American Troops In Iraq Do NOT Die In Vain. They're Doing Their Jobs

[KittyWampus]

Saying this simply plays right into the hands of the GOP who play on Americans emotions.

You are doing Bush, the NeoCons and the GOP all a favor when you say this.

It is pscyhologically cruel and callous to say to someone who has lost a loved one that their beloved died for nothing.

These soldiers are professionals who were doing their jobs.

They died because their BOSS- the Commander in Chief- was incompetent and didn't do HIS job.

Professional soldiers die in Iraq doing what they were trained to do.

And because the GOP in control of our Government refused to act responsibly before the invasion and cannot act diplomatically after the invasion, the troops are paying the price WHILE DOING THEIR JOBS.

You Can at least have the courtesy of acknowledging that the troops that die are professionals doing their jobs.

After all, they died because Bush:

1. refused to use allow diplomacy to work.
2. refused to listen to Intelligence that countered his predetermined plan
2. refused to listen to his generals and didn't use enough troops during the initial phase of invasion.
3. refused to listen to Iraqi experts who said to leave the existing Iraqi military and security forces in tact (prosecuting only the higher ups)
4. didn't bother to make sure they had enough body & vehicular armour
5. doesn't bother to engage in diplomacy to end this conflict now

When you make the mistake of saying the troops died in vain, a large number of Americans take that as disrepect to those who have died on the job.

When you say troops died in vain, you turn off many American's capacity to hear your entire argument.

When you say troops died in vain, you are making it easier for Americans to ignore all of the failures of the Bush Administration.

[gollygee]

1. You apparently don't know what it means to die in vain

It isn't a statement about them, it's a statement about their mission. First, we need to figure out what their mission was - spreading freedom, is that right? Are they spreading freedom? No - so they died in vain. Their deaths are not spreading freedom.

[KittyWampus]

4. YOU Apparently Don't Understand How The Human Mind/Emotions

work nor how the GOP manipulates people.

Saying troops die in vain SOUNDS like you are negating their value.

[gollygee]

11. The truth is never the wrong position to take

I work in reality. The reality of the situation is that our troops are sadly dying in vain. It is a tragedy and that tragedy is the fault of those in power, not the troops. But it is still the truth.

[KittyWampus]

21. Why Choose To Frame This In Terms That Minimize What Soldiers Do?

especially since it's so easy to twist what you're saying.

There's more than one way to frame the situation.

The method and words you choose help the GOP manipulate people.

[gollygee]

24. It doesn't minimize what soldiers do

It tells the truth about what is happening in Iraq. What problem do you have with reality?

[KittyWampus]

30. It SOUNDS Like It To Many People. What Problem Do YOU Have

grasping what others who think differently than yourself think and feel?


That's how you win... by figuring out how to reach others on the opposite side of issue.

[gollygee]

34. "Sounds like" is a pretty tenous argument

Every single person is different and every phrase is going to sound different to each person. "Sounds like" is too subjective to build a policy on. The only objective is truth. The truth is that our soldiers are dying in vain.

[KittyWampus]

51. Thanks! Isn't The Truth, More Accurately Put, They're Dying Cause Bush

screwed up?

Would it be more accurate and damning to Bush to say that?

If you could get that point across wouldn't people come to the conclusion that troops died in vain ON THEIR OWN and in THEIR OWN TIME?

[gollygee]

53. It isn't one or the other

They are dying in vain because Bush screwed up.

I'm not going to stop telling the truth because of how you believe people might respond to the truth. This country has had enough trouble with delusion. I'm not going to be a part of it.

[wtmusic]

59. Amen.

"I'm not going to stop telling the truth because of how you believe people might respond to the truth."

Amen.

[KittyWampus]

60. My Point Now Is To Preface "In Vain" Turns People's Ability To Hear Off

the best teachers don't tell their students what to believe.

They allow their students to come to their own conclusions.

"In vain" is a conclusion that Americans are best left to come to on their own after being shown that CIC Bush failed the Military.

Edit, thanks for replying.

[wtmusic]

67. "In Vain" is not a subjective judgement

It means without achieving a desired outcome. Can you show me how the outcome will be desired?

[KittyWampus]

75. "In Vain" DOES Have An Emotional Effect. It Effects How Many People

react.

I would now restart this whole thread by asking:

Which statement will get the largest number of Americans united against Bush? Which one will be less likely to turn people off?

Soldiers are dying because their Boss Bush is incompetent and continues to screw up.

Or

Soldiers are dying in vain.

[wtmusic]

76. "Dying in vain" is the brutal truth

and truth is by far a more effective motivator than gilding the lily to avoid offending delicate sensibilities.

[KittyWampus]

79. Bush's Incompetence Is Killing Soldiers... How About That?

isn't that a brutal truth that gets to the heart of the matter more effectively?

[fob]

86. bush*s vanity is getting soldiers killed in Iraq

Is that what you're looking for? The truth AND connected to bush*.

[KittyWampus]

88. You May Have Struck Gold! Bush's Vane Refusal To Admit Mistakes

is killing soldiers... :think:

You are very good!

[fob]

118. I'm with you and everyone else who posted here that the TRUTH works

the best and that's all that my statement is, the truth. bush*s vanity is the ONLY reason that still holds true regarding the war on Iraq. It's not only his vane refusal to admit mistakes but his desire to "best" his daddy. Daddy started a war and wimped out, daddy lost after one term, daddy had 90% approval, daddy listened to his advisers and Generals about what an Iraq invasion would mean, daddy compromised, daddy said "read my lips" and then had to face reality like a man and it's intendant consequences when he had to raise taxes, daddy only had a couple hundred billion in deficits, daddy daddy daddy daddy daddy daddy daddy daddy daddy.

[gollygee]

82. That doesn't give the *whole* truth

The problem isn't just that Bush is screwing up and is incompetent, although that is also a problem. The problem in Iraq is that we were lied to about why we were there and our actions aren't doing any good. So the fact that soldiers are dying in vain is part of the whole truth of the situation in Iraq.

[KittyWampus]

90. Thanks, IMO 'Vanity' Is Implicit & A Concept Arrived At After Realising

a more primary precipitating factor- Bush Admin's ongoing incompetence.

[gollygee]

92. You are still trying to perpetuate a lie

Look at your original statement. "Our soldiers are not dying in vain." That is blatently untrue. If you leave people with the delusion that our soldiers are not dying in vain, then that means that you leave them with the belief that our soldiers are doing good and acheiving the administration's goals. Which means that you are saying this is a just war and we belong there.

