Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2006 > January > 03 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USfrom today’s washington post
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A Life, Wasted Let’s Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward “Augie” Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, “Your son is a true American hero.”
Since then, two reactions to Augie’s death have compounded the sadness.
At times like this, people say, “He died a hero.” I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases “he died a hero” or “he died a patriot” or “he died for his country” rub raw.
“People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died,” our daughter, Amanda, has said. “He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn’t make his death okay. I’m glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn’t make it okay either.”
The words “hero” and “patriot” focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don’t appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in “the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices.”
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don’t have to experience: The day Augie’s unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to “clear, hold and build” Iraqi towns, there aren’t enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was “less and less worth it,” because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can’t hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie’s grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: “Your son was a true American hero.” Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don’t know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence — a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death — and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq — was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator — a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation — a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By candide
January 3, 2006 07:11 AM | Link to this
It is hard to tell someone their son or husband died in Iraq for nothing. But the truth will out and the truth matters. Preachers will tell you that a loved one was called by God, but rational people know that God, if he exists, does not interfere in human affairs to that extent. Death is a tragedy, the draw of fate, an accident. It cannot be rationalized as good. In a just war, it can be good. Iraq is not a just war — a folly and a crime.
In the long run someone who lost a loved one will be consoled in any number of ways — but not by lies from the government or from the churches.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this
Of course my heartfelt condolences go out to Mr. Schroeder and I too say that his son was a hero. Just imagine the grief he suffers and compound that with the senselessness of a love one being slaughtered while they innocently work in an office building, ride a subway or attend a family wedding party. The brave men who sacrificed their lives in Iraq did so to protect us from the fascist killers who long to see us all dead. Not only should we mourn the loss of our brave soldiers, we should also honor them. We definitely should not be politicizing it.
By Brian Curtis
January 3, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this
Mr. Schroeder is right; his son died needlessly, and that’s something that should shame us all for allowing it to happen.
By Flashback
January 3, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
Does this not sound like deja vu? “Because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places.” Why does history have to consistently repeat itself. It is out there for everyone to see. The only man in the entire Bush cabinet that learned from history is gone. Ironically, he was the only “vulcan” not among the ranks of the chicken hawks. This insurgency will claim the lives of many more young men who keep “coming back to clear the same places” before Iraqiazation occurs. Is it too much to ask of our leaders, that they at least not repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again? Those of us who served in Vietnam know the feeling of going back to the same place again and again and taking casualties each and every time. In 08 I pray to God that we find someone like Colin Powell who knows first hand what is being asked of these young men and women. Someone that has the lessons of history indelibly burned in their brains and not another neo-con who sees the blood of American soldiers as some resource to be used as the means to an end. Please America! In 2008, no more neo-cons. No more chicken hawks. They just don’t care.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
I am amazed that we discard human life so easily like it is nothing. A I struggle everyday to stay alive, I do it because life is special and nobody wants to die.
A Life, Wasted Let’s Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
Yes, let’s stop the madness.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
The lack of seriousness of those on the left with concern for the safety and security of the United States has never been more apparent. It does not bode well for the future of our country with the nuclear ambitions of terrorist states like Iran on the horizon. Oh, wait a minute, the libs aren’t in charge, I forgot, never mind.
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
LoserAndy, Just answer this one question. Why hasn’t your hero (Bush) caught the real person who killed the people in the office tower, the subway, the wedding party?
Let’s get back to basics and talk facts. Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden did all of the damage. Iraq and Saddam were personal vendettas. Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR are bleeding the treasury dry.
Your and your hero’s hubris and blind allegiance will ultimately be your downfall. The way the “war on terror” has been prosecuted should shame every American. War profiteering, lack of counsel, no foresight, dictator-ish power grabbing, excuse upon excuse upon excuse.
You disgust me. You’re a fool. And mostly I pity you because, ultimatly, you’re wrong.
By leighway
January 3, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Mike Lukovitch for keeping us focused on this and the other tragedies befouling this country. Paul Schroeder spoke the truth. So many others have spoken out, as well and have been branded traitors and worse. It’s like an epidemic of rabies affecting the minds of those who don’t wish to think for themselves, but would rather follow along behind others who have proven themselves to be liars and self-aggrandizers. Pray for all of us.
By Jarhead
January 3, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
To the parents of my brother Marines who have lost their a child, you have my heart felt condolences. To the rest of you who have never picked up a weapon and stood your post, you sicken me with your constant attacks on those in power. Your critical comments spew from your mouths like acidic vomit only meant to destroy and would likewise criticize when the wolf is at the door and you’ve p** your pants because the military didn’t act quickly enough. Do you think those idiots John Kerry or Al Gore would’ve done any better…probably not. Gore would be more concerned with the environmental impact and Kerry would’ve awarded himself another purple heart because he got a paper cut authorizing all middle eastern armies to overrun Isreal. Unfortunatly, it is true that we are undermanned in Iraq just as in Vietnam and nobody is ready to take on Iran like we weren’t ready to take on China and Russia during Vietnam. So what happens when we listen to the sissys who want to pull out? We have an islamic state that stretches from the banks of the Jordan to Kashimir. You ready to fight that war because that’s what’ll happen if we suddently withdraw from Iraq - Bagdad will fall just like Saigon in ‘75 and good old CNN will be there to cover it but the islamic extremists won’t stop there. Life as you know it in the free world will come to an abrupt stop. So either be part of the solution or SHUT THE H#LL up!
By Jesus
January 3, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
By jack
January 3, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Want somebody to blame for the mess in the middle east? Thank that idiot Bill Clinton who gutted the intelligence agencies and left us completely blind.
