Bad Pundit, Discussing Things!

3 Mar

Questioning and examining societal memes makes people angry!

In this thread, we discuss “Fuck the Troops” by Buffalo Beast prankster Ian Murphy – conservatives throughout western New York are attempting to use a semi-satirical piece in an irreverent satirical newspaper as the basis for his illegitimacy for public office. Few of Murphy’s critics ever repeat a single word of the essay past the first, provocative paragraph.  I’m shocked they didn’t point out the time Murphy pretended to be a mentally and physically disabled kid visiting the Museum of Creation in “Let there be Retards”.

But what about Murphy’s opinion piece?

During the Vietnam war, returning servicemen were treated horribly – by society, by the government.  The popularity of that war split America viciously for almost a decade, and for decades thereafter it affected how we treated our military, how we treated military engagement, how we wanted to avoid quagmires or Asian land wars.

Not only were those servicemen mistreated and subject to poor aftercare, but they were drafted; for the most part, they had no choice whether or not to go to Vietnam.

In the wake of Vietnam, we have all-volunteer, professional armed forces.  It is a choice for people to go into the service; no one is forced, and there is no draft.  None of the authors on these pages has denigrated their service, their bravery, or them.  It only took us about 30 years to forget completely the lessons of Vietnam, and we are, or recently have been, engaged in two Asian land wars that have turned into quagmires with no end, and unclear objectives.  We defeated the bad guys to enable other bad guys to fill the power vacuum.

The Iraq war was a war of choice – it was unprovoked. The Afghan war was a war of necessity, but we’re still there 10 years later. That is wholly unacceptable.

Chris and I, in comments, made the point that, once you get past the inflammatory language in the title and first paragraph of Murphy’s article, the guy makes a point.  I didn’t say he made a “good” point, or a point with which I necessarily agree – but he makes a point.  Just because that point offends you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed.

In those comments, one commenter brought up the image of a local Iraq war amputee and told me to stop “digging the hole” deeper.  My response:

Ward, the only holes you should be concerned with are the ones 6 feet deep that contain the remains of young men and women who didn’t have to die for a fool’s errand in a tribal Arabic hellhole that wasn’t bothering the US. Please don’t moralize to me about this.

And because I know how the internet works, let me clarify that the “fool” in “fool’s errand” is the United States Government that decided that an unprovoked war of aggression on a sovereign Asian nation was a phenomenal idea.

I won’t speak for Chris, but there’s a distinction between writing that gosh, I agree with him versus writing that he makes a point.  People are conveniently ignoring that I offered $100 to an Iraqi War Veteran’s organization if someone could point out where I expressed support or otherwise backed a not-yet-in-existence Ian Murphy run for Congress. No one has come forward to claim that prize.

You know, the point here is that I wish there weren’t 4,700+ servicemen and women who were killed during the Iraq war. I wish there weren’t thousands more injured. I wish there weren’t hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians displaced, hurt, or killed in this needless war of choice that was based on lies. If you really cared about the troops, you’d have those same thoughts.  So many lives – so many families – needlessly ruined.

This blog is about discussing things in comments – I admit that this doesn’t happen as often as it should, but I am unapologetic about intelligent people discussing a topic in an intelligent way. One doesn’t have to agree with, or like Murphy’s article or the language that he uses, but sometimes it’s valuable to read and consider different points of view, whether you agree with them or not.  And sometimes it’s valuable to take those points of view and use it to play devil’s advocate in a Socratic way. Some people I respect (and some I don’t, and some I’ve never heard of) have expressed outrageous outrage that we would ever discuss something that they don’t agree with and that insults their sensibilities.

That’s fine. They’re welcome to their opinion and they can hate us or be as disappointed and finger-pointy as they want. (I can tell you that my inbox hasn’t been inundated with complaints). They can repeat that I’m a lawyer or a former political candidate all they want, as if that matters. (Seriously, how does that matter? Yay for Google!)

