Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.
 

I'm not a news junkie by any stretch, but I knew there just has to be something good going on in the world. You'd never know it by listening to the radio or checking headlines online. Somehow I feel that the travels of Brangelina can't be all that is going on and not that this falls under news anyway. :evil:

Snowflake

Good news doesn't sell the papers or get the ratings. Bad news does.

Totally.
And it seems like there are more news outlets now. So there's a huge competition to get stuff out there and when there's nothing to report we get the stories making news that probably wouldn't even qualify as being newsworthy 10 years ago. We have 24 hour news stations that need to fill all 24 hours with something, so lots of times we get repitition and garbage filler stories. Like who was eliminated from 'American Idol' last night etc.

Good news...

Hmm. Casablanca named best movie script?

CNN just spent a lengthy amount of time talking about how good the U.S. economy is doing. This was sparked by today's unemployment figures which (despite local pockets of badness) are amazingly good. (Fox News was also talking about the same topic earlier but that isn't worth mentioning since it would just be a sign of the channel whitewashing the problems of the administration.)

Sorry to bring in more bad news, but I have to wonder if the stories touting low unemployment have mentioned the nature of the employment that is being had? Former bankers slinging burgers and that kind of thing.

It's good that so many laid off people have found jobs. Heck, most of them have found two of 'em!

I don't know. But average hourly wage is up ($16.49) from the last time national unemployment was lower (4.7% now, 4.6% in 2001) so it can't be too much a case of $100,000 computer engineers becomeing $21,000 Starbucks baristas.

My experience here locally is that the job market is very strong in the professional fields I'm looking at with lots of the local tech companies trying to expand workforces.

And again, considering that even when unemployment was at its worst in the last five years (about 6.3%) that is still much lower than during most of the '80s and early '90s. Still constitutes good news, I'd think. But if you want to find the bad news I'd watch Paul Krugman at the New York Times. He can always be counted on to find the bad side of good news.

I believe data shows incomes rising on average, does it not?

I would guess CNN decided to try reporting good news for once, because reporting bad news hasn't done anything for their ratings.:D

Amazing story, Kevy.

Account of VALOR????

I guess that all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Call me treasonous, but I support people firing on an invading army which is leading an aggressive attack to topple their government and take over their country. I have never considered the Iraqis to be enemies, since they have not taken one single action against the United States. I hold no love for their former government, but I cede their right to defend their nation against an invading army.

Sorry, but Chontosh was the aggressor in this action, and he is no hero in my book. He may not have shot first, but he was actively in the midst of an armed aggressive invasion on foreign soil without military provocation.

I'm glad for the American lives he saved, and sad for the Iraqi lives he extinguished.



You may now return to your regularly scheduled diet of Happy News. Have a nice day.

NPR did a story on the unemployment numbers while I was out buying groceries and they specifically mentioned that the job market is strong across almost all sectors but with particularly high demand at the top and bottom of the pay scale.

It also noted that for one in a very rare occurence, unemployment is lower among immigrants than among native-born Americans (the survey they quoted didn't try to separate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants). As noted, a strong economy does create a lot of jobs on the low end of the pay scale that just don't exist when the economy is doing poorly and these jobs are soaking up the people willing to work for low wages.

But it is cross sector. So I would stand by listing it as good news.

Other good news: Katie Couric will be moving to anchor the CBS Evening News which means there is a fair chance I'll never see her again.

Yes, were the situation reversed and we were being invaded, I doubt we would find those firing on our citizens to be men of valor. And yet, I can't blame the troops themselves. It is all of those men in Washington who didn't have the balls to go into combat themselves, yet are so eager to send others to die for their cause.

On this, we agree. How is it that this is the person that CBS felt would be best for the job? I know that when I think of trust and integrity, I think of Katie Couric. :rolleyes:

And to tie it all together, I wonder how high unemployment is in Iraq, now that we've likely killed most of the civilian men, those who haven't died in insurgent bombings. I don't think insurgency pays much, so I don't think we can count the men left alive in Iraq, most of whom are in militias or death squads.

What's the death squad wage rate nowadays?

I don't consider you to be treasonous, but find this argument to be diametrically opposed to one of "I support the troops". While I am certain you consider that supporting them means bringing them home (and I am assuming you would say that you support the troops, as I cannot recall reading that from you), expressing support for the opposition firing on our troops would seem to be opposed to support for them.

I suppose taking no action against the United States depends on what value you hold our agreements with allies. Kuwait was an ally. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. A cease fire was signed. The cease fire was repeatedly violated. (Yes....I know....we went in this time because of WMD, but the logic of this argument holds in terms of "no action against the US.) Violations of a cease fire after the invading army was expelled by default terminates the cease fire and the original war is now considered on again. Those violations included shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.

Germany had not directly attacked the US either. They had attacked our allies. We assisted. I could apply your logic to support of the German army in WWII, though not to the Japanese.

Again, assuming you support the troops, not regarding as a hero someone who single handedly saved so many of his fellow soldiers in a war (and granted, you do express you are happy about that) does not seem to support them in any way. Calling our soldier an aggressor shows a complete lack of support.

I think it is the current administration that is the aggressor. The troops didn't have much say in being there. I support the fact that I would like to see each of them return home safely. I don't support the fact that thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed by them.

MBC, I can understand with what you say, though I certainly don't agree with all of it.

What I cannot comprehend is the concept of support for troops opposing us in a war to fire upon our soldiers. That would seem in direct opposition to desire for the safety of our troops.

Ya know, by and large, I do not support our troops. I don't want any of them killed, but - though many did so as the only way to dig out of poverty - they volunteered for their duties. If they have the illusion that America is a beneficent military force, which it has rarely been since WWII, then I fault their judgment. If they recognize the U.S. military for what it is, then I fault their motives.

I wish them safety and a speedy return home to their families. I wish them free from trauma and guilt. I wish them free from committing barbaric horrors and from having such inflicted upon them.

But they went into this willingly, and I do not support their chosen avocation of war.

You have my complete respect for making that statement. I believe that many people feel like you do, but try to throw a spin of "support" for our troops on it.

Who's Katie Couric?

^Soon to be the only News Anchor who can show video proof that she's not full of it?

I have something totally evil to respond to that, Jeff- so evil that even I cannot do so.

She's a tv personality, not an anchor, btw. She is merely the penance that CBS must perform to make up for their abysmally idiotic failure to check out Rove's bait before airing it.

I'm sure their ratings will soar.

