I really don't have anything to say.

[Samurai]

I'm pretty sure most of the rank and file weren't heading to Iraq to secure reconstruction contracts or oil revenues, but as you've decided picking nits is more important than supporting fellow BOBs in this instance, please consider substituting "serving" for "protecting". 9_9

[synkr0nized]

[Zengus]

Indeed. I can't think of any way that could have been said more eloquently

[Ventilator]

Oh that definitely comes across as HaDeS playing a douche gambit. Not the intent, but still.

Bringing it back to us moving on with our lives though, I can say that I think that is why the postings here have been less frequent as of late. I'm sure that if I didn't have my senior engineering design project, my band, and my nephews/niece around all the time I'd be posting more. I think that the forum could use a little more traffic, but at the same time I would feel hypocritical asking for such a thing without being able to supply the time myself.

The weird thing is that I've gotten more productive in the last few years; at the same time I have been posting here less. I'm not sure if one of a symptom of the other.

[HisDivineShadow]

[Samurai]

[HisDivineShadow]

[Samurai]

Oh, good grief. Look, I didn't really want to get into this either, as it's moved well away from what I was trying to say to Mim, but I think I need to explain what you're misunderstanding, even if it deservedly loses me Synk's plaudits.

To address your point about the invasion, first of all: I do know a reasonable amount about the second Gulf War (though of course nowhere near as much as anyone involved directly). I would ask you in turn to remember that Britain also sent troops into a war that was probably less popular here at the time than in the US; a million people opposed to it marched on Parliament at one stage. A lot of Britons were aggrieved that the Blair government still went ahead after that, and like other allied nations, we went on to lose a significant number of troops during the occupation. As to the tragedy, yes, there undoubtedly was one. The fact Saddam Hussein was toppled was good, but the insurgency killing more than a hundred thousand civilians, as well as our own troops, was of course very far from good.

The real motives for the war are murky, and the suspected WMDs that were supposedly the root cause of it never came to light, as you know. But that doesn't in any way detract from the fact that ordinary servicemen and women in the US, British and other armed forces serving in Iraq believed they were working in their country's best interests.

All that said, we can effectively disregard it, because none of it really relates to my original point. You're the one who brought Iraq up; I wasn't referring to it at all, which is why I was a little peeved when you appeared to imply I had been. Do bear in mind that no soldier, sailor, marine or airman or woman would have set foot in Iraq straight from the recruiting station. They'd have been serving in the military before then, and by some definitions, therefore, protecting their country simply through bolstering the armed forces' numbers and pool of skills. That's what I was talking about, not deployment in a specific theatre. I concede I could have been clearer on that, but my intention was one of reassurance rather than strict clarity, which you did at least acknowledge.

On your postscript, I don't regard you as cranky or sarcastic at all, FWIW. It's just that the way you comport yourself here quite often comes across not so much as playful and friendly, but lacking in empathy and, when you're trying to make a more serious point, even condescending*. I share Vent's view that you don't intend your posts to read that way, but if at times they annoy even me, a liberal and thus theoretically your political ally, I hope you see that it's likely to irk people of a more conservative bent even more. I apologise if that just sounds like an insult -- I'm simply trying to explain why I think you might be getting the reactions you've mentioned.

____
* I appreciate that's a rather sweeping statement, but alas, it's getting very late here and the new job is leaving me pretty tired, so I'm not going to be able to dig out examples to show you what I mean. I would simply point to your apparent implication that I was somehow unaware of the invasion's tenth anniversary. Still, it could well be that no one agrees with my assessment, everyone thinks I'm talking rubbish -- it wouldn't be the first time -- and specifics are therefore redundant. :) And as I have to take it if I'm dishing it out, people are welcome to deconstruct my posts that feature, for example, pomposity, a sin of which I'm definitely guilty at times!

[HisDivineShadow]

Sam, let's just say that after a week of reading several testimonies of wounded and dying Iraqi vets feeling betrayed by their government, I'm very prickly and sensitive about the issue. Perhaps overly sensitive, true. But after years of being branded a traitor by my countrymen for not supporting the war lockstep, and years of being dismissed as a hippie for arguing against torture and indefinite detention (and on this very forum no less), I'm merely a product of my environment.

Frankly, I would say that our soldiers serve their country. I can't really think of a war of actual defense in the last sixty years. Perhaps it's a nitpicky semantic difference, but I'm sure you can understand that in this period of high emotional and social stakes. and thus these nits happen to be particularly irritating.

EDIT: As for condescending, please remember that this forum is one in which, historically, a common rebuttal from our conservative brethren has been "tee hee aren't you cute. Maybe if you study politics for a few more years you'll get a REAL understanding of how our government works." All I do now is recognize this forum's style of prevaricative rhetoric for what it is, and state things bluntly and to the point. I have no time or interest in CB's popularity contests, ad hominems, or acts of dogpiling as modes of argument anymore.

EDIT2: But back to Mim, I must say that I do still think of her occasionally and hope she's all right given her accident-prone tendencies, and I do hope her self-image and self-esteem have improved. But given that I suspect she's blocked me on AIM (I think I got too drunk & flirty one time and I know she doesn't like that) I know well enough to leave her alone.

[synkr0nized]