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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (173389)	10/27/2005 9:51:18 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 281500

Victor Davis Hanson is a NEOCON and if you look at his position in the Right Wing publication,American Heritage you can see that he has a definite bias on presenting the war in Iraq ...and on deaths... Personally I do not like his interpretation of war,necessity for war and the concomitant deaths which he plays down. Google him and see where he positions himself.

To: greenspirit who wrote (173389)	10/27/2005 1:40:22 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Cummings, re: "2,000 Dead, in Context.." What intelligent logic is behind that inquiry? Should we put the number of Vietnamese Lt. Calley killed in that small Vietnamese village "in context?" Should we put the number of 9/11 dead "in context?" Should murderers be allowed to defend their murders by employing the "in context" defense of; "I only killed ONE, JUST ONE. Where's the justice?" Those who use such morally specious arguments are the dregs of humanity. And those who parrot them are in the same league. Try to "get it." We sent those 2,000 men and women to a war we started in Iraq. They went because we asked them to go. They died because we sent them. They aren't coming back. They're rotting pieces of torn meat. Their families are forever wounded. The lives of their friends and lovers are forever changed. They and their fellow soldiers killed a lot of men and women over there. FATE DIDN'T TAKE THEIR LIVES, WE DID. The question is not "how many," the question is "was it justified." That question is three-pronged. Was there a reason for war that justified the expenditure of the lives of our children? Was there no other way to achieve the mission that justified the war? Was the mission "doable?" If ANY of the answers to those question are "no," then the war cannot be justified and NOT ONE LIFE should have been sacrificed. It's that simple. But you don't get it and you won't respond with any kind of intelligent rationale to explain your loud, arrogant, and foolishly dogmatic "not fair" lament. And "context" or not, if it was your ass on the line, your children numbered among the 2,000 dead, or your friends and family facing a real possibility of coming home in pieces, you'd have a different view of how big a number 2,000 was. I'm sure of that because when threatened with going to war, war wimps tend to make some amazingly quick 180s. After all, for them the number of things it's worth sending others to die for is MUCH, MUCH longer than the number of things they're willing to actually risk their own deaths for. Deferments and National Guard ring any bells? You've taken the cowardly Limbaugh, Cheney and Wolfowitz copout. Friggen WAR WIMPs all. You make me ashamed that you call yourself an American. Ed

To: greenspirit who wrote (173389)	10/28/2005 9:42:02 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

I sent you a source for L. Wilkersen's talk. OK it's 30 pages but you didn't respond to it. Just sent a neocon rant without contact to reality("We feel cheated if we don't die at 85 in quiet sleep...." That, considering the enormous number of overweight Americans, is one of many flights from reality.) I recommend L. Wilkersen's talk to anyone who wants to read what a source at the top of the military (and at State) thinks about present US policy. But it is not pleasant reading for die hard Bush supporters.