I won't add anything to the discussion (because this piece does an amazing job of expressing my thoughts and opinions), but I do want to say how important it is for us all to remember what a privilege it is to be an American. With this Memorial Day, we, as citizens of this great country, must truly face what is at stake for future implications. God Bless.
Check out this link:
What's Truly At Stake
10 comments:
I love the County I live in and I value and respect those who've died for this Country but I couldn't disagree more with the article (link) you have posted which seems to tell me that the only way to be a true American is to support all of the wars that America undertakes and makes a ridiculous intellectual jump with the following statement:
"There's something decidedly unflattering about those who say they support the troops but not the war, which is akin to supporting fire-fighters but not their goal of suppressing fires."
My only response; firefighters aren't trained to kill people, and carry out that training in their job. I fail to see the authors' connection. Again I couldn't disagree more because I can love and value a person but not love and value what they do.
I guess it depends on one's definition of support. It's never an all or nothing black and white issue which this article seems to make it and this is so evident by the use of the word "winning." It's not that black and white. Tell me honestly, who really wins or loses in a war? the side with the most people killed? The side that gets what it wants politically? I'm not sure anyone really wins..maybe we just all lose...
Ryan,
I'm not sure if you misread or didn't fully take-in the article at hand, but your arguing points have little to do with the theme of this particular piece.
The author is not, by any means, saying that it is "unAmerican" to NOT support our troops.
He is, very simply, stating that there are many unfavorable implications dealing with a withdrawal of troops in Iraq. The relational mentions to previous wars served only as an example to his point.
The point to the article was much deeper than a few hints of patriotism. It is unearthing what is at stake for us as a nation.
No, I think I read it and fully took it in. I understand that the title might have been "what is at stake for us as a nation" but it implied some pretty strong points about patriotism, many I disagree with and I don't think I'm alone in this (this isn't a jab I'm just sure that many others would take issue with this article's' perspective as well) which again seems to be a radical view of patriotism. I am an American and proud to be one, but I disagree with many things that America does (is doing) and according to this article, I better get on the bandwagon or check where my loyalty lies...
On an unrelated note, I appreciate our political bantering, I think it's healthy when two people really disagree to dialog about it...
I guess I miss your point and we can agree to disagree about the article.
After reading it several times over now, I still cannot see where you get the negative vibe about patriotism. The article clearly focuses on the Iraq War and how it could very well be a dangerous disaster FOR the value of freedom and what comes along with that (stability, governance, economic surplus, etc.).
I also have a concern with your original post. You state, "Again I couldn't disagree more because I can love and value a person but not love and value what they do." This was in the context of talking about military personnel. Personally, it makes me sick to hear Americans talk like this. Do you think this war was their choice? Do they want to be over their risking their life to protect your rights and your freedom? In most cases, I highly doubt it. I value all actions these men and women take. Like the war or not.
Again, I think you were diving a little too deep into this article and let your emotions do the talking. The title, in itself, is the very purpose of this gentleman's post. I believe the last two paragraphs are the selling point of this post. And, to be frank, the "moral of the story."
Again for the record;I support our troops Ryan, I know several people who serve or have served our Country and I've talked with them even about some of this stuff- I love them and appreciate what they have done are doing for our Country; but that doesn't mean I have to agree with EVERYTHING they do. Please don't accuse me of not appreciating the men and women who serve our Country. I am allowed (even if it disgusts you like you stated above that it does) to value a military person but not love and value what they do when they have to kill another human being. I do appreciate their service but my appreciation doesn't have to go as far or look the same as yours or my neighbors for that matter.
Again, it's hard for me to look past the contradiction in that statement.
Previously, you mentioned how soldiers are trained to kill, which is true in all branches of the military from basic training, and that you value their service. But, in the next breath, you do not value their service because of what these men and women are trained to do...kill. There is very little room to be on two sides here.