[KittyWampus]

100. I Agree With You. My Opening Post Was Poorly Worded, Thought Out

and executed.

That's why I am so grateful to those who have responded thoughtfully and patiently.

The point isn't to leave people "with delusion soldiers not dying in vain"

The idea is trying to leave people with enough info to come to that conclusion ON THEIR OWN.

The most important thing is to get people to understand what the NeoCons Goals REALLY ARE.

[gollygee]

105. People aren't going to come to that conclusion on their own

You're trying to play the Republican's game and the fact is you'll never win at it. We can't lie better than they can, and using the words "re-frame" doesn't make it any better. You'll re-frame, and then they will spin your re-framing, and you'll re-frame some more, etc., until we are even further from the truth than we are now.

How about if we try playing our *own* game - telling the truth and the whole truth? Keeping every issue as close to reality as we can?

[raggedcompany]

22. re: "SOUNDS like..."

If you want to tailor your speech to fit people who go for the "sounds like" method of listening instead of the "actually says" method, have fun with that.

[KittyWampus]

33. What's The Point Of Tailoring Your Argument In Ways That Turn Others

off?

There are different ways to express Truths.

But if you just want to express yourself for the sake of feeling good and don't care about reaching others....

[raggedcompany]

84. I can't control what other people think.

If I say: "The troops are dying in vain."
and they hear: "I hate the troops."
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

These are completely different statements. My comment is about the purpose for which the soldiers fight and die, not about the men themselves. That's a fact rooted in the definition of the very simple words I used. The perception of that comment is a textbook non-sequitor. There is no way I can predict for the insertion of a value judgement into my statement, or "tailor" (censor) my speech to account for it. Once again, if you want to adjust your speech to anticipate that kind of perception, have at it!

if I say: "Flag burning is an expression of free speech, protected by the Constitution."
and they hear: "Everyone should burn their flags."
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "The death penalty is wrong, in all cases."
and they hear: "Victims have no rights."
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "The war in Iraq is a criminal travesty for which U.S. leaders should face war crime charges."
and they hear: "I hate America."
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "Women have the right to choose whether to carry a baby to birth or not."
and they hear: "Kill baby Jesus"
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "Committed gay partners should enjoy the same civil rights as married straight partners."
and they hear "Your church must condone and promote sodomy"
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "Marijuana should be de-criminalized."
and they hear "Kids should be encouraged to smoke grass."
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

if I say: "'Diplomacy first and violence last' offers us the best chance to keep the world just and safe."
and they hear: "Osama needs a hug, some flowers, and a sympathetic ear"
Then there's nothing I can do about that.

Do you get the picture?

[KittyWampus]

91. Advertising DOES Control Many People's Thoughts... So It's Finding The

artful, subtle way to reach people.

That is what I am slowly getting a grip on here in this thread.

The need to approach things subtley without confrontation.

How to get your point across without sounding preachy or accusatory or disrespectful.

My opening post was a starting point and you're definately helping move beyond its inadequacy.

[librechik]

2. They died protecting their buddies

but they died for Bush's folly.

[RBHam]

3. In Vietnam: US soldiers died in vain

Just like today in Iraq.

And saying so is right and proper.

[KittyWampus]

5. As The GOP THANKS You For Being So Arrogant, You Can't Bother

to understand how people think.

After all, if they're not up to your lofty plane of understanding... they're stupid.

It's called framing the issue.

[JanMichael]

9. Oh how cool! We have an authority on ALL

human emotions here!

Fabulous!

Can you give us a bit of background information on your psychology degrees please? I am back in college at the age of 40, and personally the more I learn, the less I realize that I know.

I am very much in awe of omniscient people at this point-

You have earned my utmost respect.

Stephanie

[KittyWampus]

25. I've Been Studying Kabbalism For 10 Years.... And Framing The Debate

and taking the time to choose your words wisely... so as to reach as many people as possible... would seem to be the goal.

Since the GOP so easily turns the words "died in vain" against us, WHY KEEP SAYING IT when you could use a different tactic?

[JanMichael]

35. I see. So your study of Jewish Mysticism

has somehow given you clear and absolute insight into the workings of the human mind.

Maybe you should reread your post, read some of the vets comments here..and think more carefully about how to frame your debate.

Stephanie

[KittyWampus]

37. It's Given Me Enough Insight To See Saying Died In Vain TURNS PEOPLE

OFF.

And just because some of the vets might think using the words 'died in vain' is useful in public discourse doesn't mean they have a clue how to reach a large segment of the population who are being manipulated by the GOP.

[JanMichael]

39. And do you as clearly see how your

post the the way it was framed turned people off?

Did you learn anything about being humble when you were studying this mysticism?

[KittyWampus]

I Am Trying To Stucture An Argument And Am Learning How To Phrase

it.

And Thank You for your comments...

I've already found 2 different weaknesses.

My argument probably would work best as rhetorical question... it's less direct and confrontational.

Simarly telling people "troops died in vain" works best if you don't say THAT PARTICLUAR EXPRESSION.

My position NOW is... it's better to say they died doing their jobs cause their Boss Bush screwed up... because that allows people to conclude it was in vain OF THEIR OWN VOLITION and in their own time.

Less confrontational.
Harder to be twisted in the GOP spin machine.

[KittyWampus]

49. []

[Dr.Phool]

14. When people refuse to use reason and facts

It's called delusion.

And sometimes you have to hit them over the head with the frame to get their attention.

These poor soldiers had all the right intentions when they enlisted, but they've become pawns to a neo-con wet dream fantasy.

[KittyWampus]

28. Saying Soldiers Died Doing Their Jobs Cause Their Boss Screwed Up

is a helluva lot more accurate and profound then "they died in vain".

And less liable to being used against us by the GOP and the Mediawhores.

[Jim__]

6. Do you really think that saying they died due to the incompetence

of Bush is different from saying they died in vain?

[Webster Green]

7. Speak truth to power....

The troops are fighting an unjust war that was lost before it even began.

Sadly, they are dying in vain.

And another thing the bushbots won't like hearing, but is true nevertheless: Their heros are a bunch of fucking fascists.

[KittyWampus]

12. There Are Different Ways To Frame The Truth

you insist on choosing the way that MANY Americans off.

If you can't express yourself in a way that others can understand... what's the point of speaking?

[Webster Green]

32. Sorry, I'm not buying...........

Showing moderation and civility in discourse with repukes and their fellow cult members is futile. They will simply roll over you with their fascist agenda.

[KittyWampus]

36. If You Think Everyone Who Votes GOP Is A Cult Member Then What Do

you propose doing with them? Exterminate them?

