Bill O'Reilly: OK for terrorists to attack San Francisco

OK, time for the marine to speak...

First, O'Reilley is a nut. His show is strictly infotainment, and I take anything he says with a grain of salt. Good luck to him because I'm sure that he'd get punched out if he visits SF anytime in the near future, which is too bad because SF is a beautiful place to go!

Second, I personally agree that banning the military recruiters from High Schools is ridiculous and does a disservice to those individuals whom could benefit in the military. Also, it sends a bad message to the kids growing up there about the military, and will make them think that the military is somehow evil or immoral and they could have a compleee misconception about it.

With that being said, that's their choice and it's the role of democracy. I don't like the President, and I didn't support or vote for him last year, but does that mean that he shouldn't create any initiatives to assist me or other Americans that didn't vote for him? Of course not because its his job, just like its the military's job to defend the US, even SF.

So while I personally think SF initiative was passed by a bunch of nuts, If I was still in and called to protect the Coit Tower, I would do so gladly and say hello to everyone on the street (kill them with kindness!).

What say you sir???

 

Here's what I say...

Sounds, to me, like you did honor to the uniform, and were a credit to the Corps.

Good work, Marine!

 

What Gregg said..... and that's what makes this country great.

 

Re: Here's what I say...

What Gregg and Carl said!



Abner

 

I'm in San Francisco all the time, I basically agree with Bill O'Reilley on this issue and I've never been physically assaulted or even verbally threatened.

Actually, I lived in SF for much of my life, frequented some pretty tough neighborhoods, and never suffered any violence of any kind. The place is surprisingly safe and relaxed for a big city. (It's more upscale than many large American cities and more of the non-whites are upwardly mobile and scrupulously law-abiding Chinese than is typical in other states.) People routinely get bumped off in the Tenderloin (skidrow) and the Mission (a barrio with a gang problem), but even there you probably won't get messed with if you don't flash money around or mess with the drug dealers and prostitutes. The periodic shootings and stabbings are usually drug related. Violence is almost never political. (Except occasional broken windows during street demonstrations.)

I'm not sure if I agree with that. It seems to me that the defense of the entire nation is a responsibility that needs to be borne by the entire nation. It's one of the conditions of citizenship. Even if military service is voluntary, the invitation to enlist should go out to the entire people.

I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that oppositional regions of the country can simply renounce their civic obligations while any suggestion that that the military can similarly dismiss their own duties is met with fury. The two suggestions seem like opposite sides of the very same coin to me.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. Voters are doing their civic duty by voting, even if they choose to vote for a candidate that doesn't win. But San Francisco's questioning its shared responsibility for the defense of the nation does seem to speak to whether the city is acknowledging its duties of citizenship.

This old San Franciscan says good for you!

If terrorists attacked SF they would most likely go for something more significant and prominent than Coit tower. Maybe they would try to drop the Golden Gate Bridge (a national icon) or rupture and flood the BART subway tube under the bay during rush hour (a particularly devastating variation on the London and Madrid attacks). If that happened it would be like New York on 9-11. San Francisco would be stunned, shocked and sobered. There would suddenly be American flags flying from every house again, just as there were in 2001, and the military would be greeted as heros. All the self-indulgent street-theater would suddenly be completely forgotten.

 

2 things,

First to DesElms, Abner, Carl, and Greg, thank you and Semper Fi.

Second,

Bill, what's your argument? Are you in the opinion that SF doesn't deserve any protection from the military because of its voters?

 

Of course not.

As I wrote in my last post, I think that the defense of this country is a responsibility that falls on all the country's residents without respect to their political philosophies. And in turn, that national defense must be willing to come to the defense of the entire nation without making exceptions based on political philosophy.

If people believe that particular government policies are mistaken, then they not only have the right but the responsibility to make their concerns known. That definitely extends to the war in Iraq.

But I don't think that opting out of duties owed to other Americans is really the proper way to voice political concerns. If the country as a whole behaved in the same way that SF's voters did, then there really would be a question whether the United States would come to the defense of San Francisco.

That's all Bill O'Reilley did. He just generalized San Francisco's own principle to the country as a whole.

The fact that nobody seriously expects the Pentagon to abandon San Francisco to its fate implicitly assumes that San Francisco and the United States are operating on different principles.

 

Thanks for the clarification Bill!