Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Dialogue with the Young Republicans

It may be difficult for them to believe, but here goes:

Operation Yellow Elephant and the Young Republicans are actually on the same side.

We want Our Country, led by Our President, to succeed. We assume that the Young Republicans also want Our Country, led by Our President, to succeed.

We think that one way to help this process is to encourage those eligible to serve who support what Our Country is doing through military action overseas at least to consider volunteering for military service. They will add credibility to their position in favor of the war through disclosure of the results of their deliberations.

Otherwise, you get callers labeling, say, Matthew Continetti a coward.

Whenever we identify credible College or Young Republicans, we praise them. Some commenters have identified for us a large number of Young Republicans with military experience, past and present. We have praised them as well. Why? Because they deserve praise for having the courage of their convictions, and because it's the right thing to do for America. And we thank those not eligible to serve for stepping forward.

But let's be honest: Our Army needs good people, and not all College and Young Republicans, eligible to serve, who support the war, have considered volunteering. We're asking them to do so, as their patriotic duty, and because we see them as future national leaders with the responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us.

That's why we asked the Young Republicans with military experience attending YRNC2007 to encourage non-veteran, but eligible, YRs who support the war to consider volunteering. We hope that they did, and welcome any specific information to this effect.

Thank you.


At 17 July, 2007 20:17, Anonymous Young Republican said...

The logic behind "Operation Yellow Elephant" is flawed, for a variety of reasons, and is especially irritating, for the many young conservatives who oppose this war - the globalist philosophy behind it. Myself and others have opposed this war from the start... We were also anti-war during the Clinton adminsitration, when most Democrats were pro-war (to the frustration of some principled liberals - also see here).

First off, the College Republicans, as of 2001, is a 527 group, having severed its ties with the Republican Party. The CRs is a non-partisan organization, and those involved in it, at the chapter level, include Republicans of all persuasions (from paleoconservatives to neocons to libertarians, and everything in between) to independents, and even some Democrats. [At my particular university, the College Democrats don't do much of anything, so some of the Democrats attend our meetings and events.]

So, it is absurd to link the policies of the Bush administration, or the Republican Party, to the College Republicans.

The College Democrats however, are officially affliated with the Democrat Party.

In the run-up to the current Iraq war, there were deep divisions, withn both the left and within the right, regarding whether to support it.

This College Republican blogger pointed out that those who got into foreign policy leadership positions, as a result of the Democrat takeover of Congress, are actually stronger supporters of warfare and military interventionism than the Republicans.

At the present time, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are divided over Iraq. On IRAN however, Pelosi, Lantos, and Biden have actually been more hawkish than Hyde, Lugar, Bush, and Rice were. The liberal Democrats then criticized the Republicans for not being tough enough, against Iran.

With the Republicans in control of Congress, the foreign policy committee leader in the U.S. House was anti-war, as was the foreign policy leader in the U.S. Senate. Now, both of them have been replaced by "liberal hawks."

The New York Times pointed out that the liberal intellectuals were not strongly against the Iraq war, with many of them supporting it, based upon the same principles which caused them to support massive warfare and imperialism during the Clinton years.

The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq

Some will say that those liberals who supported the war were misled, by the false WMD claims. However, this did not stop the liberal hawks' support for the Iraq war. Check out Tony Judt's famous article on the left-wing support for the Iraq war (which was featured at Antiwar.com*). And this encyclopedia article pointed out that Slate's online symposium of liberals hawks resulted in a consensus that the war was still justified, on humanitarian grounds.

Even after the WMD revelations, liberal hawks still support the Iraq war.

(It is ironic that Dan Savage is listed on your sidebar, in the recent entries... Savage was one of many liberals who supported the Iraq war.)

* Note: Antiwar.com is the #1 anti-war site on the web... It was STARTED BY REPUBLICANS (Justin Raimondo and Eric Garris), to oppose the imperialsm of the Clinton administration, and has remained a consistent source of opposition to warfare.

Justin Raimondo was the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress, against none other than Nancy Pelosi... He ran against her on an antiwar platform.

Eric Garris is a former liberal who would later become an activist for the Republican Party. He has pointed out repeatedly that Democrats support war and intervention more often than Republicans do.

I think that the College Democrats - and the Young Democrats - have some big events coming up, including the College Dems' National Convention, later this month. I hope you will target your "Operation" in those arenas as well.

At 17 July, 2007 21:25, Blogger OYE said...

Thanks for your comment. However, a lot of what you have written is not relevant to this blog, which has not taken a position on the war.

By the way, this is the first time any self-described Republican has ever expressed to us any opposition to the war.

We take your point that there are, now, at least some College and Young Republicans who oppose(d) the war. In the future, we will provide an opportunity for our subjects to state a position on the war.