Besides that, back to the original point, an Iraq pull-out would be disasterous for us and that region of the world. Freedom comes with a price. Yes, there can be mistakes along the way, but do we not all learn from mistakes? Does it not make the sacrifice greater? Why are we to attach a timetable and pricetag to this war? Why is it OK to relate those to material things to the value of life and liberty?
This isn't just the Iraq War of 2002-2008. This is the war that could bring democratic freedom to a region filled with despots, terrorists, and war criminals. This could be a breath of fresh air and who are we to say that it could be none of those things?
I said nothing about an Iraq pullout; you're right that might be disastrous I agree. I think the mistake has already been made (and I know you disagree with me there that's fine)
So a contradiction to you is anything short of an all out support of everything our military and Country does? I'm sorry, I just don't think you are giving me any room to disagree with anything regarding our military. I think it's brave for our men and woman to defend this Country and really it's not their personal fault or problem when our government blunders and neglects it's duties (they just follow orders) I really take issue with the government administration that puts our men and woman in these positions. We need not be fighting on other's soil and attempting to police the world. We have the best military in the World and I'm proud of that but stretching it too thin is dangerous. Lets put stock in our own Country and even though other Countries struggle with violence and turmoil, lets keep our military here in our Country. Lets combat other Countries violence and turmoil with food, aid, and missions. Lets let the red-cross and peace-corp in instead of military intervention (low key) Then, we won't be hated for our guns and more terrorists won't be bred from our violence. This is NOT just an idealist position and to be sure, I understand that their is a need for some military presence in other countries but purely on a defensive position. Not an asserting position.
And I also know there will always be exceptions (it's never all black and white) but I think we (America) could use some lower key intervention instead of asserting ourselves like we have in the past.
And I know we disagree on many of these points. But, I would appreciate an understanding from you about the fact that I do love my Country and value its military personnel, but I do disagree with things as well. I think it's dangerous to use such strong language (like it "disgusts you to hear American's talk the way I do" and you only see "contradiction" in my statements. Give me some room to disagree brother, please.
Ryan,
Unfortunately, I do believe, from the statements that you make, that your ideas are idealistic and better suited for a Utopian society. We both know that will never exist.
It seems like, through every post and comment we exchange, you tend to pass over the real issue. We spend half the time arguing about something that I wasn't even really addressing.
Now, again, I do not know you very well, but it seems like you have a very optimistic view of our global culture and that "peace and love" will save the day. Ryan, I would like nothing more than to believe that to be true...but it is simply a far-fetched solution in the times that we live in. In a fallen world that is being over-run by sin.
Do you honestly believe that our problems with countries, mostly harboring religious jihadists, (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Afganistan, etc.) can be solved by simply putting down our guns and providing food, missions (that would go over well), and aide?
These countries, for the past 30 years and 5 different administrations, have wanted nothing to do with "the American devil." Their goal is not to talk with us, sign peace treaties, or shake hands, it is to destroy us. Those are not my own words, that comes from the mouth of many Middle Eastern despots that have pushed a global initiative to come together AGAINST the "Beast of the West."
I'm sorry that you can not see this, but the literature, comments, history, and testimonies are out there for all to see. Our left leaning media tends to leave a lot of the gaps for us to fill in on our own. Most of which people do not do.
And again, we can agree to disagree.
Who knows, maybe your right, maybe we can please those who want us destroyed with cheese curls and peace corps.
You said:
"It seems like, through every post and comment we exchange, you tend to pass over the real issue. We spend half the time arguing about something that I wasn't even really addressing."
Isn't this dialog important and don't you see the relevance of our discussion? I think it's an important dialog between two Christians who disagree; we need more of this discussion. So I hope you are o.k with the dialog and not ready to dismiss it just because you don't think I am addressing the "real issue." I happen to think that the "real issue" is very broad and from many of the links you provide, there are many jumping off points. I'm excited about this dialog, it helps to clarify what I believe and allows me to see someone with a very different view of the World. So, I hope its o.k that we talk about many key issues that come up on this site, because I don't think either one of us can define the "real issue" from any one piece of literature or post for that matter.
I do not mind. I was just making an observation.
Post a Comment