of no fixed subtitle
April 29, 2004
Pat Tillman got what was coming to him.
An intriguing opinion piece on the NFL player who gave up millions to fight _ and die _ in Afghanistan.
18 years ago
yowch. it bites.
I got as far as the second paragraph. When the author started giving Tillman a full personality evaluation based soley on stereotypes I stopped. Conjecture and journalism don't mix.
Conjecture and journalism are "opninon", no?
Are acts of selflessness so uncommon these days that we must reflexively and cynically dissect them for malignant motives ("That crazy guy gave up all that cash to go and shoot people--he must hate his mother!")? I am firmly opposed to this war. Even so, I am not qualified to pass judgement on this man, nor am I comfortable caling him a "hero", but maybe, just maybe, he felt the cause was just and went to meet it.
" I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures."
Rene Gonzalez should ask for her money back from UMass, as she is an abject failure at obtaining an education.
This article is appalling. I don't understand all the rage directed at someone who wanted to do right by his country in his own way. It's not his fault that people are focusing on him (although I find that part annoying as well).
Rambo's and people who are so gung-ho on learning how to kill people and break stuff are a$%holes, and when they get killed trying to do it, it serves them right. /paraphrase Which doesn't excuse them from railing without any idea of who the man was.
She has a right to her opinion. But with the exercise of that right comes - as it does for all of us - the realization that our reputations are comprised of those moments in which we exercise our rights and the manner in which we do so.
Actually, I was perplexed that the author's viewpoint intimated that those who do not have economic *cause* to join this war have no business doing so (or are "idiot"s for joining out of idealism/patriotism). In attempting to savage Pat Tillman, she overlooks the fact that without men and women like Pat Tillman, our military would subsist only of those without the economic wherewithal to avoid it. Not a great chain of logic for either the success of the Puerto Rican community-- still bootstrapping their way to increasingly better lives-- or for a military that occasionally does pick important battles to fight.
"without men and women like Pat Tillman, our military would subsist only of those without the economic wherewithal to avoid it."
Without men and women like Pat Tillman, the US military would be under the control of a foreign power that had taken over the country. The best way to deal with pacifists like Rene Gonzalez is to punch them in the face repeatedly, until they come to the realization that fighting back sometimes makes sense.
I knew the gentle reader was in trouble when I read
"In this self-critical incapable nation, [...]"
. But, even then, yikes. At least the paper's
I'd like to think that he started out with a somewhat reasonable and thought-provoking thesis, such as "Pat Tillman is no more or less a hero than anyone else who died in the war". He started off in a good anecdotal voice -- his second para builds on this quite a bit, heating up with some edgy phrasing("even Rambo got shot"), but also pointing out that the man made a very unusual decision. His piece ends on a wobbly but thoughtful note: Tilman died in an illegal war, his death, and the death of his comrades, will be for naught, and the American public won't realize it. But everything in between is bad, bad, bad. Even as a dyed in the wool leftie, this column revolts me. I oppose the war and the occupation, and this is still an awful piece. I can respect the Collegian's decision to publish anti-war
pro-war pieces, but give your columnists some face time with an editor, ferchrissakes, and maybe his next article won't be so embarassing.
Eh... While I'm not too jazzed about the "Tillman was a hero" bandwagon, (Sure he was, but no more so than anyone of the other men and women that died in the service of our country) this person's just flat wrong in his/her indictment of him. Sure, I agree that we need to change the circumstances that foster terrorism, but we've also got to �fight it militarily in some way, shape or form too.
Rocket88... can't appreciate *your* lack of logic-- or apparent lack of an appreciable sense of humor, either, if that's what your comment was attempting. The author was not arguing for no military, and only briefly indicated that she wasn't pro-war *in this case*. Poor logic does not call for vicious response, or even suggestions of it.
No, arch, you're wrong. Rene deserves to receive tenfold every drop of bile that she has sown.
No, goetter... I'm not wrong, as history-- given the long view-- has shown. Beating aggressors is one thing... advocating terrorizing "pacifists" puts you on the side of a long list of defeated baddies.
(not that it makes any difference, but the author is a young man.)
Yup, caught that action, but not until getting it wrong. I'm feeling okay with the rest, though.
until they come to the realization that fighting back sometimes makes sense
Really? The Iraq War was "fighting back"?? Clue me in on that one please! Either you've unfortunately bought into the idea that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, or you just don't care if what you say makes sense, but stop pretending that the Iraq War was in any way
. It was a preemptive strike with no basis,
her delivery of her point of view completely lacks grace, and there are some shockingly bad statements in there, as outlined by some monkeys -- i thought one of the worst was "
Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs.
