Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

March 20, 2003

By Ken Schram

Think about all the people who claim to support the troops, but are opposed to the war.

How can people deplore the use of bombs, but maintain they stand behind those who drop them?

They demonstrate against the bullets that fly from Marine rifles, then turn around and proclaim they'll be there for the person whose finger pulls the trigger.

I find this line of illogic an attempt to purify lingering social images of soldiers returning from Vietnam; a politically correct posture meant to ease people's conscience more then it's meant to show they actually stand behind the men and women in uniform.

I'm certain a soldier taking cover behind some Iraqi sand dune doesn't grasp the subtle difference between some people's disdain for what he does, and the fact that he is the one doing it.

I don't know if those opposed to invading Iraq are deluding themselves into believing that by saying they support the troops, they're giving themselves some kind of absolution.

With the first bullets having been fired; with the first bombs having been dropped, you can't claim to oppose the war and still support the Americans fighting it.

Not without at least a tinge of hypocrisy, or being so confused as to understand little about yourself, or the world around you.

Why is this point so vital to you? Do you not have an image in mind of the protester we are talking about? I think it is a given that most people in this country are not out shouting in the streets on either side. It is obvious, is it not, that there are many who may not have opted for war if given the choice but are not out shouting in the streets about the fact that they didn't personally bless it. We are talking about the fringes here. a thousand people protesting in a city of 4 million. We don't need to define the 3,998,000 that were not there in order to define the hypocrisy of those who were.

And we are sidetracked from the point. The point is that these folks may have a long and intertwined rationale they can explain to the troops if the troops had the time to sit and listen. But they don't have that kind of time. The point is, to the soldier hiding behind a sand dune in a hot zone, the distinction between your choice 2 and 3 is meaningless. To foriegn people who want to see our weakenesses and do not understand our language, the distinction is meaningless.

How it looks hurts, and that how it looks is the only message that really gets out.

It's not vital. I was reading about 15 posts about an article with a false choice. Every one of the posts gave the same false choice, along with statements that can only come from IEB (that's internet enhanced balls). I mildly pointed out that that wasn't necessarily all the choices, you grabbed it like a bull dog, and won't let go. No, to put it plainly, the goddamned article is wrong about many people. Plain enough? No more responses from me.

No, to put it plainly, the goddamned article is wrong about many people. Plain enough?

It might be wrong, but the point is how it looks. I don't understand your point and you have had more paragraphs to explain it than will fit on a sign. So, it is easy to misunderstand a protester.

No more responses from me.

OK then disregard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.