SoApBoX» Article Archive » Payback for the Warbloggers?

Rants and Raves of Eric Brooks. Low-tech whining in cyberspace…

Payback for the Warbloggers?

“Not like I don’t enjoy the occasional once-a-decade ass kicking like every other red-blooded American, but any administration that starts to make the French look like they have a point is probably irredeemably fucked up.”
- Reverend Mykeru – War Whores -

Ah yes… in the past few weeks, Reverend Mykeru has quickly risen to fame as a champion to the people who thought going to war with Iraq was probably not the brightest idea.

It takes a certain level of hypocrisy to be a warblogger. And you have to pray everyone has a short memory when it’s over. You need to put pictures of the flaming twin towers next to Saddam Hussein (not that he had anything to do with 9/11), you need to cry when people de-link you for your views… and yet ban people from your site, and support boycotts of “Un-American Celebrities” for their views later.

While some of us were absolute wimps about it, and kept quiet as the Warbloggers called everyone “stupid”, “traitors”, “unpatriotic”, and some were even bullied into closing down their pages because they didn’t agree with them. If you bring up a point in their comments, that contradicts their own… well, you’re a troll, aren’t you?.. Mykeru beats them at their own game. Doing the rope-a-dope around thier logic (or the lack thereof.):

Simply by using facts, venomous humor, and armed with the knowledge that most warbloggers didn’t have a clue about world events prior to September 11th.

“What??? They hate us??? But WHYYYYYYyyyy??!!??! Oh wait. I know. Let’s KILL them for it! Hee hee… *high five*”

The warbloggers respond to his political charges simply by calling him a “shitbag”, and a “cocksucker”, and banning him from their sites. Foaming at the mouth, the way Hannibal Lechter got Multiple Miggs to swallow his tongue.

Well, Rev… did you think their comments were for discussion? No, silly it was for high-fives, and for people to tell them they’re right. Like, duh!

Ask Aaron, a Desert Storm Vet (meaning, he was actually there in ’91), who thought the Sequel to the war was a bad idea.Amid all the flag waving, “support the troops”, fanfare… he’s been subject to a great deal of attacks, and some of the cheapest shots, by the warbloggers (Hell, I was even duped into joining their Anti-Aaron mob lynchings once… cuz well, I’m an idiot, that listened to other idiots.)
And how can we forget when this guy poked fun at a friend of mine, and decided he should be committed for his essay?

Anyway, I meant to write about this for a week. The hilarious fracas between Mykeru and “Couch Potato War Panel” was over the comparison of Rachel Corrie’s death (The protester run over by a bulldozer), to Vicky’s being mauled by a dog. Of course I don’t know Vicky, or Andy, or Rev. Mykeru, and I gave up months ago of Laurence ever linking to me… and I certainly don’t think any more or less of any of them because of this mini-war…

But you gotta admit Reverend Mykeru’s side of the story was funny as hell!

While us Americans would like to believe that our cluster bombs only killed the bad guys, while showering down flowers and confetti on the good people of Baghdad; and our troops came bearing coloring books and bunny rabbits for all the Iraqi kids… the rest of the world saw it another way.

If you’re going to be gung-ho about a war… then talk about ALL of it. The good. The bad. The grotesque. If you’re going to support our troops, then get a good look at the horrid shit they just went through, and had to see… so you can understand.

I really don’t want to do this again.

So the question remains, as the Warbloggers are quickly changing subjects, as they are looking stupider by the minute:

1) Should we forgive and forget all of the insults, mob-mentality, the bad feelings that the warbloggers polarized the web with all these months?

2) Or do we give then a taste of their medicine for months (maybe even years) to come?

EricBrooks.Com® – Hey, you all hate me anyway, right? So why stop speaking my mind now???

PS: I’m sorry. Were you here for some “Race Jokes“? I’m fresh out.
However, The Whacky Iraqi has them, and they are a scream!
(No really. You need it read this.)

