Sunday, November 11, 2007

Thank a Veteran on Veteran's Day

The Wheels_Herbert C. Hahn



Today is Veteran's Day. Please thank a veteran today for his or her service because without their service we would not be the free nation we are today. There is an ever shrinking number of WWII veterans and Korean War veterans numbers are dwindling too. Go hug your Grandfather, Uncle or shake your neighbor's hand and just say "Thank You" because they may not be around too much longer. There are a lot of Vietnam Veterans out there that need recognition too so just say "Thank You' to any Veteran you can find. It's important that we honor, respect and recognize the service of all veterans today.

ROLL-CALL

"Corporal Green!" the Orderly cried;
"Here!" was the answer loud and clear,
From the lips of a soldier who stood near,--
And "Here!" was the word the next replied.

"Cyrus Drew!"--then a silence fell;
This time no answer followed the call;
Only his rear-man had seen him fall;
Killed or wounded--he could not tell.

There they stood in the failing light,
These men of battle, with grave, dark looks,
As plain to be read as open books,
While slowly gathered the shades of night.

The fern on the hillsides was splashed with blood,
And down in the corn, where the poppies grew,
Were redder stains than the poppies knew,
And crimson-dyed was the river's flood.

For the foe had crossed from the other side,
That day, in the face of a murderous fire
That swept them down in its terrible ire;
And their life-blood went to color the tide.

"Herbert Cline!"--At the call there came
Two stalwart soldiers into the line,
Bearing between them this Herbert Cline,
Wounded and bleeding, to answer his name.

"Ezra Kerr!"--and a voice answered "Here!"
"Hiram Kerr!"--but no man replied.
They were brothers, these two; the sad wind sighed,
And a shudder crept through the cornfield near.

"Ephraim Deane!"--then a soldier spoke;
"Deane carried our regiment's colors," he said,
"When our ensign was shot; I left him dead,
Just after the enemy wavered and broke."

"Close to the roadside his body lies;
I paused a moment and gave him to drink;
He murmured his mother's name, I think,
And Death came with it and closed his eyes."

'Twas a victory, yes; but it cost us dear:
For that company's roll, when called at night,
Of a hundred men who went into the fight,
Numbered but twenty that answered "Here!"

Nathaniel Graham Shepherd
(a Confederate Army soldier)

40 comments:

Gayle said...

That poem is awesome Jennifer. Thanks for finding and posting it, and from my husband, a veteran, and from me too, thank you so much for the post!

J_G said...

Thanks Gayle I found that poem one night when I was reading about the Battle of Shiloh in Tennessee in 1862. The Civil War soldiers hold a special place in my heart because they really exhibited some of the bravest actions I've ever read about. Their faith in God and love of country on either side was immeasurable but the stories of their gallant behavior gives a little insight to their dedication.

Every war, every battle that America has fought to gain and maintain our freedom has been fought by many selfless individuals and they have to be remembered and honored. We do not do enough to recognize, honor and help veterans.

The picture of the sailors reminds me of my Father's service as a US Navy sailor in the south Pacific during WWII.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Thank you for your military service, Jennifer.

MonicaR said...

Amen, Jennifer. Great entry - love the poem.

J_G said...

You're welcome Word, I'd go back in if they let me serve on the Riverine boats in the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.

Thanks Monica. That poem really drove home the point about the tribulations that soldiers feel after the battle and they are tallying up the casualties.

TrekMedic251 said...

On a sunny Sunday in Beirut, 25 yrs ago, the Trekmedic was finishing up an assignment. Suddenly, a deafening blast knocked us all to the ground. I still don't talk or write much about the carnage.

On a cold Sunday morning in November, 2007, the TrekMedic has just about cornered the market on Advil and Therma-Care heat wraps.

My back, neck and shoulder hurt.

My right hip and knee hurts.

My limp is a bit more pronounced this winter.

I was watching the Eagles game in a friend's hospital room yesterday when my hearing aid battery died. (They won, too...go figure)

I'm 44 and I came home.

Most of my buddies didn't.

A lot of my buddies didn't come back from WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam and both Gulf Wars.

That's OK. Its that kind of sacrifice that makes this country strong. It allows us this God-given gift to post whatever we want about our people, even elected officials we don't particularly like.

