← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · edward gibbon
Thread ID: 16409 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2005-01-24
2005-01-24 17:44 | User Profile
Mr Reed has written an enlightening column on those fighting in Iraq. I have highlighted those parts that interested me.
[url]http://amconmag.com/2005_01_31/article1.html[/url]
January 31, 2005 issue Copyright é 2005 The American Conservative Walking Wounded [CENTER][B][SIZE=4]Old soldiers donââ¬â¢t fade away[/SIZE][/B][/CENTER] by Fred Reed
The observant will have noticed that we hear little from the troops in Iraq and see almost nothing of the wounded. Why, one might wonder, does not CNN put an enlisted Marine before a camera and, for 15 minutes without editing, let him say what he thinks? Is he not an adult and a citizen? Is he not engaged in important events on our behalf?
[COLOR=Red]Sound political reasons exist. Soldiers are a risk PR-wise, the wounded a liability. No one can tell what they might say, and conspicuous dismemberment is bad for recruiting[/COLOR]. An enlisted man in front of a camera is dangerous. He could wreck the governmental spin apparatus in five minutes. It is better to keep soldiers discreetly out of sight.
So we do not see much of the casualties, ours or theirs. [COLOR=Red]Yet they are there, somewhere, with missing legs, blind, becoming accustomed to groping at things in their new darkness, learning to use the wheelchairs that will be theirs for 50 years. Some face worse fates than others. Quadriplegics will be warehoused in VA hospitals where nurses will turn them at intervals, like hamburgers, to prevent bedsores. Friends and relatives will soon forget them. Suicide will be a frequent thought.[/COLOR] The less damaged will get around.
For a brief moment perhaps the casualties will believe, then try desperately to keep believing, that they did something brave and worthy and terribly important for that abstraction, country. Some will expect thanks. But there will be no thanks, or few, and those quickly forgotten. It will be worse. People will ask how they lost the leg. In Iraq, they will say, hoping for sympathy, or respect, or understanding. The response, often unvoiced but unmistakable, will be, ââ¬ÅWhat did you do that for?ââ¬Â The wounded will realize that they are not only crippled, but freaks.
The years will go by. Iraq will fade into the mist. Wars always do. A generation will rise for whom it will be just history. The dismembered veterans will find first that almost nobody appreciates what they did, then that few even remember it. Ifââ¬âwhen, many would sayââ¬âthe United States is driven out of Iraq, the soldiers will look back and realize that the whole affair was a fraud. Wars are just wars. They seem important at the time. At any rate, we are told that they are important.
Yet the wounds will remain. Arms do not grow back. For the paralyzed there will never be girlfriends, dancing, rolling in the grass with children. The blind will adapt as best they can. Those with merely a missing leg will count themselves lucky. They will hobble about, managing to lead semi-normal lives, and people will say, ââ¬ÅHow well he handles it.ââ¬Â An admirable freak. For others it will be less good. A colostomy bag is a sorry companion on a wedding night.
[B][I][CENTER]These men will come to hate. It will not be the Iraqis they hate. This we do not talk about[/CENTER][/I].[/B]
It is hard to admit that one has been used. Some of the crippled will forever insist that the war was needed, that they were protecting their sisters from an Islamic invasion, or Vietnamese, or Chinese. Others will keep quiet and drink too much. Still others will read, grow older and wiserââ¬âand bitter. They will remember that their vice president, a man named Cheney, said that during his war, the one in Asia, he ââ¬Åhad other priorities.ââ¬Â The veterans will remember this when everyone else has long since forgotten Cheney. I once watched the first meeting between a young Marine from the South, blind, much of his face shot away, and his high-school sweetheart, who had come from Tennessee to Bethesda Naval Hospital to see him.
