Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mazer
By definition, people without free agency are incapable of serving their own agendas unless their handlers happen to have the same agendas.
|
And this is the same as an admission that 'their handlers'
do have an agenda. And indeed it is
simply absurd to suggest otherwise--tantamount to insisting that there is a military presence in Iraq wandering around aimlessly
for no reason at all. Arguing about
whose agenda they are carrying out is A: unnecessary and B: does not change the fact that they are in fact carrying out an agenda. Nor does it make that agenda "hypothetical."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mazer
Why am I defending the troops from the accusation that they are totally responsible for the effects of Bush's politics?
|
I really had no idea frankly, as any school child knows that
the troops are only following orders and probably also realizes that in wartime civilians are rarely privy to the full extent and nature of these orders, but saying they are not responsible is not the same as maintaining that their deeds and the ramifications thereof
do not exist.
If they
have orders to withhold certain information and by their actions successfully suppress such information, then you can argue about 'responsibility' until doomsday but the information gets suppressed all the same.
I'm only really interested in the reality of the situation: what information has been suppressed and to what extent.
Your argument is about blame--and seems a little magical: if we can't
blame the military then perhaps the information isn't
really being suppressed. Blaming the guy that took all the toilet paper will not wipe your ass. It'll still have shit on it.
It seems clear enough that information
has been suppressed to some extent even though you seemingly want to avoid acknowledging it altogether in your rhetoric. However I find myself unable to conclude that you are naive enough to think that this is the unprecedented
Virgin Mary of All Fully Publicly Disclosed Wars in Real Time, even though your rapturous arguments of a near-mystical Militant Purity glowing like some moral Tinkerbelle seem, kind of crazily, to insist it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mazer
I'm looking for hypocrisy. People can't say they support the troops while criticizing their mission if they believe the troops chose this mission for themselves.
|
Well as self-appointed Chief of Napsterites Hypocrisy Police, first go pick on probably about 80% of the people driving around with "Support The Troops" bumper stickers and point out to them that a
general agreement with "the president's agenda" for whatever heartfelt reason is in no way supporting the troops in any conceivable world, it's merely lip service and cheerleading--and remind them that when done uncritically it has a grave potential to get more of them killed and maimed and psychologically fucked than may be absolutely necessary... or even
sane.
Such is the power of opinion and the importance of having the right information to formulate it.