terrygallagher wrote:DULCE ET DECORUM EST -
I don't think the the conditions in the trenches and gas attacks translates to the modern warfare seen in Iraq.
The poem shows someone's opinion, which is what other here are doing all be it in a less poetic way. Willifred Owens ability to express himself does not make the thoughts or feeling he is expressing an more vaild or true then anybody else's.
I'm sorry I don't get your point. But perhaps you didn't get mine either so fair enough I'll explain.
Owens' point - it has seemed to me ever since I first read this poem as a very young teenager - wasn't about the obvious horrors of trench warfare in WWI but the final line - the Old Lie.
In quoting the poem I'm not trying to make any comment about the prose of anyone posting in this thread, nor the veracity of their arguments. My reading of the thread is that it is putting forward two main assertions.
1. That the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a good and noble thing and everything associated with it is good and noble because of that.
2. That the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a disaster in foreign policy and a waste of lives.
Now in the cut and thrust between the two there are many intertwining ideas and assertions and some are harder to cut through then the brush down there at the ranch at Crawford. And I'm reading discussions about noble and ignoble death in war. And I'm thinking what the hell, death is death. People are being sent to die in a useless and unnecessary conflict. And their deaths are being defended with reference to the Old Lie. My memory took me back to the truth of Owens' poem, hence I deemed it appropriate to remind and share by referencing the poem and its poignant observations and in particular the Old Lie. Owens' indicated the Old Lie had been around since Roman times when Horace (I think) made that observation.
That was my point.
If your point is to somehow chastise me for using Owens' poem in this thread then that's fine but at least I understand it as a classic fallacy - an
ad hominem in the truest sense and therefore without validity. If you have a countering point to make about the substance of what I'm getting at then I would be glad to read it. If you simply want to grade my post then please spare me the bother.
CoastalRat wrote:I am curious to know how you can make a statement that they "seem the least likely to actually sign up." You have some type of data to make that claim Cy? You know me, I just cannot help wondering where you get your data. That, and I do so enjoy giving you a rough time. Hehe.
There have been many stories about young Republican activists who flatly state they are doing more good promoting conservative causes here.
Really? Who are they? How do you know them? When did you talk to them? What were their names?
Lash wrote:Really? Who are they? How do you know them? When did you talk to them? What were their names?
Do a google search. I don't know any of them and I am glad I don't. Go try hijacking some other thread.
wow, it took about .3 seconds:
dailykos
Quote:Young Republicans gathered for their party's national convention... were asked: "Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?"
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s said, some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles.
Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."
"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who said she has a cousin deployed in the Middle East [...]
Others said they could contribute on the home front.
"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go.
"I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops.
"We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.
Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said.
You asked the same questions of Coastal Rat.
I think if you get a dose of your crap on a regular basis, you might behave.
I suggest no one ever answers a question from her, other than "I don't know. Go google it."
It seems to be all the rage these days.
Back up your statement or go make false statements on another thread.
I'm sure the DailyKos equivalent--Rush Limbaugh--can write a story featuring much worse about Democrat children.
Chrissee wrote:wow, it took about .3 seconds:
dailykos
Quote:Young Republicans gathered for their party's national convention... were asked: "Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?"
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s said, some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles.
Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."
"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who said she has a cousin deployed in the Middle East [...]
Others said they could contribute on the home front.
"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go.
"I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops.
"We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.
Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said.
an
I referred to stories in the press that y well-informed person would have read. Coastal Rat is making what I think sounds like a BS claim about Iraq veterans he talks to. Tow entirely different scenarios. But I guess I wouldn't expect that Lash would be able to make the distinction.
Lash wrote:I'm sure the DailyKos equivalent--Rush Limbaugh--can write a story featuring much worse about Democrat children.
DailyKos didn't write the story.
How do you know? Don't tell me. You personally know the writer AND Kos. You know everybody. Quite a social butterfly.
Knight-Ridder!!! Those commies!!!
Young Republicans Support Iraq War, but Not Willing to Join the Fight
By Adam Smeltz
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Wednsday 01 September 2004
NEW YORK - Young Republicans gathered here for their party's national convention are united in applauding the war in Iraq, supporting the U.S. troops there and calling the U.S. mission a noble cause.
But there's no such unanimity when they're asked a more personal question: Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles,
Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."
"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.
In an election season overwhelmed by memories of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military's newest war ranks supreme among the worries confronting much of Generation Y'ers. Iraq is their war.
"If there was a need presented, I would go," said Chris Cusmano, a 21-year-old member of the College Republicans organization from Rocky Point, N.Y. But he said he hasn't really considered volunteering.
At age 16, Chase Carpenter has.
"It's always in the back of my mind - to enlist," Carpenter, a self-described moderate Republican visiting Manhattan this week from Santa Monica, Calif., said Wednesday on the convention floor. He said he's torn over whether he'd join the military if he were 18.
Others said they could contribute on the home front.
"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go.
"I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops.
"We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.
Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said.
Then there's Paula Villescaz, a 15-year-old from Carmichael, Calif. who supports Bush and was all ears Wednesday afternoon at the GOP's Youth Convention in Madison Square Garden. She doesn't support the war, but she supports the troops and thinks the United States "needs to stay the course" now that it's immersed.
If Iraq is still a U.S. issue when she's 18, Villescaz added, she'll give serious thought to volunteering.
"I'm in college right now, but who knows?" said Matthew Vail, a 25-year-old from Huntsville, Ala., who works with Students for Bush. He said he might consider enlisting after he finishes his degree at the University of North Carolina, but not until then.
"The bug may get me after college," he said.
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
----------
Oh, how hideous!!! How could they say those things!!! Why didn't all of them suit up immediately like the Democrat kids. I'm humiliated.
(Try something else. This is stupid.)
So back to the question:
For what noble cause are our soldiers dying?
(BTW it appears that the Iraqis are establishing an Islamic Theocracy.)
Ha ha ha ha, LOL, look at posts 239 and 240 I trumped "lash" again before I even read her post.
Chrissee wrote:So back to the question:
For what noble cause are our soldiers dying?
(BTW it appears that the Iraqis are establishing an Islamic Theocracy.)
Your lame question has been answered at length. Why don't you read up on your own thread, instead of wasting people's time???
Chrissee wrote:So back to the question:
For what noble cause are our soldiers dying?
(BTW it appears that the Iraqis are establishing an Islamic Theocracy.)
When you don't like the topic, your only recourse is to feebly try to change it. LOL
The question hasn't been answered. Not even close.