Hatred comes easily. There are wounds and there are wounds. A friend of mine spent two tours in Asia in that war now little remembered. He killed many people, not all of them soldiers. It is what happens in wars. The memory haunts him. Jack is a hard man from a tough neighborhood, quick with his fists, intelligent but uneducatedââ¬ânot a liberal flower vain over his sensitivity. He lives in Mexican bars few would enter and has no politics beyond an anger toward government. He was not a joyous killer. He remembers what he did, knows now that he was had. It gnaws at him. One is wise to stay away from him when he is drinking.
People say that this war isnââ¬â¢t like Vietnam. They are correct. Washington fights its war in Iraq with no better understanding of Iraq than it had of Vietnam, but with much better understanding of the United States. The Pentagon learned from Asia. This time around it has controlled the press well. Here is the great lesson of Southeast Asia: the press is dangerous, not because it is inaccurate, which it often is, but because it often isnââ¬â¢t. So we donââ¬â¢t much see the caskets ââ¬âfor reasons of privacy, you understand.
The war in Iraq is fought by volunteers, which means people that no one in power cares about. [I][B]No one in the mysteriously named ââ¬Åeliteââ¬Â gives a damn about some kid from a town in Tennessee that has one gas station and a beer hall with a stuffed buckââ¬â¢s head. Such a kid is a redneck at best, pretty much from another planet, and certainly not someone you would let your daughter date[/B].[/I] If conscription came back, and college students with rich parents learned to live in fear of The Envelope, riots would blossom as before. Now Yale can rest easy. Thank God for throwaway people. The nearly perfect separation between the military and the rest of the country, or at least the influential in the country, is wonderful for the war effort. It prevents concern. How many people with a college degree even know a soldier? Yes, some, and I will get e-mail from them, but they are a minority. How many Americans have been on a military base? Or, to be truly absurd, how many men in combat arms went to, say, Harvard? Ah, but they have other priorities.
In 15 years in Washington, I knew many, many reporters and intellectuals and educated people. Almost none had worn boots. So it is. Those who count do not have to go, and do not know anyone who has gone, and donââ¬â¢t interest themselves. There is a price for this, though not one Washington cares about. [I]Across America, in places where you might not expect itââ¬âin Legion halls and VFW posts, among those who carry membership cards from the Disabled American Veteransââ¬âthere are men who hate. They donââ¬â¢t hate America. They hate those who sent them. Talk to the wounded from Iraq in five years. [/I]
Fred Reedââ¬â¢s writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Harperââ¬â¢s, and National Review, among other places. January 31, 2005 issue
2005-01-24 19:05 | User Profile
People are pretty thickheaded. I doubt even being wounded can knock sense into most people's heads. Those wounded Iraqi vets will still be waving the flag and praising Bush, and his neocon successors. They'll always believe that WMDs were found and that Saddam was about to nuke the US.
And, if they're not going to be praising Bush in future years, they're not praising him now, before they are wounded.
2005-01-24 22:10 | User Profile
I read this article in TAC last week and I thought about it alot while shoveling snow. There is one important dimension that needs to be added (besides the dollar cost and exacerbation of Muslim and Arab hatred for us). What these returning wounded-- physically and psychologically-- will face will be worse than Vietnam vets in the long run. Antipathy is better than apathy because at least with the former people are aware of what you did or are doing. During Vietnam you heard anti-war folk and R&R songs on the radio, many of them referring directly to the Vietnam war in their lyrics. There were protests on damn near all college campuses (I wasn't there but I've seen documentaries :-) and all parents of boys didn't have the luxury of reading about this far-off war with the cursory and dispassionate mind nearly all parents do today. I think that these Iraqi vets might look back and wish they had been the object of America's attention-- even through protest songs. It might be nice to see people getting worked up-- for or against-- what is going on in this far-off land. I know if I were some soldier over in Iraq or at Walter Reed, it would please me more to hear what I did or do vilified in an Eminem song than glorified in some Toby Keith redneck song. The former indicates what I did or am doing is fully a part of the American consciousness since it has reached the level of popular music, while the latter is simply standard patriotic country crap.
