Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The cracks in the anti-military facade start to widen
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 05, 2007

It appears that some on the left, taking William Arkin's articles as a sign they can finally speak out against the military, are doing so. Our latest example comes from one of the Kos Kids who, like Arkin, simply doesn't get it:
The military's place is to do the bidding of the United States citizenry .. period! It is not for them to criticize the American population for deciding they no longer want to fund a war.
Well, first, their job, Constitutionally, is to do what the Commander in Chief orders them to do. But second, and most importantly, "the American population" isn't who they're criticizing, if their plea for support for their mission is to be taken as criticism.

In fact, they were very specific about who they were talking about. They were addressing the group within the American population which has settled on the meme which says they "support the troops but not the mission". As I've said from the time that emerged, it is a "no sale" for the troops. I've explained why. And now some troops have openly said they don't buy it. Yet those who use it still try to defend it. It's a 'get out of jail free' card they badly want to continue to hold.

Another thing struck me as I read this particular Kos dairy entry. He, or she, rails against "milblogs". Interesting that the milblogs, for the most part, seem to be identified with the right, while those, like this particular character, who attack the milblogs seem to identify with the left.

Although Arkin tried, unsuccessfully, to retract his "mercenary" comment, this creature claims that's precisely what our military is:
The next thing the milblog right wingers were upset about was when Arkin called our Military a mercenary force. Well, guess what, it is!! To get people to fight this war we have had to add all sorts of additional benefits, bonuses, insurance etc. The only way to get people to go was to pay them a lot more - the definition of a mercenary.
The fact that both Arkin and this person completely misuse the term shouldn't particularly surprise anyone. And contrary to the claim, a mercenary, when refering to the military, is "a professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army." France's Foreign Legion is a mercenary force.

What has to be understood here is such claims are all part and parcel of the demonization process. Think back to the 4 Blackwater employees who were killed, butchered and had their body parts hung from a bridge. The reaction of Kos himself was to say 'screw 'em' because they were, he claimed, "mercenaries". Obviously, at least in the two instances at Kos - then and now - there is nothing lower than a mercenary and no one should feel moved to feel sympathy for them or care what happens to them. They simply don't deserve it. Most importantly, mercenaries have no right to speak out.

After establishing the mercenary nonsense, the attempt is made to reinforce the Arkin strawman so evident in his articles.
When he discussed where the troops should point their anger if they are, in fact, losing he points them right to where the blame should go: The Bush Administration.
Of course this was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Again, it isn't about "blame", it is about support. To this point, and as should be obvious to any fair minded reader, the subject has changed. The subject the troops were discussing in the clip from NBC News was supporting them and their mission. Not anger at anyone. That has somehow now been warped into the usual blame game against the Bush administration. No particular surprise there, but something to be noted. More rationalizing and demonization.

As if to emphasize he or she still doesn't get it, we are treated to this:
He also raises a great point that the issue at hand may be that the soldier has immediate media access to our debates at home. This is not something they had in WWII and to some extent they did not have it even in Vietnam (certainly, they did not have the internet). I can only say to this: Tough luck. We will not stop democratic debate just because you now get to hear it in the military.
Once again, it's not about anyone having or not having democratic debate. Not one of those soliders said that people should shut up. They simply said they don't buy into the meme favored by many on the left of supporting them without supporting their mission. What they were explicitly declaring is, as far as they are concerned, those two things are inseparable. You can't do one and not the other.

Now you may not agree, but that's their stance. One group is offering qualified support (the soldiers but not the mission). The other is saying the only support they want is unqualified support (the soldier and the mission).

Because they've had the audacity to request that sort of support they're demonized (mercenary), mischaracterized (claims they want debate stopped) and relegated to second-class citizenship:
You, the military, are the servants of the people. That is what you signed up for. We send you to war and we bring you home. We tell you when to wake up and when to go to bed. If you do not like that, GET OUT.
Couple that attitude with what happened to Josh Sperling - a wounded veteran of Iraq who was told he had blood on his hands, was a baby killer, murderer and was threatened with violence during the "peace march" recently in Washington DC - and you'd have to conclude that if you didn't know any better you'd think it was 1968 all over again.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The terrorism deniers are the first to stand in line at the global warming junk science tent. I wonder, why is that? Is everything always about power with the left?
 
Written By: bill
URL: http://
(nods at McQ)
Yep.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
I cannot quite see how to reconcile the notion that the soldiers who have bemoaned opposition to their mission not wanting to eliminate debate on the matter of the war with the basic impossibility of a debate going on among opposing parties if they all agree that said mission should be undertaken. Are opponents of the war to accept that by opposing the war they are also enemies of the soldiers? If they are then the complaint of the soldiers becomes more understandable, but not agreeable because I think there must be a difference between opposing what the soldiers are doing and hating the soldiers themselves.