The outrageous outrage thing is fun because believe me, it’s easy to write about.  It’s easy as hell to take finger to keyboard and express anger or to pick a fight. I do it all the time. So I get what’s going on.

But don’t twist my words and pretend like I’ve taken a position that I haven’t, or that I’ve deliberately denigrated an entire class of people. Quite frankly, in this country it’s bullshit to take Murphy’s article and simply dismiss it as invalid because it uses profane language and advocates for an unpopular and not widely held opinion. I think it raises a point that people should talk about, and that’s what we were doing.

Let’s turn to facts, though, for a second. I didn’t use the word “compelling”.  I used the word “salient”.

sa·li·ent [sey-lee-uhnt, seyl-yuhnt]

1. prominent or conspicuous: salient traits.

Again – I never said I agreed with Murphy’s “Fuck the Troops”. I described a point it makes as “salient” and then questioned people to explain precisely what they disagree with in the article’s text. How many of them read past the first paragraph, which contains a lot of dismissive, profane language towards the troops? Because the next paragraph explains,

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

Murphy’s taking a pacifist position, albeit in a provocative way. If you don’t think that controversial opinions are worth discussing, then what the hell rights are they fighting for in the military, anyway?

44 Responses to “Bad Pundit, Discussing Things!”

  1. mark March 3, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    They do volunteer yet they certainly have no idea where and when they may be called upon so that point isn’t completely valid. The armed services may well be called upon to defend an attack here, who the hell knows what the future may bring? Reason enough to show some deference to a military person, the altruistic aspect of that volunteering. The comparison to dwi was in poor taste. You really think wrecking a car after a night of drinking is the same to say a fighter pilot getting shot down trying to ward off an attack on the US? Just saying. There are certainly bigger things to discuss other than an almost infantile hate towards people who gravitate towards a military career. I imagine they very well could author a piece entitled “Fuck the citizens” if they so choose and of course their point would be defended here.

  2. Alan Bedenko March 3, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    What “attack on the US?”

  3. Bbill March 3, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Love the Museum of Creation piece.

    Dollars to donuts every single one whose panties are in a wad over “FTT” were cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion in 2003 and would happily call the DFHs (who knew it was against our national interest) unpatriotic, terrorist enablers, the 20th hijacker etc etc. It was clear then and it’s clear now that the jingoists were WRONG and not only have their neocon heroes damaged our military, but helped undermine our economy.

    If the obedient Fox News fans here want to apologize and acknowledge the smarter folks were right about Iraq and they were wrong, they’re certainly welcome to and it will give them a start on the road to credibility. Don’t hold your breath though.

  4. Jeff March 3, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    “fighter pilot getting shot down trying to ward off an attack on the US”

    Kind of a bad example considering no US piloted F-15 or F-16 has ever been lost to enemy fire in air to air combat.

  5. Alan Bedenko March 3, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    Also, to anyone “offended” by our discussion, here’s a tip: 

    I’d gladly pay more in federal taxes (if that’s what it takes) to make sure veterans are properly fed, housed, clothed, and given medical and psychological treatment they need. 

    Would you? 

  6. mark March 3, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    re: fighter pilots, US attack etc…thanks for the history lesson folks however I was referring to something that may happen in the future, sorry if I wasn’t more articulate there. I would agree to increase my taxes for those items, maybe we can delete the “cab rides for viagra” program in the medicaid budget. erection challenged isn’t too far away from becoming a SSI disability.

  7. Charles March 3, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    Whether one agrees with Murhpy or not, (I don’t) perhaps even he would agree that once these enlistees leave it all  behind for us, we should pick up the slack for them when they need us.

    Hers’s a story about a local vet that somehow has missed attention in the local spotlight in all the hoopla about the recent Academy Awards.

    The Academy Award nominated documentary short “Poster Girl” is about how cruelly this injured vet is being treated by our own government.  

    Note, that Lou Michel’s story reposted in the link above was published last August.

