Re:Casualties That Dont Matter

Published on November 4, 2005 By bigrickstallion In War on Terror

"Below is my response to the drivel found in Gideon McCensors lastest bunch of arse. "

Your article is little more than transaparent and slap dash attempt at spin. All you've done is illuminate a handful of unrelated statistics and attempt to pass it off as cogent pro-war rebuttal.

while the death of EVERY soldier matters, it must be placed in context.

Yes it should and the context is Iraq and Global Politik circa 2005. The sheer desperation of including American Civil War statistics is demonstrative of nothing more than just how untenable the pro-war imperialist position has become.

don't believe me? Google "America First" sometime an organization that counted no less than Charles Lindbergh among its leaders

No I dont. Admittedly i only skimmed at your suggestion but the detail that came back my way from http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp would suggest that all resistence to the WWII effort evaporated post Pearl Harbour 1941 and that Charles Lindbergh himself both fought in the war as a combat pilot and was responsible for downing enemy fighters. Quote from that site

"On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and debate over U.S. war policy came to an end. Lindbergh, who had resigned his military commission in 1939, asked to be reinstated, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt refused. The middle-aged Lindbergh later made it to the Pacific as an observer, and eventually ended up flying over two dozen combat missions, including one in which he downed a Japanese aircraft. "

How you can construe that as domestic resistence only God knows.

It also is an embarassing sticking point as the casualty count (244, for all you numbers geeks) is too low to afford them the dramatic impact of a number that exceeds the number of years since Christ's arrival on this earth.

Embarrassing? Whats embarrassing is that your trying to use statistics from one invasion to counterbalance the casualty count in another...... and then somehow pass that off as a weakpoint in the "liberal" anti-war argument. Beyond it being a disturbingly lazy, if not pathetic attempt at building a connection between one situation and another, it completely dismisses any level of physical and mental destruction that does not result in death. I'd argue that some fella having had both legs and maybe an arm or two blown off might rather BE dead.

Aside from that, as already pointed out in another response, it altogether ignores non-American death, maiming and misery.

the "babykillers" the antiwar movement is fast making them out to be.

I dont remember any suggestion that they were quite so discriminating.

is a shameful attempt to manipulate public opinion through irresponsible reporting.

You're right. Manipulating public opinion through irresponsible reporting is shameful.
So have they found those WMD yet? What about bin Laden?"

Comments

Deference

on Nov 04, 2005

Embarrassing? Whats embarrassing is that your trying to use statistics from one invasion to counterbalance the casualty count in another...... and then somehow pass that off as a weakpoint in the "liberal" anti-war argument.

Great point.

I attended the vigil in Jefferson City, MO this last week to remember the two-thousandth American soldier's death. I was happy to see and speak with two other conservatives who had attended the rally because of 1.) considerable personal loss and 2.) feelings of betrayal by their commander in chief and his administration.

The 'anti-war' movement is not owned by 'liberals'.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!