An Unpopular Subject

[soltero]

... in response to An Unpopular Subject, posted by CelticUrge on Nov 1, 2005

Having been a soldier, and having also, regrettably, taken lives and risked my own (having been shot and stabbed) in defense of my country, I would hope that all of that was worth it in that dissenting opinions could be voiced as well as the canned patriotic rhetoric. I have defended this country and I have walked passed comrades in pieces and have seen things that many could not claim to have seen. It always amazes me how arrogant and prideful some people may get when blindly spouting shows of support, when they haven't bled yet in that support. To me, the bleeding is more patriotic than the flag waving, but maybe that's just me.

Regardless of the insignificant importance of the numbers (because once you have seen one friend's brains on a wall, the importance of how many other thousands there are seems silly), CU is making a valid, rational point that many need to at least hear.

Just my two cents. I very rarely found adamant concern over statistics among those fighting and dying. But I did see more real patriotism there than here.

[zack]

... in response to Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by soltero on Nov 2, 2005

Soltero,

I want to extend you a sincere, heart-felt "thank you" for bleeding and suffering for our country. That probably sounds lame in comparison to what you deserve, but thanks.

Zack

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by zack on Nov 2, 2005

Thank you, Zack, but to be honest, I feel very uncomfortable talking about it and undeserving of any praise. I had to do some things that I won't be able to forget, and that I am not proud of. I do, however, feel a love for everyone fighting that can't be explained, and I am very proud to be an American, regardless of whether I agree with the current policies or not.

[CelticUrge]

... in response to Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by soltero on Nov 2, 2005

To me the saddest moment in the Vietnam War era was not that 58,000 died (as pointed out below by someone else; Oh, was it exactly 58,000? I may have to look that up). We loose about that number each year in traffic accidents, mostly from alcohol. Somebody quick, look that up to see if I'm off base! No, the most disturbing thing to me was that the men and women returning home were greeted with boos, hisses and downright loathing, violence, etc. As if these were the people responsible for being there in the first place. That was always disturbing to me. Still is. It was not a proud moment in our sorted history.

I feel for anyone who has "seen one friend's brains on a wall." Makes the numbers seem inconsequential. Must be more than just disturbing. I would have nightmares.

Thank you for making the statement to attempt to show the main point. There may be a few that just don't get that.

This "rational" thingy, that's just a theory isn't it?

I once moved out of state to work on a one year non-renewable contract (eventually stayed for 5 years) to study what was thought to be an extinct species. Once I arrived on site, I started gathering information, looking for habitat, etc. Learned that all presently available information was completely opinion, no facts whatsoever. Found a viable population which I started to document, study, etc. and initiated looking for more suitable habitat. Extremely difficult conditions to get to and study these creatures. Anyway, a public meeting was scheduled for me to give a presentation to the locals, businessmen, institutions, environmentalists, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service and the Governor and senior officials. Never done that before. Had to collect my wits and go for it, so to speak. After what I considered a really good presentation showing slides of habitat, the population I discovered, data obtained so far, etc. the floor was opened to questions. I was prepared for anything related to the area, habitat, animals, threats, even esoteric concepts of ecology. What was the first question asked of me? This "evolution thing" that's just a theory isn't it?

Just thought I had to explain my previous comment! LOL

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by CelticUrge on Nov 2, 2005

I get you, CU. You remind me very much of another former poster named Loci who also valued independent thought as opposed to the "heel to toe", falling into step variety. I, for one, appreciate hearing as many sides to a story as possible, having seen firsthand that what one might read in the paper may be as far from the truth as to almost be an outright lie. It is far better to be able to gather info from different sources and form your own opinion. Glad to see that there are those such as yourself that do.

It helps out alot with that "rational" thingy...

[CelticUrge]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by soltero on Nov 2, 2005

Same research project referred to earlier:

I was interviewed repeatedly, on radio, TV, newspapers. Every time I provided a "fact sheet" summarizing all I could and giving them reference material with proper spellings etc. In every case, even when the reporter was truly, honestly attempting to do the best job possible, what appeared in print was always jaded and changed, almost always by the publisher, boss, chief. One time on the six PM news, they almost did a credible job of covering the story. Once it was over, the news anchor (=moron) made a tongue in cheek cutesy comment that completely negated the entire point of the story. I wish these people would shut up and go away and let the news be news rather than place their disingenuous smiles in front of our noses as some form of entertainment. I don't want to see or hear the opinions of the news guy. I want them to bring me the story and let me make up my own mind on what it means.