Indeed, many sensibly oppose the Iraq campaign because, among other reasons, they do not wish to see Americans die for the sake of an impossible mission. Besides that, a sound opponent places the blame for the war upon the civil officials who have ordered it, not the soldiers who execute it. By saying that one cannot oppose the war yet wish for the well being, as much as is feasible in their situation, of the soldiers pressed into fighting it, do the soldiers not then tacitly request for their own sake that the general population cease all dispute among themselves for the comfort of the soldiers?

I should note that I cannot be said to be reliably or absolutely for or against the Iraq campaign as I remains still undecided, but should like to believe that should I eventually decide to resolve myself against it that I could do so without being a jerk.
 
Written By: Paul A. Br&amp
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
You, the military, are the servants of the people. That is what you signed up for. We send you to war and we bring you home. We tell you when to wake up and when to go to bed. If you do not like that, GET OUT
Change to this:

You, the CONGRESS, are the servants of the people. That is what you signed up for. We send you to WASHINGTON and we bring you home. If you do not like that, GET OUT
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
By saying that one cannot oppose the war yet wish for the well being, as much as is feasible in their situation, of the soldiers pressed into fighting it, do the soldiers not then tacitly request for their own sake that the general population cease all dispute among themselves for the comfort of the soldiers?
Fine. Pray for/wish for/strongly desire their safety and health. Phrase it as such.

As a counter example, I do not wish for any member of the Democratic Party to become ill, murdered, or have an accident. However, I don’t want any of them to be elected. Could I claim with a straight face that I support the Democrats? Would the Democrats believe me if I did?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Are opponents of the war to accept that by opposing the war they are also enemies of the soldiers?
The Arkins’ of the world have been unable to prevent the troops from having the mission they have. They have settled on making the troops fail to complete that mission in what ever way they can bring about the failure (so far, by legal means only).

What should the troops conclude from this? Why should the troops be silent?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Mark,

Remember what Twain said about obituaries?

Heh.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I think there must be a difference between opposing what the soldiers are doing and hating the soldiers themselves.
Heh - the use of words like hating are revealing.
One second merely opposed to something, in the next, the word hate.

I don’t have to hate something to oppose it or hate someone to disagree with them.

No one is saying one can’t oppose what the mission is, just don’t expect the troops to feel any comfort when you tell them you support them, but not their mission.

How anyone can’t support the idea of a peaceful, stable, Iraq is beyond me, and that’s why the troops think they are there.
Why must this be so complex an idea?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Letter to NY Times re: alleged spitting incident
These are important questions that require immediate attention. Since the Vietnam era, the myth of soldiers being spat at, which, while having been discredited, has been invoked repeatedly to tar anti-war protesters. In its account on the Sparling incident, the Times gives credibility to another purported incident — and to the broader myth — but without the indicia of solid, clear, and accurate reporting.
Looks like Media Matters joins the anti-military and is trying to revise history with the spitting myth B.S.
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
the myth of soldiers being spat at
Oh, I see, someone sponsored a research grant to check with all the guys who returned from Vietnam and concluded that there was no spitting based on the evidence they gathered.

Yeah, uh-huh, I’m sure that’s how it was discredited, yeah, uh-huh.
Anything anyone saw to the contrary was just part of a drug inspired dream.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Heh - the use of words like hating are revealing.
One second merely opposed to something, in the next, the word hate.
I thought it was harsher way to express it, but everything I’ve read on this seems to cast things in terms of a strict opposition of extremes. Perhaps the softer, more obtuse phrase, "regarding the soldiers themselves with antipathy," would have served, but that wasn’t what I was fretting over. The foundation of my worried confusion over the point is that it seems that I must be simply some loving hawk or hateful dove.
No one is saying one can’t oppose what the mission is, just don’t expect the troops to feel any comfort when you tell them you support them, but not their mission.
Comfort, I suppose not, but I would expect them to be mature enough of intellect and experiences to know that they cannot command support for issues that they are the means for but not the cause of.

