Why did these guys have to die? There’s no real answer.
The U.S. military announced the death of an American soldier wounded in Iraq on Tuesday, bringing to 2,000 the number of American service members killed since the war started in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Earlier, the military announced the deaths of two Marines in fighting with insurgents last week in a village west of Baghdad.
Just before the toll hit 2,000, President Bush warned the nation to brace for an even higher casualty count as the mission there has more work remaining to be successful.
Yeah, cause it’s not like he or his kin has to fight those wars or anything.
According to the right, 2000 soldiers dead in Iraq isn’t news, while Michelle Malkin claims that 2,000 dead is of no significance.
Related
Lawbreaker Frist
John McCain and Cindy McCain Didn’t Vote For Bush In 2000
“You Can’t Trust Republicans With Your Money”
Hah. A website criticising CNN’s headline choice.
Let’s see what else CNN declares as news in that very same headline-grab…
“DNA to determine WWII iceman’s ID”
“Harry Potter’s new terrors: Voldemort, girls”
“Goodbye, Howard Stern, Hello, David and Adam and…”
“‘Cruel’ Goldfish bowls banned in Rome”
CNN has a knack for not reporting actual news, but it’s not becuase they’re liberal. They don’t care what the the headlines are, so long as people click on them.
Iraq War: 2000 US Dead
Shortly before U.S. military deaths in Iraq reached 2,000 on Tuesday, the chief spokesman for the American-led multinational force called on reporters covering the conflict not to look at the event as a milestone…
elrod…
So then you must fall back on the old standby…Bush doesn’t care about the people who are over there, or their families back home.
Feel free to cut-and-paste other posts about how he doesn’t attend funerals weekly, or didn’t give a second private audience to the mother of one of those 2000, etc. ad nauseum. He just doesn’t care.
Scratch,
While many, many people support the war AND are either over there fighting it, or have close friends and family doing so, Oliver’s post referenced the President alone, not war supporters generally. The “He” clearly refers to Bush.
Yeah, while I think you’re wrong to support the war, you aren’t the commander in chief and the one ultimately responsible.
Well, they’re right to say that the 2,000th soldier to die isn’t any more important than the first…or the next. But big round numbers have a resonance. They remind us of how far we’ve come and what price has been paid to get us here.
elrod…
The He clearly refers to Bush.
An old post by Oliver (removed from the archives in one of the server changes,) begins this way:
Submitted by Oliver Willis on Sat, 10/02/2004 – 11:24pm.
Hey, its not their kid’s asses on the line, right?
He was referring collectively to the “White House.” So according to this remark and many others like it, if you make a decision regarding this war, either in personal opinion or in actionable policy, you must not have anything personal at stake.
Oliver…
…you aren t the commander in chief and the one ultimately responsible.
I’m not sure what that statement of the obvious does for your case. Are you saying that all the people who support the war and do have a personal stake would change their mind and not hold the same beliefs if they suddenly became president? How about all the parents who encouraged their sons and daughters to join the military, then had to watch them go off to a war in Iraq that they supported? Is their stake any smaller or their commitment less firm because they are not the president?
Oliver, this may be difficult for you to understand, but I supported the war from the start and I still do. And though I have almost zero chance of going their myself, my only brother is on the line to go at some point, and most of my good friends are either there, have been there, or will be going there. The man after whom I named my only son is in Fallujah right now.
Your opposition to the war doesn’t bother or offend me, as there are plenty of valid arguments both for and against. But I think it’s a mistake to lean on the argument that people who support the war find it easy to do so because they don’t have anything on the line.
Oliver…
Another no brainer…but what does that have to do with pointing out that Bush has no kin in Iraq? If he did, would he be less responsible? Your original remark implies either that 1) only people with family or friends over there should be allowed to make policy decisions or 2) nobody with family or friends over there would ever make any of the same decisions as Bush. I don’t believe either is true.
Everyone who supports the war bears responsibility, but the buck stops with Bush cause he’s the President.