" i think that going to fight for the army in lieu of keeping one's comfortable position is heroic if the morality of the conflict is easily understood, but the US's involvement in the barren 3rd world nations that they've been hitting these days is not black and white. america is not fighting hitler in 2004. and it's not like the morality part can be ignored. if no assessment of a given conflict's morality is to be made, we are logically forced to accept islamic suicide bombers as heroes. they give up their lives for a conflict they believe in (and here, we're talking about a direct sacrifice. they don't hope to survive). being alive is surely worth more than $3.6 million, but you won't catch anyone this side of the atlantic calling them heroes (for good reason) i guess the heart of the question for me is: what responsibility do soldiers who choose to join specific conflicts have to evaluate the merit of the conflicts that they join? and right now i'm thinking 'some.' note that people who joined the army before there was any sign of the war and have lost their lives because they chose to do whatever was asked of them, however disturbing, because they believed that the american government wouldn't send them on a pointless mission, and they wanted to serve their country, are clearly worthy of great respect. call them heroes, even.
(Indeed, Rene is a male name for latins. Heh.)
or latinos, or however you call us
It was a preemptive strike with no basis, period.
It may not have been retribution, but it is a little more complex than that. There are issues of WMD, previous usage of and pre-war intimations of further usage by Hussein; there are the couple dozen UN resolutions ignored; there was, albeit perhaps no obviously al-Qaeda, evidence that Baghdad sheltered and supported terrorists; there is the issue of a demonstrably beleaguered people suffering under a murderous tyrant; there is the idea that an Islamic democracy would serve as an example to the region; there is the argument that, in perhaps one of the most volatile regions on earth, Iraq was the loosest cannon among many loose cannons; and there is the idea that, assuming that the real answer to terrorism is to undermine their centeres of supply and succor, by establishing a military presence in the region the US could exert pressure on more obvious terrorist-supporting states and deny terrorist orgs their hideouts. I'm not essaying a justiifcation here - the war is still unfolding, and the lines on the philosophical rights and wrongs of it are already drawn. But the thing is far more complex than many indicate.
Good observations, Fes. And I think those observations underscore how simplistic a view that *male* (wink, Zemat) grad student author was... reasons for joining the military are many; reasons for and against going to that war were many. Better to shelve the drama and the rhetoric so that our next decisions-- as to how to handle the situation we find ourselves in now-- can be made with reason and respect.
boo, you think the war in Afghanistan is illegal?
Fes, as you know we could argue all those points you made, my only reason for lashing out was the idea that in essence "Iraq did something to us and we have to retaliate" which indeed was not the case. The "no basis" remark was in response to the SOLE reason Congress approved war in Iraq, WMDs, which have not been found. I was not referring to any other convenient arguments that have been brought up since the WMDs have not been found (ie. Iraq was a ticking time bomb, used WMDs in the past [even though we gave them to him], etc). Sorry my post ended up sounded too simple.
You (and others here) need to do a little background on the issue. Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And the Afghanistan invasion
fighting back. The Taliban regime sheltered and aided Bin Laden and his organization. In my view the Afghanistan war was, and still is, 100% justified.
My "punching pacifists in the face" comment was not about hating pacifists of pacifism, which I do not. It was meant to illustrate that pacifism can be taken too far, as in not retaliating when it is necessary to stop more attacks. Sometimes the best defence is a strong offence.
rocketman88, you explained my subtle point. Also, there seems to be some trouble distinguishing a retaliatory war from a preventative war. Afghanistan vs. Iraq, in other words. I can at least understand your disagreement with the Iraq war, but if you think Afghanistan was a mistake, then you're kind of a nutjob, no offense. And genial,
WMDs have been found
, they're just not sitting in pretty rows, stacked up in warehouses, marked "WMD's - Do Not Touch or Let The Americans See", like everyone thought.
genial: I didn't mean to imply any shortcomings in your opinion on the war, just comment on the general level of sound-bite criticism that many, myself included, are prone to make on the subject. Indeed, I tend to agree with your thoughts on the issue of WMDs being the the sole launching pad for the war, when I believe that the Bush administration should have (and could have) made a more exhaustive case. No disrepect intended.
Hey f8x, it really looks like your source is questionnable. It's like using [insert name of hyper-liberal, completely biased mag here] as a reliable news source.
uh-oh. now the
is getting in on the controversy....
Rocket88: If you intended to illustrate that pacifism can be taken too far when you suggested pummeling the (granted, ridiculous) author, you might want to spend more time with f8xmulder and absorb the neat tricks of subtlety and providing context so that people don't think you're a senseless thug. And f8xmulder, i'm impressed that you found one source stating that WMD's have been found. Ahem, you'd think you'd hear that news either from, ahem, the White House or that damn liberal media. Point goes to Genial and to Fes, even as one opposes the war (but hated the twisted logic) and one supports the war (but wishes a better case were made to the public).
rocket88: You're are indeed right, I jumped too soon after reading your post and it was right after reading a post in the blue on Iraq so I started crossing my i's and dotting t's. I apologize for the mixup. Fes: I agree, and no offense taken. :) f8xmulder: please, I've seen the link, and if indeed WMDs that the Bush Administration wanted to find had been found, it would be more than just a couple blogs ranting about it, it would be The White House proclaiming it proudly. All the mentions in that article are speculative AT BEST right now. They make no distinction between WMDs, and simple rockets that maybe go 10 feet further than they're supposed to under ordinances. Clear and imminent threat indeed.