*CNN: A former CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the U.S. spy agency could need a decade to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism. *
By Andy
January 3, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Andys -Dontwannabe!: Are you really that much of a blooming idiot to think that there is one man running around killing all of these innocent people? If so, you have been sucking your thumb way too hard. You should really relax and let the adults handle it.
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
The grief of Paul Schroeder can only be imagined for most of us. But Schroeder, in his lamentations, has forgotten the imperatives of his son. His son thought this war worthwhile enough to VOLUNTEER to fight there. His son thought a war that his country found necessary was something he could not forsake. He may have thought that a war in Iraq might prevent a war in America. That last sentence is only speculation. The fact that he was a hero is not speculation. His father does not want to hear that. Tragedies bring on the great need to blame. The father, in the abyss of sadness, has blamed this country, not the terrorists in Iraq. The father’s mind is mired in grief. The son’s mind was very clear. He fought and died for the country he loved, his America.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Lets start with this
Like I said, they are all criminals, lock them all up and get our reputation back to be a great country once again.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
“Would you join (the military) today?,” he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
“No,” replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party’s leading spokesmen on military issues.
Look at how the lib reporter has to lead this confused old man to get him to say things the degenerate lefties want to hear. Why do they have to make it a practice to take advantage of these obviously afflicted and mourning individuals. Do the pinkos have no shame?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Talk about shame, from The Vent :Marines did not put up that anti-Murtha billboard on I-85, Republicans did. Ah, the age of misinformation
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Are you suggesting that freedom of speech should be limited to speech you agree with?
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
America is not at war. Most Americans just don’t care. The government lacks the moral courage and political will to call this nation to arms. They are focused on tax breaks and fear. We are lead by corrupt greedy cowards. They will wage war with other peoples kids on borrowed money.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Here is another take on the Murtha interview the story below it is pretty interesting too. I wonder if the award will be taken to the mother ship?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
RW, No, remember I said let Ann speak and then heckle her off the stage. I think it is funny that Murtha will turn out to be a hero again for standing up to a President who will turn out to be worst than Nixon.
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
getalife,
What VENT was that taken from? It is not in the AJC Metro Vent in today’s paper.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
RW: The libs already are floating around in the “mothership.” Nothing they say surprises me anymore. Just keep the microphones turned on so the voters hear them.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
It was posted on December 28, 2005 on The Vent. Google Murtha billboard.
By SH
January 3, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
MSNBC readers want impeachment Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? 191,805 responses 86% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 4% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.” 8% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 2% I don’t know.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
SH,
Maybe you should take that poll to your Congressperson. You may have to dress it up a little to make it sound like it has any statistical accuracy and you’ll probably want all the loony left web sites to scrub their sites of instructions on how to slam that online poll.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Look, it’s the New Year. Can’t you partisan hacks come up with something worthwhile to write? Your nation is calling you. Perhaps, you chicken hawks could get Cheney, Bu$h, Lieberman, Delay, Rice and Abramoff to lead the parade to the Recruiting Office. If just one of you phonies would suit up it might make a difference. You just want someone else to die for your war. That’s a coward.
By Scooter
January 3, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Daniel, could it be said that you and the left want someone else (the UN) to enforce our cease fire agreements and ensure America’s safety? Oh yeah, I’ll be at the Somber Rerptile thursday night, if you want to come up and call me a coward, or chicken hawk.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Forget the left. Why isn’t this president calling this nation to arms? Why aren’t you in it? Where are the families of the Chicken Hawks? Why are these rat cowards asking my kids to fight, and not their own? By the way, one of mine wants to join. I just don’t want him there alone. Where is the call to National Service?
By Andy
January 3, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Daniel: Does the America you envision discriminate against those who are unable to serve in the military? Do you feel that they shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as those who volunteer to protect us? That they can’t contribute to the national security debate? Would you like to censor their opinions? Do you want them to shut up?
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Answer the question: Where is the call to National Service? Why can’t our leadership lead by example? FDR, Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, JFK and Chuck Hagel all served. I want my children to serve. Answer the question.
By Jay not jay
January 3, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Daniel, “our war”- I guess you are implying all the “chicken hawks”?. I didn’t know that the chicken hawks were the only ones who decided to take action against Saddam.
Yes, Scooter, I’m sure Daniel would entrust our well being to the UN and the EU as well. If anyone would like to see a very good documentary, there is one they have showed a couple of times called “The True Story of Black Hawk Down”, I believe they include it with the Hollywood movie now as well. But you can get a real good look how Clinton and the UN were “cowards” to our troops and some of the opinions of the soldiers who served there.
By Jay not jay
January 3, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Daniel, there is a call to National Service. So you are saying that you want to send your daughters, huh?
By Andy
January 3, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Daniel: I don’t understand your pinko question. Please explain. Are you talking about having the women and children out in front of our soldiers, shielding them? Or maybe human wave attacks of fourteen year olds like they do in Iran? Do you want some American suicide bombers?
Is winning the war on terror, having democracy in Iraq and not being attacked in 4 years not good enough for you?
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Ok, so you can’t read AND thnk at the same time?
By Andy
January 3, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Daniel: I’ve read and thought. You want to drag people out of their houses and conscript them. It’s called mandatory service and it is very prevelant in the communist countries like China.
By sickoftheneocons
January 3, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
It’s common in Isreal too…
By Andy
January 3, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
sickoftheneocons: Once upon a time, Israel has real enemies where as China has to make them up to keep control of their citizens, much like the pinkos would like to do here. And everybody lived happily ever after.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you’d probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members’ dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA’s recent filings—the first under the new rules—helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.
vouchers anyone?
By finch
January 3, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
“China has to make them (enemies) up to keep control of their citizens, much like the pinkos would like to do here.”