I agree. Except for the willingly part. Most of those folks are kids who signed on, as you pointed out, for economic reasons. Others joined up in a kind of "we won't actually go to war" hopeful mindset...(I know a couple of those). I think that the military doesn't provide full EMPHATIC disclosure to these kids it signs on as, um, militia-fodder these days. So I support the poor mis-guided folks hoping to get a college eddication who got Iraq instead. (or who thought it was going to be like a video game: have you SEEN the latest recruitment spots???) But I don't support what they got sent to. I think that's how most of us libs feel.

The current administration is playing fast-and-loose with the idea of "hero" to get more young folk to sign up. I don't like it.

ETA: but then again, I don't like much. Except you. You, I like.

Many of them simply signed up for the national guard out of a sense of patriotism after 9/11. I'm sure they never in a million years envisioned that they would be sitting in an Iraqi desert being shot at and bombed.

I'm reading "What every American should know about who's really running the world" right now.


I ****ing hate Dick Cheney. I hate few people on this earth, but he is one of them. Evil, evil man. And, if you're not very careful................he'll shoot you in the face!

Or, as in Pat Tilman's case, being killed by your own and then having it get covered up and then used for propoganda by the military and far right.

Well, there you are! :cool:

Yes, I know a few who did just that and are now in Iraq and scared ***less on an extended tour of duty.

So, do you know longer support them when they reenlist? (The military is having trouble with recruitment but continues to have stronger than predicted reenlistment from soldiers who have actually been to Iraq.)

While I support the war (though not for the reasons that the Administration has flailed about trying to win the PR battle with) I do not think it is possible to be opposed to the war and support our troops. Opposition to the war means thinking we are wrong to be engaged in it. The appropriate result for a nation wrongfully engaged in war is defeat. The method of defeat in most wars is to have an awful lot of your soldiers killed.

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

I want to mojo Alex, but I know it would be a waste of time

I think you can always hope for non-violent solutions to a conflict - not everything need be reduced to a dicotomy of win-lose or Life- Death. It's that kind of thinking that causes violence to persist.

Yes, you can hope for a non-violent solution, but if in the absence of one you would prefer that we win, then how opposed to the war are you? Pretty much everybody would prefer that wars end without death.

By preferring that our soldiers successfully kill instead of being killed you are essentially saying "I'd prefer that there be no war at all, but if there is one then I support its success."

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

It's also what makes it possible for me to reject your argument that to oppose this war is to wish for the death of our troops.

The mistake is positing solutions in which killing is viewed as the only measure of success. For that reason, we will never bring peace to Iraq. In the current paradigm, there is no reason to stop killing, for to do so is to admit failure - for any of the players.

I don't think "killing" is the measure of success on the US's part: Their goal is basically to stop the killing; every time someone is killed, be it an American, or an Iraqi, our cause is hurt---not true with the other side.

The link that Kevy posted shows otherwise.

I do not enjoy disciplining my children. My goal is to not have to discipline them because they make they will make the right (as a parent, I determine right) choices. If I have to discipline them, have I failed in my goal? No. not in the least. I am hopefully moving toward the goal of not having to dicsipline them by disciplining them.

Our goal during the cold war was not to nuke to USSR. Yet we built a tremendous arsenal to ensure we would not have to use them (mutually assured destruction).

It is most certainly possible to have a goal of the elimination of conflict while engaging in conflict itself.

When I said "except for the willingly" part, to which you are responding above, I was referring to the reasons for the initial enlistment of the soldier -- that is that many are in the service due to a lack of other career options. Well, maybe you did get that and are just extrapolating to the re-enlistment issue, which I still feel would be governed by the same conditions, plus familiarity. Can I hold that against the soldiers? Of course not.

I disagree that the appropriate result of opposition to the war is defeat (how about simple withdrawal?) and I don't at all get the leap from opposing the war to wanting the soldiers to die rather than be victorious. Those aren't the only options here. Withdrawal would prevent those deaths, wouldn't they? Are you equating withdrawal with defeat? And how is pursuing "victory" going to prevent more soldiers from dying?

While I realize you are directing this question at Alex, I most certainly would regard withdrawal as defeat.

Osama bin Laden cited our lack of ability to stomach the ugliness of casualities in Somalia as part of his strategy in his campaign of terrorism. Taking our troops out now would only continue to let terrorists know that we do not have the resolve to finish what has been started.

Debate why it was started all you want, though I would also say continuing to back down to Saddam and his violations of the cease fire agreements prior to the war gave the same message. Leaving now would most certainly be defeat because of the strengthed resolve it would give to those who want to inflict damage on the US.

Does it not bother you that bin Laden now sets our foreign policy for us? Bin Laden wants us to attack Iraq and we oblige. He taunts us not to leave and we don't. Lovely! We are puppets on a string, while 36% of the population continue to insist that the chief puppet is a strong leader.

What's particularly ironic is that we wouldn't be chatting so amiably about these issues if the President had taken out bin Laden like he promised instead of leading us into this disastrous adventure in Iraq.

What I think is sad is that it was easier to invade a country than it was to get one small group of terrorists led by a physically frail man. Let's face it- Al Qaida was merely the excuse to invade Iraq, plain and simple. Bin Ladin is more useful to Bush alive than dead. He's the boogie man they wave around when they want to scare the masses into submission, and so far that's worked well. I'd still love to see any evidence Iraq to the events of 9/11.

Actually, bin Laden controlling our our foreign policy would mean more that we are ignoring all else in the effort to find the person who is probably no more than a figure head now. The bi-annual video tape fed to Al Jazeera doesn't make it seem like he's doing too much. Last I checked, our current foreign policy is holding terrorist attacks against the US at bay. Somehow I don't think that bin Laden really feels in control while hiding in some cave in Pakistan. I might be inclined to believe he is in control of our border policy, but that's a different issue.

As I recall, bin Laden very recently offered a pseudo-truce in suggesting we pull out of Iraq. This was so the people of Iraq would not suffer. I found that be amusing, as it is primarily terrorists who are blowing up the people of Iraq.

Wanted us to attack Iraq? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong. War is unavoidable because the president is persuing a war. You oppose his decision to do this but now that it is happening, do you support the war and its aims or oppose it (and therefore think it should fail)?

You can hope for a peaceful solution and advocate such but since the president has chosen a different course and is fighting a war you consider unjust can you support the successful persuit of that war? If so, then you are not opposing the war, you just haven't placed it at the top of your list of preferred options. You consider it better to not do something unjust but if something unjust is to be done then you prefer that we are successful in doing it.