    Disclosure:  This young woman was a friend and classmate of my son in Niagara Wheatfield HS. She visited our home often and I used to speak with her many about her plans for the future.  She revered the US military and had hopes of becoming a pilot.  She enlisted in the Army thinking she could parlay herself into that opportunity.

    When she came home after her injury, before she became embittered, she told me that she had seen combat as a gunner on a Humvee even though the Army did not classify her as a combat soldier.  She was officially listed as a clerk of some sort in the combat zone. According to her, this was because at that time the Army maintained that woman could not be officially assigned to combat. 

    Its been several years since I last spoke with Robynn.  I had no idea until Academy Awards night how much more tragic her story had become.  

  8. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    Murphy accurately identifies the reason veterans should not be seen as victims – they did volunteer. Many liberals are afflicted with a victim/perpetrator worldview, where all people must be one or the other – think predatory lenders/subprime victims, rich/poor, corporations/tea party activists, white/black, management/union, etc. In this trap – I have heard many liberals describe veterans as the victim and Bush as the perp. Condescending doesn’t begin to describe that view, but this turn about, where veterans must therefore be the offending party, is disgusting.

    That being said, that Murphy has a point buried somewhere in his text is irrelevant. When your classless Veruca Salt/Marie Antoinette schtick overwhelms any point you may have, its not incumbent upon the reader to dig down and find the meaning. Of course he is being provacative – if a writer is willing to be so indecent to incite a reaction that I lose all respect for him in the first couple paragraphs, then he isn’t worth the time. Glenn Beck has a point, under all his idiocy, that Americans don’t know enough about the Constitution and their own history. Is it worth defending (or even mentioning) Beck to get to that point? I didn’t think so. If you want to talk about how our society should view our current military and new veterans, then just do that, without fucking any rubes. If you feel the only way to do that, and attract attention to yourself, is to insult millions of people, then rethink your priorities and in the meantime, its not my fault as the reader that I dismiss your “point” out of hand.

  9. peteherr March 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    @brian – Ha. Yeah, no conservatives EVER pull the victim/perpetrator card.

  10. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    @ pete – I’m going to call you on this one to give me an example. Conservatives use a freedom/regulator mindset, and a patriot/unamerican one, and taxer/taxee one, but victimhood clashes pretty significantly with personal responsibility. We don’t see victims even where there are some.

    And BTW, out of all I wrote there, THAT’S what you pull out?

  11. Bbill March 3, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    Don’t forget Sarah Palin was the real victim at Tucson. Just ask her.

    Mike Tobin, paid liar for Fox “News” seems to be playing the victim card here

    Just for starters. Self-victimhood is one of the bedrock foundations for right wing rhetoric (smugness, rabidity and disingenuousness being the others).

  12. peteherr March 3, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    I haven’t read Ian’s original article yet, so I couldn’t agree or disagree with you. And all you did in your response there is call a rose by another name….those poor over taxed rich people are victims all the time of we evil liberal tax and spenders. And those poor corporations that are overregulated are victims all the time of us overregulators and those poor. I think you’ve drawn a fine line in your semantical sand there, pal.

  13. peteherr March 3, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Oooops. There’s an extra “and those poor”….I couldn’t think of a quick example for we treasonous unpatriotic unpatriots and the real patriots in our country…you know, the ones the hate anything unAmerican, Islamic, homosexual, or needy.

  14. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Well, I think language matters, so choosing to use the word “victim” or not is a matter of more than fine rhetoric sand. Language matters in politics too, or else we wouldn’t end up in endless framing debates. So correct me if I am wrong, but idiot Sarah Palin never used to “victim” word, I don’t believe – she was merely labeled as having done so afterward. (BTW, that’s as far as I’m going to defend her, at all – she’s a moran and needs to go for the sake of the country, and fortunately, conservatives are finally beginning to figure this out). And if you want to call corporations “victims,” that’s your choice, but don’t project your memes on us – we use other words, and for good reason.

