Do you see a pattern here?

Armyvet35 wrote:

Ask anyone in the military that deployed to Somolia, kosovo or Bosnia

Eh ... how many American troops went to Somalia, Kosovo and Bosnia in total? And how many have now been in Iraq? I think we're talking wholly different beasts, here ...

thanks for posting that list of Republicans who served tho ... at least it brings back the balance.

Lists such as this thread starts with ... well, it would only have made a valid point if it had not been so blatantly cherry-picking ... as itis, its just silly.

[
McDermott opposed the war before a single person was killed. He opposed the war when it became clear that hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands of American soldiers (as many on the Left predicted) were killed. When did the consequence become chilling enough to make a point to Bush? When the magic number of 1,000 was reached?

This is an interesting response.

How is that the volume of troop involvement, potential for sacrifice and actual casualties makes a difference as respects ArmyVet's point?

panzade wrote:

Armyvet35 wrote:

Hmmm.... nice ... wants a draft to score a point... and playing games...Too Bad they didnt feel that way when our soldiers were dying from 1992-1999... oh well its ok for soldiers to die with a Democrat in charge for lesser reasons......

Our soldiers weren't dying on stupid Crusades Vet. I find your sarcasm and feigned outrage way beneath you.

Ask anyone in the military that deployed to Somolia, kosovo or Bosnia if they were for America or a crusade for others

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

[
McDermott opposed the war before a single person was killed. He opposed the war when it became clear that hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands of American soldiers (as many on the Left predicted) were killed. When did the consequence become chilling enough to make a point to Bush? When the magic number of 1,000 was reached?

However, McDermott did perform his Military Service:

U.S. Navy Medical Corps, Lieutenant Commander, Chief Psychiatrist, Long Beach Naval Station, California, 1968-70.

I think McDermott, unlike you, believes that the dead of Iraq had just as valid a reason to wish they weren't dead as any Americans.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

This is an interesting response.

How is that the volume of troop involvement, potential for sacrifice and actual casualties makes a difference as respects ArmyVet's point?

Simple. Armyvet was responding to Pan. Pan had said that under Clinton, "Our soldiers weren't dying on stupid Crusades". The reference to the operations in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo when the talk is of "crusades" is wrong for a whole list of reasons (who were we crusading against exactly in Bosnia or Somalia?), but I picked something simple.

After all, how much of a Crusade something can be said to be depends at least, among a bunch of other stuff, on how big it is in the first place. Send a million men into battle and it may look like a Crusade, if you're inclined to see it that way. Send 1,000 special ops in somewhere and its not much of a present-day Crusade no matter what the aim or motivation was.

And thats pretty much as far as that point went. The whole McDermott stuff never came into it - I think you're mixing up posts & replies, here.

----

Armyvet35 wrote:

panzade wrote:

Armyvet35 wrote:

Hmmm.... nice ... wants a draft to score a point... and playing games...Too Bad they didnt feel that way when our soldiers were dying from 1992-1999... oh well its ok for soldiers to die with a Democrat in charge for lesser reasons......

Our soldiers weren't dying on stupid Crusades Vet. I find your sarcasm and feigned outrage way beneath you.

Ask anyone in the military that deployed to Somolia, kosovo or Bosnia if they were for America or a crusade for others

If those comments had no bearing on your reply so be it. I'm not about to try and tell you what your point was.

Finn -- This is a thread on military service by leaders in Washington. You insulted McDermott and I pointed out that the man served in the US Navy. He comes by his disinclination to kill other people from his experience.

You're absolutely right that I insulted McDermott, but not in any way that can be associated with his military service, and therefore that he served, or did not is irrelvant to what I wrote.

But since you seem to insist upon introducing his military service into the discussion, how did his experience in the Navy lead him to a disinclination to kill other people? Do you know this to be the case, having read biographical information on him, or are you simply assuming it? I do not mean, in anyway, to denigrate his service, but unless I'm mistaken, he didn't see combat. Beyond this I'm not at all familiar with the nature of his service and how it might have led him to a disinclination that he didn't bring with him when he signed up. Are you suggesting that prior to his service in the Navy he might have had an inclination to kill people? I can imagine that as a Navy psychiatrist, he saw, first hand, the casualties of war and how this might have helped shape his opinion of war, but once again this is irrelevant to my point.