As I meant to express, when in a more dove-like mood my desire to end the Iraq campaign is founded chiefly upon a desire to relieve the soldiers themselves from the difficulties and threats entailed in their deployment in Iraq on a mission that I do not think can be accomplished. If they soldiers themselves do not want to be so relieved, then I must be either misguidedly paternalistic, saving them from something they wish not to be saved from or denying them an opportunity for willing sacrifice of their lives. There are other practical reasons that I consider, but the most emotionally compelling is not wanting to expend the service of good men on something that cannot be done, but if they think that they shall achieve their ends, accepting the dangers thereof, then that cause become unsteady.
How anyone can’t support the idea of a peaceful, stable, Iraq is beyond me, and that’s why the troops think they are there.
Why must this be so complex an idea?
It is not a matter of desire, but of possibility. I should think that that at least is clear. To simply oppose the campaign because of some desire to not see that ends accomplished would be lunacy of a type that I do not doubt that some hold, but that I think is as often conveniently ascribed to select figures for less than honest and considered reasons.

I have become more inclined to consider that a path to resolution is more at hand because of certain recent developments, but remain pensively uncertain in general.
 
Written By: Paul A. Br&amp
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
About a month ago I encountered two Marines at a food stand where I was having lunch. Upon learning that they had just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, I bought their lunch as a token of my appreciation for their service. As we were eating, they described their experience to me. It was a totally non-political conversation, focusing on the day-to-day life of a soldier, rather than the larger geo-political issues.

I remarked that it must seem surreal and unsettling to return to the US and see that most of the civilian population here is carrying on with their lives with seemingly little consciousness that our country is at war. Certainly, most of us who do not have friends or immediate family in the military have not felt any particular burden, or been asked to make any sacrifices for the sake of the war.

They replied that this was very much consistent with their expectations, and did not bother them. The thing that did bother them, they said, was that on more than one occasion when they had attended a funeral for a colleague who had been killed in action, the service was disrupted by anti-war protesters who called them "baby killers" and went so far as to attempt to overturn the casket.

I am not sure whether they were referring to a mlitary or a civilian ceremony, and I may be getting some details wrong due to my own misunderstanding, but I have no reason to believe that these ordinary, seemingly apolitical young soldiers would be inventing these anecdotes.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
In discussing policy, worrying about what the soldiers think or feel is irrelevant. The key is whether or not the policy is in the national interest, and if it is moral (I believe the Iraq policy to be neither). I’ll support individuals — I’ve had a few students have to leave a semester early to be deployed, and I’ve made it easy for them to finish up, often giving them fewer assignments, they deserve as much. That kind of support I’ll give. Anything else is vague, abstract and irrelevant. It’s about the policy — is it in the national interest, and is it moral. If not, one has a duty in a democratic polity to oppose the policy. I also find it heroic that soldiers who have decided the policy is illegal and wrong are willing to be prosecuted rather than return. No individual should ever kill or hurt others if they are not absolutely convinced it’s necessary. The individual conscience is more important than the collective will of the state, or the commands of big government.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The key is whether or not the policy is in the national interest,
No. Try very hard to think rationally. The key is whether the proposed change in policy is likely improve circumstances of national interest.
and if it is moral (I believe the Iraq policy to be neither)
There could be no less moral course of the several options than to continue the policy WRT Iraq that we undertook under Bush I and amplified under Clinton. Changing that policy while leaving Saddam in place was not safe, nor moral. Either maintaining the containment policy or simply walking away, each option had it’s own perils and they were not small ones, and each would be rooted in the "realpolitik" which spawned 9/11.
I’ll support individuals — I’ve had a few students have to leave a semester early to be deployed, and I’ve made it easy for them to finish up, often giving them fewer assignments, they deserve as much.
How big of you.
Anything else is vague, abstract and irrelevant.
A judgement call I have to reject. Dinner and honest conversation is not vague, abstract, or irrelevant. It’s personal, thankful, and respectful.

Call it nuance.
I also find it heroic that soldiers who have decided the policy is illegal and wrong are willing to be prosecuted rather than return.
They may have moral courage. I have the moral courage to support the administration as it seeks to prosecute those soldiers to the fullest extent of the law, because they are wrong.
No individual should ever kill or hurt others if they are not absolutely convinced it’s necessary.
True.
The individual conscience is more important than the collective will of the state, or the commands of big government.
Also true.

Call it nuance.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Couple that attitude with what happened to Josh Sperling - a wounded veteran of Iraq who was told he had blood on his hands, was a baby killer, murderer and was threatened with violence during the "peace march" recently in Washington DC - and you’d have to conclude that if you didn’t know any better you’d think it was 1968 all over again.
This is ridiculous on the face of it, Sparling (not Sperling) actually spoke at that protest (at the microphone and everything) and later had a discussion with another veteran from the same war, who opposes the war. These veterans are NOT calling themselves baby killers and the opposition to THIS war is far more ABOUT OUR TROOPS than it about collateral damage. Moreover, Sparling was with a group of counter-protesters from FreeRepublic.com carrying clearly provocative signs ("Go to hell traitors. You dishonor our dead on hallowed ground." - "Anti-American peaceniks think sedition is patriotic" "We gave peace a chance. We got 9/11". Also, they hung an effigy of Jane Fonda.) and they were doing everything they could to create an incident. And Sparling himself is becming famous for bringing back the 60’s with a few stories along these lines. People ARE provocable, fortunately less so about soldiers than they were 40 years, but if these folks try hard enough, they are bound to find to find someone to fire back.

