that you "oppose the mission, support the troops".

My emphasis. It's the moral opposition that I should be harping on.
You can't claim the war is immoral but those executing it aren't. Code Pink opposes the morality of the war.

And Bruce McQuain (also over at Q&O) illustrates my point of troops being their mission better than me

Mission support is key here. If you support the mission, support of those executing the mission is expected. However, if you don’t support the mission, it is logically inconsistent to support the troops charged with accomplishing the mission.

Besides, I don't think I've ever worked on a corporate project I felt was heading in the right direction ;)

Haacked says:

on 9/13/2006 4:04:39 PM

Ah! The clarification makes more sense to me. However, if I believe someone is doing something immoral, that doesn't mean I can't be supportive of that person, no?

Hypothetical: If I disagree with someone's decision to undergo an abortion. Could I still not support the person? By support, I may say "I don't like what you're doing, but I do understand that it is not an easy decision you make and not one you take lightly, so if you do choose it, I will not turn my back on you."

Likewise, I can feel that this war was created under false pretexts, thus the reason for the operation is suspect and perhaps immoral, but still support the troops forced to follow orders and clean up the mess started by others.

I guess it is a bit of semantic nuance here since my question is whether or not one can believe the war was started under immoral grounds, but the necessity to finish the job is moral.

Anyways, just thinking out loud and not claiming those are my actual views on abortion or the war.

Craig says:

on 9/13/2006 10:03:25 PM

Yes, if you pick completely arbitrary meanings for words at odds with what most other people mean, then communication becomes nearly impossible. And exactly that occasionally happens.

But I can't quite buy your argument - I can certainly see someone making a much more rational case for saying they support someone even in the case where they disagree with what they're doing, than for saying they meant "quiet" when saying, "Fire". And even in that case, maybe they did mean "be quiet in the back" for some weird reason. If a judge doesn't believe them, well, then maybe there's consequences for them, and they have to accept them due to the implicit social contract we all operate under, but a judge not believing you doesn't alter the subjective truth of your statements.

But whatever - you think those people are lying. I guess that's the part I thought was a little strong. "Misled", "illogical", "annoying", or even "stupid" are all more defensible positions on your part, in my opinion.

I'll shut up now. I'm not particularly political myself. I commented primarily because I was surprised by the unusual post on a blog I generally enjoy reading. This wasn't my favorite post, but I'll look forward to others in the future - be they personal, political, or technical. Cheers!

dorkafork says:

on 9/17/2006 2:23:49 AM

Mission support is key here. If you support the mission, support of those executing the mission is expected. However, if you don’t support the mission, it is logically inconsistent to support the troops charged with accomplishing the mission.

The logic needs to be fleshed out more. Because as it stands, it's "If p then q, not p, therefore not q."

Anyway, I would think it was obvious that the people who support the troops but not the mission are in favor of changing the mission. If Al Gore gets elected in '08 and changes the mission to "fighting global warming", and I complain about it, am I suddenly some asshole that doesn't "Support Our Troops"?

Code Pink would still be assholes, though. If you won't even look a wounded soldier in the eye, I don't think that falls under any definition of "support."

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links