Rusted Sky

I read the whole thing, and I didn't read anything there that I didn't know. So I find it hard to see how the media is lying. I heard all that same stuff from the media, though in different newscasts and such. You just have to piece it together.

And I will simply disagree with her(?) that the 'only tribute' applicable is to stay until the job is done. I've just never agreed with that logic. Not to say I think we should pull out now, but, I just can't agree with it. People may like it for this specific instance, but logically it lends itself to recursive unending loops. Again, this might not be the case for THIS (war) instance, but, the logic 'stay until the job is done' can be uttered endlessly for any task no matter how ill-conceived it is. This isn't an anti-war statement. It's a statement on my perceptions of logic.

And while I do wish we'd leave Iraq, there *is* something simply 'fun' about the idea of camping in the middle east and mowing down anyone stupid enough to attack us. It does go against everything I believe in terms of national sovereignty and all that jazz, but, I imagine it very much the same as putting superman into ::insert violent theater:: and having him kill anyone who touches him. Those who leave him alone go unharmed. Doesn't that just seem fun?

Oh, really? Rawb - let me ask you... in your logical system, is the concept of 'lying by omission' an acceptable thing? Oh, I'm quite sure that there's such constraints on mainstream media space that there's only enough room for stuff that'll pull in the viewers/readers to maximal advantage - and good news doesn't sell. So it gets left out... but that doesn't mean they're 'lying' - does it?

Re your comment: "Those who leave him alone go unharmed. Doesn't that just seem fun?" - um, that's diplomacy in a nutshell. Don't harm me, and I won't harm you. That works on a personal, national, and international level. The problem occurs when you DO get hurt by the other, and you've got to come up with a response to that which precludes it happening again.

So - if by killing off the Al Quaeda leaders, jihadis and Zarqawis we eliminate that particular viral contagion from the memepool, then I consider that a darn effective strategy, particularly if at the same time we're removing the inducements to that particular insanity in the area. (Think of spraying a hornet's nest with insecticide before removing it. You might think it more honorable and brave to remove it without insecticide, but you won't persuade me to do it that way.)

J.

Ummh Rawb,

"I didn't read anything there that I didn't know."

It sounds to me, that you are a consumer of a wide range of media, determined to form an opinion as much based on fact as possible -- the best, that's the most we all can ask of each other and I sincerely hope that the Blogosphere helps grow this sentiment.

You especially should therefore have recognized the value of this account as it precisely does what YOU say: it puts it all together. The vanity of centering a conversation around varying degrees of the participants' erudition is a certain precursor for a poor debate.

"I don't agree with her (?) that the 'only tribute' applicable is to stay until the job is done."

(The her (?), I can only assume to be a typo, unless you think I look like a sex change. LOL!)

That sentence is a bit of a charade, because that is actually not what you are saying. What you are saying is, that (a) you are undecided about whether to stay in Iraq or to pull out and that (b) you wish to open a new debate, abstract in nature, addressing the general validity of the commonly held belief: "Finish what you have started".

You therefore clearly do not share my conviction that it is in the nation's best interest to 'finish the job' in Iraq, and am glad to debate the (b) with you on another occasion.

Now I am left with what I can only describe to be an assumption, of what I believe to have caused your protest: The seemingly callous attitude displayed in certain sections.

Well you simply misunderstood, and judged too quickly, making your entire comment slanted as a result. The father writes to his military friends in a relaxed tone, his guard is down, and in a typical soldier to soldier tone, takes certain things in his stride and purposely overstates the lightness of the subject. Perhaps clumsy in your eyes, but that's the reality of the soldiers who deal with real life threatening situations every day of their lives.... get over it. His character is not on trial here, we are dealing with the bigger picture of the subject matter.

As Jerry has intuitively realized, this is an honest, straightforward account of an ugly situation (“The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.”), voiced in a personal email from one military man to fellow members of the military, and most importantly, from the viewpoint of a loving father, who is proud of his son.

Therein lies the power of the account, devoid of any spin and hidden agenda of the MSM. That's why I believe this to be a 'must read' for all who earnestly strive to form an objective opinion.

You need to join our appreciation of the account on that basis alone, and not get stuck on semantics.

Rawb wants to recast the entire debate? He's years too late on that one.

Thank you for stopping by, Alexandra.

J.