I imagine that would be a strange world. But it’s a stranger world when someone posts such a non sequiter in the middle of a discussion concerning one cartoonist’s attack on the SecDef’s idea of correct army size and readiness and another cartoonist’s attack on a presidential candidate.
In other, simpler words: the gripe about Toles was NOT that he “publicly stat[ed] [he’s] against soldiers being killed or maimed.”
I think he was refering to the gripe against Obama.
I also agree that there was nothing wrong with Obama clarifying, just to put to rest the notion that a life wasted is the same thing as their lives being a waste. On the other hand, Mr. Moto is guilty of twisting the words in the same manner as the cartoon, which I take great issue with.
In other words, if it weren’t for the Mr. Motos of the world who happen to have an audience, I doubt that Obama would have had to clarify a thing.
Oh.
If so, my apologies. I totally missed that interpretation.
Which Pale? The first one that comes to my mind is the defensive area meant to protect Dublin from the Wild Irish Tribes.
Wikipedia also mentions the “Pale of Calais”—meant to protect the English from the French. Then, there was the “Pale of Settlement”–meant to isolate the Jews in Czarist Russia.
Back to Mr Obama’s remark. He was referring to Wasteful Deaths. For an example of a Wasted Life, we need only look to Our President.
It’s an atrociously bad cartoon and doesn’t make any sense. Obama was clearly referring to the throwing away of lives on a needless war. That is a statement that is an expression of Obama’s opinion, and mine, and is independent of who is elected as president.
Most of you seem to be stretching to tie the cartoon to a news item that only degenerate board readers even were aware of. What I thought it meant was “We can still win this war as long as we have a Republican president. If a Democrat wins (insert current hot Dem name), he’ll surrender to the terr’ists.”
Still ignorant bullshit, of course.
Can someone link to the cartoon with the quadruple amputee? It’s not that one Toles cartoon linked above with the guy with his arm in a sling is it?
Oh. I see. Thanks. Not the best cartoon ever, but some people need to realize that that’s not a real person. It’s just representing a maimed military in general, I think.
Yes, it is. It is a mutilated soldier representing a maimed military in general, indeed. No argument here.
That was the impression I also got from the cartoon. Basically, Obama will lose Iraq if he gets in.
No matter how you feel about the issue, the cartoon is not very good. Shouldn’t it be … witty?
Really? Then what is the gripe about Toles’ cartoon?
The people that are complaining about Obama’s statement and Toles’ cartoon know very well that they are not trying to lower support for the soldiers - what they are trying to do is lower support for the war. And they’re doing it by pointing out the high cost the war is having on our soldiers.
If we only honored and respected the "pre"dead as much.
It may not be PC, and God knows I feel the suffering of those who have lost sons, brothers and fathers, but them dying in this fiasco was a waste of beautiful lives. To say otherwise is only to perpetuate a myth, which we Americans love to do about our military and other things.
Have you actually read this thread?
I’m not sure I agree with you. A majority of Americans do not support the war, and I suspect most of them would agree with the parsing of the word “waste” as many here hold it, if you held them down and forced them to listen to the explanation.
But that’s not the real world. Many, many Americans react emotionally to a perception that someone does not hold the following principle firmly in his or her heart: Our armed forces accept the risk of the ultimate sacrifice, going where they are ordered without question because that concession of their personal liberty is what ultimately makes us all safe in the long run. We respect that concession whenever it is made, regardless of the circumstances the soldiers find themselves in, and soldiers everywhere recognize that their commitment to this ideal is of the highest honor, both a sacrifice and a reward in itself. And so do we.
Using the word “waste” can imply to those reacting emotionally that someone doesn’t believe this. I’m sure there are people who don’t. But that’s not what Obama intended, and he was smart to clarify. He made his point and did not in any way change his position regarding the war. So I don’t get some of the reaction that Obama’s clarification was a mistake, that it somehow reflects poorly on him, or that he’s perpetuating some myth.
The very same person can be against this war, feel that it was unwarranted and consequently led to loss of life that was unnecessary, and react emotionally and unfavorably if they perceive that someone is dissing the commitment of the troops. Obama knows this, he reacted smartly, and he did not shift his position an inch in the effort. Saying, “But the reaction was unreasonable!” really, really misses the point. I don’t see what the big deal is.
I like Obama. He is my man for 2008. That said, he reacted smartly in making his clarification because most Americans are still clinging tenaciously to the myth that every military death is noble. For the most part we cannot speak the truth that we have committed our soldiers to fight and die in an ignoble effort, and that the death of one or 3,000 is a waste. It served no purpose. For what cause will Americans die today? Even Bush cannot clearly answer that question. By any definition of the word, the deaths of these soldiers is a waste. Barak correctly recognized that John Q. Public cannotaccept that yet.
The counter would be that the loss of lives perhaps served no clear political purpose, but the deaths nevertheless represented a sacrifice to a higher cause–the concession of personal liberty, unquestioned regardless of circumstance–a cause that serves a higher, longer-term purpose. The two notions can be held simultaneously, it seems to me.
IOW, it’s the same semantical tap dance. People who agree with your position COMPLETELY might still react poorly to Obama’s comments because they infer something disrespectful to the troops, something that ignores their sacrifice to a higher cause, if you will. So, it’s not a question necessarily that John Q. Public can’t accept your assessment. It’s that he processes certain phrases differently than you do (at least some John Q. Publics, anyway). Again, I believe most polls show that the American public does NOT support the war.