2005-01-25 15:53 | User Profile
Edward,
I regard this column as one of Reed's finest. I wish I could find the exact quote, but Douglas MacArthur wrote words to the effect that the worse thing you could do is to lie to your men. One day most of the troops who joined for the noblest reasons of all and served over there will realize just how badly their sense of duty and patriotism has been abused by the criminals we have running the circus. While I think that most of the people who say "we support the troops" do indeed do so, I can't help but to think that those who lead the cheer leading such as the clowns on talk radio are being less than sincere. I believe what they are really doing is using the soldiery as human shield to prevent others from questioning the real reasons (and their motives behind pushing it) behind this utterly unjustifible war. This is what I call the "professional patriot" defense and it is based on the Zionist defense of crying "antisemitism" whenever someone questions U.S. middle east policy.
2005-01-25 16:28 | User Profile
Fred's wrong.
The wounded will tell themselves, now and for the rest of their lives, that they made the Ultimate Sacrifice for Freedom, and be bitter about how little gratitude it gets them from the civilians around them. Very few will ever connect the dots and know they've been had.
The families of the dead will do likewise, convincing themselves that their sons (or daughters -- thanks, feminists) Died For Freedom, breaking down every Veteran's Day as they look at that framed photo over the fireplace and think of what could have been.
I don't especially blame them. If I were a wounded veteran, I doubt that I'd be able to face the fact that my scars were all for the zionist machinations of a pack of venal toadies who smirked behind the flag. And if I were a relative of one of the dead, I'm sure I'd do my damndest to tell myself that it wasn't a sick, terrible pointless waste; that it was all for the noblest cause.
That's human nature. No one wants to admit they've been had, especially when the price was so dear. The price for such honesty is too painful.
But Reed is dead on about one thing, at least: if there was a draft, the deaths and mutilations would suddenly become an issue that would touch huge numbers of people, and the zionist maggot in the red-white-and-blue apple would be dragged into the light in short order. And [I]that[/I] is why the Imperium is breaking its back to keep the cannon fodder coming by all means short of conscription.
This whole disgusting affair makes me sick.
2005-01-25 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]The wounded will tell themselves, now and for the rest of their lives, that they made the Ultimate Sacrifice for Freedom, and be bitter about how little gratitude it gets them from the civilians around them. Very few will ever connect the dots and know they've been had.[/QUOTE]
Many months ago I read an anti-war article that predicted that when deaths of US troops in Iraq his the 1000 mark, the public is going to want an end to the war. That mark came and went, no big deal. You can still find people suggesting that the war will lose lots of support if the deaths pass 2000, 10'000, 20'000, whatever. No, it won't. Numbers don't matter. They're meaningless statistics. The war will only lose signficant support when most people think no progress is being made. But, Bush is providing progress. There was the capture of Saddam. The nominal handover of power to Iraq. The upcoming elections. And, increasingly, Iraqi militants serving US interests are dying in place of US troops. When in reality, the situation in Iraq is not getting better for the Iraqis, and is much worse than with Saddam (never mind that the US tried to make life H3ll for the Iraqis under Saddam). Oh yeah, Bush hasn't foudn or destroyed any WMDs.
The failure to find WMDs in Iraq, which was the reason for the war prior to attacking Iraq, didn't cost Bush any votes in the last election or create new calls to end the war.
I didn't listen to Bush's speech, but I have read comments... Reality doesn't matter, just listen to him repeat the word "freedom" over and over.
2005-01-25 16:54 | User Profile
Happy,
That business about "freedom" is certainly is the case with this bought and paid for moron.
