The "soldiers are dummies" canard doesn't sound any better from the pro-war side than the anti-war side. There are some very intelligent people in our military. That being said, Lee's point that a lot of more upbeat military views don't make the NYT is a valid one.
Two points:
I have seen nothing yet to indicate that this is some kind of fraud, or that these authors aren't who they say they are. I found references to two of them in legitimate military documents and writings. Unless I learn otherwise, I'm leaving it at that.
This isn't the slam-dunk negative article it's being painted as. As far as I can see, it expresses reasonable concerns about the war. I've read more pessimistic things. And more optimistic.
Current Events » in reply to a) too well-written to be the words of non-coms, and b) soldiers are too unsophisticated to match Tech's godly world-view.
I'm with alcaray on this one.
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Amazing piece in the Times today. Bad news from Iraq.
- A response from some other vets
- Who wrote it?
- On being a "Surrender Monkey"
- a) too well-written to be the words of non-coms, and b) soldiers are too unsophisticated to match Tech's godly world-view.
- The NYT has a vested interest in seeing us fail.