  15. Eric Saldanha March 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    @Brian – I love when you pull out the “I heard some liberals making this point, so let me just assign it to the entire group” device.

    I can play that game too…I just heard some conservatives yelling epithets and ugly racial nonsense at Muslim women and children, so all conservatives must be ugly bigoted ignoramuses who probably miss being able to turn fire hoses on minorities like they did in Birmingham in the good ol’ days.

    Let me also save you some time and effort….Swift wasn’t really proposing that poor Irish families ease their situation by selling their children to be eaten by the rich.

  16. Greg March 3, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    The victim/perp example that popped in my head: right to lifers (mostly conservatives) see aborted fetuses as victims and doctors / pro choice folks / aborting women as perps.

    Thanks for making me think about the victim/perp mentality, Brian. I often do think that way.

  17. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    @ Eric – nice try. I said “Many liberals are afflicted with a victim/perpetrator worldview.” Many is a pretty important word in that sentence, though I rarely hear you having such restraint for your right wing foils.

    @ Greg – good example. Helplessness is intrinsic to victimhood in my mind, which is why mega-corporations hardly qualify, though fetuses that could otherwise survive outside of the mother’s womb do (IMO). I don’t know your political leanings Greg, but how does the victim/perp mentality work for you?

  18. jhorn March 3, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    “During the Vietnam war, returning servicemen were treated horribly – by society, by the government”….don’t remember society treating returning vietnam vets horribly or hearing from a returning vet that he had been jeered, spat upon, etc. That seems to be a made for tv plot myth. True, they didn’t get the parade or the big brass band but most people had their eye on the ball and were concentrating on the perpetrators not the (one group of many) victims. The government- different story altogether. The vets who didn’t have the grace to die quietly were treated shamefully (the agent orange cover-up, the ptsd denial, etc.) and it was SOCIETY (usually in the guise of a legion of lawyers) that managed to get the vets even a little redress.

    On choice- there were lots of choices even with the draft- go to college, go to jail, go to canada (particularly easy for buffalonians), pretend to be-or be- a homosexual, apply for c.o. status (a tad risky), become amish, join the national guard (bonus: you might get to do some killing on the beautiful kent state campus), eat yourself above the weight allowance, commit a terrible crime (alice’s restaurant), pray to a non-existent deity for a high lottery number, remove a body part (a prayer for owen meany), or ignore the draft board and wander aimlessly until 1975 (computers then not being what they are now)…..

  19. Hank March 3, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Also, to anyone “offended” by our discussion, here’s a tip:

    I’d gladly pay more in federal taxes (if that’s what it takes) to make sure veterans are properly fed, housed, clothed, and given medical and psychological treatment they need.

    Would you?

    Guess What, Sweetheart? YOU’RE GOING TO. 3 weeks ago tomorrow, I met VA Secretary Shinseki at a Veteran’s Conference in DC. He said, and I quote “THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS ARE UNITED IN KEEPING VETERAN’S BENEFITS OFF THE TABLE DURING BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS”.

  20. Steven March 3, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Good grief, I had a comment all ready and Brian said it all for me:

    When your classless Veruca Salt/Marie Antoinette schtick overwhelms any point you may have, its not incumbent upon the reader to dig down and find the meaning. Of course he is being provocative – if a writer is willing to be so indecent to incite a reaction that I lose all respect for him in the first couple paragraphs, then he isn’t worth the time.

    Jeez I wish I would have wrote that. It expresses my opinion perfectly.

    The only thing I would add Alan, is you lose all credibility by trying to rally “your troops” and pull the conservative card. I am not now nor have I ever been a conservative, but I am an honorably retired veteran and card carrying member of the democratic party, I have also poll watched for several democrats in the area, Sam Hoyt being one. I have also voted for Republicans.

    I vote for a candidate not a donkey or an elephant. If you choose to be so polarized in thought that’s fine but don’t try to lump is all in to the same boat.

    Any decent human being should be outraged (yes sir, I said outraged) at anyone that makes fun of our dead and wounded nieghbors and loved ones. Trying to frame the conversation into “us vs them” is always a turn off with sane intelligent people.

