As You Were Everybody

[codeorama]

MSNBC showed an interview with soilder yesterday. He basically said that the troops understand that some people may not agree with the war itself, but he hoped that Americans supported the troops and prayed for them.

I though that was very well said and it sums up my sentiments. I may not agree with our involvement in Iraq, but I do understand the troops are doing their jobs and I am behind them 100%. I personally wish that all of our troops could return home safely to their families ASAP, and those who are less fortunate, I pray for their families.

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by TheKurp

As far as I can tell, it's every American's right to express his feelings regardless of how unpopular they come across.

I believe America is about guaranteed rights. Whatever Champ and JackC said, how did they infringe on anyone's rights?

I have a theory about people like you LarryBrown who are so quick to call someone anti-American, you have NO IDEA what it is to be an American.

Chew on that for awhile. Then get back to me, okay?

Kurp,

It is my opinion that saying “America has never been great,” or defending someone who says the same, is UN-American. Having said that, it is every American’s right to BE un-American. Champ and JackC exercised their right to be un-American. And I exercised my right to point out that they were un-American. I don’t see the problem here.

[Art]

Kurp,

I'm still going to answer, as promised, the points brought up earlier, but, before I do, I'll just give a quick reply here.

A person who sais America is not great or has never been great, is perfectly within his rights to say so. Larry didn't say he wasn't. Larry also didn't express that HIS rights were infringed upon by having had to witness such sentiment.

So, two of your major points -- which seem ALMOST ROTE by people who decide they MUST always defend any utterance coming out of any idiot's mouth -- were that people have a right to say that and that saying that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others is true, and it's so true that in almost no circumstance is the almost sloganized response actually necessary because, no one said differently.

However, I have an equal right, right now, to say I do not like the color green. Hate the hell out of the color green. It is my right to say it. I'm not infringing upon your rights to like it. Nor am I saying anything other than I don't like the color green. If someone were to say I don't like the color green in a reply, does that really mean THEY don't like the color green?

Do you see where I'm going?

The American left, not only with almost mechanized defenses to anything they say or believe, also have a disturbing trait of doing the, "I know you are but what am I routine," as if it's somehow meaningful.

Say you do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and invariably someone will say, "You're probably gay yourself." Say someone doesn't like America or doesn't like being an American or is anti-American invariably winds up with the response, "Yeah, well you are anti-American."

I was four when I moved beyond the power of that argument.

And it simply fails to be at all meaningful to see Champ say America has never been great, see Larry wonder at his anti-American attitude, and then see you say Larry's anti-American because he called someone else on their words that fairly define themselves as such.

You are what you are. It is true that, especially in this, many members of the left are anti-American. They want to defer America's foreign policy to the U.N. That's anti-American, and it doesn't mean I am for recognizing it. Saying America hasn't been great is anti-American, by definition, and recognizing it doesn't mean I'm anti-American because I saw the sentiment for what it was.

People have a right to be anti-American as Americans. And people have a right to note that attitude and fight against it. And perhaps both are part of what an American would be if one were to have any idea of what it is to be an American. And, now, your post has come full circle. Should we start retracing so as to make a spiral?

[TheKurp]

Art,

For someone who has an above average command of the written word I'm surprised that you failed to acknowledge the nuances of meaning between the prefixes "un" and "anti".

Larry Brown corrected himself and so I let the matter drop. You are now defending his original statement despite his own altering of his position. What gives?

To say that "America has never been great" cannot, in and of itself, be construed or interpreted as opposed to America. That is what "anti" means and I'm surprised that I'm spending time either reminding you of this, or teaching you this.

"Un" on the other hand, means contrary to. One can be contrary to American idealogy, which is a right of Americans by definition, without being opposed to America. In fact, to be opposed to America one must have a problem with any part or all of the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution.

Art, your entire argument is based on "un" and "anti" being interchangable. They are not. So any further discussion based on that assumption is mute in my book.

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Art,

For someone who has an above average command of the written word I'm surprised that you failed to acknowledge the nuances of meaning between the prefixes "un" and "anti".

Larry Brown corrected himself and so I let the matter drop. You are now defending his original statement despite his own altering of his position. What gives?

To say that "America has never been great" cannot, in and of itself, be construed or interpreted as opposed to America. That is what "anti" means and I'm surprised that I'm spending time either reminding you of this, or teaching you this.

"Un" on the other hand, means contrary to. One can be contrary to American idealogy, which is a right of Americans by definition, without being opposed to America. In fact, to be opposed to America one must have a problem with any part or all of the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution.

Art, your entire argument is based on "un" and "anti" being interchangable. They are not. So any further discussion based on that assumption is mute in my book.

