Skip to main content

View Diary: KY-Sen: Horne in (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The only thing more tortured than McConnell's (0+ / 0-)

    precepts is iluvator's comment above.

    What part of Attack, Attack, Attack don't you understand?

    Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:36:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So perhaps .. (0+ / 0-)

      .. you'd prefer that military conflicts were completely bloodless ... at least on our side of the fence.  I mean wouldn't it be great if none of our soldiers had to die, if there weren't any consequences at all that we as a nation had to face?  How much better would war be if only the enemy had to die ... oh, and of course all the "enemy" collateral damage, like 100,000 Iraqui men, women and children.

      Soldiers sign up for a dangerous duty.  That is part of the reason we're supposed to support them, part of the reason we're supposed to acknowledge and respect their heroic sacrifices on our behalf.  No one wants them to die, but the sad reality is that in armed conflict they do, and the sadder reality is that their deaths are in large part the only thing that keep military powers like us (US) from exercising our might in even more pockets around the world.  We've lost what, 4,000 soldiers so far ... to the how many hundreds of thousand of Iraquis ... and our guys signed up for the job, they weren't trundling about their business when an air raid wiped out their entire family.

      We lost between 60,000 and 90,000 service men and women in Vietnam (depending on whether they were in theatre or not), 100,000 in WWI and over 400,000 soldiers in WW2 ... soldiers die in military theatres and if one is acknowledge the importance of a particular conflict (as McConnell to his disservice clearly does)the recognition of that sacrifice is not offensive.  I don't really want to argue this point because I more or less agree, I completely despise McConnell and I know you're just going to get pissy at the fact that I'm splitting hairs.  It is a question of where the Senator is coming from (the wrong place) and you're inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that.  But whatever, I don't exactly expect particularly nuanced arguments in the comments threads, and that was really my only intent ... I guess that makes me the idiot for expecting too much.

      •  no, iluvatar. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think anyone thinks that McConnell doesn't come from that worldview.  You're missing the point here, which is that he's WRONG, that this war is WRONG, and that he's minimizing their sacrifice by saying they signed up for it.  that's never okay.

        There's a difference between nuance and rhetorical nonsense.  It's saying he was wrong but at the same time saying it's okay because that's his belief system.  You're voting for it and then voting against it - a position we've found difficult to defend in the past.  I say if he's wrong he's wrong.

        And honestly, what DID you expect by posting that comment?  You were kind of covering for a guy that insulted the sacrifice of the troops.  That's kind of incendiary...

        "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

        by flowrider on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 05:59:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be perfectly honest ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... I had no problem being incendiary.  I tend to find the conversations in the comments sections, and more and more finding their ways into rec'd diaries and even frontpage diaries, to be kind of "simple" or generally lacking in critical thought.  It's oh so easy to pile on idiot Republicans for ... well, being idiots.  But it takes a little more thought, and some might say courage (or integrity) to acknowledge that, while what they might say and do within the context of their previous actions or prevailing principles, is offensive in the highest, the actual sentiments so expressed might just contain more than a kernel of truth.

          And in this particular case, divorced of the fact that it was uttered by one of the dreaded Republicans de jour, the fact that our soldiers dying in the wasteland that is Iraq are professional soldiers and not conscripts is in fact a significant distinction, on a number of levels.  No one would argue that they deserve to die, or that they should without just cause be placed in circumstances that  threaten their lives ... but they are PROFESSIONAL soldiers and guess what, that does entail a certain amount of risk.  So, I guess to answer your question, sort of, I get annoyed at the intellectual laziness that goes on around here, too much in my opinion, and sometimes I feel the need to "retaliate" by being a little annoying myself in my nit-picking.

          •  i suppose that's one way to put it (0+ / 0-)

            To me, iluvatar, the fact that we have an all-volunteer military makes our duty to them, to only send them into harm's way as a very last resort, even more imperative.  People who've decided to do this, for the sake of their country, and have shown a bravery above and beyond that of their peers in their willingness to show that last measure of devotion, deserve policy that reflects that choice.  It doesn't make them more expendable, imo.  It makes them less so.

            "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

            by flowrider on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 11:08:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree and disagree ... (0+ / 0-)

              I hope I made itclear that I agree that it is of paramount importance to thoroughly appraise the worthiness of any military engagement, for a number of reasons not the least of which is what you mentioned above.  But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that our soldiers are in fact LESS expendable (though I hesitate to even use such a callous word, just understand that we are both appropriating it as a convenient word).  In fact I think that sentiment is part of what annoys me, it's almost like all the asinine Republican "Support The Troops" bumper stickers have seeped into the progressive fabric.  Everyone now (like yourself) is so quick to lionize our entire military to the point that rational evaluation goes out the window.

              The unfortunate truth is that our soldiers are often no braver, no better and no more patriotic than your run of the mill civilian.  What they often are is poor, under-educated, not particularly sophistaced 19 year olds who have either cultivated a warped sense of patriotism or have found themselves disadvantaged to the point that joining the military sounds like a great career choice.  Now, obviously you don't require any of the above, and it doesn't mean that our soldiers aren't good people, but I've lived in heavily military areas, I've spent large amounts of time with military personnel and I've even made a handful of decent friends and at no point was I ever under the impression that the military somehow conveyed any particular importance above and beyond civilian life, and I certainly never felt that there lives were in any way more valuable or worthy of safeguarding than anyone elses.

              •  I'm not risking my life, they are... (0+ / 0-)

                that's the only reason I need to be appreciative and to idolize their sacrifice.  I see your point, but I still don't grant it to you here.  that's okay - you get to have your own opinions - but I'm not going to excuse Mitch McConnell's characterization of professional soldiers' sacrifice as a ticket to do whatever we want with them.  I thought it was despicable, and as someone in a position of power, he should be ashamed - as a Kentucky student, I'm ashamed of him.

                "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

                by flowrider on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 12:34:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I respect that ... (0+ / 0-)

                  I just think it dances a little close to the "token" (though I don't ascribe any insincerity to you) "support" for the troops evinced by talking head Republicans.  And what's more, I think it establishes dangerous trends whereby we (as a nation)lend to much fealty to an institution (the military) and a class of people (the soldiers) who by and large do not share our  (Democrats) belief systems, do not vote progressive and  generally don't do too much to make this country a better place ... except "lay" their lives on the line.  

                  And while that is no small thing I guess I choose to appreciate the sacrifice of the inner city high school teacher who works for pennies on the dollar in a brutal environment, the lady with the drudgerous task who delivers my mail every day, the garbage man for that matter, the little Thai cook down the street who makes the most amazing Garlic Pepper noodles ... and on and on.  You know, those people who actually make my life better and who contribute in whatever small part they can to the betterment of the entire social fabric.  See, one of the problems I have with idolizing the military is that it is almost entirely comprised of individuals who have chosen to remove themselves from the social fabric, they don't actually contribute anything to the betterment of society, except for of course "safeguarding" it from "eradication".  Now I can recognize the need for that service and I can even respect some of the individuals who make that particular sacrifice but I don't feel that I or any one else need blindly idolize that sacrifice ... and if you listen to our idiot President, it is apparently more dangerous LIVING in Detroit than it is fighting in Iraq ... now living in Detroit is a sacrifice I can respect :)

                  Alright, I think we're probably running around in circles now, and my responses are just getting longer so thanks for not being a lunatic shreeking voice like I sometimes encounter here, and by all means go on disrespecting McConnell, I'm sure he deserves it and more ... that certainly ain't my point of contention :)

                  •  I'll only reply to say (0+ / 0-)

                    that i agree with you about those other folks as well.  I think that the guy who gets rounded up at a protest is making a sacrifice for my freedom.  I think the inner city teacher deserves a great deal of praise, especially if he/she stays in that school after two years or so.

                    And concerning the institution of the military, I think you have a draw a dividing line.  I think the military bureaucracy is manipulative, way too powerful, and itching for a fight at any given moment.  They have contributed to the creation of a state at "perpetual war for perpetual peace," and the Congress and the American people have been completely willing to let them roll over everyone to do so.  

                    However, just because the way that we USE the military these days doesn't necessarily, in my opinion, do much to protect my freedom, that doesn't mean that the willingness of people, no matter their political affiliation (which I think is irrelevant - this isn't supposed to be a vote-getting opportunity) ,to fight and die is less noteworthy.

                    "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

                    by flowrider on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 12:34:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site