1
   

Do you see a pattern here?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 11:23 am
nimh wrote:
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.


Nimh

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?

What is the magic number that qualifies a war as one which has chilling consequences?

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?

Do you know if he opposed sending or maintaining troops in Somalia, Kosovo and Bosnia? Somehow they didn't threaten chilling consequences? Somehow they were not causes the risk of which should be spread throughout the nation via a draft?

Was he OK with the bombing of the Serbian capital or did he oppose that? Maybe he believe that precision bombs ordered to fall by a Democratic president missed innocent civilians when they could not if ordered by a Republican president.

McDermott is a complete jackass and (hopefully) no more representative of the average Liberal than is Cynthia McKinney, but he does underscore what I believe is a critical flaw in the arguments of Democratic partisans striking an anti-war pose.

Once one begins to introduce sanctimonious objections to the chilling consequences of war, bemoaning the deaths of innocent civilians and brave young Americans, and imputing motives of sheer bloodlust to those who order or support these wars, than one is forced to either apply one's condemnations to all wars, or offer a very clear distinction between those wars one supports and those one opposes.

For all I know, McDermott may have actually protested Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo, and would have even protested our sending troops into Rwanda, but I do know that there are quite a few Democrats (in office and online) who though rasing their fists to the heavens over Iraq, nodded in understanding during Clinton's military endeavors.

What is the clear and unambiguous distinction between Iraq and these other actions? Scope of destruction? Number of casualties?

Sorry but I don't buy it. I fail to see how 1,000 dead is chilling, but 100 is not.

The logical conclusion of an argument advanced on the basis of volume of death and destruction is that there is an acceptable length to the kill list. All well and good in the abstract, but explain that to the families of the 100 that die, that the deaths of their sons and daughters were justified whereas the 101st, 102nd, 103rd and so deaths were tragic wastes.

One can make the argument that the goals of the Iraq War were not worth 1 American death let alone 1,000, but, should be prepared to explain to us how the goals of the military actions in Somalia, Kosova, Bosnia, and Haiti were.

Personally, I supported all of Clinton's military actions (save the impotent strike on Afghanistan and the Sudan) as well as Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but then I am a blood thirsty Hun. Consistently so, however.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 11:34 am
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.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 11:41 am
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 Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 11:54 am
Piffka wrote:
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.


I never questioned McDermott's service in the military. It is irrelevant unless one believes that simply having served in the military makes all of one's opinions on the military unassailable.

Your argument would be better served if you could introduce evidence that McDermott opposed Clinton's military actions as vociferously as he has opposed the war in Iraq. Presumably the sainted congressman holds equal regard for Serbian, Somalian and Haitian dead as he does for the Iraqi fallen.

As for your attempted barb, I do indeed believe that Iraqis value their lives as much as any Americans, however I fail to see how that is relevant either.
If, for whatever reason, one is going to accept the deaths of Americans for a particular cause, it is difficult to argue that one should be held back by the deaths of the enemy.

And if one has zero tolerance for the death of any innocent Iraqi citizen, then is it unreasonable to expect that one has the same zero tolerance for the deaths of innocent Serbian, Somalian, Haitian and Sudanese citizens?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 12:04 pm
nimh wrote:
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 Smile


nimh

The exchange between ArmyVet and Panzade was quite connected to the comments made by McDermott and which ArmyVet quoted. Unless I'm mistaken (and we'll allow her to correct me if I am) ArmyVet's point was that there is at least an inconsistency between the positions some Democrats have taken relevant to the military action in Iraq under Bush, and those in Somalia, Kosova, Bosnia etal under Clinton.

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.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 12:16 pm
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 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.

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.

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?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 12:22 pm
Quote:
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.

Thanks. Appreciate it. I'm sick of people trying to tell me what my point really was. If they'd focused on what I said in the first place, instead of hineininterpretiering all kinds of things of their own, they might not have needed to think they knew better than me what was in my head in the first place.

(As you may have guessed, this post is spurred by stuff way beyond your reply ... ;-))
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 01:55 pm
Piffka wrote:
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.

0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 02:29 pm
"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?
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 02:43 pm
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.


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."

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 invidividual 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:04 pm
dlowan wrote:
"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?


Not in the sense that I believe you do dlowan, but it is not a question of whether or not I see any difference.

I am not arguing that any of these wars are resulting in or did result in ultimately unjustifiable deaths.

It just seems to me that intellectual (not to mention moral) honesty requires that someone who accuses one group of promoting unjustified deaths, should be able to articulate why the deaths in the wars they supported were justified.

Scanning Piffka's response below I note the comment:

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

This is a dodge, plain and simple.

I have explained on numerous other threads why I believe Iraq to be a justifiable war, and I will do so here if you insist. I have also indicated that I thought that Clinton's military actions (with the exception of his firing a couple of cruise missles into Afghanistan and the Sudan) were justifiable.

It seems more incumbent upon those who see a clear distinction to articulate it rather upon me to explain how they are similar.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:05 pm
Have their been any wars you thought unwise, Finn?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 04:15 pm
Piffka wrote:
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! Shocked

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. Shocked

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.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 04:21 pm
Piffka wrote:
Have their been any wars you thought unwise, Finn?


Many, although I prefer "military actions." Some of these don't exactly rise to the level of War.

Of recent vintage:

Vietnam
Grenada
Lebanon (More because of the way we cut and run rather than because we sent troops there)
Panama
Somalia (I wasn't real keen on our sending troops there but, again have difficulty with the way we left)
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 02:24 pm
knnknn wrote:
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



Don't have time, I have to keep my liberal employees working.
Thanks armyvet
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 08:52:00