Kurp, I did not alter my position. The difference between "un" and "anti" is subtle at best, but not relevant to this argument. Where at any point in this discussion did I say that an American does NOT have a right to express his opinions? Your original premise in confronting me was this: "As far as I can tell, it's every American's right to express his feelings regardless of how unpopular they come across." Art and I are still waiting for you to explain where I said anything contrary to this statement. I suspect we'll be waiting for quite some time.

By the way, since we're on the topic of word selection, I believe the word you were looking for is "moot," and not "mute," in your last sentence above. You might want to look that one up before you correct others on their word selections.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Larry Brown #43

JackC...

Despite being a left-wing nut, you are clearly not a complete moron. Having said that, I am shocked and appalled that you would pat Champ24Bailey on the back after he stated that "America has never been great." I realize that someone else pointed out your lack of judgment on this issue, and you responded to him. But I am not satisfied with your response. If you had an ounce of Americanism in you, you would have distanced yourself from Champ right then and there. Instead, you responded to Champ by letting him know how proud you were of him.

I have a theory about the left. Despite their vehement denials, most liberals truly ARE anti-American. JackC, as you stated yourself in reference to Champ's comment, "when things get heated these kind of things get said." True, but the way I see it, when things get heated people's true feelings come out. So I guess we learned a bit about where Champ stands. And the fact that you immediately embraced him after that post tells me a bit about you. Personally, my jaw dropped when I read his comment.

Listen I guess you think saying I haven't finished my moron training is some sort of praise coming from you. You are mad because Champ said America has never been a great country! Get over yourself. It's true. By my definition there is not any nation that has ever been great. We could be the closest to it but we aren't great.

As for you stupid comment about liberals all being anti-American, you can just stick that BS where the sun don't shine. It's an old and tired attempt to take any postion you don't agree with and declaring that unpatriotic or Anti-American. Too me that is clearly Un-American!

[Art]

Kurp,

I hear your point and even acknowledge the relative sound nature of the careful consideration necessary, perhaps, when deciding between un and anti. However, I would use anti far more quickly and accept that use before using un.

Why? Because, to me, calling someone un, in this conversation, means NOT American first (as the first meaning of un is not), and it also means contrary to. I think we could have a fun, persuasive, compelling argument that Champ's phrase that America has never been great is, in fact, anti-American, and not un-American.

I find the sentiment that the U.S. should defer its foreign policy decisions to the U.N. to be anti-American, rather than un-American, but only if I would insist on giving an overly great weight to the POSSIBILITY that using un-American can be construed as not being an American. Since not is inherently part of using un, it can allow responses you've given here that are perfectly well placed, though less so for anti.

Your argument that saying someone isn't an American, which un-American can be read as, does open itself up, fairly, to questions about whether the person using the brand actually knows what it is to be an American.

However, being against America doesn't mean you are not an American and Champ's words, to me, by definition weren't at all un-American but were highly anti-American. Saying America has never been great, to me, says clearly that this person is against what American has been. Saying the U.S. should defer to the U.N. is against what America is, not necessary not American.

But, again, I concede you a fine point, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I do think it's a finer point of perception, and given the first definition of un is NOT, I would hesitate to ever use un to describe an American because I believe almost anything an American can say is unfairly called NOT American. Perhaps you see my point as well.

Perhaps you don't .

[JackC]

If American was/is a great nation really depends on what you mean by great.

Is America a good nation? You bet.

Is America the closest to a great nation as any in history? Maybe.

Greatness is still our goal but we clearly are not there yet. The willingness on some to think we are already there will hinder our attempts to get there. If you don't recognize your own weaknesses you will never overcome them!

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Larry Brown #43

Kurp, I did not alter my position. The difference between "un" and "anti" is subtle at best, but not relevant to this argument.

Well then, I stand corrected with regards to your position. While the difference between "un" and "anti" may be subtle based on your usage of the word, you'd do yourself a service by learning that the difference is in fact, notable for the purpose of communication. Look it up.

Usage Note: The negative prefix un- attaches chiefly to adjectives (unable, unclean, unequal, unripe, unsafe) and participles used as adjectives (unfeeling, unflinching, unfinished, unsaid), and less frequently to nouns (unbelief, unconcern, unrest). Sometimes the noun form of an adjective with the un- prefix has the prefix in-, as in inability, inequality, injustice, and instability. A few stems appear with both prefixes with distinctions of meaning. Inhuman means “brutal, monstrous,” while unhuman means “not of human form, superhuman.”·When used with adjectives, un- often has a sense distinct from that of non-. Non- picks out the set of things that are not in the category denoted by the stem to which it is attached, whereas un- picks out properties unlike those of the typical examples of the category. Thus nonmilitary personnel are those who are not members of the military, whereas someone who is unmilitary is unlike a typical soldier in dress, habits, or attitudes.

