It’s getting more and more clear that Mr. Moto is never going to honestly deal with the issue as to why he cares so very little (if at all) about the needless death of American soldiers than he does about a bunch of fucking ribbons.
But here’s a thought: Mr. Moto works for the defense industry and war is good for business. So, sure while the needless death of 540 and counting American soldiers may be an abomination to you and me the thing you need to keep in mind is that it’s putting money in Mr. Moto’s pocket. I really think might help explain Mr. Moto’s curious value system.
So, not only do you keep harping on ad nauseum about Kerry’s medal, but you also feel it’s fine to throw insults, in GD, at people who have the temerity to make reference to an international agreement brokered on neutral ground, and including the participation of the following sovereign nations:
Cambodia
France
Laos
People’s Republic of China,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States of America
as well as the representatives of both sides of the Viet-Nam dispute.
I assume that your support of Shodan’s post also includes support for his invoking the 1973 agreement which, because it was broken by the communists rather than by the United States and its allies, is apparently a perfectly valid and legitimate agreement, in contrast to the waste of paper that was signed in 1954.
Only a poltroon could accept such praise without demur. Not even close, not even in the same galaxy as John Kerry and the V.V.A.W. As much as I appreciate your generosity, it simply isn’t so. But if you’re at a Kerry political event, you’ll probably see one or another of them, they’ll be there, damn sure betcha. Tell him, and make his day.
Braintree, war is a tragedy. Soldiers inevitably die. Each death of a soldier is a grievous loss to the family and friends involved.
This may sound heartless, but as wars go, the death toll from this war is pretty low. It is right now at around 1% of the American death toll for Korea, a little less than 1% for Vietnam.
One of the reasons for the great reduction of loss of life on our side is the great automation of our war. The Tomahawk cruise missile, which I help design systems for, can destroy a target with great accuracy after several hundred miles of flight. It can be launched from a ship safely far at sea or, even more stealthily, from a submarine.
In the Vietnam era, the same target would have had to be destroyed by bomber and strike aircraft flying from Air Force bases or Navy carriers flying over oftentimes extremely well defended targets. The names of many of the men who flew these missions can be found on the Wall. Others spent time in POW camps.
I’m proud of what I do, despite sneering from you about my “curious value system.” In my eleven years of service to the Navy as a sailor and defense contractor, I believe I have strengthened our nation and actually saved lives.
You say you care yet you’re obviously far more worked up over the fact that Kerry tossed a few ribbons as a symbolic protest gesture 30 years ago than you are about the needless deaths of 540 soldiers who died in a war that we’re fighting because we were lied to by our president. The mere fact that the toll so far is somewhat low is beside the point. The point is that they died for no good reason and that you don’t really seem to care.
When you tell me “Each death of a soldier is a grievous loss to the family and friends involved,” it comes off as a heap of unctious, self-serving horseshit. It’s pure cookie-cutter sympathy. It’s a phoney.
But the fact that you’re angry at Kerry for throwing a bunch of ribbons — even though your anger doesn’t make any sense — that couldn’t possibly be more genuine. I had to goad you into expressing your nakedly pro-forma sorrow over their deaths. Those people are dead, Mr. Moto, and they’re not coming back because you and President Bush had to have your glorious little war.
So spare me and everyone else here your cheap sanctimony. It doesn’t wash.
For someone who claims to have served (were you ever in combat?) you seem awfully cavalier about the lives of other soldiers. Don’t you prefer to have a reason to sacrifice American lives or do you think, as your president does, that the lives of the troops are so worthless that they may be spent merely to serve the personal agendas of dubiously elected politicians? Do you think it’s ok to lie to soldiers about what they’re dying for?
What has done more harm to the military, to human lives and to the American body politic, John Kerry throwing some ribbons in an effort to end an immoral war or GWB lying through his teeth in order to start an immoral war?
I am hardly cavalier about the lives of other soldiers. You are, however, hopelessly unrealistic about the very real threats they face, and the extent to which they can be protected while still doing their job.
There’s still a lot of work for the military contractors to do, if we’ll still be allowed to do it. Fact is, if the braintrees of the world get their way, and weapon and force protection development stops, soldiers die.
IIRC, soldiers were told that the war was being fought to end Saddam Hussein’s regeime, which has happened. That wasn’t a lie.
