No WMD...so what?

[Clint]

Suppose the police have been observing a house where they are certain they are producing child pornography. To date they haven’t been able to prove it but in the meantime lives are being ruined. A neighbor complains that they are bothered by strange odors coming from the house. Someone who lives in the house buys all the cold medicine in stock at the local pharmacy. Known meth users are seen coming and going from the house. Let’s assume they collect enough evidence to enter the house because of the probability they are producing meth. They raid the house only to find they are pasting the cold medicine to a large piece of cardboard in attempt to create art. There are meth users in the house but they are there to abuse children. Should they have used force to enter the house?

George Bush thought he had probable cause based of the evidence presented him. He thought a dangerous, murderous leader who raped and murdered his own people also had weapons of mass destruction. When he sent in the troops he found they had taken down a criminal but not for the stated reason. Does that mean force shouldn’t have been used to take him down? I think that if WMD hadn’t been suspected we would have gone in anyway because Saddam needed to be removed from power and the bad guys we’ve been fighting since needed to be dealt with. Isn’t it better done on their soil, with the people who have been supporting the bad guys absorbing the impact, than to have the fight on our soil?

[spot]

Tell me, Clint - since George Bush isn't a policeman, and given that he thought as you suggest, on whose authority did he interfere? Were I to forcibly break into the house you described, in my town, I'd be arrested for it, and rightly so.

Secondly, why would he consider it a matter that concerned him at all? The descriptions of both the wannabee-policeman and the house are disputed by many, I don't think you can rely for your argument that they're uncontentious.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Yes Clint. Agree 100%.

Not finding any WMD (yet) is not the point.

If anyone thinks we shouln't have gone in to remove the murderous Saddam they should pay a visit to Iraq and see how the ordinary Iraqi-in-the-street feels about that.

While in the area they could also call in on the Kuwaitis and ask their opinion.

For sure they'll get a dose of reality and a change of heart as well.

[spot]

What you describe, PE, as the original post did, is a vigilante with a lynch-mob, not a policeman.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

spot wrote: Tell me, Clint - since George Bush isn't a policeman, and given that he thought as you suggest, on whose authority did he interfere? Were I to forcibly break into the house you described, in my town, I'd be arrested for it, and rightly so.

Secondly, why would he consider it a matter that concerned him at all? The descriptions of both the wannabee-policeman and the house are disputed by many, I don't think you can rely for your argument that they're uncontentious.


Go see for your self, Spot.

You'll soon change your mind.

Get out into the real world.

Armchair experts like you are just what we don't need

[Clint]

Spot,

The UN had passed eleventeen resolutions that Saddam had thumbed his nose at. We knew he was supporting terrorists. We knew he was violating human rights. We knew he would do whatever he thought he could get away with to see us destroyed. The President had been given what he thought to be credible evidence that he had WMD with the will to use them. After 9-11 there wasn’t any question about whether or not the enemy could deliver. I don’t know…should we have waited to see what he was going to do?

[lady cop]

Clint said..Suppose the police have been observing a house where they are certain they are producing child pornography. To date they haven’t been able to prove it but in the meantime lives are being ruined. A neighbor complains that they are bothered by strange odors coming from the house. Someone who lives in the house buys all the cold medicine in stock at the local pharmacy. Known meth users are seen coming and going from the house. Let’s assume they collect enough evidence to enter the house because of the probability they are producing meth. They raid the house only to find they are pasting the cold medicine to a large piece of cardboard in attempt to create art. There are meth users in the house but they are there to abuse children. Should they have used force to enter the house? my response would be that they could not have entered without a warrant, which assumes a judge found sufficient probable cause to sign it. and some warrants are "no-knock", depending on exigent circumstances, i.e. lives may be in danger. warrants are limited to items specifically named in the warrant, but if a crime is in plain view it may be acted upon. i can only respond to your police analogy here, don't know if it applies metaphorically.