[Webster Green]

41. Before they exterminate us all?

Not a bad idea. Where do I sign up?

[matcom]

8. as a veteran

i'll say they are dying in vain

[KittyWampus]

13. And That Plays Well Among A Lot Of Liberals. There Are Different Ways

of expressing the same truth... and there are other ways of reaching our fellow Americans.

[matcom]

19. i don't give a fuck HOW it "plays"

its the truth. to sugar coat it by rephrasing it don't make it any better and frankly is a fucking insult in itself.

the deaths of vets today (AND IRAQI'S BTW) are 100%:

needless
sensless
avoidable
criminal

yes. they are indeed dying in vein

[KittyWampus]

40. How Is Saying Soldiers Died Cause CIC Bush FAILED Sugarcoating?

Saying soldiers died in vain just loses many people's capacity to hear the fact BUSH FAILED AS CIC.

YOU might feel good saying it... but YOU already see Bush failed.

[Village Idiot]

10. Got Brains?

the troops died for SOMETHING, actually - OIL/DRUGS/GUNS.

Grow up.

[KittyWampus]

16. That's Actually Probably Better Than Saying They Died In Vain

sadly.

Sad but true. :(

[fertilizeonarbusto]

15. Nice thought but

any time soldiers die over a lie, they die in vain. Sorry, there's no way around that.

[David__77]

17. I wouldn't say that either.

But the mission is an unjust goal and effort. It is immoral and will go down as a shameful chapter in history. The real heroes are those who are resisting carrying out criminal orders. I know this truth is offensive to many, but my interest isn't in lying in order to cajole the backward-minded. There are greater historical tasks right now than that.

[mike_c]

18. they're dying for nothing but the administration's arrogance...

...utterly in vain. Your refusal to face this simply duplicates RW logic. There is nothing noble about the cause they're dying (and killing) for-- they're dying so Bush and company can strut and posture, as are many thousands of innocent Iraqis. Until we as a nation face this inconvenient truth, we'll continue to send them into the meat grinder for no good reasons whatsoever.

[KittyWampus]

44. YOU Just Did What I Posted. Rather Than Saying "Died In Vain"

you said "they're dying for nothing but the administration's arrogance..."

THAT is absolutely true and doesn't turn a lot of people off.

What is the POINT of going further and saying "in vain" when it TURNS PEOPLE OFF?

If the first part of your statement works why go on and undermine it?

[mike_c]

47. read my first four words....

"They're dying for nothing...."

[KittyWampus]

52. Hmmm! You Still Sound Better Than Opening Up With "Died In Vain".

no, I'm not trying to split hairs... just trying to structure an argument.

[stlchic]

63. Actually....

I can think of quite a few people (moderates even) who would be turned off by "they're dying for nothing but the administration's arrogance...", particularly when they believe, for some reason, that * is not arrogant.

Soldiers are dying for a LIE. A MISTAKE. And, yes, IN VAIN.

A lot of people who have lost a family member as part of a military action are going to be put off by this concept - no matter how you phrase it, imply it, or 'allow them to work it out'.

From a very excellent Plaid Adder column:

"God knows how painful it has to be for those who have suffered in a war to face the fact that it did not have to happen. God knows how much we all want to believe that nobody dies in vain, that every sacrifice we are asked to make is made for a worthy cause. God knows how much we love that lie, and how willing we are to embrace it.

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/27.html

[Karenina]

134. Every death in Iraq

is "in vain"and for the benefit of an avaricious ruling class until the sheer numbers FORCE Americans to FACE THE TRUTH and TAKE ACTION against the "elite" *cabal endeavoring to enslave us all. Then and ONLY THEN will their deaths have any meaning whatsoever.

[KittyWampus]

136. Wow! You Just Stated The Thought That Came To Me Later Today

after posting this thread this morning... I thought about all the replies and then wondered... but what happens when the deaths finally accumulate to the point the American people won't tolerate the carnage any more.

At that point... the death of all those soldiers DOES mean something.

I wasn't going to post it here and kick the thread... but since you did mention it... I would like to thank you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. To have died in vain means to have died for no purpose.

If a person runs into a burning house to rescue someone else, and dies doing it, he died in vain if that someone else was never in there. That does not diminish the person's heroism, or his sacrifice, but the fact is he died for no purpose.

Bush's purpose was WMDs; no, it wasn't.
Bush's purpose was ousting Saddam; that was accomplished more than a year ago.
Bush's purpose was to strike back for 9/11; no connection.
Bush's purpose was to destroy terrorists; he's created terrorists.
Bush's purpose was to foster democracy; we fostered wholesale slaughter, Abu Grahib, and an insurgency.

The soldiers were lied to about why they were going there. It doesn't diminish their sacrifice to acknowledge that they were lied to, or diminish their heroism for honorably serving. But the fact is, not one of those deaths was necessary.

[raggedcompany]

27. well said n/t

[KittyWampus]

46. But Saying "In Vain" SOUNDS Like You're Diminishing Their Sacrifice

how saying they died due to their boss Bush's mistakes and allowing them to come to their OWN conclusion whether or not it was all in vain?

[wtmusic]

62. Only if you don't know what "in vain" means

as in "not yielding the desired outcome".

Tragic but true.

[KittyWampus]

69. The Bereaved Don't Care About Outcome. But They Might Care That

their husband died cause CIC Bush failed to do his job heading the Military.

[wtmusic]

73. I don't know any families personally

that have lost someone.

But seems that if my son/daughter were killed and the goals that were given for going to war:

1) "Disarm" Saddam
2) Create democracy in Iraq
3) Protect us from terrorism

were all either bogus or not attained--that would be important to me.

We're entering semantics here, but IMO the fact they died in vain does not diminish Bush's culpability.

[KittyWampus]

77. Thanks, IMO Saying "In Vain" Diverts Attention From *'s Culpability.

and you are 100% correct about semantics.

Language is very important.

[raggedcompany]

85. Yeah, and the word "niggardly" SOUNDS racist

if you don't know the word, aren't listening to the context, and are determined to find offense. By your "sounds like" logic we would hold our speech hostage to the unpredictable, irrational, and ill-informed perception of the war mongerers and their legion.

I'm beginning to think this discussion is a waste of time. You're just repeating this same comment with everyone posting. Does wonders for your post count though.

[lebkuchen]

23. The troops don't make policy. They are following orders

Certainly, that has been the excuse of those who have been accused of war crimes.

At any rate, those who died following legal orders died for nothing. Their deaths were totally unnecessary.

