Oh yeah, Jamie Burnside, what on earth does that kooky sit-com have to do with this thread?

I don't take political tips from pre-pubescents. It's very cute, but hardly holds water

Errmm...are you insinuating that Shea was giving out political tips, Dan? Because she wasn't. Shea was asking questions. Heyhey (and Shea, too) is right, those 650 people who died all came from somewhere, were all someone's child, father, brother, friend. The only reason I posted this article is because last night the war came home for me, my kids, and my friends.

Oh, and just so you know, Shea is pubescent, and, much like yourself, precocious and idealistic too.

Dan, Why is it that when people cant refute an argument that they attack the person making it. Calling me 'gullible' and 'prepubescent' does not address any of the issues.
I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq. Am I right? If so, where do you get your 'unbiased' information from? I am genuinely interested because I really only have the media to get my information from. I find that there is the right wing media, central media and left wing media. When I approach the media I do not take at face value any article but look at the supporting evidence that the article quotes. If there is no supporting evidence I treat it as purely opinion and not fact. I suspect, and it is only a suspicion, that the media for you has only been dishing up nonsense lately. During the war when it appeared that nothing could stop our forces and things were going well for George, I am willing to bet that you believed everything the media had to say.
Anyway, please let me know what sources other than the main stream media that I should consult, but please no conspiracy sites from either end of the spectrum.

I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq

That's exactly right. It's all idealism still, for too many people. Not for me anymore though....

dharmagirl,
I went searching for teenage newsites for you but any that I found didnt seem to address current affairs. Sorry. I think one problem is that most of these are probably written by adults for kids. Maybe you could encourage Shea to start her own newspaper....she sounds bright and with your help she could write about real stories from a teenage point of view.....I am sure you have heaps of time...hahaha

Thanks, hey, but I found some...New York times has a decent enough older kids/young teen section, and Time for kids does a decent (if somewhat biased) job. She's doing really well with mainstream media sources...if she doesn't understand something she's been going off and researching it...if only more adults would do that instead of throw around idealistic notions parrot-fashion with no real concept of the realities of the circumstance.

I'll plant the seed of the newspaper...but she's said she wants her own site here at JoeU.

"

Errmm...are you insinuating that Shea was giving out political tips, Dan?

"

...yes, I was. Unless she's significantly less bright than her comments make her out to be, the her questions reflect her own views as well. If it helps you to understand, try pretending they're rhetorical.

"

Oh, and just so you know, Shea is pubescent, and, much like yourself, precocious and idealistic too.

"

Precocious, yes. Indealistic? Hardly.

"

Dan, Why is it that when people cant refute an argument that they attack the person making it. Calling me 'gullible' and 'prepubescent' does not address any of the issues.

"

I called you gullible because you were saying gullible things. I'm actually surprised you picked up one the meaning of the word, considering that your reading comprehension is low enough that you thought I was referring to you as 'prepubescent.' Sorry, I seem be somewhat venemous tonight, don't I...

"

I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq. Am I right? If so, where do you get your 'unbiased' information from?

"

And that, my gullible friend, is precisely my point. I very rarely assert anything political. Why? Because even I am not precocious enough to make assertions when I know that there is simply no information to be had on the subject. We can squabble all we like, but the only thing we know is that we know nothing. So for you to get all dogmatic about something you know nothing about- not that it's your fault- is ridiculous.

And lastly... Dharmagirl, I meant no insult to your daughter. Truly.

~Dan

She was asking questions Dan. She didn't have the answers last night when she asked the questions. Today she does have some answers. She went off and researched it on her own, read many different articles written from many different viewpoints, and came to conclusions based upon what she had found and read.

She says she can see things from both points of view - which I think is remarkably mature for someone her age - and so you know, she says that you may not think that you're insulting her, but she feels that you did, and you are.

Ignoring the jibes....surely there is a lot of information coming to us about Iraq...in fact it must be the top news story of the day, not just here but everywhere in the world. How much information do you need before you get off the fence. If you feel you know nothing then I agree you should say nothing but please do not make the presumption to speak for my level of knowledge...after all you are making these judgements (insulting and unprovoked as they are) based on what I have written in 30 lines of text on one subject....a bit short to sum someone up dont you think?