Where at any point in this discussion did I say that an American does NOT have a right to express his opinions? Your original premise in confronting me was thid: "As far as I can tell, it's every American's right to express his feelings regardless of how unpopular they come across." Art and I are still waiting for you to explain where I said anything contrary to this statement. I suspect we'll be waiting for quite some time.

Your entire argument is specious at best. When someone says, "America has never been great", it does not equate to being opposed to America. You have castigated the Left as being opposed to America when you label them "anti-American." It is not I that has any explaining to do here, but you.

By the way, since we're on the topic of word selection, I believe the word you were looking for is "moot," and not "mute," in your last sentence above. You might want to look that one up before you correct others on their word selections.

Why would I have to look the word up when it is you who once again exhibits a lack of knowledge with respect to word definitions.

moot adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

mute adj. Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal.

My point when I expressly used the word "mute", was to indicate that I was not going to respond to any further discussion if one chose to assume that "un" and "anti" are interchangable. In other words, I did not think the subject was debatable.

Now, do you understand why I used the word "mute" instead of "moot". In the future, don't presume to lecture me on the use of the English language and we'll do just fine.

[Henry]

Now, do you understand why I used the word "mute" instead of "mute".

uh ... don't you mean 'moot'?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Henry

uh ... don't you mean 'moot'?

Yeah Henry, I caught that just before I saw your note, really.

I never said I was adept at proof-reading before posting.

[Larry Brown #43]

According to my dictionary, the adjective definition for the word "moot" is "of no practical importance," which certainly sounded like the context you were going for. If you meant something other than that, then I drop my inquiry.

The important thing is you've admitted that you stand corrected on the central topic of our discussion, so I have nothing further.

[Yomar]

this thread is moot

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

But, again, I concede you a fine point, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I do think it's a finer point of perception, and given the first definition of un is NOT, I would hesitate to ever use un to describe an American because I believe almost anything an American can say is unfairly called NOT American. Perhaps you see my point as well.

Perhaps you don't .

Rarely, if ever, do I not see your point. Agreeing on that point? Well, let's just say that my synapses might grow rusty from idleness.

In any case, I don't want to digress from our earlier debate. I've been sharpening my ax just in case you wish to pursue your line of reasoning.

On the other hand, if you don't have the time and would rather address other points of the war, well, I'm harboring some opinions and seeking openings in other threads.

But on one topic I'm growing weary waiting and I might just have to start a thread all my own titled, "Why Bush must ask for Rumsfeld's resignation."

[Kyle]

Kurp, I have enjoyed following this discussion, and see that you have made some very interesting points, but I think your synapses <i>are</i> getting a little rusty. :laugh:

By applying the alternate definition of “mute” which you provided (expressed without speech; unspoken) to your original statement that “any further discussion [based on a faulty assumption] would be mute”, I’m struggling to understand how further discussion between you and Art would be rendered “unspoken”, and how this unspoken discussion might take place.

I’ll take your word that mute was the word you intended to use, but agree with Larry that moot would have made a lot more sense.

I make this observation not because I believe that it contributes to the substance of what has been discussed in this thread, but because I see in your rigorous defense of this word usage, and in your extensive treatise of the difference between “un” and “anti”, a certain love of semantics which has betrayed any larger point you might have offered.

In my view, the difference between the prefixes “un” and “anti” does not make further discussion moot or mute. A statement that America has never been great, is both un-American and anti-American, and any distinction in meaning between the two words for the purpose of evaluating this statement is hardly relevant. I have no idea whether Champ is really as anti-American as that statement makes him sound, but it is none-the-less a clearly anti-American statement.

Apparently you agree that the statement is un-American, but not anti-American. But to Larry and others who stand up and defend the honor of America and it’s greatness in the face of such an ignorant and offensive statement, you say they “have NO IDEA what it is to be an American.” I guess it <i>would</i> take a lot of semantics to get around to that point of view.

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by Kyle

Kurp, I have enjoyed following this discussion, and see that you have made some very interesting points, but I think your synapses <i>are</i> getting a little rusty. :laugh:

By applying the alternate definition of “mute” which you provided (expressed without speech; unspoken) to your original statement that “any further discussion [based on a faulty assumption] would be mute”, I’m struggling to understand how further discussion between you and Art would be rendered “unspoken”, and how this unspoken discussion might take place.

I’ll take your word that mute was the word you intended to use, but agree with Larry that moot would have made a lot more sense.

