Bush Foresaw 0 war casualties

Now we KNOW that bomb will not be Iraqi made...

Quote:

"Clearly you don't, which is hardly a crime or necessarily a flaw."

A great straw man to start your riposte.

You admitted to not "getting it," and it was clear that this was the case. In the context of your posting, I do "get it," but I have acknowledged that your inability to join me in my comprehension doesn't make you a traitor (a charge sometimes levelled in discussions on war) or even, for that matter, wrong.

I fail to see how this is setting up a straw man, but if you prefer to think so, be my guest.

Quote:

"It is not difficult to understand how one might not "get it" if one focuses on the loss of a young life and the direct consequences of that death."

You don't seem to get the point that my ire was towards the spokesman and his using the death of a marine by mortar round to advance the cause of American freedom

On the contrary, I do get your point (although I am beginning to think that you have missed all of mine) and it is that point to which I have responded.

We hope and expect that the deaths of our marines advance the cause of American freedom. Do we not?

Are you insinuating that the man who drew your ire made his statement despite believing it to be false?

If we accept, for even the briefest of moments, that the spokesman believes the War in Iraq is advancing the cause of American freedom, what is your complaint with his making the comment he made and which might easily have provided comfort to the young man's family?

Quote:

"It would certainly seem that in the case of this young man, his death will leave a devastated family and a grieving community. We were not provided with the circumstances of his death, but unless the young man died saving innocent women and children, it's hard to imagine that we could ever obtain a consensus that his death was somehow worthwhile."

The fact that the young man died to defend American freedom is delusional. My point was crystal clear...or opinion as you like.

Well, I would prefer to think that the argument that the young man died to defend American freedom is a matter of opinion. If you prefer to label it as delusional, again, so be it.

Quote:

"Not every solider in a just war dies as a classical hero."

I was very clear that I don't think this is a just war.

I never suggested otherwise. Refer back to my post where I wrote:

If we assume, for argument's sake, that there can be a just war, with the continued waving of the flag and flight of the eagle its clear consequences, then it is less difficult to accept the value of the deaths of young men and women, but even within that context we are faced with the task of balancing cause and effect.

My point was that even in a war we might all agree upon as being just, there will be deaths which are hard to reconcile with the advancement of the just cause. How much harder is it then to justify the death of a soldier in a war the justice of which we do not all accept? It is becoming increasingly clear though that you do not accept the notion that reasonable minds might disagree on the war in question.

Quote:

"If one focuses solely on the cause and effect of an individual's death, it will be the very rare instance when one can clearly "get" its value. Even if this young man died while drinking his morning coffee, he died so that the flag may continue to wave and the eagle continue to fly...if, one accepts that the war in which he was involved serves that end.

A lot of verbiage to explain that you feel the war is helping the eagle and flag fly. Now Fin, you clever buzzard...explain why.

Clearly I have failed to impress upon you my point.

My point is not at all that the Iraq war is advancing American freedom (although I do believe this to be the case), but that in any war, even one we all believe to be just, it is difficult to reconcile the death of an individual with a just cause, and particularly so if some act of classical heroism was not involved.

Wars do not coincide with our culture's romantic vision of the White Knight squaring off against the Black and either defeating him or nobly perishing in the effort.

This does not mean that war is not sometimes necessary and that the deaths of those fighting them are not noble.

Because we cannot draw the bright line between the death of a marine and a noble cause doesn't make his sacrifice a waste. Because we all do not agree on the justification of the war doesn't make his sacrifice a waste.

but that in any war, even one we all believe to be just, it is difficult to reconcile the death of an individual with a just cause, and particularly so if some act of classical heroism was not involved.

Oh, I think I'm getting it.

Some men die in war as heros, some just die.
The heros are heros, the others just the casualties of war.

So when Bush said there would be no casualties he meant that all those dying would fall as heros.

ca·su·al·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kzh-l-t)
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties
An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.

Quote:

but that in any war, even one we all believe to be just, it is difficult to reconcile the death of an individual with a just cause, and particularly so if some act of classical heroism was not involved.

