Pearl Jam supports the troops

Ya know, I read this over and over...I still don't understand.

Simplify?

Fair enough. (Must not drink and post.) What I mean is: Say what you think. Make it known to everybody. If we're going to bring that right to Iraqis, it makes sense to practice it ourselves.

Our soldiers are big boys. They can live with the knowledge that there are people back home who disagree.

OK, if I understand your point, then you are saying, in essence, that since we are bringing freedom to Iraqis that we should be allowed to excersize our freedom here at home to protest.

Fair enough.

But, since what protesters are opposing is the war, thus Iraqi liberation, that freedom would not be brought to Iraqis. Basically, if protesters had their way, Iraqis wouldn't be getting freedom within the next few days.

So, it sounds like your argument is self-defeating...unless I misunderstood.



I know, I know. But, I just can't help but think it's gotta affect some of them...I dunno, I hope not.

why don't you ask them instead of assuming and making that judgement for them?

No, I just think we're all arguing differernt points.
First, finboy said it was impossible to disapprove of the war as a concept and still support the troops as people. That to do so was being dishonest.
I gave an analogy how I view the subject, explaining how I felt those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
THEN you changed the argument to something else;that to excercise the right to protest was unfair to the wendy's employees or made them feel bad, which brings up the additional point of whether we need to suppress our own freedoms. THEN it became how the iraqis need to be liberated.....yadda yadda yadda.
Just because you make a separate point does not invalidate my point.

I disagree that I have to blindly support the appointed president and his actions in order to support the troops...for one thing, I think this is a dangerous road he is traveling, one which will, in the end, mean a great many of our own soldiers dead, and in increasing numbers as we decide to preventively invade country after country.
If that happens, what you are supporting right now, is, in my opinion, the absolute worst thing that can happen to our troops (remember I have family and friends in the service), I think I should retain my right to object to the decisions being made by the commander in chief. I don't think I should abdicate that right in wartime or else it isn't a right but a flimsy promise to be rescinded whenever the administration or the people feels its ok to.

You will not understand this, but to act as if we should restrict freedom in an act of patriotism...to ME, this makes you a traitor to the ideals this country was based on.

But I realize you view it exactly the opposite. BUT I respect your right to think so.

Even though I disagree with protesters, I am glad they can speak their mind. Only when they are breaking laws are when they need to be taken downtown.

I have to keep in mind that if I am ever in the minority I don't want my rights to speak up trampled on. And that's the belief I've held all along.

You will acknowledge that troops seeing protests back home don't give them much inspiration, right? That's all I'm saying.

The only problem I have with this type of recruiting is. Teens and young adults will come home frome said concert, and be anti-war nd anti-bush, not because that is how they really feel, not because they came to a educated conclusion, but because Eddie Vedder said so, and he is their idol. No, not everyone that goes to these shows will be like this. But I don't know how many kids I have ran into that has adopted the outlook of their Rawk Staaw idols because they practically worship them. Marylin Manson and RATM is a good example of bands that do this. Good thing is, once the band if forgotten, so are most of their ideals gone from said persons mind. It's all what is HIP at the moment.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I see dissent in general as an essential element in building consensus. Because we can think and say about any damn thing we want, we gain exposure to bewildering number of points of view, which we can examine, adopt, or dimiss as we see fit. Dissent makes for the kind of lively debate that builds the foundation for consensus.

That's probably more convoluted than what I wrote earlier than when I was drunk (sorry). Let me give you an example: I have this friend, very conservative, very much in disagreement with me on a number of issues. He worked in Ashcroft's office when Ashcroft was state attorney general. And he HATES the war, virulently. He goes on and on in the most extreme terms about Bush usurping the constitutional process and what not. I listen to him and think, "Huh, that's interesting, but I'm not quite with you."

I have this other friend who is on the other end of the spectrum. She is a tree-hugger and a whale-saver, or maybe a tree-saver and a whale-hugger, and I usually can predict what's going to come out of her mouth. But she's absolutely for the war. Thinks it's a long time overdue, thinks the USA has failed to use its muscle to bring better conditions to benighted peoples, and sees the war as us finally doing something about repression in Iraq.