You keep trying to make this narrative (popular word around here lately) stick, but it simply is not what is happening out there.

So far, the American people are blaming the policy and NOT the military for the mistakes of this war, and the American people WANT the troops out of that civil war as soon as practicable. It seems that this galls you to no end, and every time I read one of these screeds, I get the distinct impression that you WANT the war opponents to start attacking the military, by quoting ANY serviceman who will attack them.

This is about policy, the policy makers, and the voting public, and no matter what you say, you are not going to argue people into supporting the war, but if you (and people pushing this meme) convince enough people that the troops and the policy are one, you WILL start seeing people turn on the military.

The American people learned an important lesson during Vietnam and they have been very sure to separate the policy from those that are ordered to execute the policy. Stop trying to blur the lines and respect the maturity of the war opponents.

Oh, and did you see the SuperBowl ad where veterans of this war made the assertion that you CAN’T support the troops if you support the policy? It’s a point of view Q, no matter how much you want to say that any, all, most, or some troops have a different point of view, it is still a point of view, and remember, 3000 of those troops cannot share their share point of view.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This is ridiculous on the face of it, Sparling (not Sperling) actually spoke at that protest (at the microphone and everything) and later had a discussion with another veteran from the same war, who opposes the war.
There were two parts to his experience that day.

The first came at the Naval Memorial. And yes, he spoke and said he was treated well.

The second came later at the march and that is where he was spat upon, called a baby killer, murderer, had people wonder aloud how he slept at night and had 3 peace heroes claim they’d be waiting for the amputee after the march to settle their disagreement physically.

Who he was with and what their signs said were no different, provocative or worse than those who came after him and what their signs said and, to my knowledge, the group he was with offered no invitations to violence, etc.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s about the policy — is it in the national interest, and is it moral. If not, one has a duty in a democratic polity to oppose the policy.
That is true, which is why some of us disagree with this increasing tendency on the Left to attack the troops as people, rather than limiting their attacks to the policy.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
That is true, which is why some of us disagree with this increasing tendency on the Left to attack the troops as people, rather than limiting their attacks to the policy.
Oh, I agree there. But when it’s hinted that criticizing "the mission" is somehow the equivalent of attacking the troops as people, that crosses a line.

And to another poster:
They may have moral courage. I have the moral courage to support the administration as it seeks to prosecute those soldiers to the fullest extent of the law, because they are wrong.
Yet you also say no one should kill if they are convinced the act is immoral, and no one should put big government’s orders above their conscience. So if a Lt. in the army after seeing combat and learning about the situation decides that, deep in his heart of hearts and soul of souls he believes the killing is needless murder, moral and wrong, and if he believes the war is illegal, shouldn’t he then refuse to fight? If we have a duty to our own conscience above our duty to government and the state, aren’t those who refuse to fight on moral grounds (assuming they are telling the truth) morally right to refuse, even if on legal grounds they can be prosecuted?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yet you also say no one should kill if they are convinced the act is immoral, and no one should put big government’s orders above their conscience.
If they are willing to place that aspect of their conscience above their agreed upon duty to obey the lawful commands of the CINC, undertaken according to a Congressionally approved military action, then they need to accept the judgement of the Congressionally established military courts as to their sentence.

Either that or be in rebellion against the government, and then they need to follow the Geneva conventions, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Their is no contradiction in this statement:
They may have moral courage. I have the moral courage to support the administration as it seeks to prosecute those soldiers to the fullest extent of the law, because they are wrong.
I believe you are conflating their rightness in being in obedience to their conscience with the idea other people should subsume the judegment of their own consciences in deferment to the "conscientious objectors". The people prosecuting Watada, (et al), are not wrong to obey their conscience in prosecuting them for their unlawful behavior.

