Sleeping well George?
August 3, 2005 6:12 AM   Subscribe

14 U.S. Marines killed today in Iraq. 7 killed yesterday. 1,804 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 12,762 have been wounded - many seriously. Whatever your opinion about the war, take a moment to think about the sacrifices being made by these men and women, their families, and friends. No rants about Bush, no comparisons to Iraqi deaths, just a little focus on the grunts.
posted by three blind mice (80 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: No rants about Bush (except for the title I guess)



 
um, ok.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:15 AM on August 3, 2005


Sorry. Can't help thinking of those Iraqi deaths, too.

This is a lame front page post, despite the heart-wrenching subject matter.
posted by mediareport at 6:16 AM on August 3, 2005


I don't like to think about unpleasant things. I really do wish people would stop posting links to them.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 6:17 AM on August 3, 2005


Hmm , i was wondering whether the amount of us dead in iraq had reached the same total for sept 11th today , i was really wondering what the whole point was , to be honest.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:19 AM on August 3, 2005


Sorry mediareport for violating the executive order and showing you the bodies arriving at Dover AFB.

I forgot... it's liberal sport to spit on soldiers and bleed compassion for everyone else.
posted by three blind mice at 6:21 AM on August 3, 2005


Today, in the world, roughly 2.2 million people will die. Don't think about the reasons for their death - whether they were just or unjust, preventable or inevitable. In fact, don't even think about their deaths at all. Don't analyze it. Just feel some sort of vague, ill-defined sadness over the fact that people are dying.

Then go back to your work.
posted by louigi at 6:22 AM on August 3, 2005


Regardless of the "this isn't political" statement in the post, it is political. I'm not sure of the expected response to this, but it is a train wreck waiting to happen.

If the point is to say how terrible this is and the war should end, then be honest about that.

If the intent is to say how noble and wonderful this is, then be honest about that..

A "discussion" about something like this that doesn't speak to the issue one way or the other is a non-post... might as well delete it.

and, I guess I'm offended that you thought that 1. I didn't know these numbers, and 2. I don't grieve for them every day!

sorry, I didn't need a reminder...with a rule not to discuss it.

/end anger
posted by HuronBob at 6:22 AM on August 3, 2005


I don't see how the title is designed to "focus on the grunts."
posted by hupp at 6:24 AM on August 3, 2005


It seems to me that attempting to contemplate the sacrifices made by soldiers is pretty pointless without acknowledging the purpose those sacrifices were made for. Bravery, valor, and a stoic willingness to die for a cause are all well and good, but the question "what cause" is quite important.

During WWII, for example, we knew what the cause was, we understood how vitally important it was that both German and Japanese aggression be stopped. During that war it was never necessary for people to ask the population to contemplate the sacrifices of the soldiers "whatever their opinion about the war". During the Vietnam war things were different, the cause was not obvious, the methods of fighting for that cause were questionable. The valor of the soldiers was no different in Vietnam than it was in WWII, nor was their sacrifices. The difference was that the cause for which those sacrifices were made was not seen as a valid cause.

Today in Iraq soldiers exhibit the same valor, and make the same sacrifices that soldiers have made throughout history. No one but fools question the sacrifice, what we question is the cause, and the way that cause is being faught for.

I will never question the bravery of our soldiers, nor will I belittle their sacrifices. But I will question why those sacrifices are demanded of them. I will question how their commanders order them to persue their goals. I will question the motivation of the politicians who chose this war. Who shows more contempt for a soldier, the person who thinks a war is unnecessary, or a politician who chooses an unnecessary war?
posted by sotonohito at 6:26 AM on August 3, 2005


In other words: what's the point of thinking about the deaths of strangers without placing them in some context, trying to understand how they fit into some picture of the world, and maybe trying to figure out how things could be different? Do you just enjoy feeling bad, specifically about the deaths of people from your own country? Why?
posted by louigi at 6:26 AM on August 3, 2005


I agree with all the other posters that, um, this isn't particularly good fodder for any kind of discusion. But here goes:


.
posted by zpousman at 6:27 AM on August 3, 2005


No rants about Bush...

