Friday, August 27, 2004

Hate at all costs

Matt, at Froggy Ruminations has an excellent post about his reunion.

It pisses me off to hear people say they support our troops when they engender an atmosphere where people call our troops babykiller. It upsets me that the largest political party in the US would nominate someone who, aside from actually killing a baby, was partly responsible for this atmosphere during the Vietnam era, and who has failed to condemn the groups whose actions and rhetoric also promote this view. I don't know whether their goal is to demonize our country and its military, though my opinion is that it is so, but that is the effect and its an effect they are perfectly comfortable with.

Kalroy

1 comment:

James said...

If the democrats are reasponsible for the war erra feelings, is this nessciarily a bad thing? I'm not in favor of spitting on veterns, or people that serve, or anything of the like, but think I have a right to say that I don't like the way those people are being used. By the way, if you people are that easily demoralized, by our words, then I think the problem is on the other end of the chain. What kind of self esteam do you ahve if your only sure of yourself if everyone you hear speek agrees with you? I don't mind when people disagree with me, because I can learn something new. If you can't accept the idea that people disagre with you, then you shouldn't live a country with freespeech. On anohter note, the vietnam war was not te first war in which we had people disagree with us going to war. Civil war for one in partiuclar, but also WW1, heck the Revolutionary War, our country is known for fightning wars wihtout 100% support of our people. There where even people who disagreed with WW2. So why is it the people who where against Vietnam, which was (I think) a questionable war get blamed, but not those in WW2? (Which if ever there was a war to be fought, that was it)