It let's groups of opposing viewpoints stand across the street from each other in a small county seat town without fear that some government agency will swoop down and start cracking heads.

So,..with all that,..will someone PLEASE tell the MSM to stop carping about a f**king body count in this war? Huh? OK? Just for one day?

That is all.

Hoo-ah!

J_G said...

I agree Trek the liberal media needs to give vets a break from their one sided telling of the story.

In my family every generation since they got here from Ireland in the 1850's has served including myself. I served from 1975-1985.

Mike's America said...

Thank you Jennifer.

I observed the day visiting with another Navy veteran and his Mom.

handmaiden said...

the liberal media needs to give vets a break from their one sided telling of the story.

If it wasn't FOR liberals, you'd only hear one side of the story.

I spent veterans day with some of my Veterans for Peace buddies.

Mike's America said...

Yes, thank liberals for making sure that most of the American people are nearly oblivious to all the progress we have made in Iraq.

Iraq: Defeat is not an option.

Liberals: Defeat is the only option.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

If it wasn't FOR liberals, you'd only hear one side of the story.

It's because of liberals, that we mostly hear only one side of the story....and when the other side gets reported, it appears on A8 and A18 of the NYTimes.

Just check stats at Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center.

J_G said...

L>T, the liberal press and the peacer movement don't care one wit about peace. It's all about Bush derangement syndrome. All of us veterans want peace but the majority of us want peace with honor and victory that seems to be something missing from the peacers, their understanding of that concept. There is no other option but peace through victory.

handmaiden said...

If it wasn't FOR liberals, you'd only hear one side of the story.
I was trying to stress the importance that all POV need to be expressed. This is what freedom of speech is about, right? Allowing people that don't agree with you to state their argument so you can prove or disprove it, agree or disagree. I don't agree with the ideology of groups like white Supremacists but they have the freedom to express their views so i can reject them.
You all say stuff like There is no other option but peace through victory & Defeat is not an option. Those are pretty broad statements. I know you mean them in a militaristic sense, but there are other ways of achieving "peace through victory besides" blowing stuff up & killing people... & I'm sure all military leaders tell soldiers "Defeat is not an option" when they are sending them out to sacrifice themselves for some governments political gain. War platitudes are not justification enough for war.

I did look at the Pew Report on The State of the News Media for 2007 here all I can say is, So?
Americans still do have the freedom of listening to which ever side they want.

It's always interesting to come over here to get a different point of view.

J_G said...

According to the 1st amendment of the Constitution you have the freedom of speech to say what you want without reprisal from the government. That does not mean private oraganizations like the New York Times and every other major liberal oriented publication has to print the successes in the war on terror in Iraq and they don't.

Al queada has been completely run out of Baghdad and the New York Times decided that was such good news they printed it on page 19 in 100 word article like it was nothing more than Senator Clinton just had polyps removed from her colon during a routine exam. Even that would get more coverage by the so called free press. The press is controlled by liberals as is academia to the near ruination of this free republic.

Marie's Two Cents said...

Better late than never Jenn,

Thank You for your service to our Country again :-)

handmaiden said...

The press is controlled by liberals as is academia to the near ruination of this free republic. Hmmmm, It's a good question; Who really does control the media?
I think you are giving Liberals more credit then they are due. I'm sure "main stream" media is controlled by profit much more then ideology. It might be true most journalists & editors in the main stream media slant to the left. But I think... in reality they are just working stiffs like the rest of us.

Have you considered that "liberal media" is a scape goat for a failed policy & an unpopular war?

Marie's Two Cents said...

Oh it's easy to find out which media is slanted left, the one that talks about us winning in Iraq isnt slanted to the left.

The ones focusing on Britney Spears are slanted left.

J_G said...

L>T, "Failed policy and unpopular war" are slogans from the liberal press. Recheck your sources because the policy hasn't failed in spite of the pressure from a small vocal minority that has been exerted from an unpopular press.

We're nearing victory in Iraq and we can tell that because the democrats are passing bills in congress that would make it impossible to fight a war. They have invested everything in the defeat of their own nation so that a victory in Iraq would finish the job of completely sinking them. After all the current democrat controlled congress is the most unpopular congress since polls were taken to measure their popularity with the people, even less than that of the President. Now that's real failed policy.

War is never popular, that is a given but losing a war is even less popular.

patterns of ink said...

