<p>Because the soldiers are told they are bringing freedom to another country, doesn’t mean they are. Because someone believes something is a noble cause, doesn’t necessarily mean it is a noble cause. If leaders present the cause as such, using erroneous evidence and making connections which do not exist, and additionally, making projections of how the situation will go which they are now furiously back-pedaling on, then I do believe there is a compelling argument for equating the two kinds of deaths, both needless and caused by someone else’s recklessness.</p>
<p>funding father- i could not find your link but i am not sure i agree with yourpost that the war is right because the soldiers see positive results</p>
<p>No disrespect to the soldiers but as a civilian led nation the reason to go to war should not be determined by if the soldiers see the good. the soldiers would see the good of going into a poor African nation and nation building but would that be correct. Do you believe the soldiers feel that the war in Iraq has made America safer or Iraqis safer. Has the war been a positive or a negative on the fight on teror not the plight of Iraq. I agree Iraq will be a better place for its citizens who I believe will not align with us but other American hating countries. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>Nobel Cause? What is exactly is the nobel cause? </p>
<p>If you are going to repeat that phrase, what is the noble cause…</p>
<p>Seriously, the President won’t answer the question…that’s right, he went around his Oval Office last year joking about not finding WMD in his office, pretty sensative of him</p>
<p>As for turning something poltical, think of Terri Shivo, the President managed to leave his vacation and his precious time for that</p>
<p>War is political, what is attached to war is political…what else is it? How can it not be politcal? World War 1 was political…all the relationships, all the treaties, all the promises were made for politcal reasons, and we needed to keep out committment to those political promises.</p>
<p>Interesting how its suddenly a bad thing for anything to be political, by the way///is being political and questioning our government suddenly an evil thing to do? Oh, I thought that was what we were fighting for in Iraq, so people could have choices and ask questions and demand answers. I guess we can’t have that here.</p>
<p>And, if my D was killed by anybody, for any reason, I would want answers. Whether it was drunk driver or a war…and its nice how yo denegrate MADD at the same time…death of a child is death of a child</p>
<p>I guess standing up and speaking out is bad in this country, nice example we are showing to the world that we claim we want to free</p>
<p>garland, so obviosly you have a much better perspective on what is going on over in Iraq based on watching the nightly news than the soldiers on the ground who see all of the positive things that are going on. Obviously they have no ability to see and think for themselves. What an arrogant position to take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is balderdash and you know it. The part of free speech that the left always seems to forget is the right to criticize those who are critical of the government. FYI -freedom is bi-directional.</p>
<p>If you are going to use someone’s life and death to make a political point it may be, at the least, considerate to consider what they believed they were living and dying for, whether or not you think they were deluded (an interesting appraisal of someone following shortly on the heels of their sad demise) or simply wrong (same).</p>
<p>All the points made are valid, simply in bad form if they are made while using the death of the very person who, it would seem, disagreed with these very points you are making to the degree that they put their life on the line in support of the opposite point of view.</p>
<p>Tom, I didn’t say the war was right because of the soldiers’ views. What I said was that evidence of the war being worth it (i.e., achieving one of its goals of spreading freedom to the Iraqis) comes from the soldiers on the ground who have direct interaction with the Iraqi people.</p>
<p>There are many different points of view coming from the soldiers on the ground. But regardless, they cannot know if in fact we are bringing freedom to anyone, or curtailing terrorism. They could not know for sure that there were no WMD before they volunteered, when their leaders were telling them there were. When these same leaders are continually backpedaling and changing our reasons for being there, it is very hard to know what is true and what isn’t. That’s why I try to go to as many sources as possible, and why I question the official ones.</p>
<p>Freedom for Iraqs, right…yeah that was the reason we went…that was the reason we presented to the world and the UN…</p>
<p>this mother & any other mother protesting the war is just insulting her own child (practically spitting in his or her face) .</p>
<p>
But, if that is the case, certainly you are in a worse position to make that judgement. That hasn’t stopped you from coming to the conclusion that you have.</p>
<p>The fact that Army re-enlistments are exceeding expectations is not irrelevant. Casey Sheehan himself re-upped to go to Iraq.
