Thanks, hey, but I found some...New York times has a decent enough older kids/young teen section, and Time for kids does a decent (if somewhat biased) job. She's doing really well with mainstream media sources...if she doesn't understand something she's been going off and researching it...if only more adults would do that instead of throw around idealistic notions parrot-fashion with no real concept of the realities of the circumstance.

I'll plant the seed of the newspaper...but she's said she wants her own site here at JoeU.

"

Errmm...are you insinuating that Shea was giving out political tips, Dan?

"

...yes, I was. Unless she's significantly less bright than her comments make her out to be, the her questions reflect her own views as well. If it helps you to understand, try pretending they're rhetorical.

"

Oh, and just so you know, Shea is pubescent, and, much like yourself, precocious and idealistic too.

"

Precocious, yes. Indealistic? Hardly.

"

Dan, Why is it that when people cant refute an argument that they attack the person making it. Calling me 'gullible' and 'prepubescent' does not address any of the issues.

"

I called you gullible because you were saying gullible things. I'm actually surprised you picked up one the meaning of the word, considering that your reading comprehension is low enough that you thought I was referring to you as 'prepubescent.' Sorry, I seem be somewhat venemous tonight, don't I...

"

I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq. Am I right? If so, where do you get your 'unbiased' information from?

"

And that, my gullible friend, is precisely my point. I very rarely assert anything political. Why? Because even I am not precocious enough to make assertions when I know that there is simply no information to be had on the subject. We can squabble all we like, but the only thing we know is that we know nothing. So for you to get all dogmatic about something you know nothing about- not that it's your fault- is ridiculous.

And lastly... Dharmagirl, I meant no insult to your daughter. Truly.

~Dan

She was asking questions Dan. She didn't have the answers last night when she asked the questions. Today she does have some answers. She went off and researched it on her own, read many different articles written from many different viewpoints, and came to conclusions based upon what she had found and read.

She says she can see things from both points of view - which I think is remarkably mature for someone her age - and so you know, she says that you may not think that you're insulting her, but she feels that you did, and you are.

Ignoring the jibes....surely there is a lot of information coming to us about Iraq...in fact it must be the top news story of the day, not just here but everywhere in the world. How much information do you need before you get off the fence. If you feel you know nothing then I agree you should say nothing but please do not make the presumption to speak for my level of knowledge...after all you are making these judgements (insulting and unprovoked as they are) based on what I have written in 30 lines of text on one subject....a bit short to sum someone up dont you think?

That seems to be the theme de jour for Dan....I dunno what got into him but he's been like this all over the place today. He even took Brad on earlier.

I agree with Hey, it IS a bit much to assume that you know as much as if not more than a person in 30 lines of text or less. It's especially presumptive to call someone gullible.

I know exactly what you are saying Dharma - or I think I do. It is completely different to say we lost a soldier than to say that we lost someone that we know - someone who has a name and a face. It makes it so much more personal.

You know, when these people joined the military, they joined it full well knowing that there was a chance that they would be put into some risky situations. I don't feel sorry for them at all. Callous as it may sound, people who join the military *must* enter into that bargain knowing they could get shipped off somewhere and have their head blown off, otherwise I think naivete is afoot. It's not as if they were drafted (yet) and forced to join. It *is* a shame that people have to die, but in the end it was their own choice to put themselves in that situation. If they were worried about losing their life, and the value of their life to loved ones, they should have gotten a nice blue or white collar job working somewhere in the states. This is PRECICELY why I have never joined any branch of the military. I feel that there are enough people in the US who *are* willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of national security, that I don't have to do it, and I thank them for that. And before anyone gets all national and starts defending their loved ones who are in the military, consider this:

* My dad was in the Marines during Vietnam. He got shipped to Japan 24 hours before he was to be shipped off to Vietnam. I may not exist if it was not for that fact.
*My grandfather was in WWI *and* WWII, as a Marine.
*My wife's side of the family has had about %80 of her family members serve in some branch of the military, some of them serving one or more tours of duty in Okinawa, Vietnam, Gulf War I...

If these people did not join the military to defend our country (regardless of who is sending them where, for whatever reason be it right or wrong), who do you think would be around to answer attacks like 9/11?

Let's bear one key thing in mind:

Friends, husbands, etc. may be there today. But they are there today so that our children won't have to go there tomorrow under worse circumstances. That is, after all, the ultimate point.

"She says she can see things from both points of view - which I think is remarkably mature for someone her age - and so you know, she says that you may not think that you're insulting her, but she feels that you did, and you are."

Please communicate my apologies. It was never my intent to put her down in any way, shape or form.

"If you feel you know nothing then I agree you should say nothing but please do not make the presumption to speak for my level of knowledge...after all you are making these judgements (insulting and unprovoked as they are) based on what I have written in 30 lines of text on one subject....a bit short to sum someone up dont you think?"