On preview: points to Genial, Fez, and Kimberly... (Kimberly, I'd say "You, go, girl!" 'cept I've already gotten gender wrong once today already.) And great post, SideDish.
arch: Although I don't advocate the pummeling of all pacifists, I do wholeheartedly endorse the shit-kicking of the author of this article. If that makes me a senseless thug, then I'll fly that flag with pride.
Nothing like politics to liven up the debate around here. Isn't it about time for a double post or something?
As far as the article goes (since I just noticed I haven't yet commented on it) I would say of course I disagree with it, but that I'm glad the Collegian stood up to the free speech rights. In a way, the fact that Gonzales' article got published hurt him more than helped his fight IMO.
did you get that link from the MeFi FPP yesterday about the 600 blog listing? Just curious, cause that's where I saw it first. It's not very credibly, IMMO (in my monkey opinion), FWIW, YMMV. Rene
is the feminine, I'm told. and finally (drumroll): Number One . . . MonkeyFilter: Repeatedly Punching Pacifists In the Face *crash!*
. . hey, is that a preview button?
Rocket88: Gonzales is already getting the *()&^ beaten out of him with appropriate fists-- public shaming. Time to learn how to be a part of a country that unequivocally states that we can say what we believe in (no matter how insipid), and no one gets to clock us for it without being charged with a misdemeanor/felony. So, join the team or pick a different flag to fly.
Kimberly, according to most folks, there's no such thing as a hyper-liberal biased news source :-)
you'd think you'd hear that news either from, ahem, the White House or that damn liberal media.
We've heard the news before from the White House, it's just no one believed it. What liberal media would you be referring to?
genial, according to UN resolutions what has been found so far do qualify as WMD, or at least chemical/biological weapons. It's not just rockets and warheads and nukes we're looking for.
First of all, arch, I'm deeply disappointed that you missed the opportunity to continue the "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" cascade that I
didn't take rocket88's rhetoric as senseless thuggery. I took it as equivalent rhetoric to Rene's (who writes like a girl, nyah, nyah)
Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion
claptrap. Sticks and stones.
pete, actually, I found it about three days ago, but I'd seen another article similar to it about a week ago.
boo_radley makes banana smoothies for everyone
arch: Heed your own advice and start respecting my right to voice my opinion (no matter how insipid). And public shaming is not even close to appropriate for what Gonzales has written. Maybe he could explain his opinion, in person, to Tillman's family and ex-teammates.
Goetter, as someone who definitely writes like a girl, I can tell you you're WRONG... wrong! wrrrronnng! (Damn, after that post you made, now I have to respect you!) However, I think you're giving rocket88 a bit too much credit. His follow-up "endorsing the shit kicking of the author of this article" kinda lays down all the cards in that hand, don't you think?
Sorry, f8x, but the Publisher of "Insight Magazine" (the illustrious Reverend Moon) has a better stash of WMDs than Saddam ever did. :)
The best way to deal with pacifists like Rene Gonzalez is to punch them in the face repeatedly, until they come to the realization that fighting back sometimes makes sense.
Personally, if I am ever punched in the face
, I would run like hell to remove my face from the range of the puncher's fist, unless of course, the puncher had an accomplice holding me, in which case I would be less able to fight back than to flee. The 'ballroom brawl' is a pathetic analogy for war. That said, the Rene Gonzales commentary was a tactless, unresearched piece of poorly written (but hey, it IS a college paper) attitude-disguised-as-opinion, comparable to the ramblings of a radio talk jockey (although from a different ideological position than most). And whoever wrote the title (most often it's an editor, not the original author), made it look even more insulting than it was. And genial had a good point: Mr. Gonzales' editor did him no favor by publishing his article. Bleh.
And rocket, puh-leeze. You have every right to appear as simple as you want.
'ballroom brawl'??? That should be 'barroom brawl'. I'll shut up now.
Rocket88, on second thought, maybe I don't want to get you mad (covers face). *offers banana*
Oh f8xy you ... there are tons of hyper-liberal biased publications, but I steer clear of them so I couldn't think of any names. Even Salon bugs me at times. So nyah.
wendell: since you've already picked up on my "barroom brawl" analogy, let me ask you...should the USA have turned and run from the punch of 9/11, to remove themselves from the range of the fist? Should they have had the puncher charged with a misdemeanor/felony, as seems to be arch1's preferred solution? They were bitten by a bug and they swatted it, or at least fumigated the nest. (to switch metaphors) The fact that I'm branded as a meatheaded thug here is comical, because it's so far from the truth. I did state that Gonzales should be physically harmed for writing this piece, but that's because I consider it legitimate payback for the real harm his writing does to Tillman's friends and family, and to all those who lost loved ones in this conflict.
arch1: No ill-will towards you *accepts banana, offers one in return*. It's not my style. I'm upset by the article, and if i'm redirecting the anger towards you, I apologize.
