| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3939 Registered: 1-2003  |
Ed, you have not yet shown how you are sympathetic to parents who have lost a child in a war. In fact, you have shown that you are not. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 542 Registered: 11-2003 |
tom, you have not yet shown how you are sympathetic to parents who have lost a child in a war. Please show contrition immediately or we will consider you a heartless individual. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3940 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney, I'm referring to Ed's post where he said he felt for the mother but felt that the fact that her son volunteered was relevant. I think Ed was implying that it lessens or negates the tragedy of the son's death. I asked him to clarify his point of view, because perhaps I misunderstand him. He hasn't taken that opportunity. His silence dismays me. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1243 Registered: 6-2003 |
Tom-Do not suffer fools. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3941 Registered: 1-2003 |
Uke, this is the thing: Ed has a reputation for being an all around good guy. I have met him. I know he is generous with his time to all kinds of people in the community. I think he has merely failed to consider and reflect on what is going on here. If he took the time, I believe he could see the folly of his appearance on this thread. I do not consider him to be a real fool. You don't generally see me responding to fools on MOL. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1244 Registered: 6-2003 |
I wasn't talking about Ed but a more recent poster. Don't know Ed, many have said he's a decent guy. Looks like he let his, "in-status" with the GOP get to his head and he forgot that he was a father. Hopefully this condition and his candidates reign, will be temporary. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 870 Registered: 1-2003  |
Look, it IS relevant whether someone volunteers to join the armed forces to defend their country, or if they are drafted. Volunteering means making a choice to put themselves in harms way for their country. EVERY soldier, sailor, or marine understands this when they sign up. They know that they may very well die for their country. Parents, unless they are in total denial understand this too. Does this negate the emotions that parents of fighters feel when their child is killed, of course not. But it is relevant that their child voluntarily chose to join up, knowing all too well that they may die for their country. They weren't forced to fight, they chose to and ended up making the ultimate sacrifice. Nothing can ever take the pain away from any parent that loses a child. I don't think that Ed meant to allude to anything like that. He maent that she shouldn't be protesting that GWB killed her son as if he came in to their house and shot him in his bed. She is welcome to be mad, at everyone especially the president. But the fact is that if her son didn't volunteer to put himself in harms way for his country, he would probably be alive today. He is a hero for what he gave us voluntarily. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3948 Registered: 1-2003 |
Maybe the young man thought that volunteering meant he would put himself in harm's way only for justified wars. Or maybe his mother wishes it were that way. Thank you for acknowledging that the mother has a right to express her anger. I wish Ed did that. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 872 Registered: 1-2003 |
Maybe the young man thought that volunteering meant he would put himself in harm's way only for justified wars. Then he was foolish. When you sign up, you don't get to choose when you will fight and when you won't. Everyone signing up knows that. Enlisting means putting your life on the line, even if you disagree with why. Or maybe his mother wishes it were that way. She may. And that is her right. And wishing something doesn't make it reality. I wish that no soldier will ever have to die in any war anywhere... but that isn't going to hapen. And even if she felt the war was "Justified" do you really think that would lessen her pain? She has a right to express her anger, but she is doing it in the wrong forum. She doesn't have the right to express her anger by disrupting the rally and disrespecting the First Lady. | ||
| bobk Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 6227 Registered: 5-2001 |
Michael, all that sounds very patriotic, but while a few sign up out of patriotism most sign up for economic reasons, especially the education benefits. I think this is very obvious in that the sons and daughters of the elite are certainly not flocking to the colors, as was the case in the past, even Vietnam believe it or not. As I said yesterday, sooner or later we are going to run out of volunteers. Then what? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 125 Registered: 7-2004 |
It's more than a question of whether it is a justified war. I suspect the mother of that soldier is also outraged at this administration's complete lack of a war plan. How many soldiers have been killed since Bush declared Mission Accomplished? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 187 Registered: 5-2004 |
To continue Robert’s point, perhaps some of the outrage is that had the war (and peace) been planned properly, perhaps her son would not have died. Even if the war was justified (I won’t go into that), the lack of planning surely led to higher casualties than necessary. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 873 Registered: 1-2003 |
Higher casualties than neccessary???? In 18 months the U.S. has suffered 800 killed in action since the Iraq war began, 1,053 including non-combat deaths. A year and a half, 250,000 troops (total, not all at once), a country taken over, and 1000 deaths (but only 800 KIA). How many fewer than the %.04 would you like? How many fewer than the %.04 would a "plan" avoided? As for the "Mission Accomplished", is anyone saying that the sailors on the ship were not returning home from their mission? Or that the mission that THEY were returning from was accomplished? HEre it is in simple terms: Mission: overthrow Saddam's regime Status: Accomplished. Mission: secure Iraq and instill democracy. Status: ongoing. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 188 Registered: 5-2004 |
Here are my answers in simple terms. "How many fewer than the %.04 would you like?" Would I like? 100% fewer - 0% total. "How many fewer than the %.04 would a "plan" avoided?" We'll never know. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 347 Registered: 6-2004  |
First off, your calculation should result in a figure of 0.4%, not .04%, and second, that number includes only those killed, not wounded. If you included the wounded, casualties are around 9,000, which is about one in twenty. Armchair warriors may not think it's a big deal, but tell that to the soldier who's been maimed in search of non-existent weapons in a country that posed no threat to our citizens. And each month now we see 50-75 U.S. military deaths of the 120,000 or so troops in Iraq. So each month, you've got about a 0.04% chance of dying. For perspective, the equivalent number of deaths in towns the size of Maplewood + South Orange would be about a dozen people dying a violent death every month. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, Iraq is a pretty dangerous place for U.S. troops. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 189 Registered: 5-2004 |
As much as I may disagree with Michael J, to compare Iraq to M/SO is absurd. To compare Iraq to any non-war zone is silly. But it is likely that at least one soldier would not have died, had proper planning been done, as had been recommended by military experts at the time. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 348 Registered: 6-2004 |
rastro, I'm not comparing M/SO to a war zone, I'm just comparing the population sizes so you can get an idea that .04% chance of dying violently is high enough to be scary. And Iraq is a very scary place. Especially considering that we supposedly "liberated" the country. But despite the "liberation" our soldiers are still dying at the hands of an insurgency. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 874 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes, its high enough to be scary... Iraq is a scary place, and those that volunteered know it. In a war zone a .04% chance of getting killed is INCREDIBLY good odds. What are the odds of getting killed if you are an insurgent? Quite a bit higher. Just curious, how many M/SO residents die every month? The insurgency is killing 50-75 of our troops a month while we are killing several hundred of them weekly. They can't even win one battle against us. they have to resort to booby traps and car bombs. All the planning in the world wouldn't have changed a thing on the ground. There will always be a small group of resistance using unconventional tactics that couldn't ever be planned for. We adapt and overcome. I'm not minimizing any deaths, but its outright silly to propose a goal of 0 deaths in a war and to complain that a casualty rate of less than one half of a percent is signs of a quagmire. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 128 Registered: 7-2004 |
Michael: Small group of resistance? Do you not read what is going on? Is your name Condoleeza? Are you really pleased with the way this war has been going? | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 349 Registered: 6-2004 |
I agree, the issue is not deaths, per se. If this was a war that had to be fought, and was making the U.S. and Iraq demonstrably better and safer places, the number of casualties would be irrelevant. The number of deaths and woundings in WWII was enormous, but it was a cost the country and its citizens willingly paid. But for 9,000 soldiers (and counting) to be killed or wounded in a place that was not a threat to the U.S. - a place where the citizens clearly don't want us there - is a waste. |