[Clint]

lady cop wrote: Clint said..Suppose the police have been observing a house where they are certain they are producing child pornography. To date they haven’t been able to prove it but in the meantime lives are being ruined. A neighbor complains that they are bothered by strange odors coming from the house. Someone who lives in the house buys all the cold medicine in stock at the local pharmacy. Known meth users are seen coming and going from the house. Let’s assume they collect enough evidence to enter the house because of the probability they are producing meth. They raid the house only to find they are pasting the cold medicine to a large piece of cardboard in attempt to create art. There are meth users in the house but they are there to abuse children. Should they have used force to enter the house? my response would be that they could not have entered without a warrant, which assumes a judge found sufficient probable cause to sign it. and some warrants are "no-knock", depending on exigent circumstances, i.e. lives may be in danger. warrants are limited to items specifically named in the warrant, but if a crime is in plain view it may be acted upon. i can only respond to your police analogy here, don't know if it applies metaphorically.
Couldn’t you compare the UN resolutions with a warrant?

[lady cop]

Clint wrote: Couldn’t you compare the UN resolutions with a warrant?i honestly don't know.

[Clint]

lady cop wrote: i honestly don't know.


Me either…just postulating .

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Wrongfully barging into someones house is on a tiny bit smaller of a scale than foolishly invading another country. Suspected drug dealers and users buying mass quantities of cold medicine to maybe or maybe not make meth would catch my attention if it were in my neighborhood. I can understand going over to Iraq and searching for the weapons but staying there now for no reason. Mark my words that as soon as the US pulls out of Iraq, you will see that the country will be worse off than when Saddam was in power. You can't force a country to have democracy that doesnt want it.

And yes it is better on their soil but that is a very selfish remark. Basically what that means to me is, "better that their land gets F'ed up than ours!" How many more US troops need to die? Didnt we learn in Vietnam that it is very hard to invade another country?
You say we barged in wrongfully. Did we? Saddam was already paying suicide bombers to kill “infidels”. His connection to known terrorists was well established.

The people of Iraq didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to him and the murderous vermin in their midst. They are reaping the reward for sleeping with the enemy. They turned out in large numbers to vote even when they knew they may be killed by the “insurgents” for doing it. It seems they are realizing the price of complacency.

A lot more people died as the result of our leaving South Vietnam than did while we were there protecting them from their enemy. I went to Vietnam because I was willing to do so. I volunteered. Wanna make something of it?

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Congrats, you went to fight a war that wasnt ours to begin with. Doesnt make you anymore special in my mind. You joined the army and were told what to do. Were we protecting them? Or just taking bullets for them? Our connections with the terrorists was well established too....we trained them in our own country.

Wow they showed up to vote. Isnt the voting thing over months ago, why do republicans still go back to the voting thing? I would have went and voted too, there was more security around the polls than anywhere else during the voting. It was safer there than at a resturaunt eating.
I didn’t tell you I served so you would think I’m “special”. I told you because you need to know there are people who are willing to put their lives on the line. The soldiers in Iraq are volunteers. They are old enough to vote or older, so they can make decisions. If they are willing to put their lives on the line, who are you to decide they shouldn’t?

I think PE had a point when he said you need to get out of your armchair. If you think those people were safe when they were voting you must be getting all your news from Air America. Even if they were safe they stood in long lines and exposed themselves as people who are in favor of democracy. They may have to pay for that decision with their life at some point. The election was a huge success and a victory that isn’t going to be forgotten soon. Sorry it represents such a defeat to you and your ideology.

[Lon]

Clint wrote: Suppose the police have been observing a house where they are certain they are producing child pornography. To date they haven’t been able to prove it but in the meantime lives are being ruined. A neighbor complains that they are bothered by strange odors coming from the house. Someone who lives in the house buys all the cold medicine in stock at the local pharmacy. Known meth users are seen coming and going from the house. Let’s assume they collect enough evidence to enter the house because of the probability they are producing meth. They raid the house only to find they are pasting the cold medicine to a large piece of cardboard in attempt to create art. There are meth users in the house but they are there to abuse children. Should they have used force to enter the house?