You can not simultaneously consider this war immoral and hope our soldiers are victorious. That is like saying "I would prefer my brother not rape people but since he is doing it anyway I hope he gets away with it."

If I considered this war to be immoral I too would advocate for its end by withdrawal but while it was happening I would hope that our soldiers failed in every effort to kill those on the other side and that the other side was as successful as necessary to cause that failure.

By saying "I oppose the war but support the troops" you are failing to take a moral stand on the war itself. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Rather than deal with the reality of the situation you are retreating to wishful thinking about what you wish had happened.

Is it not more like saying "I consider this war immoral, but unlike Vietnam I will not hold our soldiers personally responsible"? My impression is that the majority of those who remain opposed to the war want to distance themselves from protestors of prior wars (or police actions, as the case may be) who took out their displeasure on the soliders themselves. Of course, "we hate the war but we won't spit on you!" doesn't have the same catchy ring to it.

In my opinion that is exactly what it is. Not holding them responsible for the administrations decision is not the same thing as supporting them in what they do (and it is also somewhat infantilizing). It is just a marketing slogan without actual content. The version of "support the troops, bring them home" is just as vacuous since what it really means is "support the troops if they come home."

For the most part Vietnam soldiers were more worthy of support since they were (for the most part) much more unwillingly there (though if a person drafted was truly opposed to the war they should have been willing to suffer prison rather than engage in it). This time around it is an all-volunteer army where the vast majority of members can claim no true ignorance of the risk of deployment since over the last 15 years the United States militaries have seen open service in Iraq/Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia, Panama, and Somalia (two of these I opposed and therefore did not support the troops or the administration and considered their defeat -- meaning in many cases death -- to be the appropriate result). It isn't like we'd gone 50 years without military grunts being sent abroad with instructions to kill people as necessary. But there are still tens of thousands of people in the millitary to enlisted after the wars in Iraq and Afganistan began so they truly can't claim ignorance of the use to which they'd be put. Can they be absolved of participation in the moral decision to war? No, no more than can (at the risk of Godwin) Nazi soldiers as the concentration camps claim that they were just following orders. And if they have participated in an immoral war then defeat by whatever means is the appropriate result.

How can one "support" the war if one hasn't actually enlisted to go fight in it? I've never understood how people can support sending other people off to see the horrors of war when going to fight in the war themselves is the last thing they would ever do.

Claiming to support our troops while being against the war is no more impossible than claiming to support the war from behind the safety a keyboard.

So no one under 18 can support the war. No one in a wheel chair can supprt the war. No veterens of WWII or Vietnam can support the war.

:confused:

That makes no sense at all. (To SacTown Chronic)

It makes more sense than saying since I oppose this war that I wish our soldiers dead.

No, Alex, argue away to your heart's content. No matter your bluster, I don't want my neighbor's son dead because he was obligated to fight a war that I don't support. I get no pleasure from the constant tension my co-worker is under because her son might not come home alive. You can ignore the money I've sent to organizations buying body armor for soldiers who have been under-equipped by this cowboy government. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and keep feeling better because I'm at least able to do some good in this awful situation. The only change I'll make is to start ignoring your hot air.

Good day, sir.

I'm not saying you want him dead, that if you oppose the war you want our soldiers dead. I'm saying that if you oppose the war then you should find our soldiers being dead preferable to the people on the other side being dead. It is easy to say that you'd prefer that neither end up being dead but that is not based on the reality of it. You can not simultaneously condemn an act and support the success of that act.

It was on the news today that the U.S. Army this morning engaged in a firefight and killed six Iraqi insurgents. If you truly oppose this war and feel that we are unjustly in Iraq and that the whole endeavor is morally wrong, then who should have emerged victorious from that firefight? You don't get to say "I'd prefer that they all put down their guns and then had a beer." That is not the way firefights get resolved. You can wish it but it doesn't remove the moral question from what really happened.

I don't want a single person in Iraq to die today due to battle. But since I do think this war is just if peoplare are going to die despite what I prefer it should be in a way that furthers the goals of the war (meaning it should more be the people on the other side that die). If I felt this war to be unjust I'd still prefer that nobody die, but if they are going to die despite what I prefer then I would feel it should be in a way that further the victory of the opposition.

I'm not saying that anybody wants anybody to die. But to support our troops requires that you hope that they are more successful than the opposition. If you hope that, then you are not truly opposed to the war as it is happening, you just find it to be less than ideal.

I know you consider all of this hot air. But I consider what you're doing an attempt to vaccinate yourself by playing both sides of the coin and not really having to take moral responsibility for what you're supporting.

Unless you are really ok with saying "If push comes to shove I'd prefer that Johnny from next door kill 50 Iraqis unjustly than 50 Iraqis justly kill Johnny." Because that is what supporting Johnny while considering the war to be a moral wrong means.

I see. So individuals are allowed to select one of only two possible opinions. If they dislike the war, they therefore must hope our soliders die. If they dislike our soldiers dying, they must therefore yee-haw support the war. Well, at least it makes for a neat and orderly world view...

I fail to see where I said that. You certainly don't have to cease attempts to bring the war to a conclusion.

But if you support our troops individually in their endeavors then you are also supporting the larger endeavor. That while you want the war to end, until it does it should be successful. Can you think of another activity where you'd claim that you considered an act to be immoral but that you support success of the person doing it? It's nonsensical.

Also, it is completely possible to consider the war to be morally right but to be politically wrong. But I've never heard anybody on the anti-war left (though I have heard it from the anti-war right, which does exist) make that argument so I haven't included it here.

Withdrawal may be defeat, but it's defeat without our soldiers' deaths. Scrooge went on to terrifically rebut Alex's assertion about defeat being death or nothing, so I won't belabor the point.

It doesn't much matter if you're ineligible to serve, I agree with what SacTown wrote. Folks who are ineligble to serve can do plenty in terms of material and active support.

Supporting the troops with zero action to actually do so is kinda like all those people who "own" sports teams because they watch them on TV (The "my team" syndrome).


The only team that's "yours" is one you play on or own shares in, and there's precious little "supporting" our troops by simply saying so.

Considering I never said that I would assume it easily rebutted.

Actually, you have been a little more nuanced than I give you credit for.