Reads page title, sighs.
posted by prostyle at 6:27 AM on August 3, 2005


Sacrifice? And what is it all for? As soon as the number of casualties surpasses the number of those who died at the World Trade Center attacks, really, we should seriously ponder what the point of all this is.

Plus, I hate it when uncreative, brainless people use the word "liberal."
posted by Diamornte at 6:28 AM on August 3, 2005


Soldiers dont die for political reasons. See "All Quiet on the Western Front" for a classic account of what soldiers die for. No reason at all. I tip my hat to anyone caught up in that mess.
posted by stbalbach at 6:28 AM on August 3, 2005


No rule HuronBob just a suggestion.

We talk all around this issue in the blue, but for once it would be nice to consider just the sacrifice made by the men and women in uniform.

But rage on dude about everything else if it makes you feel validated. Sorry to waste your time.
posted by three blind mice at 6:29 AM on August 3, 2005


No rants about Bush, no comparisons to Iraqi deaths, just a little focus on the grunts.

Dude, your title tag is Sleeping Well George? But the subsequent posts you're trying to encourage should be sober, reflective, non-partisan elegies for the dead, right? Argh.
posted by dhoyt at 6:29 AM on August 3, 2005


114 U.S. residents killed today in the USA. About the same killed yesterday. In a year, 41,821 U.S. residents have been killed in the USA and 3,236,000 have been wounded - many seriously.

Over 25,000 third-world residents died today of starvation. About the same died yesterday. In a year, about 10,000,000 people will die of starvation, and 800,000,000 will be chronically undernourished - many seriously.

Whatever your opinion about people, take a moment to think about the lives being lived these men and women, their families, and friends. No rants about the WTO, no comparisons to Iraqi deaths, just a little focus on the majority of people you share the planet with.
posted by Jairus at 6:30 AM on August 3, 2005


three blind mice, don't be dense. newsfilter is pretty much frowned upon by everyone unless it's something extraordinarily informative or interesting, especially in regards to the war...er, global struggle in Iraq. a link to cnn.com telling us that soldiers get killed is neither.

this is metafilter, for christ's sake. we think about this everyday.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:31 AM on August 3, 2005


(The first part should read 114 U.S. residents killed today in mostly preventable automobile accidents. I am not good at internets.)
posted by Jairus at 6:31 AM on August 3, 2005


it's liberal sport to spit on soldiers and bleed compassion for everyone else.

Now that's just being ridiculous. Everyone but the most callous among us "supports the troops" and pays homage to their sacrifice. Besides, the only liberal sport I can think of is squash... or maybe badminton.
posted by psmealey at 6:33 AM on August 3, 2005


My next post will instruct everyone to go have a non-political nap.

What are the trends in the casualty data? Up, down or level?
posted by srboisvert at 6:33 AM on August 3, 2005


Very stupid post, not "best of the web".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:35 AM on August 3, 2005


Everyone but the most callous among us "supports the troops" and pays homage to their sacrifice.

Without their service, given more-or-less of their own free will, there would be no war in Iraq.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:38 AM on August 3, 2005


Soldiers dont die for political reasons. See "All Quiet on the Western Front" for a classic account of what soldiers die for. No reason at all. I tip my hat to anyone caught up in that mess.
Yes and no. While naturally no soldier thinks "I must make this sacrifice to further the political objectives of my elected representatives", the soldiers would not be in a position to make what sacrifices they do if it were not for those elected representatives and the decisions they make. Soldiers die for their comrades, but they wouldn't have to unless a politician decided it was necessary that they do.

That's why I think its important to consider the sacrifices of soldiers with an awareness of the political context. A mongol warrior from the reign of Genghis Khan dies for basically the same reason a modern US marine does. His bravery and sacrifice is no different when considered in isolation. What makes the sacrifice different is the cause for which it is made, in other words the political context.
posted by sotonohito at 6:39 AM on August 3, 2005


Flag it. Complaining about the post in the thread will only give three blind mice more excuses to rant in his "no rants" thread.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:40 AM on August 3, 2005


sotonohito: Thank you for an insightful comment and for giving voice (in an eloquent way) to what many of us feel about this and many other wars.
posted by YurikoKinje at 6:43 AM on August 3, 2005


.
posted by alumshubby at 6:44 AM on August 3, 2005


People Die. People are Born. !)(#*% Happens.
posted by cavalier at 6:45 AM on August 3, 2005


In the spirit of the post, a good friend (my best friend's younger brother) has just returned home from Iraq. Three tours as a marine -- there's a lot he simply won't talk to us about, but I know that it's affected him a lot. He's achieved some great things -- promotion, saving the lives of civilians under fire and fellow soldiers in danger -- and also seen things that have left a dark mark on him.