That seems to be the theme de jour for Dan....I dunno what got into him but he's been like this all over the place today. He even took Brad on earlier.

I agree with Hey, it IS a bit much to assume that you know as much as if not more than a person in 30 lines of text or less. It's especially presumptive to call someone gullible.

I know exactly what you are saying Dharma - or I think I do. It is completely different to say we lost a soldier than to say that we lost someone that we know - someone who has a name and a face. It makes it so much more personal.

You know, when these people joined the military, they joined it full well knowing that there was a chance that they would be put into some risky situations. I don't feel sorry for them at all. Callous as it may sound, people who join the military *must* enter into that bargain knowing they could get shipped off somewhere and have their head blown off, otherwise I think naivete is afoot. It's not as if they were drafted (yet) and forced to join. It *is* a shame that people have to die, but in the end it was their own choice to put themselves in that situation. If they were worried about losing their life, and the value of their life to loved ones, they should have gotten a nice blue or white collar job working somewhere in the states. This is PRECICELY why I have never joined any branch of the military. I feel that there are enough people in the US who *are* willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of national security, that I don't have to do it, and I thank them for that. And before anyone gets all national and starts defending their loved ones who are in the military, consider this:

* My dad was in the Marines during Vietnam. He got shipped to Japan 24 hours before he was to be shipped off to Vietnam. I may not exist if it was not for that fact.
*My grandfather was in WWI *and* WWII, as a Marine.
*My wife's side of the family has had about %80 of her family members serve in some branch of the military, some of them serving one or more tours of duty in Okinawa, Vietnam, Gulf War I...

If these people did not join the military to defend our country (regardless of who is sending them where, for whatever reason be it right or wrong), who do you think would be around to answer attacks like 9/11?

Let's bear one key thing in mind:

Friends, husbands, etc. may be there today. But they are there today so that our children won't have to go there tomorrow under worse circumstances. That is, after all, the ultimate point.

"She says she can see things from both points of view - which I think is remarkably mature for someone her age - and so you know, she says that you may not think that you're insulting her, but she feels that you did, and you are."

Please communicate my apologies. It was never my intent to put her down in any way, shape or form.

"If you feel you know nothing then I agree you should say nothing but please do not make the presumption to speak for my level of knowledge...after all you are making these judgements (insulting and unprovoked as they are) based on what I have written in 30 lines of text on one subject....a bit short to sum someone up dont you think?"

You, on the other hand, are a different case. Unless you have some top secret clearance that I don't know about, there is simply no way you could know anything. The information isn't availible and will not be for quite some time. I don't fault you for not knowing anything, I fault you for pretending like what the media prints is worth calling knowledge. Whenever you're dealing with print that follows an agenda, you may as well be reading astrology. And before somebody mentions political triangulation (i.e. finding the intersection points of different views on an issue to find the facts), I may as well mention that it doesn't work, since Euclidian geometry lacks the Z-axis. (For those of you who are not in high school- lol- what I mean is that two lines that aren't parallel don't necessarily have to intersect, because they could be on different planes.)

"I dunno what got into him "

JoeUser was getting boring and I needed some adrenaline. Brad is easy to stir up because he's arrogant- and has reason to be- so he'll jump on you if you disagree and call you a loser. I was easy for him- he just said I was too young to have a valid opinion. Then he wrote an article about it and it all went downhill from there... lol.

"I agree with Hey, it IS a bit much to assume that you know as much as if not more than a person in 30 lines of text or less."

That doesn't make any sense. I said there was nothing to know, which means that by definition we would have to know the same amount. That's not presumptive, that's just logical.

"It's especially presumptive to call someone gullible. "

I called him gullible because he thinks the media is a credible source. Honestly, can you blame me?

I'm inclined to agree with Mr_Frog, although he's so blunt that it even turns my stomach a little. I mean... I know some of those soldiers... I can't just say I don't care because that's what they enlisted for. I agree that they're there for a purpose, but I also think that there's no amount you can pay a soldier that would repay them for the emotional and physical trauma they go through. War... it's a horrible thing.