Actually, I think it’s the cons who are making up enemies. Iraq comes to mind.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Georgw W. Bush, the most powerful Texas Governor in history. Who knew states rights had come so far in 1998?
By Andy's
January 3, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
The good news is we don’t have to send Joseph Wilson to find this out- Iran can now produce its own yellowcake
But that won’t stop some pinko from going there, drinking some mint julep tea with the locals and telling us BUSH LIED!
By getalife
January 3, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
[From today’s The Vent : How long before Republicans start questioning the validity of Rep. John Murtha’s two Purple Hearts?
/hat tip to Dusty.
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
finch,
Please fill us in on the great plan you must have for the protection of this country. Surely you have one after living next door to JOHN McCAIN in Washington.
So far, you don’t like the war in Iraq (but love the troops, of course). You don’t want any close surveillance of enemy communications in our country. Don’t like George W. Bush in Washinton because he is leading the fight against our enemies but that is irelevant because he is not a DEMOCRAT. This seems to be your idea of defense so far. Is there more?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Has anybody seen the latest Girls Gone Grabblin’ video?
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
getalife,
I don’t question Murtha’s purple hearts. But I do wonder how he could fight for his country in two wars and not validate this one when the Congress, the President and our main allies all approved it. Did Murtha not vote for it himself?
I ask you just as I asked finch: what would be your plan for protecting this country?
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Those who oppose the war should offer what their alternative reaction should be. I accept your sincere and deeply held beliefs that we were wrong to go into Iraq. But let’s look at the situation had we not done so. First, Saddam would remain in power, funneling off oil-for-food money and stocking his palaces (if not his weapons program) while his people starved. If he didn’t have ties with al-Qaida before 9-11, he surely would be plotting a similar alliance. If the world still believed he had nuclear or biological weapons, as all intelligence showed before we went in, how should he be contained? UN sanctions didn’t work, and Saddam only allowed weapons inspectors back in at gunpoint. How do we know they would be allowed to search for weapons unimpeded? Saddam was a cancer that needed to be cut out, however painful the operation might be.
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
And here’s a question no one else has asked: For just how long would we be able to keep Israel from attacking Iraq and reacting to what it likely would deem a serious security threat? If Israeli leaders believe Saddam has nukes, they may not be willing to sit tight any longer. Since 1967, we’ve been holding back the Israelis and fighting their fights in the region because we know that when they start another war, it will be armageddon in the middle east. Do you think the Israelis will hold back and try to limit civilian casualties once they decide to strike? The Muslim world would react in kind, perhaps other superpowers as well, and we will have World War III on our hands. Only by sending our military in to handle the dirty work can we keep the conflict limited to a smaller scale.
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
RW,
I haven’t been grabbling. The last time I saw a cat fish he was about a foot long and had my hook in his mouth and his attack fin ready. I whacked him in the head with a stick and threw him into the river for the crabs. Call PETA!
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
U.S. policy in the Middle East was, and is, based on two realities. One is oil. Yeah, a lot of folks have a problem with this, but the reality is that our economy can’t function without it. Weaning ourselves off petroleum is going to take decades (and yes, we do need to begin; drilling in ANWAR would be a good starting point). Is the “no blood for oil” crowd ready for massive job losses that would result from the spickets being turned off? Are you ready for the massive poverty, hunger and desperation that would result? For some, it would be a nice way to segue into a socialist economy, but the cost is pretty high.
The second reality is Israel, the answer to the never-ending “why do they hate us?” whine. We cast our lot with her back in ‘48, and to change now would be duplicitous of us. If the U.S. believes Israel has a right to exist, we must support her, militarily and economically. That means we must send troops into harm’s way to preserve that nation’s sovereignty and security. To do otherwise is self-absorbed islationism.
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
“S-p-i-c-k-e-t-s was the word edited out there, not what you might think. Not sure why that’s offensive, but whatever. ….
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
I reported you to PETA’s crab torture hotline for feeding them that baby catfish.
Why did Andy become Andy’s? I can’t wait for the detailed plan you are going to get from John McCain’s neighbor, btw.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Dr R,
I think it might the ethnic slur potential that made that edit.
Isn’t it spigots anyway?
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
You’re right; pardon my poor spelling. Gave it the Southern pronounciation and spelled it phonetically.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Dr R,
I bet BigDaddy’s “Dialectizer” would have given it your first spelling.
If you’re using IE this is a free spell checker
Now if I could find something that would allow me to see words that I’ve left out words before I hit post.
By Nikole
January 3, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
No one has adequately addressed the notion that a great number of affluent Americans support this war, but do not have THEIR children fighting it. As a black military wife, I see a large number of minorities fighting and privately disagreeing with this war. Most joined in order to have decent health and education benefits for their families and do not understand why Americans should sacrifice their lives in a war they do not agree with, especially when they come from poverty right here in these United States. In case you can’t tell, I am in agreeance with them.
By Midori
January 3, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
This is too funny!!!!
Top Ten George W. Bush New Year’s Resolutions ……
Fewer decisions based on wild, drunken hunches
Have N.S.A. find out what really happened between Nick and Jessica
Stop using Situation Room monitors to play X-Box 360
More C-SPAN, less “Yes, Dear”
Team up with leading scientists to make Cheetos even cheesier
To capture and bring to justice King Kong
Beat the twins at beer pong
Respond to reporters questions with, “B***, don’t go there”
Scale back on grueling 12-hour work week
“Who needs resolutons? Everythng is fine”
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Nikole, one’s objection to the war shouldn’t be based on whether you have a loved one fighting it. If I object because my son or daughter is in harm’s way, then I’m reacting emotionally and not taking into account the proper policy approach. That’s why our commander in chief needs to remove himself from such emotion and make the right decision, not for the individuals, but for the big picture: Our nation’s long-range security and long-term world peace. Every war involves danger for our soldiers; the question we have to ask each time is whether the long-range goals are worth the cost.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Nicole,
DoD tracks “representativeness” - as Gilroy calls it - very closely. And representativeness can take a whole host of forms - race, education, social status, income, region and so on. “When you look at all of those, you find that the force is really quite representative of the country,” he said in a recent interview. “It mirrors the country in many of these. And where it doesn’t mirror America, it exceeds America.”
