college. To learn a skill. To see the world. To get out of their little hick
town.
The families know full well when their son/daughters sign up for service
that they may die.
If my son ever wanted to serve the country and died in war, i'd bury him
with the highest of honors because he was brave enough to die for what he
believed in.
Much more than I can say for most.
They signed up to defend their country. To do a job. Saying that does not
indicate an obvious lack of empathy for the dead, dying and wounded.
How do you know what my military background is? You know nothing about me.
How do you know what I've lost due to war? How do you know what my family
sacrificed in war.? JERK
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:23 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: OReilly vs. Moore
I was disgusted by the obvious lack of empathy for the dead, dying and
wounded.
Sure, all members of the US Military know that they may some day be put in
harms way. But that is not "What they signed up for". They signed up to be
the good guys. To pay for college. To learn a skill. To see the world. To
get out of their little hick town. The possibility of war was present, but
not the reason they signed up. It was more like the downside to the job.
They also trust that their sacrifices will be for the "right" reasons. In
Iraq, that is a little unclear. Do we know they needed to be there? Do we
know their deaths were the only way to accomplish what we are trying to
accomplish? Did their commanders do EVERYTHING they could do to minimize
their losses. That is a big, fat NO.
I grew up in a succession of military towns, following my father as a Navy
brat. Every time he left in the middle of the night after a 2:00 AM call, we
were worried he might never come back. The more typical 3 months out 3
months home was much easier to take.
I know a family who's father won't come back. I know a family who have lost
their house because their primary breadwinner has been called up from the
reserves for the last 2 years. If these sacrifices are worth it, I think
more of America should be sacrificing. Right now, it is all falling on the
military families. And the top dogs are not sacrificing at all. Maybe they
are even personally profiting from the conflict. That thought is sickening.
Are American deaths worth more than those from other countries? Yes. Not
because they are inherently better, but because they are "mine". Would an
American killed while buying an ice cream in Iraq be worth it? No. Would the
same soldier giving his life to save a woman trapped by gunfire on a bridge?
Yes, that feels much better. Cleaner. Clearer.
Do I believe we shouldn't do something we know is right because it might
cost American lives? No. But I think any lives we lose should be for a cause
we can be proud of. We should not waste this serious sacrifice, nor treat it
less somberly than it deserves.
The question then becomes: Is the price we are paying worth what we are
getting for it?
The thought that we shouldn't complain when our soldiers are killed is just
wrong.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/04 03:42PM >>>
Jerry,
Ignoring the fuck you comment (which I know wasn't aimed at me),
The troops did sign up to serve their country, at the behest of their
Commander
in Chief.
When you sign up to the army, you know full well that you do that to defend
your
country or to seek its interest in combat, and that there is a chance that
you
will die in that pursuit. No one wants it, but that's the way it is.
Perhaps this is a better way to put it than how Monique did.
And I cannot understand why the impression given in the media and by
Americans
is that they do not expect their soldiers to die, and balk when they do.
Understand quite clearly, that I am not saying soldiers SHOULD die, or that
their death should be par for the course or that there should not be deep
regret
at the loss of human life (on both ends of the spectrum), but I am saying
that
the impression given through the outlet of the media and interviews etc. is
that
your average American doesn't seem to 'expect' deaths in a military
engagement.
Perhaps the US public has been spoilt on the notion of a 'smart' war where
missiles strike targets from far away and there is no close in fighting and
no
threat to American life? This attitude seemed to arise after the first Gulf
War,
in my view.
This could be totally incorrect, but that's the impression I get looking at
the
news and at interviews with Americans, that the death of even one soldier is
surprising, and intolerable. Which is an unrealistic expectation, that no
soldiers' lives be lost in any engagement. They aren't yet fighting with
remote
controlled UAVs, and so far UAVs can't hold territory.
Now if the argument is, "What are they dieing for" which is what Moore
asked,
then thats a completely different argument than," None of our soldiers
should
die at all in war, and it is shocking when one does."
-Gel
_____
From: Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/04 02:35PM >>>
>And, everyone is complaining about our troops being killed/injured...
>That is what they signed up for!!!!
That is absolutely the most repugnant statement I've read on this list.
Got to take this personal for a minute.
F*ck You!
Jerry Johnson
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