Locomama- when the first friend of mine died in the war- this was over a year ago- I was somewhat stunned. It was hard to imagine him in a war with real guns and real... well, a real war. It's been so long since we've fought a war on American soil that people have forgotten- or at least, I've forgotten- what it's like. Once it hits home that people you know are going to be dying, that's when your beliefs either stand firm or crumble. Either they can stand up to reality, or you were just an idealist all along.

Too bad we had to wait for blood to illuminate the issue.

~Dan

And ditto to what Brad said.

~Dan

Dan, I didn't call you a loser.  I simply don't think an unmarried 17 year old is in a position to insist to those who are married what marriage is all about.

Now, sticking with the topic here. We are, ultimately, in Iraq not for the Iraqi people but for the American people. It is easy for us to forget that. We went into Iraq because we believed that Iraq posed a threat to our country. I can't imagine any clear thinking person believing that a post-sanction Iraq with Saddam in charge would have been good for the United States.

9/11 showed us that terrorists will use anythign they can to murder Americans in as great of numbers as they can. And no amount of pacivity to the Islamo-fascists will change that. After all, during the 90s the United States did more to help Muslims than any other country (Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait). 

We are in Iraq for the simple strategic reason that we believe that in the long run Iraq needs to not be run by terrorists or fascists or religious fanatics (or all 3 at once).  That is why we're going to stay there.  Because we have to. The feelings of the Iraqi people are ultimately irrelevant. That said, I do believe (Based on the gallup poll) that most Iraqi's are glad we took out Saddam and want us to stay long enough to get the situation under control so that a democratic Iraq can be set up.

"Dan, I didn't call you a loser. I simply don't think an unmarried 17 year old is in a position to insist to those who are married what marriage is all about."

I wasn't being literal.

"We are, ultimately, in Iraq not for the Iraqi people but for the American people. It is easy for us to forget that."

Now that is a phenomenal point. I'll be the first to admit that I'd almost forgotten. Of course, the humanitarian issue remains... can we really ignore the welfare of the Iraquis and continue forward with our "collateral damage?" My answer would be a straight "yes," but there are always contenters (aka idealists).

~Dan

Ahem. "Contenders," I meant.

~Dan

Again, my point in writing this article was NOT necessarily to argue whether we should be there or not, it was simply to illustrate the point that the war has now become and upfront and personal issue for me. I'm atill abivalent about the whys and wherefores of it, as you can tell.

I agree that everyone serving in the military should have known that they would be required to deploy. The majority of my husband's friends and colleagues (himself included) WANTED to deploy to Iraq because it would be an opportunity for them to do what they were trained to do in a real-world scenario, not just an exercise.

Dan, I'm really tired of your sanctimonious, know-it-all attitude. REALLY tired of it. Sorry, but that's the truth (and how I REALLY feel)

Dharmagrl- feel free to blacklist me. If you disagree, then say so and then explain why. That's what this is all for, right?

Once again, if you don't want my comments, you have the power to remove them and to prevent me from further commenting- actually, all you need do is ask and I will stop commenting. But I will say what I think and I will not censor it for the sake of propriety. I know propriety and I know how to conform for the sake of being pleasant- and have only contempt for those that do.

~Dan

That's what this is all for, right?

No, Dan, that's NOT what all this is for. This article was my way of expressing my feelings about the war, about my children's concerns and my momentary lack of wisdom and inability to answer their questions. It was NOT intended as a forum for a political debate, nor was it intended to be a place for you to come and flex your mental muscles. I'm tired of your condescending attitude; I would have though that someone as staunchly Christian as yourself would have recognized the need for humility. Unfortunately, you seem to desire us all to worship at the altar of your intellect, and I for one, refuse to do so. I don't worship anyone or anything, least of all you. You're 17 Dan, and that limits you whether you like to accept it or not. I don't care what career-field your parents are in that you think allows you to consider yourself worldy and experienced, YOU are not, and it's that simple.

I won't blacklist you; I refuse to censor anyone. It is your right to express yourself, just as it's my right to express myself. We don't have to agree, and I don't have to like what you have to say, but it's still your RIGHT to say it.

"No, Dan, that's NOT what all this is for. This article was my way of expressing my feelings about the war, about my children's concerns and my momentary lack of wisdom and inability to answer their questions. It was NOT intended as a forum for a political debate, nor was it intended to be a place for you to come and flex your mental muscles."

