Thursday, March 30, 2006

I have poster board, can I come too?

So I know this is a week or so late but I wanted to post it nonetheless. I think it is still relevant even though it doesn’t have the timing of an expert blogger.

On the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion a lot of people chose to voice their opinion about the ongoing “war” in Iraq. People took to the streets in different cities across the world to gain media attention to their cause while at the same time chanting catchy anti-war slogans. They held up signs pleading for the war to end, Bush to be impeached, Mumia to be freed, and Palestinians to finally be allowed to return to their “rightful” home. The day turned out to be an all-encompassing rally cry for all causes extreme left.

What I noticed about these protests continues to disturb me as it always has before. There is a pervasive ignorance throughout the whole thing. Not one cause people were rallying behind could stand on merits alone. “Sure that Che Guevara shirt might look good on you but he will always be known as a mass murderer and a typical anti-intellectual communist.” “Palestinian rights you say? Ah sounds good, just get them to quit blowing themselves up, killing innocent Israelis, electing terrorist governments, spreading lies and hate etc. and we might consider what they have to say.” “Free Mumia, ah give me a freaking break.” “Bring the troops home huh? Do you even know a ‘troop’?” “Pro-Choice…wait a second…what was this rally about again?”

Are these protestors serious? Not a single person with a working brain (‘working’ being the key word) would listen to them. So right now you are thinking to yourself “But Boggs that puts a lot of people into the non-working-brain category” and my response is “Yes it does.” I believe there is an objectively true or false position on all of the protestors' causes, be it the merits of the U.S. Military being in Iraq or Palestinian rights to Israeli land. What is there to protest? I would rather see a debate instead. Give us your best anti-whatever person and we will give you our best you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me-they-still-believe-this guy and they can duke it out. I am willing to bet that the truth will win out and the anti-guy will cower under name calling and murmuring something about blood, oil, and imperialism.

Buck Sargent had a great idea: Lets find 25 million of these anti-war protestors and trade them for the 25 million Iraqis. Then the protestors can live in a terrorist laden country while the Iraqis take advantage of their newfound freedoms in other countries.

After the surface arguments of the protestors are gone what do they have left to grab hold of? What is there besides ignorant claims and made up arguments? I believe when any one of their arguments are broken down to it’s base form there are only feelings instead of facts. The major thing I have found with aging hippies and hip college students is that they are overwhelmed with feelings. Feelings of the way they think things should be, feelings that if only we did this or did that then the world would be perfect. The fundamental problem is that I do not think the world will or can ever be perfect. I believe that we have, and will continue to have evil people in this world, and I am not afraid to call them evil. Some people get upset when someone mentions that one thing or another is evil but tell me what I should call someone who murders and tortures innocent people. Tell me what I should call the political hit man Che Guevara besides pure evil.

Now I know this is going to be unpopular and hopefully it gets me linked to a bunch of anti-brain using sites because I love hate mail, but I believe that there will come a time when it will be proven that Saddam had WMD or at the very least was very close to having them. I wrote an article about WMD findings about a year or so ago which you can find here, and it is kind of cliché to get into it now so I wont. My point is that these anti-war protestors are fighting against established facts. Lets get Marx and Chomsky out there to help in the fight against facts. Marx spent his life ignoring the truth and Chomsky apparently is spending his doing the same. The media is also doing it’s own part to wage a war against the truth and that is why the whole WMD thing is off limits to discuss now that it is “established fact” that there weren’t any in Iraq.

I guess my point here is that I believe in what I am doing here. Not only for the kids and the future of Iraq but also for the safety and security of America and the Allied countries. Nobody these days wants to believe that Iraq had much to do with the security of America but due to recent intelligence about terrorist connections to Iraq and WMD connections between Russia and Iraq, I question the sentiment of the anti-war crowd. If they simply think killing is wrong for all reasons then at least they have one semi-valid point but if they want to attack the core reasons for why we are in Iraq then I think they are going to run into trouble. I have found Frontpagemag and Powerline to be the best sources of info concerning the new intelligence coming out of Iraq so be sure to frequent those sites.

I think the real question that needs to be asked about the anti-war crowd is why is the truth so elusive for them? I’ll leave that up to better men like Dennis Prager.

