|
I got an e-mail and I answered it. Here's the e-mail and my response. I am submitting it to y'all for your approval and comments. So, my fellow DUers, please tell me whether I "done good." (I have obscured the name of the sender with X's to preserve his anonymity. I just don't feel comfortable about sending out another person's e-mail address over a public message board.)
Ron
------
In a message dated 4/4/2004 6:41:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, XXXXXXXX writes:
> > 600 troops dead! Oh no! Whatever will we do? > > In WW2 we lost over 100,000 troops....never found Hitler. > > In Vietnam we lost about 58,000....we lost the war, never finished the job. > > In Iraq, we've lost 600, only 410 due to hostile fire, yet we removed a WHOLE > government from power, rebuilt the country, still killing terrorists, and > Saddam Hussein is in military prison. > > Anyone who thinks we are losing in Iraq is not looking at the facts. They are > just hoping John Kerry will manage to get some votes out of a false reality > created by the press, who are also unabashedly supporting > Kerry. If this is > you, then hang your head in shame. You are a real traitor.
MY RESPONSE:
We don't know yet how many U.S. troops will be killed in the Iraq conflict, or what its other costs ultimately will be, because it isn't over yet. We do know how many we lost in World War II and Vietnam, because those conflicts are over. Besides, I don't see how anybody can compare those two earlier conflicts with the present one. Although, as I said, it isn't over yet, so who knows what it will ultimately escalate into? Who knows whether we're witnessing the beginnings of World War III right now? As for the comparison to Vietnam, almost everybody agrees now that it was a war that we had no business fighting to begin with, and a total waste of those 58,000 lives. Yes, we have removed Saddam Hussein, but at what price? The world is not safer now than it was while Saddam was in power; it's MUCH more dangerous and a MUCH scarier place. It certainly seems scarier to me, anyway. Saddam was a ruthless despot, but he was a ruthless despot who was cowering in a corner of a room, holding a .22 revolver with six bullets in it, while several dozen other men across the room were holding Uzis and AK-47's and shoulder-held grenade launchers and flame throwers trained on him, and he KNEW he would be committing suicide if he made the slightest threatening move in ANY direction. We had Saddam contained and controlled, and the price of invading, conquering and occupying Iraq IN DEFIANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE SEVERE DESTABILIZING EFFECTS IN A VOLATILE PART OF THE WORLD does not justify whatever meager "benefits" are to be derived from removing him from whatever meager "power" he actually possessed. You, sir, are guilty of the transgression you accuse others of, namely, of "not looking at the facts." I have seen no indication that the press is "unabashedly supporting Kerry" either. I think you are delusional and imagining things. And I resent your calling me a "real traitor" because I disagree with you. What you're trying to do with charges like that is intimidate others into agreeing with you. I'd also like to see you try to minimize or shrug off the loss of those 600 troops in front of their loved ones. And whether we've "rebuilt" the country, or ever will, is an issue that is still open for debate. As is the issue of whether we're fighting terrorism, or fomenting it.
|