Stay the course
Today, the U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 2,000.
And the Iraqis voted YES to their new constitution.
I have great respect for the Americans who gave their lives, thinking they were doing it to protect the U.S.
I wonder how many of the 2,000 would have wanted to give their lives so Iraqis could have a new Constitution, since that was not the reason we went to war.
I wonder how long we will fall for the faulty logic that we must keep fighting over there so these deaths will not have been in vain.
Deaths based on a lie cannot be made noble by more deaths.
As Bush, the master of unintentional irony, said in his speech earlier this month, "our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life."
We would hate to sacrifice lives for a political vision . . .
offered up to the world by CoachDub @ 1:50 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
"I have great respect for the Americans who gave their lives, thinking they were doing it to protect the U.S.
I wonder how many of the 2,000 would have wanted to give their lives so Iraqis could have a new Constitution, since that was not the reason we went to war."
Dub, I don't want to be rude, but who are you to arbitrarily state what those soldiers were fighting for? You can argue it was simply for a New Constitution, I can argue it was for the protection of America and her interests. But for you just to state that the Iraqi Constitution is apparently 'the' reason is abhorrent.
That last Bush quote is basically a high point in his ignorism.
Ok, Parker, at the beginning of the way do you think that any of the soldiers had any idea that their eventual goal was a new Iraqi regime?
How ironic that they were sent to replace one regime put in place by American with another.
What I don't appreciate is the underlying assumption that is being made. That being these soldiers were naive/ignorant/ill-informed and thus their deaths were meaningless.
How many of these soldiers re-enlisted after their first tour of duty? How many found a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in helping rebuild a country that had suffered under totalitarian rule for two decades? How many were simply content that they were serving their nation?
People like you, John, seem to think that these things are worthless. They're not.
Parker, I believe that the soldiers, like most other people, believed what they were being told, and my point was that it saddens me that soldiers who THOUGHT they were dying to protect their country, were in fact dying for a new Iraq. I am not "arbitrariliy" saying what the soldiers believed. I am expressing my sadness over they fact that the soldiers died for a DIFFERENT reason than they thought they died for.
And I agree with your second point, too, Parker. Yes, of course SOME soldiers believe in what they are doing. But it is hard to think of 2,000 dead soldiers without also thinking about "Mission Accomplished."
And it is hard to listen to Bush still talk about the Iraq war being the center of the war on terror. When he says that, he is implying that the soldiers have died to protect America from terrorists.
All praise to soldiers who want to serve their country, because I sure don't want to do it. I respect them greatly, but I just wonder, like Johnny V. said, that if you told them at the beginning why they were fighting (instead of going to find the actual terrorists), how many would be on board.
By the way, it took me 5 times of typing the word verification incorrectly on this comment. What a dolt.
(If any of you noticed that I "deleted" some comments, I just decided to consolidate three comments into one.)
john V - did you mean ignorance, or am i being dumb?
and as long as im typing, the way i see it, most soldiers enlist with only one goal in mind, and that is to serve their country. I dont think that they are particular in how they accomplish that. I think that what makes me angry about statements such as your's (no matter how they were intended); and if i may offer to speak for Parker here as well, is that if a dead soldier could hear you saying that he died in vain (or his family, for that matter), no matter what his mission was when he died; if he FELT that he was serving his country when he died- if the last thought that went through his mind upon his demise was "i served my country"- he would be very much upset with your gall for making mention of the facts, even if that is what they are. who are you to take that feeling away from him, if for only a partisan political stab?
im sure you wouldnt do that to someone whom you respect "greatly".
basically, yes, youre right, but damn, was it worth it?
Parker, I don't think those things are worthless... Let me explain. In order to do this, we travel back to yesteryear, to the Holy Crusades... These soldiers were told they were dying for God, when all along they were told they were dying because of the greed of Kings and the Pope. Now, if these people could be brought back from the dead, do you think they would be happy about the real reasons behind the war? Or, the lack of reasons? I might think that the ones who went for other reasons than simple killing, would be a little upset. The very thing they gave their life for was a lie.
Well, if we are speaking in hypothetical after-death communication, then I would have to assume that if he could hear ME talking, then he probably already knows the "facts," as you say.
What makes me so mad is that the Bush administration itself seems to be making the claim that these soldiers died in vain. I mean, if we have to "stay the course" so that the deaths won't have been in vain, isn't that saying that we have to stay there until we find a reason for them to have died? I'm not agreeing with that argument, but it highlights the problems of an illogical plan from an illogical administration.
But since prayer told him to go to war, then logic may not be something the administration strives for.
I guess what I wanted to say was that it would have been decent if the soldiers who have died would have been told the truth about why they were dying, so they could have made a decision on whether that was a noble cause or not.
Welcome, Shane... I always want new readers. Don't be a stranger to the comments, though!
As for political competence, we all think we are more competent than we really are!
yeah. way to not attempt to understand what i meant by that. i guess that makes it easier for you.
you should try to show respect for the dead, even if others don't.
there. i dont think anyone can make me look like an imbecile for that statement. we'll see.
i dont like looking like the angry unreasonable kid. therefore, i doubt that i can comment on this blog anymore.
That's too bad, Tom. I think that your comments are spirited and well thought out, and they provide a strong counterpoint.