J_G,
It's been a while. I have a post up about Hillary that you may find interesting.

http://patternsofink.blogspot.com/2007/11/does-art-reflect-life.html

Keep up the good work here!

handmaiden said...

We're nearing victory in Iraq and we can tell that because the democrats are passing bills in congress that would make it impossible to fight a war. They have invested everything in the defeat of their own nation so that a victory in Iraq would finish the job of completely sinking them. What? Do you really think that? It sounds to me that some Republicans are bracing for defeat & grasping at straws looking for scapegoats.
Yes, I agree the Democrat controlled congress is not doing it's job. Opposition to the war is one of the biggest reasons Democrats took control of Congress earlier this year. The latest public opinion poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal says more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of how President Bush is handling the war in Iraq. quote here

Losing a war is esp. not popular when it's a war that was a big mistake in the first place!

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

there are other ways of achieving "peace through victory besides" blowing stuff up & killing people... & I'm sure all military leaders tell soldiers "Defeat is not an option" when they are sending them out to sacrifice themselves for some governments political gain. War platitudes are not justification enough for war.

War platitudes are a quick way to get a point across without explaining it in an essay.

How is it that from "peace through victory", you translate that to "blowing things up" and "killing people"? How does "losing" reduce the likelihood of things blowing up, and people being killed?

It might be true most journalists & editors in the main stream media slant to the left. But I think... in reality they are just working stiffs like the rest of us.

I don't think so. Some of the bias is probably not intentional; but others are agenda-driven.

I've seen a number of studies that point to the majority of journalists being liberal. The last I can recall is the MSNBC study:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

I still rely on MSM for much of my news; but one has to recognize the bias between the lines, and take into account the perspective of who's reporting.

It sounds to me that some Republicans are bracing for defeat & grasping at straws looking for scapegoats.


How can you say that? The majority of Republicans have remained firm, in support of the war efforts. Especially in light of all the good news coming out of Iraq, as of late.

How can you honestly not see that Jennifer is right in saying Democrats have invested themselves in defeat? They have denied culpability in taking us to war, labeling this "Bush's war", when it's "America's war", for which the majority of both houses of Congress voted, authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam. Now, many want to wash their hands clean of having taken part in the decision, finger-pointing at President Bush.

Losing a war is esp. not popular when it's a war that was a big mistake in the first place!

War's are never popular. But wars must sometimes be fought; and if we had not fought this one, what would Saddam be doing now?

It is solid research, so I hope you do take the time to read the link.

I'm in the middle of "Shadow Warriors", by Kenneth Timmerman, and it is quite damning.


Ken? You're a waste of typing space. Go wave your white flag somewhere else.

J_G said...

Thanks Word, I couldn't have said it better myself, especially what a waste of space al qeada ken is.

Sorry I haven't been posting much or making very many comments lately. I just got done doing a some major plumbing repairs on my house. I'm having a big Thanksgiving at my house this year. I'm finally done replacing my kitchen faucet and many of the pipes that lead to it in my basement. I use well water and it's highly acidic and every time you replace something you have to replace the piping that supports it. I am soldered out!!!!

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Jennifer,

Go refresh your batteries.

I did look at the Pew Report on The State of the News Media for 2007 here all I can say is, So?


That's not the recent study I was referring to. It had to do with coverage of Iraq. When the news was negative, it was high coverage. Since the surge began turning things around, the coverage has dropped substantially.

I understand that part of that is probably due to the nature of "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" brand of journalism. Negativity sells. But another aspect, I believe, is due to anti-war, left-leaning bias.

Americans still do have the freedom of listening to which ever side they want.

The point is, the "other view" is overwhelmingly drowned out by the din of the dinosaur media: LATimes, NYTimes, Washington Post...these are all left-of-center major newspapers, along with a host of others. FOX does not get nearly the audience share as the big 3 networks. Throw in MSNBC and CNN, and the influence on the American psyche is constant hammering of liberally-slanted reporting. That's "ok", so long as you are aware of the perspective on the news. But most people are in a fog and don't realize that they are being fed biased reporting. They trust the news.

handmaiden said...

