The article is called Reality Check, by Jeff Edwards, retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer, and it discusses our current war casualites. Please take a look.
Casualites In Iraq
read with hunger, write with joy, live with passion
read with hunger, write with joy, live with passion
The article is called Reality Check, by Jeff Edwards, retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer, and it discusses our current war casualites. Please take a look.
What I consider posturing toward the cheap seats:
1) “Oh, how I love irony (Jeff Edwards wrote: “We’re gearing up to make an enormously important national decision based on false information.†and he wasn’t talking about WMDs et al), but this article is too indicative of the failure to think clearly and rationaly that got us into Iraq in the first place that irony is lost in compassionate sadness.”
Tone is strictly down the nose at those you consider less savvy than yourself.
2) “Only two? Too difficult, or casualties too high. Actually, Mr. Edwards meant U.S. casualties too high, because he never once considered the cost of war included Iraqi casualties as well. Some of us, however, consider Iraqis to be humans and consider this a ‘cost’ of the war too.”
Or are you intentionally forgetting the mass graves, gassings, rape rooms, women fed to lions, and other atrocities of the Hussein reign?
3) “How about that as rabid nationalism wanes and people reflect a bit more rationaly they can see the U.S. stance from a more global perspective and don’t like what they see? Abu Ghraib anyone? Guantanamo? Nope, didn’t consider that.”
Again, tone down the nose at those you disdain. Plus, your lack of concern for the atrocities suffered at the hands of terrorists by our people and the Iraqis, both military and non-military, is painful. Sorry not all of our military (or civilian) folks are perfect. They have been or will be punished. We aren’t chopping of heads and hands, though. This is war; perspective is critical.
4) “It is my opinion that Mr. Edwards ‘belief’ in the rightness of the war doesn’t allow him to rationaly approach the question of why support is eroding, otherwise he would understand the reasons are myriad.”
It is my opinion that Edwards did a better job of supporting his opinion, not belief, with facts than you did. He also managed to avoid both scare quotes and rudeness.
Holly wrote: I would suggest that the posturing toward the cheap seats, the melodramatic head-shaking, and the comment to Jeff Edwards, who certainly is never going to see it here on this little weblog, are all shabby rhetorical tricks that have no place here, where, if there are comments, are between you and me, not between you and some mythical “audience of the world.†Your behavior here makes me sad. Holly
My comment to Mr. Edwards was not a shabby rhetorical trick; it was a mistake. I agree that it does not belong here and I apologize.
I’m not sure, however, what you consider to be posturing to the cheap seats. Mr. Edwards thesis was that support for the war is eroding because of U.S. casualties. I argue that there are many more reasons that support is eroding, and I offered up a few examples. It is my opinion that Mr. Edwards ‘belief’ in the rightness of the war doesn’t allow him to rationaly approach the question of why support is eroding, otherwise he would understand the reasons are myriad.
Thank you,
Michael Snell
I suggest that our purpose in Iraq is to create a democracy in the center of totalitarian monarchies and virulent religious dictatorships — to create a demonstration of a nation that values human rights in the very center of those that do not. And by doing so, to improve our national security by destabilizing those governments who despise democracies, including ours, and who have sworn to see you, me, and every other American dead.
While you might not consider that a valid reason for going to Iraq, or for staying there, I certainly do. I suggest t the American people were not duped in the beginning, but the press is doing its best to dupe them now.
Oh, how I love irony (Jeff Edwards wrote: “We’re gearing up to make an enormously important national decision based on false information.” and he wasn’t talking about WMDs et al), but this article is too indicative of the failure to think clearly and rationaly that got us into Iraq in the first place that irony is lost in compassionate sadness.
To quote Mr. Edwards again: “There has to be something else at work here, some other factor that’s influencing this evolution of public opinion. I can only think of two other issues that could be driving this attitudinal shift: Either the mission in Iraq is too difficult or the casualty count is just too high.”
Only two? Too difficult, or casualties too high. Actually, Mr. Edwards meant U.S. casualties too high, because he never once considered the cost of war included Iraqi casualties as well. Some of us, however, consider Iraqis to be humans and consider this a ‘cost’ of the war too.
Did Mr. Edwards consider that eroding support could be due to people (finally) waking up to the fact they were duped into going to war in the first place? Nope.
How about that as rabid nationalism wanes and people reflect a bit more rationaly they can see the U.S. stance from a more global perspective and don’t like what they see? Abu Ghraib anyone? Guantanamo? Nope, didn’t consider that.
In fact Mr. Edwards never considered that eroding support might be a good thing. But that would require clear thinking rather than belief based rhetoric–in this case the indefensible belief that our form of government is the one true form of government and we must evangelize it throughout the world.
Mr. Edwards, your article makes me truly sad.
-michael snell
I would suggest that the posturing toward the cheap seats, the melodramatic head-shaking, and the comment to Jeff Edwards, who certainly is never going to see it here on this little weblog, are all shabby rhetorical tricks that have no place here, where, if there are comments, they are between you and me, not between you and some mythical “audience of the world.” Your behavior here makes me sad. Holly