The Galloping Beaver
You tell 'em Dave. Excellent post and things that need to be explained slowly using small but effective words, especially to the 101st Fearless Keyboarding ChickenHawk Battalion types!
I chose the word shrill because, IMO, your post was a rant. It was shrill.
Aside from the snark, the majority of the post was a fair criticism of your logic.
If you hate war then go ahead and write about why you hate war. You've clearly got more good reasons than most to hate it. I respect a whole range of opinions about the usefulness and appropriateness of war. I also agree that we should be very careful about the justifications we ( as a society ) choose as sufficient to expend young lives on. That's not what you did in your post.
He wants me to put in print something like this: "I, without reservation, support the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan."
This is a straw man. I don't want you to do any such thing. I was pointing out that it was difficult to reconcile Mikes position on your views with my reading of your views. None the less, I formed that opinion on a narrow set of posts so, as I said, I'll take Mikes word for it.
At the risk of being the pot calling the kettle black, I think characterizing my views as a cheerleading the use of military force without qualification is comically incorrect.
Please, don't waste your fucking time. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.
Apparently it does, since it's roused you to this response.
After another reading of this post it's clear that the tail between the legs comment was personally insulting.
It was a regrettable late addition to my own post. Although my intention was merely to provide one of the snarks that seem ubiquitous in the blogosphere it's obvious that calling a veteran a coward -- even inadvertantly -- is a pretty grim mistake.
I apologize without reservation, for that part of my comments.
Dave, I'm sorry to hear about the shrapnel and the nightmares. Keep telling it like it is. Wars must only be fought when the alternative is even worse. Too bad our leaders can't always imagine just how bad that really is.
KevinG, your original post was a load of crap for its generalization of progressives. If you have a beef with an individual or their message, just keep it focussed on that target; otherwise, you're just spreading bullshit.
KevinG, your original post was a load of crap for its generalization of progressives
Except that (a) I acknowledged the limitations to the generalization and (b) there is, IMO, a trend towards negativity in the positions of self-identified progressive.
It's a tactic if you're trying to sell your ideas.
Another coward who has never served criticizing an actual soldier who dares to question Harper's inane posturing.
Unfuckingbelieveable. Real nice to see this bullshit making it's way north. Classy.
So KevinG, if it's a trend, how come you only cite one example? Obviously, you've come to this conclusion through thorough research into the subject matter.
GB-
Ah, yes. Lets only have soldiers criticize soldiers. Good thinking.
Scott-
The absence of cites does not mean there is an absence of examples.
I have a lot of time for the people at pogge but if you look through the recent posts, with very few exceptions, the posts are negative. They generally highlight some news item and then goes on to describe why it is stupid, or proof of incompetence or some such thing. It is rarely advocates it's own policy.
The same is generally true of the posts aggregated at the progressivebloggers site.
Now to prove a trend, it would be useful to have two end points. Since blogging didn't exist at the starting point it'll be hard to provide examples that way.
Perhaps it's a criticism that's more appropriate for blogging in general. If I've singled out progressives before other groups it's because I've come to expect that group to be positive and focussed and trying to make a difference.
Do you think the tone of progressive blogging is generally positive?
KevinG ,
Go enlist and volunteer for Afghanistan if you support the mission so much. Because you simply need to shut your fucking mouth and listen to this man and his experiences. You've never had them, so you don't have ANY FUCKING IDEA what he's talking about.
You don't have to agree, but some respect is in order.
Go enlist and volunteer for Afghanistan if you support the mission so much.
This cowardly piece of shit? Dont' make me fucking laugh.
Dave got it right: the Microchip Militia. Fuck these pricks.
I don't understand KevinG's insistence that a discussion of a particular war (Afghanistan or Iraq) can only be held while peering through a lens marked "postive" or "negative." Does it make any difference to the accuracy of the criticism if its "positive" or "negative?" If I open up the door on a moonless night and say "man, its dark out there" will keving dismissive my observation as "too negative" and "not offering any constructive policy positions?"
The far right in the US started these wars and they proposed, at the same time (and I should know since I'm a US citizen) that they would essentially be cost free--cost free in terms of dollars spent, in terms of lives lost (both civilian and military) and in terms of the US's international reputation. In fact, they insisted that the war would *pay for itself* financially, in the end, and more than repay us in flowers and candy showering our troops. The reality is so far from that that if the bloggosphere (whatever that is) merely reserved to itself the role of snarkily picking up bits of the bad news and replaying it most of us would say *that is really too kind.* Kind of like flipping off the firing squad would be too mild a response.
I love a positive outlook, myself, and I'm kind of a policy prescription type--in fact I've got lots of policies to advocate in re both wars but presumably they aren't optimistic enough for KevinG because they don't begin with lines like "one day, after we've won the war, we'll all have a pony, too..."
aimai
KevinG,
What the fuck are you doing here typing on the keys, get your (I assume) lily white ass over there, somewhere, and start killing some bad guys, then come back and tell me about it! Parsing fucking words and statements, you sound like Bill Clinton without brains.
i've only had the experience of talking to canadian world war two vets, and two who volunteered for the vietnam war. i've talked with several u.s. vietnam vets.
never ever in my dreams would i think of critisizin their opinion....that would be like a childless person slagging a stressed out parent or something. it's just not the same if you haven't been there, no matter what.
i can't even bring myself to comment on the eulogies TGB posts when a soldier has died (oh, way too heart rendering!!!).
what about war??? i keep seeing this car with a bumper sticker on it that says, 'war is wrong' . every time i see it i say to myself, 'war happens'. it's an unfortunate part of life. some wars are justified (WW2). even for what i view as the unjustified ones (iraq, afghanistan), when i see troops in the u.s. i take the time to stop and chat a bit, wish them well and let them know i'll pray for them (i'm not religious but i pray).
They are kids. they are about to risk their lives. the ones who come back have seen a lot more then i'll ever hopefully see. the affects very, but they've just lost their youth. that's a hell of a price to pay.
kevin, maybe you could sit back for a bit of reflection on this. i think you were probably raised to respect, but opinion on a faceless thing like the internet can make us forget this sometimes. i don't think you like to be hurtful either. take a time out. it's easy to react.
maybe look at some pictures of vets, or some war cemetaries. then think of the ones who served but didn't die. informed opinion is the right of everyone, knowledge is the key to growth. respect is everything. if you can't be helpful, don't be harmful.
Dave,
As I recall, you once posted a "list of conditions" that specified what may be required to send soldiers into the field.
Please link to it or bring up to the top of the list, as it demonstrates how far from un-conditional support is.
I have a lot of time for the people at pogge but if you look through the recent posts, with very few exceptions, the posts are negative. They generally highlight some news item and then goes on to describe why it is stupid, or proof of incompetence or some such thing. It is rarely advocates it's own policy.
Actually, we do advocate policies, Kevin, you just happen to disagree with them so they strike you as negative. Yet, as you note, we are critics as well, and Harper gives us lots to be critical about. Calling us negatvie is like using the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Our criticisms do not spring from some mysterious well of bile, they apring from the actions of the neo-conservatives running our country and our neighbour to the south.
I usually enjoy your posts even when I disagree with them, Kevin, but your dig at Dave here is out of line.
Commenting by HaloScan
