Mad and Jill, thank you.

Jill, you got it. Exactly.

The difference between expressing a feeling and inviting a comment is one frequently lost on us (men) just ask my wife:)

Yes, Grey, I know that all too well. Women are talkers, men are do-ers. Women have the ability to listen and not do; men think that we're asking them to fix the problem.

Thanks for the input!

You know what, I'm actually going to side with Dan on this one. If you aren't over there first hand, then you don't know about war. You might know about the secondhand effects of war, but nobody can know shit about war unless they've been in one, or are in one.

JillUser : Besides that, no 17yr old American, unless they got into the military with a fake ID, knows diddly about war

Tell that to the hundreds of teenage kids dying on the street today in gang wars. No it's not Fallujah, but it's war all the same...and war is hell whether you're in Compton, Ca or Tukrit, Iraq. Tell that to the hundreds of immigrants who come to America from war torn countries, to grow up here and then (possibly) join our military to protect our country.

Okay Mr. Frog, you're doing a good job sounding a bit kookish there. JillUser is clearly referring to Dan, a 17 year old high school student living a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

If you really think that a normal person is going to conclude that a 17 year old is on par with knowing about the military experience with the spouse of someone actively serving then go right ahead.

I would, however, be the first to agree that a 17 year old can know a great deal on warfare depending on the cirumstances. But Dan, like most of us here, know about war only from the accounts of strangers from research and the media.

I have no personal experience in war. But I still, like Dan I suspect, understand the reasons why this war is necessary. But I would never try to compare my personal understanding of warfare itself (i.e. the danger, loss, experience) with someone who's been there or has first hand accounts from an intimate.

Mr Frog, I personally think that comparing thugs in street gangs to our men in the military is a slap in the face. Those street gangs might know about hatred and killing but those aren't the motivations for the US going to war in Iraq.

The kid that you are defending is not in any of the grasping at straws examples you gave. He is a pampered teen sitting safe at home in a middle class house in the mid west. I know this because I have read what he and his parents have written.

To give you some actual ideas for answers to your daughter's questions....

SOME of the people over there don't want us there. Many of them did and do want us. The ones that don't want us are generally people who were better off under the rule of a man who thought nothing of killing hundreds of his own subjects at a time, of stealing other mens' wives for his own pleasure, of torture and suffering as an evening's diversion. We went over there to get rid of that ruler, and to make sure that the country would not suffer from someone just as bad quickly taking his place. Until we've made sure of that, we HAVE to stay there, to get the job done. Of course the President knows that our soldiers are fathers, brothers, sons, who have family that love them and want them to come home safely. But they joined the army willingly to help keep the world safe, or make it safer, and that's what this war is supposed to be about: making the world a safer place, because a very dangerous and evil man who would to anything to gain and keep power has been removed.

making the world a safer place,

Anytime human beings are being slaughtered~no matter which side you are on~the world IS NOT a safer place. Again, our humble President is allowing his swollen ego to rule his brain, and too many people are dying as a result. Sad. Very, very sad. Dharma~at least you still got me and Jill, huh? Hang in there, kid...

~MadPoet

This has been a very good lesson for both my daughter and I.

Citahellion, thank you for your thoughts. Shea has basically figured things out for herself, and, like I, is still ambivalent about the situation.

Mad, Jill and Brad, thank you for your support.

Mr Frog: how dare you even attempt to compare what my husband and his colleagues do to 'gang warfare'.

I'll dare whatever I damn well please. I believe that everyone ought to take a couple of steps back from their emotional perspectives on this matter and look at things with a little more objectivity. Now that it seems that I have to fight this particular battle on three different fronts, I'm going to take it one person at a time.

DharmaGirl: When your husband gets back (and I honestly hope he does get back in one piece) why don't you ask him about some of the things that he saw our soldiers do while he was in Iraq? Why don’t you ask him about some of the missions that he may have been involved in while he was over there? Odds are that he won't or more likely can't tell you about some of the things. Do you honestly think that there were no cases where innocents were harmed or killed due to the actions of our men over there? Do you not think that some of our guys over there have acted brutishly and have done things to some of the people over there that would be frowned upon if they were back over here in the states? You CAN'T know these things because you're not there to see them. What the media is feeding you about this war is sensational nationalism at its best.

I was discussing this particular discussion with my mother-in-law today. My father-in-law served in two tours of duty in Vietnam. She said that even with his first-hand account of what the war was like, she could still not get a clear picture of what war is actually like. She also said that he told her some stories about what some of the men did over there that wouldn't exactly get them lined up at the gates of heaven. Maybe I just don't have enough faith in my fellow man to do the right thing, but I don't think that war, as a basic event, has changed much since my father-in-law fought in Vietnam.