I am not questioning that he might have had an experience that led him to loath war in all circumstances. I'm not questioning that he might have come to this conclusion through contemplation alone. What I am questioning is whether or not he selectively applies his outrage over war persuant to the politics of those who may lead it.

You said, "He opposed the war when it became clear that hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands of American soldiers (as many on the Left predicted) were killed."

Now, is it a barb to note that you, Finn, left out many more people who have been killed... these faceless, nameless others? You toss around the numbers one hundred and one thousand -- obviously you are not counting the Iraqis. It seems that Americans count their own dead as important and barely give lip-service to others. When a Congressman does, you call him bad names.

First of all, of course it was a barb and you are being disinegenuous if you argue otherwise. I didn't take offense at the barb, and I have no problem with barbs being traded on A2K. I see no point in trying to deny them though.

Secondly you are right that I am not counting the Iraqi dead. I never suggested that I was. Do I find the number of dead Americans of more concern than the number of dead enemies? Yes I most certainly do and in the sense that I want to see the former minimized and the latter maximized. As to the number of innocent civilian deaths, they are a matter of considerable concern. They too should be minimized as much as possible while meeting the objective of the war.

Thirdly the pre-war estimates of 100,000 casualties tossed around by its opponents related to American casualties not total casualties. The total casualty estimates were 7 to 10 times that number. The UN predicted a humanitarin crisis of catastrophic proportions.

Finally, I consider McDermott a jackass not because he has concern for Iraqi dead, but because he went to Iraq publically implied that Saddam could be trusted over Bush. I consider McDermott a jackass because of his state reason for voting to reinstitute the draft.

I am suggesting that McDermott is a hypocrite of the worst kind if he didn't resist and condemn the military actions in Kosova, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and the Sudan as vociferously as he has resisted and condemned the war in Iraq. It is all well and good for you to canonize the congressman for his humanitarian concern for Iraqi lives, but the mantle of sainthood rests askew on his shoulders if he did not have equal concern for Serbians, Somalians, Haitians and Sudanese.

Perhaps he did vigorously oppose all of Clinton's military actions, in which case I will withdraw my suggestion that he is a hypocrite, and stand corrected. I will still think of him as a jackass though for the reasons cited.

My point was that Jim McDermott opposed the war because he didn't think it was worth the killing of anyone; not an American, an Iraqi or any of those others tragically caught up in this debacle.

Fine, and I am saying that we should reasonably expect that he also didn't think that any of Clinton's wars were worth American or non-American lives or that he is able to clearly articulate why they were in Clinton's wars, but not in Bush's.

You say, "I do indeed believe that Iraqis value their lives as much as any Americans, however I fail to see how that is relevant either."

I am sure that Iraqis value their lives. Do we value their lives? It seems not. How many of them were "enemies" before we invaded?

Explain to me how this:

"I think McDermott, unlike you, believes that the dead of Iraq had just as valid a reason to wish they weren't dead as any Americans.

is substantively different than this

"I do indeed believe that Iraqis value their lives as much as any Americans..."

You have only now introduced the notion of either McDermott or me valuing Iraqi lives.

I'm not sure if you are actually making an argument in this thread. Like many other Liberals you like to toss around references to the value of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths, as if everyone who supports a war is either callously clueless in that regard or actually blood thirsty.

However, if you are making an argument that wars are not worth any lives (American or non-American) than you must remain consistent in that argument as respects all wars, regardless of the political party of the commander-in-chief at the time.

And if you are making the argument that the war in Iraq was not worth the loss of these lives, but the war in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or Somalia et al were, then you should be able to draw a very sharp distinction between those wars you support and those you oppose.

In the end, once you accept that some wars are justifiable, and that all wars result in the deaths of combatants and innocent civilians, it becomes far more of a politically based judgement than a moral one in determing which is justifiable and which is not. This being the case, it is the height of smug sanctimony to introduce moralistic notions of the value of human life into your arguments against the wars you oppose.

I can imagine that as a Navy psychiatrist, he saw, first hand, the casualties of war and how this might have helped shape his opinion of war, but once again this is irrelevant to my point.

What I am questioning is whether or not he selectively applies his outrage over war persuant to the politics of those who may lead it.