[bobweaver]

26. They died enforcing lies - is this isn't dying in vain, what is?

[bowens43]

29. They are dying to stroke the idiot's ego.

They died because bush is an asshole. They died because the American people were too stupid to see through the lies of the administration. They died because we have a drunken cowboy in the oval office.

There is no way to sugar coat this. They died and they didn't have to.

Stating the truth about what happened in no way diminishes the troops.

[Patiod]

31. Last night a widow used that as an excuse to stay in Iraq

She gave an impassioned and sincere speech before a "Nightline Panel", saying that pulling troops out implies her husband died in vain, when really, he died so that we can all sleep safely in our beds at night.

Now, the illogic of the war in Iraq keeping us safer here at home aside, we need to find a way to argue against the war without implying that her husband or any of the other 1400+ killed in Iraq "threw their lives away"

I'm 100% with crying shame - speaking the truth to power is fine, but there's also the "hearts & minds" battle, and we need to make this argument in a way that doesn't alienate the family and friends of the 1400+ killed and of the thousands who were/will be injured or disabled over there as well. People whose loved ones made that sacrifice are not able to hear that they died/were injured in vain - it just won't compute. You can argue til you're blue in the face about what's true and what's factually correct, but it's a matter of finding some message that will get through to those who are most affected by this ill-considered adventure.

[KittyWampus]

54. Thanks, I Am Just Trying To Reframe The Debate. Those Countering

my post are helping a lot... and your contribution helped also.

[IrateCitizen]

56. You're not going to get through to someone like this...

They are offering up a classic defense mechanism. The idea that this woman's husband didn't die for SOMETHING meaningful is too difficult for her to bear. Therefore, she falls back into a defense that is based solely on an emotions certainty -- i.e. "he died so that we can all sleep safely in our beds at night."

Nothing you say or do is going to get through to people in this state. You can't reason with them, because their belief exists solely on an emotional level.

However, in telling the thousands upon thousands of others this uncomfortable truth, you CAN get through to them. And hopefully, in time, after the immediate pain subsides, people like this unfortunate widow will come around to seeing these truths as well.

You're wasting your energies trying to tailor your message to people who won't respond to it.

[KittyWampus]

66. Is It Impossible To Tell Them CIC Bush Failed The Military?

that's a very different thing than "died in vain".

If we can figure a way to tell people "Bush abused the Military and failed them" maybe they EVENTUALLY would conclude the "in vain" part on their own.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Unfortunately, that line of thinking leads to

"We could have won in Vietnam if the politicians had just let the military do their job."

Like Vietnam, the enterprise in Iraq has no intrinsic worth. There is no winning. We aren't doing it wrong. It is wrong.

I give all honor to those who died fighting in Vietnam, but they did not die defending our country, or freedom. They died propping up a corrupt South Vietnamese government that was destined to fall because its roots were in French colonialism.

Likewise, those who die in Iraq are not defending our country, or freedom in general. The are dying for the neo-colonialist agenda of PNAC. And after we declare victory and pull out, once the PNAC cabal has been discredited by their own hubris, we should not look at the Shia theocracy in Iraq and say, "We could have done better, if the troops had only been given more armor and if Abu Grahib hadn't been exposed."

Our message needs to be, we honor those we lost EVEN THOUGH they died in vain.

[KittyWampus]

97. IMO, The Issue Is Bush's Failure To Use Diplomacy. He Failed To Use

it to PREVENT Iraq invasion and refuses to use it not to END it.
Bush failed to listen to Intelligence reports that differed from his preconcieved plan.

Same with Viet Nam.

The "Issue" as I see it is Misuse of Military and Incompetence in using it.

Also, the rejection of what is now called Preventative War.

These things result in soldiers dying.

Perhaps it is "in vain"... but those words are best arrived at by each citizen in their own time.

I'd rather people hear words Bush Misuses the Military and is Incompetent in directing it.

If we can get even a few more to hear that... fewer Americans will be willing to trust Bush in Iran/Syria.

[jonnyblitz]

38. they died in vain and I dont care "how that plays" with anybody

it's the TRUTH.

thanks for listening

jonnyblitz, desert storm vet

[BurtWorm]

42. If you say so.

:eyes:

It may not be wise to say the troops are dying for nothing, but it seems untrue to say they're dying for something. Perhaps it's best to leave judgments about what they're really dying for off the table entirely.

[jmcgowanjm]

43. the only thing stopping the PNAC/NeoCons

is that the USMil is being destroyed (yes, Troops dying).
in Iraq.

Who here doubts that bushco would be invading Syria, Iran,
Venezuela (Hell, they're still trying to-notice
links in LBN to that effect.)

Though figures vary depending on the source, it is now
certain that substantially more than 2,000 Americans
have perished in Iraq, a devastating figure that Wolfowitz
and Rumsfeld are determined you will not be allowed to
access.
  America will soon comprehend how quickly things are going downhill in Iraq.
Basically, when members of the American public
finally discover how many of their fellow citizens have really
been killed in Iraq, and how many grievously wounded, there
will be a riot on Capitol Hill, and you won't want to miss it.

We're going to learn more and I think you're going to see,
it's going to -- it's -- I'm trying to be optimistic. We're going to
see a bottom swelling from inside the ranks. You're beginning
to see it. What happened with the soldiers asking
those questions, you may see more of that. I'm not
suggesting we're going to have mutinies, but I'm going
to suggest you're going to see more dissatisfaction
being expressed. Maybe that will do it. Another salvation may
be the economy. It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if
you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy,
you better do it quick.-Seymour Hersh

www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/1450204

[IrateCitizen]

45. Their job, cryingshame, is to protect and defend the Constitution

At least that's what I perceived my job as being, when I took my oath as a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve.

Please tell me what the current war on Iraq has to do with protecting and defending the Constitution. I'll grant you that the vast majority of the troops are just trying to perform the tasks they are assigned to the best of their ability and get themselves and their friends home in one piece. But the greater cause of what they're serving by being over there has nothing to do with their greater "job".

It is by avoiding the telling of such unpleasant truths that we play into GOP hands. If we acknowledge that they are NOT dying in vain, then the immediate corollary is that the cause they are serving in Iraq is NOT a dishonorable and unjust one.

The only way it can be seen that they are NOT dying in vain is that the overstretching of our military, combined with our crumbling economy, is sounding the death-knell of the US's status as a global superpower in a unipolar world. The only benefit that can arise from this is that the US's position in the world diminishes to that of just one member of the community of nations, and a more just world comes as a result.