Some of the bias is probably not intentional; but others are agenda-driven.
I've seen the statistics, are we talking about peoples personal politics, or deliberate bias by a media intent on...what? Making a Profit by selling the news? If the journalists & editors were mostly Conservatives, would it be any less bias? I don't think so.
Speaking of major newspapers, I read an interesting article (sorry lost the link) defending the agenda of the NYTimes, making the point that it IS after all a major urban newspaper. The gist is that It is geared toward a urban audience. High brow is the word that comes to my mind. This is not only reflected in the politics but in fashion, entertainment, etc...no conspiracy really, but profit geared.
I have liberal friends that despise the Washington Post. I'm not sure why, maybe because it doesn't represent their POV. They accuse the media of bashing liberals. They swear main stream media has a conservative bias. Go figure.

most people are in a fog and don't realize that they are being fed biased reporting. They trust the news.
I think it is unfair to assume that the majority of the public is in a fog because they don't see it your way. I think the truth is, most Americans are anti-war & esp. anti-this war.
Like you said, "...one has to recognize the bias between the lines, and take into account the perspective of who's reporting." I believe that's always been the case.


You say How is it that from "peace through victory", you translate that to "blowing things up" and "killing people"? If you haven't noticed a lot of "blowing things up" & "killing people"has been going on during this invasion & occupation of Iraq.
How does "losing" reduce the likelihood of things blowing up, and people being killed? "losing" is a moot point. So is what would Saddam be doing now?

"It sounds to me like some Republicans are bracing for defeat & grasping at straws looking for scapegoats".How can you say that?

I said that in reply to Jennifers claim that; " We're nearing victory in Iraq and we can tell that because the democrats are passing bills in congress that would make it impossible to fight a war. They have invested everything in the defeat of their own nation so that a victory in Iraq would finish the job of completely sinking them."

How can you honestly not see that Jennifer is right in saying Democrats have invested themselves in defeat? They have denied culpability in taking us to war, labeling this "Bush's war", when it's "America's war", for which the majority of both houses of Congress voted, authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam. Now, many want to wash their hands clean of having taken part in the decision, finger-pointing at President Bush.
I agree with some of what you say.
In the beginning The majority of Democrat politicians believed the made up stories about the nonexistent weapons of mass destructionremember this? & it seems everyone was naive about what would happen when the warring factions in Iraq were let loose on each other.
But, I don't see that jennifer was right when she said " the Democrats are invested in the defeat of their own nation." I don't see how trying to put a cap on war spending & asking for a pullout date is investing in defeat.
" War platitudes are a quick way to get a point across without explaining it in an essay." Yes, & another thing they are is propaganda.

J_G said...

L>T, your arguments have been made moot by the successes of the surge. The Iraqi people have seen that we weren't going to set a date and we are in it to finish the job. That gave them the courage to stand up and take the fight to the insurgency. The American people may have been dissatisfied with the way the war was going just as I was. General Patreaus took over and everything has changed.

The news media isn't saying much about Iraq lately because we are winning and make no mistake they doing that because of their liberal bias. They cannot report the truth because it make the democrats look pretty bad at this point.

I'm done discussing this here. I go out on Saturdays and educate peacers that's enough.

handmaiden said...

I'm done discussing this here. I go out on Saturdays and educate peacers that's enough.
fine, just don't close your ears to what other people have to say & only listen to stuff like this & this

About the Surge...we invade & occupy a country on false pretenses, rely on bad intelligence, open a can of worms involving unresolved religious & social factions, sparking a civil war. Then we Surge in & restore civil order.
Meanwhile we've spent trillions, lost credibility around the World, spread ourselves thin militarily, & pretty much destroyed Iraq...
The news media isn't saying much about Iraq lately because we are winning and make no mistake they doing that because of their liberal bias.
Yeah, OK :)

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Aaah...more stuff to reply to. I'm going to go grab some dinner first. Be back later.

Skye said...

Yes, I agree the Democrat controlled congress is not doing it's job.

From the mouth of OBL:

Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."


Just reading over handmaiden's comments on this thread, it is difficult to distinguish between her thoughts and those of al-queda. It is chilling to realize the symetry between these two groups.

Skye said...

Opinions are not fact.

If we did an impromptu poll on the state of this War on this tread, with these participants - what do you suppose the outcome would be?


-------------------------
I think the truth is, most Americans are anti-war & esp. anti-this war.

Skye said...