First of all, of course it was a barb and you are being disinegenuous if you argue otherwise. I didn't take offense at the barb, and I have no problem with barbs being traded on A2K. I see no point in trying to deny them though.

Secondly you are right that I am not counting the Iraqi dead. I never suggested that I was. Do I find the number of dead Americans of more concern than the number of dead enemies? Yes I most certainly do and in the sense that I want to see the former minimized and the latter maximized. As to the number of innocent civilian deaths, they are a matter of considerable concern. They too should be minimized as much as possible while meeting the objective of the war.

Thirdly the pre-war estimates of 100,000 casualties tossed around by its opponents related to American casualties not total casualties. The total casualty estimates were 7 to 10 times that number. The UN predicted a humanitarin crisis of catastrophic proportions.

Finally, I consider McDermott a jackass not because he has concern for Iraqi dead, but because he went to Iraq publically implied that Saddam could be trusted over Bush. I consider McDermott a jackass because of his state reason for voting to reinstitute the draft.

I am suggesting that McDermott is a hypocrite of the worst kind if he didn't resist and condemn the military actions in Kosova, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and the Sudan as vociferously as he has resisted and condemned the war in Iraq. It is all well and good for you to canonize the congressman for his humanitarian concern for Iraqi lives, but the mantle of sainthood rests askew on his shoulders if he did not have equal concern for Serbians, Somalians, Haitians and Sudanese.

Perhaps he did vigorously oppose all of Clinton's military actions, in which case I will withdraw my suggestion that he is a hypocrite, and stand corrected. I will still think of him as a jackass though for the reasons cited.

Explain to me how this:

"I think McDermott, unlike you, believes that the dead of Iraq had just as valid a reason to wish they weren't dead as any Americans.

is substantively different than this

"I do indeed believe that Iraqis value their lives as much as any Americans..."
You have only now introduced the notion of either McDermott or me valuing Iraqi lives.

I'm not sure if you are actually making an argument in this thread. Like many other Liberals you like to toss around references to the value of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths, as if everyone who supports a war is either callously clueless in that regard or actually blood thirsty.

However, if you are making an argument that wars are not worth any lives (American or non-American) than you must remain consistent in that argument as respects all wars, regardless of the political party of the commander-in-chief at the time.

And if you are making the argument that the war in Iraq was not worth the loss of these lives, but the war in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or Somalia et al were, then you should be able to draw a very sharp distinction between those wars you support and those you oppose.

In the end, once you accept that some wars are justifiable, and that all wars result in the deaths of combatants and innocent civilians, it becomes far more of a politically based judgement than a moral one in determing which is justifiable and which is not.

This being the case, it is the height of smug sanctimony to introduce moralistic notions of the value of human life into your arguments against the wars you oppose.

"I am suggesting that McDermott is a hypocrite of the worst kind if he didn't resist and condemn the military actions in Kosova, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and the Sudan as vociferously as he has resisted and condemned the war in Iraq. It is all well and good for you to canonize the congressman for his humanitarian concern for Iraqi lives, but the mantle of sainthood rests askew on his shoulders if he did not have equal concern for Serbians, Somalians, Haitians and Sudanese."

Do you really see no differenc, Finn, between these wars and Iraq II?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I can imagine that as a Navy psychiatrist, he saw, first hand, the casualties of war and how this might have helped shape his opinion of war, but once again this is irrelevant to my point.

I think this is exactly why.

OK, but why is it relevant?

Quote:

What I am questioning is whether or not he selectively applies his outrage over war persuant to the politics of those who may lead it.

Since you are questioning it, you apparently assume that he does. I couldn't tell you.

Yes, I have assumed that he does. If you are such big fan of his I would think that you could shed some light on his positions on the Clinton Wars, but I guess not.

Quote:

First of all, of course it was a barb and you are being disinegenuous if you argue otherwise. I didn't take offense at the barb, and I have no problem with barbs being traded on A2K. I see no point in trying to deny them though.

<shrug> I considered it a barb-less hook, but whatever. If you want to see a true barb, I can arrange it.

Oh no!

Quote:

Secondly you are right that I am not counting the Iraqi dead. I never suggested that I was. Do I find the number of dead Americans of more concern than the number of dead enemies? Yes I most certainly do and in the sense that I want to see the former minimized and the latter maximized. As to the number of innocent civilian deaths, they are a matter of considerable concern. They too should be minimized as much as possible while meeting the objective of the war.