[url]http://boortz.com/nuze/200501/01212005.html[/url]
[url]http://boortz.com/nuze/200501/01242005.html[/url]
2005-01-25 20:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Many months ago I read an anti-war article that predicted that when deaths of US troops in Iraq his the 1000 mark, the public is going to want an end to the war. That mark came and went, no big deal. You can still find people suggesting that the war will lose lots of support if the deaths pass 2000, 10'000, 20'000, whatever. No, it won't. Numbers don't matter. They're meaningless statistics. The war will only lose signficant support when most people think no progress is being made. But, Bush is providing progress. There was the capture of Saddam. The nominal handover of power to Iraq. The upcoming elections. And, increasingly, Iraqi militants serving US interests are dying in place of US troops. When in reality, the situation in Iraq is not getting better for the Iraqis, and is much worse than with Saddam (never mind that the US tried to make life H3ll for the Iraqis under Saddam). Oh yeah, Bush hasn't foudn or destroyed any WMDs.
The failure to find WMDs in Iraq, which was the reason for the war prior to attacking Iraq, didn't cost Bush any votes in the last election or create new calls to end the war.
I didn't listen to Bush's speech, but I have read comments... Reality doesn't matter, just listen to him repeat the word "freedom" over and over.[/QUOTE] Good point. The lessons of Vietnam were learned and these Likudnik puppeteers knew they needed to always have a definite future horizon point to create an endless artificial 'light at the end of the tunnel' effect to placate the sheeple.
2005-01-25 22:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Happy,
That business about "freedom" is certainly is the case with this bought and paid for moron.
[url]http://boortz.com/nuze/200501/01212005.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, what a maroooon. I read read the articles, but I seem to have missed any way Bush is going to increase my freedom. I already know he'll make we work hard in the mines and give up more of my privacy in the War on Terrorism, now the War on Bad Leaders.
2005-01-25 22:16 | User Profile
If the Americans had left Iraq after taking down Saddam and his army there could have been peace by now.......but thanks to the Americans this war will continue for ever either between the American and the Iraqis or between the Iraqis themselves, this is good for Iran.
Meanwhile the oil pipe lines to the state of Israel is going full speed ahead and like I wrote before "there will be peace in Iraq only once the Jews get their oil".
2005-01-26 18:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]People are pretty thickheaded. I doubt even being wounded can knock sense into most people's heads. Those wounded Iraqi vets will still be waving the flag and praising Bush, and his neocon successors. They'll always believe that WMDs were found and that Saddam was about to nuke the US.
And, if they're not going to be praising Bush in future years, they're not praising him now, before they are wounded.[/QUOTE]Many on this board such as HH have absolutely no idea how combat can affect people. HH writes as if he were the most morally superior person not only on this forum, but his god blessed him to discourse on those he considers his moral inferiors.
Men join the army or marines for some money for education for the most part. They realized they may have to face an obligation some day, but not to the extent that Iraq obligates them.
HH needs to face some real danger in his life. I suspect his snide reference to those he considers his inferiors would disappear.
2005-01-26 18:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]Fred's wrong.
[I] [COLOR=Red]The wounded will tell themselves, now and for the rest of their lives, that they made the Ultimate Sacrifice for Freedom, and be bitter about how little gratitude it gets them from the civilians around them. Very few will ever connect the dots and know they've been had[/COLOR].[/I]
The families of the dead will do likewise, convincing themselves that their sons (or daughters -- thanks, feminists) Died For Freedom, breaking down every Veteran's Day as they look at that framed photo over the fireplace and think of what could have been.
I don't especially blame them. If I were a wounded veteran, I doubt that I'd be able to face the fact that my scars were all for the zionist machinations of a pack of venal toadies who smirked behind the flag. And if I were a relative of one of the dead, I'm sure I'd do my damndest to tell myself that it wasn't a sick, terrible pointless waste; that it was all for the noblest cause.
That's human nature. No one wants to admit they've been had, especially when the price was so dear. The price for such honesty is too painful.