You’ll not get a peep of complaint from the Navy. Despite a paper “cease-fire”, Saddam Hussein has been firing at U.S. Navy forces since the end of the first Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein invited a war that he finally got.
For the record, and as I stated earlier, Diogenes, my decorations include an Armed Forces Service Medal and Nato Medal.
This was for support of Operations Sharp Guard and Deny Flight in the former Yugoslavia. I supported the operations from a Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Sicily. I have never seen combat, but have directly supported a multinational operation.
I received, in my five years of enlisted service, the Navy Achievement Medal three times, which is very rare. One of those awards was for my support of this mission.
I am, as I have said, no war hero, but I was a very good sailor.
Also, Diogenes, I’d like to know what your idea of a moral war is. Does the Korean War qualify?
They were told that they were protecting the US from an imminent threat. that was a lie. There was no threat, there was no defensive purpose to the war. There was no necessity to waste those 540 American lives much less the thousands of Iraqi civilians who were slaughtered and maimed.
That’s not why Shrubby said we went. UNSR violations are the p[rovince of the UN anyway, not the US.
So the answer is no, you weren’t in combat yet you feel you are in amoral position to judge those who were.
For the record, I was no war hero either but unlike you, I was also a lousy sailor.
I would define a war as being morally justified only insofar as it pertains to what is necessary for immediate self-defense or, perhaps, the defense of another nation which has asked for help. Iraq qualified under neither scenario. Neither the US nor the Soviets had any business in Korea. It was a civil war that had no bearing on US security.
I emphatically do not believe that waging war to depose heads of state that we don’t like is morally justified, even if that country has lots of oil.
Let me ask you something. Fidel castro is a bad guy, right? Would you be willing to die to remove him from power? I’m not talking about protecting the US from anything, just getting rid of castro.
Would you be willing to let your son die? How about an infant son? Wars kill infants you know.How many babies is it worth killing to get rid of Castro?
We’re all free to judge Kerry, Diogenes. War-hero status gets one no free pass in politics. John McCain found that out. Hell, even Jim Stockdale found that out when he was Ross Perot’s running mate, and he was a real war hero.
I can’t judge either way. But thank you for your service to our country.
We agree, a little, on something here. South Korea begged for help after the invasion, which gave us the right to go to their aid.
We also still had thousands of occupation troops close by in Japan, and the Communists at the beginning took over nearly the whole Korean peninsula. It was a strategic nightmare, and had grave bearings on U.S. security at the time.
I remember reading in Armando Valladares’ book about his imprisonment in Castro’s prisons. He described the imprisonment of a twelve year old boy whose only crime was playing with the gun of a police chief, and exposing his carelessness.
They put the boy in with adult common criminals. You can imagine what happened to him.
It’s a moot point, because Castro isn’t shooting at us. We cut a deal with the Russians long ago to leave him be, and we’ve honored that. But in the long run, crass as it might sound, the end of Castro would be worth the death of a few soldiers, if it would mean some twelve year old boy wouldn’t be gang raped in a filthy prison cell. Especially since the country involved is only ninety miles away from our own, which makes it such a direct concern.
**Ah ha, Mr. Motto! You make beeg mistake. You reason with wolf pack.
Wolf pack no care about ways of man. Wolf pack only care about blood.
Listen, they howl…**
***The point is that they died for no good reason and that
you don’t really seem to care.
***When you tell me “Each death of a soldier is a grievous loss
to the family and friends involved,” it comes off as
a heap of unctious, self-serving horseshit.
It’s pure cookie-cutter sympathy. It’s a phoney.
***Would you be willing to let your son die?
How about an infant son? Wars kill infants you know.
How many babies is it worth killing to get rid of Castro?
***So spare me and everyone else here your cheap sanctimony.
It doesn’t wash.
**Ah so Mr. Motto, you make mistake.
Ha ha! You think you in civilized Debate! Ha ha! **
I’m not voting for Kerry, and I sure as hell am not voting for Bush.
Kerry’s actions do strike me as self-serving. To use an analogy:
Ezra Pound was a fascist (or at least a fascist sympathizer). I have a first edition of one of his volumes. To show my hatred of his views, I burn the first edition.
Ta da. Political protest.
But let’s say that instead of burning the costly first edition, I just burn some cheap reprint while keeping the first edition safe.
Ta da. Political expediency.