About the Surge...we invade & occupy a country on false pretenses, rely on bad intelligence, open a can of worms involving unresolved religious & social factions, sparking a civil war. Then we Surge in & restore civil order.
Meanwhile we've spent trillions, lost credibility around the World, spread ourselves thin militarily, & pretty much destroyed Iraq...


Apparently winning is a sore spot with this 'peace protester'. How many misleading statements and flat out lies can one cram into a sentence? See the above quote...

Let me translate this from peacer-speak to english:
Our boys did their best, but those stupid Iraqis didn't do their part.

Skye said...

However in March 2003 UN report about Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction there is the following on page 77 (Page 79 of the pdf file), paragraph 1 of the report http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf :

“ The Sulfur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq.

Tell me what parts of the 2003 UNMOVIC report were 'make believe', handmaiden?

Additionally,

Memos in document CMPC-2003-002284 that are dated in June and August 2002 present another great evidence of Saddam Regime deceptions to hide his WMD programs and this time by destroying the WMD files or hiding them in a secure location.

What is 'make believe' about Saddam's own words regarding the disposition of WMD in Iraq, handmaiden?


-----------------------------
The majority of Democrat politicians believed the made up stories about the nonexistent weapons

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Hello skye!


I've seen the statistics, are we talking about peoples personal politics, or deliberate bias by a media intent on...what?


Both. Think Mary Mapes. How about Carol Simpson?

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., under whom the NYTimes has undergone a radical transformation into agenda-driven news. At times, you can no longer distinguish the op-ed from the straight news.


Making a Profit by selling the news?

Subscription rates for the major papers have been going down. No doubt, a large part of this is the advent of the internet and alternative news sources; but I think another part of it is that conservatives now have other choices to get their news, are sick of the blatant bias, and have therefore cancelled their subscriptions to major newspapers. I know people who have cancelled the LATimes out here, because of the bias. Remember the protests outside the NYTimes after one of the leaks? Profit before national interest? Perhaps. A little bit of BDS agenda-driving? Definitely.

If profit were the sole motive, we'd see more conservative movies in Hollywood, with pro-troop/anti-ISLAMIC terrorist movies. We don't. Instead we get these non-moneymaking anti-war anti-Bush regime movies like Redacted, Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Ellah, and recent others whose names escape me.

If the journalists & editors were mostly Conservatives, would it be any less bias? I don't think so.

Of course not! And this is the point: There is no such thing as objective journalism. I want journalists to be open and honest about the perspective from which they are writing from- even the straight news. Quit with the pretense and self-delusion that one's personal poltical leanings don't creep in, or is at risk from creeping into one's copy. It is dishonest. Dan Rather considers himself nonbias. Helen Thomas considers herself nonbias. It's ridiculous.

Speaking of major newspapers, I read an interesting article (sorry lost the link) defending the agenda of the NYTimes, making the point that it IS after all a major urban newspaper. The gist is that It is geared toward a urban audience. High brow is the word that comes to my mind. This is not only reflected in the politics but in fashion, entertainment, etc...no conspiracy really, but profit geared.

I wish you did have that link. Because I see the NYTimes, as ideologically-driven.

From Bernard Goldberg's book, "Arrogance":

Hilton Kramer: "There was a big story on the front page of a Thursday paper, just below the fold, about the problem single women in New York were having finding suitable Saturday night dates. My wife was preparing lunch, and I started reading her the story from the front page and she turned around and said, 'Are you making that up? That's really in the front page of the New York Times?' That really was the start, that period when the Times went from being a two-section newspaper emphasizing hard news, to this multisection lifestyle paper. Well, as soon as you move into lifestyle journalism, it's basically all opinion. Today there are lifestyle stories on page one almost every day. And lifestyle is an inherently liberal concept- it's a term that you only hear conservatives use sarcastically, because it implies perpetual change and the denigration of traditional standards."

Diversity, feminist issues, gay activism, multiculturalism are all pushed to the fore, and creep into all sections of the paper- even the sports section.

With Sulzberger Jr. at the helm, and privileged liberal reporters and editors of the 60's and 70's generation who consider themselves "cutting-edge" socially aware, the newspaper itself has transformed into a liberally-active-edge paper.

The bias isn't only in perspective on the news, but also in the news they choose to report (think, 32 consecutive frontpage stories on abu Ghraib), and the ones they choose to omit, or front-page worthy news buried to page A8.