30 comments:

Gypsy said...

t.f. you keep getting better and better, I love reading your thoughts and your logic. You're not the only one who believes in what you and your Soliders, and our Military in total, are doing.

I often wonder if some of the moonbats protesting even have two brain cells to rub together. Frightening really...

Keep safe and know you are appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Boggs. When men reject the truth they cling to any old lie that comes along simply trying to justify themselves. Face it world - some men love evil and hate good because their hearts are evil. There is a solution for a wicked heart but lots of people would rather hang on to a the big lie than admit when they are wrong. Human nature. Thanks Boggs for speaking the truth. No matter who you are, if you speak the truth you will be the target of hate. (hate mail) That's one way you will know you are on the right road. A man is know better by who his enemies are than by who his friends are. We are proud of men like you and Buck Sargent and Mike Yon. You are lights in the darkness of this old world. keep on keeping on please - and a big thanks to you. May we all be so brave and study to get all the facts so that we can stand in times like these.
Annie

Mary*Ann said...

Ditto Gypsy and Annie. I find it interesting that a 23 year old in Iraq with more "important" things to do can keep up with the news (and analysis re: the Prager article)and have a better understanding of what is going on in the world than the media know it alls.

Brian Coughlan said...

Hi T.F.

I find you personally inspiring. However, your conclusions re the Iraq war, and the failure to find WMD are completely at odds with my own.

Nonetheless, I am of course at a distinct disadvantage, given that you are in Iraq and I am not:-)

So despite my virulent opposition to the war, I have a number sites that I frequent to ensure I hear the "other side", so to speak. Your site because of your own inspiring interactions with the Iraqi people was an easy choice.

My challenge to you is this : Get into a dialouge with this girl : http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ and see if you can resolve your diametrically opposed views. Then post the results. It should be fascinating.

Iraq is a big country, but it's hard to square the two attitudes.

Genuine good wishes, and stay safe.

Praguetwin said...

Boggs,

Great post. You've really hit on something in your analysis of the brainless masses. I went to an anti-war rally before the invation, but I spent a long time thinking about it before I went. I had supported the first Gulf War, as well as the invation of Afghanistan, but I did not support this war, so I went to demonstrate my opposition, which is what demonstrations are all about.

Once I got there, well, it was tough. There is always so much dogma at these things, and yes, once the music started, I had to make a fast exit before they played "Kum-by-Ya" or "We shall overcome". (One cool thing was the 80-year-old lady all in red white and blue representing "patriots for peace". She confused the hell out of the hecklers).

You are absolutely right that people react emotionally. "No Blood for Oil" allows lazy minds to disregard information just as effectively as "Spreading peace and democracy" does. It just depends on what side of the isle you are sitting on.

You'll get no hate mail from me. You seek truth and are not afraid to voice your opinion loud and clear. So even if I disagree with you, I never stop saying... "well done".

Almost forgot... you lost me with this one:

"The media is also doing it’s own part to wage a war against the truth and that is why the whole WMD thing is off limits to discuss now that it is “established fact” that there weren’t any in Iraq."

Can you clarify that one if you have time? Thanks. Also, you should start a dialogue with Riverbend, that would be priceless.

JohnD said...

Boggs,
Thank you for your service and sacrifices.
You and every soldier/marine/seaman/airman make us all so proud to be your countrymen.
You seem to understand and believe in what you are doing, and that is so important. Keep up the great work and keep yourselves safe!

tanksis said...

It is easy to have a "cause" when there are millions of others as ignorant. When thousands band together in the streets, there is no need for fact, because arrogance believes numbers negate the need for truth-based opposition. There is ease in jumping on the bully pulpit when one is given the sense that they are supported in their misguided ranting.

I dare say most of them would not stand alone to fight for their pseudo principles. I dare say that alone, most of their voices would become barely a whisper. Much like the dog whose bark is worse than its bite, similiar to the bully in school who is only given power by those who falsely believe they are weaker, many of these ignoramuses become suddenly silent when left alone and challenged by fact.

They can scream and yell, call us names, stomp their feet all they want. They've mistaken our rather low roar for weakness. Thanks to people like you, they will not make the same mistake again.