I do have a moral pecking order of death that I would prefer. In an unavoidable battle that is going to happen despite my omniscient powers to control who lives or dies, I want Americans to kill insurgents who are indiscriminent Iraqi-and-American killers, and actual freedom-figher rebels to kill Americans.

If there were only two sides in these battles, it would be a little easier to choose preferred death tolls in advance. Frankly, since the result I'd like is for Americans to leave, the American death toll should be lowered. And I'd be willing to have some more true rebels die so that the situation might be considered stable enough for our troops to withdraw. The death vs. result equation is simply not very simple.

Except that Sac wrote that it is impossible to support the war if you are not fighting it yourself.

I assume he is asking the question rhetorically.

And to address your team analogy, I do have part "ownership" in this "team" of soldiers. Regardless of what else I may do, I pay taxes. Acting as if you are not part "owner" is, by default, disowning them. They are the US Military. I am a taxpaying US citizen.

Oh, people who can't serve do plenty to help the effort! They support sending other people's kids, spouses and parents in as cannon fodder for the war, they support using other people's money to pay for the war, they vote the people into office that will pass laws to continue the war, keep the homeland safe and dismantle the Constitution in the process, and they are active in making sure that public funds aren't diverted into such nonesense as welfare, housing and medical care for those who can't afford it.

It's hard work being a true patriot!

There are many ways to win a war without killing somebody. There are many ways to lose a war without having had any people killed. There are many ways to avoid a war in the first place. We can all wish for those to have happened (I think the war is a just one but one that shouldn't have been started for non-moral reasons). But we're not talking about a general concept, we're talking about a specific situation.

The specific situation is that right now two groups of people are killing each other. How do you support American troops in that endeavor while simultaneously opposing, as immoral, the purpose for which they are doing it? Yes, you can also advocate that we simply leave right now and fight no more. But until that happens, how do you support the soldiers in their efforts to do that which you consider immoral, especially when they are doing it of their own volitoin?

That support is not the same thing as simply saying "I don't want you to die."

If we are wrong to be in Iraq, then Iraqis are justified in commiting violence against our soldiers to force us out (and third-parties are right to help them). Unless you are purely a pacifist.

Maybe it would be instructive to me in trying to understand how you can hold such contradictory ideas to ask this:

what does "support the troops" mean to you?

what does "oppose the war" mean to you?

Also, by SacTown's definition the only people who can support the war in Iraq are the 300,000 people currently over their fighting it. And since each of them is over there when they had the opportunity to not be, I think they can be counted as supporting (by action if not by oratory).

Also, by his defiition I am also unable to support the removal of dams on the Klamath River simply because I am not going to go there and knock them down myself.

So in one breath you say, WB, that it immoral to use the tax dollars of those who oppose the war to support it and also that it is acceptable and even morally required (based on what I interpret your tone to be) to use the tax dollars of others to pay for welfare, housing, and medicare regardless of how they feel about those programs. It is not my intent to debate those programs now. I just find it interesting that tax dollars for what you support is OK, but not for what you don't support.

But that goes the other way. You support using tax dollars for the war but not so much for welfare and abortions.

We all tend to be hypocritical in this regard.

Oh, without a doubt. I was going to post that should my tax dollars not be permitted to be used for things I don't support, not a lot of my tax dollars would be used.

The difference is that I don't use it for a reason as to why those programs should be stopped or curtailed.

No, I said it's no more impossible than being against the war and still being supportive of the troops.

For clarity, I should said that I fail to understand the mindset that 'advocates' for a war with no intention of fighting in it. Support was the wrong word to use, I think.

All those groups would make effective suicide bombers for our side, no? But seriously, I make the distinction between those who can't fight in a war they believe in and those who won't.

Of course that's your reason. I find it hard to believe that if there were an identical program to, say, HUD that was entirely privately funded that you'd object to it on some moral reason. Remove the tax dollars from it, and your objection disolves.

OK - I can see a distinction between "can't" and "won't".

I recall when Michael Moore was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (I'm not a fan of either). Moore asked O'Reilly something to the effect of "Would you want you son or daughter to die fighting in Iraq?"

That's like asking if you've stopped beating your wife. I disagree with the premise. I wouldn't want my kid to die in any war, but that does not mean I would not be proud of my kid for doing his duty, praying for his safety, and nervous as hell every night.

Insert abortion and that's not the case.

If you're willing I'd like to see detail on what you think each of those things means. At core, my question still is "how do you support someone committing what you consider an immoral act"?

At least in such a way that "support" is a word used with any actual meaning.

Of course it's not the case for every issue. But you didn't mention abortion in your list, did you. You, quite conveniently, mentioned nothing but programs that I'm pretty sure you'd have no objection to if they were privately funded, meaning your objection is the exact same as Wendybeth's, that your tax dollars are being used for something you don't think they should be used for.

While I'm not opposed to "welfare," "housing," "medicaire" and "HUD" as blanket entities but there are portions of each that I would oppose even if they were government run but privately- or self-funding due to their market distorting effects.

But then I'm irrelevant since I admit that I oppose many programs simply because it requires taking money from unwilling participants without sufficient justification. I'm mostly just talking so much today since I'm trying to stay awake but not enervated enough to do real work.

There are a couple of reasons for that. There is a lot of money promised if they re-enlist. There have also been reports (I don't know how wide spread) of denial of extended medical care if they don't re-enlist (I know someone who injured their knee during PT and was told if he didn't re-enlist they wouldn't fix it).

Then of course are the people who want to go back because they feel like they getting to do what they are trained to do (my ex is one of those).

The reason why I feel the troops are deserving of support is because it was not their decision to specifically fight in Iraq. Once enlisted, they have very little choice in the matter. Most, more than likely, enlisted simply to protect our country. How could I not support someone who is willing to put their life on the line to protect our nation and its freedoms. I think their sacrifice is so admirable in fact, that I do not want them being sent to places to fight for reasons other than protecting our nation and its freedoms. In the case of Iraq, I don't believe they were sent to protect us and that is something that I cannot support. But I don't fault the soldiers for being there or for protecting themselves.

As far as wanting them to be victorious, I don't think there is going to be any real victory here. We are not going to stop terrorism. We are not going to turn Iraq into what we would consider a true democracy. We aren't going to win over the Iraqis in any definitive way. In fact, our staying there seems to be destabilizing the entire region. So if staying there is not going to achieve any worthwhile goals beyond what we already have done (removing Saddam), then, in my mind, the only way to support the troops is to call for their withdrawal. That is the only way to ensure their safety in this losing battle.