Nuance, Scott.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
If they are willing to place that aspect of their conscience above their agreed upon duty to obey the lawful commands of the CINC, undertaken according to a Congressionally approved military action, then they need to accept the judgement of the Congressionally established military courts as to their sentence.
I agree. While an individual has to be true first to his or her own conscience and take responsibility for choices made, individuals are also part of a society with agreed upon rules. When one believes that societal rules demand one does something which one considers immoral, it is right for the individual to follow his ethical beliefs, but he must accept that society can impose its rules/punishments (via courts or legal procedings).
I believe you are conflating their rightness in being in obedience to their conscience with the idea other people should subsume the judegment of their own consciences in deferment to the "conscientious objectors". The people prosecuting Watada, (et al), are not wrong to obey their conscience in prosecuting them for their unlawful behavior.


I’m sorry if I gave the impression I thought the prosecutors were morally wrong. It becomes an individual vs. society thing. The prosecutors represent society — the idea that to be cohesive and strong as a nation we must fulfill duties to the state and follow certain rules. Extreme collectivists would demand individuals subsume their will to the state, as the "state knows best," while radical libertarians would reject the right of the state to punish people for acting against their ethical beliefs. Our nation falls somewhere in the middle, between those two extremes.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The second came later at the march and that is where he was spat upon, called a baby killer, murderer, had people wonder aloud how he slept at night and had 3 peace heroes claim they’d be waiting for the amputee after the march to settle their disagreement physically.
Can you post a link to the video that shows these awful things being said?

Here is a link to video shot by one of the Freepers at the portion of the rally that you claim the incidents took place, and as you can see, there is fence and police separating the Freepers from the protesters, and you can listen to the protestors, and the videographer commenting on them and what they say, and what they are saying is that they are engaged in a peaceful rally, while this, standing two over from Josh Sparling, comments that if they are peaceful, he should be able to go over and slap them in the face and they wouldn’t do anything or else they are hypocrits.

Now remember, Sparling initially told reporters he was spit or that someone spit near him. In this video, it shows where Sparling is during this segment of the rally. All I can say is that it would be quite a loogie. Also, this is not a group of veterans, this is a group of counter-protestors, one of whioch IS a veteran, holding vicious signs, hanging an effigy of Jane Fonda.

This one is from the same guy as earlier, he reads some of the Freeper signs, I especially enjoyed his commentary on the "Sic semper tyranus" sign, which has a picture of Saddam on it and he suggested that it should have a picture of Abraham Lincoln on it to be "more accurate". This guy is a hoot.

Here is where Sparling claims he was spit "at" by someone wearing an 82nd Airborne patch, that was on his side of the sidewalk. No video... to bad, that would have been interesting. But our Freeper did have video of some protestors walking through the space between the fenced in protesters and the counter protesters. The Freeper are shouting "Swin to Cuba" though a megaphone as these people walk by. Not terribly clever, but they are trying hard to provoke the protestors, seemingly without success in this video.

More video from the same Freeper standing 2 over from Sparling, offering very entertaining commentary, but no comments about bloody hands or shame.

Here’s what the Freepers were doing while Sparling was across the street, invited to the microphone, and given applause by the protestors for his service to the country, even though they disagree with his point of view.

Sparling actually SHOULD be embarassed, not because he showed up against the protest, I undertand that, but because he threw his lot in with this groups of nutjobs. Perhaps, if he did have an exchange with another veteran, that was the topic? Imagine if you were a peace protestor and the majority of the group was vicious, and vacuous, and nothing but provocative, would you stay with them or would you walk away and fine a more reasonable way to express yourself?

Here is a guy flipping off the entire Freeper crowd as they are chanting "swin to Cuba". Is this guy disrespecting the troops, or the Freepers? I’d say the latter.

In any case, there is a ton of video, and no one can find any tape of any of the comments you, and Sparling, claim to have been made. You can also see the signs of the protestors, NONE of them impugning the troops, and then you can see the signs the Freepers were carrying, making direct personal attacks on the protestors.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
test post
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
In the beginning of this video segment posted by a Free Republic counter-protestor at the Code Pink rally... This is Josh Sparling in what MAY be the incident he spoke of and clearly trying to provoke this guy.

The guy he was talking to was no prize, but I think this it makes it more understable why Josh Sparling seems to continue to find himself having unkind words spoken to to him.

I understand and agree that our troops should be respect, but when you attack people, some people will attack back, and being a veteran will not innoculate anyone from this reality, a point that Josh Sparling seems to be counting on.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I understand and agree that our troops should be respect, but when you attack people, some people will attack back ...
Well perhaps you can point out where he hurled insults at them, spat at them and offered physical violence toward them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well perhaps you can point out where he hurled insults at them, spat at them and offered physical violence toward them.
First off, you cannot point where any spat at Sparling. Beyond that, see the multitude of links to clips I posted. There are a cosntant barage of insults from the Freepers. That’s Josh Sparling on the megaphone for many of them. And the last link I posted begins with an exchange between Sparling and a protestor and Sparling hurled insults, offered physical violence, and stuck his finger in the guys face and when the guy took issue with that action, he wiggled his finger inches from the guys face and said, "what are you going to do about it".

