Is this woman nuts or what? - Democratic Underground

chaska

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Nov-29-06 01:34 PM
Original message

Is this woman nuts or what?

Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 01:40 PM by chaska

I've had this on my desktop for a couple weeks now, not sure why. But I've been trying to resist writing this woman. Yesterday I succumbed.

I was very polite; but then reading the article again last night, perhaps I should have written something a bit less conciliatory. This lady is just effin' nuts. Her reply was very brief. She essentially just forwarded a response from a fellow nut visiting Kentucky from Australia. See below.

She also mentioned - when I suggested she study both sides of an issue before writing about it - that she'd read enough Chomsky in grad school, yada, and that she reads Krugman for a laugh.

I ask you, does this sound like the writing of an educated person. Half of her sentences make no sense. And it's all short declarative statements ... just like our man Bush, with no evidence to back up her claims.

But ya gotta love how she values the life of a soldier from Kentucky more highly than a twelve year old boy with an uzi (her fan really liked that line of reasoning). That's just wrong on so many levels. I'm tempted to write back and remind her that Hitler made similar choices.

I've read some stupid stuff, but this one just totally boggles the mind.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/15986574.htm

Hippies still trying to ruin the country
By Jenean Mcbrearty
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.

Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.

(randon snip)

Thus, lefty loonies deny that terrorists have declared war on America, while insisting that we can win the war through negotiation. They seem to believe the terrorists will spare them because they are nice.

The truth is that there is no way out of our modern warfare dilemmas.

Is it possible to protect non-combatants, given modern weaponry in total war?

Are people who make weapons innocent citizens of their warring governments, or integral non-uniformed soldiers and legitimate targets?

Must we surrender our country to our enemies because our weapons are too terrible to use?

Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old Iraqi firing an Uzi or a soldier from Kentucky?

Which is more sacred: a mosque hiding a weapons cache or a plane of tourists?

Do we want a military strong enough to protect our homeland? Are we willing to pay the price of survival?

It's crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea. It will come down to their children or ours, their soldiers or ours, their countries or ours.

For aging hippies, it's easier to keep blaming old enemies than to confront new ones, especially the young and ruthless. Hating a military-industrial complex is safer and less tiring. It's less complicated -- and less dangerous.

Abstract institutions neither bleed nor shoot back. Demonstrations, marches and sign-carrying don't accomplish much these days, but they are a lot more fun and allow the fiction of activist moral superiority to persist.

Their BAWL (Buddha-Allah-Wicca-Lenin) is better than some old Judeo-Christian God.

(another random snip)

Jenean McBrearty lives in Lexington. E-mail her at jeneanmacb@hotmail.com.

Fan's response:

Hi Jenean,
I am Australian, & working for a few months in Lexington.

(snip)

I am writing to congratulate you on a truly sensational article. You
have
voiced what I have thought for many many years. Not necessarily about
the
hippies, at home we call a lot of them feral lefties, sadly they are
the
same there as well. They love being able to live the good life while
berating the lifestyle, criticising it at every opportunity.
Hypocrites of
the highest order.
Your sentence 'Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old firing an
Uzi
or a soldier from Kentucky' hit the nail right on the head, & for me,
it
seems to be the problem with the military these days. Not the
military's
fault per se, as everything rolls downhill from the politicians &
lawmakers,
but I think that since you lot dropped the big one in WWII, there has
been
this mindset that how the world perceives the United States is much
more
important than the lives of those fighting for the principles we live
by.
In Korea, they could have gone over the border but chose not to, same
in
Vietnam, they could have gone into the north, but didn't, and in the
process, allowed far too many of the soldiers and other military to die
because they didn't want to be seen as the bad guys. For #$*+'s sake,
it is
a war.
The hostage takeover in Iran, and the standoff for over a year. A bit
of
military muscle would have put a stop to that, just as when Ronald
Reagan
was voted in the Iranians decided to let them go. Next there was
Somalia.
Why should 18 of the military, mainly Rangers I think, die because the
orders were not to fire at so-called non-combatants, many of whom were
surrounding the militias deliberately, as they knew of the American
policies, with many of these so-called noncombatants wielding weapons.
Just
like the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, doing their bad things behind
human
shields. And on it goes in Iraq. Far too many have died because of
the
government's worry that the world will hate you even more if too many
civilians are killed. Not in any way do I condone the killing of
innocents,
especially children, but this is a war that is being fought, many will
die,
and everything must be done to protect those on the ground, in the air,
or
at sea. None of this bullshit about not firing until fired upon. I
am
amazed that the soldiers are so professional, in most cases, to be
doing
just this, to their detriment.
Personally I have not had to put myself in situations like that, the
best I
can claim in 23 years of military life in the RAN, was being payroll
sentry,
where as a 17 year old I was armed with a pistol, after the obligatory
lessons on handling and firing, etc, and the same orders were given, we
were
not to fire unless given the order or already fired upon. And that was
back
in '74. Unbelievable.
Please keep up the good work. Have only read the one article, but it
is an
absolute belter. Such commonsense, and such compassion for your own
countrymen and women in peril overseas defending our way of life.
Those who
think otherwise and don't care that your soldiers are dying are not
worth a
bullet, they truly disgust me.
I cannot commend this article highly enough. And please don't think me
a
warmonger, for wanting to protect the lives of our militaries over
there in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd rather it be them than ours, no matter who
it is,
as horrible as that may sound. SOSF is a good acronym, Save Our
Soldiers
First.