The NYTimes is perhaps the single-most, influential paper (with the Washington Post up there as well) in the country, widely read and regarded around the world. It has a lot of pull, not because most Americans read it, but because most influential people read it. And its columns get syndicated down to local papers, and sets the agenda and stories "worth" reporting by the big 3 networks.


I have liberal friends that despise the Washington Post. I'm not sure why, maybe because it doesn't represent their POV.

Perhaps it's for the same reasons that some liberals will bash the NYTimes- because they think it leans right, and isn't to the left, enough. Because there are instances when it is balanced enough not to bash the Bush regime, and that's not good enough for the Bush-haters.

They accuse the media of bashing liberals. They swear main stream media has a conservative bias. Go figure.

Sometimes liberals do get bashed. I can see that happening, too. I think some aspects of liberalism- those involved in far-left activism- are unpopular to ordinary Americans in general.


I think it is unfair to assume that the majority of the public is in a fog because they don't see it your way.


Ah, but that's not what I said. It's quite alright for people to disagree with me. But there are many people who don't pay attention to the news, in detail, such as you or I might, who are into politics.

I'll come across a USA Today headline that says something like "8,000 soldiers desert during Iraq War". If I'm just a casual reader, I might flip past the story; but I still caught the headline blurb. And if the topic came up in a conversation, I might spout out how 8,000 soldiers have deserted since Bush invaded in a war for profit and oil. And that's how stories get spun, and misinformation spreads.

I realize that writers aren't responsible for headline blurbs, and they're designed to be "eye-catching". It might not be intentional bias; and then again, it might be.

I remember another one that headlined "Koran-flushed down the toilet", and when you get to the substance of the story, there was no Koran flushed at all (not the Newsweek story, but some paper covering it).


I think the truth is, most Americans are anti-war & esp. anti-this war.

Yes, I believe that. And when you have a media that mostly loves to report the body counts, lament about not being able to televise and photograph flag-draped coffins, push forth the latest IED and carbombing and under-report what we are achieving from all these losses and casualties, it wears down on you. What are we fighting for? We are war-weary; we crave peace so much, that we forget that the absence fo war is not the same as having peace.


Like you said, "...one has to recognize the bias between the lines, and take into account the perspective of who's reporting." I believe that's always been the case.


But there are many people who don't quite understand this; or the depths of it. The mentality is, "If it's in print, and reported in the news, then it must be true". People, traditionally, trust the straight news; they rely upon it, to know what's going on in the community and in the world. They are influenced by the constant drumbeat: "Bush and Rove are behind outing a covert CIA operative", they are "spying upon Americans", "our freedoms are being eroded by the Patriot Act", "the war is lost", and on and on.


You say How is it that from "peace through victory", you translate that to "blowing things up" and "killing people"? If you haven't noticed a lot of "blowing things up" & "killing people"has been going on during this invasion & occupation of Iraq.

Yes, but so has reconstruction, attempts at reconciliation between the sectarian tribes, friendship with Iraqis, many former insurgents who now understand that al-Qaeda had lied to them about America's intentions.

Yet what you translate "victory" as, is "blowing things up" and "killing people". The ones we are trying to kill are "the bad guys". The one who are going around "blowing things up" (hospitals, oil fields, schools, mosques, etc) and "killing people" (innocent Iraqis slaughtered, executed, carbombed, beheaded, etc).


How does "losing" reduce the likelihood of things blowing up, and people being killed? "losing" is a moot point. So is what would Saddam be doing now?


No. That's "what would Saddam be doing now?"

But yes, we can only speculate. I think the evidence that he would be a future problem for the world, is overwhelming.

As far as "losing being a moot point." Even the perception of losing Iraq is a danger for the U.S. It is vital, in our national interest, that we do not hand al Qaeda a victory in Iraq. Osama was able to draw followers in Afghanistan from a perceived victory over the mighty Soviets, at the battle of the Lion's Den. Nothing draws recruitment quite like success.

"It sounds to me like some Republicans are bracing for defeat & grasping at straws looking for scapegoats".How can you say that?

I said that in reply to Jennifers claim that; " We're nearing victory in Iraq and we can tell that because the democrats are passing bills in congress that would make it impossible to fight a war. They have invested everything in the defeat of their own nation so that a victory in Iraq would finish the job of completely sinking them."