Oliver,
I am no disciple of Michelle Malking, but in her defense she simply points to an article that quotes some high brass saying that 2000 is not a significant number, and that people will spend time on the semantics rather than the substance. I can’t say that he is wrong at all. I am not lumping you into this group, but I am sure that there were many people who were against the war who already had their blog posts ready to publish before the 2000th G.I. died. I am sure that they didn’t realize that at a conscious level, but they were “happy” to say, “I told you so.” Whether or not Bush has “kin” in theater right now is of absolutely no consequence, and all of this talk of “supporting the war” amazes me. How in the hell do you or do you not “support a war” that your country is engaged in. If you work a job and pay taxes you are supporting the war. Whether you agree with the rationale behind the war or not is your personal business. I get sick of people talking about people who agree with what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan as if they are wrong just because either they have not served, or have no family in-country. Since when did military service become a prerequisite for opinions for or against anything that deals with the country. I am not getting on you, per se, I am just making a point. If I were to deploy….again….I would be doing my job, what I swore an oath to do, I would be there to do my job while simultaneously charging myself with the welfare or my men. Some people would have you believe that I am doing so because I am brain-washed or came from the ghetto and have no other means to sustain myself. We shouldn’t paint ethnic groups, or military people with a broad brush.
I believe that if Barbara and Jenna Bush were on the front lines, he’d think twice about going to war.
But I think it s a mistake to lean on the argument that people who support the war find it easy to do so because they don t have anything on the line.
It’s not a mistake; for many, it is easy to support a war in which you’re not asked to make any sacrifices. And the ’some of my best friends’-argument is meaningless for any number of reasons.
The fact is if you truly support this war, you’re morally obligated to join up if you can.
I’m sure if Bush had a son in the military, we wouldn’t be at war.
Say, that gives me an idea. Why don’t we hold the President’s son or nearest relative hostage in the military, so that if they declare war on somebody, they have to send the relative over there first? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Of course, it’s always possible that loved ones of Bush have already gone to Iraq, are in Iraq, or have died in Iraq friends, relatives or neighbors, whatever). You have no idea, which shows you what a specious argument it is.
So our body count doesn’t matter, but the body count of insurgents does? Wierd.
I think if one’s family member were in the service yet if you felt the war was necessary, you would go to war anyhow for the greater good – for example, Afghanistan, or WWII. I think you would think twice when the war is one which is fought for no conceivable reason and has no moral underpinnings, like say… Iraq.
Let’s explain a difference to Chickenhawk Brandon.
And if you really support your local fire or police department, you re morally obligated to join up if you can.
War should–and must–be a last resort. In this case, it was not. It was a war of choice. As a result, we’ve seen 2000 servicemen dead and tens of thousands wounded. Many of these wounded will never know a normal life again.
We also know that there exists a severe recruiting shortage. As a result, many soldiers have been subject to ’stop loss’ policies and have had their tours extended or are subject to multiple tours. The US military has reached a point where it cannot meet its commitments elsewhere.
Now, I support many things–the police department, fire department my church, etc. But none of them are having any problem meeting their recruitment goals.
Therein lies the difference.
Should the police call me up and say they need my help–I’m there for them. The fire department needs me for something–I’d be pleased to help.
OTOH, Chickenhawk Brandon, the military isn’t meeting its recruitment needs. Because you won’t help out–there’s some soldier who has to stay in longer, to be exposed to a greater risk of harm.
And if you really support your local fire or police department, you’re morally obligated to join up if you can.
Interesting thinking. Did you argue the same thing during the first Gulf War? I was stop lossed for several months while deployed. There were many people who supported that war…where were they?
The fact is if you truly support this war, you re morally obligated to join up if you can.
Figures. Leave it to Flanagan to use the left wing equivalent of moral bullying. “If you support the war, sign up chickenhawk!”
It’s the lamest of the lame arguments. When one cannot defend a position, they fall back on nonsense like this. It is in the same vein of when liberals scream “Racism!” when discussing issues such as affirmative action or “Homophobe!” when discussing issues like gay marriage.
It’s a cynically delivered charge meant to do one thing: to completely snuff out any substantive discourse. What it does is merely force one side of the argument to go on the defensive moving the focus of the actual issue off to the side.
In short, it’s the tactic of an intellectual midget and Jadegold Flanagan uses it all the time.
Interesting thinking. Did you argue the same thing during the first Gulf War?
