Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I am misappropriating this line.

As am I.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

But I don't know, Ty, I'm really worried about the imminent takeover of the US by ISIS if we don't have a few murdering racists on our side.

Fortunately, we have a surfeit.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm with you up until that "unflinching" part. Duty motivated by loyalty to fellow soldiers and country -- excellent. Like baseball, hot dogs and apple pie, that's something I'm all for. But when you throw "unflinching" in there, you've got a trite cliche instead. I know plenty of people who have served. Most of them flinch at some point. If Chris Kyle never once flinched on his way to killing hundreds of people one at a time with a rifle, do you really think that's a good thing?



Who does? It never would have crossed my mind to suggest that you root for the people who cheered when the towers went down.

I root for our soldiers. They are cannon fodder, often raised to be nothing more, yet they march off to die, not for some ideal, not for us as a common people, but to protect the interests of those whose power has purchased the government.

Many folks make the error of thinking that you can't support one without buying into the other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

They are cannon fodder, often raised to be nothing more,

I know it's important for you to read Daily Kos and frame your world from it, but shit like this is so offensive that I just can't keep reading your posts if you do not stop.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Many folks make the error of thinking that you can't support one without buying into the other.

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but for you to think your post evidences "support" is just sad.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm with you up until that "unflinching" part. Duty motivated by loyalty to fellow soldiers and country -- excellent. Like baseball, hot dogs and apple pie, that's something I'm all for. But when you throw "unflinching" in there, you've got a trite cliche instead. I know plenty of people who have served. Most of them flinch at some point. If Chris Kyle never once flinched on his way to killing hundreds of people one at a time with a rifle, do you really think that's a good thing?

It depends -- and not (only) on the identity of who he killed, but on the greater question of how good do you want your soldiers to be?

The guy was trained to be a killing machine. Can you flinch and still be a good sniper? I'm not sure. Is it true that all the people he killed were "bad"? Maybe, but I doubt it -- and yet, I don't question that he believed that, and had to believe that, so as not to go completely insane. I really do have trouble with the message of "go fight our wars, but try to have second thoughts about it."

The other stuff -- hating Iraqis, etc. --- that stuff I can fault him for, if that is in fact what he said or felt. That's the stuff that creates Lieut. Calleys.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It depends -- and not (only) on the identity of who he killed, but on the greater question of how good do you want your soldiers to be?

The guy was trained to be a killing machine. Can you flinch and still be a good sniper? I'm not sure. Is it true that all the people he killed were "bad"? Maybe, but I doubt it -- and yet, I don't question that he believed that, and had to believe that, so as not to go completely insane. I really do have trouble with the message of "go fight our wars, but try to have second thoughts about it."

The other stuff -- hating Iraqis, etc. --- that stuff I can fault him for, if that is in fact what he said or felt. That's the stuff that creates Lieut. Calleys.

I wonder how much being in that life turns one that way- like Nicholson from A Few Good Men may not be all that unusual?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It depends -- and not (only) on the identity of who he killed, but on the greater question of how good do you want your soldiers to be?

The guy was trained to be a killing machine. Can you flinch and still be a good sniper? I'm not sure. Is it true that all the people he killed were "bad"? Maybe, but I doubt it -- and yet, I don't question that he believed that, and had to believe that, so as not to go completely insane. I really do have trouble with the message of "go fight our wars, but try to have second thoughts about it."

The other stuff -- hating Iraqis, etc. --- that stuff I can fault him for, if that is in fact what he said or felt. That's the stuff that creates Lieut. Calleys.

I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).

I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).

I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.

must. not. post.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Fortunately, we have a surfeit.

I'd say, "unfortunately"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It depends -- and not (only) on the identity of who he killed, but on the greater question of how good do you want your soldiers to be?

The guy was trained to be a killing machine. Can you flinch and still be a good sniper? I'm not sure. Is it true that all the people he killed were "bad"? Maybe, but I doubt it -- and yet, I don't question that he believed that, and had to believe that, so as not to go completely insane. I really do have trouble with the message of "go fight our wars, but try to have second thoughts about it."

The other stuff -- hating Iraqis, etc. --- that stuff I can fault him for, if that is in fact what he said or felt. That's the stuff that creates Lieut. Calleys.

Right, "I believe I did right, but every human has doubts" is good. "I'm infallible and they are dogs" is not.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm with you up until that "unflinching" part. Duty motivated by loyalty to fellow soldiers and country -- excellent. Like baseball, hot dogs and apple pie, that's something I'm all for. But when you throw "unflinching" in there, you've got a trite cliche instead. I know plenty of people who have served. Most of them flinch at some point. If Chris Kyle never once flinched on his way to killing hundreds of people one at a time with a rifle, do you really think that's a good thing?

Really? That's the best you've got? To criticize use of an obvious throwaway adjective? Maybe focus on his point, which you're avoiding. Or don't. But don't offer junk like this.

Who does? It never would have crossed my mind to suggest that you root for the people who cheered when the towers went down.

No one does. He's somewhat ironically saying, "If I have to pick a side..." You know that. You're just pretending to have a tin ear here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).

I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.

Yes and no. I don't like anyone or anything offering blind obedience or loyalty to any organization or government. But, we all know these people are necessary for certain types of work the rest of us would never do.

Every army, every movement, every anything, needs its true believers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know it's important for you to read Daily Kos and frame your world from it, but shit like this is so offense that I just can't keep reading your posts if you do not stop.

"Fortunate Son" isn't as resonant today as it was 40 years ago for no good reason. The poor fight our wars, even more than in the past. Yes, there are officers and some rich or middle class kids in the mix. But generally, the military of today draws from people who don't have better options.

Wonk's only off in them being cannon fodder. Most of the fighting today is done by computer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I could eat alphabet soup and shit a better argument than that.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what's not up for debate is that shit would be superior, in terms of logic and coherence, to the essential fables of any organized religion.

I disagree, but if I'm wrong, it still must to be noted: A shit argument about a shit subject is only consistent.