"instead, we adhered to one of our missions: to create discussion, with dialogue on the merits of each argument."
From the papers response to the article. I'm wondering how the editorial staff at this particular paper justified the "merits" of Rene's argument by simply placing it along side a pro Tillman article. Is it any wonder that the President of umass waded into the fray?
In fairness, there have been *no* posts supporting the author's opinion. The real discussion here is quickly heading to whether our country's strike was warranted. ...whole other swamp, really. (munching on banana, thanks) rock, the issue remaining is that you're freestyling with the analogies here... and you're also advocating, again, that the author deserves physical retribution. considering that tillman's family is receiving an outpouring of sympathy/empathy from 99.99% of this country, i doubt they'd even give this a second thought-- meanwhile, Gonzales will wear this like an albatross on campus for the rest of his grad career. see? the math works, and no one has to throw-- or advocate-- throwing a punch at someone who is exercising their right to free speech.
Is this MonkeyFilter, or did I take a wrong turn?
I had this cool idea for a post about a guy who sells his bride's wedding dress on e-bay....
or how about this for a post: some guy sells his bride's wedding dress on e-bay...
Guilty as charged on the count of analogy freestyling. The funny thing is, I'm very much pro: free speech, and anti: vigilante style violence...but I still have to stand by my earlier statements. Supporting "freedom of speech" in general is a noble cause, but you quickly find yourself in support of KKK members, neo-nazis, Rene Gonzales, and other unsavoury types who use that freedom to do real damage. These people deserve real harm in return, and I can live with the fact that it contradicts my general beliefs.
Sunshine kills all germs, sooner or later.
Skrik: We're over 1000 now, baby! We're all grown up! Expect more "You're wrong! No, you're wrong!"
discussions and a little less inside-jokey, cockpunchy, giggle-fests. It's sad, but we had to become mefi sooner or later.
I think any mention of war and politics brings up the worst, even in me. However, we are a FAR cry from the snarky attitudes of many mefites.
this comment was supposed to be down here.
But I don't wanna grow up!! I support
feeling that some people deserve a punch in the face. Still there are better ways to handle things like this (I had been punched by rather pacific persons for some insensitive things I said, but that didn't hurt as much as realizing how stupid I was). And, as has been said, Rene already got his "punch in the face" just by letting his rambling be published, probably trashing any opportunity of working in any mayor publication.
Monkeyfilter doesn't like me...
Conjecture and journalism are "opninon", no? posted by pete_best at 03:34PM UTC on April 29
No. The opinion section is reserved for educated discussion on issues on which consensus is not available. This paper is not scholarly in its analysis and therefore transgresses this. Opinion? Yes. Opinion worthy of being printed? No. Publishing this in the opinion section is equivalent to the NYT publishing an opinion piece by pat robertson on the homosexual agenda to spread aids to straight people. That may be his opinion but it has no business being published in the NYT.
It's sad, but we had to become mefi sooner or later.
Then again, how often do mefi members apologize after submitting two or three testy comments? You and arch1 both got bananas out of the deal...
Um, why did my comment jump to the top of the page?
wait a minute... kkk, neo nazis, rene gonzales all in one list? cmon, what real damage is that article going to do? or are you joking?
well, the paper's URL is b0rked, and I don't know what SideDish's tinyurl linked to, but it's dead too. I HOPE YOU'RE ALL HAPPY YOU BROKE THE INTERNET FOR EVERYONE.
Now even Monkeyfilter's comments are broken again!
Why can't we have nice things?!
This is why we can't have nice things
We are going up, up in the sky! wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
It wasn't me, it was the man who lives inside my head that did it.
That is the saddest assertion I've heard on this thread yet, R-88! We NEVER have to become Mefi. We've just got to be vigilant.
The best way to deal with pacifists like Rene Gonzalez is to punch them in the face repeatedly, until they come to the realization that fighting back sometimes makes sense.
Agreed. Although the link is dead, from what I've seen repeated in this comments thread (and the headline), someone needs to hit this guy so hard his kids inherit the bruises.
There is nothing -
, I tell you - that we can't make in-jokey and gigglefesty if we just try hard enough.
MonkeyFilter: Guilty as charged on the count of analogy freestyling.
See? It's easy if we just love each other a bit. And also if we never know which end of the page our insults will appear - it's a fabulous deterrent to flamewars, and we should all justly praise Monkeybashi for inventing such an enlightened system. Now, will somebody please tell me who the fuck Pat Tillman is?
Uh, yeah. That comment ordering earlier was deliberate. /embarrassed
That wasn't really a flamewar, flashboy. Arch1 and I still love each other! Right arch? arch?
Not even a little?