George Bush thought he had probable cause based of the evidence presented him. He thought a dangerous, murderous leader who raped and murdered his own people also had weapons of mass destruction. When he sent in the troops he found they had taken down a criminal but not for the stated reason. Does that mean force shouldn’t have been used to take him down? I think that if WMD hadn’t been suspected we would have gone in anyway because Saddam needed to be removed from power and the bad guys we’ve been fighting since needed to be dealt with. Isn’t it better done on their soil, with the people who have been supporting the bad guys absorbing the impact, than to have the fight on our soil?
My concern is why just Saddam? Why not Mugabe or any of the other despots that have been murdering some of their people? Why the inconsistent foreign policy? Let's cut out the crap and get to the bottom line. After all the chaos of the Viet Nam War, was it really worth it? What was accomplished? And Iraq? I personally don't see us accomplishing anything of a permanent nature there and 10 years from now will we will be saying " Was it really worth it?" Short of killing all Muslims on this planet, the good and the bad, I don't see a permanent solution to the War On Terror.

[Clint]

Lon wrote: My concern is why just Saddam? Why not Mugabe or any of the other despots that have been murdering some of their people? Why the inconsistent foreign policy? Let's cut out the crap and get to the bottom line. After all the chaos of the Viet Nam War, was it really worth it? What was accomplished? And Iraq? I personally don't see us accomplishing anything of a permanent nature there and 10 years from now will we will be saying " Was it really worth it?" Short of killing all Muslims on this planet, the good and the bad, I don't see a permanent solution to the War On Terror.
I really don’t know why just Saddam. Maybe intelligence (flawed or not) indicated he should be first. Maybe based on things we are not privy to, this is the best way to influence the enemy. I’m not willing to weaken the effort by withdrawing my support (though I’m only one person) over conjecture.

Was it really worth it in Vietnam? I don’t know the answer to that and I would submit that you don’t either. Because of pessimists in the LEARNING institutions and ACTORS in Hollywood we will never know. The support at home was eroded and we had to pull out. Could we have positively influenced the geopolitical landscape by staying the course? Who knows? We were defeated by our own people and we will never know. That is the mistake we don’t want to repeat in my opinion.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Thats what it sounded like when you said "you wanna make something of it?" I would be willing to put my life on the line for something I agree with. I'm sure not every troop over there wants to be there. If you think that, you are nuts. I have friends over there for 2nd, 3rd times and they don't want to be there. They went the first time because they believed in the war. I believed in it at first too but my thoughts have changed after time. If my friends don't know what we are doing there, how do we? They know more than we do. I almost forgot about the voting thing.... I just keep getting reminded of the troops that die everyday from car bombs and RPG's. The voting was a small victory in a neverending war. It does not represent a defeat to me, it's the only so called "victory" the republicans have in this war.

I didnt say those people were safe, I said I would have rather been there than in a resturaunt where the most obvious attacks would have been. I felt with the more security around the polls, it would be safer than an unguarded place at that time. And also, all the hype about the insurgents attaking on a big day like that. Why would they waste their time on days like that? Why not wait untill a completely random day with no significance to catch people off guard? Just like the defense department here, keep rasing the level around the hollidays. Thats not when they will strike next, it will be a random day where you and I will not expect it.
If you think this is just a Republican war, you haven’t been listening to the Democrats. They jumped up to be counted when Iraq voted. The only Democrats who remained vociferously antiwar at that time were the same old big mouths that the news media focuses on because they are controversial. This is a war that was supported by both houses of Congress. Even what’s his name…the Democrat’s Presidential Candidate, said the war in Iraq has to be finished (won). He just never was able to say how he would do it. Most people who are opposed to the present course are unable to put forth an alternative that would work. Criticism isn’t a solution.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Why not Mugabe or others? Why Saddam?

Well the answer to that isn't too difficult.

By now an unchecked Saddam would almost certainly have access to nuclear weapons and be threatening all and sundry with them.

Mugabe hasn't gotten a pot to do the proverbial in.

It's easy to be wise after the event but, in the real world, governments have to act according to 'best intelligence' in order to protect their populations.

Not many countries have the political will nor the military strength to achieve this.

Fortunately we have both.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Im not democrat or republican. Dont really know what I am. I agree with some things in both parties, but the war is one I do not support. Nothing that has happened over there so far has been a success in my mind. I hope that one day Iraq will be a free country but I doubt it very much. And that doubt I have makes me think about the people that are going to be lost. Maybe Iraq will be a great country while we are there after and if the war ever has an ending, but I fear that one day Iraq will want us out of there completely and Iraq will slip back into a 3rd world country like now. And then what, all those lives that were spent for to make Iraq a peaceful place... I can see it now. Thats what upsets me more than anything. I think what ever we make of Iraq will not hold in time.

