Is it worth the lives?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
You are entirely welcome. Learn.

What? How to wring my hands?

[the]

Originally posted by lendaddy

If the same number of US soldiers had died over the same period doing some humanitarian mission they would not be using it as a reason for withdrawl (though admittedly some on the right would).

True, but what's the point? I think just about everyone knows that soldiers can die, and that most accept those deaths, if they are dying for a just cause/one that serves the US interests.

No one is going to argue deaths of soldiers as a basis for withdrawal for a cause they support.

Originally posted by lendaddy

My point is that it shouldn't be used as an emotional leverage tool when debating the mission (considering how historically miniscule it actually is).

I don't agree, I think it's fair game for detractors to argue. Not only are there the 3K, but remember, there is absolutely no end in sight. I don't think most war detractors argue the past (the 3K already dead), but really focus more on the future deaths. Given that this war has no foreseeable end, that number is arguably infinite, unless some solution is determined.

Originally posted by lendaddy

The war is not right or wrong because X number of people have died in combat. It's either right or wrong period.

Detractors have no problem with that issue. The war is wrong.

I don't see how you can say that the number of US soldiers that have died, and that continue to be at risk for death, is not a relevant ground for argument by a person who thinks the war is wrong.

[cairns]

Talk about perspective.

I think we need to stop and think about the hundreds of thousands of trees that die every year because we can't limit our use of toilet paper.

Cheryl Crow is right. Trees are people too.

PS: I don't think most of the detractor's give a rat's *ss about the soldiers who are dying. Most view them with contempt and use the numbers solely to pursue their agenda. Sometimes that contempt is obvious (Jane Fonda/John Kerry etc.). Sometimes it's more subtle (Harry Reid/Bill Clinton). And of course there are exceptions (John Murphy?) but they're few and far between IMO.

A soldier to them is some less than intelligent (read stupid) person trained to kill and torture after he or she couldn't make it in the "real" world. Their trainers are the evil cowardly neo-cons who seek only to use the soldiers to enrich themselves on big oil, weapons technology and desert real estate.

But I've digressed- the real issue here is careful and conservative wiping.

Can't we all agree that an itchy butt and stinky fingers are a small price to pay to keep the trees safe and stop global warming?

STOP TWO-PLY NOW!

[the]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
len: You are quickly becoming the poster boy for strawman arguments and comparing apples and oranges. No amount of logic will dissuade you from you point of view, no matter how skewed it is. It is interesting. I read posts from every one (no one on my "ignore" list). And, although I may not agree with much of what tech or supe post, I find their posts, especially tech's to be well thought out and devoid for the most part of negative emotion.

Wow, I could not possibly disagree with you more, on every single one of those points.

(This thread, however, is not one of Len's finest moments).

[Moneyguy1]

No, len...

How to think objectively, not use specious arguments to forward an agenda, how to listen to opinions that do not totally agree with yours, dismissing them out of hand, and a bit of sensitivity. Injecting a bit of humor wouldn't hurt either!! That is one thing there is far too little of in these partisan "discussions".

Seriously.....folks with really "strong" convictions HAVE to minimize arguments against their point of view because contrary ideas upset their balance and interfere with their "peace of mind".

I can respect anyone who has different beliefs than mine. However, delivered in an antagonistic and derisive manner tends to turn folks off.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the
True, but what's the point? I think just about everyone knows that soldiers can die, and that most accept those deaths, if they are dying for a just cause/one that serves the US interests.

No one is going to argue deaths of soldiers as a basis for withdrawal for a cause they support.



I don't agree, I think it's fair game for detractors to argue. Not only are there the 3K, but remember, there is absolutely no end in sight. I don't think most war detractors argue the past (the 3K already dead), but really focus more on the future deaths. Given that this war has no foreseeable end, that number is arguably infinite, unless some solution is determined.



Detractors have no problem with that issue. The war is wrong.

I don't see how you can say that the number of US soldiers that have died, and that continue to be at risk for death, is not a relevant ground for argument by a person who thinks the war is wrong.

Because it cannot be any other way in war. There will ALWAYS be loss of life and risk. The portrayal of 3K soldiers over five years as unpalatable is ludicrous. It's an amazingly low statistic by any historical measure.

It is so low that it should not be used in this manner as doing so is a blanket argument against all war (even the near perfect in regards to casualties). It's not genuine.

[cairns]

Just so everyone understands my comments about the trees and toilet paper are not meant to be humorous. Unlike Ms. Crow I'm not going to back down in the face of criticism.

I've spent many hours alone in the forest with the trees. Soemtimes days and weeks. If only you could feel their pain. And the woodpeckers! It's horrible I tell you.

Seriously can't we all agree that mudbutt is good?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
No, len...

