The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Gee, Samantha, you seem just the right age to join the military. Is Cindy stopping you?

Sam's Canadian, she can't join the US army or the British army but I have the feeling you missed the point entirely anyway.

Nice try at the chicken hawk argument, I suggest you read this (which I wrote):
http://www.samanthaburns.com/archives/2005/09/why_this_canadi.html

Then she should join the friggin' Canadian army. I got her point - her point was that it's better to keep sending boys to a phony war (or at least the wrong front a war) to die than admit we were wrong.

I don't care what army she joins, or where she serves, I'm just wondering if she would have these same feelings if live ammo was wizzing by HER head.

And don't go blaming Cindy for everything. Blair and Bush might have had an easier time with recruiting if they actually had an exit plan. Who in there right mind would sign up for something so open ended?

Joining the Canadian army would do what exactly for Iraq? Joining an army that is severely under funded, has antiquated equipment will benefit the struggle in Iraq how exactly? Yes, Canadian soldiers are brave, but the government here disrespects them at every turn and last time I checked Canadians didn't exactly have a real roll in Iraq. So what you are saying is that Sam should make a token gesture to help in Iraq which accomplishes nothing in reality.

So it's okay to undermine those whom are brave enough to put their lives on the line to protect our arses? What about fire fighters or the police? Should Sam be expected to join those organizations if she wants to be saved from a burning building or protected by police? When a threat emerges, should she protest the use of the police that are trying to protect the public interest and not expect them to do their job because they might get injured or killed?

What was the exit strategy for WWII anyway? Hmmm... perhaps to WIN? Stay the course until the enemy is defeated... or perhaps the only exit strategy that counts is that which requires tucking our tails between our legs and running.

And if you want to be dishonest about what Sam was saying there really isn't much point in having a discussion using logic w/ you.

"So it's okay to undermine those whom are brave enough to put their lives on the line to protect our arses?"

I didn't feel particularly threatened by Saddam Hussein prior to the military invasion of his country. I didn't feel in need of protection from him whatsoever. At the time of the invasion there weren't terrorists there at all. It is an entirely different story now, however. And there is a difference between undermining the troops and wanting them to return home so no more of them die.

"What was the exit strategy for WWII anyway? Hmmm... perhaps to WIN?"

Yes, and 'winning' was defined by the toppling of Hitler's regime. Saddam's regime has been toppled - do you think that victory has now occurred? What victory is possible, anyway? None.

But the single funniest thing about all this is that you blame a single lady for low military enrolment numbers. A lady, by the way, that has made far more of a sacrifice than all the other war-mongers braying for blood. Any chance people watching the news might think to themselves, 'damn, there seem to be a lot of people dying over there; I don't think I'm gonna' enrol today'? Um, yeah, I think that could be the reason.

But you seem to like WW11 analogies, so let me put it out for you in those terms. When Hitler, unlike Saddam, was threatening the globe in his quest for world domination, the people were decidedly eager to enlist. They knew that it was their duty as global citizens to stem the tide of fascist aggression. That doesn't seem to be happening now, does it? Has humanity all of a sudden become more cowardly? I don't think so. Are we, as global citizens, suddenly less intelligent and unable to see the threat? Guess again. Does the Iraq conflict have no similarities with WW11? Bingo. The majority of people in the world that didn't let themselves get hysterical after 9/11 know that Iraq was not an essential - nor even sensible - target in the war on terror.

You: "Joining an army that is severely under funded, has antiquated equipment will benefit the struggle in Iraq how exactly?"

Me: And joining an army (the US Army) that is severely mismnaged, has antiquated equipment will benefit the struggle in Iraq how exactly?

Cool. Linkage.

I'm new here but this post alone justifies the phrase "crazy rants". You are blaming Sheehan for undermining support for the war? How simple-minded. Did it ever occur to you that the actual facts of the war (the dubious rationale for getting into it, along with it's incompetent execution)are the REAL reasons the public is losing faith. No, that would be a little too sophisticated for simpletons like Samantha and MrBig. This post represents an all-time low for pro-war internet chatter, and I've read a lot of their garbage, believe me.

Mark,

Stick around, it only gets crazier. I've often believed that being able to reduce things to a simple level is a sign of extreme intelligence. As such, I'm actually fairly complemented by that even if it were not your intention.

Further, I invite you to read the article on why I support the war in Iraq. I'm sure that one will get you reeling.