I knew I was going to take some hits for the gang warfare comment and I still stand behind it. Gang warfare is only different for the sole reason of the purpose of the war. If you look at it from an objective point of view, these people are soldiers in their own right, fighting for a cause that they believe in. They are disciplined in the fact that they fight for what they think is right, regardless of what you or I think. I am not condoning what they do in any sense of the word, but all they are soldiers fighting a street war. Your husband takes orders from his higher-ups. And if he is a good soldier, he carries those orders out to the best of his ability. He believes in what he is fighting for, otherwise he probably wouldn't have joined the military. THIS is the distinction I was trying to convey with this.

Brad: No, I can't assume that she was just referring to Dan...because she said that "NO 17 year old". Again, broad and baseless generalization based on age.

"I have no personal experience in war. But I still, like Dan I suspect, understand the reasons why this war is necessary. But I would never try to compare my personal understanding of warfare itself (i.e. the danger, loss, experience) with someone who's been there or has first hand accounts from an intimate."

And this is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to get across. Except that some people seem to lend more credibility to a military spouse about what war is exactly about. I'm sorry, but even if dharmagirl's husband tells her everything about what happened in Iraq, she still can't have a clue about war. She can gather her own interpretations of what war is about, from the telling of her husband, but her opinion lends no more credibility to me than Dan's. Now, if I were to consider her husband's take on things, that's a completely different story. I just can't swallow the "my word is better or more true because I'm an airman's wife" attitude that she is giving. Personally, I think the whole war is a crock of shit, and that we should have not gone in the first place, but that is an argument for another blog.

JillUser: You say that street gangs may know about hatred or killing but those aren't the motivations of the US going to war... maybe not, but do you think that our guys over there don't feel some sort of hatred towards these people? Maybe hate them because they feel that they're responsible for 9/11 or the USS Cole or something else (whether it is a correct assumption or not). What about the people who are being held under military surveillance in Guantanamo Bay? I've heard stories (fed by the media, so I take it with a huge grain of salt) that our military men have been beating and starving some of these people. What about the guy who lobbed a grenade into one of our soldier's tents in Iraq a few months ago? Again, there is a lot of emotion behind these comments, and I don't think anyone here is really trying to view this whole discussion from an objective standpoint.

The only reason why I'm defending Dan is because everyone here is reducing his opinions of this whole discussion because he's 17 and opinionated. I'm not saying that his knowledge of warfare is superior to anyone else's. I'm not saying that what he is saying is necessarily right either. But he has brought up what I think are some very valid and thoughtful points in this discussion and people are basically writing him off because he's a 17-year-old suburban white-boy. This was actually an interesting discussion, and then all of a sudden it started to become a personal attack against Dan.

I'll dare whatever I damn well please.

Not on MY blog, you won't.

What the media is feeding you about this war is sensational nationalism at its best

And you have some secret source the rest of us don't know about?

He believes in what he is fighting for, otherwise he probably wouldn't have joined the military.

Now YOU assume too much.

I just can't swallow the "my word is better or more true because I'm an airman's wife" attitude that she is giving.

In THIS case my word IS better. I've got more experience with military life than Dan does. And, btw, you failed to ask if I had any prior military experience. For all you know I could be ex USMC. NOW who's assuming?

You know, I've never blacklisted anyone before, but I'm blacklisting you....with relish.

Mr. Frog- your support is appreciated. I know that I'm a difficult person to stand up for, and I also admire your staunch position in the face of somewhat heated opposition. See more about those positions later on...

"Especially since I already politely requested you stop it (as did Dharma) and you completely ignored our requests."

Dharmagirl's request meant nothing because it was not her blog. I don't recall you asking me to stop, but I assure you there shall be no more latin in your blog. My most profound apologies. I stand behind my statements. Umm... but not next time don't act so happy with yourself when you think you've caught somebody in hypocrisy. I've a lot of respect for you, MadPoet, but that just made you appear immature. I understand that you sort of have to back up Dharmagrl, though.

"The difference between expressing a feeling and inviting a comment is one frequently lost on us"

I think I'm going to keep this quote!

"The kid that you are defending is not in any of the grasping at straws examples you gave. He is a pampered teen sitting safe at home in a middle class house in the mid west. I know this because I have read what he and his parents have written."

Personal attacks like this don't go far towards establishing credibility, Jill.

