Casualties = death, grief, pain

Submitted by Stan on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 1:57pm

This morning's Wilmington Star-News headline "Casualties to ratchet up..." commenting on the ongoing war in Afghanistan was pathetically cold. Perhaps that's because so few of us are making any personal sacrifice in the conduct of this endless debacle ... and because the numbers of dead and wounded mean little to many readers.

I'd prefer their headline read "More of our nation's sons and daughters to be maimed or killed in Afghanistan."

And, rather than parroting the military-political double-speak about the necessity for these deaths, perhaps they could question why we are sacrificing our loved ones and our treasury to support a conflict that has no meaning except to those who have fought there and, of course, their families.

I'm reminded of the same headlines and double-talk about Vietnam. Who, except those of us who fought there and the families of those who died, cares about Vietnam or the senseless battles for some hill or valley that resulted in no lasting benefit to anyone? We've simply switched our senseless support to another corrupt regime and substituted terrorism for communism as the reason.

Support our troops? Yes. And a good way to help is by making sure words about the war punch readers in the gut. Perhaps then readers will punch Congress and the President in the gut and get our loved ones out of this bloody, painful, grief-creating morass of death and destruction.

Share on Facebook

I already see the old saw being applied

Submitted by James on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 2:23pm.

How can we pull out? Won't that mean that the lives already lost will have been lost in vain?

Hell yes that's what it will mean. The only question is whether there will be thousands of additional lives lost in vain before we finally come to understand the breathtaking stupidity of this war.

The war in Iraq has been a fucked up waste of lives and money, just like the war in Afghanistan. How can anyone think we're the world's leading country when we're so god damned stupid?

Do good. Be nice. Have fun.

That brings to mind a line Gravel

Submitted by Jake Gellar-Goad on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 3:44pm.

said at a presidential debate. It was something akin to what is said on his website here:

http://www.mikegravel.us/?q=node/238

There are Americans who say that by leaving Iraq, we would be saying that our soldiers died in vain. But the only thing worse than soldiers dying in vain, is more soldiers dying in vain.

Grayson

Submitted by James on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 2:26pm.

Via email:
____________________________________

Dear James:

We're making progress toward peace.

Late last week, Congressional leaders refused to offer the House and up-or-down vote on $33 billion more for war. Why? Because they knew that they wouldn't get it.

So instead, they engaged in arcane procedural maneuvering, resorting to a "self-executing rule" festooned with impenetrable amendments. When they have to go that low, you know something weird is happening.

Or something beautiful. And something beautiful is happening - despite the procedural legerdemain, 168 members of Congress voted in favor of an amendment to require "a plan by April 4, 2011 on the safe orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.s. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment."

In other words, there are now 168 votes for peace. More than ever before.

50 more votes, and we're done.

So keep watching your inbox, and answer the call. You might have to send an e-mail, sign a petition, or make a telephone call. Whatever it might be, make your voice heard, and this war will end.

We can do it.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

P.S. Here is a Roll Call of Honor, the ten Members of Congress who voted against the "self-executing rule," and in favor of all three amendments to end the war:

Duncan
Filner
Grijalva
Kucinich
Michaud
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree

And me.

Sad that not a single North Carolina Congressmen has the wisdom or backbone or both to stand against this insanity.

Do good. Be nice. Have fun.

Is the Stan of this post

Submitted by AdamL on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 3:08pm.

Stan Goff? Just wondering.

No

Submitted by Stan on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 6:26pm.

Bozarth

Stan Bozarth

Sorry

Submitted by AdamL on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 7:58am.

I probably should have known that. Nice to meet you.