Devastating War picture

[Lyion]

I was just being a smart ass, and detected no condescension.

Ugz, I think he's presenting a very biased opinion, but I personally don't think it's hypocritical.

[ClakarEQ]

Langston, in the radio show I was listening to, Bush was speaking ad-hoc or what seemed to be unprepaired. He said he understood what the parents are feeling (or something to that effect). On the flip side, the artical lyion and then the snip donnel highlighted enlightened me in the sense that the radio show was (or I assume) recorded prior to that MSNBC article. What he stated in the MSNBC article is exactly what I would have wanted to hear.

I'm left to assume being unprepaired on such a touchy subject he probably just made a mistake. Just the mistake struck a toon with me because I've been through a course on how to communicate with people who have experienced a loss, not human loss though so not an apple to apple.

This isn't his opinion vs mine. This is him makeing statements (a mistake) and me pointing it out. He is wrong, he admits it. He can't understand. You can't understand the feelings of another in the context he used it in.

It would be analogious to me saying to lyion or another vet:
"I understand how it was in Iraq". He'd probably bitch slap me for that statement. Knowing damn well I've never served and certainly never been in Iraq (or at least he knows now).

BTW answer my question I posed to you. Lets get to the root of these feelings your hung up on.

If you just lost your mom or dad (for whatever the reason), and I've not lost mine, and I say to you, "I understand how you feel". Explain to me how that could be?

[Harrison]

I know full well what hypocrit means, Lyion. Don't presume to be condescending to me again.

Or else...?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrit

Or else...he'll figure out hypocrit isn't a fucking word.

[Harrison]

I'm not calling HIM the hypocrit - I'm calling YOU the hypocrit.

Clakar - I'm calling you a hypocrit because you seem to think that Bush is wrong

Murdering the typo argument before it happens.

[Harrison]

Princess bride > All

[Narrock]

wow triple post. Forethought is your friend.

[Harrison]

I think before I post?

[Zanchief]

Princess bride > All

The Princess Bride.

[kaharthemad]

if you must know, yes, I have buried friends due to war. A buddy of mine was killed in Gulf War Sr. Do I agree with this war wholheartedly no I do not. But to sit there and say they are dying needlessly is afront to every person who has ever defended this country. If your cousin wants to get out fine...GTFO. but while he is in his job is to pick up a gun and do what he is ordered to.

I have seen enough of my friends buried during military action, and in other instances to know what losing someone is like. But to call the death of a soldier a needless action IMO is to degrade their sacrifice to this country and to his fellow soldiers everywhere.

[Narrock]

if you must know, yes, I have buried friends due to war. A buddy of mine was killed in Gulf War Sr. Do I agree with this war wholheartedly no I do not. But to sit there and say they are dying needlessly is afront to every person who has ever defended this country. If your cousin wants to get out fine...GTFO. but while he is in his job is to pick up a gun and do what he is ordered to.

I have seen enough of my friends buried during military action, and in other instances to know what losing someone is like. But to call the death of a soldier a needless action IMO is to degrade their sacrifice to this country and to his fellow soldiers everywhere.

That sucks, Kahar. Sorry man.

[kaharthemad]

it happens man. They knew what they were fighting for. and contrary to popular beliefe it was not oil. Its not something I bring up in polite coversation but lets say this 'needless death' comments I see all the time strike a bit deeper on me then most people.

[ClakarEQ]

Kah, I too am sorry you've lost loved ones. I apologize if I came across to personally attack you or any military person.

Here is a bit of RL history of mine and also an analogy.

I'm a manager of an IT group for a large manufacturing company. I have 12 folks that report up to me. In my staff meetings I'm often put in a position where I have to get my staff to realize the impact of the group to the org and that sometimes, while personally you don't agree with a policy, you best not convey that disagreement to the user base. Stupid crap like e-mail limits, or what, who, where, when you can go on the web. If any of my staff were to say to a user, "Yeah I think the policy is shit but my boss is an ass-hole so we have to do it" or anything like that. It undermines my group, the image of the group, the overall likes and dislikes of IT, etc. Sort of like a virus from within. Has it happened, yeah, have I had to knock heads, yeah.

I look at the military personel in a similar fashion. An example would be similar to what Lyion has stated. "if you talk to most vets they are for the war". I'm just not sure if I believe it. Are they being loyal to what they know they should say (e.g. team player, take it for the team, etc), or are they truly for the war? Do they respond because they need to show loyalty to their "family" in the trenches? I just have a real hard time believing that if one were to go from US base to US base in Iraq, and ask each person with complete autonomy, that the majority would rather stay and risk life and limb for Iraqis, vs never having had to go in the first place. If they choose the later, then they are not for the war.

I support the troops as I've said and while it may seem hypocritical (Langston, see this reference) for me to say I support the troops and not the war but I do. I feel for the soldiers there, I would not say any death is in vein as they are doing the job they are told to do. These folks are dieing protecting others. They have no choice, that luxury has been removed. I just wish the "boss" never started the thing in the first place.

I'm not sure I've articulated everything properly for folks to get it but that is about the best I can do.

O and one of my bad habits, is I'm terribly long winded (ask my staff :p ).

[mappatazee]

Pretty good comparison.

[Lyion]

I look at the military personel in a similar fashion. An example would be similar to what Lyion has stated. "if you talk to most vets they are for the war I'm just not sure if I believe it. Are they being loyal to what they know they should say (e.g. team player, take it for the team, etc), or are they truly for the war?