Yes, I understand you said it in response to Jennifer. But I still do not see how you can draw that assessment. If anything, the Democratic leadership is in a quandary, having backed themselves into a corner of defeatism, where a victory in Iraq would mean they've been wrong, and have done nothing to help achieve that victory, and everything in their power to undermine it and appease their anti-war base with empty rhetoric (the top 3 Democratic candidates do not support immediate withdrawal).

All they can do now is do to President Bush what they've done to former President Reagan- try to downplay his significance in bringing the Cold War to a victorious conclusion.

How can you honestly not see that Jennifer is right in saying Democrats have invested themselves in defeat? They have denied culpability in taking us to war, labeling this "Bush's war", when it's "America's war", for which the majority of both houses of Congress voted, authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam. Now, many want to wash their hands clean of having taken part in the decision, finger-pointing at President Bush.
I agree with some of what you say.
In the beginning The majority of Democrat politicians believed the made up stories about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction remember this? & it seems everyone was naive about what would happen when the warring factions in Iraq were let loose on each other.


Things were incrementally improving in Iraq, with ups and downs; the real setback occurred in February of 2006, with the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque of Samarra (said to be instigated by al-Qaeda). That plunged the country into the so-called "civil war".



But, I don't see that jennifer was right when she said " the Democrats are invested in the defeat of their own nation." I don't see how trying to put a cap on war spending & asking for a pullout date is investing in defeat.


That, in and of themselves, isn't the problem. But the Democrats have really backed themselves into a corner on this with the inability to recognize and acknowledge "good news" when it occurs, and always staring at the glass as half-empty (think, Bill Richardson citing the true but flawed-perspective that this has been the deadliest year for our soldiers). This is partisan politics above national unity.

To be fair, many of us on the right have also politically invested ourselves into achieving an American "victory" in Iraq.

" War platitudes are a quick way to get a point across without explaining it in an essay." Yes, & another thing they are is propaganda.

Kind of like all those lefty bumperstickers plastered all over vehicles:

"Bush lied, people died"

"More books, not bombs"

"No war for oil".

Liberals are full of propgandistic sloganeering "peace" platitudes.

So when you originally said, "War platitudes are not justification enough for war", I can turn that around and write,

Peace platitudes are not justification enough for peace

Er.....actually, that didn't come out right, did it? Lol.

Actually, my line of thinking is more accurately this:

"Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice, of law, of order- in short, of government."-Albert Einstein


"They have not wanted peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war- as though the absence of war was the same as peace." -Dorothy Thompson

"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I would never do that. But as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." - Mother Theresa


Please forgive any typos.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

fine, just don't close your ears to what other people have to say & only listen to stuff like this & this

Lol...you mean "listen to stuff" like Think Progress and Media Matters? Or O'Reilly and Limbaugh? For the record, I'm not a fan of O'Reilly, although I will listen to him as I will Olbermann, because they are influential. And I've actually never listened to Limbaugh's radio program, although I love talk radio (Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager).

In regards to the Indiana University study, O'Reilly, even if he promotes himself as an "independent"-thinker, leans right, and is "opining" the news; this is no different than Keith Olbermann or any left-leaning/right-wing blog. Same with Colmes and Hannity. They are op-eding the news, from their respective left and right perspectives.

As far as your Limbaugh link, it's a smear. Look beyond the media matters perspective.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

From the Indiana Study link:

A pattern also exists in the subjects of this name-calling. The "left-leaning media" led the pack, receiving 21.6 percent of the name calling during the studied time. Illegal aliens and terrorists also held prominence, receiving 26.8 percent and 21.4 percent respectively, with academics rounding out the top four, the study stated.


Those constitute part of the definition of "name-calling"? Please....

Skyeblue said...

Hello Word!

Excellent rebuttal, and the only improvement to add to this would be to add a link to Michael Yon.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Excellent addition, skyeblue! Can't forget Michael Yon's significance to the dialogue and narrative.

handmaiden said...

You've all made some very good points & I really have appreciated having this conversation with you ladies. I think real dialog with real people that challenge my POV is stimulating & thought provoking. Thanks!