Once again, great job, Sgt.

Anonymous said...

Sgt. Boggs,
Thank you again for your blog. If it is okay I just want to say something about people who protest. Once I was in a protest. It was to protest killing unborn babies. So maybe I can be classified as a protester but I found that speaking to people one on one more enlightening and profitable, especially since there were about as many motives as protesters and I didn't want to be lumped in with all of that. And I have one comment about seeking the truth. It seems so many "seek the truth" all the time and never find it. The truth is not so hard to find if you really are looking for it and once you find it you don't have to go around demonstrating because there will be plenty of work to do to remedy the problems, productive work. I hope Praguetwin finds the truth so he can become productive and stop wondering what the truth is. And I mean that in a nice way. Thank you for allowing us to comment. Sometimes I think "searching for the truth" is just another way of not facing up to the truth and becoming productive. Again, thanks Boggs for all you guys are doing. Stay safe today.
Neatie

T. F. Boggs said...

PT,
I had in mind with the sentence that you quote that no one wants to hear an argument that there were WMD in Iraq because "everyone knows that there weren't any and Bush lied about them." Every time I bring up WMD people seem to cringe because they feel that there is nothing left to say on the subject but I disagree. I feel that time wil tell the truth and we should be open to the swarm of new info that is coming in. It takes years to analyze info that is collected after a conflict like the one we are in now. Sometimes the best reasons for waging war come 5,10,20 years after the initial invasion.
As far as getting into a dialouge with Riverbend I am always open to talking with other people. I have to admit that I have not read her blog but I will be checking it out now. If you guys talk to her give her my address so she can see if she would like to do the same.
I am also glad as Neatie is that you guys all comment. I am glad you feel "safe" enough to do so here and hope that you continue to do so.

T. F. Boggs said...

Oh and I dont know why the links withing the text of my post aren't working right now. I will write blogger and try to figure out how to fix them. If you click on them though, the web address shows up in the address bar so you could always copy and paste.

Praguetwin said...

t.f.,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree totally with you assesment there. My feeling has always been, if he'd had them he would have used them. But it is just that: a feeling. I have no absolute proof that he didn't have them, and it is much harder to proove the lack of something than presence of something. I understand there are thousands of documents yet to be translated. In short, anyone who claims to know one way or the other for cetain at this juncture, is a charlatan.

Yet, the left is calling it a slam dunk. Ironic isn't it?

I will write to Riverbend if you are interested. I think it could be really interesting.

I read her blog regularly, and I think she resonates with the (thinking) anti-war crowd more than anyone right now. I encourage you to read the archives. Start from the beginning and you get a feel for her perspective pretty quickly. Her most recent post is quite a good one.

Forums and open and honest dialogue are the only way forward in my view. Thanks for being part of it. I'll be here.

Mike

Huntress said...

Riverbend is nothing more than a bitter woman who worked as a computer programmer under Saddam's dictatorship she is a Sunni whose bigotry against the Shi'a shares pride of place with her dislike of Americans as a motivator.

I find it interesting how she NEVER once shared her POV of how wonderful life was while Iraq was under Saddams rule.

She is also an avid fan of the ever so "enlightened" and "informed" Juan Cole. Considering how Juan has yet to set foot in Iraq...I wonder why she seems so enamoured of him, especially since she critises armchair pundits who support the war on terror as being ignorant since they have never set foot in Iraq.


Boggs, Juan Cole a self annoited enlightened and informed college professor, had the audacity to wait until the reporter Steven Vincent was murdered to lay claim that it was an honor killing done because Steven was "close" to his female terp or some such bullshit, and that Vincents dispatches were irrelevant because Juan felt Vincent was a cultural novice. Such Bullshit!

He only made that claim because because Vincent had the strength of character to challenge all of Juan's "informed" opinions..calling them exactly what they are...nothing more than bullshit spewed forth by someone who is a supporter of Hezballah and a socialist.