Gonzalez admit's the article wasn't worth publishing
taking the wrong end of the stick and beating about the bush with it. /python
ach! Sorry, I went to go buy more bananas, in case I start getting all viglianty again. Rocket88 and I are jus' fine, thanks.
Hey rocket88, this morning on NPR I discovered the origins of your name. How cool!
I preferred rocket87 /pete_best_filter
rocket88 was the "first" rock 'n roll song. rocket87 was the "last" rhythm 'n blues song. (M*A*S*H* loudspeakers: "Quidnunc kid, take a lap") /z-rail
Correct! The song just happened to be in my head when I was pressed to come up with a username. I'm not sure why...I probably haven't heard it in years. When I first heard it many years ago, as a mere adolescent, it opened my young mind (and ears) to a world of music you just didn't hear on "top 40" radio at the time (late 70's). I'll always remember that.
I just don't know...
on tillman's family's quest for the truth about what happened to him.
Fascinating guy, Tillman. His death is a tragedy for his family, and the way it's been used to pump up neocon-style "patriotism" is a tragedy for truth.
Whatever happened to the heroes?
(scroll down to second piece on the page). A summary of the what is known about Tillman's death and the subsequent cover-up, plus some revelations about his character. This was all news to me - I'd missed the article roryk links above at the time. It's one of the sources used here.
well posted Abiezer! Oh, sure now you'll insinuate that the Government wanted to manipulate public opinion about war! Ludicrous!
Mary Tillman: 'The administration used Pat.'
In which the Army's announcement that it's launching an investigation of Tillman's death is dismissed as 'another perfunctory Army investigation . . . another example of the military "investigating itself."'
Sad. Typical, expected even. And sad.
Tillman read Chomsky? That's unpossible!
Was ever a skank quite so skanky?
God, such an intelligent woman with such tools at her disposal, and she chooses this for her career. Could have chosen to, you know, try to make the world a better place. But no, sophist whoring pays better.
That's so awesome. "Uh, durrrrr... I don't believe it."
I don't understand all the rage directed at someone who wanted to do right by his country in his own way.
I am so sick and tired of hearing all this bullcrap about being against the war but supporting the troops. I don't support anyone who is engaged in our immoral war effort in the Middle East, especially since they have to volunteer to be in it. Tilman was no hero and he definently didn't do right by his country. His stupid actions no doubt influenced lots of stupid young people to join the military. His name should be reviled and cursed.
WTF? How did you get in here?
I am so sick and tired of being against trolls but supporting Berek. I don't support anyone who dredges up 2-year old posts and uses them to make idiotic and controversial comments, especially since he had to go out of his way to find this thread which hasn't been active for five months. Berek is a troll and isn't doing right by Monkeyfilter. His stupid comments will no doubt start a heated exchange of insults. His name should be reviled and cursed.
How is expressing my opinion on a subject being a troll? Especially when we're talking about an important issue that is mortgaging the future of this country and decimating the younger generation? And no, I'm not hoping to start an exchange of insults, just an exchange of ideas. In particuliar, I don't understand how people can say they're against the war but support the troops. To me this is the equivelant of saying I'm against carjacking but support the carjackers. I didn't have to go out of my way to find this thread, I stumbled across it by accident. If I find an older thread that is interesting I find nothing wrong with commenting on it. Who's the bigger troll, the person who makes a comment, possibly controversial, that is germane to the thread or the person who makes a comment just for the purpose of leveling personnel insults and taunts? From what I've seen, there are several monkeys who consider anyone who expresses an opinion they don't like to be a troll.
Inflammatory language + pissing on the dead + implying that...what? We shouldn't have a military? + equating armed service with felonies + completely ignoring the fact that Tillman signed up for Afghanistan, not Iraq + painting people you've never even met as monsters + dismissing those who can grasp the not-very-subtle distinction between being opposed to a war and wanting to see the troops return home safe as being full of "bullcrap" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = people think you're a troll. FWIW, I don't think you are, but it's naive to think it's just simple disagreement with your opinions that leads to ruffled feathers.
Whoa, whoa, a big WHOOOAAAAAAA. I never said that we shouldn't have a military. It is an indisputable and unarguable point that we live in a dangerous world. Unfortunately it is very necessary that we have a military. That doesn't mean that we have to support everything they do. As for equating military service with felonies, my point, perhaps poorly made, was that it's irrational to say we condemn a person's actions but support the person. You make a good point about the distinction between the action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, as the war in Afghanistan has been bungled so badly and continues to drag on, that distinction is lessening. I don't think that I labeled anyone a monster?! For whatever it's worth I do on occassion moderate and change my views. See the recent tattoo thread for an example. Last, for whatever it's worth, why do people take things so personal? It's just politics.
I never said that we shouldn't have a military. It is an indisputable and unarguable point that we live in a dangerous world. Unfortunately it is very necessary that we have a military. That doesn't mean that we have to support everything they do.