I thought I was right and you say I am. Thank you.

I would like to point out that when Bush began this war, he said that our fight was not with the Iraqi people. Strange how they have now become the enemy, despite the fact that WE are the ones who invaded.

Well, you clearly believe the main body of the insurgency to be average Iraqi citizens and not Baathist thugs gone to ground, foreign jihadists, or opportunistic Shiite thugs.

Just as clearly, we disagree.

My concern is when war is waged needlessly. This war was not necessary in my opinion -- apparently not yours. (That is not a barb, it is a statement of my understanding of all you have said.)

Fair enough. My point continues to be, though, that if you believe that this war is being needlessly waged, but the Clinton wars were needfully waged, you should be able to clearly delineate the difference between Clinton's Wars and Bush's War. If you prefer not to, fine, but suggesting that I can not see these supposed differences because I am not looking hard enough is a dodge.

Quote:

Thirdly the pre-war estimates of 100,000 casualties tossed around by its opponents related to American casualties not total casualties. The total casualty estimates were 7 to 10 times that number. The UN predicted a humanitarin crisis of catastrophic proportions.

I do not know this to be true, but I can hardly expect that the UN would only count American casualties.

Neither would I expect the UN not to count all deaths. The fact still remains though that their prediction was well off the mark.

Quote:

Finally, I consider McDermott a jackass not because he has concern for Iraqi dead, but because he went to Iraq publically implied that Saddam could be trusted over Bush. I consider McDermott a jackass because of his state reason for voting to reinstitute the draft.

I am suggesting that McDermott is a hypocrite of the worst kind if he didn't resist and condemn the military actions in Kosova, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and the Sudan as vociferously as he has resisted and condemned the war in Iraq. It is all well and good for you to canonize the congressman for his humanitarian concern for Iraqi lives, but the mantle of sainthood rests askew on his shoulders if he did not have equal concern for Serbians, Somalians, Haitians and Sudanese.

Perhaps he did vigorously oppose all of Clinton's military actions, in which case I will withdraw my suggestion that he is a hypocrite, and stand corrected. I will still think of him as a jackass though for the reasons cited.

McDermott's Words speak for themselves:
I ... was privileged to serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. In that role, as a chief psychiatrist at the Long Beach Naval Station at the height of the Vietnam War, it was my duty to evaluate and treat Seamen and Marines returning from combat.

I wish it to be clearly understood that I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the courage, tenacity and dedication of those currently serving in Iraq and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, War is not a partisan matter.

The leadership should be ashamed for bringing this to the floor. Everyone here wants to support an honest and straightforward resolution to support our troops. Don't give us a dishonest resolution that confuses the issue by asking us to endorse the Bush Doctrine that sent our troops to war.

I for one will not be forced to praise the President's decisions, when what I want to do, is praise the troops.

I can not endorse the administration's policy of military action without international sanctions. This war of choice undermines the international order and endangers our republic.

Again, how is this relevant? I am not suggesting that he did not serve honorably or that he is insulting or undermining our troops. You insist on waving the flag for McDermott when I have never challenged his patriotism. You may have grown sensitive to such charges over the months of debate on this subject, but it is not a charge I am making. A "jackss" is not synonymous with a "traitor." A "hypocrite of the worst kind," is not a "traitor." Turn off the John Soussa recording, put away the stars and stripes and focus on the issue.


My point still is that "Jim McDermott opposed the war because he didn't think it was worth the killing of anyone; not an American, an Iraqi or any of those others tragically caught up in this debacle."

No kidding. Presumably though, if he supported Clinton's Wars he thought they were worth the killing of Americans and Serbians and Sudanese etc. Is this not a reasonable statement? I don't believe though that he, or you for that matter, can offer a cogent explanation of why it was OK to kill Serbians but not Iraqis.

Quote:

Explain to me how this:

"I think McDermott, unlike you, believes that the dead of Iraq had just as valid a reason to wish they weren't dead as any Americans.

is substantively different than this

"I do indeed believe that Iraqis value their lives as much as any Americans..."
You have only now introduced the notion of either McDermott or me valuing Iraqi lives.

