As Casualties Mount, Bush Ignores Reality

[Stu]

Thekla:

I wouldn’t expect the Navy to say otherwise.

Gracious of you.

 

[Fitz]

Thekla:

Don’t worry, I’m fine. Somehow this took a turn as to who made the sign. I wouldn’t expect the Navy to say otherwise.

So, you think that the Navy shouldn’t have homecomings for people that spent a year at sea? They shouldn’t have signs? Or do you think that they quick lied to cover up that the president ordered the sign? When my daughter returned, the families; children and wives and parents made signs. It is tradition. Obviously this groups homecoming was more special because President Bush joined them right before docking. They might have been a little more high tech with their sign, but the emotions are the same. Everyone is relieved, proud, and so happy they are home.

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

I note how you base your postion on emotions, not on logic – “Total photo op. In his ridiculous flight suit and the band.” Hardly the words of someone sincerly investigating the issues.

Well, thanks for that sum up of my character. Appreciate it.
I just don’t see how anyone couldn’t see how very obvious that was. I’m just an emotional person, I guess. Oh well.

 

[Celia]

leaner:

Keep in mind that when the president uses certain terms (like mission accomplished, end of ground war, blah blah…) – these terms signal different things such as the status of “warzones” for pay related, death related, and many other instances – to Joe Shmo, it sounds like “ok, we’re done, we’ve won, let’s go” – but that’s not it at all – many changes occur in the “hazardous duty zone” when certain phrases are uttered, which is why those very phrases are used. That particular ship had just “accomplished it’s particular mission” – the fact that the media spun it to appear he was telling the entire military and american people is what started all the brew-ha-ha…(and no, I don’t know this for a fact, but remember seeing it and thinking “oh, well now that makes a bit more sense then…I didn’t know that either”) – I couldn’t figure out why he’d say that knowing full well we’d have to be there a whole lot longer to even begin to stabilize the region. Then I saw that (dateline maybe? Evening news show, I remember that much) snippet and got some clarification. And I for one (having been directly given a legal and binding order) would rather have GWB standing on my flightline than shake the hand of then-president Clinton (scary that I have to distinguish…) – yes, I was given a direct order to attend the “flightline ropeline” because 25 people showed up…so there was a huge scramble. That should tell you something; the people who are going to go and stand in front of a bullet on his order are thrilled to see him; yet, when Clinton showed up, they had to “rent-a-crowd” just to fill a 50-foot ropeline for the cameras…talk about “photo-op” – we just about puked when he took a CRS (component repair squadron) hat and put it on…(I was in the logistics group – CRS was one of our squadrons) – My boss joked I’d better wash my hands before I touched anything on his desk after that ropeline.

Ok, I’ll remember that in the future. But I just kind of doubt that it was entirely the media’s fault, you know?
As for the Clinton stuff, well, I wouldn’t mind meeting him and shaking his hand. I think it would be interesting.

 

[Celia]

mike182d:

Isn’t that exactly what Christ did by coming to a “foreign land” to die for people in another “country” so that they could be free?

Where in Catholic theology does it state that giving your life for another is an intrinsic evil?

Just sayin’…

True. But I think when a low value is placed on that life…“it’s just a fact, it has to happen” or whatever…that’s what gets me. I think Catholic theology places a pretty high premium on human life, too.

 

[trailblazer]

Before I shook hands with President Clinton, I’d want to make sure he washed his hands. I’d wash mine afterwards!

Bob

 

[leaner]

Celia:

Ok, I’ll remember that in the future. But I just kind of doubt that it was entirely the media’s fault, you know?
As for the Clinton stuff, well, I wouldn’t mind meeting him and shaking his hand. I think it would be interesting.

Yeah, it’s kind of neat to think I shook the Commander in Chief’s hand…I just leave out the part of which president, and let the listener do the math if they’re so inclined…I just wish it had been a different pres…(ps, it was INCREDIBLY cold and clammy…lol – perhaps they told him the delay was so they could scramble enough people together…he was in Tucson for NAFTA talks I think…my mom told me to take consolation that at least he was an “outgoing” president if nothing else…then she told me “bleach is in the detergent aisle, no GO!”)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thekla:

Don’t worry, I’m fine. Somehow this took a turn as to who made the sign. I wouldn’t expect the Navy to say otherwise.

