Alpine Summit

Thursday, October 27, 2005

The "2000" Parties Follow-Up

LGF links to this post on zombietime illustrating (literally) the glee these liberals had. The defense here was that they were "vigils" or otherwise solemn events. The REALITY (unlike the defense) is that these people are happy 2000 soldiers have died because now they can whine about the war even more.

Another question: how can they say "our honored and honorable soldiers" when they're doing the work of eeevil kkkapitalist imperialists? The very nature of their work would be (following that logic) dishonorable. LGF cites Peter Daou who says the following:

I find this rash of posts suggesting that anti-war activists “celebrate” the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.

Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home.

Dissent is indeed an American activity, mainly because nobody was able to before-hand. However, wishing failure on our troops where their lives depend on succeeding, is indeed patently anti-American; not to mention using the deaths of these volunteers for their own political gain.

Daou assigns a moral equivalence to any kind of dissent and makes no distinction of "good" dissent ("I think the war in Iraq is wrong because of the human and monetary cost with marginal benefit to others") and "bad" dissent ("I hope our troops all come home in body bags because I hate this country--yeearrrrgh!").

Unfortunately, the position of the liberals on this issue is unable to stand up to intellectual and moral scrutiny, so the only way to maintain the criticism is to sacrifice patriotism. Something I find liberals are more than willing to do on just about any international matter in which the United States is involved.

Blackfive has his own response to Daou's column.

Peter quotes another blogger then wraps up by paraphrasing from the blogger:

...Bottom line: If Malkin, LGF, and Blackfive think opponents of the Iraq war are "celebrating" the deaths of American troops, let them answer the basic paradox of their position, namely, how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?

Well, in order to answer this one-sided question, I can't speak for anyone but myself.

Of course, I don't want our troops to die. I've lost three very good friends in this war. I talk to my friend's widow every week. I've had several friends wounded. And I've visited wounded heroes. I've met Iraqis, too.

They aren't numbers to me. That's why I blog. That's why folks like Peter Daou and others on the far left side of the aisle don't want me to have an opinion.

Some things are worth fighting for. A free Iraq is worth fighting for. A free Middle East is worth fighting for. A world free of terrorism is worth fighting for.

My friends believed that, too.

The people that are against a free Iraq are people that don't believe that anything is worth fighting for.

Being a military brat, I have met far too many military personel to see them as just numbers, either. I haven't shared the same experiences as being in a fox hole with someone, but I can't see them as anything but people trying to get through this life just like the rest of us.