Seems to be a lot less field work looking for a story than say 10-20 years ago. Now just jumping from one hot button to another. There are good solid reporters out there, just fewer of them, or so it appears to me.

"heel to toe" thought

I would constantly be running into or stepping on the guy in front of me and eventually get shot for insubordination or something. LOL

[doombug]

... in response to An Unpopular Subject, posted by CelticUrge on Nov 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

Gotta love those extremely flawed figures.  A sure sign that whoever generated them picks up a newspaper about once every leap year.

What happened to all the whiners who promised to flee to Canada after the elections?  I beg you all, PLEASE re-visit that option!  Just pretend it's like leaving home at 18--except, your parents won't want you back.

[CelticUrge]

... in response to Re: An Unpopular Subject, posted by doombug on Nov 2, 2005

They are having trouble getting back across the border from Canada. Should have gone to Mexico instead.

[Ray]

... in response to An Unpopular Subject, posted by CelticUrge on Nov 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Ray]

You make some good points, but I am a little concerned about the liberal anti-war “propaganda” in your post. If you believe all of those “facts” that you presented, then I can understand your dislike of the war. But I must disagree with some of your assertions and I am curious where you got that information.

Regarding the war in Iraq, you stated that there have been 2,000 deaths. That is essentially accurate and has been publicized extensively in recent days. Then you claimed that the number of wounded is around 30,000. You also said “Between Afghanistan and Iraq, we have already mounted losses equivalent to the entire Vietnam War.”

According to CNN, the Iraq war casualty count as of Nov 1 was 2,026 killed and 15,353 wounded in action. I believe the current numbers from Afghanistan are 308 Americans killed and 638 wounded in action. Yes, those numbers are troubling but your numbers are way off from published official figures.

As for your comparison of Iraq/Afghanistan casualties to those in Vietnam, you are so far off that one has to question your sources and even your motives. The official casualty count from Vietnam that I have seen is something like 58,229 killed with a little over 153,000 wounded. Comparing that to the Iraq/Afghanistan, that would put the number of Americans killed in Iraq/Afghanistan at less than 5% of the Vietnam number and the wounded at a little over 10% of the Vietnam total. So, I would have to say that your assertion that the Iraq/Afghanistan casualties are equivalent to Vietnam is not only wrong, but grossly inaccurate.

Also, you said “Now we benefit financially from having control of Iraq…”. Could you please explain that and give some evidence to back up your claim? I just don’t see it. It almost sounds like that tired old anti-American rhetoric that said it is all about the oil and America was only there for the cheap oil. What cheap oil? LOL!

I certainly respect your right to disagree with the war, but I think you should research your facts before you present them as evidence to back up your opinions.

Peace,

Ray

[FanMan]

... in response to Wait just a minute..., posted by Ray on Nov 2, 2005

I'll present the facts from all sides pro,con,and counter/neutral

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.pnac.info/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I consider myself to be a centrist or moderate in thinking. But if I had to choose a side, I would lean left before I would go right.

[Jamie]

... in response to Wait just a minute..., posted by Ray on Nov 2, 2005

From what I have seen CelticUrge is a clear thinker but he made an error with the statement you caught him on. I understand the objective of CelticUrge post and it was worth reading but I thought the same thing regarding the numbers and you are absolutely right. He was making a point (the cost of war) and misstated facts to emphasize those cost and afterward felt such was excusable, its not on both counts.

[CelticUrge]

... in response to Wait just a minute..., posted by Ray on Nov 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by CelticUrge]

You are probably correct. I was attempting to make a comparison and did not take the time to look up numbers. Thank you for doing so. Don't forget all the Iraquis we have killed as well. Keep in mind that I was attempting to make this entire article from the heart and probably should have avoided the numbers game entirely. Like anyone else here, when I write something, there are numerous thoughts all coming out at the same time. Is it necessary for me to act as an academic researcher for each and every post to insure complete and total accuracy, send to my peers for review and make the necessary changes? I think not. If you disagree, I assume that you would be willing to assist me editing all future posts.

I dislike any and all wars and conflicts. They are, for the most part, confirmation that we have essentally remained unchanged for millennia and are not, IMO, civilized at all. At least not my clean view of what civilized should be, such as, for example, the way we are portrayed in Star Trek Next Generation. Hardly any bad guys at all within our own rank and file, except the "aliens", Borg, etc.

Don't mistake me for a liberal simply on the basis of pointing out the obvious that there never was a connection between WMD (in 2001; but they were building, attempting to acquire WMD's etc. in 1991) and Iraq. The intelligence was wrong, incorrectly interpreted and used as a justification to the public for a decision already made by the White House (i.e. to invade Iraq).