I think having the troops be home safe, even if it means them living with the fact that they didn't win an unwinnable war, is far more supportive of them than asking them to continue to get blown up on a daily basis with no end in sight, while trying to achieve something that more than likely isn't even possible.

That's about the best way I can put how I feel.

In the interest of not answering the question myself, I'd ask you if you "support" law enforcement officer, since they are involved in enforcing laws that you believe should not exist.

As I see it, Motorboat Cruiser, you are supporting what you wish they would do (come home safe), not what they are actually doing (killing and subduing Iraq). You're not really supporting them, you're offering them support if they do what you want. Admiration is not support.

As for the idea that you and BarTopDancer above you state: how does monetary incentive absolve a soldier from the moral content of their actions? If killing Iraqis is unjust, does it become less so because someone was offered a $20,000 re-enlistment bonus.

Also, to say that someone is absolved of moral responsibility simply because they signed up for one thing and then were ordered to do another is to reward moral cowardice. Every soldier has the ability to not be in Iraq. If the government told me to go kill someone I did not agree was justified I would go to jail first. As soon as we start shooting soldiers who refuse deployment to Iraq then I'll begin to feel they are absolved of moral responsibility for their acts. It is ok to unjustly kill Iraqis because you are unwilling to go to jail? I don't buy that.

Despite the fact that they were "just following orders" any soldiers who participated in the invasion of Panama are responsible for their actions and did not have my support (though I certainly did not want them to die unless them doing so was the only way that the invasion of Panama would fail).

I support our troops. I realize that they are doing their job, what they were ordered to do. And while some of them believe that they are fighting for the greater cause, are making a difference, not all of them do.

It is not their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war on false intelligence. Heck, even if the intelligence was true it still isn't their fault.

And anyone who knows me knows I do not support this war.

It depends on whether they are enforcing a law that I consider immoral or whether they are enforcing a law that I simply disagree with as policy.

There aren't many laws that I consider outright immoral. Most are simply policy disputes. I disagree with most speed limits but don't consider them immoral. Police officers have my support in enforcing those laws, even if I don't always obey them myselves.

A police officer (and his management) enforcing an anti-sodomy law targetted to homosexuals would not have my support.

Well, that's a whole 'nother thread altogether, and a fight we definitely do not want to have. ;) But if the analogy is supposed to say that it's a means to an end, I'm on a whole different plane about it. Just as I do not punish children, as I don't believe that it teaches them anything other than might makes right, I would not support killing as a means of stopping said behavior.

But hey, I'm mostly a pacisifist, so I know we won't agree. I understand your viewpoint, however.

Of course it isn't their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war. It is their fault that they are in another country to fight a war. Joining the military does not infantilization you and absolve you of all responsibility for your decisions.

If this is an unjust war, then all right-thinking soldiers should have gone to jail before they'd unjustly commit murder. Now, it doesn't matter whether they think the war is unjust. The vast majority of them do not. What matters is that you think the war unjust and should therefore hold them responsible for their actions. Is there something about American soldiers that makes them immune from personal responsibility? We don't really ever afford that privilege to enemy soldiers who commit acts we think unjust.

Since we're at war with Al Qaeda, do we absolve a failed suicide bomber because he was "just following orders?"

And here, to use a historical example is where the hippies actually got it right.

In my view, the Vietnam War was an immoral war. Every American soldier who participated in that war short of threat of death (and really imprisonment was the penatly for refusal) should be ashamed and shamed. So should everybody at home who "supported the troops." The hippies understood that "oppose the war, support the troops" was a paradox. At least all the grunt soldiers in Hitler's army have the excuse that they actually would have been shot for refusal (and yet we still expect them all to feel shame).

And yet we cannot say "we don't support the troops" and remotely hope to persuade others to our peaceful point of view. That's quite a paradox right there.

Are we morally reprehensible for telling a lie in order to gain support for what we believe will prevent more death? It's quite a balancing act necessary to prioritize moral transgressions. It would be great if pure truth could achieve world peace. I would be wonderful if our soldiers could kill only terrorists and not Iraqi's fighting from their freedom from an occupying army.


I don't buy this bit about soldiers not enlisting for service in Iraq. They enlisted to be warriors wherever the Pentagon tells them to be warriors.

And yet I don't want to treat them as shabily as returning Vietnam vets were treated. I don't hate them. I pity them. They have made terrible choices and will have to live with the consequences. I feel no need to add any measure of my displeasure.

But they lost my support the minute they signed up.

At any time, or just during these times?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they are not ordered to commit war crimes, I do not consider individual actions of soldiers to be immoral, even if I don't agree with the rationale for the war. I have no problem separating that view from the "we were just following orders" defense of Nazi death camp guards. They were not engaged against a combatitve enemy, they were killing civilians. HUGE difference. When an American soldier is fighting a member of Al Quaida in Iraq, a die-hard ex member of Sadaam's red guard, or an inidividual Iraqi citizen with a gun and a grudge, both players have agreed in principle to the implicit contract of war.

It's an ugly reality, and the very reason that, while I'm not an absolute pacifist, I believe war should be a last resort, not the first. But I don't see it as being as black-and-white as that for a soldier. Unless there are egregious, tangible violations of the "rules" of war, not just political disagreements regarding the justification, then I will not blame a soldier for doing what they signed on to do.

By lying and saying "we oppose the war but support the troops" who exactly have you converted to your side? Besides, I've been heartily assured here that "we support the troops" is most certainly not the lying half of the equation. I'm willing to take that at face value. Therefore it is my contention that if you truly support the troops that you do not truly oppose the war (though you may want it to end as soon as possible, while it is going on despite your protestations you support its means).

Ghoulish Delight, you still have the same problem even if you choose to infantilize the soldiers out of any responsibility for their actions. If our war is unjust how can you support the aims which the individual soldiers are trying to achieve? Otherwise you are supporting an idealized version of our troops (the mythical ones that have given up on bloodshed and returned home) not a reality (the ones attempting to kill other people while avoiding death themselves).

Is it a contradiction? I suppose. But if so, it's one I'm confortable with. As long as they are fighting enemies that have identified themselves as having the goal of killing American soldiers (by action, not necessarily by being uniformed and part of an actual army), then I have no qualms saying that I disagree with our reasons for being there while still "supporting" the individual troops (barring individual action such as torture).

And what do I mean by "support"? Well, I'll return to that in a second.

