Appeal for Redress Courage

i have to agree. most of the guys in my unit are pissed about being in iraq but at the same time they don't want to abandon the iraqi people. and we sure to hell wouldn't sign no stinking petition just because we were ticked about being deployed.

Thanks for the Appeal for Courage reminder. My analog PDA (3x5 notecards) can't quite keep up sometimes, but I am registered now...

If I remember correctly, the ones who were complaining were in north Iraq, Kurdistan. A friggin vacation!

These pukes have NO RIGHT to be whining like that. Let alone to the national media!

As a soldier, you give up the right to complain about the government (CinC) in public like that.

These "soldiers", and I used that term in the LOOSEST possible way, need to be delt with by their chain of command. It DOES NOT matter if they are Active Duty, Reserve or National Guard. ESPECIALLY if you are Reserve or NG! You do not get to pick when you are and are not a soldier. You are a soldier 24/7!

If you get arrested/convicted of a crime, your chain of command becomes involved. If you are prohibited from possesing a fire are, you get the boot.

Soldiers don't get the luxury to pick and choose when they are soldiers. So reguardless of whether or not they ID'd themselves as soldiers, they MUST be delt with as soldiers.

I hope I never have to serve with a coward like that.

Fake might be going a little far. However after reading the background on Mudville, I would certainly agree that the background on the Appeal for Redress indicates that it was calculated by elements more influential than a simple sailor.

Astroturf seems to be an epidemic these days. A couple of weeks ago this blog was talking up that one, where is it now? Follow the link and see for yourself. Looks like you're doing the exact same thing here, linking to the same website three times in one blog post in an apparent attempt to artificially boost it's rankings. Pot, meet kettle. Opposite side of the same coin.

I'd be a little more cautious with your rhetoric. I don't presume to tell you what your intentions are, please be a bit more of a gentleman and pay me the same respect.

And, I'm not sure you understand the definition of astroturfing.

John,

I certainly meant no disrespect, and I WAS trying to be cautious with my "rhetoric". I did not "presume to tell you what your intentions are", but rather used carefully chosen language such as "Looks like" and "apparent attempt".

Contrast that with your blog post, where you say things like "made the campaign appear precisely how its socialist creators wanted it to appear" (now there's a good example of "presuming someone else's intentions"), and "bodycheck this thing back into socialist obscurity". But it's only objectionable when someone else does it, right? At least I'm not on here calling those who agree with your opinions "facists" or such.

Now maybe the "pot, meet kettle" comment stung a bit, and if you can show me that I was off-base with that comment (or any other), I will humbly apologize. But it seems to me that in your post you complain about a "phony grassroots movement" (my understanding of the "definition of astroturfing" - what's yours?) while at the same time employing a method commonly used in astroturfing campaigns (unnecessary multiple linking to the same site in one post). Methinks thou doest protest too much!

Look, it's your blog and you can say whatever you want on it, link to the same site as many times in one post as you see fit, and call people whatever names you like. I appreciate that you allow folks like myself to visit here and speak our minds as well, as I've mentioned several times. But if you're going to habitually call those who don't share your opinions "socialists", "terrorists", "enemy", etc., (which as a regular reader of this blog I've seen many times), shouldn't you at least develop a thick enough skin to take a little of what you regularly dish out? Rather than whine about my "rhetoric" and imply that you are more of a "respectful gentleman" than I, how about addressing my points?

I emailed you about this last week. Shame on me for taking these wingnuts (sorry freeman if that offends you) at their word, and offering some advice to them.

I thought they were sincere, and warned that they would be taken advantage of by the MSM and the Dems. I allowed myself to be fooled.

Makes you wonder why they enlisted in the first place.

Oh, and freeman - I don't know you, or anything about you (nor do I really care), but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Your diatribe reeks of contempt for our hosts.

Why not simply visit the daily kos?

Oh, and freeman - I don't know you, or anything about you (nor do I really care), but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Your diatribe reeks of contempt for our hosts.

Why not simply visit the daily kos?
GregS · February 27, 2007 01:17 PM

If you'll look a little closer, perhaps you'll see that my contempt is not for our hosts, whom I truly respect and admire, but for the mindless name-calling, polarizing, demonizing, eliminationist rhetoric one finds all over the blogoshpere, which is no substitute for rational thinking and debate. The "wingnut" epithet doesn't offend me (nor does "socialist"), it simply detracts from rational debate and tends to lower the level of discourse to the point of mindlessness.