Q, if I stick my finger in your face, and you ask me not, and I wiggle it around and ask you what you are going to do about it... tell me Q, what am I doing to you?

Surely you get it that I would be intentionally and seriously trying to provoke you?

Or are you going to argue otherwise?

Or should vets be able to act with impunity and any response to their provocation be considered hating the troops?

Cap


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
First off, you cannot point where any spat at Sparling.
Actually he’s said he was spat upon in numerous interviews. They’re on YouTube. So unless you want to claim he’s a liar or provide someone to dispute it, it seems that’s a given.

Additionally it has been reported that he spoke in a clam voice and never threatened or insulted anyone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Actually he’s said he was spat upon in numerous interviews. They’re on YouTube. So unless you want to claim he’s a liar or provide someone to dispute it, it seems that’s a given."

Pretty weak standard of proof. Nice argument, though; either call a disabled veteran a liar or accept his word about anything. Are there any unbiased witnesses that corroborate his story? Frankly, as rabid as both sides occasionallywere, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that many people were hit with flying spittle. Perhaps that is why the groups were separated most of the time, to avoid the public health hazard of frothing demonstrators and the risk of a jabbing finger poking out an eye.
CS does seem to have a point there. Sparling, if it was him, does seem to be a bit overly enthusiastic at one point. Jabbing a finger at someones face and asking "What are you going to do about it?" is not a friendly gesture where I come from.



"Additionally it has been reported that he spoke in a clam voice and never threatened or insulted anyone."

Assuming that Sparling was the guy on crutches in a light sweatshirt in those video clip, I am reminded of the phrase "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" It didn’t look like there was a calm voice for a half mile in any direction.

****************************

I noticed at one point a sign that said "What Would Jesus Bomb?". Ignorant atheistic morons. Have they never heard the hymn "There is a Bomb in Gilead"?

I must also confess to being extremely anti-military at one point in my life. Then I reached my ETS. Now I am another nostalgic old veteran, looking back on those wonderful days of endless drudgery, petty humiliation, pointless busywork, 80+ hour work weeks, open air toilets(some dislike the cold, I hated hot weather because of the bugs & snakes), and lack of creature comforts with great fondness. Senile dementia does have its good points.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pretty weak standard of proof. Nice argument, though; either call a disabled veteran a liar or accept his word about anything.
The guy had spent the morning at another protest at the Naval memorial where he was given an opportunity to speak and, he said, treated in a civil manner.

I have no reason to believe he then chose to change tactics that had worked that morning and become belligerent and insulting in the afternoon (to the point that would justify being spat upon, insulted and threatened physically).

And I wasn’t offering it as proof, I was offering his statements as evidence. The standard way to refute evidence is to present other evidence which Icontradicts it. Obviously if you can present evidence that he’s a liar, it casts doubt on his story. Without it, and given the fact that he tells a very credible story about the difference between his morning reception by protesters and his afternoon experience, I’m inclined to believe him.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I have no reason to believe he then chose to change tactics that had worked that morning and become belligerent and insulting in the afternoon (to the point that would justify being spat upon, insulted and threatened physically).
Watch these videos, in the first, it is Sparling having the exchange with the African American man, sticking his finger in the guy’s face, and when asked to remove it, he shook it back and force inches from the guy’s face and asked what he was going to do about it. In the other video clips, it is Sparling on the megaphone. When the Freepers are chanting insulting remarks, Sparling is right with them.

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3

And remember, these are videos posted BY Freepers, cut to what they believe to be their best advantage.


So yes, he evidently DID change his tactics.

You don’t get on Hannity for being treated with civility and having war protesters thank you for your service while disagreeing with your point of view.

With hours of video of this event, and Freeper video running apparently the entire stretch of the event, I am inclined to believe that if it was not caught on tape, I am not going to believe it.

Sparling claimed he was speaking calmly, and his group were there with their flags, and I have a problem with this because he is omitting the fact that they were carrying vicious signs like "Go to hell traitors. You dishonor our dead on hallowed ground." - "Anti-American peaceniks think sedition is patriotic" "We gave peace a chance. We got 9/11" "If Osama were a piece of ass, Clinton would have nailed him" (kind of funny) "al Qaeda Appeasers on parade", "We are at war, liberals root for the enemy", "You never marched against terrorists", Also, they hung an effigy of Jane Fonda... and let’s not kid ourselves, this was a representative act of violence against a representative liberal.


