We Were There First!
by Vince?Daliessio
The blogosphere (mostly right-wing, but some leftist kooks too) is ablaze over an article in the LA Times by Joel Stein. Seems he had the temerity to suggest that people who are against the war, but "support the troops" are really just supporting the war;
?Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there ? and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.
Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of 'Laguna Beach.' The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day....
Absent hysteria, this is a perfectly reasonable analysis. Stein isn't advocating the killing of US soldiers, and he isn't praying for defeat. He simply points out, as we did months ago that being against the war is not the same as pacifism, that most public pacifists are weenies on the issue, and that people that sign up for military service in the Empire are nominally adults and know (or should) that they are very likely to be sent to expand the Empire, and NOT to defend the US.
So what's so hard to stomach about that?