1
   

Wonderful recruiting poster for the war without end.

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:02 pm
Woof-Hoorah!
Quote:
Time Person of Year: The American soldier

Sunday, December 21, 2003 Posted: 8:42 AM EST (1342 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- The American soldier, who bears the duty of "living with and dying for a country's most fateful decisions," was named Sunday as Time magazine's Person of the Year.

I have some real mixed feelings on this one. Yes it is presented as "apolitical," but I fear it makes the Red Horseman the entity of the year, not the footsoldier. Sad
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,827 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:22 pm
I can see your concern, but on the other hand, it makes sense. I thought that maybe Dean would get the honor, but I don't think that the political race is as much of a presence in our collective lives as the war is, and I don't think that the politics behind the war touch as many lives as the war itself does. The soldiers are the one thing about the war that pro and anti-war people can agree on -- we all want to see them come home, and to see the end of their deaths. The Red Horsemen aside, of course. I can agree with the magazine's decision.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:01 pm
the mag.
The mag has always been Right Wing. Displaying soldiers is promoting the war mentality and propping up Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves. This Admin. is long on the simple solutions and short on real soltutions. Playing to the simple minded is of course a winning con game.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:36 pm
I would have preferred to see the Time person of the year be an unidentified dead iraqi child and an orphaned american child who gave their lives or the life of a parent so that Bush Inc. and it's corporate members could put a little extra money in their bank accounts.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:04 pm
I can't believe you people will even malign a soldier's honor in you partisan rhetoric. These guys don't set policy so try to show a little respect.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:20 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can't believe you people will even malign a soldier's honor in you partisan rhetoric. These guys don't set policy so try to show a little respect.


meaning what?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:21 pm
Look above your last post.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:25 pm
I don't see the soldiers being maligned anywhere......it's the current administration that's being maligned here.....deservedly......
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:30 pm
Quote:
Displaying soldiers is promoting the war mentality and propping up Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves.

The purpose is to honor the soldier's. They deserve it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:37 pm
If "Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves" are so repugnant; than it is a disservice and an unfair implication to present the soldiers as representative of "Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves". It's not about Dubya. It's about honoring the soldiers.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:44 pm
where is anyone dishonoring the soldiers on this thread I ask again....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:55 pm
BP, my point is obvious. If you consider Dubya dishonorable; than any undue attachment to him is a dishonor. I believe the purpose was to honor the soldiers; not to recruit, not to promote a war mentality and not to prop up Dubya and his gang of bumbling thieves... Simply to honor the soldiers. Okay?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:02 pm
I disagree and yet I honor our soldiers and their sacrifices......you are displaying a real America love it or leave it attitude that is the entire Bush Inc. strategy with the express purpose of enriching himself and his partners........our soldiers would not be honored in such a manner were it not for the disgraceful and dishonorable actions of a few including Bush Inc.

And yet our on the ground military deserve honor for what they have done and will continue to do no matter how misguided their actions, and believe me, acting from a real sense of loyalty and duty, which is honorable, can be misguided none the less.

The two can be separated. It is possible to carry two thoughts in the same head and have them both be correct.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:43 pm
Soldiers don't have the privilege of deciding which actions are just or misguided; they follow orders. Regardless of the orders, or who issues them or the intent behind them; these men deserve the honors bestowed upon them. I find it inappropriate to displace this honor with political rhetoric, as the soldiers job remains the same regardless of who's in charge. I don't know how to be any clearer. I think we understand each other just fine.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:45 pm
Exactly why I never wanted to be a soldier.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:50 pm
That, is plenty fair enough.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:54 pm
I've been a soldier, and I have respect for the job, but not many of the people.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 09:31 pm
http://www.antiwarposters.com has a few "appropiate" posts for this "Next War"
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 09:44 pm
The Time person (or persons) of the year is NOT an honor; the selection is, in the opinion of the editors, for the person or persons who was the most newsworthy. Past "winners" have included Kenneth Starr (1998), Newt Gingrich (1995), Ayatullah Khomeni (1979), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Joseph Stalin (1942 and 1939),and Adolph Hitler (1938).

The complete list is at:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 09:49 pm
Fitting in
Kenneth Starr (1998), Newt Gingrich (1995), Ayatullah Khomeni (1979), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Joseph Stalin (1942 and 1939),and Adolph Hitler (1938).

Dubya would've fit right with the above creep crew.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Wonderful recruiting poster for the war without end.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 03:34:26