Well, seeing as I was in the service–they certainly knew where to find me.
But the first Gulf War was the result of Bush the Smarter’s terrific blunder.
You can always tell when somebody does not have much to add to the discussion, because they start attempting to dictate who should and should not be allowed to speak to an issue, or start calling them names like chickenhawk, etc …
No conceivable reason and no moral underpinnings ? Give me a break.
Gotta give you credit, hyperbole is your friend.
Yes–demands.
People join the service for any number of reasons. And they understand they may well be placed in harm’s way. That’s the reality.
But acknowledging that doesn’t give us license to put them in harm’s way arbitrarily or based on lies. As I noted earlier, the decision to go to war must be a last resort. This was a war of choice.
And certainly some people can’t join up for a number of reasons–health, age, etc. But that shouldn’t stop them from serving in other ways–working at a VA hospital, one of the service organizations, etc.
Support the war? What exactly is left to support? How does what’s going on in Iraq make present-day America safer?
This is all about politics. If you don’t support the war, it’s an indictment of the failed Bush administration. They must defend the dumbest President in the history of our great nation, come hell or high water.
In 1998, we defended a guy who got a blow job, and lied under oath. Perjury.
Now, the right is defending a guy who exaggerated reasons for war, and 2000 deaths later, they’re still doing it.
Think I’m nuts? Try thinking what would be going on in this country if Al Gore had started this war.
I call them body count apolgists. Jay, Frank and the rest of you. You continually come up with countless excuses for this war and the casualties that have resulted from it.
And Jay…please don’t reinforce our view of you even further by mentioning FDR and Bush in the same sentence.
And the rest of you who have sons, daughters, relatives and friends..and STILL support the war? To my dying day, I won’t understand you.
They aren’t defending America. They’re trying to survive a lie.
JK
Again, Jay C., if you make demands of others you are unwilling to take on yourself you re a hypocrite.
Demands? Excuse me, but the people who join the military do so knowing of the possibility of them going to fight in a war. It’s not a ‘demand’ on my part. It’s a an order they are following from their superiors. Are 75 year old men who support the war hypocrites as well? Or do you think they should join up and take their walkers to the front lines?
Especially when those you place such demands on are stretched to the breaking point.
Yeah well, I guess Bush could have gone the route of Wilson and FDR and used a draft to force people to join the military to go and fight. Funny, but I I don’t recall reading about FDR’s crippled ass fighting Japs in the Pacific. What a hypocrite!
Of course it may well be that Jay C. isn t up to military service for some reason.
You’re correct. I enlisted in the Army, but the vision in my right eye was too poor for me to join. Did away with any chance I had of being a cop too as my eyesight kept me out of the academy.
Again, Jay C., if you make demands of others you are unwilling to take on yourself–you’re a hypocrite. Especially when those you place such demands on are stretched to the breaking point.
Of course it may well be that Jay C. isn’t up to military service for some reason.
Only 2,000
Every one of the 2,000 servicemen and -women who has died in Iraq is an enormous loss. Each will leave a gaping hole in many lives, those of family, friends and even entire communities.
And yet, as the media and the left launches into their 2…
Jadegold…
Well, seeing as I was in the service they certainly knew where to find me.
Well, I’m glad to see that I don’t have to get involved in a game of “mine is bigger.” I wasn’t expecting you to make allowances for my prior service in your requirement that I can’t support the war if I’m not on active duty. Since you have already exempted yourself on those grounds, then I can just let you know that I fall into the same category. They know where to find me. In fact, if the Commandant called me tomorrow, I could be in his office in 30 minutes. On the other hand, once he saw my gut, he’d probably tell me to go out and sell war bonds instead.
As far as the “best friends”, I’m not at all sure what you mean by that not being a valid point. If I had to list in order the most devastating loss to me personally, it would be my brother, my friends, then me. Maybe you remember those feelings from when you were on active duty. When I was in, I lost an average of one friend a year just in training, and a few more after I got out. That was painful, but I knew their commitment was as great as mine, and didn’t feel that they were cheated or disrespected in any way by the people who issued the orders.
JadeGold the Putz: There are several glaring errors in your posts. As usual, they involve glaring holes in your logic, and unproved assertions.