First the media... For me the real question comes down to; "Does the mainstream media have a bias that affects the truth?" It seems mainstream media has & always will be inclined to be biased & bias of course taints the truth. Whether that bias is left or right is not as important as recognizing it is there. I realize that there are journalists/talk show hosts/news anchors/etc...on the left, that spin the news as bad as Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly & that crowd over at FOX, does on the right. I personally don't like to base my discernment of facts based on emotional manipulation & entertainment, no matter what perspective it's coming from. IMO, none of that stuff has credibility as serious news, left or right. I think most Americans feel the same way I do. The majority of us want the truth, we want the facts & we even want to reason things out in our own minds. As far as which direction the bias leans...maybe the mainstream media does lean to the left, but, maybe not so radically as you think? & perhaps a lot of the criticisms that are made against the right are justified?
I think some aspects of liberalism- those involved in far-left activism- are unpopular to ordinary Americans in general. Far left, far right, are equally unpopular because most people normally are more comfortable in the middle then in the extreme. It's a lot easier to form an opinion in regards to politics from the saner position that is the middle.

Now for war & peace... I'm a liberal. A secular humanist. I obviously see this war (& maybe war in general) with a different perspective then you all do.

For instance look at the quotes that skye cited, I have a lot of respect for all three of those Great people & I can pull out quotes too that support my POV. too.

Einstein also said this, "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"

Dorthy Thompson also said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict."

She also said, No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say "Heil" to him, nor will they call him "F├╝hrer" or "Duce." But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of "O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!" (1935)

I also see myself as a peace lover like Mother Theresa. & peace is what I always advocate when I attend rallys. It's funny I couldn't stand up & advocate peace on the other side of the street, though... But that doesn't mean I am not as Patriotic as the flag wavers over there claim to be.

Paul F. said...

Define winning.

J_G said...

Define winning.

The opposite of losing.

Dorthy Thompson also said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict."

On Dorothy Thomson; She is notable as the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany (in 1934), and as the inspiration for Katharine Hepburn's character Tess Harding in the film Woman of the Year (1942).

According to Bennett Cerf in Try and Stop Me (1944), she socked a woman who made pro-Nazi remarks in her presence--after asking her to step outside. She also attended the Bund rally at Madison Square Garden, where she showed her disgust by giving the participants the Bronx cheer. So much for peaceful Dorothy Thompson.

Peace is being strong enough to make your enemies believe the cost of a counter attack would be way too burdensome and costly to consider making an attack on you. Apparently fascist Islamist didn't believe that and are now paying with their own annihilation. Did the mainstream press let you know that al qaeda has been nearly eliminated in Iraq.

Einstein may have been a pacifist in theory when it was possible to sit back and enjoy such a luxury.
As it always is the case when the threat to one's life and country by an aggressor has to be dealt with pacifism is rendered a useless and quaint utopian theory.

In August 1939 nuclear physicists came to Einstein, not for scientific but for political help. The fission of the uranium nucleus had recently been discovered. A long-time friend, Leo Szilard, and other physicists realized that uranium might be used for enormously devastating bombs. They had reason to fear that Nazi Germany might construct such weapons. Einstein, reacting to the danger from Hitler's aggression, had already abandoned his strict pacifism. He now signed a letter that was delivered to the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning him to take action. This letter, and a second Einstein-Szilard letter of March 1940, joined efforts by other scientists to prod the United States government into preparing for nuclear warfare. Einstein played no other role in the nuclear bomb project. As a German who had supported left-wing causes, he was denied security clearance for such sensitive work. But during the war he did perform useful service as a consultant for the United States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance.

Americans always want peace no one wants to send soldiers and sailors off to war. Americans though will not tolerate peace at the cost of being weak and vulnerable such as the peacers would have us be.

handmaiden said...

How do I define winning? First I want to define the goal. It is not always the same in every game. In the ultimate game of life it is not the dominance of one person over another. In this game it is the ability of the individual person to conquer & rise above their own mediocrity.

Jennifer, when all is said & done, us pacifists or 'peacers" as you call us are as patriotic & peace loving as you are. Even though we are not religious or Republican.
That is what's great about Democracy, the Constitution, & the Bill of Rights. "By the people, for the people, & of the people." It protects me from you & you from me. Democracy is meant to level the playing field. The Constitution contains the rules we collectivity play by & The Bill of Rights preservatives our individual integrity.