OK, so I'm minding my own business and I come across an editorial in the LA Times. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
I have to tell you my initial reaction was to blow my stack -- I'm thinking of all kinds of nasty things to say in an email to this guy.
Then I calm down a bit, and start to think that he has at least made a highly personal and rational argument based on his being a pacifist (he claims that volunteers don't deserve support since no one forced them to fight, and in his view fighting is wrong, so he won't support the troops). So now I'm not "fighting mad" anymore and am starting to think about what he is saying but still knowing his is an unsupportable view.
After some thought, this is what I came away with...
I'm sure in his world, he would be very happy with no armed services. But in the real world, the only reason why pacifists can exist are because of the blood spilled by other people without thanks on behalf of the pacifist (and everyone else). Out of sheer human decency, he owes a debt of gratitude to people that are willing to sacrifice for someone who is so clueless that they don't even understand that they need protection.
So, despite his personal beliefs, he is still a jerk for taking the position he has.
I'm curious what your views are (other than the obvious "screw him").
Oops, sorry, I searched for don't support troops and stein, didn't see it.
dupe of a dupe of a dupe, I guess.