To my friends over seas, I hope you all make it back ok.


President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

It cost him his life. He wasn’t afraid and I’m proud of him and this nation because neither let fear control them.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Im not sure if you misunderstood what my fear was or not? But I never feared the terrorits or Saddam therefore they never controlled me. Nothing in my everyday life scares me. Whatever happens to me, happens. I just fear that all the lives lost are going to be for nothing if Iraq ever becomes a nation and slips back into 3rd world country after we leave.
My point is that Abraham Lincoln had no way of knowing with certainty that what he did and the loss of life he had seen would result in freedom. He was a leader and he took the chance because he believed freedom for all men was worth it.

[BabyRider]

In any thread even remotely related to Iraq, 9/11, war, or terrorism, I always, without fail, see the question, "How many more of our boys have to die?" When will people understand that soldiers enlist in the service with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that they may be killed? Do they want to die? No. Are they willing to make the ultimate sacrifice? Yes. So to pinch PE's phrase, all you "armchair experts" should go enlist. A soldier does not join the service and then pick and choose where or for what he or she fights. They follow orders and they do it willingly and fully aware that they could be killed. I am sick to death of the armchair experts trying to play on sympathies by using the "boys getting killed" card. It's what soldiers DO, and thank god they do it. That way we don't have to. That way we can sit here at our computers and bitch about it.

[anastrophe]

TW2005 wrote: I didnt say those people were safe, I said I would have rather been there than in a resturaunt where the most obvious attacks would have been. I felt with the more security around the polls, it would be safer than an unguarded place at that time. And also, all the hype about the insurgents attaking on a big day like that. Why would they waste their time on days like that? Why not wait untill a completely random day with no significance to catch people off guard? uh, perhaps because the jihadists very specifically and loudly claimed that the streets would fill with rivers of blood from all the people they were going to kill on that specific day, because they are absolutely, unflinchingly OPPOSED to freedom and democracy. they want a repressive theocracy, and they will kill anybody they think does not want that.



that's why they are killing fellow muslims by the thousands in iraq.



they are madmen, and madmen don't compromise. the only way to stop a jihadist is to kill him......before he kills himself trying to take as many innocent people with him as he can.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: they are madmen, and madmen don't compromise.In your opinion, anastrophe, does your American Administration, or its military wing, compromise with terrorists?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: In your opinion, anastrophe, does your American Administration, or

its military wing, compromise with terrorists?
that's very cute. gosh i wonder whatever you could possibly be implying!

[spot]

That you live in a mirror world. You posture, trying to scare what's out there, and all you see is your own reflection.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: That you live in a mirror world. You posture, trying to scare what's out there, and all you see is your own reflection.
thanks for the ad hominem. i'm so glad we've dispensed with that canard you so lovingly promulgated, oh wide-eyed innocent, only interested in learning, and free of assumptions.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: thanks for the ad hominem. i'm so glad we've dispensed with that canard you so lovingly promulgated, oh wide-eyed innocent, only interested in learning, and free of assumptions.I do wish the language more easily distinguished between you singular and you plural. I could, I suppose, simply stop using the word completely.

Could we call a truce on using latin tags? You have so few, and they get shockingly repetitive.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I do wish the language more easily distinguished between you singular and you plural. I could, I suppose, simply stop using the word completely.



Could we call a truce on using latin tags? You have so few, and they get shockingly repetitive.
i don't know, perhaps you could bite me?



i use the 'latin tags' (formal names for the informal fallacies, for those who care) because, well, if the shoe fits, why not?



frankly, i find your routine argumentum ad misericordiam pretty repetitive too.

[anastrophe]

i find your ethical relativism pretty shocking too.

[Lon]

Clint wrote:



Was it really worth it in Vietnam? I don’t know the answer to that and I would submit that you don’t either.
With all due respect Clint, I think we do know the answer to that. If I am not mistaken, North Vietnam was attempting to take over South Vietnam and make it a part of their Communist State. Result? Today north and south Vietnam are one Communist State and Vietnam has become a rather hot tourist attraction for people all over the world. Ironic isn't it?