This strikes me as fairly equivalent to what Kerry did. He threw away a representation of a thing rather than the thing itself. It’s a good example of having his cake and eating it.
To this disinterested bystander, it looks awfully convenient.
I don’t think such actions need defending. It isn’t at all difficult for combat veterans to think that war in general is a bad idea. And it seems to me that the Vietnam war was an example of a bad idea that was badly managed from the top, i.e. LBJ and McNamara.
His voting record is another matter and I think does need some explanation although I don’t think restraining defense spending after the cold war ended is all that questionable. For example, I’m not at all convinced that large defense expenses advance the primary target of the so-called war on terrorism by very much.
Mr. Moto, you really are an intellectual coward. For your information I have always been for a strong defense. How dare you presume that just because, unlike you, I oppose the needless waste of American soldiers’ lives I am somehow against doing what’s necesssary to defend our country. You certainly pulled that one right out of your ass.
The fact of the matter is that when it comes to defending us against terrorism you Republicans have been wholley disloyal. It was the Saudis who attacked us on September 11th . Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. The attacks were financed by Saudi shieks, planned by Saudi extremists and executed by mostly Saudi stooges. The extraordinarilly ugly Wahabi brand of Islam that teaches Muslims to hate us is a produt of our Saudi “allies.”
Well, George Bush has done nothing but cover their holy asses every since they attacked my home. He helped the bin Laden family get out of the country before they could be fully interviewed by the FBI. He says he’s against state-sponsored terrorism but he had no problem with the producer of the infamous Saudi telethon to support Palestinian terrorism who had lunch at his ranch in Crawford AFTER the telethon and AFTER September 11th. And of course we know how GWB redacted the infamous 17-page section from a report on September 11th for which it is an open secret that it detail Saudi involvement in killing so very many of us. We also know how he’s been dragging his feet and failing to cooperate with the investigation and then lying about.
And the more I think of it the more I just love your logic which goes “Well, hey, we ONLY lost 540 soldiers so far. Why are you so upset about that? Kerry THREW AWAY HIS RIBBONS AND KEPT HIS MEDALS!”
My God, but what a collasally corrupt way to think. I mean, really folks, that’s just evil. It’s clear to me now that we’re dealing with a sociopath.
Saddam was not a threat. We were lied to. 540 soldiers and counting are dead and you just don’t fucking care. The best you can do is give us a blatently insincere “Soldiers inevitably die. Each death of a soldier is a grievous loss to the family and friends involved.” and then add “That may sound callous.” No. It doesn’t sound callous. It IS callous.
And, by the way, would you mind telling me what company you worked for? See, back when Saddam was our ally we sold and gave him an awful lot of weapons. Remember the gas he used to kill all those Kurds? I think we may have been responsible for that. So since you’re using your concern for the Iraqi people as one of your justifications for the war, I’d just like to check up and see what your company’s contribution may have been to their security.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
See, unlike Mr. Moto, Eisenhower didn’t really care about defending his country.
I see. It’s a ridiculous question but you’re not going answer it. After all, I have your word that you’re telling the truth about your company’s relationship to Saddam Hussein.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Moto, it just so happens that I do know who sounds like a sociopath now.
I’ve got plenty of gratitude to spread around, and I do to every veteran I see. If I had to “rank” you and Kerry as deserving… sure, Kerry’d take you But still, if I’m ever up in Frozen Asscrack, MN or whatever hellhole you’re in, I’m buyin’, and it’ll only cost you a hearty handshake.
I’m inclined to think that “nothing much” happened. That is to say, “something” may have happened, but both of them feel it’s nobody’s business but theirs; and if they both feel that way, who’s to disagree.
But I am certainly one of those who find the sudden high-mindedness of the media laughable. There was never any proof of Bush using cocaine, but the networks had no problem running with that story and asking him to deny (and FWIW, yes, I think he did coke). They have no problem reporting other silly rumors, and I think the idea that the burden of proof in on Bush to prove he *wasn’t * AWOL is asinine.
I happen to think that we are best served by media who make no bones about their partisan leanings, and if the cost of that is sensationalism, I can live with it. It certainly can’t cheapen our discourse any more than watching this silly charade in which our media whores make shocked faces as they plead their virgin honor.
I think you’re miscasting the issue here; the onus on Bush ins’t to prove that he wasn’t AWOL, but to prove that he did serve in Alabama as he was supposed to.