Check my comments over the last couple of months - I've praised this blog over and over for NOT engaging in that sort of behavior to the degree one finds at most other partisan blogs. Check the review of Op-For I left at milblogging.com after taking the time to register there just so I could vote for this blog (and Michael Yon's) for the Milbloggies.

That's one reason I DON'T frequent DailyKOS. When I'm in the mood for a lefty perspective (another viewpoint that doesn't come naturally to me, though these days it comes closer than the right-wing view - I consider myself a Libertarian these days, ever since the Republican party seems to have abandoned most of the principles I used to admire about them), I usually visit Glenn Greenwald's blog because it is MUCH more civil and thought-provoking than most on the left. Not only that, but he responds to criticism with rational, thoughtful responses that he backs up with verifiable facts, and isn't afraid to admit it when someone points out that he's made a mistake.

But the fact that I admire this blog is no reason I should feel afraid to be a little critical from time to time when something strikes me as hypocritical or just plain wrong. (Where DO some of you guys get the idea that anti-war or anti-occupation sentiment is somehow "socialistic", as if socialists never go to war or occupy foreign countries? - That kind of rhetoric just looks silly to me.)

When John posted about reaching one million hits, I took this phrase literally: Third and most important is you guys, the readers. Thankful for each and every one of you, and I mean that. I can't tell you what a high it is for people to visit you every day, read your thoughts, and respond. Positive, negative...don't care. It's a total rush, and I've got you all to thank for it.

I know I'm a guest here, and possibly (probably?) an unwelcome one. If you guys would rather have yourselves an echo-chamber where everyone just dittos each other and is afraid to invoke the scorn of the others by making a critical comment, I'll gladly take my comments elsewhere. No point wasting my time hanging out where I'm not wanted! How about a vote - who can't take it any more and just wants me gone?

Well, Freeman... I don't know ya, but I appreciate a little dissent now and then. I myself think the Iraq war is a mismanaged mess (and I served there... and was NOT a fobbit) fought in a manner by leaders who were trained to fight the Soviets (or Iraq a la Desert Storm). I believe the military leadership grossly ignored counterinsurgency and many lives have been lost because of that ignorance. But hey, we're all human. I just hope that (unlike Vietnam) the leadership ACTUALLY LEARNS THE LESSONS this time instead of saying, "screw this counterinsurgency shit" and walking away.

That being said, I'd go back in a heartbeat. The place for a soldier of a country at war is at the front and I think of my friends who are out there now. I feel guilty for not being with them and feel guilty for what I put my family through when I deploy.

I also disagree with those on active duty going to Congress with a petition. First, what the hell do they think they'll actually accomplish (probably nothing... like Congress EVER accomplishes ANYTHING). I went to Congress for the $6,000 the Army owes me. They didn't do a damn thing for me. I doubt they'll pull out of Iraq tomorrow just because a thousand joes want to not go (or go home).

That, and the whole movement does smack of a leftist "anti-war" gimmick meant to give the anti-war movement a little street cred. Most of the anti-war movement (like other Americans) have never served a day in their life in uniform. So in my book, they have little weight in my book when it comes to their opinion on the war.

In short, criticism and dissent is good, so long as you can back it up with fact and the end sum is to improve the war effort (which I try to do). Mindless "hell no we won't go" banter has ZERO place in the military.

Joel,
Thanks for your comment. I've read your comments along with the others here and have appreciated your point of view, but haven't had the opportunity yet to respond to one where it wouldn't have been completely redundant.

"Fobbit" - that's a good one (I had to look it up). Very descriptive. I should qualify my earlier comment to GregS about negative epithets by emphasizing that it's natural to use them from time to time, but it can be overdone to the point of mindlessness, and often is in the blogosphere. Like I said, I often praise this site for avoiding overdoing it most of the time.

I agree with you and John that the "appeal for redress" site is most likely over-hyped. Your comment about the uselessness of petitioning congress is probably right - what are they going to do, debate another "non-binding resolution" for a few weeks?

But I do think, contrary to my reading of your statement, that ALL Americans - military experience or not - have the right and the duty to express their informed opinions about any wars our country is involved in, and other than specifics that would only be well-understood by those who have been there, I don't see why those opinions shouldn't carry equal weight. They key phrase here is "informed opinions", which I acknowledge many (on both sides of the pro/anti-war debate) seem to lack. And like I've said before, I visit here and elsewhere in an attempt to better inform my opinions.