But Reed is dead on about one thing, at least: if there was a draft, the deaths and mutilations would suddenly become an issue that would touch huge numbers of people, and the zionist maggot in the red-white-and-blue apple would be dragged into the light in short order. And [I]that[/I] is why the Imperium is breaking its back to keep the cannon fodder coming by all means short of conscription.
This whole disgusting affair makes me sick.[/QUOTE]This board suffers from those who have never faced any danger in their short lives and believe they are qualified to comment on wars and soldiers. Smug comments such as above would disappear if they had faced danger or watched friends die. I often think about lurkers who read this sanctimonous crap and what they must think.
2005-01-26 19:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Many on this board such as HH have absolutely no idea how combat can affect people.
Why do you to lash out at me without even so much as telling me your position on the subject that I was addressing, let alone telling me why I'm wrong and you're right.
I can only guess that you think Bush told the truth about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. In which case you're a fool. Or, you think that once a man takes a bullet and faces the hardship of war that he'll then realize that Bush lied when before he thought he was saving America from Saddam. I'm still very sure you're wrong and you've given me no reason to doubt my original assessment.
This board suffers from those who have never faced any danger in their short lives and believe they are qualified to comment on wars and soldiers.
You remind me of n*ggers who say that white people are unqualified to comment on anything about blacks. If you're so much better qualified, then I expect so much more from you in sound argument.
2005-01-26 23:35 | User Profile
This board suffers from those who have never faced any danger in their short lives and believe they are qualified to comment on wars and soldiers. Smug comments such as above would disappear if they had faced danger or watched friends die. I often think about lurkers who read this sanctimonous crap and what they must think.
This board suffers from those who think that only they are uniquely qualified to comment upon certain subjects. I often think about lurkers who read such sanctimonous crap and what they must think.
And, as you know absolutely nothing about either my life or its length, it seems that your own sanctimoniousness is exceeded only by your imagination.
2005-01-27 01:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]This board suffers from those who think that only they are uniquely qualified to comment upon certain subjects. I often think about lurkers who read such sanctimonous crap and what they must think.
[B][I]And, as you know absolutely nothing about either my life or its length, it seems that your own sanctimoniousness is exceeded only by your imagination[/I][/B].[/QUOTE]I know quite a bit about what I write. I am not interested in your personal life, but your choice of words and your assumption of moral superiority. I still believe your confronting danger would be of great benefit for yourself and give you a clue as to what some people have to do.
2005-01-27 01:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Why do you to lash out at me without even so much as telling me your position on the subject that I was addressing, let alone telling me why I'm wrong and you're right.
I can only guess that you think Bush told the truth about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. In which case you're a fool. Or, you think that once a man takes a bullet and faces the hardship of war that he'll then realize that Bush lied when before he thought he was saving America from Saddam. I'm still very sure you're wrong and you've given me no reason to doubt my original assessment.
You remind me of n*ggers who say that white people are unqualified to comment on anything about blacks. If you're so much better qualified, then I expect so much more from you in sound argument.[/QUOTE]Not for one second do I believe Bush told the truth. You made up statements or imagined thoughts to grasp at moral superiority.
[QUOTE][I]You remind me of n*ggers who say that white people are unqualified to comment on anything about blacks[/I][/QUOTE]I suspect you are a person who, if he did confront a black, would be more than a little hesitant about uttering truths.
2005-01-27 15:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]You made up statements or imagined thoughts to grasp at moral superiority.
I didn't make up anything... I'm forced to guess at what you believe because while you stand around complaining that others are unqualified to have opinions, you don't stand up for anything yourself (in regards to the issues I was addressing).
It's bad enough that you think the objective outside observer is too ignorant to compete with the emotionally conflicted insider. It's worse that you still haven't said what you seem to imply by attacking me, that you think taking a bullet and the hardships of war will make Americal soliders realize they've been lied to when before they thought they were defending America.
