Poor Argumentation
I don’t understand the flak I’m getting for using Code Pink as an example of democrats dishonoring soldiers. These people go to a veteran’s hospital with signs that say abhorrent things that are in plain view of injured soldiers and somehow that’s showing honor to the soldiers.
I suppose none of you would agree such action shows honor for the soldiers. Remember I was asked to provide evidence of democrats not showing honor to soldiers. I provide a profoundly obvious example of dishonor and none of you acknowledge it as such. This entire discussion feels alot like three card monte.
I make a statement, one of you asks for evidence, I provide it, and then the argument is moved to something not being addressed in the argument.
Jamie
Moves the argument to about the government’s treatment of soldiers. That Walter Reed debacle was disgusting and completely unacceptable and was very dishonorable to our soldiers. And it also has nothing to do with code pink being an example of democrats dishonoring our soldiers.
Darwin
Moves the argument to about what I think people can say and can’t say to soldiers about war. Oddly I have made no statement about what one can and can’t say to soldiers about a war. More bizarrely he generalizes to say we can’t criticize the war because of military culture. I have no idea what that means and I have no idea how that is related to Code Pink being an example of a set of democrats dishonoring soldiers.
Michael
Moves the argument to being about liberal interpretation of a rhetorical slide in justifying military action in Iraq. Again not clear how that’s relevant to the discussion about code pink dishonoring soldiers.
Dan
Questions what it means to honor a solider. Arguably that’s related and certainly can be moved in a way to get at the argument at hand. Again he ignores the Code Pink example.
None of you concede the point that this is an example of democrats dishonoring soldiers. In fact because you fail to generate counter arguments yet aim to move the argument in a different direction implies that my example is valid. Otherwise you would of addressed my example head on. The fact is that there is a virulent anti-war group that will happily dishonor soldiers because their hatred of war the clouds their judgment. Historically this group votes democratic. Really this is so basic that I can’t believe were discussing it.
It’s okay to admit I’m right. Trust me it will only hurt for a little while and then you can praise yourself for having integrity.
What the heck. Let me help y’all out. One could argue that Code Pink can’t be considered democratic. Given that the organizations is chock full of socialists and pacifists it’s not entirely clear one can call them democrats. This was the counter argument I was expecting and was hoping would lead to an interesting discussion about what means to be ascribed to a political organization.
Regarding Code Pinks actions, I don’t think there is a way you can say what they did honored the soldiers without completely rendering meaningless the term honor.
Democratic Congressman Murtha Dishonors Soldiers
I had already prepared my counter to charges that Code Pink was not a democratic organization. Congressman John Murtha, a democrat celebrated by the MSM as a sensible congressman that switched his pro war views to anti war when things in Iraq became difficult. He accused several marines of killing innocent civilians in ‘cold blood’. Needless to say after the full investigation it was determined the soldiers did not kill civilians in cold blood. Currently several of the soldiers he falsely accused are bringing charges of defamation against him. It’s hard to see how this is not an example of a democrat dishonoring soldiers.
Just to help y’all out some more:
1. Arguing that John Murtha was involved in the Walter Reed debacle does not refute my position.
2. Drawing wrong headed inference about what I would permit in terms of criticizing Military culture has nothing to do with Murtha’s actions.
3. Echoing the liberal meme that Iraq war justifications have changed over time bears no relationship to Murtha dishonoring our soldiers by making false accusation about them.
Hope this helps you guys offer better counter arguments! 
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
don’t make inflamatory statements and expect not to get flamed. Obviously protesting outside a hospital is disrespectful. However, it is this very right to protest that our soldiers are fighting and dying for. Surely you would not rather Americans to blindly follow the military’s lead in foreign conflicts without any kind of criticism or oversight?
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Get off your damn high horse steve. You are not captain of some universal debate team and your accusations that people that post here do not how to argue is just plain stupid. What you mean, is that because they don’t agree with you, they are wrong and lack intergrity and don’t know how to argue. Please!! If you’re so fucking smart, why don’t you get off your ass and actually make an impact in this world rather than playing monday morning quarterback.
Regardless…. to remain with the original point. I believe some of these protests are in poor taste and is quite a disrespectful show of our nation’s support for our soldiers. My only point, which I’ve now heard from debate god is flawed, is that disrespect for our soldiers is not a partisan event. Disrespect comes in many different forms - in the case I was arguing that form was the republican role in failing to fully fund VA benefits.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Good god…. I just re-read your post You have to be one of the most arrogant individuals on the face of the planet. I guess I won’t worry about your self-esteem…..
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, the military says it didn’t do anything wrong in Haditha, so obviously the military is innocent. Duh. Although, I don’t really see why whether the soldiers were innocent or guilty has anything to do with whether it is ‘dishonoring’ or not. Even if someone admits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384781.stm) to gang-raping a 14-year-old, it still dishonors them to remind the world of it.
I think it’s kind of absurd to expect occupying troops to be ‘nice’ to the locals - as long as the concept of occupation has existed, a component of that concept has been the rape, abuse, and murder of the indigenous population as a means of demoralizing them into increased submission/cooperativeness or as spoils of war. If you believe that the benefits of war outweigh these things, fine. But don’t imagine that it is safe to assume that soldiers won’t mistreat the race they just conquered. That’s just as naive as the strawman position you like to ridicule - that every conflict could have been avoided if there were unilateral understanding.
Is it ‘dishonoring’ someone to suggest that they acted in a natural, human fashion that was perfectly in accord with historical precedent? I mean this question to rhetorically suggest that the concept of honor is trivial when compared to issues like life, death, and deceit.