| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/5/27-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46773 Activity:high |
5/27 "But in a world saturated with selfhood, where every death is by
definition a death in vain, the notion of sacrifice today
provokes puzzlement more often than admiration." from a WSJ
op-ed (which I didn't/couldn't read)
After seeing tonight's 60 Minutes, I think this applies to the whole
country.
Unless you have had a loved one in harm's way, felt that
dread and loneliless for 15 months, the resulting pride when
it's all over is unfathomable to anyone who hasn't gone
through that anguish (or served themselves).
\_ huh?
\_ 60Min piece was about an Iowa National Guard unit in Iraq. They
lost a couple guys, but you also saw the effect it had on their
family at home. The point is that military personnel and their
families are bearing the entire burden of this war. Whether you
"support the troops" or not, it doesn't matter because the vast
majority of the nation has nothing at risk.
When you've felt that risk, and then it's all over, the pride
and awe you feel about their service is unimaginable to someone
who hasn't. Maybe if a larger cross section of the country had
something at risk, then there would be more common ground. So
we could disagree, but with respect for each other. Instead
the military folk feel like they have to support the President
at any cost, because the other side are peaceniks who call those
who serve stupid (which I have personally witnessed).
\_ that is why I've been arguing that we either reinstate the
draft or not invade Iraq at all. Even before we invaded
Iraq, something like 70% of US population support the war.
I suspect if husbands/sons/daughters need to be part of the
war, then, the support would be a lot less. In the end
we are loosing this war mostly because Bush knew he could
never won a popular support of the war if bulk of population
has to make sacrafice. That is why he pitched the war as
quick, cheap and few blood are required. Since entire
war was fought under false pretense, I am arguing that there
is nothing wrong for people gotten sick and tire of it, and
cut our loses and focus on places where that actually matters.
\_ The 'war' part of the war was quick and cheap. They
screwed up the aftermath having had no plan for the post-
conquer part. Please don't confuse the two. And what
we're doing now is hardly a war. Our troops go on patrol,
get shot at, get blown up, and go back to base. Repeat
the next day.
\_ The 'war' part of the war led inexorably to this
aftermath. This was predicted, lied about, and finally
ignored by those who wanted it. It's not "confusing
the two" to bring it up.
\_ Duh. Yes without an invasion there wouldn't be a
post-invasion period. Sheesh. Now then back here
in Reality World: if they had a post-invasion plan
we wouldn't be here, if they declared martial law
and took real control of the country on day one, we
wouldn't be here, if they allowed the troops who
have been there for years to actually engage the
enemy and use their training we wouldn't be here.
\_ I think your burden of proof on this statement
is higher than you can cash in. These are big
ifs with even bigger assumptions behind them.
As sold, this whole exercise was a gigantic
nation-building effort. However, this is something
we've never figured out how to do. I submit
that the post-invasion plan was offered and
summarily rejected. They don't want it actually
stable. In a more stable country, the funds we
dump in there might be accounted for. We might
not be able to strongarm them into passing
production sharing agreements with the oil
companies. In short, we couldn't steal as much
as we can now. This is why you can't separate
the two and say "if only".
\_ I would not risk my life to fight in Iraq unless I was forced
to do so. I don't believe in an afterlife. Maybe all those
religious people should go fight, since they have nothing to
lose. They say >90% of the US is religious. All religions
\- maybe by beliefs, but not by actions.
teach that death is basically fine. Or actually more than
fine... something to look forward to. So then: why should
any of them give a shit?
\_ Because they don't teach that death is fine or good for
starters. And the draft the other people are asking for
is the 'forced to do so' part.
\_ death -> heaven, virgins, nirvana etc -> yippee
\_ ignorant and silly simplification -> meaningless
drivel -> wasted bits
\_ So all you can offer is the "you're wrong"
argument. Thanks for playing. By the way,
your assertions are ignorant, meaningless, and
silly. And wasted drivel. Wow I feel better now!
\_ No. I offer the obvious: you made a gross and
negligent over reaching and ignorant assumption
about a) all religions and b) all religious
people and then reached an obviously false
conclusion that religious people should all
want to die. "Thanks for playing" as they say.
I understand that hating all religious people
is a form of religion on the motd, but that
doesn't make for a sound logical argument. And
for the record, I'm not religious, so don't
bother going there.
\_ I didn't say I hate all religous people and
didn't say they all want to die. Are you
mildly retarded perhaps? The underlying
\_ Are you? What did you add to this
by resorting to lame personal
attack? All it shows is your
frustration with your inability to
debate with facts and details.
School yard level insult is what
not-very-bright people fall back on
when they're unable to make their
point. In your case, you don't
have one so it is understandable.
\_ I completely agree. Look at your
first reply in this thread and
note the adjectives employed.
The personal dig here is that
you repeatedly put words in
my mouth.
