What is "centrist" in 2015????

Ok friends, serious request here. I'm trying ascertain what "centrist" means these days.

Below are two Op-eds. The first is from the left. The second is claiming to be centrist, is it? If no..why not. If yes you consider it centrist, why so?


NUMBER ONE:

Chris Kyle: Who gives a shit?

It’s hard to throw a hammer at your computer screen without it hitting a story about the “most lethal sniper” in US history. I won’t waste my time pasting in links to these countless, thoughtless stories because if you can’t use a search engine then… Trust me they are every where.

Within those many stories rages a debate. The liberals against and the reactionaries in favor of the idea that this man was a hero. The liberals won’t come out and say it, they talk about him being a liar, that his account of many things is anything but factual and that he should probably be taken with a grain of salt. However, he does have all those pesky verified kills that mean he did his job the best he knew how and that was damn good.

So let’s start there, is the man a hero? Fuck no! He’s a pawn of a system. Was he a good pawn? Absolutely, but a pawn is not a hero. A pawn does what he is told, bows down before the powers that be and pulls the trigger when he’s told. He’s great at not thinking for himself. He’s a tool that was designed and is used at the will of those who yield it. Killing is killing and the fact that he did it in the name of all us ‘Mericans does not a hero make.

Killing is killing. If you are on the wrong side of that, you are dead and you can see how wrong it is, but we make exceptions. If the killing is against our “enemies” it’s ok. How do you justify that to yourself? It’s ok to kill as long as I disagree with the person that I am killing. By that logic, I would guess that 97% of the prison population, in jail for murder would need to be released, but that’s the logic we are told to swallow. It’s ok if they are brown, somewhere else and don’t speak English…

Was Chris Kyle a good person? I don’t think so. I have a problem with someone who has killed that many people and then brags about it in a book. Was he doing what he was told? I think that’s a given, but it doesn’t take much courage to do that. It’s just following the easiest path, the one that the people in charge pointed at and said, hey, this is the one. Not questioning the why or the how or the what ifs, well that makes you weak in my book. That makes you anything but a hero.

So yea, Chris Kyle. Who gives a shit?

THEN BELLOW IS WHAT IS CLAIMED TO BE A "CENTRIST" BEBUTTAL:

Who gives a shit about Chris Kyle? Well, me for one. Not necessarily Chris Kyle as a person because I didn’t ever meet him and have no personal feelings about him either way, but the idea that Chris Kyle is currently being paraded around in front of. That I most definitely give a shit about.

The idea that Chris Kyle is currently the poster child of is that the members of the military are automatically heroic and beyond reproach. No questions asked, no other qualifications necessary. The fact that the government says you can kill people automatically equals heroism that cannot be called into question. Same thing with cops. Apparently, once your government gives you a uniform and a gun, no one is ever allowed to criticize or question you. The end. Who knew?

The conservative pundits are saying Chris Kyle represents freedom, and heroism, and bravery, and sacrifice. He doesn’t. Those are just buzz words to rile up emotions and keep people from paying attention to any real issues. But it doesn’t matter anyway because that’s not what Chris Kyle represents, and that’s not the function of the military or the police.

No, in fact, the military and the police function solely to serve the security of the nation and its political subsidiaries. We’re not sending our men and women overseas for freedom. If we were, we would have no problem affording “enemy combatants” basic fundamental rights. But we do have a problem with that. Because it’s not about freedom. It’s about security. And that is not the same thing.

Before anyone gets all in a tiffy, I’m not saying Americans don’t enjoy some level of freedom. We do. The fact that this blog exists is an example of the freedom we have. What I am saying is that freedom includes the right to doubt the ostensibly impenetrable moral authority surrounding Chris Kyle. And doubting doesn’t make someone a coward or a traitor. It just makes them a free individual with the ability to form their own opinions.

So, yeah, I give a shit about Chris Kyle. Because his memory is being used to perpetuate the idea that it’s immoral to ever have doubts about a government agent with a gun. Everyone should give a shit about that.
END

 

I think a lot of Kyle supporters do fall into that "military is automatically a hero" junk. I disagree with that sentiment. What makes Kyle a hero is the personal sacrifices he made to protect his brothers in arms.

It's perfectly acceptable to support the miltary while disagreeing with the politicians who put them in harms way. What's the saying, "nobody hates war more than the soldier who's fought it"?

 

Both are clueless. But, to your question, centrist, I'd say that they'd both would be given a shake as being centrist in this f'ed up country of lazy, Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

The man has a silver star.

End thread.


And this is from a liberal commie baby eater

 

Are you up in SLC?

 

Not yet. The results of my background check dont come in until the 28th so I'm shooting for the 1st of the month move date

 

I don't see any difference between them.
Two sides of the same coin.

 

When is the 15 minutes over already.

When dumb and dumber start arguing, things get old pretty fast....

 

I think that sums up the Kris Kyle/ soldier hero /killer debate pretty well- IMO.

 

On this I would disagree. Civilians make policy and the military under orders from our civilian government implements the policy. We have a duty to question the way in which it is implemented and a right to know. This can (and should) be done effectively and with respect for those who serve. Civilians should IMO be exposed to the atrocities of war regularly, then maybe we will urge our politicians to be more selective in putting our men and women in harms way.

 

And add...don't blame the soldier for the atrocities of war. Its like blaming the gun for murder. The politicians wield the gun and should carry the full consequences. It is too easy for them to say "kill over here" and then turn their backs on those that we demand do our killing.

 

I think that in a lot of cases, "hero" could easily be interchanged with "victim". So many of our vets wind up being victims of the power/money/blood thirsty politicians that will gladly send our boys off to fight and die for virtually nothing.

 

I blame the soldier for volunteering to perpetrate the atrocities of war without any regard to the justifications for waging war.

I blame the politicians and their disregard for the human lives destroyed by war, both our own men & women, the "enemy of the day", and the innocent lives destroyed as a consequence.

You'll not see me don a uniform to defend a state that so hates her citizens. My fellow man, fuck yeah, and it will be done without a GI costume, but never will this government of ours be able to demonstrate worthiness of my life or the lives of my loved ones.

 

And hung out to dry should they make it back to our shores with a pulse. :down:

 

If the politicians want war, they will draft you if not enough volunteers exist. Freedom will always need guardians. I cannot join you in saying that those that volunteer should be blamed, as should the politicians strive to avoid all conflict except for those of immediate and direct impact on our freedom, the volunteer would having no unjustified war to fight.

 

Oh the politicians bear the 99%, believe me.

But the soldier has an obligation to know who he's fighting and why. If the reason isn't just, is he not perpetrating crimes against those he kills?

Nuremberg demonstrated that "following orders" was not a defense to committing atrocities under banner of war. When the war itself is an atrocity, where is the defense?

 

I probably agree with you.

I guess it becomes a question of degrees. The holocaust is pretty cut and dry. Is there a war that you would point to as similar for the US soldier?

 

I'd say the ground war in Iraq qualifies as unjustified. Logically following, any action would be criminal.

And no, I don't suggest convening a war crimes tribunal in The Hague to try US soldiers.

Simply to point out that blindly doing as the government propagandists dictate isn't defensible.