|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Register | Video Directory | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Games | Today's Posts | Search | Chat Room |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
About Steinberg?s Apology on MIA/POW Flags;
This seemed a little more Important than Steinberg?s Apology;
I'm passing it on from the Gunny; From: George Fallon gfallon@nji.com Subject: RE: OJC Digest - 11 Feb 2004 to 12 Feb 2004 (#2004-41) Folks, I tried to read Steinberg?s article several times before I was able to get past that first outrageous paragraph. When I was finally able to calm down and get through the entire thing I wrote what I like to think of as a rational response, explaining some things to him that he obviously wasn?t aware of: That 1. Not everyone believes there were no men left behind? 2. The POW flag is not now nor was it ever intended to be anti-American? 3. The POW flag is not now nor was it ever intended to be anti-government? 4. The POW flag is not only a symbol of our fight but a memorial to all POWs? 5. Thousands of POWMIA family members are still waiting for answers? 6. Thousands of POWMIA family members are still waiting for closure? Several took the same route with varying degrees of hostility while most others responded with understandable indignant outrage, wise-assed epithets, insults, threats and aspersions about his parenthood. Steinberg responded with restraint to some of the first attacks and then ceased answering, choosing instead to publish a second article, explaining his rationale for the first article? That being, he believed he was saying something that he thought was on everyone else?s mind? Obviously he was wrong about that? But try and read his response with some common sense instead of anticipatory outrage: Steinberg was not saying in that second article that he had been misunderstood. He was admitting that he himself had obviously misunderstood the feelings and sensitivities of those of us for whom the POW flag is a part of our lives. He apologized for offending family members and veterans who had been angered by his article. And let?s get some perspective here? There is a major difference between saying ?I am sorry I offended you? and saying ?I am sorry you were offended.? The latter, puts the burden on those offended without accepting responsibility. The former, Steinberg?s approach, accepts blame and acknowledges responsibility. Steinberg is not alone among well-intentioned Americans who believed the POW issue was an empty Trojan Horse. He is not the only one who believed it was over? That all were home who were coming home? There were others who felt the same way including 99% of the nation in April of 1973. That number included me until a few months later when I ceased celebrating the homecoming and started to realize there was a gap in the numbers. One other individual who bought into the lie for several years afterward was someone you all might remember: Ted Guy? But Ted came around when the family of an unaccounted for POW asked him to look at their son?s file. Then Ted started asking questions and we all know where that went? I?m not passing judgment on the initial responses from any of you? They were pretty tame compared to the one I started to write? would have completed if I hadn?t taken the time to look at the big picture. But now that Steinberg has given as much of an apology as any of us have ever seen from a journalist, can we back off on the vitriolic diatribes? Just what do you think the odds are that sarcasm, insults and playground threats are going to make him want to look closer at the POW issue and try to see our side of it? How many new converts do you believe you are going to bring to our camp by refusing to accept his apology. Are we so hungry for somebody to blame that we can afford this sort of distraction? Some of you are screaming for a retraction of his original article. How exactly would you like to see that done? (I?m only interested in rational, realistic alternatives here folks. Don?t hand me a bunch of rhetoric because you all know I?m not going to buy that) This isn?t a matter of the POW issue being attacked. It isn?t a matter of principle ? It?s a matter of committing suicide. You don?t shoot someone carrying a white flag and asking to parley? It makes him dead but it makes the shooter a war criminal. Remember this much: He has an audience of how many thousands, and his readership is generally as ignorant of the facts of this issue as he is/was. Our audience is how big? And which side are they on? We preach to the choir... They are alreay open to our way of thinking. His audience is full of potential converts... We can use as many of them as we can convince him to bring over into the light. Let's stop eating our young... Gunny Hope this helps. Travis |
Sponsored Links |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apology | savage grace | General Posts | 2 | 05-25-2005 07:14 AM |
My apology | formergrunt70 | Vietnam | 4 | 05-04-2005 03:53 PM |
apology...disclaimer...explanation... | MORTARDUDE | Vietnam | 17 | 04-21-2004 11:07 AM |
What about an apology???? | Gimpy | Political Debate | 0 | 01-30-2004 09:57 AM |
Apology | reeb | General Posts | 3 | 03-13-2003 04:27 AM |
|