I am far from a whining liberal on almost all issues. I disagreed with the war from the beginning. However, once a decision is made, IMO, the discussion period is over as it relates to whether we go to war. When we did invade Iraq/Afghanistan, its time to "get 'r done" if you will, win the war and bring the troops home as soon as reasonably possible. I doubt there are more than a handful of people here that do not support our troops. IMO most do support our troops, present company included. But no one has to have a visible display of that support to actually be a supporter. Subsequent discussion on any aspect of the decision to go to war is justified IMO but it does not change the fact that the decision was made and that we need to support our cause and finish the job. It appears to be turning into a quagmire and I'm not convinced we have a plan that will play out. I envision Iraq divided into three distinct regions and basically chaos for decades. Hope that I am incorrect.

My friends in the "oil patch" informed me that they were in Iraq from the beginning and that companies were taking control of the wells, pipelines, etc. early in the game. I can only pass this on not internal documents that are not distributed to me. Again, the original point, intention, feel of the article was not on this issue. I don't know the oil patch industry very well. I was told by several that Arco? (may have wrong name) was spending many millions early in the game and expected a return. IMO, oil is cheap considering the high demand, and we must now compete with China's demand, and that it is a finite, non-renewable resource. The amount available seems to be far more than the doomsayers of the 60's and 70's envisioned but I have no feel for when it will run out. Probably not in my lifetime or your own.

With these issues I'm getting far off base of the original intent of my post. Just for your info, and I want you to be clear on this, I do not spend my time looking at wierd, unusual, strange and bizarre web sites to refine my views of the world. To me, they are fun and interesting but should be taken with not a grain, but a pound of salt. I was attempting to make a point more of conceptual and emotional direction regarding our world and how to deal with it. The issues at hand were brought up by someone else. I felt that this individual needed a different perspective. I am confident that you understand this and simply are calling me to task on small points that could have been improved for the purpose of what I was saying. Sadly, his responses so far have been to change an avatar and respond to not saying the pledge of allegiance, not to provide info. on the girlfriend and her son that recently arrived.

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: Wait just a minute..., posted by CelticUrge on Nov 2, 2005

"Like anyone else here, when I write something, there are numerous thoughts all coming out at the same time. Is it necessary for me to act as an academic researcher for each and every post to insure complete and total accuracy, send to my peers for review and make the necessary changes? I think not. If you disagree, I assume that you would be willing to assist me editing all future posts."

A better response IMO would be "thank you Ray for showing me the error in my comparison and next time I won't throw something out as a fact unless I am a little more sure of it's validity."   BTW as others have pointed out, your error wasn't even close to being thruthful.  For every 100 Americans killed in the Vietnam conflict, we have about 4 Americans killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Noone is asking for as you say "complete and total accuracy" but I would expect when you're throwing out comparisons to support an opinion that you'd at least be in the ballpark.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Wait just a minute..., posted by CelticUrge on Nov 2, 2005

You said “Is it necessary for me to act as an academic researcher for each and every post to insure complete and total accuracy, send to my peers for review and make the necessary changes?” I think you missed my point entirely. Yes, I believe that you should take the time to check your facts and figures if you want to present them to back up your point. The only reason I looked up the numbers is so that I could present evidence that I believed your numbers are wrong. You don’t have to include statistics and casualty counts in your argument to make a point. You can simply state that you dislike the war or think the war is wrong, etc., but when you start posting numbers I would expect you to make sure they are at least close and reasonably accurate. And don’t expect me to assist you in editing your information for you because you are too lazy to do it yourself :-)

I wasn’t trying to nit-pick your numbers, but they were so far off that I felt a need to comment. From some of your statements about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam, I came to the conclusion that you simply had no clue what is really going on over there. There is simply NO WAY that the U.S. is making money off of the Iraq war and the casualty figures are NO WHERE NEAR those in Vietnam, so that is why I asked where you got that information.