The fact is if you truly support this war, you re morally obligated to join up if you can.
First of all, you’re not explaining what “if you can” means. Is it like abortion, where it means (as it does to liberals) any reason I can think of?
Also, I would argue that you are not “morally obligated” to be in the military just because you support a war. You’re only morally obligated not to decline opportunities to serve (as in “avoiding the draft”).
It was a war of choice
And, what, exactly, is a “war of choice”? At some point in time, the decision to go to war is a choice — that’s why it’s called a “declaration of war.”
We also know that there exists a severe recruiting shortage./i>
The recruiting shortage is far from severe — the increases were less than anticipated. They are at normal levels now. Since they are, perhaps you may now explain why this even enters into the war discussion. Surely you’re not suggesting that recruitment is off because the war is becoming unpopular among discerning left – wing 17 year olds?
If you re going to advocate others must go into harm s way, it isn t credible to say except for me.
I think that’s entirely up to you, and I defy you to substantiate it. I think you’re just changing around the “moral obligation’ argument to a ‘credibility’ argument. But it’s still subjective and relative, and not substantive.
Again, Jay C., if you make demands of others you are unwilling to take on yourself you re a hypocrite.
Actually, no JG the P, you’re wrong: A hypocrite is “a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives”, not at all what you are saying.
It wasn’t a specific question about your service, but about the use of the “chickenhawk” meme. Did you see others as chickenhawks in previous wars that were more popular?
Our actions in Afghanistan are generally supported by the mainstream in America…are people who support Afghanistan but not Iraq chickenhawks?
For anyone interested in the progress of phoney Niger docs story, Doug Feith and Michael Ledeens’ role in all of this;
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_23.php#006838
Actually, No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite
Public forum; none of your business.
Here’s another more expansive def.
One who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in
religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their
hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). “The hypocrite’s hope shall perish” (Job 8:13).
The Hebrew word here rendered “hypocrite” rather means the “godless” or
“profane,” as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.
There’s more;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite
P.S. “Speaking of gnat scat”. And, BTW, I didn’t know you were JG the P’s advocate.
Once again, minding my business, instead of your own.
Leo,you are, once again, incorrect. My definition comes from Princeton’s WordNet,and your definition from the “People’s Enyclopedia.”
The word “hypocrite” does not suggest that you have made demands of others that you are unwilling, and / or unable to take on yourself.
2,000 U. S. Military Deaths in Iraq
As you ve surely heard by now, there have now been more than 2,000 U. S. military deaths in Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Some Iraqis sympathized with U.S. forces on Wednesday after hearing the American death toll in the Iraq war had reached 2,000…
This has nothing whatever to with making “demands of others you are unwilling to take on yourself”. Whatever you might be, you’re not a hypocrite.
This guy is no hypocrite either;
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/10/aides_to_be_ind.html
Tomorrow there will be a news item that will knock the 2000th death ‘way off the front page. Ol’ Karl Rove is a veritable master when it comes to leading the news media around. And he’s even got Scooter to help him out this time.
He may not be a hypocrite, but he certainly could be a prevaricator.
“Capital treason”, indeed.
I can pretend to be Instadunce, too:
“Capital treason”, heh.
Soapbox time.
This liberal is growing extremely weary of the “join the military or shut up” talk. Or the “Bush daughter’s” mantra. For a time, it was seen as a clever device to stir up the pot. Now it’s becoming part of the regular mantra, on the left.
We have a volunteer army. They are there to preserve, protect, and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic (if I recall my oath properly from many, many years ago). They follow the orders of their superiors, and strictly observe the chain of command, up to the Commander in Chief. As a soldier, that is one of your primary responsibilities.
Jay has NO MORE moral obligation to join the Army than anyone else, if he supports the war. So lay off him, and the silly argument.
People, we live in a democracy, remember? Freedom of speech, 1st Ammendment, and all that? Have some of you lost your minds? Jay pays taxes, as we all do. 20% of our tax dollar goes to the Department of Defense. Why? To fund a military that protects us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. To protect Jay’s Constitutional right to free speech. To protect YOUR right to vent on this blog.