We've always tried to say that those eligible to serve who support the war have a national leadership responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us. We'll amend this posting promptly. Thank you for calling this to our attention.

So, it is absurd to link the policies of the Bush Administration, or the Republican Party, to the College Republicans.

Sorry, but until very recently, and despite the organizational arrangements you describe, in the public mind the College Republicans were touting their own connections to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, so it's fair to remember those same connections on this blog.

Although George W. Bush is Our President through 20 January 2009, we do plan to focus on the Presidential candidates of both parties, starting with the junior Senator from New York, to ensure credibility of national leadership in the future, regardless of party.

At 17 July, 2007 22:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys should check out the DU, It is full of anti-war posts. Some very good writing there. Just watch out you do not get entagled with the religiophobic goose steeping nazi gay rights activists! They are truly not respectful of anyones rights but their own. Perhaps you could avoid the militant gays and contirbute to the war stopping type posts. Anyway, calling out college kids to join the military is kind of lame, Call ou Dubya, Dick and guys like that...Gods willing these fucks will one day see the wrong end of a gun.

At 18 July, 2007 01:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey OYE!

Couldn't find your e-mail but here is another chicken-hawk:


At 18 July, 2007 08:16, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (18 July, 2007 01:43)-

Thanks. Our e-mail is at "Contact This Blog" in the right-hand column.

operationyellowelephant -at - gmail [dot ]com

At 18 July, 2007 08:20, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (17 July, 2007, 22:28)-

Anyway, calling out college kids to join the military is kind of lame, Call ou Dubya, Dick and guys like that.

Please see OYE 105 in the upper right-hand corner for Chickenhawks vs. Yellow Elephants.

By definition, Chickenhawks are too old to serve, so this blog doesn't have any specific suggestions for them.

Yellow Elephants, on the other hand, are eligible to serve. There's still time for them to do the right thing, which is why we haven't given up on them, as the future leaders of the Republican Party.

At 18 July, 2007 12:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Republican Party owns the war in Iraq.

Need proof? Read today's newspaper-

"Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown that capped an all-night debate on the war."


At 18 July, 2007 14:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans block vote on troop withdrawal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's Republicans blocked a Democratic plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of April 2008 to cap a rare round-the-clock U.S. Senate debate on Wednesday.


At 18 July, 2007 17:45, Blogger OYE said...


Thank you for your service, and for your comments. We appreciate your taking the time here to help keep America great.

You need to know that this blog has not taken a position on the war; our members and supporters hold a wide variety of opinions on that issue, but we are united in encouraging those eligible to serve who support the war to Be A Man! Enlist!

At 18 July, 2007 23:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yellow Elephants, on the other hand, are eligible to serve. There's still time for them to do the right thing, which is why we haven't given up on them, as the future leaders of the Republican Party.

So you really want to send the little cowardly punks over to fight next to people who will surely get killed when they abandon their post? I mean you are picking obvious little fags from overpriveledged places. Why don't you pick on floks who actually might get stuck serving...I mean I do not see thousands of Overpriveledged sons of wealthy Democratic leaning parents serving either. The simple fact is there are plenty of democratic and republican armed forces members..Most of whom do not come from the ranks of the overpriveledged on either side. If you call out young rethugs,,,,of rich backgrounds, you should be calling out young overpriveledged sons and daughters of the democrats that originally supported this war. Fact is you will not because you are biased and no better then the little fags you call out. How is your pathetic little werbsite going to help the real kids who get sucked up into this shit? It isn't, my son is 18 and I for one do not want him fighting for oil so you can drive around town and act like your pathetic partisan bickering helps. Start calling out young spoiled sons and daughters of EVERY PARTY! I do not see the difference between the two, both supported the begining of this war,,,fully expecting that THEY would never sacrafice anything! You are not doing a complete job. Earn my respect and restore my faith in the Democratic party and go after all of the overprivilledged little bastards that are safe in their Ivy Leaugue schools why others die!

At 19 July, 2007 07:29, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (18 July, 2007 23:38)-

You have a point. We started with the Republicans because at the time, they had been asked by the American people to run our country, with control of both Houses of Congress as well as the White House, and President Bush having vetoed only one bill (not on our topic).

That said, you should know that we have Asked The Question of Democrats. We asked Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) whether he personally knows any enlisted servicemembers or junior officers, but he chose not to respond.

We welcome any tips you may wish to share. operationyellowelephant at gmail dot com.

At 19 July, 2007 11:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best chance for GOP success is to send the White House to Oz, for Cheney to find a heart, and Bush to find a brain.

At 19 July, 2007 17:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I apologize for politicizing this thread, oye.

It's your site and I respect your mission.