[KittyWampus]

57. Thanks, Isn't The Issue The Military's Boss Has Abused Them?

My poorly worded opening post was trying to point out that people need to hear that the "troops are dying cause their boss BUSH keeps screwing up".

Maybe it's best to let them come to the conclusion about "in vain" on their own when they are able to fully deal with the pain.

The reason I went through with this post is cause many who've lost loved ones get totally turned off by hearing "in vain".

When they hear those words.... they will not hear the part "cause Bush screwed up".

[IrateCitizen]

61. You're once again trying to reach the unreachable...

The reason I went through with this post is cause many who've lost loved ones get totally turned off by hearing "in vain".

Those who have lost loved ones and cling to the belief that those who died died for some noble cause are falling back on an emotionally-based worldview. The idea that their loved one did NOT die for a noble purpose is too difficult to deal with, so they block it out.

These people are unreachable, so long as they cling to an emotionally-charged belief. They won't listen to ANY justifications you give them to the contrary, because it would shatter the belief they've turned to for comfort.

Don't tailor your message to suit the unreachables. There's a good amount of use in shock value for things like this. The members of IVAW I know wouldn't shrink away from such language, nor would the members of MFSO, because it helps impress on OTHERS the absolute FUTILITY and unjust nature of what we're doing over there.

[jonnyblitz]

72. the families I met who lost loved ones at the "Vigil for the Fallen"

in Union Sq in NYC (Vets for Peace amd MFSO) during the GOP convention this summer cetainly had no problems stating that their loved one(s) most certainly died in vain and they would have felt patronized if told otherwise I am sure.

[IrateCitizen]

83. I was there as a member of IVAW, and got my discharge that day!

02 September 2004.

If you were there in the afternoon, you might have heard me speak, after I celebrated my discharge with all of the guys from IVAW.

And I fully agree with you -- having met someone like Sue Niederer, who lost her son, 1LT Seth Dvorkin, in Iraq -- the LAST thing she would want to hear is that her son's life was not wasted on that campaign. If anything, her anger over this fact had compelled her to speak out against the Bush regime, and the fact that THEY were responsible for her son's death.

[Fleshdancer]

48. This admin. has been far more disrespectful of troops than we ever could

It blows my mind that we have a group of corrupt leaders who are willing to put hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters at risk for oil (or whatever the hell their real motivation is). It disgusts me that we aren't shown their flag draped coffins, or that they aren't fully armored. It breaks my heart that these people deal with extended deployments only to come back home to a country that cuts their veteran benefits.

Is it disrespectful to say that our troops die in vain? Yes. But Bush makes this statement everyday with his actions...which are suppose to be louder than words, only the majority of Americans don't seem to be listening.

[Batgirl]

50. the desire to protect people from

an unpalatable truth is understandable and well-intentioned, but in a way it also seems a little patronizing. In our desire to somehow ease the pain of their indescribable loss are we to resort to that golden oldie, "at least it was for a good cause."

I feel it's important to honor the sacrifice of these soldiers who've lost pieces of their bodies and minds, and who've lost their lives in Iraq, without resorting to verbal airbrushing.

They trusted their leaders to make good decisions, and their trust was betrayed many times over. And they and their families paid for the incompetent decision making of the war planners with blood sacrifice.

[KittyWampus]

58. Thanks, Now My Argument Is It's Best To Allow Americans To Conclude

"in vain" on their own in their own time.

It is more urgent to get people to grasp "because the CIC Bush keeps screwing up".

[IrateCitizen]

68. You're completely missing the concept of framing here!

You're eschewing an emotionally-loaded appeal for a reason-based appeal. The problem is, the appeals floated by the GOP and their sycophants are emotional ones.

You have to battle an emotional appeal with another emotional appeal. Furthermore, by placing this all on Bush, we continue to miss the real culprit -- militarism and the misuse of US military power.

I'm currently working on a speech to give to a UU congregation this Sunday on the war, since I was a conscientious objector and refused to participate in it. As the basis for this speech, I chose an excerpt from MLK's landmark speech at Riverside Church -- the one where he came out against the Vietnam war. I think it applies to this discussion.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial objections and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

Saying that someone died in vain by serving the cause of militarism is not a mistruth. Now, I'll grant there are better ways of WORDING such a statement, but the general thrust must remain. Why? Because nobody wants to think that our troops are dying in vain, and if that thought begins to creep into their conscience through repetition, then they will turn against this dishonorable and unjust war.

[KittyWampus]

78. Thanks, I Am Going To Meditate On What You've Just Posted.

It seems a bitter pill to swallow... that there are many Americans that we can't reach... who just won't hear "Bush's incompetence is killing soldiers".

IMO, this is a better approach then saying "Soldiers die in vain".

[Stuckinthebush]

55. No, they aren't dying in vain

They are dying to protect this administration's agenda.

Are they dying for my freedom? Hell, no.

Are they dying to insure democracy in Iraq? Please.

Are they dying to protect the world from tyrants? Nope.

But they are not dying in vain.

As hard as it is to accept for some Americans, the troops are a tool - always have been and always will be. The troops are a tool for the administration in power to meet its goals. Most administrations understand the awesome responsibility of committing many lives to their cause, so they don't do it lightly. This administration either doesn't care, or is so deluded that they believe that the troops are dying for a worthy cause. They aren't. They are dying for an unworthy cause. The true cause is to establish and maintain an American (read: American business) presence in the middle east.

We are a nation of fools, easily duped into war by the nationalistic rhetoric of an incompetent boob and his minions. There is no honor, no glory, and no justice in this war...only horror and lost respect.

But never say that the troops are dying in vain. No, there is a goal that they are dying for, it just so happens that the goal is not what the majority of American people would support if they knew the true intentions of this corrupt government.

[wtmusic]

65. Let's stick to the definition, Stuck

in vain: "Not yielding the desired outcome".

If others want to surround the word with ignominy, that's their problem.

[Stuckinthebush]

96. OK

Fair enough

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. They're dying in vain, and killing for politicians.

As for their being "professionals", so what? So are "professional" mafia goons who serve much the same purpose, as enforcers.

[TWiley]

70. It is a Bush Family War in Iraq. Not an American one.

The bush family has been involved with all the major players in the middle east since before brushpile Sr. was vice prick-adent.

This is including Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the radicals in Iran who captured / detained the American Hostages before the 1980 election.

The military action today is nothing more that the bush family pursuing its private interests, which are many, in the region.

Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Condi's business is oil. Haliburton has exclusive rights to all phases of Iraqi oil, including exploration, refining, and shipping. Wouldn't the police, or a prosecutor consider a couple TRILLION dollars be a possible motive in a crime?

Evidently not.

[ernstbass]

71. You can argue semantics all day long

but the truth still remains that their deaths were a total waste, hence they died in vain!

[dhinojosa]

74. If Bush told a soldier to jump in front of train, he does, & dies....

Here are your choices:
1) The soldier died in vain
2) The soldier performed magnificently
3) The soldier followed orders and did his job

As democrats we need speak of 2 & 3. But know that 1 is a sad truth. Also those that fought in Iraq, know 1 is true, and there is no need to rub it in, or even talk about. Then we need to unrelentlessly blame and blame and blame the Bush adminstration for losing America a war that it had no right to begin. If they try to hide behind the troops, site them on that and tell them to be accountable for their actions, all the while talking ad nauseum about 2 & 3.

[UdoKier]

80. They DID die in vain.

The fact that they are trained professionals doesn't alter the fact that they were sent to die for a lie. By the way, these are 19 and 20 year old KIDS we're talking about. People without the judgment and historical perspective to understand fully what they are getting into. And they were NOT doing their job, Their job is to defend this country from aggressors, not be mercenaries annexing sovereign nations on the part of Bush's business contacts.

When I say the troops are dying in vain, I'm simply stating a FACT. If the American people don't understand it, I can't help them with that. I will never start to alter my rhetoric to something that is not fact-based just to please people.

As far as I'm concerned, every single person who has died in the Iraq was and occupation is a victim of murder by George Bush and his henchmen. I don't blame them - a lot of them have been conned, or have no choice economically but to follow orders.

But they have not died in a noble cause, and their grieving parents should be outraged that their beautiful children have been exploited by Bush & Co just to make a fast buck for themselves.


Your premise is nonsense. Save it for Hillary C. and Joe Lieberman. Koolaid doesn't sell well here...

[poe]

81. Iraqi children are dying in vain-America isn't center of Universe-

The Troops,whatever the hell that means, are committing mass murder. Support the Troops and other such meaningless jargon is effective propaganda because it is void of context. Some soldiers are economic slaves some are masochistic bastards some are....
What is their job? Agood soldier is better at obeying and killing than a bad soldier. The troops are dying for Halliburton and the sick American society which is based on cheap oil and cheap plastic goods all of which must be stolen to prop up the american way of life.

[bvar22]

112. The Iraqis are dying to defend their country.

It is not the Iraqis who are dying in vain.
They have an honorable cause.

[poe]

133. yes my friend you are right

support our troops-what does this mean-who is "our"-i support the troops that revolt against the slaughter-i don't support the troops who break down doors machine guns aimed at trembling children-let's not kid ourselves there are plenty of troops who get off on the power-there are also many who are speaking out and rebelling. patriotism is the last refuse of scoundrels. spring is near the streets must be filled with protesters all summer our lives are endangered as well as the beautiful children in the muslim world.

[DrWeird]

89. They died in vain.

Lying about it does a disservice to them.

[leesa]

93. They are doing their jobs AND they are dying in vain.

Your own statements disprove the notion that they are not dying in vain.

[KittyWampus]

104. I Shoulda Emphasised The Import Of Allowing Americans To Realise

the vanity in their own time... and the more urgent need to get people to realise Bush is an incompetent military leader who is misusing the armed forces.

[ultraist]

94. EXCELLENT cryingshame! BUSH LIED: SOLDIERS DIED

Framing is an extremely important component of how we communicate. If we want our message to resonate, we need to consider the emotive underpinnings and the linguistics we choose to craft our message.

I think it's insensitive and harsh to say, "soldiers died in vain." I wouldn't dream of saying that to my friend who has a child in Iraq. It's heartless. I would not want to articulate that I felt the lives of the soldiers were wasted for no reason. They are there for a reason, to serve their country.

NO SOLDIER HAS DIED IN VAIN. Soldiers are doing their job and honoring their country, SACRIFICING THEIR LIVES. To say it was ALL FOR NOTHING is to dishonor the dead and the grieving.

PLACE THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS rather than leave it out in some no man's land. THAT'S what 'died in vain' does. It leaves it abstract. NOTHING ABSTRACT about it. BUSH LIED: SOLDIERS DIED

This at least shows honor to the soldiers. They were doing their duty honorably. UNLIKE Bush.

Why are the Repukes winning the propaganda war? Because they are better communicators. They think about framing and the underlying meaning and emotions of what they say.

CULTURE OF LIFE
PRO LIFE
PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
BLUE SKIES
DEATH TAX
PERSONAL REPSPONSIBILITY
WORKFIRST
FAMILY VALUES

To name a few

[KittyWampus]

103. I Did A Crappy Job In The Opening Post... And Will Refine & Post In

the Framing The Issues forum.

[Solly Mack]

95. Do you have any idea how bad it hurts to acknowledge death can be in vain?

Do you? Because unless you've kissed your soldier spouse or child goodbye for what could be the last time to go off to an illegal invasion built on lies and deceptions, where the death rate isn't exactly low, then you don't know and never will. I do know how that feels. I do know the agony.

You think I feel this way just to "get back" at Bush and republicans? You think it makes me feel smarter or somehow better to feel this way?


I blame Bush. I blame his co-horts. But those soldiers died for nothing. They continue to die for nothing. And if anyone thinks I get one moments satisfaction for feeling that way, they have another think coming.

I AM NOT making a mistake and I'll be good and god-damned if anyone who has nothing to lose from this illegal invasion take it upon themselves to lecture me. They don't fucking walk in my shoes, they don't get to fucking judge me and blame me for what Bush has done.

Bush let those soldiers die in vain. No one else did. But they died in vain.

I'm not going to lie to myself or anyone else just to give them the warm fuzzies about a needless, senseless, death in Iraq. A death that was in vain. They didn't have to die.

[ultraist]

98. AHA!

"BUSH let those soldiers die..." Place the blame where it belongs. Don't let Bush have a pass on this. Don't disregard the fact that those soldiers are honorably doing their job.

Articulate clearly what you really mean. You will be heard!

[Solly Mack]

99. they still died in vain

[ultraist]

106. I'm not doubting you feel this way but...

'died in vain'
1)omits the fact that the soldiers were doing their jobs honorablly
2)fails to place the blame where blame is due: ON BUSH and his lying crew of warmongers.

"Died in vain" is incomplete therefore, it does not effectively articulate the TRUTH.