You said “Don't mistake me for a liberal simply on the basis of pointing out the obvious that there never was a connection between WMD … and Iraq.” I don’t think I called you a liberal but only pointed out that some of the rhetoric apparently came from the left. I don’t blame you for that because I realize that stuff is presented daily on the major media outlets. It may be “obvious” to you that there was never a connection between WMD and Iraq, but I see it in an entirely different way. I think we all agree that the intelligence was terrible and proven wrong, but at the time, the prevailing intelligence was almost universal that Sadam still had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons hidden. Presented with that “fact” at the time, I think Bush or any other president would have been derelict in his duties to just overlook Sadam as a serious threat and do nothing. Bush may not be my ideal type of man for the job, but I do respect his having the balls to do something when most of the opposition wouldn’t or couldn’t. Did the Bush administration lie about the intelligence to drum up support for the war? I don’t think so and I haven’t seen any evidence to support that theory. I truly believe that Colin Powell and the others in the administration honestly felt that Sadam was a great potential threat to the U.S. and they believed that they were doing the right thing to take the guy out before he could do something crazy with his supposed stockpiles of WMD’s.

BTW, I think we may need to go to war again to prevent those psycho Islamic extremists in Iran from acquiring nukes. I think there is a very good chance that Iran would use them on their neighbors, Israel, and on the U.S. if they feel a whim to do so. I do expect us to have solid intelligence though before we decide to go in there. If the evidence is solid, then I would consider it a crime not to do anything to stop Iran before they have the bomb.

You also made the point more than once about supporting the troops. I certainly agree with you that you don’t have to make a public display to prove your support. However, I think it is important to point out that the anti-war activists who publicly condemn the war and the United States, while proclaiming that they support the troops, are simply full of crap. I wish they would take a survey of the troops to find out what they really think of the anti-war demonstrations. I served in a war and I know how the troops felt about the protestors. I do support their right to protest in public, but I ain’t buying this crap that they also support the troops!

I respect your dislike for any and all wars and conflicts. I don’t like wars either, but I don’t respect the hard-core pacifists that would rather surrender than fight for their freedoms. For those that were against going into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I  personally think they were more on the “lunatic” fringe and were never taken very seriously anyway. If your freedom isn’t worth your fighting for, then I would expect you to stay out of the way while the real patriots do the job for you. I know you don’t fall into that "lunatic" category, so that wasn’t meant for you personally.

Ray

[Bob S]

... in response to Re: Wait just a minute..., posted by CelticUrge on Nov 2, 2005

No, not jumping down your throat.  Lots of good stuff in your post.  Just pointing out that it helps your position to argue from facts.  Ray already noted that the Vietnam comparison is inaccurate.  A better comparison would be how many were killed in the first 2 years of the Vietnam War compared with Gulf War II, and even there the numbers don't compare well (2,000 so far for GWII vs 1,861 in 1961 thru 1965 then suddenly over 6,000 in 1966 alone when the VW kicked into high gear).
But your Arco reference may be true.  Arco is a N. American distributor and subsidiary of BP West Coast Products which gets 53% of its crude oil from the Persian Gulf including Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudia Arabia (Ref: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary2005.html ).

Now I know commie libs love to say nowadays how they are patriotic Americans too and support the troops just in a different way (in that they support them being pulled out of harm's way).  But if you truly wish to be proactive in decreasing our demand for Middle East oil (I don't agree that the whole war was only about oil, but I do concede that if they didn't have oil we wouldn't care so much if the savage sand people spent the next 1,000 years cutting each other's throats like they've been doing for the past 10,000 years) there is a number of active steps both the Left and Right can take.
1.  Though it may only be a feel-good measure, you can start by patronizing only gas stations of companies that get little or no oil from the Persian Gulf.  That means stopping for gas only at Sunoco, Citgo, Shell, Conoco, Phillips, Flying J, and a few other companies (see the previously mentioned web site).
2.  The biggest joke I see are SUVs with "I support our Troops" stickers.  If you really support our troops, get a hybrid.  I'd rather give the extra money to the Japanese (who haven't tried to kill us in over 60 years) than the crazy child-killing Arab imans who advocate the slaughter of Americans.  When I get my current car paid down to below its current trade-in value, it's on my to-do list.
3.  Support drilling in ANWAR and off the California coast.
4.  Support nuclear power for a cleaner environment (and of course the use of Yucca Mountain as a disposal site).  Right now a coalition of tree huggers and NIMBYs are forcing us to maintain our dependence on foreign oil and other CO2 producing energy sources.
5.  Did you know that for around $20,000 (more or less depending on tax crdits in your state), about the price of a new car or about 5% of the price of a new home in CA, you can equip your house with enough solar panels to become energy independent (ref: http://www.solarhome.com/ ) except on cloudy days.  A typical household consumes 10-15 kW-Hrs per day, well within the capabilities of modern home photovoltaic systems.  In a pure financial sense they may not be worth it yet since they take decades to pay for themselves, but it won't be long before they become standard features on all new homes.  Pretty cool, eh?  Imagine being able to sell juice back to the power company.