So your tactic when proven wrong is to call the Navy liars?

 

[mike182d]

Celia:

True. But I think when a low value is placed on that life…“it’s just a fact, it has to happen” or whatever…that’s what gets me. I think Catholic theology places a pretty high premium on human life, too.

When has the United States placed a low value on human life in the Iraqi war? Furthermore, does it necessarily follow from all wars that any fighting is due to a low value placed on the life of the combatants?

The fact of the matter is if we applied every criterion for “just war” suggested by vehement pacifists in the public square, there is not a single war that has ever been justified including the Revolutionary War. If the Iraqi war, and the subsequent liberation of an oppressed people tortured and brutally murdered by a viscious dictator is unjust, how much more unjust is a group of wealthy colonials rebelling against a King who wanted to start imposing taxes on colonies that paid virtually none in comparison to the rest of the British empire?

Now, I do not think the American Revolution was an unjust war - in fact I think it was the greatest thing to happen to the world in the past 500 years. But these pundits who foam at the mouth about how “evil” this war is are not just attacking this particular war, but every war the United States has ever been in including that which founded this very nation. THAT is what makes these anti-war critics so anti-American, they object to they very thing that gave birth to our nation and legitimized its creation.

 

[mlchance]

Celia:

I asked when Iraq physically attacked us on our soil.

Well, obviously that hasn’t happened, so what’s the point in asking? Fact: Iraq had attacked Americans, both directly and indirectly. That those attacks didn’t take place within U.S. borders is irrelevant.

Celia:

Mmmkay. 1700 Americans dead and only half of the objectives met. I don’t think that makes it sound any better.

I didn’t say it made it sound better. But it does make it more accurate. More truthful.

Celia:

Right. He was using it as an excuse to make it look like all was better over there. Total photo op. In his ridiculous flight suit and the band. We were and are far from anything being accomplished, it looks like…why is he trying to make it look like we are. More deception. Big surprise…:nope:

No, President Bush wasn’t “using it as an excuse to make it look like all was better over there.” He never said the entire mission was accomplished. (Just like no one in the Bush administration ever said Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but that stubborn fact doesn’t keep people from twisting the truth by making false accusations to the contrary). In this speech about the carrier, President Bush correctly noted that certain parameters of the mission had been reached, but that the overall mission continues.

For someone so obsessed with the value of honesty, you could try to be a little more scrupulous on that front yourself.

Of course, actually being informed about the complicated issues regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom takes a good deal more time and effort than just going over DNC talking points.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Celia]

mike182d:

When has the United States placed a low value on human life in the Iraqi war? Furthermore, does it necessarily follow from all wars that any fighting is due to a low value placed on the life of the combatants?

The fact of the matter is if we applied every criterion for “just war” suggested by vehement pacifists in the public square, there is not a single war that has ever been justified including the Revolutionary War. If the Iraqi war, and the subsequent liberation of an oppressed people tortured and brutally murdered by a viscious dictator is unjust, how much more unjust is a group of wealthy colonials rebelling against a King who wanted to start imposing taxes on colonies that paid virtually none in comparison to the rest of the British empire?

Now, I do not think the American Revolution was an unjust war - in fact I think it was the greatest thing to happen to the world in the past 500 years. But these pundits who foam at the mouth about how “evil” this war is are not just attacking this particular war, but every war the United States has ever been in including that which founded this very nation. THAT is what makes these anti-war critics so anti-American, they object to they very thing that gave birth to our nation and legitimized its creation.

Well, it’s just the attitude that some people have that I was referring a bit more to. I can’t stand that. If a loved one of yours died in Iraq, and they came up to you and said, “well, get over it, it happens in war and it’s just a fact of life” I think I’d be pretty upset. I know I would be. When that kind of attitude is thrown around the board, I guess you could say it’s a pet peeve of mine, I get a little ticked. That’s all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Celia:

Well, it’s just the attitude that some people have that I was referring a bit more to. I can’t stand that. If a loved one of yours died in Iraq, and they came up to you and said, “well, get over it, it happens in war and it’s just a fact of life” I think I’d be pretty upset. I know I would be. When that kind of attitude is thrown around the board, I guess you could say it’s a pet peeve of mine, I get a little ticked. That’s all.