The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. Servicemembers have high school diplomas or the general equivalency diploma. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. “To carry representativeness to the extreme, we would have to have a less-educated force or we would want a lower-aptitude force,” Gilroy said.
You can read the rest here
In all sincerity, please thank your husband for me.
By Dusty
January 3, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
RW,
Please visit me in jail. It seems that catfish do NOT have WMDs. Besides that, I have been communicating irrelevance and irresponsibilities (blogs) to irritate the enemy. I shall return after serving my term (right after dinner).
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Keep in mind, too, that many families of soldiers support their efforts and their mission, however concerned they may be for their welfare. But Nikole, let me echo support and appreciation for your husband, and for you and the sacrifice you are making. Even if we disagree on the war, we won’t forget that. And I’ll never tell you that you don’t have the right to give your opinion. Shoot, you have more right than any of us.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Nikole, that is my point! If we are, truly, in a national emergency; all those eligible should serve. If our leadership calls the nation to war; they should lead by example. Why is it that none, zero, zilch, nada; repeat: NONE of the children of the government are in service? Why is it left to your and my children? Where are the rich? The president tells us things are so bad, he has to spy on us. Israel has a mandatory national service. We overuse your husband and the husbands and wives and children of patriots; but the chicken hawks will never go. They are nothing but rat cowards.
By Dr R
January 3, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
I wouldn’t say none without a little more research; you could very well have offspring of Pentagon leaders and members of government involved. But either way, as I said before, the goal is to achieve a long-term policy that makes our nation more secure. If you are reacting emotionally because your loved ones are in danger, you won’t decide on that basis.
A volunteer army is the best way, in this day and age, to assure that we have highly-trained, highly-motivated soldiers. A draft would fill the ranks with legions of troops who don’t want to be there. We no longer need large numbers of sacrificial lambs toting M1 rifles; the modern army uses sophisticated weaponry that requires intense training and a professional approach to soldiering. If our armed forces reflect a lack of diversity, we need to enact better recruiting techniques. For instance, maybe colleges could be more cooperative and not try to ban recruiters from their campuses.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Dusty: When PETA shows up just distract them with some harrowing tale about your neighborhood Honey Baked Ham store, toss in a black car with tinted windows and they will forget all about the catfish.
RW: I have no idea why I came out as Andy’s awhile back. It is one of those mystery’s of life, like why does cartoon boy’s server censor b-imbo and s-pickets. Or why won’t Daniel read your earlier post that has a complete honest resolution to the socialist questions that he asks. Could it be that he already has the answer he’s looking for and no amount of reasoning will change his pinko mind?
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Andy, You didn’t answer my question, which is typical from the right. Why didn’t Bush catch Osama? Failure, corruption, arrogance, incompetance, no answers and no solutions. Just anger. It’s so pitiful.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
The kind of world that Daniel wants: Sudan’s boy soldiers
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
By Andy
January 3, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Andys -Dontwannabe!: Are you really that much of a blooming idiot to think that there is one man running around killing all of these innocent people? If so, you have been sucking your thumb way too hard. You should really relax and let the adults handle it.
You really are a blooming idiot.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Listen up, all you American citizens, there has been a change made to our Constitution: If you are too young, old, disabled or simply do not wish to serve in the Armed Forces but you still wish to exercize your free will to discuss the affairs of government, that’s too F’ing bad, ain’t it? The next time you open your mouth you will be imprisoned in our new concentration camp system, as soon as some of the Republicans in there die off and make room for you. Until that time, SHUT YOUR MOUTHS! We don’t want to hear you.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Good grief you are stupid. In a Democracy the leadership serves at the consent of the governed! If the government can’t raise an Army perhaps something is wrong. We did ok in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, French and Indian War, Civil War, Spanish American War, (Teddy Roosevelt, anyone?) WW1 and WW2. We had Leadership, then. we had leaders who inspired the nation. These rat cowards aren’t serving. What is the message to the rest of us? On the other hand, what was the message to the nation when Teddy led the troops up San Juan Hill? We suffer under a pack of greedy fat toads who lack the moral and political will to lead.
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Dingleberry, You still didn’t answer. you’re whole life is evasion.
In my original, I asked about Al Queda and Osama. Of course one person didn’t do it all, but your fearless leader abandoned the search for the real enemies of the United States to go to Iraq to make some money. And get thousands of American soldiers killed.
My question still stands. Why didn’t we catch Osama?
Perhaps it’s because Neocons need chaos to lead. Obfuscation and lies are easy. Real leadership is easy.
Andy, you have no answers… I hate to share a name. :-(
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Oops, real leadership is difficult.
Democrats know how to lead.
See you in 06.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Midori,
That is too funny. Keep em coming.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
O.K. clown, let’s just assume that you are too stupid to understand the war on terror. Can you tell me who don’t the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie? Who bombed the barracks in Lebanon? Who dragged our soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu? Who blew the hole in the side of the USS Cole? Osama? Moron.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
We suffer under a pack of greedy fat toads who lack the moral and political will to lead.
Really?