    Crap is crap regardless of whether it comes from the rear of a donkey or an elephant.

  21. Hank March 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    @Pete—You need to read the US Council of Catholic Bishops encyclical titled, “Always our Children”. It was recommneded to me by John Hurley, President of Canisus College, who I went to High School with. Normally, I consider the USCCB way too Liberal while portraying themselves as a “Back to Pre-Vatican II Conservatism” movement in the Church.

    Saldhana, You ought to read it too.

  22. Alan Bedenko March 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    @Steven: (and @Brian) No. It’s not “incumbent upon the reader” to read anything they don’t want to read. So you didn’t read it. So I did. But because you didn’t read it, you had no idea whether there was a point there or not. I did, and I did. 

    The “conservative” card was “pulled” because Steven, you weren’t the only blog to criticize our outrageous discussion of a provocative article. I didn’t frame it into “us vs them”, but instead when people decided to point out one of Ian Murphy’s very many writings at the Beast as being evidence of his disqualification as a human being, I decided to find out whether people actually read what he wrote, or if they were just shitcanning him  because he was mean. 

    Turns out, most of you were just shitcanning him because he was mean and rude to the troops.  Whether something is “crap” is much easier to determine when you’ve actually read it. The second paragraph of Murphy’s piece, as I’ve explained above, explains that he approaches the issue from a pacifist’s perspective. As a matter of fact, that paragraph explains that the “insult” was nothing more than a rhetorical device. It made you uncomfortable, as the author predicted that it would. 

    Let’s stop pissing on each other’s legs and insisting that it’s raining. 

  23. Sean C. March 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    Christ… reading these comments is exhausting. This jumped off the page, “sometimes it’s valuable to read and consider different points of view, whether you agree with them or not”.

    Words of wisdom.

  24. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    @ Alan – just to be clear, I read his article. How else would I know what his ultimate “point” was. If someone else wasted less time than me, I can hardly blame them. I’m starting to wonder if you read it, because it doesn’t get any better after the first couple parargraphs. Or did you miss where he referred to “the troops” as morons, retards, fools and murderers? I don’t see any pacifist language, I see attention-seeking tastelessness.

  25. Steven March 3, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    damn Brian beat me to it again

  26. Eric Saldanha March 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    @Brian – you’re right….I should have said “many conservatives are ignoramuses.” Bear with me, I’m trying to adopt more nuance in my opinion-writing.

    @Hank – you’ll forgive me if I find the morally condescending opinion of a group that actively covered up child rape by their priests for decades less than compelling.

  27. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Ok, I walked into that one.

  28. Brian March 3, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    As a “troop” (a gross misusage) from 1964-1967, I can say, I think, that U.S. soldiers are mercenary thugs so stupid, vicious, ignorant, or mercenary (“I need the money for college”;”I couldn’t get a job”) that they’ll volunteer to murder littler, browner people based on the lies of two presidents.

    When Bush and Obama and their cadres hang at Nuremberg next to their spiritual predecessors, justice will occur.  Until then…..

    Their lies caused U.S. servicemen in a helicopter to laugh as they mowed down Iraqi civilians.
    U.S. military laughs as it cuts down littler, browner people–basically the history of the nation, eh?

  29. Eric Saldanha March 3, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    @Brian – you were spot on with the Boyes call on Tuesday, so I’ll give you a pass.

  30. Alan Bedenko March 3, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    If nasty language and combativeness is a disqualifier for opinion-writing, what the hell are you doing here?

  31. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    @ Brian: You hate life in so many ways, I don’t have the heart to argue much, but I do have a question. You should feel no obligation to answer of course, if you find it too personal. But why didn’t you register as a conscientious objector in 1964? People we’re really going to Canada yet, at that point, but you should been able to do that, if nothing else.

    @ Alan – I have a line. Its pretty far down the combative and nasty line, but, IMHO, this piece is far far more disrespectful than anything we do, collectively.