How do you think my wife felt when people found out her husband was in Viet Nam and told her they hoped he’d be killed?

How do you think it felt to come home wounded and be treated as we were treated?

You’re driven by emotion – look at you own words. And your emotion is motivating you to give the enemy reason to hope for an anti-war movement in this country. And that is one reason they’re willing to keep killing American soldiers.

 

[Celia]

mlchance:

Well, obviously that hasn’t happened, so what’s the point in asking? Fact: Iraq had attacked Americans, both directly and indirectly. That those attacks didn’t take place within U.S. borders is irrelevant.

I didn’t say it made it sound better. But it does make it more accurate. More truthful.

No, President Bush wasn’t “using it as an excuse to make it look like all was better over there.” He never said the entire mission was accomplished. (Just like no one in the Bush administration ever said Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but that stubborn fact doesn’t keep people from twisting the truth by making false accusations to the contrary). In this speech about the carrier, President Bush correctly noted that certain parameters of the mission had been reached, but that the overall mission continues.

For someone so obsessed with the value of honesty, you could try to be a little more scrupulous on that front yourself.

Of course, actually being informed about the complicated issues regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom takes a good deal more time and effort than just going over DNC talking points.

– Mark L. Chance./QUOTE/

1. It was within the context of our previous discussions. I made a comment, and it started some other convo’s.
2. ok, agreed.
3. I’m sorry, but that display just made me more suspicious of him and this administration. You can’t really trust any politicians, though, I guess…
   4.I’d like to know where I came across as “obsessed with honesty” because I’m questioning some of the motives of my government? I think I’m being willing to learn. Apparently I’m not supposed to ask questions.
4. thanks for being so judgemental. I have a few comments I could make (that probably would get me suspended) but I’d rather not throw stones. Even though you are the second person on here who has felt free to do so.
5. well, that’s what I have all you guys here for, to set me straight, right?

 

[mike182d]

Celia:

Well, it’s just the attitude that some people have that I was referring a bit more to. I can’t stand that. If a loved one of yours died in Iraq, and they came up to you and said, “well, get over it, it happens in war and it’s just a fact of life” I think I’d be pretty upset. I know I would be. When that kind of attitude is thrown around the board, I guess you could say it’s a pet peeve of mine, I get a little ticked. That’s all.

My problem is that you will not find this attitude on the pro-Iraqi war side.

Using your example, if a loved one of yours died in Iraq would you rather be told: “I’m terribly sorry, but his/her death was a worthy sacrifice and you should be proud of their courage and valour” or “Your son/daughter died in vain for a lie propogated by a fascist administration and you should be horrified!”

The irony is that many anti-war opponents have the least respect and value for human lives lost as they take every opportunity to flaunt every one of their deaths as meaningless and proudly hold the “death count” up as a trophy for their cause.

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

How do you think my wife felt when people found out her husband was in Viet Nam and told her they hoped he’d be killed?

How do you think it felt to come home wounded and be treated as we were treated?

You’re driven by emotion – look at you own words. And your emotion is motivating you to give the enemy reason to hope for an anti-war movement in this country. And that is one reason they’re willing to keep killing American soldiers.

Well, my dad told me all about what it felt like for him when he came home wounded off the plane in PA in 1968 and there was people waiting at the airport to yell stuff at him.
I know what it felt like when my brother was in Afghanistan for 6 months after 9/11 and my mom cried every day worrying about him.
I may be driven by emotion, but if that’s giving me reason to look for the real motives and really understand this war and the reasons for it, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Look, I am not the enemy here. I never said I was hard-core anti-Iraq or whatever. I had some questions, some thoughts on what’s going on. But from now on, I’ll just keep them to myself. I think it’s better for everyone.
Off to the Water Cooler I go.