The article you posted says "The dismembered veterans will find first that almost nobody appreciates what they did, then that few even remember it. Ifââ¬âwhen, many would sayââ¬âthe United States is driven out of Iraq, the soldiers will look back and realize that the whole affair was a fraud." What I emphasized is the issue I was replying to. Yet, the context of the article implies that the Iraq war is no different from any other war in terms of if the war is based on lies. See, even the author of that article refuses to say that these boys are dieing for Bush's lies.
The fact is, there's not one American casualty in Iraq resulting from anyone's defense of America. So, how much unending praise of these veterans can America produce? This same veteran idolatry that you have is the same thing that makes Americans such suckers for war in the first place. But, as with any emotion, once the stimulus is removed, the emotion is gone.
Anyone who doesn't want to be a disabled vet should refuse to join the service. And, considering that the American military is now used for, refusing to join the military itself is patriotism.
I suspect you are a person who, if he did confront a black, would be more than a little hesitant about uttering truths.[/QUOTE]
There you go again running on witless emotion.
2005-01-27 17:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]This board suffers from those who have never faced any danger in their short lives and believe they are qualified to comment on wars and soldiers. Smug comments such as above would disappear if they had faced danger or watched friends die.[/QUOTE] Would that we could be as dispassionate as the fellows at the American Enterprise Institute.
[QUOTE]I often think about lurkers who read this sanctimonous crap and what they must think.[/QUOTE] Hopefully not as offended as those who listen in on neo-con stooge Rush Limbaugh when he scoffs at the number of soldiers killed in Iraq, telling listeners to put it in perspective since many more are killed in auto accidents.
2005-01-28 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] [COLOR=Red]It's worse that you still haven't said what you seem to imply by attacking me, that you think taking a bullet and the hardships of war will make Americal soliders realize they've been lied to when before they thought they were defending America[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]A soldierôs scope of concern has always been narrow. What they may think of later differs from immediate concerns. [QUOTE][COLOR=Red]The fact is, there's not one American casualty in Iraq resulting from anyone's defense of America. So, how much unending praise of these veterans can America produce? This same veteran idolatry that you have is the same thing that makes Americans such suckers for war in the first place. But, as with any emotion, once the stimulus is removed, the emotion is gone.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]I am a realist, not an idolator. The emotions that you believe so important do not last or sustain those in combat. [QUOTE]Anyone who doesn't want to be a disabled vet should refuse to join the service. And, considering that the American military is now used for, refusing to join the military itself is patriotism.[/QUOTE]People such as yourself will always find reasons to dodge danger. You will assume moral superiority for yourself to justify your actions. These are the words and thoughts of a coward. [QUOTE][QUOTE]Quote: I suspect you are a person who, if he did confront a black, would be more than a little hesitant about uttering truths. [/QUOTE]There you go again running on witless emotion.[/QUOTE]I would not recognize you on the street while I must assume you would know me. I believe that you like so many others derive a sense of manhood and courage through the anonymity of the internet.
2005-01-28 16:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Would that we could be as dispassionate as the fellows at the American Enterprise Institute. [QUOTE] Quote: [QUOTE]I often think about lurkers who read this sanctimonous crap and what they must think.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Hopefully not as offended as those who listen in on neo-con stooge Rush Limbaugh when he scoffs at the number of soldiers killed in Iraq, telling listeners to put it in perspective since many more are killed in auto accidents.[/QUOTE]I must note that any reference to Limbaugh is not worth replying to. Please note for future reference.
2005-01-28 17:05 | User Profile
Fred's columns on war - this one specifically, but also war in general - are always his best work by far. Powerful and profound.
It's a hell of a thing, I think, to have to fight - to be put in a kill-or-die combat situation - at all, but words fail me at the notion of what must go through the minds of the men who'll return from this knowing they were chess-pieces, expendable poker chips, in a high-stakes game neither benefitting nor even defending their kinsmen or their country. I've always thought that one excellent reason a nation should choose its battles [I]very carefully [/I] is that, sooner or later, those men will be coming home, many of them damaged forever, to a society that should make a comfortable - if not an honored - place for them. Yet rarely does.