By Jay not jay
January 3, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
When did the search for OBL ever end? Are you suggesting now that we invade Pakistan also?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Andys-Dontwannabe!,
Do you have the first freakin’ clue how many of our brave soldiers would be dead if we just had masses of troops roaming through the Hindu-Kush mountains on a manhunt?
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
Well Andork, I think I do understand the war on terror. Firstly, “War on Terror” polled well with the Fox crowd, so that was choosen as the Tag Line. I understand that there were/are so many political crony appointments in different governmental departments that the people who know how to prosecute a war are stymied and frustrated in their efforts to actually win… I know that counsel is ignored and dissenters are cast out.
Secondly, Kaddafi came around. Hamas is now running most of the social services in Palestine, and doing it better than the elected government there. The druglords. Osama and his boys were in Yemen and blew up the Cole.
We’re the strongest, fittest, smartest, best equiped, best trained military force in the world. We don’t have to invade Pakistan, they’re our friends.
How come we can’t catch Osama Bin Laden? Is it because it would p** off the Saudis?
I’m still looking for an answer…?
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this
RW, Yeah. As a matter of fact, TODAY is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.
But we’re not the Sovient Union in 1980.
Do you guys know what Jane’s is? Duh.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
If you watch CNN, there is a story and a book from an ex CIA agent in charge of capturing OBL.
By Jay not jay
January 3, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
Have you ever jumped into a haystack and found a needle on your first try? I think the notion that we have not found OBL on purpose is the silliest thing I’ve heard. Maybe he’s already 6 feet under…
By Scooter
January 3, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
Andy’s dontwannabe, maybe we can’t catch OBL because he is smart, wealthy, has thousands who protect him and he doesn’t want to be caught. If we did capture, or kill OBl would that be a long term remedy to terrorism? Now since you are so demanding that someone answert your questions, I want you to answer that one and one more. W
W@hy do you think that UN cease fire agreements don’t need to be enforced within twelve years? I demand an answer.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
Dont,
So then you agree that we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan?
It’s nice to remember the strength of leadership we had back then in 1980, Jimmah showed those commies boy. “We aren’t coming to your Olympics.”
Nothing like shattering the hopes and dreams of our young athletes to show those Russians how tough you are.
By Scooter
January 3, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this
I love how some think FDR served in the military.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this
Abramoff has plead guilty to three felonies! I only heard the last: “Tax Evasion”. So, he steals millions, bribes these cowards and then cheats America! Meanwhile,”I support the war, so long as someone else is going to die; but don’t interrupt me, I’m stealing money as fast as I can”. This is this government: ” Send our children to die so our cronies can grab the cash”. This rat will sing. The rest of you can serve up another “dog’s breakfast” of whining apologies for these dirt bags.
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this
Jay, We invaded Afganistan on October 7th, 2001! What’s today’s date?
It’s not about a conspiracy. It’s the corruption and lies that this administration tells us to keep us at war.
You’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes. Why? Cause Clinton got a hummer?
Why are you loyal to the crooks who run the country?
New question. Now that we’ve installed a duly elected Islamic theocratic government in Iraq, will we leave if they tell us we’ve won the war in Iraq?
You have no answers.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this
Daniel,
I bet Abramoff wishes Clinton was still in office so he could get a pardon instead of a prison cell.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this
Good article Mike, I think they set an all time high spin level.
Lets leave OBL alone so he can plan his next attack on America.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this
Andys -Dontwannabe!/ pinko /blogger: Osama is dead. There is really no reason to find his corpse. Next stupid pointless mind numbing question, please.
By Andys -Dontwannabe!
January 3, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this
Scooter, Good answer. You actually thought about it instead of looking up the talking point.
Arrogance again. Do you beat your dog if it doesn’t sit?
BTW, every time they shot at us in the 12 years, we blew them up. They never, ever hit us either in those 12 years. Remember?
Also RW, no I don’t think we’re doing the right thing in Afganistan. We don’t have enough troops there. Rumsfeld sqandered them in Iraq. We should be in Afganistan with many more forces that we have, and we’e losing ground to the Taliban again.
You’re all bluster, you don’t do your research and you have no answers.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this
Getalife: There is no doubt in my mind that Congressman Murtha is a veteran whose service deserves our respect. Keep in mind, however, he is now a politician. The battlefield and the objective have changed. Although many have taken this route, I believe that going from honored military service to politics is definitely a step down.
But I agree with you that no one should have ever questioned his past patriotism.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this
The Pinko’s National Security Creed:
-Get the Bush twins into the Army.
-Run around Afghanistan in circles looking for a dead man.
-Conscript into the Navy anyone who has a yellow ribbon on their car.
-Ignore 95% of the terrorists in the world while fighting the war on terror.
-Withdraw!
-Sing pinko songs about how much you support the troops.
-Get the Commander In Chief, that freakin oil monger.
By PinkoAndy
January 3, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this
I never liked “Andys -Dontwannabe!”. Andy, thanks for the new name!
You ARE good for something!
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this
Getalife: BTW, how is it with you? Working hard? Where are you on that progress chart? <—————————————————————> Good Better Best
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
Dont,
Just because you don’t want to hear answers doesn’t mean they haven’t been given.
Maybe if you didn’t act like such a clown you wouldn’t get treated like one.
By Daniel
January 3, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
There’s the “dog’s breakfast”!
By Andy
January 3, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this
“Would you join (the military) today?,� he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
“No,� replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party’s leading spokesmen on military issues.