 

[leaner]

vern humphrey:

… And your emotion is motivating you to give the enemy reason to hope for an anti-war movement in this country. And that is one reason they’re willing to keep killing American soldiers.

I think this is the CRUX of the issue – the Iraqi insurgents cannot possibly believe they can defeat the US military, do they? Of course not. So instead, they destabilize at home, cause infighting, dissent and hatred among a people who all claim to be for the same thing. I think the 9-11 attacks were planned not to kill as many people as possible, or for military gain (they should have hit the Army/Navy stadium then…between the future military on the field and in the first few rows, the current leadership up in the cushy box seats, they could have done irreversable damage to our military strength, but that’s just my own little opinion) – they hit the heart and soul of america – the twin towers and what it stood for – everything american. One football stadium could have taken out 50K people…they settled for 3K b/c the significance was so much stronger. I really believe they are trying to scare us with their shadows because their actual capacity is simply not enough to do the job. Every NYT, WP, CNN editorial adds to their end-goal. We are going to be the only ones responsible for the outcome of this war – be it good, or bad, we, the American People will ultimately be responsible. Every bad thing said about our troops is like standing them in front of a firing line…it just gives the insurgents more and more reason to keep fighting the way they are.

It’s a sticky line – you do have the American Given Right to voice your disagreement, but in doing so, we all toe a very blurry line in the sand – it’s not a nice picture, and it’s a predicament for those who disagree with the war. I’m sure glad I don’t have to feel any guilt over my position; if I were on the other side I really do think I would worry about the surge of adrenaline those suicide bombers get every time they see my sign bouncing around at a protest, kwim?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Celia:

Well, my dad told me all about what it felt like for him when he came home wounded off the plane in PA in 1968 and there was people waiting at the airport to yell stuff at him. /quote}

Then why have you joined the ranks of those who denegrate our troops, attack our cause, and give aid and comfort to our enemies?

 

[Celia]

mike182d:

My problem is that you will not find this attitude on the pro-Iraqi war side.

Using your example, if a loved one of yours died in Iraq would you rather be told: “I’m terribly sorry, but his/her death was a worthy sacrifice and you should be proud of their courage and valour” or “Your son/daughter died in vain for a lie propogated by a fascist administration and you should be horrified!”

The irony is that many anti-war opponents have the least respect and value for human lives lost as they take every opportunity to flaunt every one of their deaths as useless and proudly hold the “death count” up as a trophy for their cause.

I’ve seen this attitude on this board before. And I think it’s pretty pro-Iraqi war here.
I don’t know what you mean. I would like to know the real truth. I wouldn’t want to be lied to. Are you saying that if the latter was true they should tell you the former anyway, just so it sounds better and makes you feel better?
I would never “flaunt” soldiers deaths. That’s gross. Bringing up how many people have died in this war is a fact.

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

Celia:

Well, my dad told me all about what it felt like for him when he came home wounded off the plane in PA in 1968 and there was people waiting at the airport to yell stuff at him.

Who’s being emotional now?
I think you’re being very accusatory. I have stated a few times - and in the post you’re quoting - that I have never been completely anti-Iraq war. I am willing to learn. You are willing to jump on anyone that shows the slightest disagreement with the government. I would never “denegrate” our troops. How dare you. I’m not attacking your cause. I’m questioning it. There’s a big difference. And as for giving aid and comfort to the enemy…that just is disgusting. Yeah, you’re right. I want to give aid and comfort to the people that are shooting at my family and friends.
I’m speechless right now. :nope:

 

[leaner]

Today is the anniversary of D-Day, no? 29,000 were killed in that ONE battle. Do you know how many Germans they killed? 30,000 – Not that any loss is any better than any other or worse, but look at the numbers. TWENTY NINE THOUSAND + THIRTY THOUSAND soldiers. That’s not in WWII…that’s AT NORMANDY ALONE (according to Encyclopedia Britannica; please someone correct me if I’m wrong) – but there are movies made honoring the brave soldiers – Saving Private Ryan comes to mind immediately. Wonder how our soldiers of today (the ONE THOUSAND per year at the current rate) will be immortalized…if at all