In this case, since in my opinion it is not a just cause and it does not guarantee the safety of our Idaho citizens to take a dump al fresco, there is no distinction between the death of a Marine on KP duty in Iraq or a corporal who dies heroically storming a Shiite temple. Both deaths are a waste.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

You see finn, the problem with blasting all the perceived enemies in the world is that you waste human life and human life is precious. All I'm asking for is a little more honesty in our foreign policy...so that these daily gravesite ceremonies come to a halt.

First of all, we are not blasting all of the perceived enemies in the world, not by a long shot. We are not even blasting all of our actual enemies.This is the sort of too pervasive hyperbole, served up by Liberals, that rather than making a point, obscures it.

Secondly, somewhere in that facile lecture on the sanctity of human life seems to be the acknowledgement that human life lost in war is not always wasted life. If this is the case, then it is merely a matter of political opinion, not morality, as to whether or not a war is just and therefore whether or not lives lost in that war have been wasted. Having differing opinions on such a matter is reasonable, but the sort of sanctimonious posturing that you have evidenced in this thread is not. For every war that you believe to be just there will be reasonable minds thinking otherwise. I wonder how quietly you will sit before their harangues.

Finally, in asking for a little honesty, you have presumed there is a monumental dishonesty, that those who support the war, in fact, believe as do you, but for any number of insidious reasons are refusing to admit it.
Once they listen to your clarifying screed they might finally admit you are right and they are wrong, and the gravesite ceremonies can come to an end. That is all you are asking for.

Do me a favor. Have you ever stood at the Viet Nam War Memorial and run your fingers over all the names? It takes a long time to do. I've done it and it made me wonder. What was the cause? Was it heroic? Did it change the world for the better? Are we safer now because those names are on the wall?

No wait, you are, after all, asking just one more favor. Favor granted. I have stood at the Viet Nam War Memorial on several occasions, and I have run my fingers along the names of two friends and one cousin. It made me wonder too. It made me wonder where the courage to stand in battle and not run comes from in a man. It made me wonder what they were thinking of just before they died. It made me wonder how I would have acted if I had been in their places. It didn't make me wonder if they were heroic. I knew that by being there they were and that their heroism didn't depend upon the cause of the war in which they fought. I know their families thought of them as heroes, and that their lives were not wasted.

I don't believe Vietnam changed the world for the better, unless it was to help us, in a post WWII world, appreciate that all wars are not just. It's hard to say if it made us safer. It certainly didn't make us safer from the Viet Cong, since we were never in danger from them. Did it have anything to do with checking Soviet expansion, and thus checking an actual danger to us? I don't know for certain. I suspect not, but I will not contend that those who claimed to believe it would were lying bastards with only self serving motives to send troops to that hell hole.

On the other hand, I think Iraq has a chance of changing the world for the better (It certainly is changing Iraq for the better) and for making us safer.
I could be wrong and those chances never existed. I could be right and those chances may still be, ultimately, squandered. In any case, I certainly don't consider myself dishonest on this issue, a war mongerer, or someone easily persuaded to follow a leader into a hole in the ground.

It truly sucks that we must fight wars. What sane person would not want a world free of war? However, as long as the world is not free of tyrants and madmen who seek to compel their will through violent force, the world will not be free of war. No war has been or will be so clearly justified as to garner unanimous support, unless you are prepared to condemn them all, you may wish to restrain your judgmental tendencies on any one.

So, we are supposed to accept that our president doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "casualty?" What, are Frank and I the only 2 uncomfortable that our president is an idiot??? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=casualty

Quote:

ca·su·al·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kzh-l-t)
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties
An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.

Either Bush misused the word in a sentence (which is possible) or he actually believes b.s. Or Robertson is telling a story which makes the president appear to be delusional or an idiot. Either seems equally likely... I hope to God you guys are wrong about Bush not understanding how to use the word in a conversation. I am truly hoping Robertson misremembers the conversation... I can find no comfort in our president not understanding what a "casualty" is.