No related posts.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 3rd, 2003 at 2:31 pm and is filed under As The Web Burns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Maria

Hey, how’s the new episodes of Super Friends coming along? You kind of left us hanging with that last one….. heheheheheee

I love you!!!! ;o)
-=e=- the merciless

I miss you!!!!
Yeah, I gotta get working on the Superdudes, don’t I? The next one has Captain America talking to inner-city kids about drugs. It’s gonna be hilarious!!!!
misty

I have a question. How do you define a warblogger? (This is a serious, no smart ass question.) Because I’ve seen the term used to define anyone and everyone who has supported the war, whether they have chosen to be publicly vocal about it, or just simply stated a “yeah, I think it’s a good idea” in someone else’s comments. I was curious how you were defining it.

Thanks!
Lee

Now, that stuff on the WhackyIraqi is some sick sh*t. And … and … I’m shutting up.
Lee

And Misty, a warblogger (IMHO) is someone who has devoted over 50% of their content to war talk, in spite of the fact that they don’t know jacksh*t about the subject.
-=e=- the merciless

No… that’s *definitely* a very good question, Misty. I mean to me, I hear “warblogger”, and a list of names crop up, which maybe someone else would think of others … I certainly don’t think it’s defined by a comment or even a post or two. And I think *all* Americans have supported the war at some point or another (I shut up, out of respect for the troops, the instant combat started.)

I guess the definition varies from person to person. Mine was/is the people who cheered this thing on like it was an olympic event. And I really had a problem with the way they handled the opposing opinions. I have friends on both sides of the fence and we respect our differing views. I don’t consider some of them “Warbloggers” any more than I’m considered an “Anti-War peacenik”.
Kate S.

I dont’ know any Americans that ever supported this war, ever. And that’s a whole lotta people, but then, I run around in a crowd full of pacifists, birds of a feather kind of thing, you know…
I linked to Ezrael or Matt and was absolutely blown away. There is nothing left of me. I am a shell of my former self. I’m beside myself.
I’m sitting over there now.
Kate S.

I’m sorry, I take that back. I live in a military town and a most of these people are hawks. I just forgot. The horror of war trauma will do that to a Pacifist.
Daphne

Ha! I disagree! I support the war, I did at the begining and I will at the end, I know what came before on both sides, I know we (not speaking individually, of course) have made mistakes and I still think it’s right. I’m very close to not caring that they hate us as long as they don’t mess with us!

… but it was well written:)
Daphne

Just so that’s clear, it’s the war I support, not the stupid people:D
Faith

Apparently to some, mentioning that there is a war in progress makes one a warblogger. There’s no winning.
Linkmeister

To paraphrase the NRA, “People don’t make warbloggers, content makes warbloggers.”
misty

Well, I haven’t written about it much, but I’ve supported this war before there was a war to support (since the mid-1990′s). Not to be a Clinton basher, but being in the military during his presidency was very trying and while it may seem callous, I am relieved to see us finally doing something.

But, I don’t talk about it because of this “warblogger” label and the fact that this topic tends to generate so much hysteria in the general public. I’m not concerned with losing regular readers or anything like that (In the three years I’ve been blogging, I’ve only ever had about 20 and they’re people I’ve known for a long time personally, for the most part), but I’m lazy and don’t want to waste my time defending my opinion to someone who isn’t going to waste their time to listen.
-=e=- the merciless

I’m willing to listen. Perhaps what I wrote didn’t come out the right way. I was referring to anyone who put up their positions, stuck their fingers in their ear, and decided anyone who disagreed was an “[insert insult here]“.

Afghanistan: I was all for it. The Talibastards were a pack of liars, covering up for bin Laden, and stalled long enough to give him a head start to escape.

Iraq: The evidence was weak to non-existent. Bush had targeted Saddam since the day after 9/11, and he wanted to settle old scores, any excuse at all was necessary. Believe me, if this administration had offered some form of proof the Saddam even offered a penny to Al-Qaeda to do what they did to us, I’d be the HEAD Warblogger. But I need more than scare tactics and “what ifs”.

I disagree about the 1993 bombing, and how we “did nothing”. I was living in NYC at the time, and the FBI rounded up all the people responsible… before they can continue the rest of their plans (which included blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge and two of our tunnels).

Maybe we could have been more agressive in pursuing Osama bin Laden back then, but the American people were more interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton for Whitewater and impeaching Bill Clinton for his sexual antics. So thanks to our limited attention span in America, going after the root of the problem became a low priority.

So we (Americans) can only blame ourselves for that and our “inquiring minds want to know” mentality.

