Better Late Than Never: Some Rants on War Rhetoric

[Bosh]

I "Dissent is Patriotic!"

This one really got to me after a while, especially since something along these lines are still plastered all over my campus. You see far more people insisting that its part of the American tradition to ***** about things then you ever hear people condemning the patriotism of dissidenters. Not only is it overly defensive but, "I have a right to disagree" is a pretty poor excuse for someone telling you that they're wrong.

After a while it got to be necessary to say something along these lines in any anti-war speech, publication, etc. and at great length as if the people who didn't like peaceniks only did so because they thought it would be necessary to turn in all their Americans flags if they ever disagreed with Bush. I heard a speech or two at a rally whose pretty much sole content was "we're more patriotic than them, so nyah!" as if brainless nationalism was something to be persued. Of course some of this was bred by the Bu****es "you're with us or against us mentality," but it would have been so beautiful for some leftists to just be honest and say "patriotism is generally pretty stupid" and if that's too much to ask at the very least "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" which would have been very welcome and made the peaceniks look less defensive and whiny.

II "Support our Troops!"

This one's even worse since the first one at least makes some degree of sense, but just got so overused that I wanted to choke some people, but the "support our troops" slogan is just stupid. How the hell does wanting soldiers not be shot at hurt them? Maybe it really wounds their self esteem to be told that some people don't want them shooting people?

But then it seems really bizarre that some people expect the entire tone of debate to change because they care so deeply about soldiers feelings being hurt. After all, if they can take being shot at why would a few peaceniks whining about them be so wounding? It could be a strange relic of the Vietnam War where some people were such idiots that they spit on/yelled at soldiers when they came home. But none of that happened at all this time around, I never saw a single thing from anyone that could be remotely construed as insulting to the average grunt, which makes the "support our troops" mantra all the more bizarre. Maybe the entire US Right has become New Agers so they want to ensure postives vibrations or something.

So, however vapid and overused the "support our troops, bring them home" slogan was, its actually a pretty good rebuttal.

anyone got any others that really pissed them off?

[Sava]

III "If you aren't with us, you're against us!"

This boneheaded proclamation has really pissed me off. For some reason, people have this black and white mentality. It's either left or right, right or wrong... RAWRRRR it makes me mad. There are more than two ways to do things. The anti-war discussion wasn't about Kill Saddam or Do Nothing, but so many people have equated it with that. This is the same mentality that has led us to the "the left hates America" crap that I hear. You know what, that's bull****. It also led to other stupid assertions like "the left is full of peacenik hippie wussies". FDR was probably the most leftist president we've had in the last 70 years and he was gung-ho about killing Nazis. Bill Clinton bombed tons of countries. Kennedy basically started Vietnam. But yet, leftists don't want to confront evil. It's so stupid. Thank you Boshko for this opprotunity to rant.

[Felch]

Kennedy was the second most conservative President of the late 20th century. Think of it, he actually sent Americans to openly fight Communists. Even Reagan was leery about that.

[monkspider]

Good post Boshko.

[orange]

IV "We'll drop bombs on whoever the **** we want to"

Yes, I have seen this one. Those supporting the war did it in response to the people with "Iraq War? No!" stickers on their doors. But this phrase is generally heard only from the uninformed two toothed slower lower scrapple-gobbling cousin-humping Natty Ice-swilling D average skinheaded NASCAR fans...

[Sava]

uninformed two toothed slower lower scrapple-gobbling cousin-humping Natty Ice-swilling D average skinheaded NASCAR fans...

Leave Slowwhand out of this.

A JOKE! JK SLOWWY I WUV YOU

[Dis]

no one spit at the soldiers.

But they did give out an e-mail of a soldier. And he recieved many nasty e-mails caling him a murderer etc.

although if you think about it, aren't all soldiers murderers? hmm

[MattyBoy]

"Axis of Evil": label that whole country evil, so our whole country is obviously good.

"They have weapons of mass destruction!"
(err, and so do we)

"Coalition" forces.
Coalition of 2 (and a bit) countries out of all of those the US tried to coerce. Was Iraq-Syria a coalition too?
Obviously, I am on shaky ground with this peeve, but I just felt that this name for our side was introduced early to produce a misleading impression of global solidarity for what the US led forces were doing on USA's behalf.

The "infidels". Can't help giggling a bit whenever I hear this label.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It could be a strange relic of the Vietnam War where some people were such idiots that they spit on/yelled at soldiers when they came home. But none of that happened at all this time around

It's still in the nation's consciousness, Boshko. People still remember how badly soliders were treated when they came home from that. Remember, Vietnam is so embedded into this nation's culture. Every war, someone says this is 'gonna be another Vietnam'.

The anti-war discussion wasn't about Kill Saddam or Do Nothing, but so many people have equated it with that.

What's the alternatives? Btw, keeping sanctions and inspecting sites is 'doing nothi9ng'.

[Dis]

yes that was the alternative. At least the anti-war people can say they were doing something.

But there is the possibility I'm wrong about this whole situation- not likely .

Perhaps it was better to keep the status quo. Just keep up with the inspections/or lack therof. And keep the no fly zones and "contain" Saddam Hussein. He really was no threat to anyone but his own citizens. But of course the anti-war people never gave a **** about the Iraqi citizens. But that's not the point of this post.

I'm trying to figure out what is best for america. I thinking maybe Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein. Who knows who has those chemical/biological weapons now. Any average terrorist probably has them now. At least before we knew Saddam had them, and wasn't likely to give them to anyone. And who knows what is happening to those weapons now, and who has access to them.

I don't really believe that, but it is something that has crossed my mind this past couple of weeks.

[St Leo]

There were no biological weapons in Iraq.

[Sava]

But of course the anti-war people never gave a **** about the Iraqi citizens.

It's stupid assertions like this that make you impossible to debate with.

[SlowwHand]

They had protestors during WW II in the States.
Go figure, huh ?

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
They had protestors during WW II in the States.
Go figure, huh ?

Yup and they were wrong.

[SlowwHand]

And I love you, Sava.

WTF is "Natty Ice-swilling " ? Drinking tea outside with gnats getting drowned?