[Clint]

Lon wrote: With all due respect Clint, I think we do know the answer to that. If I am not mistaken, North Vietnam was attempting to take over South Vietnam and make it a part of their Communist State. Result? Today north and south Vietnam are one Communist State and Vietnam has become a rather hot tourist attraction for people all over the world. Ironic isn't it?
The South Vietnamese that died when the North took over probably wouldn’t be amused.

[Lon]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Why not Mugabe or others? Why Saddam?

Well the answer to that isn't too difficult.

By now an unchecked Saddam would almost certainly have access to nuclear weapons and be threatening all and sundry with them.

Mugabe hasn't gotten a pot to do the proverbial in.

It's easy to be wise after the event but, in the real world, governments have to act according to 'best intelligence' in order to protect their populations.

Not many countries have the political will nor the military strength to achieve this.

Fortunately we have both.
C'mon, you're saying that we will only go after those nations that have the potential for WMD? Hmmm----------I think not. Our history says different.

[Lon]

Clint wrote: The South Vietnamese that died when the North took over probably wouldn’t be amused.
My post was not mean't to be amusing Clint, just a statement of fact. ALL the deaths, North, South, American, other countries, journalists, did not prevent from happening, what finally occured, and that's the BOTTOM LINE.

[Clint]

Lon wrote: My post was not mean't to be amusing Clint, just a statement of fact. ALL the deaths, North, South, American, other countries, journalists, did not prevent from happening, what finally occured, and that's the BOTTOM LINE.
Sorry, I knew you didn’t mean to be amusing. My comment was aimed at what happened. I don’t think those who died would be amused by the irony that you accurately pointed out.

[A Karenina]

BabyRider wrote: In any thread even remotely related to Iraq, 9/11, war, or terrorism, I always, without fail, see the question, "How many more of our boys have to die?" When will people understand that soldiers enlist in the service with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that they may be killed? Do they want to die? No. Are they willing to make the ultimate sacrifice? Yes. So to pinch PE's phrase, all you "armchair experts" should go enlist. A soldier does not join the service and then pick and choose where or for what he or she fights. They follow orders and they do it willingly and fully aware that they could be killed. I am sick to death of the armchair experts trying to play on sympathies by using the "boys getting killed" card. It's what soldiers DO, and thank god they do it. That way we don't have to. That way we can sit here at our computers and bitch about it.Jesus also chose to die. I suppose we should feel nothing about that, either.



As for Lincoln, the War Between the States began in 1861. Freeing the slaves appears to be somewhat of an after-thought in 1863.



Reducing people to "armchair experts" is merely an attempt to silence people who disagree with you...people who have an inalienable right to their opinions and to voice those opinions, protected by - oddly enough - the very soldiers discussed here.



WMDs, eh? And what's the deal with North Korea again?

[turbonium]

I think what bothers me most is the utter hypocrisy displayed by the US Gov't. The United States and other Western powers supported Saddam's regime during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, even after the Baghdad government used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurdish villagers in Halabja.

Before war broke out, U.S. news headlines also called attention to reports that pathogens used by Iraq for its biological warfare program came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a private Manassas, Va.-based biological samples repository called the American Type Culture Collection. Then the US Gov't cries wolf about all the WMD's Saddam has as a threat to peace!!



It's akin to selling your neighbor Jeff a couple of bombs, because he wants to blow up that loudmouth Larry down the street. So you grin after Jeff blows up Larry and his house to smithereens. But a year later, you turn around and accuse him of being a threat to the neighborhood, because he has a bomb!! A petition goes around the block, insisting that they must go into Jeff's house and remove the bomb. But they don't find the bomb. Jeff tells you he already dismantled the other bomb and disposed of it. But you don't believe it. So you and a SWAT team bash in his door, all guns blazing and wipe him off the face of the Earth. When you still don't find the bomb anywhere, you just shrug and say "Well, he was a threat to the neighborhood, so it was the right thing to do. I mean, look at what he did to Larry!!". :-5

[BabyRider]

A Karenina wrote: Jesus also chose to die. I suppose we should feel nothing about that, either.



As for Lincoln, the War Between the States began in 1861. Freeing the slaves appears to be somewhat of an after-thought in 1863.



Reducing people to "armchair experts" is merely an attempt to silence people who disagree with you...people who have an inalienable right to their opinions and to voice those opinions, protected by - oddly enough - the very soldiers discussed here.