Look at how the lib reporter has to lead this confused old man to get him to say things the degenerate lefties want to hear. Why do they have to make it a practice to take advantage of these obviously afflicted and mourning individuals. Do the pinkos have no shame?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this
getalife or Objective Observer,
Who, exactly, questioned Mothra’s past patriotism? and the loopy leftist vent speculating that it may happen doesn’t count.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this
OO,
This great American stood up to the President and made a stand. The old stay the course plan was changed due to this man and what does he get for this. A disgusting billboard in Atlanta. He will be a bigger hero when this all plays out.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this
getalife: A hero? You mean like Cindy, aaauuhh, what’s her name, it’s right on the tip of my tongue…. All but forgotten? Will the pinko masses be forlorn over him like they’re not for her?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this
Andy,
It seems Mr. Schroeder has something in common with Cindy.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this
It’s not like Mothra is a one trick pony, or is it?
“They’re subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces,� Murtha said. “Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle.�
Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, “There’s no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don’t agree with that.�
The rest
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
OO,
Sorry I get worked up over Mr. Murtha. Thanks for the question on my progress. Back to the hospital in the morning, I will let you know.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this
getalife: I didn’t choose to use Mr. Schroeder’s grief as a tool in this debate like y’all did. Nor did I use Cindy.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Where do you suppose the companion story is from a grieving, but supportive parent? They are easier to find, too.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this
Just saying they had something in common.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this
R.W.: Nobody, I was exercising diplomacy. Shoot me.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
I would never shoot you. I really wanted the answer from “getalife”, but I had to use your words to get there.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this
Lobbyistgate is huge. You know how I feel about corruption.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this
Getalife: We’re in trouble again. It’s you and me Getalife, you and me. I think you and I disagree very well, don’t you?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this
OO,
Yes, very well indeed. I would never say that I am done with you.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this
Could you two get a room!!!
Michelle Malkin has some information you might be interested in, although be forewarned she doesn’t pretend it;s just Republicans.
She even links to the same kook ml used yesterday.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this
Saddam believes he can choose the way he dies when found guilty. Say it ain’t so. Surely not.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this
I said he should have ate a grenade in that spider hole.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
The lawyers had delicately raised the possibility of Saddam’s being executed. He responded, “I am the commander in chief. … I prefer it to be by firing squad. I am the commander in chief.”
From the always reliable Washington Times
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this
If OBL is not six-feet under, and I’m hoping that he is. Has it not been considered that maybe it would have a more profound effect if he were captured and brought to justice by Pakistan. They are looking for him still.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this
Oops, I didn’t notice you two were alone in here.
By Jay not jay
January 3, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this
I agree with that, getalife.
They should have also blew OBL into dust when they had him “dialed in” a long time ago, hindsite is 20/20.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this
As I read these posts, I see a great lack of patience from the left. I think maybe you should all get on over to Iraq and “GET ‘ER DONE.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this
Getalife: Have you got a room #?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
I don’t think Pakistan really wants the headache of catching OBL, a lot of their population supports him and Musharef (sp?) is dodging assassination attempts all the time now. If he is alive and on the border I think they would try to either kill him and say they didn’t know he had been there or push him back to Afghanistan.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this
I wouldn’t sweat OBL; if he was still scheming our big buildings we would have heard something from him by now. It said a lot when Zarqawi wrote that whining sniveling plea for help and addressed it to Zahari instead of OBL. I’m pretty sure Bin Ladentorest is keepin company with those 3000 souls from 9/11, or should I say I hope he is….
By getalife
January 3, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this
OO,
Not yet.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Let’s hope they are sharing a much different afterlife.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this
R.W.: BUT THAT IS WHAT I WANT DAMMIT. WHY CAN’T I HAVE WHAT I WANT!!!! Sound familiar?
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this
The burning question still remains, if the Iraqi people wanted to be free, why didn’t they overthrow Hussein in the first place? They had 20 yrs to do it! If they didn’t really want to be free; aren’t we just fighting a losing battle? Can you really teach a pig to sing?
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this
RW: I’m sure they are showing him a good time….
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this
I think Getalife would be O.K. if you wanted to call him “Getaleft”. You can call me “S** for Brains”. Getalife and I are not whiners.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
It does indeed, have you known my ex wife long?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 07:10 PM | Link to this
The virgin thing, please.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:12 PM | Link to this
Anybody want to help AR with the “Saddam had the guns and his subjects didn’t” scenario. Hopefully we won’t have to explain what happens when you get shot…
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this
getalife,
I think that was retranslated to be 72 raisins.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this
Oh my God!!! You were married to a leftie. How did you endure?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this
OO,
Call me anyting you want.
RW, sorry to hear about the ex. I know the feeling.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:15 PM | Link to this
I see a bad case of the squirts coming on for the martyrs.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
Did you miss the “ex” part? Non-political just whiny, a trait shared by most of the left. The ones here are stating to all sound just alike.
By Amelia
January 3, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this
In July of 2003 Congressman Ron Paul(R-Tx) gave a speech to the House of Representatives that gives a peek inside the minds and political philosophy of GWB,Condi,Cheney,Wolfowitz,Libby,and other key figures in our present administration. When he describes neo-conservatism you can parallel it with events at home and abroad.
www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this
You set a good example Getalife…..I’m sorry too R.W., and that was not a character reference of myself.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:21 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Thanks, sorry you share that experience. It’s been a very long time ago for me, I’ve been happily married to a nice Republican girl for years now.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this
Amelia: Look, I’m tired from a long day of work can you give us the cliff note version of your link? I got a feeling it’s something like “Bush looked the barrel of oil lustily in the eye but knowing that it was Cheney’s barrel, he left in search of other places to drill.” Is that close?
By getalife
January 3, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this
OO,
I think Dick Clark sets a good example.