"Mr Frog: how dare you even attempt to compare what my husband and his colleagues do to 'gang warfare'. "

Because war is war, whatever the circumstance, and death is death. I understand that your husband is in the war, and you find it disrespectful to equate the two, but the relevant aspects are similar.

Everybody- lay off on the frog man. I feel bad for putting him in such a contentious situation... I can take the heat, but I don't like to spread it around.

~Dan

I would do the same if it were my blog dharma. Hypocrisy ran rampant here. Dan did a good job in starting it off with the "I don't take political advice from a prepubescent.........". What ever happened to age doesn't matter? Why shouldn't we then dismiss his view and not take advice from a high school kid?

Mr Frog took part of my statement (i.e. "No 17 yr old") and ran with it. He tried to grasp at straws, failed miserably and just got nastier. Plenty of our soldiers are fighting to give the Iraqis a better way of life. I doubt any of them blame those people for the USS Cole or 9/11. And Mr Frog seemed more dominated with emotion than fact than anyone he was pointing fingers at.

"Not on MY blog, you won't."

When you make it a part of a public forum I will.

"And you have some secret source the rest of us don't know about?"

Absolutely not. I'm just trying to drive home the point that you or I or anyone only know as much as we are being told. And that isn't a whole hell of a lot.

"He believes in what he is fighting for, otherwise he probably wouldn't have joined the military.
Now YOU assume too much."

Obviously he believes in what he is fighting for, otherwise he would have gotten out of the military. If he serves his country's military and doesn't believe in the core beliefs of why he his defending his country, then he is no better than the rest of the mindless sheep that follow the leadership of this country. I know that if I did not believe in the reasoning behind this war, and if I were to be shipped out to fight in it, I would find a way to be discharged from the military. Because deep down, I don't fight for causes I don't believe in. You should learn to recognize a compliment when one is given.

"In THIS case my word IS better. I've got more experience with military life than Dan does. And, btw, you failed to ask if I had any prior military experience. For all you know I could be ex USMC. NOW who's assuming?"

You may have more experience in military life than your husband does, but do you have more war experience? If not, then I believe that your husband's accounts of war hold much more credence than yours. Are you ex-USMC? I would think that this far into this argument, you would have at least stated this, with some relative information to boot.

"You know, I've never blacklisted anyone before, but I'm blacklisting you....with relish/"

Thank you for showing everyone how closed minded and hyper critical of someone else's thoughts you can be.

Dan, don't worry about it, I can handle it. I'm just trying to fuel a heated discussion and get people thinking in ways they might not have before.

Wow. What a debate!

And to think: all of this back-and-forth got started with a simple picture of Ted Knight, Jm J Bullock, and whoever the hell that woman is who played whatever her character's name was.

Dan, if you can take the heat, what part of what I said is a personal attack? I stand by my credibility. I have merely restated info you revealed in your blogs. You said you are a 17yr old and gave your address out which I merely repeated as being in the mid west. I think you are showing your lack of experience here.

JillUser: You are more than welcome to dismiss mine or anyone else's view for that matter. It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. I just like to think that people dismiss my view for some academic purpose, rather than being offended at my brash and direct nature. And how did I fail miserably? If I recall, there were several people in this discussion that turned this into a huge pissing match about credibility based on age, location or experience. I was at first trying to assert my viewpoint on why these people are over there in the first place from an unemotional and detached stance. It was everyone else who decided to take my views out of context, and I felt compelled to back-up my opinions with more opinion.

I already did dismiss your viewpoint, and I'm tempted to delete this thread and article. This wasn't about WHY we're there, it was about my feelings at having people I know killed, maimed, wounded...it was about the fact that I CAN'T just turn off the TV and make it all go away, it's real and tangible to me now. Unfortunately it disintegrated into a "pissing contest" about who's opinion was more valid than who elses..and that was bullshit, straight up bullshit. The more prolific contributors to this thread didn't give a fuck about my feelings and emotions when I wrote this or even what I wrote it about; they wanted to make sure they got their 2 cents worth in and fuck everyone else. So, thanks for that...and I'm sure you know who you are.

Oh, and by saying that I'm not trying to invoke any feelings of sympathy or empathy from you. I don't want anything from you. I especially don't want to hear anymore arrogant, idealistic bullshit.