Steven Vincent didn't think much of Cole's armchair expertise or his claim to be driven by concern for Iraqis, and told Cole just that on his weblog:

You might want to review your own site and how well it reflects love and concern for the Iraqi people. After all, on "Informed Comment," pro-liberation Iraqi bloggers are accused of being CIA agents, the elections are practically dismissed as window-dressing and every terrorist--no, I mean guerrilla, as Cole would have it--attack is given marquis billing, as if their psychopathic bloodlust discredits the liberation of 26 million people. Whoops, I mean 23.5 million--because according to Cole's Wednesday post, 2.5 million Iraqis support the "resistance."

Well, I thank Cole for revealing his gut-level concern for the Iraqi people... My question to the Professor is, which Iraqi people--the fascist thugs he calls the "resistance," or the police, National Guardsmen, politicians, everyday people and eight million voters who comprise the true Iraqi "resistance"? We await his Informed Comment.

Cole never responded...but the day Vincent was murdered he chose that moment to visciously attack him and spew forth the above mentioned crap.

Riverbend aligns herself with an Italian reporter who claimed she was deliberately targeted by American soldiers, and with "knowledgeable informed " men like Juan Cole, who has NEVER set foot in Iraq.

She seems to deny that under Saddam certain Iraqi's were brutally murdered by Saddam and his henchmen, that women were raped by Uday and then fed to the lions soley for his enjoyment, and that the ruling minority Sunni's of which she is one, enjoyed privileges that the majority were denied.

Dean Esmay said that reading Riverbend is like reading a whining white South African bemoaning the end of apartheid. I have no sympathy.

I agree wholeheartedly!

In contrast to her, one can read Iraq The Model, or Free Iraqi and get a much better, honest, balanced perspective about Iraqi's, the arab mindset, and the growing pains of democracy in Iraq.

Huntress said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Huntress said...

Mike:

Forums and honest dialogue may be the only way forward. Even if Riverbend were to admit that she is a bigot, and pro Saddam, pro Sunni majority gov't, anti American, anti democracy unless it puts the Sunni's back in power, one can no more have an open honest dialogue with her, than a black man could with a member of the KKK.

Brian Coughlan said...

The reason I review Sgt.Boggs site is because he, and soldiers like him, are one of the few threads of hope Iraqis have.

I found the comments by huntress deeply depressing.

Villifying and demonising a young girl going through a traumatic harrowing experience, something that huntress herself will probably never face, is pretty despicable.

At the very least, it shows a pathological lack of compassion.

I'd be interested to hear what Sgt. Boggs has to say on the subject.

Praguetwin said...

Huntress,

Any moron can blow up a bridge, but it takes knowledge, skill, and patients to build one.

You say you believe in victory, yet in this case you are 100% defeatist.

I would love to witness T.F. and Riverbend interact, and if what you say about Riverbend is true, then you should look forward to her showing her true colors.

In short, what are you afraid of? It couldn't be any more of a waste of time than what we do on our own blogs.

Anonymous said...

Wow Boggsy! And you said you welcomed hate mail. And a heated debate? Does anyone in the audience remember Tokyo Rose and the other war propagandist? and in general pains in the you know whats? And let's face it, Brian, War is depressing!!! It is not a cheerful war we are in like WWII was or Korea or Vietnam. So buck up camper. :) I think I'll save my compassion for those worthy of compassion, thank you. And as far as Riverbend and TF interacting - I think our Military is doing the interacting right now with the enemy. Big time interaction! The only kind this type of ememy understands. Debate with the enemy or their sicifant follows is a waste of time. Building bridges to nowhere accomplished nothing. If you want a good bridge it has to have a strong footing and a rational purpose for being there. Maybe you are right Boggs! We could really get into this debate stuff. We are learning from this reaction to the reaction to your blogg, which was about what now? Oh yes, I remember. Would love to have seen the deleted comment. A & N

Anonymous said...

Regarding "sicifant followers".
Terrible spelling but great word usage. Sycophant-Sik'e fant I'm down with that!
Tom Canterbury

Huntress said...

She has shown her true colours, that you refuse to acknowledge them or choose not to see them is your problem.

I don't care if she and Boggs to interact.

I'm not vilifying a woman who has gone through a traumatic experience..all one has to do is read her blog...it's clear what her agenda is, she has been blogging for three years.