RW,
Just whiney, sounds like mine.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 07:25 PM | Link to this
Poor Andy doesn’t realize that the Iraqi borders were as wide open then as they are now. Guns are not/never have been hard to find in the entire Middle-East. (They ain’t shootin’ popguns at our boys, today!) Anybody that really wanted to get a gun would have had no trouble (many did-Saddam not exactly a beloved leader). Problem is that even though Saddam was from a fairly small ethnic Iraqi minority group, the bulk of the Iraqi people willing to stand and fight for freedom was not sufficient to overthrow him. If they weren’t up to winning their freedom, why should we think that they would be up to holding it secure when they did not sacrifice to earn it?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Have you ever read or heard anything worthwhile that contained the phrase “neo-con”? If I’m reading an article or LTTE I’ll usually stop the second that appears.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this
I saw him too and was inspired by his courage. I’m sure you were too. I believe that great things are possible for those who are willing to pursue them. GET TO WORK. I told you I was a hard taskmaster when it comes to therapy.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this
AntiRadical,
Why the h-ell did we go save France? After all, if the French people didn’t throw Hitler out on their own who are we to step in?
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:31 PM | Link to this
Anti-Radical: How would you know what it is like to live oppressed and in fear. It subdues the desires of people. You don’t know, because you live in AMERICA.
By getalife
January 3, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this
OO,
He is the man and I am encouraged. Thanks.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 07:35 PM | Link to this
I just noticed on refresh that Danielle’s thread is only 87 posts away from the number that inspired it.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 07:35 PM | Link to this
Andy you obviously don’t remember the flag-waving throngs of French citizens welcoming Nazi occupation. The “French Underground” WAS underground you know. Fact is, the French people invited Hitler with open arms. This is a poor example to state your case with; believe me! Try again.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this
Poor little AntiRadical does not understand how dictators exercise control over their citizens. He has no idea about what ruthless means, why Saddam is on trial now, why we were justified to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power. No, all AR can do is parrot stupid pinko slogans which are actually really old at this point in time. Got anything new?
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this
I feel the need to repeat this:
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Islam-Sunnah
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 07:41 PM | Link to this
Pessimism rules the liberal party unless, of course, their personal interests are being served, then everything is hunky-dory.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this
Apparently AR feels as though we have him surrounded- Andy you obviously don’t remember the flag-waving throngs of French citizens welcoming Nazi occupation.- I actually RW and O O were right on time with their comparison’s but obviously this kook saw a different World War II than the rest of us.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer: Born poor, fought way up on merit. Had it better than some and worse, too. Certainly, no silver spoon ever resided in this mouth. America is a land of dichotomy. You appear to be unaware that it, also, has its’ own poor. They even occasionaly have the incentive to succeed. Still doesn’t mean that I know what it is to be an Iraqi citizen under Saddam. I do, however, know what it takes for a citizenry to be free. They have to want it enough to fight and die for it!
By Amelia
January 3, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this
No Andy it is not. It is just a very good description of neo-conservatism. Whoever sees it can easily draw their own conclusion.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this
Andy you are aware that there was a French “Underground” and “Resistance” (to authority) during WWII. They were the minority, the underground, the resistance, while the majority of the French people welcomed the Nazis. This is such a fundamental record of WWII that I find it astounding that you are unaware of it. This has always been a fundamental resentment of WWII vets. “Those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it.”
By Midori
January 3, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this
Good evening, Fellas.
How are you guys doing today?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this
AntiRadical,
First off it was me that gave you the France example. The more you compare the majority of French people wanting to live under Hitler, to what you seem to be saying about most Iraqis wanting to live under Saddam the more absurd it makes your argument that we shouldn’t help Iraq.
By Amelia
January 3, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this
Good evening Midori. AntiRadical, someone pointed out history repeating itself in an earlier post. And you are right. It is hard to understand how the same mistakes occur again and again. History is the best roadmap that there is.
By Midori
January 3, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this
So, who is Andy fighting with today? :)
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:11 PM | Link to this
Hi Midori,
Why would you say such a thing about Andy?
By Midori
January 3, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this
believe it or not, I like Andy.
I like razzing him.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 08:21 PM | Link to this
I return breathless, unashamed and smiling, and only R.W. knows why. SSSHHHHHHH.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 08:21 PM | Link to this
Midori has been speculating on the Abramoff deal, thus the polite, unbecoming attitude. Be careful, things could sour at a moments notice.
By Midori
January 3, 2006 08:24 PM | Link to this
see, Andy — there you go.
I haven’t said ONE word about Abramoff.
As a matter of fact, I’m still reading up on it.
One thing I’ll tell you, I turn my back on any Democrats involved — if there are any involved.
By Andy
January 3, 2006 08:26 PM | Link to this
Why, Midori, for once we agree. I too shall turn my back on any democrats involved- if there are any involved.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 08:26 PM | Link to this
Just responding to Andy’s last post RW. It may be hard for you to believe, but Hitler was a charismatic speaker who enthralled millions to voluntarily follow him (including the majority of the French people at one time). You should look up the “Vichy” French police who handled domestic policing activities for the Nazis. Many other European nations welcomed and made alliances (including Britain under Chamberlain and Russia under Stalin) with Hitler for what they thought to be their economic/power interests. After the Axis attained critical mass, thereby, they took what they wanted more indiscriminately (Eastern front/Africa). If argument is absurd to you, at least it is historically correct.
That said, I’m not saying that Iraqis want/ed Saddam; I’m saying that they as a people, for whatever reason, have not earned and will therefore not respect, treasure, and have the cajones to defend “freedom” that is “given” to them. Some force will come to power in the all too volatile Middle East and they will predictably fold (besides they can get rebuilt again for free if they re-freedomize later). Maybe if someone has a magic “backbone” wand, we can mount it on a stealth fighter and wave it over all of Iraq (Tech approach)?
By Midori
January 3, 2006 08:29 PM | Link to this
Andy — I hear you knocking, but you can’t come in.