At 19 July, 2007 19:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supporters of this blog are doing it safely from their homes while young Republicans (check overseas absentee voting stats as proof)are over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting. If they wish to make erroneous statements like the often do on this site, they should first be a man and join the military themselves.

Please share us the lies about them not wanting you. We know that is BS.

At 19 July, 2007 20:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That said, you should know that we have Asked The Question of Democrats. We asked Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) whether he personally knows any enlisted servicemembers or junior officers, but he chose not to respond.

We welcome any tips you may wish to share. operationyellowelephant at gmail dot com.

Hey , I asked you to inquire with DEMOCRATS about them going to war...Not Leiberman, who is WIDELY known to be a bit out of favor with Dems. Ask other people...Not Lieberman,.,,who is almost a Repub in his stances,,,,He is NOT A BIG DEMOCRAT ANYMORE! Give me a break! Ask the big guns,,,like say Edwards or Clinton,,,or others that at first supported the war,,,WHO IN THEIR FAMILY IS FIGHTING! WHO WAS AT RISK OF BEING SENT OVER WHEN YOU VOTED FOR THIS! Not Leibermoron...He is considered a traitor , and asking him is just like asking another Republican.

You could take my request serious or give out a neatly worded piece of garbage aimed to mislead...You chose the latter. You sound like the frekin BOOBS from capitol hill. Do us all a favor and ask well to do heavy leaning DEMOCRATS who in their family was serving at the time you supported the war! Otherwise your whole campaign here is partisan BS! Get with the PEOPLE not the politicians! WTF is wrong with you...such a good idea and you use it only half wayt? That is a shame!

At 20 July, 2007 22:44, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (19 July, 2007 20:32)-

You have a point. Stay tuned for something on all the Presidential candidates, starting with the junior Senator from New York.

You're at least more reasonable than the Young Republican who writes these long, mostly-off-topic posts claiming that we're in Iraq because of the Democratic Party.

At 21 July, 2007 14:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you. I will check in and look for your posts about all the candidates. At this point in time, the anti-war activism should truly expand it's way of thinking. I mean, democrats can safely say, I am anti-war and vote that way when they know it will not actually stop the war. When and if they take power, (WH) I would not be surprised at all if they use the old....With the information I am privy to now...I can not keep my campaign promise to withdraw immediately routine. You should (to use one of Bush's words) PRE_EMPT that possibility by holding every leaders feet to the fire. I am a democrat, who is completely disillusioned by watching my parties "activists" use the same intolerant and hateful type of acts the right does. Among these acts are smear campaigns, hateful statements and technically accurate complaints that fail to mention the same type of garbage happening on our side. You need to look no futrher then Obama's campaign, using the old Bushlike tactic of having someone put a "video online" then saying they did not OK this campaign workers video smear of another candidate. The Bushies claimed the swift boat boys were not "affiliated with their campaign...It is all a bunch of BS. You know it and I know it. IT IS TIME TO HOLD ALL CANDIDATES AND LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE!

I am not anti-war, I am however anti-wrong war. Iraq was a decidely calculated attempt to control oil resources. It had nothing to do with terrorism. Had the stupid Republican great,,,,Ronald Reagan not killed off Jimmy Carters ideas about alternate energy development, Our country would be independant by now and therefore much more secure from attacks. Osama could eat sand and drink his oil for all we would care,,,We would have no interest in that area except possibly to monitor the Israeli situation. Perhaps a smarter democratic candidate could push alternate energy development as a way to national security. I seriously doubt they have the guts or brains to make that case. However I will join in the campaign of the first decent candidate that figures that out. Fact is I will die waiting for anyone of these guys to bring that case forward to the American people. You see, even the Democrasts are owned by big oil.

When will democratic activists hold democratic candidates responsible for playing along with the present rules of this corrupt system? Even the media is complicit. Electing a democrat changes very little in the grand scheme. It is going to take activism with a non partisan and determined slant......aiming for anyone who needs to be hit...to truly change this country. When you gentleman decide it is that time...let me know, and I can garantee you...a vast number of mild conservatives will join you too. You see if you talk from a non partisan place and truly try to help fix things...People will see that, understand it's not about fat politicians or Dems against repubs anymore...The us vs them will be the people vs the corrupt! THAT CAUSE WILL BRING IN AMERICANS FROM EVERY PARTY!

I hope you can understand this stuff! Good day!

At 05 August, 2007 14:28, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (21 July, 2007 14:33)-

Thank you for your comments, most of which (again) are not directly related to our topic.

You are quite right that those members of the loyal opposition eligible to serve [healthy heterosexuals c. 39-and-under today] will have some major soul-searching to do in the event that they become our governing party after the next election.

National leadership has its responsibilities along with powers and authorities. And that includes dealing with whatever problems and challenges face our great nation as of 12:00 Noon January 20, 2009.


Post a Comment

<< Home