What about all the harrowing experiences of the women who were raped by Sunni soldiers under Saddam's leadership? Some of them have had the courage to stand up and testify against him...I'm betting they were not a part of the Sunni privileged class under Saddam.

If you choose to give Riverbend your sympathy so be it..but mine lies with the women and children that were brutalized and murdered under Saddam and those that this so called "insurgency" is murdering and brutalising today!

I think it shows a pathology on your part, Brian, when you refuse to acknowledge their pain..simply because their voices are more silent than Riverbends or because politically they don't share your idealogy...or simply because they don't have a blog where they whine about how hard life is now that they are no longer part of the priviledged class in Iraq.

What's the matter, Brian, does not the pain that many other Iraqi's suffered under Saddam not bother you?

Like I said, in contrast to Riverbend, one can read Iraq The Model, or Free Iraqi and get a much better, honest, balanced perspective about Iraqi's, the arab mindset, and the growing pains of democracy in Iraq.

These guys have been equally "traumatized" and gone through the same harrowing same experiences Riverbend has. They too live in Iraq ...yet their voices stand in stark contrast to Riverbend's. Hmmm...I wonder why??

Ahh but their voices don't matter to you because they support the changes in Iraq and have found a way to understand that the road to democracy is challenging.

They are struggling daily, yet they offer up an honest understanding of the realities of Iraq today and what Iraq was like under Saddam.

And strangely..they seem to like the new Iraq and have much hope for its success. Unlike Riverbend.

If you want to believe Riverbend is traumetized in order to justify her unabashed hatred for America and the Military, her description of a liberating force as an occupying force and her complete denial of what life under Saddam was like for those who weren't Sunni's...so be it.

Hey Sean Penn found Saddam to be charming!!

And Mike..I have no idea what your comment about building bridges is about.

These terrorists murder women and children, destroy pipelines and blow up bridges. It is our military that rebuilds pipelines and rebuilds bridges and rebuilds hospitals and schools and they bring water treatment to Iraqi towns.

Our military is using their knowledge skill and patience to rebuild Iraq...day after day while this "insurgency" you are so fond of is spends its days and nights destroying Iraq.

And don't come around my blog and pretend that I don't know the difference between insurgents nationalists and terrorists.You're comment speak volumes to your own intellectual myopia and impotence.

For more than three decades Iraq's life was sheer and limitless terror!
Yet I don't hear Riverbend uttering one word about those years! So lets examine who suffers from a pathological lack of sympathy!


When you learn to speak Arabic..when you learn to read Arabic..when you travel throughout the Middle East and listen to what the average Arab man says about Americans, about Clinton, about Liberals, about democracy and about Iraq and you have studied International Relations, and have a minor in comparative religion, drop by and enlighten me Until then I guess the best you can do is fling your pathetic insults at me.

But maybe you should read what Amir Taheri has to teach you about our enemies and what their intent is.

To usurp democracy in Iraq by any means necessary is the first goal.

So far all I can see is that you are supportive of terrorists which you call insurgents or nationalists out of ignorance or a need to feel better about your misguided beliefs. Yet I see no support or understanding from either you or Brian towards those Iraqi's that suffered under Saddam, want democracy, line up day after day to join the Iraqi Special Forces and Police force, and want the US military's help in ensuring that stability and security are maintained in a free and democratic Iraq.

Google Taheri's piece "The Last Helicopter" in the Wall Street Journal online.

Then read Fouad Ajami's essay entitled "Heart of Darkness" also at Wall Street Journal online.

He and I both understand clearly who are enemies are:
"Zarqawi's jihadists have sown ruin in Iraq, but they are strangers to that country, and they have needed the harbor given them in the Sunni triangle and the indulgence of the old Baathists.

For the diehards, Iraq is now a "stolen country" delivered into the hands of subject communities unfit to rule. Though a decided minority, the Sunni Arabs have a majoritarian mindset and a conviction that political dominion is their birthright. .

Instead of encouraging a break with the old Manichaean ideologies, the Arab world beyond Iraq feeds this deep-seated sense of historical entitlement.

No one is under any illusions as to what the Sunni Arabs would have done had oil been located in their provinces. They would have disowned both north and south and opted for a smaller world of their own and defended it with the sword.