First let me go a little deeper into why I'm okay with the apparant contradiction. Despite being generally anti-war, I fully appreciate the need for an army to be "infantalized" as you put it. It's not a position I would put myself in, but when it comes down to it, the military could not function if its soldiers were continually deciding whether or not they agree with the moral justifications. And, while I'd certainly rather it not be the case, the fact is that a functioning military is a necessity.

Of course, this may all be kinda moot as I don't really consider the current state of the war "immoral". Futile, absolutely. Il-advised for sure. But immoral? No.

And that's what I'm talking about, moral opposition to this war. It is the rare person on the anti-war left that I've seen couch their opposition entirely on non-moral arguments (a lot of people on the right do arguing that while we were justified in taking out Saddam Hussein by force it was unwise to actually go that route).

On the infantilization issue: if ordered to torture are they absolved of any personal responsibility? If ordered to shoot into a crowd that they are pretty sure consists entirely of civilians (but their commanders insists is not)? How far up the chain does this absolution extend, because then it could be argued that no one in the military other than the president ever makes a moral decision for which they can be held responsible (other than the one to disobey an order).

If we invaded Canada because their new prime minister said our president has bad taste in ties, would the decision of Soldier A to follow orders and start killing resisting Canadians be morally equivelant to the decision of Soldier B to go to jail rather than follow orders?

Out of curiosity for anybody still reading. If you support our troops simply because they're following orders and have no personal responsibility invested, did you also support the Taliban and Republican Guard soldiers who were just following orders?

I'm looking forward to GD's explanation of what he means by "support." (Not nagging, just reminding in case he forgot to get back to it in his post.)

I, too, find your priorities most interesting. The people that are the most vocal against helping those at home are the most eager to shovel it out to the Pentagon and Halliburton, etc, whose excesses, waste and flat out ineptitude are the stuff of legend. (How is the body armor situation these days? The water purification that Halliburton was paid a fortune to do and didn't, exposing our troops to all sorts of horrid diseases from the wastewater they were drinking?) Meh. Tell me about how it feels to have some people abusing a system you pay into- pretty damned frustrating, isn't it? What really sucks is that it's the people in charge that are doing it.

I draw the line at war crimes. And so does the military. It's obviously a difficult thing to do, but the military rules (at least US military rules) actually require a soldier to disobey an order if carrying out would be illegal according to internationally accepted definitions of the rules of law. There's a difference between "I disagree with the justification for initiating this war" and "I believe this war is being fought in an illegal manner." My sentiments fall in line with the first statement.

In such an extreme case, of course not. And no, I don't know where the line that divides one side from the other is. But the existence of gray area does not preclude making differing decissions cases at opposite extremes. And while I think we had no good technical footing to be starting this war, I am not so naive as to think the isolated result of taking out Sadaam is a "bad" thing. So I'll happily exist in the gray area of separating the macro diplomatic justification game that I think was played quite "illegally" from the mirco world of a soldier's sworn duty and the operational realities of the military which I think was done quite "legally".

As for what I mean by "support", it's not a word I would choose to use if it weren't defined as part of the lexicon of the debate. But if and when I say it, I mean it in the reactionary sense to the accusation that's implied by the chorus of "Suppor the Troops!" from those that support the war. Namely, that while I disagree with the war, that does NOT mean I'm hoping our troops get killed, nor will I spit on them, protest against them, or disparage them. You won't find me at any sort of rally or associating with large troop-supporting organizations, but that would be true even if I did support this war, that's not really my MO. But I would, and do, things such as sending cards and care packages to those soldiers that I know.

Ok, and again then you're excluded from what I'm saying about moral decisions. Because according the general anti-war talking points the war we have fought and are fighting is an illegal war, it is an immoral war.

And on your point about "suppor" I have no problem with what you're saying there. If I am paraphrasing correctly, you don't actually support what they are doing, you just hope that they don't get killed and you won't retaliate against them when they return. That's fine, but that's not support (as you said you wouldn't choose that word).

But when presented with "support the troops!" I don't like the tactic iSm endorses above of saying "ok. We do support the troops" and then in a whispered aside "as long as we define to support to mean something other than support."

As Prudence suggested way above and agreed. That is simply a disingenous marketing slogan designed to deflect criticism. I would prefer (and no, my preferences are no more effective at shaping the world than your preferences) that people just say what they believe and stand behind it. But then I'm the guy that told a roomful of Baptist mothers that I think it is essentially child abuse to raise children with religion.

It's artifice that masks the ability to discuss things. I won't hold it against you if you don't actually support the troops. I don't think that not supporting the troops means you want them all to die. Just as hopefully you don't think that because I feel life has no inherent value that doesn't mean I want to kill people. But when we all pick words to use so that we can pretend to agree while each maintains their own secret dictionary then that is a far greater harm to a society than just about anything else we can do.

And now I've been told I better get some real work done today or I'll be in trouble. I've enjoyed (and am enjoying) the back and forth. It's fun. But I promise I won't drag it on into tomorrow. Anybody after me on this topic is guaranteed the last word.

You think those that joined the national guard did so to go fight in Iraq?

One last thing before Lani cuts the Ethernet cable. I know I'm probably the only person who actually reads books that get recommended in coversations like this but I would like to strongly recommend anyone interested in thinking about the moral dimensions of war to read Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer. It is perhaps* the most impactful book I've ever read (not that everything I've said in this thread in echoed in there; it's not and I'm sure Walzer would be appalled at times). It was written originally in 1977 and has been revised since, with the most recent in 2000. Obviously it doesn't include any direct comment on the current situation.



*It has to compete for that title with Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water.

Just for clarification I generally regard it as an illegal war fought in a legal manner (still separating diplomatic reasoning from military reality).

Whoa, hold on a minute. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't endorse that tactic. I understand its efficiency. I can commerserate with, for example, politians who - in a sound bite world - could never under any circumstances make such a statement as "I don't support our troops."

But for those who truly do not support our troops, such as myself, I would rather they be honest and say so ... as I have done. Honesty is really the only policy that I will "endorse."



* * * * *

As for the National Guard, MBC, I think they got rooked. I might have to give them a pass (as I would to any pre-Vietnam era U.S. soldier - to answer Nephy's earlier question to me).

But they did agree to take up arms against whomever the Pentagon ordered them to. And now that it has become clear what exactly that can mean ... today's National Guard entlistees will be the last to get the iSm free pass.

I must say I resent that implication, GD. I listed those because those are what was listed by WB. Sheesh.