Dishonesty by omission

[DrWeird]

114. The troops died in vain.

Their mission was a lie. Their death was pointless. Regardless of who gave the order, their death was still pointless.

Just straight old-fashioned dishonesty.

[Solly Mack]

120. Thank you

[IrateCitizen]

101. None of us are in a place to lecture Solly Mack...

... on how she needs to frame these issues. Her husband either is over there as we speak, or has been there (forgive me for not remembering, Solly...)

I think she has a helluva lot more insight into these things than ANY of us approaching it from an academic perspective on this thread.

[KittyWampus]

109. SollyMack Was Able To Conclude The "Vanity" On Her Own. Many Aren't

ready or able to get to that point. Insisting on using emotionally inflammatory words will not enable the Left to reach them.

I won't concede many Americans can't be reached. Advertising works. Minds can be manipulated. If the GOP corporate warmachine can do it- so can the Left.

And you don't reach people by being confrontational or pushing negative emotional buttons.

You use subtleness.

Effective mind control makes people come around to your position thnking that THEY are in charge.

Martin Luther King spoke the Truth but he wasn't "in your face" about it.

[DrWeird]

116. I'm sure MLK would have thought they died in vain.

"I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray to God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.


I am convinced that it is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement in the war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military-industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation. It has put us against the self-determination of a vast majority of the Vietnamese people, and put us in the position of protecting a corrupt regime that is stacked against the poor.


It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. This day we are spending five hundred thousand dollars to kill every Vietcong soldier. Every time we kill one we spend about five hundred thousand dollars while we spend only fifty-three dollars a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.


Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are ten thousand miles away from home fighting for the so-called freedom of the Vietnamese people when we have not even put our own house in order. And we force young black men and young white men to fight and kill in brutal solidarity. Yet when they come back home that can’t hardly live on the same block together."

[ultraist]

110. No one is "lecturing Solly Mack"

We are having a discussion about the most effective way to frame our message.

Why is discussing lingusitics such a threat?

No one is telling anyone how to "feel" we are sharing ideas of how to effectively communicate.

Democrats are really lame in this department and the Repukes are kicking our asses here. Repukes spend BIG BUCKS on linguistics, it's time the Democrats get up to speed.

[Solly Mack]

121. It's not some god damned "message" that needs to be framed

It's the REALITY for many of us. A reality you just don't get and you will never get because you have nothing to lose.

How incredibly pompous and arrogant it is for some of you to sit back behind your keyboards and decide how best to frame my motherfucking life.

Well, screw that.

[KittyWampus]

123. The Same Could Be Said Of Those Who Support Bush & Have Family

in the military.

You already see how things are.

The issue is reaching those who don't.

Because the Crusade is just about ready to move into Iran/Syria.

And if you think the ongoing Crusade doesn't effect all of us personally... that is your opinion.

[ultraist]

125. We are not "framing your life"

I understand that you have strong personal emotions about this, and rightly so. But, even though the losses for many of us are not as great as for some, we all have a vested interest in working towards convincing people of the TRUTH, that is, what a lying, evil, warmongerer Bush is.

I do not want my children and grandchildren to have to pay the price for Bush's evilness. Nor do I want any other human lives lost.

This discussion is not about how people "feel" personally or what tragedies they have endured, it's about linguistics and framing.

[Solly Mack]

122. Thank you, IC

I appreciate your words.

[KittyWampus]

102. Thanks, This Isn't About "Warm Fuzzies" It's Trying To Reach Enough

fellow Americans to stop Iran/Syria.

You personally were/are able to say the words "died in vain".

You are not everyone... and I doubt even a majority.

There are a lot of others who will need to come to that conclusion on their own & in their own time.

IMO, before that happens it'll be more productive to get the point across that soldiers are dying because they're being lead by a CIC who is incompetent and grossly misusing the Military.

[ProfessorGAC]

107. I'm Completely Ok With That

I will not alter my opinions or parse my words because idiots will think i'm disrespecting the troops.

They died in vain because the whole venture is fruitless, futile, and was done for nefarious reasons. The troops were fooled into doing their duty, which is protecting this country. They are NOT protecting the country. There was nothing there from which we needed protection.

They died in vain! If someone misinterpets that, it's on them!
The Professor

[ultraist]

113. Do you really think "died in vain" is the most effective to say it, ProfG?

"They died in vain because the whole venture is fruitless, futile, and was done for nefarious reasons. The troops were fooled into doing their duty, which is protecting this country. They are NOT protecting the country. There was nothing there from which we needed protection."

Are people supposed to mind read and guess that what you mean, even though you leave it out, with saying simply died in vain, includes:
1. The venture was done for nefarious reasons
2. The troops were fooled into doing their duty, which is protecting their county

I don't think most people are telepathic and will know by your three word term you also mean the two points above.

Why don't you say what you REALLY mean? ;)

Is it not important to clearly express ourselves? Or shall we assume people are telepathic and they SHOULD know what we mean and we should not be so inconvenienced as to "parse our words."

[ProfessorGAC]

127. I Just Said What I Really Mean!

They died in vain because the whole venture was a pointless one, based upon lies. Direct words for direct intent. I will NOT parse my words because some people are idiots.
The Professor

[ultraist]

129. You are missing the point, ProfGAC

If you think framing is unimportant, that's your choice.

If you don't give a flying fuck that the Repukes are winning the propaganda campaign or that we will likely be at war for the next decade because of it, fine.

Sorry that it's too much of an inconvenience for you to speak to the masses and help craft a message that will help to shed light on the FULL TRUTH. Maybe you should talk to only those you assume know what you mean, even when you don't articulate it well.

BTW, your phrase is lame and doesn't say much at all.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Whatever You Say!

Gee, i'm so sorry that i have my own opinion. And, i did articulate it extremely clearly and explained my reasoning quite directly. If you can't understand that, that is on you. As i CLEARLY said in my prior post.

The masses don't need to hear any sugarcoating. The approval of how the administration is handling the war is under 50%. The repukes are NOT winning the propaganda war. You seem to have your opinion ahead of the actual facts.

Once again, that's on you, not on me.
The Professor

BTW: I'm not missing the point at all! I'm disagreeing with the premise. There's a huge difference between the two.

[Karenina]

135. Americans seem to demand that

ANYHTHING they consume be coated in a layer of Aspartame. FUCK THAT.
And NO, you can't use my cortisone cream for your rash.

Read Smedley Butler to know the TRUTH of the American MIC.
LOOK at the pictures of your "military might" in Iraq.
Talk to those teenaged amputees turning up in the mall.
Hear the voice of the REST OF THE WORLD telling you your shit STINKS.
Imagine how YOU would feel if what YOU have done in Iraq had been done to you.