But this was not to be, and their war is the panic of a community that fears that it could be left with a realm of "gravel and sand."

From what I have read by Riverbend,she certainly leaves one with the strong impression that she is a member of that community.

Brian Coughlan said...

Huntress ... was it something I said? Wow!

I'm not certain how my respect for riverbend translates to :
a) feeling no pain for Saddam's victims.
b) Support for terrorists of any stripe.

No more than my respect for Boggs, and what he accomplishes in very difficult circumstances translates to
a) Feeling no compassion for those killed by the invasion.
b) Unswerving loyalty to President Bush.

The world is not as black or white, nor cut and dried as we would like.
No matter how wishful our thinking. Yours or indeed, mine. I get that.

By all means post the links to the sites you mention, I'll be happy to add them to my list.

Anonymous said...

There are gray areas in life. Murdering terrorists and terrorists and those who support them do not fall into a gray area. They are not freedom fighters, insurgents or protectors of their homeland. They murder innocent people and whatever country they come from makes no difference nor do their motives matter. He that shed innocent blood is a murderer. There is no defense for them. They do not kill accidentally. They do not kill to defend the innocent. They do not kill in self-defense. They do not kill to free themselves of tyrants. They kill for power and money and because they love killing. They are evil which is black - -not gray. I never thought I would say this - -but go Huntress. A&N

Anonymous said...

Where the heck is Boggs today? He would love this!
Texas Rose - not to be mistaken with Tokyo Rose

Brian Coughlan said...

"those who support them do not fall into a gray area".

Anonymous who are you talking about here? Your comment is unrelated to anything anyone else has posted.

No one here has posted that they support terrorists, or consider terrorism a "gray" area.

Why are you rushing to reject an argument that has not been tabled?

Or am I misreading the comment? It simply seems a string of your personal views, but devoid of context.

Anonymous said...

"The world is not as black or white nor cut and dried as we would like. No matter how wishful our thinking. Yours or indeed mine. I get that." Brian My point being some things are definitely black or white and not the all covering gray. Now do you get it? Example, murdering terrorists. Black- -cut and dried.

Jeremy Adams said...

t. boggs, i don't know if you remember me but i went to bethel presby when i was younger. this is jeremy adams and i am now a junior at Ohio State as well as a Marine Corps officer in training. Upon graduation i will be commissioned in the Marine Corps. I was told about your blog by Cair Pierce and i thought that i would check it out. it has been a great pleasure reading what i have so far of your blog and very encouraging to read as i will most likely find myself abroad with the military in a couple years. keep on keeping on and getting the truth out. Thanks for everything you do.

Brian Coughlan said...

Anonymous. It seems to me that you are being wilfully obnoxious by interpreting my comments in the way that you have done.

Let me say it absolutely explicitly. I do not support terrorists.

Why do you persist in insisting that I do?

I am just trying to trace the path of your logic and understand where it has jumped the rails.

At what point in my comments about riverbend do you see "I think terrorists are just fine" or "those terrorists are pretty mean, but think of their situation”, or the perennial, ”one mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighter".

Nothing I have said (in my head anyway) comes remotely close to that territory.

We cannot have a dialogue if our objective realities are materially different.

Many credible, authentic and real people both in Iraq and out of it, think that the outcomes to date of this war have been a disaster.

Many credible, authentic and real people both in Iraq and out of it, do not agree with that assessment.

To make progress, the realities of these two groups must reconciled. Both cannot be entirely true. Plus there are the very real comments and attitudes of the major proponents of this war, on the public record, which are completely at odds with what is being said now. This is a real problem.

It's appears (to me at least) that huntress and yourself have curled up into the foetal position mentally on this subject, and perceive any hint of criticism of the war, how it was conducted or those that conducted it treasonous, or at the very least support for the “bad guys”, very loosely defined in your mind as “those that disagree with me or my president”.

I confess I'm basing my comments on limited interaction, but your comments have been fairly pointed, and your radical interpretations of my comments supply additional clues. By all means correct me if I've leapt to any conclusions.

If it is true however, then it is an appallingly shallow position, which shuts off an entire landscape of options, and is dangerously likely to deliver failure, and kill more people. People like riverbend and Boggs, and that is very, very bad.