It was odd, too, seeing him show up in a Corbis stock photo...
posted by verb at 6:48 AM on August 3, 2005


three blind mice writes "We talk all around this issue in the blue, but for once it would be nice to consider just the sacrifice made by the men and women in uniform."

"Sleeping well George?|Metafilter-Mozilla Firefox"

What I'd like to do is lament (in an entirely non-political way, of course) the lack of a comma in the page title.

/Eats Shoots and Leaves
posted by OmieWise at 6:51 AM on August 3, 2005


Without their service, given more-or-less of their own free will, there would be no war in Iraq.


Technically true, lupus_yonderboy, but so what? I'm as liberal as they come but I will not deny the basic fact that in the world as it is a nation requires a military. The people in Iraq didn't sign up specifically for this war, they signed up for any number of reasons. Some signed up because it was the only way they could see out of the financial trap their parents are caught in; suddenly they're ordered to Iraq. Others signed up because they thought it was their duty to protect their nation, is it their fault that the President started a war of aggression? Maybe some did sign up becuase they thought invading Iraq was a good thing, if so at least they've put their money where their mouthes are and I'll respect 'em for that even if I utterly disagree with them.

I've got a friend who served in Iraq, he enlisted back in 1998 for the college money. He thought he was out of the army in 2000. Next thing he knows he's ordered to Iraq, he didn't want to be there, he thought the invasion was stupid. But he was there whether he wanted to be or not. I'm inclined to think that most of the soldiers there wouldn't have chosen to be there.
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 AM on August 3, 2005


I see that the Basra Blogger, Steven Vincent, has also been murdered.
posted by PurpleJack at 6:53 AM on August 3, 2005


As soon as the number of casualties surpasses the number of those who died at the World Trade Center attacks, really, we should seriously ponder what the point of all this is.

Ugh... I hate word problems.
posted by Necker at 6:55 AM on August 3, 2005


*salutes*
posted by jonmc at 6:59 AM on August 3, 2005


I have friends and relatives over there in the war. Yeah, I think about that a lot. Sacrificing for nothing, or less than nothing, as the case may be.

I have a question. Is it OK to include the word QUAGMIRE in my comments according to the TBM-established rules for this post?
posted by nofundy at 7:00 AM on August 3, 2005


.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 7:00 AM on August 3, 2005


He enlisted back in 1998 for the college money...Next thing he knows he's ordered to Iraq, he didn't want to be there...I'm inclined to think that most of the soldiers there wouldn't have chosen to be there.

When we talk about sacrifice, we should distinguish between intentional sacrifice and unintentional sacrifice.

I'm sorry soldiers died, are dying, and will die, the same way I am sorry about the deaths of Iraqis and the injuries on both sides. But if someone enlisted in the army to pay for college, to get the good benefits, to get the training, to make a secure career, and then they died in combat? That's not a tragedy, that's not a selfless sacrifice, and that's not noble. That's just bad planning on their part.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:02 AM on August 3, 2005


Without their service, given more-or-less of their own free will, there would be no war in Iraq.

This is as willfully dense a statement as I've read in a while.
Generally speaking, the average soldier does the job he or she does on our behalf with the oft usnpoked but generally respected understanding that our civilian leadership will not place them in harm's way unneccesarily, nor use their force capabilities to pursue unjust goals.

I'm an anti-war lefty who would like to see W frogmarched straight out of the whitehouse and directly on to the first outbound flight to Gitmo, for a huge number of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that his hubris and utter lack of respect for the sacrifices our men and women in uniform are willing to make in service to their country has placed far too many of them in harm's way or worse. Further, his disregard for the Geneva code and his administration's policies of unlawful detainment, abuse, and worse remove any protections from unjust treatment American soldiers may have had in the past.