You are, however, blaming them for serving in wartime, as if it were their decision to go to war, or as if they could just decide not to go without suffering major consequences, or as if most of our current troops signed up *because* of Iraq. All of those options are so thoroughly and transparently false that I almost don't know where to begin deconstructing them. But I'll sum it up by saying this: if every enlisted person is responsible for our government's decision to go war, then the only solution is to completely dismantle the military. On the other hand, you could blame the organ grinder for his treatment of the monkey instead, if you'll pardon the metaphor. It's not irrational at all to feel sorry for someone who is ordered to ship out. Afghanistan has indeed gotten messy, but you'd be in a thin minority to argue that we never should have gone there in the first place. I'm not saying you'd be wrong, but you'd have a hard time justifying not going after those who attacked us on our own soil.
I don't think that I labeled anyone a monster?!
His name should be reviled and cursed.
With a pretty strong implication that you feel the same way about all enlisted men and women. Perhaps not exactly the same thing, but it has that pitchforks-and-torches feel, don't you think? Again, I don't think you're a troll or anything. But you did curse a dead man for wanting to defend his country, a man whose corpse wound up being used as a political and PR football by the likes of the DOD, the White House, and
. You're going to have to expect some blowback for that.
blaming them for serving in wartime, as if it were their decision to go to war
We have now been at war long enough that most of the people involved in the fighting either signed up or reenlisted after the invasion of Iraq. They made the choice to continue serving in a military engaged in an immoral war. One of the things that helped get the U.S. out of Vietnam was when the troops started refusing to fight. Enough of them did it that it got to the point where the Army could no longer function as an effective battlefield force. So yes, troops willingly engaged in, not drafted, an immoral war. Yes they can be blamed. Sorry, I thought that you were talking about me calling a fellow Monkey a monster. You're right, I went too far. What I should have said is that I do not believe that Tilman is a hero or a role model.
/smackdown of over-passionate monkey.
MCT, you're a much better person than I am, since, to me, inflamitory language, followed by semi-apologies and then some other inflamitory language = troll in my book. And, insulting comments about people with tattoos when a raft of folks had said they had them, well, when is an ad hominem attack required to be directed specifically at one person? Telling people that have tattoos they are too degenerate and shouldn't have children, when a least one of the commenters said she was pregnant may be a sort of troll by proxy, but it still was at least an attack, even if he didn't mention a name. The guy is pretty good at it, but, well... And, he's claimed that he only uses insults for humor, but the poems about tracicle and me were pretty insulting, and not funny, and didn't seem to br striving for humor. And, I still think his first post (on penises/sausages was meant to get a shitstorm going. And I obliged, to my fault. but, I still believe it was intended. So, if he's not a troll, what is he? Just a clueless 37 year old dude who need our sympathy? Please tell me why you think he's an ok guy, because I truly do not understand.
Berek, take note: when patient path is losing patience with you, for sure less even-tempered folk are ready to snap. Please try not to ruffle monkey feathers.
One of the things that helped get the U.S. out of Vietnam was when the troops started refusing to fight. Enough of them did it that it got to the point where the Army could no longer function as an effective battlefield force. So yes, troops willingly engaged in, not drafted, an immoral war. Yes they can be blamed.
Battlefield troops are taught that, no matter what their opinion of the war is, and no matter what their moral conscience tells them, if they refuse to carry out the orders they are given the guys beside them may die. There is some truth to that. Everyone depends on everyone else doing their job effectively. Your brilliant plan to have individual soldiers decide not to fight would result in even more of them coming home in boxes. Now...on to Tillman: He saw his country attacked and believed that the man responsible was in Afghanistan and was being aided and sheltered by the Taliban government. He volunteered to help topple that government and track down and find Bin Laden. He did this at the sacrifice of his multi-million dollar football career and potentially (now actually) his life. For that you say his name should be reviled and cursed. Tell me, Berek, what makes people like Tillman so despicable? Do you think the US, Afghanistan, or the world would be better off if the US and allies hadn't invaded and the Taliban were still in power? Do you think people like you would enjoy a life of freedom and luxury if nobody volunteered to defend their country? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on this, and please leave Iraq out of it - it's an entirely seperate issue.
We had no choice but to invade Afghanistan. What makes our intervention there immoral is the way we totally squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world, the Afghani people, and, yes, our troops by bungling the invasion and aftermath. When we pull out of Afghanistan, which we will in the next few years, the Taliban will take total control again. They already have effective control of most of the country. As for Tilman. Well, it seems obvious that no matter what one says about him will be construed as a personal attack by certain posters here. I find that especially interesting since I haven't seen many posts in support of U.S. policy in the Mid East. As for path, I notice he seems to take it estremely personal if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to his. Why does he take it so personal anytime I disagree with him? I don't know.
Dude, get a clue. Back off. You were out of line. If anything, Tillman was what's right about the U.S. military. For you to judge him the way you do is, well, embarassing to you, whether you see it or not.