Going back to the post Scaeagles was referring to, he is correct- I did bring that into the conversation, but it was intended to be ironic on several levels:
I. That the party in control of this mess was elected to take care of the latter part of my post, and
II. That the people re-elected same party with the knowledge that they were using public funds, the same funds that enabled such programs as listed above, to fund the war. The same people cannot be unaware of the impositions and infringements on our constitutional rights that the current administration has instituted, as illustrated by the continuance of the Patriot Act and other travesties.

In short, I was pointing out the irony that the same group of people that wanted to stop funding social programs on the public dime have no problem using the public's money to go to war. They also seem to think that it is enough to say they "support the war" without really sacrificing jack **** for it. I really pay no attention to such people- I admire the men and women in our military, and I appreciate the work they are trying to do, but it's going to be all in vain, a fact I despise along with the people who put them there. I look at individuals like Pat Tilman and my daughter's best friends' dad, and I think they rock. I'm just sorry they were and are being put in harm's way for what amounts to a nothing more than a lie. It's a ****ing shame and sin that they are being wasted for that worthless pile in the White House, and all their business cronies.

No slight intended, what I meant was, "conveniently for me". But my point still stands. Contrary to what you said, there ARE issues where your only objection is that your tax dollars are being used to fund it.

I'm still trying to find good news for Snowflake. It is totally hard to do so.
Here's something:
Source

OK...cool.

I think we agree. WB was expressing disgust that her tax dollars are being used for it. OK. I get that. There are things that the feds spend money on (LOTS of things) that I am disgusted with. Not because they are bad (though I think the large majority of federally funded social programs are failures) in and of themselves, but because it is not (nor should it be) the job of the federal government to fund such things.

Of course, that may be the end of our agreement.

From one of my two favorite economists/constitutionalists, being Walter Williams:

Complete column from which that was taken

However, defense is specifically mandated by the constitution. I have no problems with the debate as to whether this is actually defense of the country (and by extension our allies, as treaties trump the constitution).

So....yes, I do object to my tax dollars being used for a lot of things. I would guess that all of them fall under what I consider NOT to be the job of the federal government.

Here is good news currently found on the home page of CNN. Some require certain specific worldviews, however.

Vioxx Plaintiff Awarded $9 million (good news if you're anti-pharma)
Sharon declared permanently incapacitated (good news if you're anti-Semitic)
Super Bowl MVP eases way for biracial kids
Tarzan's Pal Cheetah turns 74 with cake, Diet Coke
Retired generals call for Rumfeld's head (good news if you're anti-scaeagles)
Lawyers: No DNA link to Duke rape claim (good news if you're the mother of a Duke lacrosse player)
Probe reaches orbit around Venus
Shuttle program full of ups and downs (good news if you're looking for justification to serially murder headline writers)

I'd mojo you for that post, funny stuff.

The issue of "support" hits home for me because my brother is in the Air Force. No, he's not deployed and in all likelyhood won't be, thank God. Even so, he's a part of the war machine. He has always had a conservative world view and that has intensified 10X since he's enlisted. Why? Because he has to view the world that way.

At one point he said to me that it's a given that he'd be a Republican because any time the Dems get in office the defense spending is cut. He was told stories by his fellow officers that in the Clinton years they didn't have money for tools and other necessities. I told him that I'm in a vice versa situation - any time Republicans get in control, education spending is cut, which chops into my own workplace.

We had a moment where we realized that we had ended up on diametrically opposed sides of a cliff...and then we let it go.

Anyway. Do I "support" my brother and what he's bought into? No. I understand that there is a need for a defense, same way there's a need for log-rolling politicians and slick marketing executives (or rather, the lemmings that work beneath these figureheads that actually muck around in the slime for them). These are ugly occupations to me, the true dirty work. I dislike their very existance but they are a part of us, and I can't deny that.

So, we have to have people ready to kill at a moment's notice, or we'll all get killed by the rest of the world. This is the way it is. And these people MUST be robots, MUST be brainwashed, because otherwise they may not kill for us, and we'll die.

I saw what they did to my brother's rebellious nature when I visited him after his bootcamp. He was a half-starved shell of a person, flinching at every person that came into the room, eyes dodging about, making sure he was what he needed to be at all times. This was just Air Force boot camp, the easiest of the branches.

I do not blame them morally for any wars that they are sent to fight. They have been trained to do so. Their point of view has been washed down the drain. By the time they are sent to kill they are not people like you and I anymore. They can't be.

I feel sorry for them. They are victims of the system and victims of society. Yes, they are heroes. Yes, they help protect us. In fact, I know that there are people that were born to do this, and are great at it. God bless them for doing the dirty work that I could never do, the poor bastards.

I know this has nothing to do with this war in particular, and that's fine by me, as I hate even thinking about the can of worms this country is in, no matter how you look at it.

I know alot of military people who wound find that incredibly offensive.

Yes, they are programmed to take offense at the notion that they've been programmed.


If it's true that they've been brainwashed, all the more reason for me to hold them vastly responsible for that single decision to join the military and put themselves under the command of the Pentagon. If the resulting training renders them unable to think for themselves, then the very decision to join is a decision to open themselves to committing war crimes, if so ordered.

I hate to hold young people, many of them economically disadvantaged, to a single decision made at a tender age under stressful circumstances. But the decision to become a dog of war is momentous, and will govern a lifetime. It might as well come with exaggerated accountability.

I think holding soldiers morally responsible for joining the military is like calling garbage men filthy.

Someone has to do these dirty jobs. I hate it but I accept it and I don't think they should feel guilty about it.

Yeah, well, garbage men do take on the job of being filthy. Some may hold a moral compass to that, but I do not.

On the other hand, many people hold a moral compass to the job of warrior. Many do not. I happen to, and I will hold anyone responsible for the decision to let others decide whom you should kill, torture, abuse, or maim - - especially when the other in question has ordered those like you to kill, torture, abuse and maim in a manner that would be considered criminal even in wartime.



I don't consider soldiers to be evil people because of this decision, but I do hold them individually and personally accountable for the choice to be an American soldier, which may lead to many evil deeds they would be unable to resist committing.

And when they get out, they learn that "Republicans" cut VA funding. Disabled vets can be a politically conflicted bunch.

This, from a lawyer. :p

I ran across protesters today with a sign that claimed they were "Jews for Justice" however, they were shouting in Spanish so I couldn't understand what they were protesting. Me, I was confused.

Can you back up that claim? I am not really doubting you but there does tend to be a media trick out there for the last 20 years or so of calling any budget increase smaller then originally projected a cut.