I DID attempt to understand what you meant in your comment. You said "if the last thought that went through his mind upon his demise was 'i served my country'- he would be very much upset with your gall for making mention of the facts, even if that is what they are. who are you to take that feeling away from him, if for only a partisan political stab?"
First, even hypothetically, how can the "last thought that went through his mind" change by something I say? This thought has already happened it WENT through his mind, and nothing I say can turn back time.
Second, I don't understand how "making mention of the facts" is disrespectful to the dea. Isn't it the FACTS themselves that are disrespectful to the dead?
But I also think that I can respect a soldier for dying in war without having to respect the war that killed him.
Again, Tom, every good debate needs a counterpoint, and I am glad you participate in my blog.
Dear Tom, I just noticed that I did in fact use the word ignorism. I'm not really sure what I was thinking, but it sounds pretty nonsensical.
Dear Shane, as simple as that analysis of the crusades was, it was equally true, for the most part. I believe that it is generally accepted that the Crusades had some serious ulterior motives besides glorifying Jesus.
"Most soldiers enlist with only one goal in mind, and that is to serve their country"
I'd say that most soldiers enlist with the goal of escaping the daily struggle of lower class existence. I mean that you might as well call the USAF a bunch of mercenaries forced into their jobs by their circumstances in the country (poverty). I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone personally that loves their country enough that they are willing to go halfway around the world and risk death facilitating a civil war for good old Uncle Sam.
John, the fact that you even brought the Crusades into this is just strange.
and that's really the ball game. what we have here is a simple problem that is echoed in pundantry on the national level. you have the right saying "if you say anything bad about the war you are basically ass raping the dead soldiers" and you have the left saying "you can not respect the war and its cuases and still respect the soldiers." i support what i feel to be the more logical claim that not agreeing with the war is not disrespecting the soldiers. just because i don't agree with how kfc slaughters their chicken doesn't mean i'm not going to go there for a tasty meal once and awhile. while this is a terribly superfiscial example, it serves the point that respect for soldiers and disrespect for their cause are not mutually exclusive. i think wanninger makes a good point that essentially bush is searching for a reason to send these kids to their death, or rather to validate their deaths. first it was wmd's. then liberation. who is to say that if the liberation effort goes down the tubes (which i feel its part-way there already)that we won't have another flavor of the week to die for courtesy of the bush administration.
the point is i understand your point, tom and parker, that if the dead soldiers were hear listening to this they would probably not like it or even be offended. but that doesn't remove the fact that a great majority were at best grossly mislead and at worst blatently lied to about their mission and consequential reason for death.
finally, are you both really saying we shouldn't question a governmental descision? especially if it involves the loss of lives? from what it sounds like, tom and parker, you want us to just agree with everything our government does on face. not only does this undermine the freedom which you both make abundantly clear is the reason these soldiers are dieing for, but it is completely against the foundation of democracy, the type of government we are trying to set up (or hegemonically impose...) in the middle east.
Maybe they should have brought a few steam rollers over to Iraq to deal with dissenters. Send them off on a cross-desert trek and then just take care of them on the way.
JK. But seriously, would it work?
wow tay. you have a good vocabulary, but that's about all i can say for you. can my comments please be deleted? im not going to defend myself against stupid and unfounded assumptions, so id rather that my comments provoke no more of them, for the sake of my sanity.
Nothing makes for a compelling argument quite like "ass-raping" does it Tay?
Tom, please don't stop commenting!! Although this blog is more partisan than the Democratic National Convention, it still needs input from the other guys.
You say that like it is a bad thing, Erik. Being partisan is not necessarily bad. Why should MY blog not reflect MY political beliefs?
I didn't catch a negative tone to that comment; he's only echoing you in saying that conservatives SHOULD also comment here because they stand out rather than not comment because they stand out.
As far as dying in vain goes... did all those in Vietnam "die in vain?" Riddle me this.
First, 10/10 to tay for using "hegemonically." Debate vocab in action there.
Second, man Houle you just know how to escalate the issue. Wowza. I'm not even touching Vietnam. If I do, I'm pretty sure I'm going to say something that will push this comment section to 40+ and it might never end.
So in conclusion, math midterms suck.
True, Parker. But we have to balance the use of "hegemonically" with his misspellings of "here" and "misled."
Oh, Tay. To quote you: j/k.
Jason, did we really accomplish anything in Vietnam? No.
Vietnam never happened
True Dub, true. And superficial was also erroneous. So I think the end total is 7.7/10
Did we accomplish anything in Vietnam? No.
Vietnam never happened.
Implying: [i don't know the numbers, but there's a wallful] died in vain.
Did those in the Korean War die in vain? South Koreans wouldn't think so.
Hence, for the 2,000+ deaths not to be vain, something must happen that makes Iraq more than something that "never happened."
That's all I'm going to say, I really don't want to go too deep into this debate myself.
I wouldn't say they died in vain, just that they died defending a pointless cause. So, they were successfully defendint the pointless cause, and therefore they didn't die in vain.
Weak argument.
Now, South Koreans. If they had really wanted to, they could have hacked into our nuclear bomb mainframe and just started a nuclear war with North Korea. "I wanna start a war. I wanna start a nuclear war."
youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
i wanna take you to a gay bar
lets start a war
start a nuclear war
at the gay bar
gay bay
gay bar
Good contribution Josh. Now we'll take your political debates MUCH more seriously. Although with your track record, you aren't doing much harm to that aspect of you reputation. Nevermind.
Post a Comment
<< Home