Shut up and serve: you troops should be grateful to *US*

Posted by: ST on January 31, 2007 at 8:31 pm

That’s the gist of this nasty little anti-troop rant written by uber-lefty William Arkin in response to this NBC video that is circulating around the Internet in which some troops on the ground expressed frustration about how Americans are acting here at home as it relates to ‘supporting the mission’ (or not supporting it).

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive is not amused and lets Arkin have it (some colorful language is used, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing …).

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt


RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • bRight & Early trackbacked with First Cup 02.01.07
  • 19 Responses to “Shut up and serve: you troops should be grateful to *US*”


    1. Karl says:

      oohh.,….expect my pissed off rebuttal tonight as well.

      How dare he call our troops mercenary….x(

    2. stackja says:

      My four letter comments ~!@# and $%^& on the lefty.

    3. Lorica says:

      I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.

      Hey doorknob, Obviously you don’t mind as long as it is your opinion they are expressing. What a PoS this communist lowlife is. /sniff /sniff but but I will bet he will make a good maryter to his fellow lefties cuz he is getting lambasted for his absolutely idiot”ic” comments.

      Next stupid comment:

      These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

      Yes that’s it, why is it only the Dems believe wars should be run by popularity polls. Not that Bush hasn’t made some mistakes, but it certainly isn’t a reason to NOT finish what we started doorknob. The troops should be grateful that idiots like this don’t run this country, or do they. I also take issue with the word “still”, when the hell did lowlife communists like this EVER offer their support to the war??

      I can’t read anymore of this tripe. HOW Stupid is a man who would write such garbage. Some of the commentors really rip into this dork. But you all know he is taking some perverse pleasure in seeing these “hate”ful comments. – Lorica

    4. david foster says:

      What especially got me was the line about the “obscene amenities.” What is an “obscene amenity” for an individual who constantly risks death or mutilation while enduring 110 degree temperatures? Ice cream for dessert? The occasional steak dinner? E-mail service so he can talk with his family?

      What kind of small-minded person would even think such a thing, let alone write it?

      I subscribed the The Washington Post for many years. No more.

    5. NC Cop says:

      Gosh, NOW can we question his patriotism?

    6. Steve Skubinna says:

      No, NC Cop, there’s no question at all about his patriotism.

      Support the war, and not be serving: you’re a chickenhawk and your argument is invalid.

      Support the war, while serving: you’re a whiney ungrateful naive non-American and your argument is invalid.

      There’s the totalitarian impulse of the left on display. Dissent is patriotic, so long as it isn’t dissent from their dictates. The first amendment applies to everybody – so long as they agree with them. Oh, and maybe we should just get over this post-9/11 mentality and have a military coup.

      Yes, these people would disenfranchise us, and herd us into camps. But they are the true patriots.

    7. Tom TB says:

      There was a slogan from the appeasement isolationist days of the 1930’s “War as an instrument of National policy should be outlawed!” Now, who is going to do the enforcing of this new anti-war policy? The League of Nations was a joke, the U.N. is a joke. Just the existence of our military gives a guy like Arkin the confidence to write as he pleases, and he thinks they are treated too well!

    8. Baklava says:

      NC asked, “Gosh, NOW can we question his patriotism?

      You can as you have the freedom, but they might REALLY get mad and then REALLY try to see your point of view and negotiate a peaceful relationship with you. The worse you act and the more you terrorize the lefty the more they will try to see what it is you want right?

    9. karl says:

      ha! he listed and linked to my blog response in his rebuttal today.

      he’s still a putz

    10. Bob says:

      This squabbling over who supports the troops the most seems to be a total red herring. There may be individuals here or there who say things that sound (or perhaps even are) disrespectful to the troops. That’s their opinion. But to try to use these individuals as examples to imply that anyone who is opposed to the war is somehow against the troops (especially when this is expressed as though they were actually spitting in their faces) is just cheap rhetoric.

      Of course, the vast majority of us who oppose the war understand that our troops are there doing a great and courageous job to execute their missions. They’re there with the best of intentions. My heart drops every time I hear about one of them dying, and I want revenge against the low-lifes who wantonly kill people (U.S. soldiers, contractors or civilians of all nationalities) who are only trying to put their country back on the path to peace and prosperity. I just don’t happen to think that the cycle of revenge within the context of a civil war in which we have no proper place leads anywhere constructive.

      I don’t want to hear the tortured logic that equates opposing the Iraq war with either wanting the U.S. to fail or not supporting the troops. This issue is being blown out of proportion to get conservatives angry and excited so they can be politically manipulated. Since the pro-war side can’t win the debate on the battlfield of ideas any more, they’re trying to turn it into an irrational and emotionally over-wrought struggle against imaginary traitors here at home.

    11. Ryan says:

      Since the pro-war side can’t win the debate on the battlfield [sic] of ideas any more, they’re trying to turn it into an irrational and emotionally over-wrought struggle against imaginary traitors here at home.

      Says you. You want to see irrational look no further than many on your side. Much of that has been brought up by ST here.

    12. NC Cop says:

      I don’t want to hear the tortured logic that equates opposing the Iraq war with either wanting the U.S. to fail or not supporting the troops.

      Well, gosh, Bob cant I have THAT opinion, or is that not allowed.

      Please tell me just exactly who you are to tell anyone what they should or should not be thinking?

    13. Bob says:

      NC Cop, that phrase simply means that “I don’t accept the tortured logic . . .” Of course I’m not telling anyone how to think. I’m simply saying that I’m sick of hearing it. But I’m disappointed in you that you couldn’t twist my words into an insult against the troops. For example, maybe my use of “tortured” was a snide cheap-shot about Abu Ghraib. Why don’t you go off on that now?

    14. NC Cop says:

      Sorry, Bob, they are your words. If you didn’t mean them that way, then don’t write them that way. I’m glad I could disappoint you!! Remember, it’s the troops over in Iraq who are saying that the so called “saviors” who are protesting the war are hurting morale, not just us. Did those troops twist any words, Bob? How do you respond to that? The troops are saying that the protestors are hurting morale, care to comment?