Soldiers don't set policy. Plain and simple. They get used, and lately they get used up, and if the trust they have placed in our government and our president is betrayed, it is our government and our predsident that MUST be held accountable. To blame the soldiers for the policy is a bit like saying "If we'd just never built any airplanes, 9/11 never would have happened..."

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it exactly you were suggesting Lupus?
posted by stenseng at 7:03 AM on August 3, 2005


So it's safe to say August 1st is over? Mmmmmk.

I don't fault your sentiment TBM but I think that 99.9% of MetaFilter does think about our soldiers over there. That may be a stretch but I'll live with it. My brother has his ass squarely in the middle of the shit in Iraq and I hope for his safe return every day. How can we NOT think about it in general?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:03 AM on August 3, 2005


1,800 dead is the send off champagne for a well deserved month long vacation.

Happy trails, mother fucker.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:04 AM on August 3, 2005


(oft unspoken
posted by stenseng at 7:04 AM on August 3, 2005


stenseng: “ the average soldier does the job he or she does on our behalf with the oft usnpoked but generally respected understanding that our civilian leadership will not place them in harm’s wayunneccesarily, nor use their force capabilities to pursue unjust goals.
Only if they know jack shit about the history of their own country, its military, CIA, etc., that is.
Ignorance is no excuse.
posted by signal at 7:15 AM on August 3, 2005


can we rant about rove then?
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 7:15 AM on August 3, 2005


Damn hippies.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:20 AM on August 3, 2005


I think that 99.9% of MetaFilter does think about our soldiers over there

I don't.
posted by kika at 7:21 AM on August 3, 2005


Well, good for you.

/sarcasm
posted by jonmc at 7:23 AM on August 3, 2005


KevinSkomsvold: “I think that 99.9% of MetaFilter does think about our soldiers over there.
I know I do. I think: “damn, I hope they never come over here.”
posted by signal at 7:25 AM on August 3, 2005


Why this preoccupation with comparing the number of dead in Iraq with the number of dead on 11/9? Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9, and the war on Iraq has nothing to do with 11/9.

If you're going to keep buying into the Bush-myth of Iraqi involvement in the WTC/Pentagon attacks, then when you number the dead have the decency to include the 192 other members of coalition forces who have also been killed in Iraq. It wasn't just Americans who died in the World Trade Center, and it's not just Americans who are dying now.
posted by Hogshead at 7:26 AM on August 3, 2005


.
posted by wheelieman at 7:26 AM on August 3, 2005


The valor of the soldiers was no different in Vietnam than it was in WWII

hmmm.

I don't know but it just strikes me that Vietnam was a planet away from WWII and although there can be no doubt that men fought with valor, it certainly was a theatre for much more horrific acts commited by grunts than WWII.

All of which is to say that it was different . . . although the statement could be read as "the valor of the soldiers was no different in the Crusades than it was in Gettysburg"


*salutes*
posted by petebest at 7:31 AM on August 3, 2005


9/11 is not connected to Iraq as in "Saddam was in on 9/11." 9/11 is connected to Iraq in the sense that both Iraq and Islamofascism are symptoms of the extremist, fascist, undemocratic Middle East. Saddam was also harboring terrorists, included Al Qaeda-affiliated ones.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:32 AM on August 3, 2005


President Bush is sleeping well because he did, and is doing the right thing under the circumstances. And every day without another terrorist attack on American soil confirms that.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:34 AM on August 3, 2005



stenseng: “ the average soldier does the job he or she does on our behalf with the oft usnpoked but generally respected understanding that our civilian leadership will not place them in harm’s wayunneccesarily, nor use their force capabilities to pursue unjust goals.”
Only if they know jack shit about the history of their own country, its military, CIA, etc., that is.
Ignorance is no excuse.


That's horseshit. The disinformation about our real foreign policy history is systemic and intentional. Most of the folks who go into the armed forces are not exactly coming from socioeconomic backgrounds that are going to give them the time and resources to learn all about our sordid black bag misadventures over the last hundred or so years. This is why it's incumbent upon those of use who are fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to develop some level of sophisticated understanding about the true nature of American politics to DO something about it.

We can't all be Noam Chomsky, Mike Ruppert, or Zbignew Brzezinsky.

