NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Adult choices

Barbara Larsen looks for "Answers deserved," with faulty arguments, August 17, 2005
Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, an Army specialist, was killed in Baghdad in April, 2004. Ms. Sheehan is now camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch, promising to remain there until he agrees to talk with her face-to-face. She told reporters, "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is." She particularly wants to know why, if the cause is noble, he doesn't send his daughters to fight.
Casey was an Army volunteer, he was an adult capable of making choices with out his mothers permission. When he signed up, he agreed to the risk of a deployment. His mother is diminishing his commitment to the Army. The Bush daughters are adults, with minds of their own, and are free to choose to serve, or not to sever. More to the point, would Cindy Sheehan, and her supporters, change their minds if the Bush twins did sign up? I doubt it? There would always be claims of being given easy duty, unless on Striker patrols and woman are not given combat roles. Look what happened to poor Al Gore in Viet Nam, he was a behind the lines news reporter, with a body guard. Would Cindy Sheehan be happy if the Bush daughters were bomber pilots at 35,000 feet? I doubt it.

Freeing 50 million people from a cruel dictator is a noble enough cause, for most military volunteers. Waging a world wide war on islamic terrorist, comes in a close second. Putting rogue nations on notice, is a more distant third.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Your response is, almost as always, totally irrelevant. It seems that, no matter the structure of the army, it is always the poor dying at the command of the rich. Your sophistry is a half-assed attempt at blocking this basic fact.

You mean freeing 50 million people from a dictator and a party who we installed and controlled, replacing it with a neo-liberal system the people of Iraq don't want and a colonial system with permanent military occupation they don't want? Doesn't sound so noble now, does it? In 1991, we had a chance for them to rule themselves. But self-rule doesn't appeal to Washington. The Indian model does.

Fighting terror by committing it and increasing it? Whatever Iraq's status vis-a-vis terror was before the war (read: no actual proven links), it's sure as hell a lot higher now.

Putting rogue nations “on notice” by attacking the weakest among them and negotiating with the rest, proving that the way to deal with the Americans is to get a WMD, terror or conventional deterrent?

It's funny the logic that you and other conservatives use under the rubric of “pragmatism”. Never mind that you say that no baby should be killed in the mother's womb but have no problem killing 100,000 people abroad. Never mind that in every respect your proposals make the problem worse. It is the Left who is naïve and you who are sensible. Is this Bizarro World?

Tue Aug 23, 09:08:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home