Posted on 11/02/2006 8:26:18 AM PST by Dominic Harr
:-)
Did you read the post I started this thread with? I don't believe Veterans would disagree with what I stated.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said. But what you heard is not what I said. Go back and read what I actually said.
I *know* most would answer, "wow, compared to charging the German trenches in Verdun, I have it easy".
Well, the ones who know anything about Verdun, anyway.
I'm about as un-politically correct as you can get and I still think the title is bad. Making valid points doesn't get you anywhere when you choose a title that just doesn't work. Even with the casualty numbers much lower than WWII it doesn't change the fact that our troops are tired and war is hell. When you approach those fighting or the families of those fighting and use terms such as "Cake Walk", you are in danger of getting a good cyber smack to the snout.
I do very much agree that Americans should go over the numbers from previous wars and count our lucky stars. Americans should also be aware that fighting a PC war is actually costing lives.
I bet if you walked up to a family with loved ones deployed during WWII and said that compared to the great war this is a cake walk you could have walked away with a shiner.
That is the main trick here in this war.
It's an interesting, dangerous problem. But militarily, it never once threatens a 'victory' on the battlefield.
Compared to "how do we take this island with 20,000 dug-in Japanese", tis a better problem to have.
Both are on a yearly basis
roger that...meet me at the VFW...
I haven't read through the entire thread but I read enough to know that the title you chose caused more comments to be negative than the body of your post. If the title had read, "The Iraq War is a Cake-Walk COMPARED TO...", you probably wouldn't have gotten so many negative responses.
I looked past the title and read the body of what you posted. After reading the body, I knew what you meant in your title, and that you were not saying that our military men and women in Iraq were on a "calk walk". Just that it's a "cake-walk" compared to past wars. And that sir, is historically true. I'm confident that in the context of what your point is, our son, who served in Iraq, would agree with you. His great-uncle was killed in WWII on Iwo Jima. Time, history and perspective are assets.
You think your point is clear, and you then go on to disparage those who point out that your "attention getter" does not help the point you make.
Only liberals have the license to use words and make them mean whatever they want them to mean.
Conservatives, and most Freepers, understand that words have meaning, and if you make a point you wish people to take seriously, you need to be able to back up your words with logic.
You have used a phrase "Cake Walk" and decided that you are the arbiter of the meaning of that phrase. The fact is, utility, history and usage of the phrase are not on your side.
Some people who probably HAVE the right to tell you how wrong you are have been exceedingly civil in their comments to you, and you disparage them.
That says a lot more about you than it does about them.
You would be very wrong.
On 1/2 a dozen occasions I have said, "It's tragic your son died over there, but he's a hero. We're winning this thing in a cake-walk. The enemy never once even threatens to win, militarily."
That's my point -- you folks have somehow lost sight of the reality. Victory, winning in a cake-walk, is a *good* thing, not insulting.
Just to be clear, most of the soldiers you know "sitting in a Vet hospital with no arms and legs pissing out of a tube" would answer your question, "wow, compared to charging the German trenches in Verdun, I have it easy"?
Right -- I like that.
The title got folks to come in and discuss. Then when they got just a bit into the debate, or perhaps when they went back and took a moment to read what was actually said, they realized they were wrong.
I want this discussed, all over the place. This has achieved that.
I was clear in my first post what I meant.
I'm "disparaging" the folks who read a headline and jump to conclusions without ever reading the actual article. :-)
That's a knee-jerk 'Rosanne Rosannadana' moment.
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.
But there's a tendency online for folks to comment without listening. And that creates thread bumps.
Yes, I read your entire post before I posted initially.
Then I read every single response before I posted initially.
Then I said I agree with the sentiment of your post, saying that as I politely tried to help you see why people are taking issue with it.
Then you call me "Politically Correct", which given the content of my post, it is clearly not.
You do more damage to your point with flawed rhetoric. That is a clear sign of a poor communicator.
Gee, that's not what I said at all.
Just to be clear, I believe that soldier would likely say, "patrolling Fallujah where I got hit by an IED, we had it much easier than the soldiers who had to charge the trenches in Verdun. But it still sucks, war is hell."
so... 2112 deaths/22 months = 96 deaths per 160,000 soldiers PER MONTH. This is equivalent to about 60 deaths per 100,000 soldiers --> That means that the firearm death rate quoted (and I'm not sure all of these were from firearms anyway, but even if they were) is 60 per 100,000 soldiers PER MONTH. How else can one read the statistic you provided?
I did read your post in it's entirety before I posted.
"Has anyone wondered why information about the enemy body count is non existent?"
Read a book "Highway to Hell" by a former member of the SAS working as a private military contractor: said over 53000. (Thoroughly enjoyed the book btw)
"then you draw them in like a trap to their destruction."
He said the same thing - his own personal theory.
Ya think? He posted this vanity as if it were something that had not occurred to the majority of people who follow current events and post on FR, and did it poorly.
Well said, bwteim! The flaming of Dominic Harr is quite uncalled for.
:-)
Actually, I gained this thread some traffic with the proper rhetoric.
Had this been just another post, "we're winning in Iraq", it would have been ignored. Instead, I put a teaser up as a title which I fully explained in the post.
People who don't read posts came in here with knee-jerk reactions and had to then debate my point.
This technique is very successful, trust me on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.