\_ Communist!
point is clear and your posturing doesn't
address it. The vast majority of religious
people are Christian in this country. Is
it not true that Christianity teaches that
we have "eternal souls" and good people
go to "a better place"? (and/or achieve
eternal life, the specifics are irrelevant)
\_ Sigh, still missing the obvious. Just
because they say good people go to
Heaven and all that doesn't mean they
advocate suicide. Since you mention
Christians specifically, no, it is a sin
to kill yourself. Again, you take a tiny
shred of knowledge and over extend it to
a false general case and then misapply
your own false determination of how
Christians (or others) should be to
determine (again falsely) that any Good
Christians should be in favor of death,
suicide, etc, etc. I'm pretty sure no
one here is so blindly hateful of
religious people that they actually
believe what you're saying, thus you
must be a troll. I'm done. Did you
have fun trolling me?
\_ Did I say anything about suicides?
No. Why are you talking about suicide?
I see a trend in your "debate" style.
\- http://www.slate.com/id/2154856
\_ I did not have the Bush twins in mind. I was thinking of us. -op |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.slate.com/id/2154856 Barbara and Jenna Bush It is not the fault of Jenna or Barbara Bush that their father, the president, has gotten us into a war that he doesn't know how to get us out of. And, although you can blame parents for almost anything, George W and Laura Bush are no longer responsible for the behavior of their twin daughters, who by now are in their mid-20s. Presidents, like the rest of us, don't get to choose their relatives. Anyway, Jenna and Barbara are far from George W Bush's biggest familial problem. The law of averages has given him at least one ne'er-do-well brother--Neil. The biggest familial thorn in the president's side is probably his father, always ready (or so it seems) to send out a Brent Scowcroft or a James Baker with some patronizing and excruciatingly public advice for the young pup. As for the twins, we actually know next to nothing about them. George and Laura Bush made the wise decision to keep them out of the limelight and--with surprisingly little slippage--they have managed to enforce this policy on the press, on the Republican propaganda machine, and on the girls themselves. From what little has leaked out, it seems that Jenna and Barbara are party girls, who like to drink and dance until the wee hours with aristocrats and frat boys. Jenna is interning for UNICEF in Latin America (not actually teaching kids, as originally reported, but involved somehow in education). Their first night there, partying in Buenos Aires, Barbara lost her purse to a thief. So, it would appear that George W Bush's daughters are not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton or Karenna Gore. It's a war that has killed 3,000 Americans, most of them around Jenna and Barbara's age or younger. It has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis of all ages. And even more Americans and Iraqis have been injured, lost limbs, suffered excrutiating pain. President Bush can be quite eloquent in talking about the sacrifices of American soldiers and--he always adds--their families. In the Reagan style that has become almost mandatory, he uses anecdotes. His two-year old daughter, Taylor, knelt beside her mother at the casket to say a final goodbye." said how much he appreciated getting mail from his family. They yearned to see mom and dad again and to hold their sweethearts and to watch their sons and daughters grow. They wanted the daily miracle of freedom in America, yet they gave all that up and gave life itself for the sake of others." Living your life according to your own values is a challenge for everyone, and must be a special challenge if you happen to be the president. No one thinks that the president should have to give up a child to prove that his family is as serious about freedom as these other families he praises. But it would be reassuring to see a little struggle here--some sign that the Bush family truly believes that American soldiers are dying for our freedom, and it's worth it. Maybe George and Laura wanted the girls to join the Red Cross, or the Peace Corps, or do something that would at least take them off the party circuit for a couple of years. The opposite approach to this question is taken by Jim Webb, the incoming senator from Virginia. Webb seems to believe that because he served in Vietnam, anyone who could have but didn't should shut up. That includes people who opposed that war--that is, who got it right--as well as those who supported it. Webb's son is serving in Iraq now, and--in a gesture that would throw Dr. At a White House reception for new members of Congress, Webb avoided the receiving line, and then, when Bush came up and asked him how his son was doing, he basically told the president to flake off. At first it seemed like a brilliant strategy--repellent, but brilliant--to isolate most Americans from the cost of the war in Iraq. As the deaths and injuries mount, more and more people are touched by the war--and become understandably resentful of those who are not. Bush, in his speeches, is eloquent about what no one doubts--the sacrifice--but banal about what most people have come to doubt: the purpose. But no amount of eloquence can overcome the bald contrast between that rhetoric and how his own family lives. His daughters are over 21, and he can't control them, but that doesn't let them off the hook. They are now independent moral actors, and their situation requires that they either publicly oppose their father's war or do something to support it. Is it unfair to expect Jenna and Barbara to shape their lives around their father's folly? If this is war, then unfairness comes with the territory. Michael Kinsley is American editor of Guardian Unlimited (London) and the founding editor of Slate. Photographs of Barbara and Jenna Bush on the article page and on Slate's home page by Mark Wilson/Getty Images. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? |