Ace of Spades HQ

« Trump Sues Author For Defamation, For Five Billion (With a B!) | Main | Just In: Senate Judiciary Panel Recommends Alito For Confirmation »

January 24, 2006

One Admits: He Doesn't Support Our Troops

At least he's honest:

I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.

...

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

...

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country...

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

...

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

If nothing else, his candor is refreshing.

I have long contended that those who scream the loudest about how they just want to bring our troops home aren't animated much by that at all. They don't fear for the safety of our troops, whom they consider troglodytic Bush-voters who didn't even go to a private college (except the officers, of course, who should be shot). Rather, they're actually most concerned about the "victims" of our soldiers.

But that doesn't sell well. So they claim they worry about the safety of our troops.

They're anti-American military first and foremost, not pro-American military man.

posted by Ace at 12:38 PM

Comments

"Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. "

Yeah, tell that to the Hmong, Montagnards and the boat people.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on January 24, 2006 12:44 PM

Excellent point, Dave.

I'm a little worried about this, though. It's one thing to be 'honest', its another to give justification to the moonbats to start spitting on the troops again. I hope I'm wrong, but this is what I see as the result of this asshat's candor.

Posted by: BrewFan on January 24, 2006 12:49 PM

I think it's about time liberals told the truth about "supporting the troops". I respect this guy's honesty, even though I may disagree with everything he believes in. As a former soldier, I can't stand to see some ass-clown like murtha, kerry, or reid constantly saying they support the troops, but the war was a mistake and Bush is a liar. Only in a kerry-esque philosophy can you support soldiers killing people for the wrong reasons that were based on "lies". If you don't support the war, you can't support those carrying it out. At least this guy has the nuts to say it.

Posted by: elcid016187 on January 24, 2006 12:58 PM

"Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo..."

I wonder if this guy has ever heard of Kurds.

Posted by: Sobek on January 24, 2006 12:58 PM

His attitude is not new, it is reprised from the '60's. We had a whole passel of people like that. I don't see like minded people coming out of the closet, cuz of the political liability today. Sort of a shame really becuase if more of the Left let their true colors show through the Dems would be in even worse shape than they are now.

Posted by: rls on January 24, 2006 12:59 PM

That's another diference between then and now, Brewfan - the moonbats might indeed start spitting on the troops again, and that would be unfortunate. But they wouldn't get away with it this time.

And I second the Amen to DFGR's point re: the actual victims of the left's takedown of our Vietnam involvement. I fail to understand how anyone that protested the Vietnam War can sleep at night, knowing the millions that died because of their fecklessness.

Posted by: Rocketeer on January 24, 2006 01:00 PM

Rocketeer,

What you fail to realize is that leftists don't care how many eggs are broken to make a socialist paradise omelet. That should be apparent by their silence regarding the Soviet Union's crimes under Lennin and Stalin, Mao's crimes, Vietnam all the way up through today with Castro's crimes. They don't care if people get killed in the pursuit of socialism/communism. Leftists only care when America's interests are somehow advanced. Then, it is evil and must be stopped.

Posted by: on January 24, 2006 01:09 PM

By this asshat's own reasoning, he is also a "wussy". [Wait, "wussy"? He really said "wussy", didn't he. Make that asshat, asscoat, and asstails. Who the hell says "wussy"?]

Anyway, by this asstux's own reasoning, let's see:

being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken

Since the US Military is 100% taxpayer funded, he is supporting the troops whether he says so or not. He also gets all the benefits of having the US Military around, including of course the National Guard. So let's cast his sentence this way:

being against the war, paying taxes to support the troops, and taking advantage of the benefits of having a military is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken

He has given himself a very good reason to leave the US. Unless he himself is a wussy and a hypocrite, which he is.

A moron, too, obviously, since concepts like why we have a military presence in Germany elude him. And you gotta love the way he throws in Jack Abramoff and traffic jokes to "lighten the tone" of his seditious little essay.

Gee, glad to see he doesn't begrudge me my military disability pension, though. What a guy.

Posted by: SGT Mark @ a marble desk on January 24, 2006 01:10 PM

But they wouldn't get away with it this time.

I hope you're right, Rocketeer, but you have to admit that there are parts of this country where this behavior would not be frowned upon.

Posted by: BrewFan on January 24, 2006 01:11 PM

So,according to this guy, fighting to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, (where the victims are white, of course), is OK, but doing so in Vietnam (and I guess Iraq) where the victims are Asian or Arabic, is morally wrong?