No, most vets are simply for action against Iraq based on what has occured in the past. By and large peace activists are more short sighted and see the immediate issues. Most vets understand our long term goals, and see the potential we have there. This is known via polls which have agreement hovering at 80% from vets, last I checked.

I support the troops as I've said and while it may seem hypocritical (Langston, see this reference) for me to say I support the troops and not the war but I do. I feel for the soldiers there, I would not say any death is in vein as they are doing the job they are told to do. These folks are dieing protecting others. They have no choice, that luxury has been removed. I just wish the "boss" never started the thing in the first place.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unpatriotic about not supporting the war in Iraq, unless you support it for the wrong reasons and subscribe to the screeching anti US contingent and politicize the anti war movement and promote instability for the troops abroad.

O and one of my bad habits, is I'm terribly long winded (ask my staff :p ).

Given the lengths of some of the yahoos posts here, you are terse.

[xaoshaen]

I look at the military personel in a similar fashion. An example would be similar to what Lyion has stated. "if you talk to most vets they are for the war". I'm just not sure if I believe it. Are they being loyal to what they know they should say (e.g. team player, take it for the team, etc), or are they truly for the war? Do they respond because they need to show loyalty to their "family" in the trenches? I just have a real hard time believing that if one were to go from US base to US base in Iraq, and ask each person with complete autonomy, that the majority would rather stay and risk life and limb for Iraqis, vs never having had to go in the first place. If they choose the later, then they are not for the war.

I do not think that word means what you think it means... a vet isn't analogous to a current employee of a civilian company. It's entirely possible to get a straight opinion from active military personnel as well. I even know a few who disagree with the war in Iraq. They're still professionals and will follo worders to the utmost of their ability, but they disagree with the decision to invade. These people are the vast minority though. Hell yes, most soldiers want to come home. They also understand exactly what it is we've accomplished in Iraq and why it was necessary.

I support the troops as I've said and while it may seem hypocritical (Langston, see this reference) for me to say I support the troops and not the war but I do. I feel for the soldiers there, I would not say any death is in vein as they are doing the job they are told to do. These folks are dieing protecting others. They have no choice, that luxury has been removed. I just wish the "boss" never started the thing in the first place.

There's no hypocrisy in supporting US troops without supporting the politicians that decide when we fight.

[ClakarEQ]

Fair enough Xao and Lyion. I really wanted to avoid opening this can-o-worms but "necessary" as in "needs" or "required" is an opinion. Just the person holding that opinion is the boss. There were equal and even greater "needs" in other countries but we've not invaded them. Mostly likely we will not after the experience we've had in Iraq. I'd rather not go there though and I'll drop it.

I believe it is analogous just the risk / reward is most definitely not.

The military is a company, the second largest if I recall next to the USPS. The only exception I'm aware of is you can't quit (being a bit sarcastic but I think my analogy holds water).

and ask each person with complete autonomy

Wrong word there for true, should have been:

and ask each person incognito

Autonomy should have been anonymous or a synonym of it i.e incognito (damn spelling of mine :\)

Lyion wrote:

By and large peace activists are more short sighted and see the immediate issues

This implies problems solved today CAUSE problems tomorrow. I think the opposite on this one I guess. I feel that a problem solved today makes one less problem to solve. Not, lets attempt to predict a problem that will happen and hope to god we don't guess wrong. That is what we've done in Iraq. Our politicians and advisors with piss poor intelligence launched a dart into the air and it landed on Iraq. Yeah, hope we aren't all wet on this Iraq issue. It isn't over till the fat lady sings, right?

BTW, I hope I'm wrong here, I really do. But this Iraq thing is going to play out for a few more years at a minimum and every day it seem we are "surprised" by something new because our "predictions" (long term goals) were all wrong.

On the flip side of my RL I posted above. I sit in executive meetings with chairmen and such. These guys put up PPT's and all this fancy shit about where we'll be in 2010. What idiots they are. Back in 1999 I was in that exact meeting but it was what will be in 2005. Needless to say not ONE long term objective was realized. You know why? None of these guys are fortune tellers. (for some truth to this though, economy and cost of steel, etc, etc was the real problem).

I also know government and such is easier to predict because they hold the keys to many a door to "push" direction and the future. But to have a long term goal in a place like Iraq or any war time environment IMHO is STUPID. Yeah yeah, I know I know, you have to have one, I realize that but whatever the goal is now, will NOT be the goal achieved, so long as we can agree on that, I'm ok.

[The Kizzy]

Brian Montgomery's funeral service proceeded past our office. One of the guys in our office knew him. We all stood outside and showed our respect as they passed. Brian's wife was, and still is as far as I know, an active part and founder of an organization that helps the wives and families of soldiers that have fallen from our area.

[Lyion]

Tangenting back to Iraq, and not the discourse pro or con Iraq:

The biggest problem in Iraq right now is Bush isn't listening enough to General Casey.
He's too worried about saying the wrong thing or saying something that the Dems will use politically instead of just being straight forward and admitting we need to start drawing down in 2006.

Army Gen. George Casey, the overall ground commander in Iraq, said this month that a "fairly substantial" reduction in the 138,000 U.S. troops could begin in the spring and summer of 2006 if the security and political situations improve.

President Bush, however, tried to dispel such speculation in the face of growing public and congressional pressure for an exit date.