So, please do us all a favor and shut the hell up about whether or not Jenna Bush should strap on an M-16. OK? Let’s try to be a bit more intelligent about our opposition to the war, OK? Some of you sound like school children.
Those soldiers volunteered to join the service. They follow orders. That is what they do. They are extraordinarily special people who serve their country–they have earned, and deserve our respect.
In Iraq, however, I take strong exception to the idea that they are defending the United States of America from “enemies foreign.”
I said it above, and I will say it again. They’re defending a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration. 2,000 lives later, people on the right are still perpetuating the lies.
Let’s stay on topic.
JK
You couldn’t be more wrong, JK. Well, you could be Jay, I suppose.
Nobody is demanding chickenhawks shut up. They’re perfectly free to bloviate on any subject they wish. What they can’t demand is that we give it any credence.
As you correctly note, they are defending a lie. Are we to give this defense of a lie credence when these defenders refuse to have the courage of their proclaimed convictions? Really, this is the moral test; if you’re willing to expose others to harm’s way–shouldn’t you be prepared to place yourself in harm’s way?
Where you err badly, JK, is forgetting that these defenders of a lie are not merely seeking to have their pro-war views heard–they are also the same folks branding anyone who doesn’t support the war as ‘anti-American’ or ‘pro-terrorist.’
Nobody’s demanding the chickenhawks be sent to the frontlines of Falluja; chances are better than good that someone who enlists will wind up repairing APCs at Fort Leonard Wood or inventorying rotor blades in Atsugi rather than see a day of combat. The issue here is that chickenhawks learn the concept of sacrifice–the same sacrifice they demand of others.
JadeGold the Putz: You are so wrong you’re running out of breath — and that’s hard to do when you’re typing.
It is, indeed, a stupid argument. There is absolutely, positively, NO moral obligation, or requirement for any person to place him / her self in harm’s way, before you place others in harm’s way — it is a fiction. It’s a liberal twist on, “Oh, yeah? Where were you in the war, buddy?”
It didn’t rear it’s stupid ugly head, until Clinton’s “War Room” came up with it as a way to deflect the flack he was getting for his draft – dodger letter.
“Chickenhawks” don’t need to learn the meaning of sacrifice from the likes of you and the Kos / DU crowd, many of whom never wore a uniform . Remember, you are wrong when you say they demand sacrifice of others, for two reasons:
1) They, the alleged “chickenhawks” don’t demand sacrifice of anyone. You might say that if all the men in Iraq joined up before the war began, and then found themselves shipping out to the Sandbox. You might say that, if wounded soldiers didn’t heal up and head right back to be with their buddies. You might say that, if re -enlistments were predicated on a guaranteed return to the states, when, in fact, many times, the opposite is true.
2) There is no “demand”: a man or woman can join up to be whatever their test scores say they can be. There is no demand by the powers that be that a man or woman go here or go there. Men and women in the Armed Services have all kinds of options. When I was in the service — about thirty years ago, we were told the number of support personnel in a war zone (like, say, Viet nam) was about 7 or 8 support personnel to one combat soldier.
My guess is that the number of support personnel for each combat soldier has probably gone up. There are, I mean to say, a lot of non – dangerous places to be in the military.
The argument is bogus for several other reasons, which you have no doubt heard. I thought these two were rarely heard — especially because I thought them up myself, just now.
That Marine is pretty confused — Professor Franco has no excuse.
If you’re opposed to the war, have the guts to refuse to fight in it. If you’re going to be good Marine, then don’t demoralize your fellow Marines by railing against the war.
Prof Franco, on the other hand, who (like JG the P) thinks he speaks for people who support the war, when he says they would “never dream of … sending their own children to fight in [the war]”
I can almost understand the “clever by half” JadeGold the Putz buying into that crap, but a College Professor? He’s obviously got tenure, but then again… Who knows?
JadeGold the Putz: You are called the Putz with good reason. You prove it yet again.
At least this time, you didn’t blame your inability to prove a point on my “family problems”. You did, of course, feel it relevant to try to make getting an education the equivalent of “not having a career” — a sure sign of ignorance, if ever I saw one. Actually, I’m on my way to my third career, Putz, how many careers have you had?