Do these people even listen to themselves?

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids on January 24, 2006 01:16 PM

Oh, it's Joel Stein? Heh. I thought you were talking about a real writer. Dude got fired from Entertainment Weekly.

Posted by: Slublog on January 24, 2006 01:16 PM

You're sadly right, Brewfan, and I live in one of them (anyone here hiring? I'm willing to relocate). But really, my point is that there is more transparency in 2006 than in 1975, and it's less likely that spitters here could avoid the scrutinty and outrage of the rest of the country.

Posted by: Rocketeer on January 24, 2006 01:17 PM

I usually hate bumper stickers, but I recently got so sick of seeing cars with a "Support the Troops" ribbon on the rear hatch and a "Bush Lied" or "Out of Irag Now!" on the bumper that I made my own bumper sticker. It has the yellow ribbon on one side and reads: "Support Their Mission".

God, the moonbats must hate it!

Posted by: SWLiP on January 24, 2006 01:22 PM

This kind of statement can only be made in a free society which has troops, of course.

The military is part of the State.

In a fascist far-right state, he would not be allowed to speak against the State or its organ, the military.

In a communist far-left state, he would not be allowed to speak against the State or its organ, the military.

In a state with no military, he would have nothing to speak against.

So sure, the fact that he is able to print this is ample proof that we are doing something right here. That's obvious.

What's less obvious is how such MORONS end up getting jobs writing ANYTHING. Mr. Asstux seems woefully ignorant of the military, its traditions, how it actually works, people's reasons for volunteering, why a volunteer army exists, of geopolitics, of ethics and moral theory, of history, of the US Constitution . I mean, this guy is seriously deficient.

Posted by: SGT Mark @ a marble desk on January 24, 2006 01:25 PM

Hey, remember that one week where the liberals were worried about the troops' morale?

Okay, maybe it was only five days, but it was almost a week.

Brought a tear to my eye, it did. Oh the patriotism.

Posted by: W on January 24, 2006 01:25 PM

If I put a bumper sticker like that on my car, I'd find it keyed at the end of a day in the parking garage.

Maine liberals are mean.

Posted by: Slublog on January 24, 2006 01:25 PM

The guy explicitly disallowed spitting, although I'm sure there are plenty of moonbats out there who would try for the moral superiority cred of spitting--witness the asshats outside Walter Reed, four or five posts down.

Mostly, I agree with elcid that it's refreshing to hear someone on the left actually say what they think. The Kerryesque, double-talking, "this doesn't mean what you think it does" waffle is the left's default position on practically any topic you can name. So I applaud Stein for his candor, however odious his views might be.

Posted by: utron on January 24, 2006 01:26 PM

Last week I saw "No Oil for Pacifists"

Posted by: scott on January 24, 2006 01:27 PM

The attitude I still can't fathom is, their bitching about us killing people and how worried they are about those people that we are "killing". Yet, the simple fact that it was in part the "killing" of those people that caused our troops to go there and free them. It's perfectly fine if an evil wacked out dictator kills them instead?

Posted by: EXDemocrat on January 24, 2006 01:27 PM

Though it's already been touched on, fuck him and his candor. It's hypocrites like him who will whine and cry about human rights violations and then complain when we do something about it.

Oh, wait. . . the left never complained about mass murder in the USSR, Eastern Block, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, etc.

Posted by: shawn on January 24, 2006 01:29 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

TJM definitively ranks the films of Alfred Hitchcock

@KFILE 21m

Politico is reporting that multiple people have abruptly resigned from Eric Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign: "Members of senior leadership have departed the campaign, including Courtni Pugh, a strategic adviser who served as Swalwell's top liaison to organized labor groups."

So the campaign is collapsing due to the truth of the sexual harassment allegations.
That hissing sound you hear is the air going out of the Swalwell campaign. UPDATE: No it wasn't, it was just Swalwell one-cheek-sneaking out a fart on camera
Eric Swalwell more like Eric Farewell amirite
thanks to weft-cut loop.

This is the dumbest AI bullslop I've seen in a while: the CIA can use "quantum magnetometry" to track an individual man's heartbeat from twelve miles away
I wouldn't click on it, it's not interesting, it's just stupid clickslop. I just want to share my annoyance with you.

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.