Your statement noted only that the "Iraqi" valued his life which is a given. We expect that each individual of whatever citizenship values his life and was a clever way to sidestep your own valuation. Moreover, it was in response to what I spoke to... that the casualties of war include more than Americans. When you are calculating the deaths from war, if you don't calculate all the deaths (as your calculations clearly implied), then the only inference is that those other deaths are not important except to the individual, hence I made a reasonable inference about your own values. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Apology unnecessary, but accepted.

I'm afraid it is you who are sidestepping, and none too cleverly.
McDermott believes Iraqi dead have just as valid a reason to wish they were alive as do American dead. (Your comment)

I believe Iraqis value their lives as much as Americans do. (My comment)

For the life of me I can't see a difference in the meaning of these two comments. But if you say so.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you are actually making an argument in this thread. Like many other Liberals you like to toss around references to the value of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths, as if everyone who supports a war is either callously clueless in that regard or actually blood thirsty.

I was making a point and sticking up for a person who ably represents my state. I don't care for you to call him a jackass. Like many other liberals, I believe in what I say and I neither "toss around references" nor deliberately try to start arguments. However, I believe I have a duty as a person to make sure that my opinions are not lost in the fray. You call him a jackass. I say, "Watch it. The enemy of my friend is my enemy."

Oh no - again.

I'm sorry you don't care for my calling the man a jackass, but that's what I think of him. By any time's standards, "jackass" is a pretty mild epithet. Your loyalty to the congressman is admirable. He does nothing for my congressional district though and so I can only judge him by his jackass comments made on the national and world stage.

Quote:

However, if you are making an argument that wars are not worth any lives (American or non-American) than you must remain consistent in that argument as respects all wars, regardless of the political party of the commander-in-chief at the time.

And if you are making the argument that the war in Iraq was not worth the loss of these lives, but the war in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or Somalia et al were, then you should be able to draw a very sharp distinction between those wars you support and those you oppose.

If you don't see clear differences between each war, then you are not looking very hard.

See prior comments

Quote:

In the end, once you accept that some wars are justifiable, and that all wars result in the deaths of combatants and innocent civilians, it becomes far more of a politically based judgement than a moral one in determing which is justifiable and which is not.

I do, but I am also very, very aware that any justification is so much easier to accept when you are a non-combatant sitting in an easy chair on the other side of the world, especially if you are partisan, which you so patently are.

Oooh is that another non-barb?

Your underlying point is in some sense a fair one. It is easier for someone with nothing personal at stake to see the overarching issues more clearly than it is for someone whose very life is at stake. It is true though that the armchair advisor has far less of a personal understanding of the consequences of the action.

I see no way around this though. These decisions can't only be made by the people in harm's way or even people that have once been in harm's way, or treated the people who were in harm's way.

However the fairly clear implication of your comment is that patent partisans like me are at best capricious in our decisions about where or not a war is justifiable, and at worst, somehow cowardly.

This is simply another example of the smug sanctimony of Liberals. Presumably you sat on a bed of nails and forced yourself to view pictures of maimed children when you cast your support for the bombing of Serbia.

Quote:

This being the case, it is the height of smug sanctimony to introduce moralistic notions of the value of human life into your arguments against the wars you oppose.

It is the height of humanity to introduce moral notions that value human life at all times. War can always be argued from that end and should be. THAT is why, Finn, Bush's rush to war was a huge mistake. Any war ought only to be fought only when it is absolutely unavoidable. Up until this debacle, the United States has fairly well fulfilled her burden to do so. She slipped a little into Viet Nam, but it was a slip and should not be repeated.

How fortunate for you that you have been able to so clearly see the reason why it was absolutely unavoidable for Serbian children or Somalian women to die. (Not to mention Sudanese nightwatchmen, Panamanian and Granadian soldiers, and Haitian secret police)

I being less morally pure have never been able to define the circumstances when it is absolutely unavoidable for innocents to die.

Have their been any wars you thought unwise, Finn?

cannistershot wrote:

knnknn wrote:

cannistershot wrote:

How many times is this going to be posted? The pattern that I see is mindless liberal drones posting this all over the internet.

THAT's the only pattern you see? Interesting.

No I also see a pattern of selection.

OK, then post a counter-proof instead of complaining