Apparently...
In going through and reading some different conservative blogs and listening to some talk shows here and there (I listen to both sides so I can hear what the enemy is talking about lately), and apparently. liberals and democrats are now dehumanizing the troops in Iraq. How we are doing this, I don't know for sure. I guess that the dems want the troops to come home, and that we want them to stop getting killed in the streets of Iraq, I guess this is what they mean by dehumanizing? That's pretty fun stuff right there. Don't know what the hell these people are talking about, because as far as I can tell, there hasn't been an unkind word said about the troops from either side of things since this whole war started. OK, well, maybe not in certain circles, but for the most part, and around the political spectrum, one thing is for certain. The support of the troops abroad is secure. I for one, do think that it is possible that you can support the troops, and not the war. I want to see all of them come home, and feel very strongly that they went over there for no good reason, for an unjust war, and an illegal war. Some people are even calling Bush a war criminal for starting a war, and for most recently, using white phosphorus against the insurgents. Some are even calling for Mr. Bush to take a little trip to The Hague for a little trial. Will something like this happen? I'd so more than likely, no. I don't think that they can get him on war crimes for what he's done. It's just funny to me that conservatives, who say that they are pro military, and pro troops, want to keep these young men and women in Iraq as long as possible, and as some keep saying, "To stay the course." I guess, I just don't get it. In order to now be pro-military in America these days, it appears that you must want troops to stay in Iraq for as long as possible, and for them to continue to be wounded and or killed. Sure, it makes perfect sense doesn't it? Nah, not really.
Another thing that bothers me about conservatives these days is their incessant harping on Cindy Sheehan. For instance, the other day, reading another conservative blogger, they posted some pictures of Ms. Sheehan and she was, GASP, smiling... How dare she smile, they insisted, when she keeps saying that she's mourning the loss of her son because of the war in Iraq. I don't understand these people. This woman is smiling, and they question her motives and her mourning because she's smiling? I don't get it. I just don't get it. Can't someone be in mourning and smile? I think so, but these people seem to think that if she's not wearing black all of the time, and moping around, being all sad, she must not be genuine in her grief, and then they attack her for that. They completely and totally ignore the fact that she is protesting against war, something that I think most of us should do because really isn't war just bad? Indeed it is, and probably should be avoided at all costs, but something in their little minds tells them that Bush took us to war, so it must be OK for us to be there. Then they question anyone and everyone who says that their against the war, call them un-American and un-Patriotic, and of course, they love calling them cowards. I find this strange, because most of the people at the top of the heap in our political world, on both sides, have never been there. Never been in military service, never been in war, and have never had those experiences, and they boldly question those that have been there, and have had those experiences. Maybe someday they'll learn to listen to others, and maybe learn from people who don't stand around and just act as "yes" men.
Today though was a banner day. I got inked today. It took what I would like to call a long ass time. My tattoo is detailed, and pretty well done, it's just now it has to heal up, and that should take a couple of weeks. I hope to have some pictures posted up on here later when I get the bandage taken off of it, and clean it up some and get the antibiotic ointment on it. I had it done at Dogstar Tattoo in Durham, NC. If you're ever in the market to get one, or another one if you already have some, check out their website, and check out Kathryn Moore, the owner, she does some damn good work as far as I can tell. Here is the website address:
I knew that it was going to be fairly painful getting a needle shoved into my skin over and over again for 3 hours in a row, but I really had no idea just how painful it was going to be. Initially, it wasn't too bad really. The outline had kind of a sharp stinging pain, but not too bad. Then the initial coloring and shading wasn't too bad, but it was when she had to go back and color in, and or re-outline and finish things over and over again, that's when it started to not feel very good at all. It hurt the entire time, don't get me wrong, but near the end it was starting to get a touch bit unbearable. There was a lot of grimacing going on towards the end. Since the work I had done was fairly detailed, and had a lot of coloring and preciseness about it, it took a lot longer, and it took multiple passes over the same areas time and again. Ouchie is all I've got to say about that. Ouchie indeed. If you are ever thinking about getting a tattoo though, get one initially maybe that isn't so detailed, and maybe smaller than the one I got. First time out, it was a marathon session I think. I made it though, and now have more character because of it. And also I have a permanent reminder of a Christmas gift given to me by the SO, since I paid for half of it with a gift certificate that she gave me for Christmas last year to that particular tattoo shop. As mentioned, will get some pictures up there later on this evening hopefully. I'm pretty darn happy with how it came out, I just hope that others like it. Then again, I don't care if others like it, I like it, and since it's on my leg, that's all that matters. I'm already thinking that I might have to get another one later on down the line. It only took me 32 years to get this one, I wonder how long it will take me to get #2?
posted by giantcu92 @ 3:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Before I get too entrenched in this comment, let me say this: I am AGAINST the war. I don't believe in a kind of masculinity that favors leaving women and children to go off to a foreign land and killing other men, women, and children. That said, I think the idea of "supporting the troops and condemning" the war is a tricky one. Of course, no one holds the soliders accountable for a bad foreign policy. But at the same time, by not at least affording those soliders some agency, some say in this whole mess, i.e. totally washing their hands, we rob them not only of responsibility but we turn them into automatons. It is a tough position to uphold, rhetorically and logically.
Admitting one's mistake (specially when you're the president) takes a whole lot of balls. I was actually glad to see Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham admit to taking millions in bribes and having the guts to step up and admit to his wrong-doings.
GWB will first go and cover his tracks by saying the "arguing" going on in the US is dehumanizing the troops in Iraq. Why? because he wants the questioning to STOP.
The basic problem I have with Duke coming out now and saying that he's guilty is that if he hadn't been caught, he would have never had said a word about it, and we would have continued to have been duped by him, and I'm sure by others as well. The issue at hand is that he should not have taken that money to begin with. It's kind of like dopers in cycling. There have been a few that have been caught, copped to it, and then quit the sport, but once again, they didn't admit guilt until they had been caught when they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.
Supporting the troops and not the war is a truicky position really. With the armed services, you cannot truly hold accountable the basic grunt/ground soldier infantryman. They are a tool of the administration, and of their commanders. Some of the higher ups, you can hold their feet to the fire, but the vast majority of troops are there because of what they were told to do, and being professionals, they just did it. While they are not automatons by any stretch, they have extensive training and "conditioning" that essentially tells them that if their leaders order them to do something, and it's a lawful order, they are to do it, no questions asked, but it is a tough road to walk down.
I disagree a bit with that thought that almost everybody is against war. Right now, we do seem to have a bunch of leaders in the US who are very hawkish, and one might say, chickenhawkish in their thoughts and views. Most of the Bush administration has been calling for war with Iraq since the days of Clinton and before. Check out PNAC. You'll see that most of the letters they wrote extoling Clinton to go to war with Iraq were signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and others who are very close in counseling the President on matters of military intervention. I think that this administration is very much pro-war. And the fact remains that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US so this was in a best case scenario, a war of choice. There were other wars where there were no choices. WWII comes to mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home