#8: Upset Yet?

THREAD BEGAN: October 7th, 2004

BOB: Well, I was looking back on the old posts and something that Nugent said really jumped out at me. I urge everyone to reread his post. In the begining of the second thread he said: “You’re upset about the 1000th American death? These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations is such. Read “Russia at War” to put 1000 deaths into perspective, or take a look at the numbers associated with heart disease or traffic accidents.” Well, I took a look at those numbers, and it turns out that Nugent was right. 1,408,000 Americans die every year from Heart Disease (according to the American Heart Association). A big number like this really does dwarfs the 1,000 Americans who have died in Iraq. Or as Nugent says, ‘Puts it into perspective’ I would give this same advice to those 3,000 families who lost a loved one on Sept 11th. Because although that day was tragic, it is only a fraction as tragic as August 6th 1945, when 135,000 Japanese civilians died when the first atom bomb was dropped. And for those who had a loved one killed/sodomized by Jeffery Dahmer. It might help to point out that while Dahmer killed 13 innocent people, this pales in comparison to the 800,000 people who are killed by Hippos every year on the African Continent. Is comparing U.S. casualties in Iraq to people who die in car crashes really any less ridiculous?! Nugent, I would love for you to visit one family who has lost a son, father or husband. I would love for you to sit down at that now-empty chair at the Thanksgiving table and ‘put things into perspective’ for them. You could explain to them that their loss, while tragic, is relatively minute compared to the losses that Russia suffered during the second world war. Or why not the Black Plague!? I urge everyone to reread Chris’s comments, cause it exposes a sick mentality that exists in SOME Conservatives: justifying and marginalizing the lose of human life in any way possible. What really worries me is that Nugent and our president are on the same page on this one. To answer Nugent's question: “Yes...Yes, I am upset!” My question for Chris is: How high does the body-count need to get before you join me?

JAY: HYPOCRACY!! Since I know nugent does not have the free time I do, I decided to respond since it completely shocked me. Bob, you stated on the blog, "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?" I asked you what constitutes a moderate disaster in iraq and you failed to respond. I assume disaster is determined by the amount of casualties, coalition or opposition (yes, i'd like to see the opposition throw in the towel). What else would determine disaster? You state to everyone, "I urge everyone to reread Chris’s comments, cause it exposes a sick mentality that exists in SOME Conservatives: justifying and marginalizing the lose of human life in any way possible." I think what you said is sick. Chris is not hoping for death to prove a point, I think he is merely stating that compared to other wars, the casualty level is significantly low (chris, if you meant something else sorry). You want people to die so the U.S learns a lesson. Compare the statements and honestly tell me which is worse. You then state, "I would love for you to visit one family who has lost a son, father or husband. I would love for you to sit down at that now-empty chair at the Thanksgiving table and ‘put things into perspective’ for them." I would love to see you visit a family and tell them you hope for a "moderate disaster." I think you would become a casualty of protest. I can't speak for all the families with a child in the war, but I'm sure some (maybe most) agree with the war. If you visit them you'd be slapping them in the face by telling them it's a wrong war. You'd be telling them that their son/daughter died for nothing. At least Chris would be honoring their child stating that they died for a good cause. Compare again please. I am for gun control, and I know you are against it claiming the right to bear arms is in the constitution. Do you know how many people in the U.S. alone died from guns in 2002; 28,663. I'd like to see you visit those families at thanksgiving. Tell them that the right to bear that automatic weapon is in the constitution. How many deaths are enough? One more thing, I remember you being so adamant against the war in Afghanistan (we argued at Arnies). Do you still oppose that decision b/c it seems like nobody does? Kerry wanted us to focus more on that country. Who is for gun control? Does anyone share Bob's opinion that the war in Afghanistan was/is wrong? We have a new issue to discuss if anyone else is interested; gun control.

DAN: Your argument is negated soley due to the fact that these soldiers that were killed SIGNED UP on the own recognizance to serve in the US military. They were not drafted or forced into the military, this was their own decision. Everyone in the US military must take the oath (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=us+military+oath), which clearly states that they must obey the orders of the President of the United States. Every one of them knows the consequences, and what ultimately could happen in war. If you are afraid to die, DON'T SIGN UP!!! I could bring up the argument, if you don't agree with what is going on, don't sign up, but you give up that right after the words, "so help me God." This is black and white. There is no gray in this argument, Bob.

BOB: Jay, I only have 15 minutes, so I must be brief: I did respond to your question about what constitutes a 'moderate disaster'. Go check the previous threads. Let me explain the difference between Nug and I: I want to end the bloodshed, I explained in great length how I think this is accomplished and I even gave a big long analogy about poor kids in Brazil. I also pointed out time-and-time again, that I am deeply upset by U.S. casualties (even numbers as small as 1100) this is exactly why I am hoping for failure and quick withdraw...to minimize casualties in the long run. Nugent and (apparently Dan now) seem to think that because these people signed up, they are disposable and we shouldn't be so concerned that 1100 of them are dead in a war that was based on a lie. Jay, I explained in great detail what I ment, but you just don't seem to listen. Please reread my explanation. PS I will address all of your other questions when i have more time

JAY: maybe i can't read, but i don't think you have defined moderate disaster. it's an easy question. fill in the blank: A moderate disaster constitutes _____________________________. I think you say unsuccessful enough. What do you mean? Unsuccessful enough = _____________. how many deaths? disasters are measured by casualties.

DAN: Don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed anyone's life as being disposable. My point was those that enlist know exactly what they are getting into....or have the potential to get into. The loss of one's life is never taken lightly or just tallied on some board like you are insinuating.

SAMMY: Bob writes at the end of this posting "How high does the body-count need to be before you join me?" I wounder is this enough? American deaths; as far as I can find, have reached 1066. Here's the kicker; Since "Mission Accomplished" 927 soldiers have died. Yep Mission Accomplished. HUH I wonder how many have died since we captured Saddam. Oh 606, only about half. So we really got the point across. Alright, Alright we get the point, Iraq doesn't like us. Hold on, what about injuries? 9651 injuries. Damn, thats a lot. Isn't It? OK OK, enough sarcasm. So I will ask Bob's Question once again How many must die? Also, Do you believe this is enough lives? Oh shit I forgot we can't forget how many Iraqi civilian lives have been taken. Now this is hard to judge, but it is estimated that upwards to 15,149 civilian lives have been taken. So lets add it up 16,215 total deaths. Oh shit what about coalition deaths. 137. Man they just keep adding up. So now the grand total gets us up to 16,352, and that may not be up to date, just 2 days off. Now ask yourself again Pro-Iraq war people have you had enough or do you want more. Because as John Kerry and John Edwards have stated "Bush and Cheney just have more of the same for you" Now if thats what you want then please feel free vote for Bush. Also, we know now that Bush has made a mistake and attacked this country with bad intelligence. All these people dead with no WMD's and no real treat to the US. Although we do have Saddam. Oh shit that didn't help, because as I stated above we still keep getting killed after capturing Saddam. Maybe you conservatives would just like to kill them all and start over. Hey its just one country. Why not? Lets just get rid of Iraq all together. Thats the mentality of you conservatives, and don't tell me its not (Well Thats a little Harsh). But Nugent did start the comparison. Hey, 1 country out of 210 (including Vatican City) It's not that big of a deal. Right? Let me tell you how hard that number was to get. Bob you think you got time on your hands, I counted all those form a globe! Yep , I'm a loser.

JAY: first, this is an irrelevant argument ("how many deaths are enough"). if kerry is elected is he going to pull our troops out? no, he keeps bashing bush,who was listening to his generals on the ground, for not sending enough troops (you guys even argue that). so do you want more troops or pull them all out? don't bother, i know the answer to that. you say, "Bush has made a mistake and attacked this country." kerry made the same mistake correct? he would have gone to war correct? this is a dumb argument. regardless, we would be at war in iraq right now. maybe, and i emphasize maybe, kerry would have gotten more allies, but i highly doubt it. kerry would not have pursuaded france and germany to join against their finacial interests with the stance, "hey help me fight the wrong war, psst we should probably go to other countries first but don't tell anyone." so to sum up, the liberals (kerry and edwards) would have gone to war as well as the conservatives. that's what they say now, but who really knows. why don't you ask kerry how much he thinks is enough b/c he wants to send more troops in.

DAN: I don't understand your logic, Sammartano. Your responses tell of strong emotion toward the killing of human lives, many American. Yet you are for abortion. As of the year 2000 (most recent info found), 21 is the yearly number of LEGAL abortions per 1000 women in the US, age 15-44. For 2000, there were 857,475 abortions REPORTED. Sammartano, that is nearly 800 times the death, and they didn't even have the choice, unlike these soldiers. I don't understand how you can feel so strongly about one life over the other.

SAMMY: That is becuase I beleive a baby isn't a baby till it is out of the woman. And becuase I don't want to have a child yet, but I still am gonna have sex. Trust me I value human life, but abortion is for the parents to decide. I am very pro choice. If you don't want a kid, so be it. Abortion for me is a form of birth control. I know this is a bold statement. But that is how I feel. yes I think you should use condoms and birth control, but if those fail what next. Its obvious ABORTION. Also if their are going to be birth defects, I would like to have the choice in the decision of raising the kid or trying again. That will probably hit home with Chris, but that is how I feel. I do not want to raise a disabled child when it comes time to have a kid. Also, the choice arguement is terrible. I fetus can't decide on anything. Also, the soldier can't decide on anything. They are told what to do by the president like you said in your last posting. yes they enlisted. But I would like to see a poll taken on how many soldiers believe this war is the right war. I bet if those soldiers had a choice they would all come home and call it quits. Remember, we know now that iraq was not an iminate threat to us. So basically, Iraq is a waste of time and life. Hey, think about it without abortion Coffee and Morgan would have children right now. I'm not knocking them, but they are obviously not ready to raise a child.

NUGENT: Im flattered that you want me back bad enough to write that email. And not unlike feeding a dog at the dinner table or providing socialized medicare- Im going to reply to your jab. Since you'll be gallivanting through the country side for ten days, Ill take my time to write it. Honar... your alive! Those who quote the man who dropped the A bombs (the buck stops here) and think a little blood shed in Iraq will teach Bush a lesson - should not sign their emails with "Peace Bob" Also, thank you to Dan and Jay for keeping a respectable viewpoint amongst the weak minded

DAN: John, I appreciate your liberal, "well what about how I feel about the war" bullshit, but like I mentioned in my original e-mail...if you don't like the situation that being in the military may bring upon you, DON'T ENLIST!!! This is a profession that is not for the weak-hearted. When it comes to a weak heart and the military, to quote Mr. Fouser, (Nugent, this is for you) "It's survival of the fittest, and you lose."

ZELIN: Regarding Vicscione's last comment on survival of the fittest, it is not quite as dramatic as Dan states. First off, not trying to take away from American soldiers, but we must also face up to the fact that the American Military is one of the greatest welfare programs in the United States. When living in Korea, I was able to meet with many of America's 30,000 soldiers we have stationed there. Most were 18 year old kids from either small rural towns where they had no opportunities for employment or inner city black kids who couldn't afford education. Every, EVERY person that I spoke to said they were going to stay in the Army, then use it for education. Shit, I would to. So, just wanted to tone down Viscione's survival of the fittest a bit. It is not like every John Rambo is training at home and getting ready to join the US military.

BEN: no one is possibly reading them all.......no minds have changed.......there are other issues tomorrow night is huge. i think if kerry wins, he will take the national lead in most polls and pull even in key states. if bush wins, he will regain momentum. if it is a tie, well things stay the same - and i think it will likely be a tie. really bush cant do much worse than last time, so he wil improve, but i look for another strong performance from jfk. then again i dont know how many losers other than myself will be staying in on a friday to watch it. back a few emails there was a gun control comment by someone - i forget who said it. i will say that gun control is my big split with the party......i am generally not for govt. telling people what they can and cannot own, but guns really are a major problem in opinion. and nugent and i am still with dan and jay on iraq- i just dont see the point to write stuff out when no one is going to change minds because samartano brought it up i am not saying i am for or against now, though i do have an opinion. democrats claim that if bush wins - no more abortion. that is really not true. right now on the supreme court it is 6 votes to keep it legal (stevens, breyer, ginsberg, souter, oconner, kennedy) and 3 to ban it (scalia, thomas, rehnquist)......and if bush wins rehnquist will retire, so he appoints anti-abortion judge so things stay at 6-3. so for roe to get overtuened 3 pro abortion judges have to retire and be replaced by 3 pro life judges - not going to happen. so a bush supreme court might result in some things libs dont like, but no more abortion is not one of them all judges but breyer and ginsberg on are on record dealing with abortion from the 1992 case casey v. planned parenthood...and one can only assume where those 2 stand since they are huge libs and have voted constantly with the left wing block of judges now - i am against abortion, but unless it is critical, i dont think peoples already granted rights should be taken away - that said if it was somehow overturned i would be happy but i dont really consider it a big deal right now

JAY: zelin, bullshit you talked to american soldiers over there. did you tell them your stance on the war? you are too into asian women to waste your time. liar. i can picture you sitting in your little internet cafe, chubbin up b/c the asian women around you, laughing b/c i called you out. bob, i like nugent's comment. from now on you should sign out w/ : "moderate disaster, bob" instead of "peace, bob. it fits you better

KYLE: I agree with my friend Ben, too much about Iraq and for Democrats it isn't our strongest issue. The Economy: Today, the last jobs report before the Election came out and the low expectation for today's report was there would be at least 150,000 jobs created. Only 96,000 jobs were created. In addition, the Bureau of Labor revised the August numbers from 144,000 down to 128,000. The result is that George W. Bush has a net loss of 585,000 jobs during his four years. I read this makes him the first President since Herbet Hoover (1929-1933) to have a net job loss during his Presidency. Pretty bad. Now, I can imagine you Republicans taking a break from not reading or watching the news (because it contradicts your opinions on Iraq) to say, "what about 9/11 you liberal douche bag." There have been 11 Presidents since Hoover, and every single one has managed to overcome the obstacles of their time in office to create jobs. Besides, Bush said he could fix things. Remember all those tax cuts?

HONAR: Instead of focusing on how the candidates are making the polls move, I think it would be interesting if our group presented what the concerns of our politicians ought to be, and also if we started presenting (occasionally) our own ideas to make the country better. In short, if we started leading where our political leaders have not been.

BOB: Well, Honar good point. We have touched on alot of issues on the other threads: stem cell research, gay marriage, tax-cuts and illegal downloading. But in my eyes we haven't touched on the most important issue that faces us: that is the proper balance between national security and civil liberties. In the wake of 9-11, I feel that civil liberties are being quietly trampled. So what I most want to see from the next president is:
· An end to the madness at Guantanamo.
· Reestablishment of checks and balances (No more Congress loaning war power to Bush + no more marginalizing the Judicial Branch)
· A reversal of PARTS of the Patriot Act:
o An end to the use of 'black bag' or 'sneak and peek' searches by law enforcement.
o Reasonable limit to wiretapping and surveillance
o End to military tribunals to try suspected terrorists outside the criminal justice system I hope that the REPs realize that standing up for civil liberties isn’t in opposition to being strong on national security and that both deserve equal attention. This is where I would start. Honar. “Not in denial about WMDs,” Hewitt PS I read an interesting article at the ACLU website that really outlines this issue well: http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9857&c=24]
PSS Jay: I ALREADY TOLD YOU that I wasn't against AFGANISTAN! We have had this conversation 10 times already! I am not/was never against toppling the Taliban.

PETE: there's a reason why people want to and should talk about Iraq. Domestic concerns should always be secondary to dealing with those wish to kill everyone in the domicile. If the administration has to placate obstructionists by authorizing a little extra domestic spending now so be it. When people in the Middle East see what can be accomplished when people are free to determine their own destinies the positive effect on the global economy will make the deficit disappear in a hurry. For those who are overly concerned about deficits, a thought experiment: I'm borrowing over $150,000 to finance my education, thereby running a huge deficit for the next three years. Does this mean that the sky is falling on me? Huge deficits have gone away in the past and there is no reason to think they won't do the same in the future. Re: Iraq and WMDs. It is insignificant whether or not WMDs were found inside Iraq. Saddam had the money, the know-how and the desire to cause severe damage to our country and Israel and openly and repeatedly announced his desires to do so. Has anyone seen the Saddam-commissioned painting of him standing strong in front of the burning twin towers that was considered public art in Iraq? The canard, most recently trotted out by John Edwards, that there was no Saddam/Al Qaeda connection is absurd on its face. Both entities had a demonstrated hatred and desire to kill a common enemy (Israel/United States) and your head is in the sand if you think they wouldn't act on it whenever they could. In light of the sanctions on Saddam it is even more naive to think that they would not do everything in their power to hide this connection from the global community...Saddam had enough money and an enormous country from within which to conduct his operations so as to do this...we know his billions wasn't going to making better lives for the citizens of Iraq. This is to say nothing of the Al-Zarqawi connections within Iraq, Iraq's harboring of terrorists on the run, and Saddam's payment of $25,000 (which goes a lot further over there than It does here) to the families of suicide bombers. Bob, As for your concern about civil liberties being violated: How have yours been violated? Right now there ARE limits to wiretapping and surveillance...what is it that you're afraid of? The government cannot act on what they find in their surveillance without just cause. Who is being violated by these black bag searches? What is in your black bag that you're so concerned about hiding? If these measures make us safer in a time of war (and it's hard to say that they haven't) then make an argument for why they should not be implemented. Remember, during the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Desperate times desperate measures dude...and everything turned out fine. I've got an idea for our representatives at home for Honar. Stop subsidizing the…OVER WORD LIMIT