Dharmagirl, I think you're being a little self-centered on this respect. If you intended this to not explode into a forum for political debate, you should have made the blog private. Especially due to the fact that the article hit the front page of JU, I would have EXPECTED it to turn into a rather multi-faceted discussion, considering the subject matter.

"I'm tired of your condescending attitude; I would have though that someone as staunchly Christian as yourself would have recognized the need for humility."

What does his being Christian have to do with his opinion on this matter? If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to read it, much less respond to it. I don't agree with some of his views either...but I'm not about to say he's wrong for what he thinks. If it works for him, great...even if I think differently about it.

"You're 17 Dan, and that limits you whether you like to accept it or not. I don't care what career-field your parents are in that you think allows you to consider yourself worldy and experienced, YOU are not, and it's that simple."

Now *that* is a totally unfair remark. How can you know what he's gone through in his 17 years by reading his posts and comments from a blog site? I've known a lot of young people in their late teens and early 20's who are a lot more responsible, wise and intelligent than people twice or even thrice their age. I'm sorry to say that this comment is simply ignorant. From what I've read of your blogs (and most of them are pretty decent), you've had a lot of issues yourself. I'm just curious as to how old you are to be passing such broad-based judgement based on age.

"I won't blacklist you; I refuse to censor anyone. It is your right to express yourself, just as it's my right to express myself. We don't have to agree, and I don't have to like what you have to say, but it's still your RIGHT to say it."

So why even bother to comment about it at all? It seems like you're just fueling a fire for more literal fisticuffs. Again, if what Dan says affects you in such a manner that it pisses you off so you're seeing double, don't give him an opportunity to present his opinions.

For the record, even if I don't agree with what someone says, I respect their opinion, *but* I will be the first person to tell them they are full of shit if I think so. Not to be offensive or anything, but why sugar-coat something for the sake of propriety, as Dan said.

Mr Frog:

I'm 35.


How can you know what he's gone through in his 17 years by reading his posts and comments from a blog site?

On the same token, how can Dan know what I've gone through? That's a two-way street. If you read Dan's responses, you'll see that he also made presumptions about other people who responded. THAT"S what pisses me off.


..and you're right, had I not wanted other people to respond I should have limited the audience.

actually, all you need do is ask and I will stop commenting

Hey Dan? You really shouldn't contradict yourself so conspicuously in the future? I mean, especially since you are so quick to point out when others are not making sense, blah, blah, blah. You have actually managed to impress me here though? I mean, you're speaking in English! . My, my, my: Did you misplace the little Latin book or something, huh? Please DO continue to visit MY blog, and dazzle me w/ all that pretentious Latin stuff, huh? Especially since I already politely requested you stop it (as did Dharma) and you completely ignored our requests. So take another peek at your own quote above, huh? And follow your own suggestion for once~instead of forever preaching to the rest of us. Your humility truly takes my breath away young man.

~MadPoet

Hey Dharma~Very insightful and thought provoking article. I am always learning new things from you~important things. So I thank you for that again. My own thoughts on this kinda heated topic here? I have never understood war at all. It seems to have too much to do w/the ego, and not enough to do with our hearts and rational minds. I wrote a poem about the Twin Towers, and read it at a poetry reading recently. Here's something from that now: Red is the color of blood/ashes are white/bruises are blue. (That sums up how I feel about what Bush is doing right now. MP)

Mr Frog, If you had read Dan's writings, you would know a lot about what he had/hadn't experienced. Besides that, no 17yr old American, unless they got into the military with a fake ID, knows diddly about war. Dharma, on the other hand, puts it right up front that she is an Air Force wife. In my book, the experience of an Air Force wife trumps that of a 17yr old's any day when it comes to matters of war.

I know a lot of guys who have joined the military and were chomping at the bit for "some real action." This, again is lack of experience talking. How often do you hear a war vet talking about being excited about fighting? You can have everyone in your family before you go to war and you still won't know what you are in for until you are standing in the desert getting shot at.

I dare say that I would have a sour taste in my mouth about the war if I got news that my cousin/friend/etc just got killed. It doesn't mean I would lose track of the reasoning behind why we are there. I just think that dharma and others have every right to talk/write about how different you feel when it becomes personal. I personally thought that was all she was trying to convey.