American military personnel are dying for a *cabal chess game. NOTHING MORE.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis, (mostly children - but that is ALSO part of the plan. Don't want them sandniggers reproducing on top of the oil you are stealing) will die horrific deaths before you deign to "get it."

ALL ARE DYING FOR A LIE.

To an ardent *supporter in their moment of grief, I'd feel NO SHAME screaming it in his/her face. To anyone else, I'd follow cryingshame's iniative of empathy, framing the issue and harnessing their anger to be directed at the *culprit.

[ultraist]

137. We will just have to agree to disagree

I don't think saying, "they died in vain" tells the whole story and I think it lets Bush off the hook. You explained what you meant by that yes, but the phrase itself, doesn't say it.

I also think that the Repukes ARE winning the propaganda war. Consider how many people voted for him despite his horrific record.

I agree with Lakoff on this one, Democrats need to work on framing their issues more effectively. Have you browsed the Rockridge site or read any Lakoff? His work really does make a lot of sense.

[lectrobyte]

108. I don't say "in vain", simply: 1416 brave soldiers killed by Bush lies!

[bvar22]

111. Insisting the our soldiers have NOT died in vain...

lends legitimacy to the NeoCons misadventure in Iraq.

The heartbreaking sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq have been in vain!

[ultraist]

115. What does that mean?

"in vain"

Why not hold Bush accountable for the murderer that he is? Why give him a pass by leaving it abstract?

[DrWeird]

119. It means they died for no good reason.

They're deaths have no purpose or meaning.

What is this, Jr. High english class?

[ultraist]

124. No, it's about FRAMING

As in Lakoff, Rockridge Institute http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/perspectives/Link.2003-12-09.0845104986

As in effective marketing strategies to win over voters...

As in beating the Repukes who are the masters at framing the issues and convincing people they are the good guys.

Guess who is losing?

snip
http://www.alternet.org/story/16771
"Here is the impression that a great many Americans have been left with, especially our men and women in the military and their families: We went to war in Iraq, first, to defend our country against terrorists, second, to liberate that country -- selflessly, at great sacrifice, not out of self-interest.

These are false impressions, and the president continues to create and reinforce them.

Are they lies -- or are they merely exaggerations, misleading statements, mistakes, rhetorical excesses and so on. Linguists study such matters. The most startling finding is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration for most people is whether it is true!

The more important considerations are, Did he believe it? Did he intend to deceive? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one? Is it "just" a matter of political rhetoric? Most people will grant that, even if the statement happened to be false, if he believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm any one, then there was no lie. If it was a lie in the service of a good cause, then it was a white lie. If it was based on faulty information, then it was an honest mistake. If it was just there for emphasis, then it was an exaggeration.

These have been among the administration's defenses. The good cause: liberating Iraq. The faulty information: from the CIA. The emphasis: enthusiasm for a great cause. Even though there is evidence that the President and his advisers knew the information was false, they can deflect the use of the L-word. The falsehoods have been revealed and they, in themselves, do not matter much to most people.

[ultraist]

128. THEY DIED BECAUSE OF BUSH

To simply say, "they died for no good reason" gives Bush a pass and fails to note that the soldiers were doing their job honorably.

It's WEAK, incomplete and dishonest, as it does NOT INCLUDE THE WHOLE TRUTH.

Why give Bush a pass? Fuck him, HE KILLED THOSE SOLDIERS AND THOSE IRAQIS!

[KittyWampus]

117. I See Your Point. The Opening Post Was Not Well Done. Thanks For

everyone's input.

[Blue_Tires]

126. a few points:

#1 these soldiers DID die in vain, and they took a hell of a lot of civvies with them

#2 I understand what the OP means about 'framing the issue', but I also understand that other poster that said that being on the side of truth is nothing to ever shy away from, or be worried about how people might react

#3 If you want to frame the issuE about dying in vain, THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE GOP CHECKENHAWKS, SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WHORED FOR THIS WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!! the conversation on TV should go something like this:

DEM: "our troops went to war for a lie and died in vain"

REP: "you're wrong, that's anti-american negative talk which aids the enemy! our troops are spreading freedom, making iraq a better place, and are installing a new democracy!"

DEM: "prove it...show us hard data which illustrates that we are changing things for the better over there, and that the iraqis believe we are helping the situation!"

REP: <changes the subject to those 'queer cartoonies'>

[PATRICK]

130. This is what one gets

For taking great pains in piffling entertainment media to degrade the troops of other nations, other times using exactly that same rationale. There are no underpinnings to support troops in the atrocities and unjust causes they are led into except blind nationalist myths.

I always detested the glib phrase especially when shouted to cover its inadequacy. "Dying in vain". "Unless a mans has charity should he even give up his body to be burned he is nothing." And we aren't usually talking about that when we speak about the blood investment that covers the sordid money investment issue of those who start the wars.

It is better to say WHY the troops died. It is nearly all bad and the good things universally, fundamentally and consistently betrayed by the leadership. We die here too, breathing the Texas style air, smoking the tobacco dope, minus health care and safety net, reduction of police and homeland security, living in fear and lies, working and paying to produce our own ruin and deadly enemies where none existed before.

I'd say we are in the same boat with the soliers which is what the people's army concept is all about. Traumatic murder courageously faced in this criminal bog is another social ill to be supported and the victim to be saved with dignity. And a lot more Iraqis have "died in vain" than any American grouping. Screw the pride and glory. That's gone with the fart.

If we supported anyone, including our troops or country, none of this sorry sin and tragedy would have occurred and some bland dem would be administering boring, unexciting prosperity in a limited democracy today.

Died in vain. If you want to be Christ on the cross start acting like him and follow the Beatitudes. Everyone dies in vain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. Better to ask what they are killing for.

Freedom? Defense of America? A paycheck?

Calling them "professionals" doesn't make them any less killers. That's why they carry guns.

[Darranar]

138. I have no interest in popularity...

so I really don't care what "a large number" of Americans think. The majority - or the vocal minority - does not dictate the truth. I am not running for office.

The fact is, the US soldiers in Iraq are not dying in vain. They are not dying to spread freedom or democracy, or to secure the United States. They are dying for greed and imperialism. Why should I ignore this truth because others will not accept it?

This is not the fault of the soldiers. I do not blame them. I blame the Bush Administration and the others complicit in this illegal and immoral war.

[tx_dem41]

139. Thank you for the sentiments expressed in this post. n/t