Now Q, please address this question, or tell me that you refuse to acknowledge it...

If I stick my finger in your face, and you ask me not to, and I wiggle it around inches from face and ask you what you are going to do about it... tell me Q, am I trying to provoke you? And what WOULD you do about it?

Sparling was NOT calm, but even if he was, you can be calm and provoke someone. I could calmly tell someone they hate America and the troops and want the terrorists win, or I could calmly tell someone they by supporting this policy, they are supporting murdering women, children, and infants, and other innocents, and they are trading blood for oil. I could say these words in a calm tone, but these are not calm words, they are provocative words, and one would only say these things if they wanted to incite a emotional response, not if they wanted honest dialogue.

You’re being misled on this one Q, or you are playing along with the misleaders. Only you know for sure.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
So yes, he evidently DID change his tactics.
Uh, no ... he was the guy without a leg saying "why are you so angry"? And telling them that Iraqis should have the same rights as Americans.

You have a problem with that?

In return he got "whatta ya say, how many have you killed today" (a VN era paraphrased retread), was told to "go back" in a chant, called an "a**hole" and "piece of sh*t" and accused of killing "all the Iraqis".

Nope ...
You’re being misled on this one Q, or you are playing along with the misleaders ...
The denial is in your AO, Cap.
If I stick my finger in your face, and you ask me not to, and I wiggle it around inches from face and ask you what you are going to do about it... tell me Q, am I trying to provoke you? And what WOULD you do about it?
To a man on crutches?

I’d walk away.

However since he wasn’t stinking his finger in anyone’s face, but instead having fingers stuck in his face, I have to say I admire his restraint. That’s how I’d try to act as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
since he wasn’t stinking his finger in anyone’s face
How can you watch the video and NOT see Sparling stick his finger in the man’s face and have the man tell him to remove it, and then Sparling keeps it right there, in this guy’s face, moving it left to right, taunting him "what are you going to do about it"?

Is your failure this part of the exchange an example of someone who actually suffering from literal partisan blindness?

It’s the exchange between 2.20 and 2.30.

I asked you...

If I stick my finger in your face, and you ask me not to, and I wiggle it around inches from face and ask you "what you are going to do about it"... tell me Q, am I trying to provoke you?

How many posts are you going to see pass by before I give up the question or you answer that Sparling was indeed attempting to provoke this man?

Now, this guy made a comment about killing innocent Iraqi’s, and I would not approve of making this comment to a soldier who had served in Iraq even if it was meant that supporters of the policy are responsible for these deaths, but it’s a fine line. The reason is simple, our servicemen, pilots, etc, have killed innocent Iraqi’s, but in virtually every situation it was the result of collateral damage from the mission they were ordered to engage in. My point being that I would never accuse a soldier, even one who had caused collateral damage, of having innocent blood on their hands. But I would say that the policy makers are guilty.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://


"However since he wasn’t stinking his finger in anyone’s face, but instead having fingers stuck in his face,"

Evidently we are watching different video clips.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"However since he wasn’t stinking his finger in anyone’s face, but instead having fingers stuck in his face,"

Evidently we are watching different video clips.
Both happened, the man Sparling was talking to DID stick his finger in Sparling’s face, and Sparling told to not to point at him, the man stopped, and then at 2 minutes and 20 seconds into this clip, Sparling points his finger at this man’s face and the man tells Sparling not to point at him, at which point Sparling keeps his finger pointed at the man’s face and moves it from left to right and asks the man what he’s going to do about it.

When I do something that bothers someone, and they ask me to stop, if I ask them what they’re going to do about it, I am provoking them to action, fight or flight as it were.

This is exactly what Sparling does.

I am not say he is evil, or bad, or any worse than any of the protestors, I am just saying that he was not calm, and he WAS provocative, contrary to his claims, which makes everything else he says suspect, the tape is clear evidence of this.



Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
How can you watch the video and NOT see Sparling stick his finger in the man’s face and have the man tell him to remove it, and then Sparling keeps it right there, in this guy’s face, moving it left to right, taunting him "what are you going to do about it"?
You mean the guy who called him an a**hole, kept leaning into him and said he’d killed enough of the Iraqis?

That guy?

LOL!

Lord you do parse, don’t you?

As Tim says, "Evidently we are watching different video clips."

Good grief.
How many posts are you going to see pass by before I give up the question or you answer that Sparling was indeed attempting to provoke this man?
As many as you can tap out Cap ... the fact remains the the provocation had already been made by THAT man pointing and his use of vicious language and Sparling was reacting to it.