  32. Steven March 3, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    I just wrote a book on what I think of the article since you don’t seem to think I read it Alan. If a point is in there besides calling Troops murders rapists etc I didn’t see it. I am hoping upon hope its not that really insulting analogy about service members being like an alcoholic binge drinker you gave yesterday.

  33. Alan Bedenko March 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Yes, Steven. Let’s play make-believe some more. That’ll be fun.

  34. Paul Fallon March 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    Brian @ 28 is right on. I served in the U.S. Army in the early 80’s as a medic in an helicopter ambulance unit. I did not see combat (although there was much injury and death) but one of the pilots in my unit was a guy named Hugh Thompson and he had a lot to say about the horrors of war and how it turns men into beasts. Look it up Steven and Brian C.

  35. Steven March 3, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

    Not sure what you are trying to say Alan.

    I read the article and dissected it as best I could since you said you wanted to talk about the points in the article, I wrote why I thought it was crap.To dissect something that big cant be done in a comment. If you think that’s “make believe” then you haven’t bothered to look which I guess is your right.

    If you mean my book comment that was just hyperbole which I assumed you would understand. Its not a book but its long. Anyway if you want to look.its on my site

  36. Brian Castner March 3, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    @ Paul – thanks for the heads up. I don’t need to read about combat, I’ve had more than my fair share. This isn’t about how bad war is, this is about how you treat the wounded, and families of those that died, after volunteering to go.

  37. Paul Fallon March 3, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    @ Brian C,, except that’s not what the “Fuck the Troops” article is about.

  38. Paul Fallon March 3, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Brian C. I don’t know about your “combat” experience and I have the deepest respect for soldiers but the whole “Support the Troops” meme is about supporting the government’s militarism and not the people that are it’s victims, including the sanctified behavior of the troops.

  39. Brian March 4, 2011 at 6:09 am #

    I was young.  I volunteered two months before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (based on lies) was passed.  I was, like most 19 year olds, unaware–a wannabe young thug.

    I’m older.  People in combat are killed by the pieces of their buddy blown off by high  explosive (fairly common–the writer William Manchester carried a hunk of his buddy’s nose bone in his chest until he died).

    Any one can find out with little effort that Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., are based on lies.  Lies are not reality.  They are nothing.  Our “troops” literally have died for nothing.

  40. peteherr March 4, 2011 at 7:01 am #

    @Hank – What part of the article from the Catholic bishops is relevent to anything I said?

  41. Brian Castner March 4, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    @ Paul – My combat isn’t in quotes – after three tours in Iraq/Afghanistan wading through pieces of people, I think I’ve seen the bad, but hardly the worst. That isn’t relevant at all to this discussion, except that you referenced being a helo pilot as proof you knew a guy who knew combat was bad. Thank you for your service, and I’m sure your buddy had it bad, but Murphy’s piece isn’t about any of that. I disagree with your analysis of his point as well – this isn’t about attacking some national meme. In fact, its the opposite of that. Its about blaming the people who volunteered to go, because they volunteered of their own free will, and doing it is in as classless a way as possible. If you do have the deepest respect for soldiers, I don’t know why you find this whole bit okay.

    @ Brian – Our “troops” died for eachother, which is not nothing. That they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, to be put in that situation, is the crux of the problem.

  42. Brian March 4, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    Yes, Brian C., you are correct. Soldiers die for their buddies.

  43. Paul Fallon March 4, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    Brian C., look up the name “Hugh Thompson” and My Lai. He was no ordinary pilot.

  44. Brian Castner March 5, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    @ Paul – I did not recognize the name right away, but I certainly know My Lai. But that is one of the worst atrocities in American military history, and is now used a case study for every officer and NCO in the US military. How does that fit into this discussion at all? Do you consider that behavior typical of US forces? Or just an example of what can happen in war and a reason why we shouldn’t give blanket support to our “troops.” I don’t know what your point is anymore.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: