was shot in the back of the neck, but didn't die. He's at home now. He's
also a paraplegic. It's a shame, he's 22 can't talk clearly, has to have
his family do everything for him, but that's all right because he "signed up
for it". The interview went on to talk about how the dad had to quit his
job because the mother wasn't strong enough to lift and turn her son every
two hours that is required. The family consists of the 2 parents and 1 son
and 2 teenage daughters. The parents and the daughters take shifts 24 hours
a day to look after him since he's on machines to keep him breathing. If
the machine were to fail, he's not able to alert anyone so someone has to be
with him constantly. I guess they "signed up for it" as well?
Marlon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:23 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: OReilly vs. Moore
>
> I was disgusted by the obvious lack of empathy for the dead, dying and
> wounded.
>
> Sure, all members of the US Military know that they may some day be put
> in harms way. But that is not "What they signed up for". They signed up to
> be the good guys. To pay for college. To learn a skill. To see the world.
To
> get out of their little hick town. The possibility of war was present, but
not
> the reason they signed up. It was more like the downside to the job. They
> also trust that their sacrifices will be for the "right" reasons. In Iraq,
that is a
> little unclear. Do we know they needed to be there? Do we know their
> deaths were the only way to accomplish what we are trying to
> accomplish? Did their commanders do EVERYTHING they could do to
> minimize their losses. That is a big, fat NO.
>
> I grew up in a succession of military towns, following my father as a Navy
> brat. Every time he left in the middle of the night after a 2:00 AM call,
we
> were worried he might never come back. The more typical 3 months out
> 3 months home was much easier to take.
>
> I know a family who's father won't come back. I know a family who have
> lost their house because their primary breadwinner has been called up
> from the reserves for the last 2 years. If these sacrifices are worth it,
I think
> more of America should be sacrificing. Right now, it is all falling on the
> military families. And the top dogs are not sacrificing at all. Maybe they
> are even personally profiting from the conflict. That thought is
sickening.
>
> Are American deaths worth more than those from other countries? Yes.
> Not because they are inherently better, but because they are "mine".
> Would an American killed while buying an ice cream in Iraq be worth it?
> No. Would the same soldier giving his life to save a woman trapped by
> gunfire on a bridge? Yes, that feels much better. Cleaner. Clearer.
>
> Do I believe we shouldn't do something we know is right because it might
> cost American lives? No. But I think any lives we lose should be for a
> cause we can be proud of. We should not waste this serious sacrifice, nor
> treat it less somberly than it deserves.
>
> The question then becomes: Is the price we are paying worth what we
> are getting for it?
>
> The thought that we shouldn't complain when our soldiers are killed is
just
> wrong.
>
> Jerry Johnson
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/04 03:42PM >>>
> Jerry,
>
> Ignoring the fuck you comment (which I know wasn't aimed at me),
>
> The troops did sign up to serve their country, at the behest of their
> Commander
> in Chief.
> When you sign up to the army, you know full well that you do that to
> defend your
> country or to seek its interest in combat, and that there is a chance that
> you
> will die in that pursuit. No one wants it, but that's the way it is.
>
> Perhaps this is a better way to put it than how Monique did.
>
> And I cannot understand why the impression given in the media and by
> Americans
> is that they do not expect their soldiers to die, and balk when they do.
> Understand quite clearly, that I am not saying soldiers SHOULD die, or
> that
> their death should be par for the course or that there should not be deep
> regret
> at the loss of human life (on both ends of the spectrum), but I am saying
> that
> the impression given through the outlet of the media and interviews etc.
> is that
> your average American doesn't seem to 'expect' deaths in a military
> engagement.
>
> Perhaps the US public has been spoilt on the notion of a 'smart' war
> where
> missiles strike targets from far away and there is no close in fighting
and
> no
> threat to American life? This attitude seemed to arise after the first
Gulf
> War,
> in my view.
>
> This could be totally incorrect, but that's the impression I get looking
at
> the
> news and at interviews with Americans, that the death of even one
> soldier is
> surprising, and intolerable. Which is an unrealistic expectation, that no
> soldiers' lives be lost in any engagement. They aren't yet fighting with
> remote
> controlled UAVs, and so far UAVs can't hold territory.
>
> Now if the argument is, "What are they dieing for" which is what Moore
> asked,
> then thats a completely different argument than," None of our soldiers
> should
> die at all in war, and it is shocking when one does."
>
> -Gel
> _____
>
> From: Jerry Johnson
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/04 02:35PM >>>
> >And, everyone is complaining about our troops being killed/injured...
> >That is what they signed up for!!!!
>
> That is absolutely the most repugnant statement I've read on this list.
> Got to take this personal for a minute.
> F*ck You!
> Jerry Johnson
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
