Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42088)	1/8/2002 9:18:01 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Chris, thank you so much for weighing in here in your excellent series of posts! You have given extremely cogent argument and a powerful, moving, personal touch. This is a huge contribution to humanizing and dramatizing a terrible, frightening war -- not of our making -- that for some is apparently seen as nothing more than some kind of board game, or as a handy means of practicing the art of argumentation. Bravo! JC

To: The Philosopher who wrote (42088)	1/9/2002 10:21:07 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Nobody ever won a war by dying for their country. They won the war by making some other poor bastard die for their country. Your post reminded me of Richard Cohen's column yesterday. This is the first part. Times have changed. <<On one day in World War I, the British army lost 19,240 men. That was July 1, 1916, a Saturday. A single regiment, the storied 1st Newfoundland, was virtually annihilated. Maj. Gen. Sir Beauvoir de Lisle, reporting on what had happened, wrote, "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valor, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further." Contrast that day -- if you will, if you can -- with a much more recent one when Sgt. Nathan Ross Chapman, assigned to the Special Forces, was killed in Afghanistan. That we even know his name would be inconceivable to the survivors of World War I or, for that matter, almost any other war. A single death hardly would have been considered significant. The virtually nonexistent U.S. casualty rate is either a signal achievement or a debacle in the making. At the moment, no one can say for sure. The fact remains that America's war aims may well be compromised by America's reluctance to "take casualties" -- a euphemism only slightly less silly than de Lisle's "magnificent display.">> washingtonpost.com