If you’re for this war, you’re more than welcome to express your reasons why… either here in the comments, or on your sites… I’m willing to listen, if anyone’s willing to listen to me as well.

This topic should have/could have been discussed more civilly…
-=e=- the merciless

And just for the record… I’m comewhat of a “center-wing” republican. I was no fan of Clinton or either Bushes.

Reagan was a completely different story though. :0)

Just so nobody thinks I’m this “Left-Wing Commie-supporting Loony”, ok? Let’s keep the intelligent/civil input coming. I’m loving this.
misty

*deep breath* Ok, I’ll jump in with both feet.

My husband was in the Marine Corps from 1992-1998 and did two “floats” to the middle east where he spent time in all these countries we’re hearing about on the news now. (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Saudia Arabia, etc.)

During his first float in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law fled to Jordan. Hussein freaked out and, though it wasn’t widely reported in the media, made aggressive movements towards his neighbors. This was a very tense time where we in the “military world” thought war was imminent, but nobody here even realized it was going on.

There are other instances as well all through the 90′s. Just because there wasn’t all out war, that doesn’t mean there weren’t continued and consistent hostilities. Aircraft were constantly shot at and Hussein would place troops in a manner that made it seems as if he were preparing to invade his neighbors. The military has considered the Gulf a combat zone since 1991 for good reason.

So, there were two options. Contain Saddam and Iraq forever or get rid of him and those who are truly faithful to him. This is the way I’ve seen it since at least 1994 when it became a very real part of my life.

If we choose to contain him, it is going to cost trillions of dollars and any number of lives due to the inevitable “skirmishes”. And will the rest of the world honestly let us contain him forever? Not likely. But if we only contain him for a short period of time, the moment we turn our backs on him, he’ll continue development of his weapons and as soon as they were complete, he’d invade his neighbors again. Only this time, he’ll have the power to make things very messy for us if we try to stop him.

The other option is removing him, which is what we’re doing now. Did Bush realize this is what it was going to come down to? Probably. I know I did some 7 or 8 years ago and personally, I’d rather do it now than later.

Here is a link to a post bySgt Stryker just before the war started. My feelings parallel his in a lot of ways and here is my response to his questions.

I understand that people are against this action for whatever reason and I respect their opinions. But I’m coming from a different place personally.

The first helicopter that crashed during this conflict was a CH-46 and, according to the media, the commander of the unit that helicopter belonged to is Jerry Driscoll. I will always remember that the first casualties were from a helicopter my husband used to work on and fly in and that the commander of that unit could very well be the same Jerry Driscoll we knew 5 years ago.

I know what war does. It’s very similar to what practicing for and preparing for war can do. I’ve seen the picture, heard the stories and been to the funerals. But I still think it’s the right thing to do in this situation.

Thomas Paine said “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace” and that is the way I’m looking at this.
-=e=- the merciless

Wow… those were excellent pieces, and Sgt. Striker’s sentiments about “liberating a group of people unwilling to do it themselves” much echoes my own.

I was also touched when he asked (paraphrasing) “Where were you all with the USS Cole, and the embassies in Tanzania?”. He’s absolutely right (and I’m assuming he’s referring to the climate in the Middle East as a whole, that was Al-Qaeda, not Saddam.).

Americans, sadly, didn’t give a shit about any of this until death came to our doorstep. I’ll even admit I’m one of them.

No one is going to shed a tear for Saddam’s demise, and I can agree that it’s finally time to start cleaning people’s clocks out there…

… but the right people. I’m all for the original plan of “Hunting down terrorists, and countries that support them”. It’s just my opinion that we got sidetracked with Iraq (hell, on that tape Powell presented to the UN, it sounded like “Osama” wanted Saddam dead more than we did..)

Sure Saddam, Oday, &Quasar were pieces of shit, but there are far worse people out there. We’re crossing a line when we start ordering “regime changes” (one that we helped set up in 1963, but that’s beside the point). Syria’s looking at us the wrong way. Do we take them down next? If Khaddaffi’s check bounces to the families of the victims of PanAm 103, do we turn Libya into a crater?

Still, I find it abhorrent (and I’m sure that you and Sgt. Striker can appreciate this) that some can cheer on a troop full of scared kids that may not come home… just to “watch a good war on tv”. Or because our President has it in for someone.