Let's stop blaming the pawns and start working on replacing the king.
posted by stenseng at 7:34 AM on August 3, 2005


That's not a tragedy, that's not a selfless sacrifice, and that's not noble. That's just bad planning on their part.

Wow, that's just cold.

I have friends that have served, and even though they joined up voluntarily, I would never call what they did "bad planning".
posted by bshort at 7:35 AM on August 3, 2005


ParisParamus: Saddam was also harboring terrorists, included Al Qaeda-affiliated ones.

That's a lie. Liar.
posted by bshort at 7:36 AM on August 3, 2005


I originally decided to just tag this FPP and hold my tongue but what the hell: This is one of the shittiest most pointless waste of space posts that has made an appearance in the blue in a long time. Was it specifically posted as a counterpoint to Quality Monday? If there was a template to let people know what a post shouldn't be, this post could be it.

"I am going to make a political post on a subject which has been hacked to death and which I have been specifically asked to refrain from posting on, please do not make any political points in reply, simply dwell on the depth of this supreme example of newsfilter."
posted by biffa at 7:36 AM on August 3, 2005


Something that Michael Moore said at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11 has stuck with me since I first saw the movie:
"All they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary."
Sometimes it is necessary to ask our brave and patriotic military people to sacrifice their lives, but this war is not one of those times.

1821 fatalties is 1821 men and women, 1821 sons and daughters, 1821 husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends that aren't coming home. They didn't die protecting the United States--Iraq was not a threat to us and didn't have anything to do with terrorists that threatened us. What can we tell their families?

What are the trends in the casualty data? Up, down or level?

American fatalities dropped to 58 in July, down from 78 in June and 80 in May, but we're already lost 22 people so far this month (chart). Iraqi police and military fatalities have increased as they take on a larger role, and more of them have been killed in 2005 than in 2003 and 2004 combined.

1821 Americans, 204 coalition soldiers, and 254 civilian contractors. 2279 people we sent to die when they didn't have to. And a minumum of 23,209 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:40 AM on August 3, 2005


Biffa. Right on. This post is a yellow ribbon magnet on the ass-end of a Camaro. Fuck it. Flagged.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:42 AM on August 3, 2005


Not only was Saddam harboring terrorists, he was sponsoring them with "grants," "incentives," and "death insurance policies." I don't have time to gather the links, but would you read them anyway?

You have a right to question the wisdom of adopting a macro-view of the terrorist world, and of the cost-benefit analysis of soldiers being killed. You don't have the right to call truths, or gaps in intelligence "lies."
posted by ParisParamus at 7:46 AM on August 3, 2005


very clever, a self inflicted trainwreck. Don't rant about Bush but the title of the post is "Sleeping well George?".

Kind of like walking up to the biggest and baddest motherfucker in a bar and saying "Don't take this the wrong way, but stop fellating monkeys".
posted by substrate at 7:47 AM on August 3, 2005


And every day without another terrorist attack on American soil confirms that.

So, if (God forbid) there is another terrorist attack on American soil, Bush's policies will then be wrong?
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 7:49 AM on August 3, 2005


I think the U.S. soldiers should stand up for their own FREEDOM and refuse to fight in Iraq. They’re not defending their own country, it's not a just war and they're only serving a world order created by an elite class of rich neoconservatives whose own sons and daughters will never fight in a war they created. It appears most Americans couldn't care less, as long as they have gas for their luxury SUV's, life is good. How sad.
posted by disgruntled at 7:56 AM on August 3, 2005


If there was a wave of terrorist attacks on American soil, I think it would be fair to argue that the Iraq War was a distraction. But, whether its because of intelligence not made public, or because Iraq truly is a kind of "roach motel," luring terrorists in, it seems, at this point, reasonable to connect Iraq and the lack of post 9/11 attacks on our shores.

What I suspect has actually happened is that Iraq is one prong of many: financial channels cut off; Afghanistan; pressure on Saudi Arabia and Syria (hopefully, more of that to come).
posted by ParisParamus at 7:57 AM on August 3, 2005


Don't tell me what I can and can't rant about. Especially after your snarky little subject line.