They all think what they believe is in the best interests of the country, solider and civilian alike.

I can't agree with either wholeheartedly, but it gets me thinking about where I land, politically. Too much of the debate in this country seems to be based on the assumption that we and all of our opinions can only fit into one of two little boxes, liberal/conservative, Bush/Gore, GOP/Democrat, red state/blue state. But what I see in everyday life tells me that our real strength is the multifaceted and often unpredictable nature of our political culture, and anti-war dissent fits right into that.

As, of course, so do you. I disagree with what you say, but respectfully.

(Sorry for the speech. Cue patriotic music. Fade out.)

(edited to fix typo)

finboy, it sounds to me like you have more of a problem with ignorant people than with "anti-war" people. I agree with your position, it would be nice if people did a little reading before they rant and had a stable, backed up with facts position. You're not going to find that on the internet very often.

You can mock Pearl Jam or Eddie Vedder all you want, but let me tell you this.. they have researched their opinions, they are informed and politically active. They aren't hypocrits and IMO supporting the troops and not supporting the cause they are fighting for is not inconsistent.. Like me and most people, Eddie wants to see the troops come home alive. Any peaceful person would. That is the support they need.

Pearl Jam has made a lot of music since Ten and Vs. which not a lot of people were exposed to or even interested in (thanks to Pearl Jam's anti-publicity stance) but that doesn't mean they suddenly turned to ****. In fact, their last 3 albums are, in my opinion, their best. They even based one of their albums (an entire album) on one of my favorite books (Ishmael by Daniel Quinn). The thing about music is this: the best music is personal.

Eddie at an anti-war rally.



To end, here's a fitting song from Pearl Jam's 6th album "Binaural".


Sorry to go on for so long, but I love talkin about PJ

All these "We must support the president and the troops and not protest" folks apparently do not know their American history.
There has NEVER been a US war that received universal support from the American people. That includes the Revolutionary War and World War II.
Why should things be any different during what is possibly the least moral war this nation has ever been involved in (although Viet Nam, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are also contenders).

Please, that is HIGHLY subjective. I think what we are doing is based on morals.

It seems to me that the most logical reason being put forward here and elsewhere for the blind support of US troops is the same as the one being put forward for why American networks should not show pictures of dead GI's, namely that it would undermine the war effort.

That's a novel idea because it implies that American civilians (corporations and individuals) are part of this war. The civilians need to help the troops by giving them the impression that they have support and the networks have to help keep up morale by censoring images and reports that might weaken morale. In that case, Americans should ask themselves what civilian casualties they've already suffered.

Many of the soldiers in Iraq don't agree with the war. THEY are going to die for something they don't agree with. How's THAT for a conflict?

But of course in your universe things are much simpler.

Good on Pearl Jam. My initial response was: Stupid idiots � Why lose sales unnecessarily?. But then I realised they don't care if they lose sales or support from the Right as long as they get their point across. What's the point of celebrity if you can't use it?

Meanwhile I'm trying to think of a Right-wing artist who has publicly come out in support of the war.

Or indeed, a Right-wing artist.

You sure that's not Adam Sandler?

I don't think the Right has to voice their opinions about the war (especially not any protests or dissention).. After all, their interests are being taken care of..

You shouldn't underestimate a good rock band..They've been known to make a difference, from time to time.

Ha, that reminds me of when Adam Sandler did his opera man skit about Pearl Jam..

See that guy in the background with the shades on? I think he won an Oscar, or something..

Ahhh the old, tired, black and white only; "You're either with us or against us" argument strikes again!!!

"Sarge, I don't feel like fighting today, but I still want to keep my free room and board, meals, benefits, tuition reimbursement and pay"

If you have a friend who plays football do you hate them also just because you don't like football?

MikeM

I wonder where Eddie was at when he was supporting Clinton, and Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq.

Can you smell that? Yes, that is hypocricy.

Pedro Almodovar - well spotted!!

Can you spell that? Yes, that is hypocrisy.