How to think objectively, not use specious arguments to forward an agenda, how to listen to opinions that do not totally agree with yours, dismissing them out of hand, and a bit of sensitivity. Injecting a bit of humor wouldn't hurt either!! That is one thing there is far too little of in these partisan "discussions".

Seriously.....folks with really "strong" convictions HAVE to minimize arguments against their point of view because contrary ideas upset their balance and interfere with their "peace of mind".

I can respect anyone who has different beliefs than mine. However, delivered in an antagonistic and derisive manner tends to turn folks off.

Bob, I'm convinced you just don't get me. And I'm OK with that.

[the]

Len, it does make a difference.

If a person views a war as just, proper and in the interest of the US, losing 3K over 5 years would be palatable to the vast majority of those people.

But if a person views a war as unjust, improper, wrong, not in the interest of the US, then losing 3K over 5 years is unpalatable.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think the mistake your making is you're implicitly putting everyone in the first category.

I think you're also misstating the detractor's argument on soldier's deaths. Yes, they talk about the 3K already lost, but I think they are more focusing on the many more that will be lost if this is an endless war with no realistic, feasible exit/victory strategy.

[Moneyguy1]

the:

Finally...a rational description. In my opinion, len's "problem" getting things across is his very narrow perspective. Stating it the way you have makes far more sense.

Thanks.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the
Len, it does make a difference.

If a person views a war as just, proper and in the interest of the US, losing 3K over 5 years would be palatable to the vast majority of those people. But if a person views a war as unjust, improper, wrong, not in the interest of the US, then losing 3K over 5 years is unpalatable.

That's my whole point! That's all I'm trying to say. I understand that it's even human nature to do so, but it's still an incorrect thought process.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think the mistake your making is you're implicitly putting everyone in the first category.

I think you're also misstating the detractor's argument on soldier's deaths. Yes, they talk about the 3K already lost, but I think they are more focusing on the many more that will be lost if this is an endless war with no realistic, feasible exit/victory strategy. .

Fair enough, like I said...it is a legitimate concern. It's the mischaracterization of the losses so far for political gain I speak of.

[techweenie]

This marks the third year you've tried to create equivalency between death by accident and the deaths of victims of the WTC attacks and the killing of American troops.

Perhaps you'll note that this argument still gets no traction three years on. Then again...

[Moneyguy1]

Some arguments are hard to kill. "The definition of insanity is......"

[lendaddy]

Like I said, 3,500 lives and half a million maimed every five years is apparently a reasonable cost for enjoying that hobby. Where as similar numbers in an attempt set a new direction in the middle east is not. I get it.

[Moneyguy1]

Let me see if I understand the "logic":

Bicyclist killed= accidental death

Soldier killed=(at best) manslaughter; (at worst) murder; intentional

So.....the unifying concept is both are equally dead, right?

For all the folks who believe in the ten commandments....which of the above is justified?

Like I have said....cognitive dissonance rules!!!!

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this kind of tortured logic........

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Like I said, 3,500 lives and half a million maimed every five years is apparently a reasonable cost for enjoying that hobby. Where as similar numbers in an attempt set a new direction in the middle east is not. I get it.

Cycling can have an achievable result/benefit.

Waging war in the Mid East to affect positive lasting change?

That's some funny shlt.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Let me see if I understand the "logic":

Bicyclist killed= accidental death

Soldier killed=(at best) manslaughter; (at worst) murder; intentional

So.....the unifying concept is both are equally dead, right?

For all the folks who believe in the ten commandments....which of the above is justified?

Like I have said....cognitive dissonance rules!!!!

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this kind of tortured logic........

No, each is a cost of the activity. It's really very simple. We don't send our soldiers to die, we don't hit the road to get hit by a car though each are reasonable risks of the activity.

You don't get that or you object to some other aspect?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Cycling can have an achievable result/benefit.

Waging war in the Mid East to affect positive lasting change?

That's some funny shlt.

So you believe the intention of the war was to cause negative effects? That even the motivation was "evil" and destructive?

[Moneyguy1]

len:

Unintentional death is the fate of all living things except for those whose lives are cut short intentionally. No lapse of logic here; no denial. All things die.

I really do not see where death by accident equates to lives deliberately cut short. How can any sane person make this comparison?

Please...be consistent.....the argument has been made that we DO send our soldiers to die...after all, that is the purpose of an armed force; to be put in harm's way.

Nah.....there will never be a common point here. Like I said: "Insanity is defined as......" I am certain you know the rest.

Yes; all life has value. All cessation of life constitutes a loss to someone. John Donne's words come to mind.

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
In the last five years, more than 3,500 bicyclists were killed on US roads. An additional 300,000 were injured and/or maimed. And for what?

Is it time to stop the senseless loss of life and limb?

Bicyclists cause very little to no collateral damage.