Jamie, my wife saw the picture and said "Too Close for Comfort". Finally two and two add up. And her name was Muriel Rush.

sadly this excellent post has turned into a bit of a slanging match (of which I unfortunately contributed to earlier on.)
But back to the topic at hand. I have read a few articles lately where US troops have been criticised for being heavy handed (now I am not talking about operations here but more interactions with US troops on an individual basis.) My response was to think what it would be like as a soldier over there, imagine that you have been in the country a long time, maybe buddies of yours have been killed or wounded, you are homesick and so tired after 13 grueling months but most of all you are scared, the enemy could be anyone....that guy over there selling bread, the teenager hanging out on the corner or even the woman begging on the corner, any car or truck could be a bomb. These guys (and girls) must be under such pressure that I cant even begin to imagine and, despite what everyone says about it just be part of being a soldier, it certainly isnt healthy....not for them and not for the local citizens. I am on record as saying that heavy handed tactics will not win over the local citizens....but I do get frustrated when I read about the soldiers on the ground being 'heavy handed'....walk a mile in my shoes

What an interesting thread this is! I am a bit of a history fanatic, and I don't see much of that in most of the posts. I, too, see lots of idealism in the entries here. There is a sense, however, of willful ignorance and irresponsibility that runs through the logic and argument. Don't folks know that Saddam was OUR creature for thirty-odd years? That the "special relationship" of families like the Bushes with the House of Saud has played a big part in the creation and financing of Al Qaida? To me, the implication in many of the postings that 'terrorists' are a phenomena divorced from our own actions is just incredibly vicious and blind, at best. Only when we take some responsibility for the way the world is blowing up in our face, can we hope of seeing things as they really are.

What do we do now? To me, the duality of stay and fight or run and flee is ludicrous. "WE" are in no position to determine either course. The world contains six and a half billion cousins, and at any given moment half or more of us are at war with each other, and the other half seem most interested in what CD they want to buy next, where they can get enough money for a down payment on some commodity or other that interests them now, or how someone they really like(generally of the opposite sex)has done them right or done them wrong. This is how the world is, of course, boys and girls and money and all the baubles and bubbles and dreams.

I, for one, believe that the time has come to take a stand for life. If that's portentous crap, so be it. I'd rather that than to sit idly by and watch mass murder, especially as the carnage is occurring "in my name," supposedly to benefit me. I cultivate relationships every day, and with people the world over, that proceed on the basis that peace and love are possible, that sustainable interactions are within our capacity. But mainly what I am doing is writing and thinking. The key question seems to be whether the likes of most of us will continue to whine and watch, or whether we have the courage and insight and will to join together to transform the puppeteering present into something akin to actual democracy---majority rule and close-to-universal civic engagement.

Such ideas are almost impossible for most folks to fathom. They don't trust others, nor do they trust themselves. Maybe the odds are a million to one, or worse. I'll take one real chance on a future with happy great-great-great-great-great grandchildren in it, thank you very much, for nine hundred ninety nine thousand, nine hundred ninety nine opportunities to ask someone else to solve my problems.

"I would do the same if it were my blog dharma. Hypocrisy ran rampant here. Dan did a good job in starting it off with the "I don't take political advice from a prepubescent.........". What ever happened to age doesn't matter? Why shouldn't we then dismiss his view and not take advice from a high school kid?"

Are you familiar with "the age of innocence?" It means that below a certain age, there can be no logic. I don't know if you agree, but that's what I meant.

"Dan, if you can take the heat, what part of what I said is a personal attack? I stand by my credibility. I have merely restated info you revealed in your blogs. You said you are a 17yr old and gave your address out which I merely repeated as being in the mid west. I think you are showing your lack of experience here."

I was referring to what I felt was a derogatory (sp?) reference to that information.

~Dan

I agree 100%!!!

hehe... seriously... Dharma, I read this article a few days ago, and didn't really know what to say, so i didn't say anything... but i must leap corrageously to your defense, even though it is painfully obvious you dont need it!!!

Mr Frog did have some valid points, but he clouded his argument with emotion, and only HIS emotion. He didn't realise YOUR blog was about YOUR emotion, and he totaally failed to see where you are coming from. Its a gift in the blog world that certainly takes some time to attain, you simply have to respect other peoples opinions.

Dan ~ I have to say i am a bit upset, I dont want to sound partronising, because i am your friend, but you were so far out of line in this thread, there was no respect at all. I dont care what you think of Dharma, and i am almost positive Dharma doesn't really care what you think about her either - but the condescending tone you took was ridiculous. Please read above and mark in bold the words RESPECT. I may foolish and naive to say as much, but i think in retrospect you will read over what you have said, and really, question the tone you took.

PLUR!!!

Those that know me know how i feel about the issue, i dont think it would be wise to start more fights on this thread - Dharma, you and your daughter keep on keepin on

BAM!!!

Mr. Frog I think I recognize you or at least your ilk from my time slashdotting.... I am premptively adding you to my blacklist of post trolls.