Posted at Echaton earlier:
Student’s deployment brings home Iraq war to Bowdoin College campus :
“But the first Gulf War was the result of Bush the Smarter s terrific blunder” ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Are you freaking kidding me ?
Poor, poor Frankie. I suspect much in life confuses him.
Again, the chickenhawks believe that because someone has elected to join the military, their lives become subject to the whims and fantasies of the chickenhawk. Wrong. In return for becoming an instrument of our nation’s national security, there exists a compact between the soldier and society wherein the soldier will not be used as a political tool or an instrument of corporate interests.
That’s what happened in Iraq.
Chickenhawks have no concept of sacrifice. As I’ve noted, joining the military doesn’t guarantee you’ll see combat; in fact, the odds are you won’t. But the sacrifice remains–you’ll likely be separated from family, your career (if unlike Frankie, you have one) will be on hold or delayed, you may incur financial setbacks. All of these are reasons the chickenhawks bang their keyboards instead of heading to the recruiters’ office.
And, of course, there is the risk the chickenhawk will be placed in harm’s way. There is a risk of death or serious injury. Yet, as chickenhawks demand others pay the ultimate price–the chickenhawk cannot even muster the courage to campaign for better VA funding, for better veteran benefits, etc. Why? Because chickenhawks could care less about the troops–this is merely a game to them. They could care less about Iraq–what matters is protecting their political masters.
Hey, weren’t the left supposed to be having big parties about hitting 2000? Where are these loud celebrations taking place?
But the first Gulf War was the result of Bush the Smarter s terrific blunder ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Sure–April Glaspie, anyone?
And before anyone suggests Glaspie was acting alone or something–remember, we had all kinds of intel (satellite imagery, etc) showing Iraq was massing its military on the border.
Those who do not have power over the story that dominates their lives, the power to retell it, rethink it, deconstruct it, joke about it, and change it as times change, truly are powerless, because they cannot think new thoughts. — Salman Rushdie
JadeGold the Putz:
Here are some interesting comments about Iraq and Kuwait, none of which suggest that Glaspie was acting alone:
>Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990: “It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law.”
Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on September 21, 2003, disagrees with this analysis: “In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.” Consistent with this line of thought, Tariq Aziz claimed in a 1996 PBS interview that Iraq “had no illusions” prior to the invasion of Kuwait about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.
James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS interview: “[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That’s standard. That’s what you always say. You would not have said, “Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we’ll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you’ll all be destroyed.” She wouldn’t say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.”
In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had “repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait.” She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.”
Those pesky facts!
Leo — are you talking about JadeGold the Putz?
I know that this thread is probably not active but I had to add my 2 pennies. Jadegold-why are you banging on your keyboard instead of heading over to Iraq to fight the imperialist chickenhawk brigade? I really doubt the seriousness of your convictions as anti-war. You are morally obligated, as an opponent of the US war effort to fight us. And you can’t just do it behing a computer monitor; by your logic, you must pick up a rifle and go fight. PUTZ!
Here’s one
>> Really, this is the moral test; if you re willing to expose others to harm s way shouldn t you be prepared to place yourself in harm s way?
Jadegold…I admire your conviction. But the answer, is no. That is why we have a volunteer, paid, professional military. The volunteers who join the military understand the risks.
Now, where it gets interesting is if we stretch ourselves too thin, and President Bush, or President Hillary Clinton, or McCain, ends up reinstating the draft. This is not pie in the sky….this could *really* happen, simply out of dire necessity.
I wonder how people on the right will feel if we start sending thousands of young men and women too Iraq who DID NOT choose to join the military? When *their* sons and daughters stand a chance of being the ones in harms way. What will happen then?
JK
Boy, those candlelight ceremonies are raucous! Party on!
And all this time I thought they were to memorialize something. Would the right prefer that no mention be made of the 2000 dead?
But the answer, is no. That is why we have a volunteer, paid, professional military. The volunteers who join the military understand the risks.
Sure they do. And they also trust they won’t be used as cannon fodder for no good purpose.
An analogy: You go to a restaurant. Your server is a paid volunteer who will attend to your dining needs and wants. Does that give you license to spill your drinks or dump your food on the floor?
I certainly would prefer that MoveOn not use the number as a fundraiser.