I am just curious if this is one of those instances.

:confused:

I've heard of people with this attitude- but never actually met one.

I'm not impressed with that attitude, but then again, I know you could care less about that. I'm just in awe that anyone actually thinks that way.

Source
Sounds fun!
:)

We've been there. It IS very cool.

I'd go in a second. (Ralphie and I have also been watching the Italian 6 hour epic 'Best of Youth' and I must must must go to Italy and Sicily, too.)
:)

I'm sure Prudence has many sources, but a quick search led to this and this and this.

Of course, it was a bit of a challenge sorting through all the 'Veteran's for Peace' and 'Veteran's Against the Iraq war' sites...

At a time when we are at war and incurring casualites, not to mention that there are numerous vets from other wars that still need care, of course a decrease would be considered a cut- there is a shortfall regardless of what you call it.

Admittedly, I have not clicked your links. I have mentioned this before, but as a brief reminder, during the Carter years, something called "baseline budgeting" was started. Every year, an automatic 10% increase was required when submitting your budget for whatever. This was for a few reasons, primarily so that spineless politicians could automatically increase their spending.

If the news was presented as "Veteren's affairs gets a 5% budget increase", that's good news. However, with baseline budgeting, the story is "Veteren's affairs cut by 5%", because the amount increasing only went up 5% instead of the automatic 10% is was supposed to get.

VA may very well be underfunded (though I suspect that it is more about waste and top heavy spending with the money not getting where it needs to), but I doubt it has been cut (meaning a real cut of actual dollars).

Well, as Prudence pointed out- the vets know the score, and they keep score. Our state has a very high vet ratio per capita, and our hospitals are a train-wreck.

If so, that is a tragedy and a travesty of justice. Sadly, though, I don't doubt it.

As wife to one disabled vet and daughter-in-law to another, I see the letters they have been getting regularly in the past two years telling them what is no longer covered. And, of course, since my father-in-law's Gulf War Syndrome doesn't really exist, he has difficulty getting care.

As for other, more ordinary evidence - I don't have any off the top of my head. I will note that the cuts-were-in-the-increase argument cuts both ways. If the actual increases don't keep pace with inflation, and if the number of incoming people exceeds the number of people that conveniently drop dead, then the individual service level goes down. Like when my employer tells me that I'm getting $50 more per month this year in salary, but I'll be paying $200 more a month in mandatory, can't-opt-out health insurance. I don't care what the machinations behind the scenes are - bottom line is I get less.

And the politician who's made the biggest name for herself in the state for VA stuff is a democrat. Not my favorite democrat, mind you, but a democrat nonetheless.

Does anyone remember that story from a few months ago where budget proposals were released showing the deficit shrinking, and then people panicked because there were big cuts to the VA, which was followed by news that they weren't really cutting VA funds, it was just where they cut money in the proposal to make the deficit look smaller? I was trying to find that to follow to some other things, and now I can't find it.

Oh, additional note - BT now gets all his medical care through his empolyee benefits. When they can, when they have options, they're more than happen to pursue those and forgo any VA treatment.

Looking at the obvious mishandling of the VA and the substandard treatment your relatives receive, and the fact that they prefer the options through the employer benefits, it completely reinforces in my mind that government sponsored health care is a really, really bad idea.

Never mind - found the article.

Now, I have no idea if there was follow-up on this and it's totally bogus or what, but this discusses a recent budget proposal that talks in terms of numbers - funded 24.5B this year, increasing to 27.7B next year, and then decreasing to under 27B the following 4 years. I don't know if they're making it up to make the budget look better, assuming we'll be done with the guns and the blowing things up by then, or what.

Sorry - my research efforts are focused elsewhere at the moment. (Although if the subject of excluding "other suspect" evidence comes up, I'm ready!)

Thanks WB, Scaeagles, and Prudence; you helped clarify the VA funding for me.

No news is the only true good news. It's not often you get a bit of really good news from the world at large, such as "The war is over" or "The economy is great". I think this is mainly because nearly all "good news" has a flipside. Low unemployment means inflation worries. Easy credit means people in debt. "We're pouring money into the Wonderful Cause of the Moment" means that the Wonderful Cause of Ten Years Ago is underfunded again. Hell, even "Tarzan's chimp turns 74" means that someone is still cleaning out the cage and paying for his meds.

There is no up without down. This isn't a negative point of view - it's a fact. I just avoid news altogether when I can. It's the only way to stay sane. :) <--sanity smiley

Waste and top heavy spending. It's not like the VA is wasting money building Disneyesque attractions...

http://www.portlandtram.com/press_schematics.htm

While I disagree with his decision, props out to Malcolm Kendall-Smith. It sounds like he is a bit of a kook, but it is good that he is maintaining a sense of personal responsibility for his actions and acting accordingly (even if the result is uncomfortable).

He was right to refuse and the government was right to put him in jail. It was win-win for everybody.

I respect those that stand by their convictions in the face of consequences even if I disagree with their reasoning. I do agree with the decision, however.

I suspect that "waste and top heavy spending" plague the DoD* as well. From the perspective of some vets, cuts are rationalized as necessary to fund current military efforts.

(I had best get off my soapbox on this issue now before I launch in tirades about people with delayed diagnoses of MS following the first Gulf War who are ineligible for treatment because the diagnosis came too long after the war, but MS takes a while to show up and looks like other things when it does so that's actually normal and I really need to stop now.)

*Or the federal acronym of your choosing.

Waste certainly exists at every level of government.

Not at the EPA. They call it composte.

Alex-made-me-smile-so-here's-a-post-about-me-smiling-minus-smileys-of-course

Programmed. Brainwashed.

So instead of seeing heroism and exceptional people- you see victims or criminals.

I see plenty of both in the U.S. armed forces.





How many kinds do you see in the Iraqi insurgency fighters?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7993

US Death rate down 32% over the last 30 years:)

It's no longer 100%?

Didn't you hear Alex? Those of us with an immortal soul never die.


You athiests, on the other hand, still expire for good.

:iSm:

I don't want to be immortal!


I'd rather try immoral.

Or immortally immoral?

Now, that has possabilities!

So if the death rate is going down, I assume this is a side effect of the increasingly religocratic society we find ourselves in?

Yes, and the bandwagon is stopping in Your Town tomorrow!

removed stupid post because I misread Alex's.

Strangely enough I'm 100% alive at the moment

Age-standardised of course.