Once again, I ask, why is it that you all are so invested in making this poor, misguided individual into a saint and a martyr? With the options available to him, Tilman could have done a lot of good in this world. Much more good then he ever had a chance of accomplishing as a foot soldier. As for his heroic death, well by now everyone knows that it wasn't. He died in a friendly fire incident that the Army tried to
. Even if you believe that his
served a noble purpose it is impossible to see what noble pupose his death served.
Berek, some of your comments might receive a better reception if you would make something of an effort to appreciate the nature of those you address directly. A correct discernment of gender would be a good start.
In support of Rocket88's comment,
"Most of those who are thrust into combat soon find it impossible to maintain the mythic perception of war. They would not survive if they did." "For this reason, most soldiers wind up fighting for their buddies. Hedges quotes a United States marine corps lieutenant-colonel, just before they crossed into Kuwait at the start of the first Gulf war in January 1991, who said: 'Just remember that none of these boys is fighting for home, for the flag, for all that crap the politicians feed the public. They are fighting just for each other, just for each other.' "In his book Home from the War, the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton summed up the sentiments of soldiers who had realised the absurdity of their situation in Vietnam. The basic response was: "I don't know why I'm here. You don't know why you're here. But since we're both here, we might as well try to do a good job and do our best to stay alive.' " I was quite grown up when our involvement in Viet Nam was escalating, and I have to tell you, Berek, that I do not remember any groundswell of troops refusing to fight. There were individuals, as there are in any war, but a quick Google didn't refresh my memory on wide spread mutinies. I think that one of the things that trashed returning troops was that they weren't given recognition for having stayed to fight AS THEY WERE DIRECTED, in spite of the urging of the anti-war movement (of which I was a part.) And, before you change directions, I felt great empathy for the troops. And, Berek, "As for Tilman. Well, it seems obvious that no matter what one says about him will be construed as a personal attack by certain posters here. I find that especially interesting since I haven't seen many posts in support of U.S. policy in the Mid East." Tillman had nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Mid East. Two, completely different issues.
Tilman was an instrument of U.S. policy, as is everyone in uniform, to a lesser or greater extent. In Tillman's case it was to a greater extent, since he was one of the "boots on the ground" carrying out that policy. You're right there were no large scale active mutinies in Vietnam. Troops just started refusing to patrol and started fragging their own officers. Also, drug abuse was rampant in the last few years that our troops were there.
another view on Tillman
You keep misrepresenting women on MoFi. Is this because we are mistakenly referring to you as male when you aren't? Because I believe you've been corrected previously as to path's gender yet you still insist on saying "he". Please let us know if you are in fact a woman.
Plus he was a pro athlete, and therefore a neanderthal, right Berek? Your black and white view of the world and your preconceived prejudices make you unworthy of debate.
Um, auctully I just use the he as a general reference. I will try to avoid it and try to use gender neutral terms in the future since gender neutral is how I generally think of my fellow Monkeys. Most of the issues we discuss here don't really seem to have gender specific viewpoints. I am not a sports fan, but I don't really have much problem with the people who play sports. My problem is more with the high schools and universities who let them get away with murder or with the cities that give teams free rides on taxes and build them free stadiums while they can't afford to keep schools open or the fans who could care less about politics or the war(s) in the Mid East but will use one of those shivs from that other post on you if you diss their team but the biggest problem I have is with people who call athletes heroes. They migh be talented, they might be skilled, they might be physically impressive specimens but they are not heroes. There is nothing heroic about playing football for millions of dollars a year.
(So, you're going to call everyone "it" now?) But, there might be something a bit "heroic" about giving up a lucrative career to risk your life for something you believe in.
Not if you believe in something other than Berek, apparently.
(Nah, I'll just call everyone monkey poo.) I think that you could make a case that what we've got here is a case of someone who made his millions and decided that he wanted more of an adventure then he could get in the NBA, NHL, or whatever. After all, in football you just get to hurt people, in the Army you get to kill them. Then again, there was the Elvis case. He probably could have figured out a way to get out of his military service considering his popularity at the time. Jimmy Stewart served in the Army Air Corps during WWII and stayed in the reserves after the war. He retired from the reserves with the rank of general. Perhaps a better point to consider is why we haven't seen the children of the rich and powerful, people who have held Tillman up as the big martyr, emulate his example and join up in droves.
I don't doubt you have strong opinions, and sometimes I agree with them, but my point is - you continually post in old threads without understanding them. Please stop, it's annoying, rude, ignorant and perhaps it's intentional. You've done it in poetry threads, you've done it in political threads, and here in "random" threads. (Please - It's not like you had a link or anything of substance other than opinion, what are you searching for "Tillman" in all the message boards?) Just stop already. Stick to the new threads, or make some new threads and lurk in the old ones until you get what they're about. Because you're being a bull in all the favorite china shops, homestyle.
Personally I think that your posting in these old threads is fine, Berek.
