Friday, September 09, 2005
Just Say Thank You Or Go Your Way
I have said repeatedly something I firmly believe, and that no one has yet changed my mind about. You cannot claim to "support the troops" in one breath and condemn our leaders and our mission in the next. My friend, Dadmanly, helps prove my point.
I love the movie, "A Few Good Men," partly because it is such a superb piece of Hollywood drama. I also love it because I can identify with both "sides" of the case. The defense team is doing what they must to prove their clients innocent of the charges. They were two Marines following the orders they'd been given. At the same time Jack Nicholson is a warrior whose charge to protect his country at all costs has clouded his judgement and his humanity. His motives are good, his methods are fundamentally flawed.
Among the best lines in the film is Nicholson's answer to Tom Cruise's questioning.
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? ... You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. ... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."
-------------
If you can not support the mission in which I am engaged, then I neither want nor need your support of me as a defender of this nation. If you think so little of my honor, my calling, that you believe I would engage in an unjust war then I don't want your so-called support. I don't even need your thanks. Just get out of my face, have another toke, and sing endless choruses of "Give Peace A Chance." ¶ Friday, September 09, 2005
I have said repeatedly something I firmly believe, and that no one has yet changed my mind about. You cannot claim to "support the troops" in one breath and condemn our leaders and our mission in the next. My friend, Dadmanly, helps prove my point.
"Mrs. Dadmanly feels alone. ... I wish I could say family and friends have worked hard to make up the difference, and while some have, and many want to, the results just don't compare. ... Some have let their own ambivalence or even negative feelings about the war color their interactions and poison their good intentions. "This really is a stupid war, there's no reason he should be over there," or "I get so mad he even has to be over there." Each time these misguided editorials zing past her ears, it really doesn't matter what else was said, offered, or given. "Why don’t you just shut up and go away," is the thought that blackens any good intent.------------------------
"By the way, that is why one cannot be against the war but support the troops, because every one of your negative comments hurts, depresses, angers, and weakens the resolve of both the troops and their loved ones, whether they personally agree with the war or not. Such talk, when publicized, boosts an enemy's propaganda effort, and whittles away public resolve, which of course is the real intent of the criticism anyway, isn't it? But more dangerously, such talk, when incessant and without real substance, contributes to poor morale. And poor morale and ebbing public support will eventually weaken families, embolden failing enemies, and kill Soldiers."
I love the movie, "A Few Good Men," partly because it is such a superb piece of Hollywood drama. I also love it because I can identify with both "sides" of the case. The defense team is doing what they must to prove their clients innocent of the charges. They were two Marines following the orders they'd been given. At the same time Jack Nicholson is a warrior whose charge to protect his country at all costs has clouded his judgement and his humanity. His motives are good, his methods are fundamentally flawed.
Among the best lines in the film is Nicholson's answer to Tom Cruise's questioning.
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? ... You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. ... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."
-------------
If you can not support the mission in which I am engaged, then I neither want nor need your support of me as a defender of this nation. If you think so little of my honor, my calling, that you believe I would engage in an unjust war then I don't want your so-called support. I don't even need your thanks. Just get out of my face, have another toke, and sing endless choruses of "Give Peace A Chance." ¶ Friday, September 09, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
Y'know, I don't think you go far enough. The military should simply wrest control of the government from those pany waist civilians!
Allowing civilians any kind of oversight over the military is treason. The Pentagon should just annex the White House and the Capitol and just kill anyone who get in their way.
Worked for ancient Rome, so why not here?
Allowing civilians any kind of oversight over the military is treason. The Pentagon should just annex the White House and the Capitol and just kill anyone who get in their way.
Worked for ancient Rome, so why not here?
Well, Don, I'm not going to delete your moronic comment (partly because I've decided it's better to let you show what a knucklehead you really are) but I am going to point out the obvious. There is nothing at all in my post that even remotely implies what you suggest.
This a perfect example of a classic liberal tactic. Take what is said, and pretend it means what you wish was said. Then keep pretending that until you believe you've "exposed" the true intent. Now I'll bet you continue to insist that I meant in my post what you said in your comment.
So, for those who aren't paying attention:
What James said: "If you can not support the mission in which I am engaged, then I neither want nor need your support of me as a defender of this nation. If you think so little of my honor, my calling, that you believe I would engage in an unjust war then I don't want your so-called support. I don't even need you thanks."
What Don wants you to think I said: "The military should stage a coup and seize control of the government. The Pentagon should annex the White House and the Capitol and just kill anyone who gets in their way."
Spin away, Donnie. You're fun to watch.
This a perfect example of a classic liberal tactic. Take what is said, and pretend it means what you wish was said. Then keep pretending that until you believe you've "exposed" the true intent. Now I'll bet you continue to insist that I meant in my post what you said in your comment.
So, for those who aren't paying attention:
What James said: "If you can not support the mission in which I am engaged, then I neither want nor need your support of me as a defender of this nation. If you think so little of my honor, my calling, that you believe I would engage in an unjust war then I don't want your so-called support. I don't even need you thanks."
What Don wants you to think I said: "The military should stage a coup and seize control of the government. The Pentagon should annex the White House and the Capitol and just kill anyone who gets in their way."
Spin away, Donnie. You're fun to watch.
Actually, Jimmy, I wasn't paraphrasing your post. I was proving the falsity of your premise by showing its logical consequence.
Please go to the library, find the dictionary, and look up reductio ad absurdum.
Please go to the library, find the dictionary, and look up reductio ad absurdum.
Sorry, "reduction to the absurd" isn't what you are doing. A nonsensical display of the absurd workings of a liberal mindset is more accurate.
One can hardly conclude I believe in, or encourage, a military-led government merely because I point out the foul hypocrisy of those who claim to support the warrior but oppose his mission.
You aren't arriving at an absurd conclusion to prove my original argument wrong. You have already determined a false premise and are trying to work backward to refute a valid point.
Just because you want to pretend I am some rabid militant who wants the country run by a right-wing junta doesn't make it so. But thanks for playing.
One can hardly conclude I believe in, or encourage, a military-led government merely because I point out the foul hypocrisy of those who claim to support the warrior but oppose his mission.
You aren't arriving at an absurd conclusion to prove my original argument wrong. You have already determined a false premise and are trying to work backward to refute a valid point.
Just because you want to pretend I am some rabid militant who wants the country run by a right-wing junta doesn't make it so. But thanks for playing.
Donnie boy,
Go to the dictionary and look up "pany waist civilians!" You will probably, (depending upon your dictionary skills), find "waist" and "civilians". You won't, however, find "pany". Try "pantie" or "panty".
I bring this up only because I've noticed that after you make an absurd commment you tend to follow it up with an arrogant suggestion that your opponent "look in the dictionary".
You can use as many "big words" as you wish, while you misspell the small ones, but that tactic doesn't really confirm your intellect nor the validity of your argument.
Here's a free hint: try to focus more on substance and less on form.
Just a thought. ; )
Go to the dictionary and look up "pany waist civilians!" You will probably, (depending upon your dictionary skills), find "waist" and "civilians". You won't, however, find "pany". Try "pantie" or "panty".
I bring this up only because I've noticed that after you make an absurd commment you tend to follow it up with an arrogant suggestion that your opponent "look in the dictionary".
You can use as many "big words" as you wish, while you misspell the small ones, but that tactic doesn't really confirm your intellect nor the validity of your argument.
Here's a free hint: try to focus more on substance and less on form.
Just a thought. ; )
Clay: Here's a free hint: try to focus more on substance and less on form.
Clay, what substance? Beyond "Bush is the anti-Christ," and "Roberts will take the Supreme Court back to the Dark Ages" what have you heard from the Left? Oh yeah, "Iraq is Vietnam". I forgot about that one.
Post a Comment
Clay, what substance? Beyond "Bush is the anti-Christ," and "Roberts will take the Supreme Court back to the Dark Ages" what have you heard from the Left? Oh yeah, "Iraq is Vietnam". I forgot about that one.
<< Home
