Incomprehensible (war, etc.)

[magid]

For a Friday with nice weather, there's some sad stuff going on.

The stupid House bill passed. I can't believe it did, and yet apparently there are not enough representatives who notice that "separation of church and state" clause, among other things.
I wonder when they'll decide to have their day of fasting and repentance. I assume it's likely to be on Shabbat (unless they choose Memorial Day or something, but that's a longish way off), which means that I won't be fasting at all (except for Yom Kippur, there's no fasting on Shabbat. Other fast days get shifted to another day if they happen to land on Shabbat. Voluntary fasts are certainly never called for Shabbat.). Which is not to say that I will if it's not on Shabbat. Stupid Congresscritters.

And the war continues. Now there are stories about the military people had assumed the Iraqis would welcome the U.S. troops with open arms. How did the military advisors get their jobs? We bomb them, and they welcome us? Even without years of anti-American rhetoric in Iraq (and some other Muslim areas, too), this doesn't seem to be something to rely on.

There are reporters "embedded" with the troops. Does anyone else find this word usage somehow disturbing? (Not to mention the greater possibility of partisan coverage, though it seems the news outlets don't care about that.)

I have yet to understand how all those people who say they're "supporting the troops" don't think that having fewer chances of being killed (by not being there at all) would be worse than the current situation. Of course, I fail to understand a lot of things that are happening, like what our plan is when/if Saddam Hussein is killed/ousted/whatever.

It continues to feel like I've ended up in some alternate universe, not the main line at all.


Not having to do with the war at all: the Pigman-writer is gone. Paul Zindel died yesterday, aged 66 (Globe obituary here).

Comments

On "supporting the troops"

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think that's just codewords for "well, we're there, and The Leader says we need to be there, and of course I support Our Leader, because he's Our Leader, and you've just gotta believe he knows best, and those are Our Fellow Americans" and covering up for not thinking about it. I don't really know what the hell "supporting the troops" is even supposed to mean - you hope they kill lots of people? You hope they do their jobs well? You hope they don't get shot (who doesn't? Ok, some really rabid anti-war people, probably)? *shrug* It's a phrase that seems devoid of meaning, honestly. Now, people who actually _do_ send something - letters to deployed troops, sending books or whatnot - that's support. But just parroting the phrase? Eh? Someone explain this to me. /ran

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[magid.livejournal.com]

I was walking last night, saw a sign in a window about this was another family that supported Shrub and our troops. Of course, Shrub was in much bigger type than the troops (which meant that I respected them even less. The troops, I understand wanting to support. The Shrub, not at all. But I suppose *someone* must.).
I suspect that their support is that they put a sign in their window.

Yeah, I don't understand what it means, either. There are rallies to "support our troops" and I don't understand why they do those, either.
e

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[bitty.livejournal.com]

There are rallies to
"support our troops" and I don't understand why they do those, either.


i would think those would be "enlistment drives."

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Some other thoughts (bear with me - sick, thus not sure if I'm coherent) - rallies and the like, if word gets out to the folks in the field, could certainly have a psychologically motivating, um, affect; likewise, lots of anti-war rallies could have the opposite, which could make it harder for some people to do their jobs well, or without questioning the validity of the mission, and so on. Cause, whatever you happen to personally think about the job you are doing (whatever the job is), if you know there are mobs of people for/against it, that could certainly affect your feelings on the matter.

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[magid.livejournal.com]

Do the soldiers have ways of hearing what's going on back in the States to that extent?

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[queue.livejournal.com]

I saw something that said that everyone on the ships has email, so I would imagine others do to. And I would imagine they have access to other Web stuff, too.

Re: On "supporting the troops"

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Not sure about the folks right out there on the front; they probably don't get (or want or have time for) that much current events stuff. But, like Queue said - email's pretty much everywhere. Plus, there're all those embedded reporters, who probably act as distributors of some news . . .