You, on the other hand, are a different case. Unless you have some top secret clearance that I don't know about, there is simply no way you could know anything. The information isn't availible and will not be for quite some time. I don't fault you for not knowing anything, I fault you for pretending like what the media prints is worth calling knowledge. Whenever you're dealing with print that follows an agenda, you may as well be reading astrology. And before somebody mentions political triangulation (i.e. finding the intersection points of different views on an issue to find the facts), I may as well mention that it doesn't work, since Euclidian geometry lacks the Z-axis. (For those of you who are not in high school- lol- what I mean is that two lines that aren't parallel don't necessarily have to intersect, because they could be on different planes.)

"I dunno what got into him "

JoeUser was getting boring and I needed some adrenaline. Brad is easy to stir up because he's arrogant- and has reason to be- so he'll jump on you if you disagree and call you a loser. I was easy for him- he just said I was too young to have a valid opinion. Then he wrote an article about it and it all went downhill from there... lol.

"I agree with Hey, it IS a bit much to assume that you know as much as if not more than a person in 30 lines of text or less."

That doesn't make any sense. I said there was nothing to know, which means that by definition we would have to know the same amount. That's not presumptive, that's just logical.

"It's especially presumptive to call someone gullible. "

I called him gullible because he thinks the media is a credible source. Honestly, can you blame me?

I'm inclined to agree with Mr_Frog, although he's so blunt that it even turns my stomach a little. I mean... I know some of those soldiers... I can't just say I don't care because that's what they enlisted for. I agree that they're there for a purpose, but I also think that there's no amount you can pay a soldier that would repay them for the emotional and physical trauma they go through. War... it's a horrible thing.

Locomama- when the first friend of mine died in the war- this was over a year ago- I was somewhat stunned. It was hard to imagine him in a war with real guns and real... well, a real war. It's been so long since we've fought a war on American soil that people have forgotten- or at least, I've forgotten- what it's like. Once it hits home that people you know are going to be dying, that's when your beliefs either stand firm or crumble. Either they can stand up to reality, or you were just an idealist all along.

Too bad we had to wait for blood to illuminate the issue.

~Dan

And ditto to what Brad said.

~Dan

Dan, I didn't call you a loser.  I simply don't think an unmarried 17 year old is in a position to insist to those who are married what marriage is all about.

Now, sticking with the topic here. We are, ultimately, in Iraq not for the Iraqi people but for the American people. It is easy for us to forget that. We went into Iraq because we believed that Iraq posed a threat to our country. I can't imagine any clear thinking person believing that a post-sanction Iraq with Saddam in charge would have been good for the United States.

9/11 showed us that terrorists will use anythign they can to murder Americans in as great of numbers as they can. And no amount of pacivity to the Islamo-fascists will change that. After all, during the 90s the United States did more to help Muslims than any other country (Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait). 

We are in Iraq for the simple strategic reason that we believe that in the long run Iraq needs to not be run by terrorists or fascists or religious fanatics (or all 3 at once).  That is why we're going to stay there.  Because we have to. The feelings of the Iraqi people are ultimately irrelevant. That said, I do believe (Based on the gallup poll) that most Iraqi's are glad we took out Saddam and want us to stay long enough to get the situation under control so that a democratic Iraq can be set up.

"Dan, I didn't call you a loser. I simply don't think an unmarried 17 year old is in a position to insist to those who are married what marriage is all about."

I wasn't being literal.

"We are, ultimately, in Iraq not for the Iraqi people but for the American people. It is easy for us to forget that."

Now that is a phenomenal point. I'll be the first to admit that I'd almost forgotten. Of course, the humanitarian issue remains... can we really ignore the welfare of the Iraquis and continue forward with our "collateral damage?" My answer would be a straight "yes," but there are always contenters (aka idealists).

~Dan

Ahem. "Contenders," I meant.

~Dan

Again, my point in writing this article was NOT necessarily to argue whether we should be there or not, it was simply to illustrate the point that the war has now become and upfront and personal issue for me. I'm atill abivalent about the whys and wherefores of it, as you can tell.

I agree that everyone serving in the military should have known that they would be required to deploy. The majority of my husband's friends and colleagues (himself included) WANTED to deploy to Iraq because it would be an opportunity for them to do what they were trained to do in a real-world scenario, not just an exercise.

Dan, I'm really tired of your sanctimonious, know-it-all attitude. REALLY tired of it. Sorry, but that's the truth (and how I REALLY feel)

Dharmagrl- feel free to blacklist me. If you disagree, then say so and then explain why. That's what this is all for, right?

Once again, if you don't want my comments, you have the power to remove them and to prevent me from further commenting- actually, all you need do is ask and I will stop commenting. But I will say what I think and I will not censor it for the sake of propriety. I know propriety and I know how to conform for the sake of being pleasant- and have only contempt for those that do.

~Dan