I say let’s get back to business… Osama’s still out there, isn’t he?
-=e=- the merciless

Oh, and my condolences to you and your husband for Cmdr. Driscoll. :0(
misty

Well first, regarding watching the war on TV, I’m not doing it. At all. No CNN, no FOX, no MSNBC, no ABC, no CBS, nothing. I absolutely refuse to watch something where I might see one of these brave men killed because a cameraman is unable to pan to the right fast enough. Nope, not gonna do it. And I know Stryker had very passionate views regarding Al-Jazeera and the way they showed the bodies of dead service members on air. He refused to even allow links to the pictures in his comments, which I was very happy about. So yes, I do agree that the mentality some have that they’re cheering on the home team in a game is rather disturbing at times.

You said, “I’m all for the original plan of “Hunting down terrorists, and countries that support them”.” If we still consider the Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists, then it’s been proven that Saddam has supported them with payments. Also, where has anyone said we aren’t still looking for bin Laden as well? While everyone was watching the war in Iraq on CNN, several people were killed in Afganistan while fighting there.

Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in existence. There are many of them and I think focusing on one group too much would be more detrimental than helpful. They definitely do not have a monopoly on terrorizing us. This country touts that it can fight two wars at once, it seems to me this was a good time to disprove the “paper tiger” fallacy.

There is no doubt that we as a country were caught off guard by 9/11. This was a group of 19 men, armed with box cutters, who took our own planes and flew them into our own buildings. If they could do it, what is there to keep another terrorist organization from surprising us in a similar manner? It is simply not possible for us to watch absolutely everyone and everything on the planet. We have to trust our friends to help watch our back and we have to put fear into our enemies that if they don’t watch what is going on in their countries, we’ll do it for them – by force, if necessary.

The difference I see between attacking Iraq and North Korea (which I have chosen because it is one a lot of people like to draw comparisons with) is that I actually seen North Korea as being less of a threat than Iraq. North Korea wants something from us – economic aid – and they think there is a reasonable chance they might get it. Iraq wants nothing from us because they know there is nothing we’re willing to give them (and we’re all infidels!). We’ve taken everything away and they have no motivation to be reasonable and do as we ask them. North Korea wants us to attack them. Their economy is on the verge of imploding and these are desperate times for them. They’re willing to try anything, including instigating us into attacking them, because they have a lot to gain and very little to lose. We’ve chosen not to play into their hands. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out our government was stalling for time to try and force North Korea’s collapse. But that’s probably something we’ll have to read about in history books in the years to come.

And aren’t all wars about regime change? I’m not a history scholar (I hate the stuff!!), but have we ever fought a war and let the ruling government stay in power?

(This has been fun, Eric. Thanks!)
-=e=- the merciless

“Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in existence. There are many of them and I think focusing on one group too much would be more detrimental than helpful.”

No arguments there. There are tons of terrorist organizations. But I bring them up as that’s the one that was responsible for all of the heinous crimes commited from the USS Cole to 9/11. Al-Qaeda is what the Government has been hellbent on proving that Iraq had ties to (and failing miserably). Abu Nidal was in Iraq as well as the mastermind of the Achille Lauro…

But then again if you flip New Jersey upside down, I’m sure we’d find someone. (Those people are terrible) :0)

Thanks for a very stimulating debate, Misty. :0)
-=e=- the merciless

Oh, and I screwed up… the quote was supposed to be “Hunting down terrorists, and countries that HARBOR them”…

If we go after everyone that “supports” them… hell, we’d have to attack ourselves eventually! :0)

Dots O' Links

Here are a list of other great blogs and journals for you to check out. Due to Technorati's way of ranking sites, and I don't have a blogroll, I've pulled these right out of my Links Page.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EricBrooks.Com® is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

37 queries. 0.166 seconds. Powered by WordPress

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely those of Eric Brooks. They do not necessarily reflect those of his employers, friends, contacts, family, or even his pets (though my cat, Puddy, seems to agree with me on many key issues.). In accordance to my terms of use, you hereby acknowledge my right to psychoanalyze you, practice accupuncture, and mock you incessantly with every visit. As the user, you also acknowledge that the author has been legally declared a "Problem Adult" by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is therefore not responsible for any of his actions.