What a stupid FPP.
posted by wakko at 7:58 AM on August 3, 2005


Yes, most Amercians are soulless, ignorant, indifferent beings. All of them except you, disgruntled, and, of course a few of your friends.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:58 AM on August 3, 2005


So, if (God forbid) there is another terrorist attack on American soil, Bush's policies will then be wrong?
Of course not. Peace means Bush's policies are right, while an attack would mean that we need to implement them more wholeheartedly.
posted by verb at 7:58 AM on August 3, 2005


But, whether its because of intelligence not made public, or because Iraq truly is a kind of "roach motel," luring terrorists in, it seems, at this point, reasonable to connect Iraq and the lack of post 9/11 attacks on our shores.

Two terrorist attacks within 2 weeks of each other on the shores of our allies is just fine and dandy though?

There was no connection between Iraq and terrorism prior to the war and the mounting insurgency. Don't even suggest to us that there was.
posted by wakko at 8:01 AM on August 3, 2005


And to answer your question in the title of this thread, I'd say, yes, George is sleeping fine, considering he's about to take another 5 weeks off, making him the most vacationed President, EVAR.
posted by crunchland at 8:05 AM on August 3, 2005


or because Iraq truly is a kind of "roach motel,"

Every time God kills an Iraqi He spares an American.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:06 AM on August 3, 2005


This went well, I think.

*jumps out window in despair*
posted by jonmc at 8:07 AM on August 3, 2005


No rants about Bush

That sentiment would be so much more credible with another title.
posted by gm2 at 8:11 AM on August 3, 2005


What substrate said. Makes me wonder why the hell you bothered. I'm normally very anti FPP deletion, but I couldn't blame jessamyn or Mathowie if he auto-da-fe'd this puppy out of existence due to its hypocrisy.
posted by alumshubby at 8:12 AM on August 3, 2005


Next up: my memorial thread for the death of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, titled "Burn In Hell, Heathen Sand Weasel".

No flames please.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:13 AM on August 3, 2005


"There was no connection between Iraq and terrorism prior to the war and the mounting insurgency. Don't even suggest to us that there was."

Particularly since a good chunk, if not most of the insurgents aren't Iraqi, there IS.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:17 AM on August 3, 2005


"Two terrorist attacks within 2 weeks of each other on the shores of our allies is just fine and dandy though?"

Not at all, even if they are a wakeup call. Wakeup to what? That the only way to defeat Islamofascism is to get it by its undemocratic societal and cultural roots. THAT's why Iraq and Al Qaeda are related. The London attacks were by locals; it's the whole Islamofascist culture and death culture we need to destroy.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:21 AM on August 3, 2005


How to make the thread of a lame FPP even worse:

Respond to PP's trolling.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 8:24 AM on August 3, 2005


Everyone but the most callous among us "supports the troops" and pays homage to their sacrifice.

Call me callous.

For me to "pay homage" to their sacrifice I would have to believe that they are doing something that benefits myself or the society I live in. I do not believe that. I believe that each and every one of them has had their otherwise promising (with potential, at the very least) lives squandered by a civilian leadership that cares more about public opinion, gratification of their egos and being 'right' than they do about the young men and women they are sending to their deaths.

The legacy of of these men and women will not be freedom from tyranny or a safer world for their children; their legacy will be mothers without sons, children without parents and a lifetime spent with the blood of innocents on their hands.

This does not make them bad people, nor does it make their deaths any less tragic, but rather than applaud their 'sacrifice' I would rather see us asking the civilian leadership for an accounting of why it was necessary. I would like to see an acknowledgement that anyone who has enlisted in the military subsequent to the war in Iraq is a willing participant. Misled? Almost certainly. Ill-informed? Possibly. Forced? Absolutely not.
posted by cedar at 8:25 AM on August 3, 2005


Yes, most Amercians are soulless, ignorant, indifferent beings.

Now that's patriotism!
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 8:30 AM on August 3, 2005


spot on Biffa

hi PP
posted by johnny novak at 8:32 AM on August 3, 2005


psmealey: “Everyone but the most callous among us ”supports the troops“ and pays homage to their sacrifice.
Maybe in the US. The rest of the world is largely appalled.
posted by signal at 8:32 AM on August 3, 2005


« Older David Douglas Duncan   |   Mini organs Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments