This article, published in today's New York Times is, I think, must reading for everyone. It is written by Dexter Filkins who travelled with a Marine division as they fought their way through Falluja. It is titled "In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War". If you are opposed to this war, this article will illustrate the madness of this war and waste of our finest, bravest and most heroic young men. If you are in favor of this war, this article will confirm the character, bravery and heroism of those who are fighting it. Either way, this article is worth reading.

I am posting a link to the article rather than posting the article in an attempt to be fair. I am opposed to the war, and the article is from the New York Times. I don't want to be accused of being either an "unpatriotic liberal" or a "purveyor of yellow journalism", both of which I have been called, so the choice is yours. Follow the link if you choose. At the risk of offending anyone, however, I will say that no matter what your view, this article is worth reading and worth entering the free subscription to the New York Times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/internat...artner=homepage

 

Why is it that every time this police action is brought up, those who defend it choose to mention "...the character, bravery and heroism of those who are fighting it."

The war isn't about those who are fighting it as they aren't the ones who made the decision to be there, they're just following orders. It's the people in power who make the bad decisions, not the grunts on the line. No one is questioning their bravery are they? It's just a way to wave the flag around some more in an effort to browbeat those who would speak out against our flawless leadership.

 

Did you read the article? The article is about the soldiers and the horrors of war. It has nothing to do with those who made the decision to put them there. Regardless of which side you are on, I do think the article speaks to the character, bravery and heroism of those fighting it.

As a matter of fact, I oppose the war as I stated in my post.

 

I did read the article, and my comments weren't directed at you, I was just questioning why it is that everyone in favor of the war seems to throw the bravery card down, as if that was justification for being there in the first place.

 

Perhaps it is because we as a country are the only one's "brave" enough to go in and do what need to be done? Remove a dictator that killed thousands of his own citizens (the Kurds) like Hilter did (by killing jews) a half century ago.

From where I sit. I have never understood why environmentally consequense liberals where not outraged at Saddam Husseins global environmental terrorism during the first Gulf War? When he ordered lighting up over six hundred oil wells that where thought to burn for five or six years wreaking havoc on the global environment. From my point of view that is all the proof that I needed to show that he was a mad man. If it was not for American ingenuity those oil wells would have burned for years! If it was not for our involvement what would the long term environmental impact have been?

Hmmmm? Perhaps I see a pattern here that some fail to see? I dictator that kills citizens of his country by the thousands (Kurds) (FACT), Then invades a neighboring country (Kuwait) (FACT) Orders an act that would have caused global environmental impact (FACT). I just don't get why some people do not view this police action as a justifed act. It seems that in 1938 Hilter did about the same? Or am I just NOT getting it?

 

Again, what does that have to do with the bravery of our troops as justification for policing the world?

 

Rob,

Based on Rick's previous post about the loss of his son's friend that was mentioned in the NY Times article that you post the link to. I just wish that Dexter Filkens, the NY Times reporter that wrote the article would have taken the time to research and the respect to accurately report that the Marine that he mentioned was in fact Lance Corporal Nick Ziolkowski. Not Corporal Ziolkowski. As any veteran knows, the USMC is very sensitive to being referred to by their proper rank.

That stated: As one that was against the Viet Nam police action. There becomes a time when the course of human events dictates action that may be deemed unpopular by many at the time.

I can honestly say that I have had the opportunity to meet many people that survived the hallocaust or the ravishing of Hitler's army of Poland that are thankful that the United States had the conviction to do what we did not have to do.

The next question is then Darfur? I do not see any other countries such as France or Germany jumping into help there?

 

Matt

Saddam was a madman, no one would deny that, but that is not the point. Your goals are lofty, but do you actually believe that we went in to accomplish those goals? Do you actually believe that we will accomplish those goals?

I don't. We have created a situation that is far worse than when we started. We have destroyed a country, killed who knows how many innocents, and created terrorists with every bomb we drop. Do you remember the expression, "We had to destroy the village to save it." That is what we are doing here too. All the while we are wasting fine young American lives. For what?

I hope you read the article. I'm sure you did. My point in linking to it was that it shows the horrors of war and what our administration has put our soldiers into. Again, I ask for what?

 

It has to do with the American spirit and our citizen soldiers belief system to fight and die to help others attain the freedom that others take for granted. I can best sum that spirit up in one of my favorite quotes which I have posted here before:

I may wholly disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it!

Perhaps you do not like it. But as the preeminant remaining Super Power, if not us? Who? The United Nations has proven to be ineffective at the job in the last half century when it comes to the rough stuff.

I think that Lincoln summed it up pretty well in his Gettysburg address. I think that it applies to the freedom of all people. Some times, it is necessary to do what is necessary whether you like it or not. Short term pain for long term gain.

 

No. I do not ever remember hearing that expression. Where is is from? Who said it?

I certainly hope that you are not quoting Hollywood as history?