You can’t dampen my mood.
My order from Amazon came in today — Sealab 2021 Season 3 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Season 3.
After I do the dishes I’m gonna laugh myself silly.
Perhaps I’ll return to my combative self tomorrow.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this
Andy,
If you want to see Ron Paul in full moonbat mode go to Amelia’s link. It’s quite the manifesto and I remain at 100% in never having read anything worthwhile that contained the term neo-con.
Aside from a few points about cutting spending that I agree with, Crazy Howie could have written it.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this
Oops! Midori knows too. Well, we’ll just keep it between the three of us right? SSSHHHHHHHH!!!
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 08:37 PM | Link to this
Come on Anti, at least admit that you hope you are wrong about the Iraqi people, and try not to follow it up with a but………
By Andy
January 3, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this
RW: Paul’s got us pegged: 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) Except BigDaddy, of course…
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 08:40 PM | Link to this
OO- You bet I do, bud. Long experience with human-kind has soured me.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this
AntiRadical,
I think the facts will prove you wrong. When some Iraqi’s are blown up at a recruiting station they (bad choice of words alert) pick up the pieces and reform the line.
The elections have certainly proved their desire and I would say the first one last January proved their overwhelming desire for freedom. They were under death threats for even having the audacity to try to vote and had every reason to believe they would be killed. They had no reason to expect that we could protect their polling stations. We can’t get people to vote if it’s drizzling and God forbid the outcry from the left if someone has to wait in a line.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 08:45 PM | Link to this
Anti: Please, call me budette.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this
Andy,
The Libertarians all hate the Libertarians we like.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this
Andy,
and BTW, If you’ve looked around at some drive-by posts that show up all over the place I’d refrain from using the “Paul’s got us pegged” phrase.
By Brian Curtis
January 3, 2006 08:55 PM | Link to this
Has anyone ever heard or read anything worthwhile that had the term pinko in it?
As soon as you see that word, you know it’s another hysterical, screeching rant that’s safe to ignore. Take your own advice, RW. Find a better class of fascists to hang out with.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
That’s OK Brian, in spite of the dearth of information you bring I’ll stay here and hang out with you. How is the Urban Life in cartoon series coming along?
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this
RW: Certainly there are isolated acts to give hope that historical precendents and major past trends will not hold true. I think every American wishes that every person in the world could be free. If history teaches us anything, though, it is that any people must free themselves in order to know the cost of their freedom. Freedom that is given (like most things) is not valued. So far, Iraqis have not met recruiting goals for police recruits (aka “sitting ducks”). Just ‘cause some get blown up in line waiting outside the recruiting centers (indicative of administrative capability of this society) doesn’t mean they are numerous enough to meet recruiting needs (not). If you haven’t heard, so far it appears that Iraq is electing fundamentalist leaning representatives. It appears that those people you mentioned who were going to the poll, were not friends to America.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this
Anti: How would you apply your logic to the slaves who were freed during the civil war? Granted, the fight ensued for some time, afterward but where are African Americans now. This is treacherous ground on which we are walking. I guess the benefit they experienced is because they live in AMERICA.
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this
AntiRadical,
Using your logic France would not have remained free. According to you, not only did they not fight for independence, they wanted to be dominated.
I know we always tease the French and they are pains in the backside quite often, but they have remained a free country for quite awhile now.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 09:38 PM | Link to this
R.W.: Budette here. Where has he gone?
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 09:45 PM | Link to this
Budette,
I don’t know, there is finally an ml scibble up now though.
By AntiRadical
January 3, 2006 09:50 PM | Link to this
OO- Blacks were highly committed and motivated to achieving freedom (so were most whites). Fought and died for it (in both armies by the way). Won and kept it, too.
RW- France is a continual experiment in Socialism (Spain, too). I guess they’re free but then there hasn’t been any real pressure on France since WWII, has there? Are you real sure that they wouldn’t pursue fanatical socialism (not free for me) given favorable circumstances (religious fanaticism, etc. ala Iraq)? I think that even though it’s been a long time (not really in historical terms- 60 yrs) the final call is not in yet for France. French did not want to be dominated in WWII; they made Nazi alliances based on what they thought to be their best interests. Maybe they wouldn’t do the same again; maybe they would!
By RW-(the original)
January 3, 2006 10:07 PM | Link to this
Anti,
In historical terms we haven’t been free very long, so the final call is never in for anyone. If Iraq can get in 60 good years, I’ll say President Bush gave them a pretty good shot at success. Of course, I’ll be 110, so me actually saying that is one more thing the final call hasn’t been made on.
By Objective Observer
January 3, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this
Anti: My argument was that their freedom was given to them through the civil war, and they carried the battle forward. I don’t know how you can presume that the Iraqis are not motivated to achieving the same freedom. I’ll concede that it is a different region with a different culture, but the individual desire, once nourished, can be a powerful thing.
Did you see Charles Krauthammer’s predictions for 2006. He predicts a dominoe effect. Call me naive, but I remain optimistic. No, don’t call me naive, call me Budette.
By Mike
January 5, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
This is to Dr. R.
Hey, Doc.
Not all intelligence showed Saddam had recovered a WMD capacity.
You’re just a little too brief and overly general with that statement.
And, you’re too comfortable in thinking al-Qaeda would ally with anyone and everyone.
There is quite of bit of ‘intel’ suggesting that al-Qaeda, as a name, did not exist until the U.S. intelligence community started using the name.
It was a theory in the intel community that a master mind or organization was forming. Al-Qaeda was the name given to that potential threat for the purpose of tracking, planning, and counter measures.
It was just a nickname. Now it’s a brand name.
We didn’t completely invent this enemy, we just help culture it.