Liberal Hate Towards the Military... ON MEMORIAL DAY 'Uncomfortable' Calling Killed Soldier 'Heros'

[Anonymous]

What an idiot.

http://www.examiner.com/article/vfw-demands-msnbc-chris-hayes-apologize-for-disgusting-anti-veteran-comment

Chris Hayes Apologizes For Saying He Feels 'Uncomfortable' Calling Killed Soldiers 'Heroes'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/chris-hayes-uncomfortable-soldiers-heroes_n_1550643.html

[jsteele]

I'm not going to waste my time clicking on your links, but how does "being uncomfortable" calling someone a hero translate to hate? There is a lot of space between hate and calling someone a hero. You might say that Hayes doesn't share the respect of most Americans for those members of the military who have given their lives, but I don't know that you can say that he "hates" them.

Also, since you point out that Hayes has apologized, are you really posting out of a desire to support the military, or to merely bash liberals? I wonder how those killed feel about their deaths being exploited to make cheap political points.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I'm not going to waste my time clicking on your links, but how does "being uncomfortable" calling someone a hero translate to hate? There is a lot of space between hate and calling someone a hero. You might say that Hayes doesn't share the respect of most Americans for those members of the military who have given their lives, but I don't know that you can say that he "hates" them.

Also, since you point out that Hayes has apologized, are you really posting out of a desire to support the military, or to merely bash liberals? I wonder how those killed feel about their deaths being exploited to make cheap political points.

If you aren't going to waste your time clicking on the links then how can you understand the topic?

I also posted a link to the liberal hufpo

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I'm not going to waste my time clicking on your links, but how does "being uncomfortable" calling someone a hero translate to hate? There is a lot of space between hate and calling someone a hero. You might say that Hayes doesn't share the respect of most Americans for those members of the military who have given their lives, but I don't know that you can say that he "hates" them.

Also, since you point out that Hayes has apologized, are you really posting out of a desire to support the military, or to merely bash liberals? I wonder how those killed feel about their deaths being exploited to make cheap political points.

If you aren't going to waste your time clicking on the links then how can you understand the topic?

I also posted a link to the liberal hufpo

What part of the topic don't I understand? Chris Hayes said he is "uncomfortable" calling soldiers who have been killed "heroes." He then apologized. Exactly what am I missing?

[Anonymous]

I'm with PP. I've read the stories.

I don't hate our soldiers, but I don't agree with what they're doing. I disagree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soliders are volunteers. They made the decision to enlist or continue to serve in a volunteer army that is prosecuting these wars.

I don't think that they heroes for doing what I believe to be the wrong thing.

That's not hate. That's criticism.

[Anonymous]

I watched him struggling with the fact that we tend to use the label "hero" to cover up the tragedy of people dying in wars of questionable necessity. In most cases, soldiers die not because they are more heroic than their comrades, but because they are less lucky.

He clearly said that there are genuine heroes among the fallen, but he is concerned with the thoughtless use of the term "hero" to help us avoid the painful questions that war raises.

I think the real shame here is that a commentator has to apologize for trying to bring serious thought to one of the most important issues of public life/

[Anonymous]

im glad hayes apologized cause the topic was dumb and it was obvious he was very uncomfortable broaching the subject as he nervously tried to make his point.

the bottom line is that hayes is uncomfortable with wars and the instances where our elected officials use our men in women in combat as pawns to support or oppose combat missions. i can completely go along with the premise of this argument but to instead make some attempt to nuance or parse the argument through the hero route was just his way to find some new angle to the argument which went too far.

and where chris was going annoys me with the progressive/liberal way of discussing their displeasure with wars. as oppose to attacking the elected leaders who are the ones who put the soldiers in harm way, we (dems) end up fumbling our way where its the troops that get attacked.

there are no absolutes with any group so yes technically not every soldier should be seen as a hero or be worshiped. more often than not though, our military as a group are brave individuals who put their life on the line regardless of how fucked up the reason for the mission may be. dont blame them for carrying out what they were trained to do. blame some of our politicians who see our military as toys and just send them out to missions with little real thought on the end result.

[Anonymous]

He already apologized. So why are we spending time on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched him struggling with the fact that we tend to use the label "hero" to cover up the tragedy of people dying in wars of questionable necessity. In most cases, soldiers die not because they are more heroic than their comrades, but because they are less lucky.

He clearly said that there are genuine heroes among the fallen, but he is concerned with the thoughtless use of the term "hero" to help us avoid the painful questions that war raises.