WMDs, eh? And what's the deal with North Korea again?
Wow. Comparing a soldier to Jesus. I'm not sure how to make that connection, AK, or where you got that I said "feel nothing" about it.

My comments were not intended as an attempt to silence anyone, but to express my own opinion of people who play a sympathy card for people who want no sympathy.

I would never imply that people should "feel nothing" for the American soldiers. Geez, where DID that come from?? What I am trying and have tried to say, more than once in several threads, is the people who continually ask "How many of 'our boys' have to die?" are missing an important point. No, I don't want soldiers to die, no I don't agree with every aspect of this war, no I do not think GW is perfect, but to use that question as an emotional chip is pointless, IN MY OPINION. These soldiers know the life they are signing up for. I will continue to say so every time I hear a person trying to ellicit sympathy for their position by saying that.

[Tan]

I agree 100% with Baby Rider.

I also agree with lady cop about having a warrant before entering the house, etc...( going back to the first post). But, theres another part of me that says hell yeah, investigate. If you you have nothing to hide , you should have no problems.

( If that makes sense to anyone).

[Peg]

How many do you think enlisted actually thinking we would go to war back when they enlisted? They don't want our sympathy? Fine. Their families have my sympathy when their loved one is shipped back in a body bag. Their families have my sympathy when their loved ones come back missing a limb, or an eye. Their families have my sympathy when they come back with their minds so screwed up by what they've seen and/or done.

[Clint]

Peg wrote: How many do you think enlisted actually thinking we would go to war back when they enlisted? They don't want our sympathy? Fine. Their families have my sympathy when their loved one is shipped back in a body bag. Their families have my sympathy when their loved ones come back missing a limb, or an eye. Their families have my sympathy when they come back with their minds so screwed up by what they've seen and/or done.
Peg,

What is happening to these brave young people is almost more than I can bear to hear about. None of them will ever be the same. No one goes to war and returns without wounds. You just can’t see some of the wounds until you are able to see deep inside.

The sad fact is that it is either those who volunteered or men women and children in a theater, ball game, restaurant, bus or someplace else. These people who volunteered are standing in the gap, keeping the murderous dogs separated from the people they love at home. Terrorists have to be dealt with and they only understand deadly force.

Those who volunteered may not have known exactly what they were getting into but they knew the day could come when there life may be required of them. I’m sure of that.

[A Karenina]

BabyRider wrote: Wow. Comparing a soldier to Jesus. I'm not sure how to make that connection, AK, or where you got that I said "feel nothing" about it.

My comments were not intended as an attempt to silence anyone, but to express my own opinion of people who play a sympathy card for people who want no sympathy.

I would never imply that people should "feel nothing" for the American soldiers. Geez, where DID that come from?? What I am trying and have tried to say, more than once in several threads, is the people who continually ask "How many of 'our boys' have to die?" are missing an important point. No, I don't want soldiers to die, no I don't agree with every aspect of this war, no I do not think GW is perfect, but to use that question as an emotional chip is pointless, IN MY OPINION. These soldiers know the life they are signing up for. I will continue to say so every time I hear a person trying to ellicit sympathy for their position by saying that.
Ah. I should've been more clear. Only the first sentence was in reply to your post. The others were random thoughts that occurred to me as I read other posts in this thread.



The connection, though, is in the principle. If someone, even a god, is willing to die for you, do you disregard the gift? or do you hold it as more precious and more worthy of protection?



My son is leaving for boot camp on August 2, then AIT training to be a medic, then to Afghanistan next spring. I truly appreciate those people who have a concern for his life.

My son is 20 years old. He has never been in the military, never been shot at, never had to duct tape a body back together, never been to Afghanistan, and I can promise you he doesn't know what he's getting into. How could he? It's like marriage or parenting...sure, you've got great ideas but until you hit the reality of the experience, it's all idealism.

Don't get me wrong - I totally admire the kid, and I support his decision. But the assertion that he's walking into this with his eyes wide open is completely false, and even he knows that.



I think that the question of how many of our soldiers must die is a legitimate question rather than some emotional trump card. If we place any value at all on our soldiers and what they offer, then we ought to be asking that question each and every time we think about sending them somewhere. Is the question an attempt to gain sympathy for a position or is it trying to grasp the reality of death and sacrifice?