Oh shit I stepped outta group-think there. sorry everyone - wait, I mean BAA BAA BAA. /trolling //is a wonderful verb ///it's use as a noun ////is deeply regrettable
/////shit, it's not possessive
It's fine to post in old threads. That ain't the problem. The problem is taking an extreme position--"Pat Tillman should be reviled and everyone who doesn't revile him is stupid or evil"--then denying that the facts fit others' interpretations, or even that you implied that those who disagree with you are stupid or evil. It's simple. It's called civility.
It's fine to post in old threads.
I would say yes-and-no because unlike yer average non-Monkey message board, the old threads show up just like the new threads do. So when they show up, a relevant continuation is appreciated. They're not less relevant or important - in fact, they can be sublimely made excellent
they're old threads. That's why I object to quidnunc and other new monkeys posting without apparently understanding what a particular thread is doing.
The quid is clearly a whole 'nother species, and should be approached only after a great deal of training. Who let her loose? That's the real question.
I hearby declare that only homunculus can post in old threads (because he at least keeps us updated and informed). Can we put it to a vote?
Sorry, nunia, but others among us update old threads, though maybe not as often as the Iron Surfer. Until recently, it hasn't been a problem. I think we just need to figure out how to deal with "recently."
Ah, yes. Do I put away the pitchfork and torch, then?
Hmm. Not sure.
He turned me into a newt.
That bear thread was certainly buggered. >:-(
I will glady pay $5 for MeFi migration fees if I can get a guarantee it is a one-way deal.
Thank you nunia, but I share President Bush's contempt for the democratic process. It is unmanly. I take power only by conquest. To crush the Monkeys, to see them driven before you, etc, etc. That is what is best in life.
RTD - would you leave us? I'm sure it is a one way deal if you ask tacicle to change the password on your MoFi account so that you can't access it anymore. But, I'd miss you.
And, homunculus - tickle, tickle. See, you're laughing now. So come here and I'll massage your neck and you'll feel much better. Now, tell me a story.
Gah. Path, not for
I meant, I would pay for certain others to change teams... And I'm SO GLAD that you'd miss me! *smootch*
Please tell me that none of that is serious. Or if it is serious tell us why. "Goes off to weep, just in case*
Whew. I was afraid this was going to turn into one of those RALPH PLEASE DON'T GO DON'T DO IT WE'LL SAY WE'RE SORRY WE'LL DO ANYTHING WE HAVE PIE threads.
Keep it down, people. Don't distract path. *sits back and enjoys neck rub*
Hey! Hey! *jumps and down, waves arms* Hellooooooo! I'm still here!
*places homunculus left hand in bowl of warm water, puts shaving cream on right hand, tickles nose with feather, runs away giggling*
I had a little gadfly nothing would it bear but a wee misapprehension nipping here and there the water gallops in the pot once the kettle's seething hot together we shall drink the lot though wasted breath shall cool it not
*applauds* *does an interpretive dance* *with scarves*
*Sticks dollar in g-string* Take it off! WOO! Take it off!
*sticks ice-cold quarters down Berek's butt-crack* KEEP IT ON! PLEASE (for the love of all that is good and pure) KEEP YOUR DAMNED CLOTHES ON!
*squeals, squeals like a pig*
*hears banjos in the distance*
Mark Graham, a former Nebraska track star, died Monday in Afghanistan while serving with the Canadian military. He was 33.
This was big news in my hometown of Hamilton, where Graham went to highschool. The fact that it was friendly fire from an American unit makes it doubly tragic.
Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Well said. The entire piece. Crap. Thanks for link pete...
Well, to be fair it's via MeFi for me, though
brought the pain here first.
It is cliche, but the American vote on Nov. 7 really is a day to take back America. Anyone needing a reminder of what needs to be taken back should read the article that Peter links to, above.
Ya know, I'm starting to wonder if the H-dogg is a real person; perhaps H is an incredibly well-coded bot that scours the electronic landscape, and links to relevant MoFi threads? Has anyone met this person? A meetup perhaps? Step forward! I beg you!
Ralph, Nov. 7 will determine if I am setting up shop in your backyard or not.
Don't get too attached to the idea of taking back America. The best possible outcome of this midterm election is Democrats gaining a 10 points or so margin in the House and a slim 1-2 point margin in the Senate. And this will be achieved by getting in bed with otherwise right wing candidates such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Any motion they try to enact will be fillibustered, and they will simply not have veto-proof majorities. And this assumes that they will not immediately get complacent and go on vacation until campaign season starts in late 2007. A sensible, staged withdrawl from Iraq and attempts to repair the budget and foreign relations are unlikely before 2008. US troops will be facing hardships for a long time even in the best of scenarios. All assuming that the dancing corpse of OBL and Diebold Election Systems don't miraculously hand these midterms to the Republicans at the last minute.
Comrades who killed football star Tillman were visually impaired, says latest report
Then what they doing with guns?
Better still, what were they doing in the army?
Army Finds Army Innocent of Wrongdoing
Tillman family still a little pissed off, frankly.