I think the real shame here is that a commentator has to apologize for trying to bring serious thought to one of the most important issues of public life/

This. Much like the Hilary Rosen scandal, people are just trying to get as much mileage out of a gaffe as they can.

[Anonymous]

I think what he was trying to say is that the word "hero" is generally reserved for an extraordinary act of valor -- someone who rushes into a burning building, or dashes out in a rain of gunfire to rescue a wounded colleague. I think if anything, he was arguing that the assignment of that word to every service member who has died diminishes the significance of the term. It was stupid for him to make this semantics argument, especially at this time of the year, but I don't really think you can equate his clumsy argument with denigrating the military or those who serve it.

[jsteele]

I am still a bit troubled by the OP's reduction of a single individual feeling "uncomfortable" to general claim of "liberal hate towards the military." But, I am assuming that this sort of logic is perfectly acceptable among conservatives. Therefore, I believe it is legitimate to ask the OP his feelings about conservative hate towards the military. This hatred was evident when a Republican presidential debate audience booed an active duty soldier who was actually serving overseas at the time. The boos erupted because the soldier mentioned that he is gay. None of the candidates on stage -- including Mitt Romney -- bothered to object to the booing, hence condoning this hatred.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I am still a bit troubled by the OP's reduction of a single individual feeling "uncomfortable" to general claim of "liberal hate towards the military." But, I am assuming that this sort of logic is perfectly acceptable among conservatives. Therefore, I believe it is legitimate to ask the OP his feelings about conservative hate towards the military. This hatred was evident when a Republican presidential debate audience booed an active duty soldier who was actually serving overseas at the time. The boos erupted because the soldier mentioned that he is gay. None of the candidates on stage -- including Mitt Romney -- bothered to object to the booing, hence condoning this hatred.

John McCain was willing to condemn it. I am now realizing how truly unprincipled Romney (and the whole slate of candidates) is compared to past Republican presidential candidates.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/184971-mccain-gop-candidates-should-have-stopped-booing-of-gay-soldier

[Anonymous]

I, am a moderate conservative (fiscally conservative, but socially liberal). I am whole-heartedly against the two recent wars. However, I condemn the Commander-in-Chief who committed to those wars and not the devoted and brave service men and women who devoted and risked their lives for those poor decisions. While I disagree with the wars, I think that there is no place in our government for a Commander-in-Chief who does not wholeheartedly support our service men and women. To me, any presidential candidate who would allow an audience to boo our military personnel in public (unless the serviceman had committed a crime or something similar), is not appropriate presidential fodder. I think such actions speak much louder than words.

[Anonymous]

Admitted liberal here with the utmost respect for the military (long family history of military service). I find it absurd that every dead soldier is called a hero. Not all of them are heroes. Some are just dead. Hero means someone who has taken heroic action - performed an act of heroism - not just someone who happened to be riding in a supply truck when it exploded. I don't believe that everyone who joins the military does so out of a burning desire to throw themselves in harm's way protecting our way of life. I think a lot of them do it for the money - or because they have no other options. (I'm thinking across the spectrum from doctors who signed on before med school in order to afford their education to poor high school grads with no economic prospects in a financially distressed community.)

Many of the people dying were really just doing their jobs, but not in a spectacularly heroic fashion. I completely agree that it diminished the meaning of "hero" to have it applied to any person who dons a military uniform. Honorable? Sure. Courageous? Sure. Heroic? Not automatically. That should require something more, beyond having had the misfortune to die.

I really do respect the military but I do agree that "hero" is not the appropriate term to apply unless there was true heroism involved - above and beyond the call of duty.

[Anonymous]

You are mistaken....these are conservatives....how could any vote republican. Mitt is meeting with them tomorrow to seek their endorsement

Westboro Baptist Chuch disrespects fallen soldiers at Fort Hood
Gregory Kelley
Today members of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas were protesting outside the gate of Fort Hood in the town of Killeen, Texas. For the readers that are not familiar with the this specific church, if you would have ridden by to see the anti-gay propaganda signs that said “God hates your prayer”, “pray for more dead soldiers” and “God hates fags”; it would have been a sight you would not soon forget.

In an article written by KWTX, the protestors were picketing all the fallen soldiers on this Armed Forces Day saying "their deaths are God’s punishment for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality.”  Despite the efforts of local residents to curve the nation’s attention to this demonstration, it seems the WBC accomplished its goal of taking the attention from the real purpose of this day.