That America has - for a [I]century [/I] now - made a habit of shoving her sons onto the killing floor to fight other men's battles for them, time and time again, is the national disgrace no vote-whore politician, or career-eyeing national commentator, will ever call by its true name.
But we've paid for it. Every war we've fought - "win" or lose - has resulted in a further coarsening of our daily lives which begins almost immediately after the hostilities have ceased. Maybe that's just desserts; payment extracted from on high for the hubris of thinking that the lives of 18, 19 and 20-year-olds are a small price to pay to make life easier for United Fruit's board of directors. Certanly every war we fought in the 20th century seemed to be a mop-up job directly stemming from the war we should've avoided but didn't previously. It's a tough business, this being a global beat cop; this being a Pavlov's dog leaping to its feet every time corporate or Zionist interests tinkle the dinner-bell. It's easier when you don't put faces on the kids who have to do all that messy dying. It's easier when you dress every needless military adventure on someone else's behalf in Old Glory. It's easier when you look away from the paraplegic's wheelchair and the hook-hands and the colostomy bag - and the haunted faces of the ones who made it back "intact" except for what burdens they'll carry within them for the rest of their lives - and just write a check or drop some coins in a cup.
I wish - before the next one....before the call-up for cannon-fodder to protect Israel from the "threat" of Iran and Syria....somebody would sit these kids down and tell them about the Bonus Marchers. In far too many ways, modern American history begins with them.
2005-01-28 18:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]People such as yourself will always find reasons to dodge danger. You will assume moral superiority for yourself to justify your actions. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I guess I just am on a fishing expedition when I come up with excuses to oppose the Iraqi war like the US Congress never declared war so its not legal, the US has no interests in Iraq to war over (Saddam would have been glad to sell us his oil), there were no WMDs, even if there were WMDs the US should not be the UNs dog, Saddam was not attacking the US (defense being the only good reason for going to war)... There's also that thing that I think the war is for Israel, which I also do not believe is a reason for war. I guess I'm just a coward always trying to find reasons to dodge danger.
But you would, from relative safety, shoot at an innocent Iraqi for fear of being punished for refusing orders. You know what, it takes a lot more bravery to drive a taxi in NY than to be a soldier in Iraq.
You know what else, as I'm not a soldier, whatever danger there is in Iraq for US troops, isn't even a threat to me that any level of cowardice of mine would matter in any opinions that I'm expressing. I could be a total coward and easily be a huge warmonger from the comfort of my home.
You've now passed up several oppertunities to tell me why what I've said is wrong. But, all you do is criticize me for daring to have an opinion on the subject that is not in line with your own view. You've called me sanctimonious, yet that's the only position you seem to be operating from.
I think you're to veterans what a feminazi is to women.
2005-01-29 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]...There's also that thing that I think the war is for Israel, which I also do not believe is a reason for war. I guess I'm just a coward always trying to find reasons to dodge danger. ..
But you would, from relative safety, shoot at an innocent Iraqi for fear of being punished for refusing orders. [COLOR=Red]You know what, it takes a lot more bravery to drive a taxi in NY than to be a soldier in Iraq. [/COLOR]
You know what else, as I'm not a soldier, whatever danger there is in Iraq for US troops, isn't even a threat to me that any level of cowardice of mine would matter in any opinions that I'm expressing. I could be a total coward and easily be a huge warmonger from the comfort of my home.ô...
[COLOR=Red]I think you're to veterans what a feminazi is to women.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]The comment about driving a cab in NY affirms that HH is one of the many who believe they affirm their manhood by posting comments on the internet.
The only reason for war in that part of the world is oil. If the dollar tanks, America most likely have to fight for oil using the historical precedent of Arabs having something we need.
HH once agains uses the moronic Limbaugh analogy.