[Clint]

A Karenina wrote: Ah. I should've been more clear. Only the first sentence was in reply to your post. The others were random thoughts that occurred to me as I read other posts in this thread.



The connection, though, is in the principle. If someone, even a god, is willing to die for you, do you disregard the gift? or do you hold it as more precious and more worthy of protection?



My son is leaving for boot camp on August 2, then AIT training to be a medic, then to Afghanistan next spring. I truly appreciate those people who have a concern for his life.

My son is 20 years old. He has never been in the military, never been shot at, never had to duct tape a body back together, never been to Afghanistan, and I can promise you he doesn't know what he's getting into. How could he? It's like marriage or parenting...sure, you've got great ideas but until you hit the reality of the experience, it's all idealism.

Don't get me wrong - I totally admire the kid, and I support his decision. But the assertion that he's walking into this with his eyes wide open is completely false, and even he knows that.



I think that the question of how many of our soldiers must die is a legitimate question rather than some emotional trump card. If we place any value at all on our soldiers and what they offer, then we ought to be asking that question each and every time we think about sending them somewhere. Is the question an attempt to gain sympathy for a position or is it trying to grasp the reality of death and sacrifice?
Thank your son for me. I have friends who were medics. It takes a special person to want to do that. His mother has good reason to be proud of him.

You are right. We should never get to the point that we don’t count each one that gives the ultimate gift. I saw a park where they had placed 1,700 crosses in rows for Memorial Day with the name of each one represented on each cross. A woman was timing her daughter as she ran from one end of a row to the other. It made me angry. How could she do that?

[pink princess]

regrdaless of whether or not WMD were found.......... regardless of whether or not its a vigilante strike......... regardless of whether or not you like george bush and tony blair...... regardless of the legal rights and wrongs.......

is iraq a better place without saddam hussain??



is it better he is gone?? or would you prefer he was still there??....... possibly (and i mean possibly) building up his weapons stock to come and attack our countries and our children???



take the rights and wrongs out of it and look at it is a simple black and white thing..... is it better hes gone?

[spot]

"i use the 'latin tags' (formal names for the informal fallacies, for those who care) because, well, if the shoe fits, why not? frankly, i find your routine argumentum ad misericordiam pretty repetitive too."

I recall being mocked a while back for keeping a dictionary open on my desktop. I needed it, I was told, so I could look up long words I hadn't heard of five minutes earlier in order to try to sound impressive. I wonder whether all these latin tags are coming from memory, or whether some of them are coming off the web?

(oh, I recall also being told with whooping cries of schoolyard delight that things must have stung if I'd remembered them all this while, which is just as much baloney as we've come to expect. I have good recall and I can pick material appropriate to the moment, that's all).

What I asked was "In your opinion, anastrophe, does your American Administration, or its military wing, compromise with terrorists?", that being the immediate context of my next words, when asked what I implied, "That you live in a mirror world. You posture, trying to scare what's out there, and all you see is your own reflection". The appropriate expansion of "you" is quite clearly "That you apologists for the American Administration, or its military wing, live in a mirror world. Your American Administration, or its military wing, postures, trying to scare what's out there, and all you (collectively) see is your own reflection". I prefer not to have to spell things out in quite such tedious detail, but it would seem to be necessary this time round, since you demanded that you'd been yet again insulted personally.

If I ever insult you personally, anastrophe, I'll tell you I'm doing it, how's that? The default, in the absence of the flag, is that I haven't.

[A Karenina]

Clint, thank you. I'll pass the message on to him.

pink princess wrote: regrdaless of whether or not WMD were found.......... regardless of whether or not its a vigilante strike......... regardless of whether or not you like george bush and tony blair...... regardless of the legal rights and wrongs.......



is iraq a better place without saddam hussain??



is it better he is gone?? or would you prefer he was still there??....... possibly (and i mean possibly) building up his weapons stock to come and attack our countries and our children???



take the rights and wrongs out of it and look at it is a simple black and white thing..... is it better hes gone?
pnik princess, are you serious? Or being facetious? I can't tell...I'm losing my touch!

[spot]

Of course she's serious - why would she not be serious? It's a good question.