To make progress, we need to see the world as it actually is, not as we would have liked it to be.

That understanding occurs at the intersection of the views of genuine people like riverbend and Boggs.

Praguetwin said...

Huntress,

My point about bridges was metaphorical.

I thought Betchel and Halliburton who do the reconstruction in large part, not the military. Perhaps that is just leftist-propaganda. Anyone with some 602 knowledge on this one?

If you cannot see the difference between (just for example) Al-Zaqarwi and Al-Sadr, I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't help you.

And just so no one jumps on me, I don't support either of them, but some distiction ought to be made for the sake of clarity.

I am still trying to figure out why listening to someone makes me a supporter of them. I listen to you Huntress, does that make me a Huntress supporter?

Bridges of understanding.

Walls of ignorance.

Metaphors.

T. F. Boggs said...

So yesterday was one of those damn days that I had to work so I am just now catching up on the comments to this post. As you know I have said that I like debate and I still mean it. The problem with certain issues i.e. abortion, affirmative action, Iraq, is that people tend to get passionate about them and sometimes stronger feelings come out which can cloud logical arguments. Not that I am applying this assessment to any one person on here rather, I am just stating a generality. With that in mind let me offer my opinion on the comments so far.

Concerning Riverbend I can see the allure for her and I to discuss our different viewpoints about Iraq. Of the couple posts of hers I squeezed in earlier this morning before I went to bed it is obvious to me that we don’t necessarily see eye to eye on matters. Whether or not she has other interests besides presenting the truth shouldn’t matter in a dialogue with her but finding out where she comes from, whom she associates with, and what she has said in earlier posts does help inform me what kind of a person she is.

Just for example (so no one gets confused) if a Palestinian who’s house was bulldozed by Israeli troops after one of their family members committed a terrorist act as a suicide bomber, and a Israeli soldier were to blog about the same events and state of their countries, I am sure they would have diametrically opposed viewpoints. Does that mean one of them has to be telling the truth while the other isn’t? Well not necessarily, feelings come into play and of course everyone has a bias. However, one of them may necessarily be more right about what actually happened because both people have their own side to the story. Not that one of them made it up, but because one’s house was getting bulldozed while the other was doing so in order to prevent further killing. I give this example to explain perhaps why Riverbend and I have different views (not that I am saying she is in the family of a terrorist and I am an Israeli soldier, just to further clarify things so my comments aren’t misconstrued.)

While I am open for discussion with Riverbend there may come a time when I feel that there is no further hope for us to talk rationally. I am not saying this is going to happen rather, I am making another point. Some people are not open to the truth; take Karl Marx for example since I mentioned him in my post. While he was compiling evidence to prove that the workingman would suffer under Capitalism he ignored the facts that were right in front of his face. Instead he relied on Engels to do his work for him and often misquoted his contemporaries. Marx was not open to the truth because he had an agenda from the very beginning and was determined to see his suppositions become a reality.

Just because PT and Brian read Riverbend does not mean that they necessarily support terrorism. Lots of people read Jayson Blair and that doesn’t mean they supporting lying. When they found out the truth they quit reading him but until that time he had something to say and people found his writing interesting. While I would rather read Iraqis who suffered under Saddam and are now sharing their experience with the world, I will give Riverbend some of my time. I say some of my time because most of my efforts are concentrated elsewhere. So that is what I have to say about that. It may not be completely satisfactory but it is all that I could get out this morning-afternoon-evening or whatever time of day it is. I am all screwed up because of working third shift and the time change.

Jeremy-I do remember you and I am glad you have read some of the stuff on my site. Keep working hard at OSU and good luck with becoming a marine. Keep in touch and let me know how things go with the military.

Anonymous said...

VERY satisfactory Boggs. The cool head prevails! Perhaps it is your Military training and your exposure to the real world. Thanks again Sgt Boggs. You have credibility!!!! Looking forward to your next blog. Stay safe as possible in the real world.

grayday101 said...

Yes, but no one with any humanity can be unmoved by Mama's 3rd anniversary post, and she is not a bitter woman - just sad and tired and frightened for her family:
http://youngmammy.blogspot.com/