<a href=“http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/2531647p-10916521c.html[/url]”>http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/2531647p-10916521c.html</a></p>
<p>FF–Okay, let me rephrase. Being on the ground there does not give them special insight into the politics or global effects of the war. Thus I don’t believe it’s denigrating their experiences to disagree with them (with some of them; there are plenty soldiers who have lost all sense of mission and just want to get home alive.)</p>
<p>Your argument, since you don’t believe in critical analysis of available information, seems to be based on “my Prez says it’s right, and the soldiers have volunteered, thus this war is right and good.”</p>
<p>That can’t really be the basis of an informed citizenry, can it?</p>
<p>
Then you will no doubt agree that the “chickenhawk” epithet thrown around by war opponents is a bogus charge.</p>
<p>they cannot know if in fact we are bringing freedom to anyone, or curtailing terrorism.</p>
<p>Whether they can in fact know, and what they believe are two different things. But to presume that you are honoring the death of one of them by protesting what they fought for (rightly or wrongly) is over-the-top.</p>
<p>I say, sure, have the protest, but dont pretend to do it to memorialize a man who fought and died for the opposite political belief.</p>
<p>Its a question of taste and propriety.</p>
<p>
Well, no, but it isn’t. There’s plenty of firsthand information being relayed through individual military blogs as to positive events on the ground in Iraq. Now, if you’re relying on the NYT and its ilk as the basis of your informed citizenry, that is a problem.</p>
<p>garland, now your arrogance is rising to new levels. Please find any post of mine that even comes close to insinuating that this is the depth of my thinking on the issue. Back in the autumn of 2002 I spent many months looking at both sides of the issue before coming to the position that I did. I started from the position that war makes no sense whatsoever but after evaluating ALL (not just one) of the rationales it became more clear to me that it was the right thing. Can you make the same claim of objectivity?</p>
<p>Fundingfather - you obviously believe that soldiers are fighting for freedom in Irag. I believe with you that many of them feel that way. There is and has been a massive public relations campaign to provide justification for this war and I know you are aware of all of the shifts in reasoning and expectation: from the initial story of weapons of mass destruction and the anticipation of our leaders that the citizens would cheer our approaching armies to today’s position that we are creating a democratic lighthouse on an otherwise dark Arab world. All along the supporters of the war have been encouraged to believe that this was in some response to 9/11, but I suspect you are too smart to believe that since we pretty much abandoned our action in Afghanistan by creating this war. The shifting purpose of the war and the objective has led to numerous namings and renamings of campaigns and bases in Iraq. All of these names coming from some macho patriotic word list.</p>
<p>Some of us question(ed) the legitimacy of the war from the beginning and all of its justifications as they pop up.
If we were looking for weapons, why didn’t we go into a country that we knew had them - Korea for example.
If we were going to protect people whos human rights are being violated- why this country over all others?
Why was Iraq singled out for attack? Some people say it is simply oil.
Others say it has to do with business deals that went sour between Sadamn and Bush associates back in the 1980s…there is a lot of speculation that the reason we thought they had weapons was because we sold them to them a while back.</p>
<p>I love this country, so do a lot of other people who don’t feel our country should be the police force of the world or the enforcers of our economic policy. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would argue that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred after we sent our troops into the mid-east during the Gulf War, a war that started because we were not clear in our initial response to Sadamns intentions to invade Kuwait. I would also note that they attack was on an economic center and not a religious or cultural center. The first attack using a bomb in the parking lot would have been effective against most american churches, the grand ol opry or Disney…but the fact that the terrorists attacked an economic center indicates to me that they too think this is a business driven conflict.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://media.nationalreview.com/073290.asp[/url]”>http://media.nationalreview.com/073290.asp</a></p>
<p>
What a typical UnableToMoveOn.org response; not only were we responsible for 9/11, but we were also responsible for the first Gulf War.</p>