What would YOU have done?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"the fact remains the the provocation had already been made by THAT man pointing and his use of vicious language and Sparling was reacting to it."

Yes, he may have been reacting, but the reaction was itself a further provocation. That is how these things escalate, one provocation provoking another in response. Who was more at fault? The video reports, you decide. Personally, I don’t care.


"What would YOU have done?"

Probably something inappropriate, depending on my state of sobriety. I try to avoid mob scenes like that, precisely because someone always gets froggy, and then a feedback loop starts, and the next thing you know, you are calling someone for bail money. I think I remember Robert Heinlein writing that the IQ of a mob can be calculated by taking the average individual intelligence and dividing it by the number of people in the mob. It’s like dealing with drunks; sometimes amusing, sometimes dangerous, always unpredictable, often overreacting to perceived slights.

Demonstrations and such events can be entertaining, but only if you remain strictly uninvolved. When I lived in New Hampshire, I went to Manchester during the Presidential primaries. Great fun, like the circus was in town, but not nearly as much fun if you take sides. I seem to remember reading that 64 candidates were running for president in NH that year.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Probably something inappropriate, depending on my state of sobriety. I try to avoid mob scenes like that, precisely because someone always gets froggy, and then a feedback loop starts, and the next thing you know, you are calling someone for bail money. I think I remember Robert Heinlein writing that the IQ of a mob can be calculated by taking the average individual intelligence and dividing it by the number of people in the mob. It’s like dealing with drunks; sometimes amusing, sometimes dangerous, always unpredictable, often overreacting to perceived slights.
Yes Time, you nailed it. Counter Protests are typically designed for the purpose of provocation counting on the mob theories knowing that even if 99.9% of the crowd walks by Josh Sparling and The Freeper counter-protesters, if they can get 1% to take the bait and have an exchange with them, Sparling has a shot of getting back on TV, and in the blogs they’ll get topics with titles like... "The cracks in the anti-military facade start to widen"
As many as you can tap out Cap ... the fact remains the the provocation had already been made by THAT man pointing and his use of vicious language and Sparling was reacting to it.
That man’s vicious language? You must be forgetting what provoked THAT man... "Go to hell traitors. You dishonor our dead on hallowed ground." - "Anti-American peaceniks think sedition is patriotic" "We gave peace a chance. We got 9/11" "If Osama were a piece of ass, Clinton would have nailed him" (kind of funny) "al Qaeda Appeasers on parade", "We are at war, liberals root for the enemy", "You never marched against terrorists", Also, they hung an effigy of Jane Fonda... and let’s not kid ourselves, this was a representative act of violence against a representative liberal.

Yes Q, it is a vicious circle of escalating rhetoric, I have never argued that it wasn’t, but none of it has anything to with anti-military feelings of anti-war protestors, it has everything to do with provoking protestors and seeing if you can get reactions from a tiny minority of people and have idiots assign these reactions to the anti-war protestors in general.

But I don’t think you are an idiot, and I don’t think you’ve been had. You’re too smart not to know why the Freepers were there. The only conclusion I can come to is that you simply approve of the tactic and are more than willing to assign the reactions of a few to the many.

Cap


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes Q, it is a vicious circle of escalating rhetoric, I have never argued that it wasn’t, but none of it has anything to with anti-military feelings of anti-war protestors, it has everything to do with provoking protestors and seeing if you can get reactions from a tiny minority of people and have idiots assign these reactions to the anti-war protestors in general.
Gawd ... like Tim said, apparently we watched different videos (and I’m talking about the one’s you provided).

And I’m not interested in rehashing it endlessly with someone who obviously didn’t take the time to watch them closely.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
(and I’m talking about the one’s you provided).
I provided the Freeper video’s which they cut to put them in the best light.

I could have provided protestor supplied video, but the Freeper video even showing them in their best light, shows they are trying to provoke people.

All I’m saying Q is that anti-war people today are overall more mature than they were in Vietnam and they are cognizant of the role of the troops as tools of the policy, not makers of the policy, and you should respect that instead of taking every claimed slight against a soldier as a revival of the 60’s.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I provided the Freeper video’s which they cut to put them in the best light.
Well it certainly didn’t show what you claim. At least not the videos you provided.
All I’m saying Q is that anti-war people today are overall more mature than they were in Vietnam ...
I don’t agree. They simply have invented enough slogans to mostly insulate themselves from criticism, but, as the William Arkins of the world demonstrate when they let their guard down, not a whole bunch has changed in that crew since VN.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider