A Laundry List of the Latest Democratic Party Screwups

[BigV]

Originally Posted by richlevy

...a character did just come back from Iraq and was recovering from being wounded, he told me that printing that comic was unpatriotic.

Realistically showing the cost and sacrifice of war is unpatriotic?

That depends, richlevy, of course, on how you define "patriotism".

An argument could be made reminders that "being wounded" as "cost and sacrifice of war" could be detrimental to the morale of the reader, either a soldier or a civilian and so depress their warfighting or support efforts. If war is viewed as a zero-sum game, this reduced effort could be seen as a net gain for the enemy. Behavior that benefits the enemy is unpatriotic. [/devil's advocate]

Having heard and read these kinds of comments myself, and in an effort to give the author of the comments the benenfit of the doubt that they speaking earnestly, this is the best line of reasoning I can come up with. I do not agree with it however. It has many major and fatal flaws.

1 -- It is unrealistically simplistic.

2 -- Even though the steps are few, they are LARGE.

3 -- I have never heard someone make an expression like the one you described whose motives for saying so were not mixed at best.

Simplistic. Only the first link in my chain is remotely likely to be true. I do find demoralizing the thought that many soldiers (a *much* higher proportion than in previous wars**) will be wounded. It's sad to think about that. I'm not alone in this opinion, I'm sure. How one responds to that objectively bad news makes all the difference. Some are excited to new heights of warmaking energy. Some are depressed and lethargic. The range of reponses runs the gamut. It's not a lock that bad news is demoralizing.

LARGE steps. War is not a zero-sum game. There are countless examples of this. Something can be good for both sides. Something can be bad for us and bad for them. Something can be bad for us and neutral for them. This idea "you are either with us or you are against us" is just not true.

Mixed motives. The speaker of such may believe it's true, superficially, but the intention for saying such a thing has a large portion of misdirection inextricably embedded in it. "I don't want to talk about that soldier's wounds, so I'll soothe myself and heave the conversation over to *your* faults, you unpatriotic menace, you!" I can't be the only one familiar with this attempt at conversational judo.

Such a statement is a reflection of a lazy and uninformed character. Lazy for being unwilling to make the effort to understand the complexities of our society, and the complexities of war, for that matter. You should use your own judgement in such situations to determine the appropriateness of any attempt to comfort the poverty of the speaker's ignorance. The only hope for our beloved republic lies in the elimination of such poverty.



** I expect to be challenged on this remark. I have not looked up the figures to support it. I base it on the reports I have heard about the higher survival rates for the same kind of trauma thanks to better first aid and trauma recovery technology. If fewer are dying, more are living, living wounded.