Should be working on my paper...

I found this while searching for info on Eminent Domain... Don't ask me how...

----------

Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Honoring Fallen Soldiers = Leftist Bias?

The headline is blaring across the front of every major news outlet in the country:

2000th GI Dies In Iraq

There are those on the right in this country who are screaming bloody murder that this story is making headlines. "It's leftist bias," they say. "They're trying to smear George Bush," they say.

It's rare for me to disagree when people claim that a left-wing, anti-George Bush agenda is dominating the landscape of the national media. And to be sure, that could be the case here. But we can't just forget about our fallen soldiers, America.

The anger on the right is because they believe the 2000 dead make George Bush look bad. Well, I'd submit to those who share that sentiment that you need to do some deep soul-searching and decide if you truly support this war effort.

The only time war deaths make a president look bad are when the war is unpopular and when people believe the cause to be unworthy of sacrifice. Take a look at two wars this country fought in the last century: World War II and Vietnam.

People don't look down upon Presidents Roosevelt and Truman because 295,000 American soldiers died in WWII. Those presidents are elevated to near-hero status for their war efforts for two reasons: the cause was noble, and we won the war. To the masses, both of those conditions must be satisfied in order for the loss of life to have been worth it. (Those with keener insight understand otherwise.)

On the other hand, you have Vietnam, in which neither condition was met. We didn't win the war, and most people in America considered the cause to be unworthy. Because the conditions for worthwhile sacrifice were not met, President Johnson is villified for the 58,000+ deaths in that conflict.

If you think 2000 deaths in Iraq make President Bush look bad, it is because in your mind, one or both of the conditions for worthwhile sacrifice are not being met. As an extension of that statement, if you're angry that the media are reporting on the 2000 deaths, then you either don't support the war or you think we are losing it. If somewhere deep down, you become angry when Lou Dobbs does a segment about one of our fallen soldiers, then you either don't support the war or you think we are losing it. If you're enraged that photos of the returning coffins have been shown, then you either don't support the war or you think we are losing it.

America, don't forget about our men and women. This war is real, and if you truly support the war effort and if you believe we can win it, then there should be nothing wrong with honoring those who have died for it. It is, in fact, our duty, our divine responsibility to honor them.

----------
This was my response.
----------

I was just researching a paper (on a completely different topic) and came across your page.

I would like to say that I agree with you to an extent. I agree that we should honor the deaths of those 2000. I have 31 brothers in that number. I honor them every chance I can get, but that doesn't mean that I support the war. I fought with 1/3 in the battle for Fallujah. Before we left, you could walk down the street unarmed and in your undergarments without fear. A bit of an embelishment, yes, but the city was peaceful. I returned home in May for Terminal Leave. In mid June I read an article about The first Navy Female casualty, and the deaths of (I believe) 17 Marines. This in the city that I fought for, and the city I helped to liberate. We flushed out the insurgents, and they came right back as soon as we were gone.

The deaths of 2000 Americans in no way make the President look bad. I personally believe that the President is doing his best with the situation, and I'm still glad I voted for him. I don't think we are losing the war. But I don't think that we will have a "classic" military victory either. The insurgency will never give up, and we will be left with what Ireland has today.

I can honestly say that I have survivors guilt. That is why I am angry that 2000 American men and women have died in that country. My anger does not increase with the number of casualties. My anger does not increase if we lose, nor does it decrease if we win. I think the cause we are fighting for in Iraq is a noble one. The cause I fought for, and the cause I know my brother's died for is the freedom of the Iraqi people. But that cause is something that they will have to be willing to fight for themselves. As of right now, I do not believe that the people will stand up to the insurgents. I do not believe that the Iraqi National Guard is up to the task of fighting off their countrymen. I do not think that the people of Iraq deserve a freedom they are not willing to die to get.

I support the men and women fighting in Iraq. I believe that we can win the war, but that it will take more time than the American people on a whole would support. I will never forget the sacrafice of my brothers in arms. I will forever honor their memory. My closing point? Even if I thought the war unwinable, and unworthy. I would still honor those who fell to free the people. I would still support them in their effort. After all, what choice to they really have?

----------

I took a bit of a look around his site, and what I saw interested me. He presents his ideas and thoughts in a clear and coherent way. I wonder how, or if he'll respond...

This is where I found his page... http://eidsonblog.blogspot.com/

That's using your ass. - Bender

PX