I make this observation not because I believe that it contributes to the substance of what has been discussed in this thread, but because I see in your rigorous defense of this word usage, and in your extensive treatise of the difference between “un” and “anti”, a certain love of semantics which has betrayed any larger point you might have offered.

In my view, the difference between the prefixes “un” and “anti” does not make further discussion moot or mute. A statement that America has never been great, is both un-American and anti-American, and any distinction in meaning between the two words for the purpose of evaluating this statement is hardly relevant. I have no idea whether Champ is really as anti-American as that statement makes him sound, but it is none-the-less a clearly anti-American statement.

Apparently you agree that the statement is un-American, but not anti-American. But to Larry and others who stand up and defend the honor of America and it’s greatness in the face of such an ignorant and offensive statement, you say they “have NO IDEA what it is to be an American.” I guess it <i>would</i> take a lot of semantics to get around to that point of view.

Exactly. Thank you Kyle!

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kyle

Kurp, I have enjoyed following this discussion, and see that you have made some very interesting points, but I think your synapses <i>are</i> getting a little rusty. :laugh:

Well then, oxidation must be endemic to this thread. Read on.

By applying the alternate definition of “mute” which you provided (expressed without speech; unspoken) to your original statement that “any further discussion [based on a faulty assumption] would be mute”, I’m struggling to understand how further discussion between you and Art would be rendered “unspoken”, and how this unspoken discussion might take place.

In high school I once partook in an exercise whose lesson has remained with me ever since. In short, through usage people have assigned dissimilar meanings to words.

Moot

(You're meant to click on that link for the point to be effective.) If you read me enough you'll find that I occasionally bait people to prove this point. Peruse is another such word. It's often used to mean "quickly glance" at reading material. However its real meaning is just the opposite.

I’ll take your word that mute was the word you intended to use, but agree with Larry that moot would have made a lot more sense.

Then the number now stands at three people joining RSSG (Rusty Synapses Support Group).

I make this observation not because I believe that it contributes to the substance of what has been discussed in this thread, but because I see in your rigorous defense of this word usage, and in your extensive treatise of the difference between “un” and “anti”, a certain love of semantics which has betrayed any larger point you might have offered.

Really? I'll try my best to follow your reasoning.

In my view, the difference between the prefixes “un” and “anti” does not make further discussion moot or mute. A statement that America has never been great, is both un-American and anti-American, and any distinction in meaning between the two words for the purpose of evaluating this statement is hardly relevant. I have no idea whether Champ is really as anti-American as that statement makes him sound, but it is none-the-less a clearly anti-American statement.

I might take your word for it...or... I might not. What would be clear to me is if Champ expressly stated that he is opposed to being an American. Otherwise I'll continue to assume that by his statement he is at least, in the context of this thread, un-American. Semantics to you; a pertinent distinction to me.

Apparently you agree that the statement is un-American, but not anti-American. But to Larry and others who stand up and defend the honor of America and it’s greatness in the face of such an ignorant and offensive statement, you say they “have NO IDEA what it is to be an American.” I guess it <i>would</i> take a lot of semantics to get around to that point of view.

Now you see here is where I'm convinced, if we're to assume that my synapses are discolored, that we share a bond. I could have sworn that my issue was with Larry categorizing the Left as anti-American. If I can figure out how to find the Back button on my browser I'll double check just to make sure.

If you can find some WD-40 to apply between the ears you might want to ponder if America would be democratic under a one party system. I mean if the Left, defined as members of the Democratic Party, were anti-American as Larry says, then our two party system might cease to exist, no?

See the conundrum here? Larry's assertion that the Left is anti-American is paradoxical; rusty synapses or not.

[Kyle]

In high school I once partook in an exercise whose lesson has remained with me ever since. In short, through usage people have assigned dissimilar meanings to words. If you read me enough you'll find that I occasionally bait people to prove this point.

Oh, I get it. You intentionally chose the awkward construction in hopes of proving an unrelated point about the pre 19th century usage of a word that hadn’t been used.

What would be clear to me is if Champ expressly stated that he is opposed to being an American. Otherwise I'll continue to assume that by his statement he is at least, in the context of this thread, un-American. Semantics to you; a pertinent distinction to me.

I appreciate your unique invention for the meaning of the word anti-American - one who is opposed to <i>being</i> an American. I suppose that could make one anti-American, but so could being opposed to the American government, or being opposed to official policies of the United States, or being opposed to the genius of American institutions. These are not my own personal definitions, but ones found from your handy link. And for a distinction without a difference, see un-American, where you will find a <i>less</i> broad, yet equally applicable definition.

I could have sworn that my issue was with Larry categorizing the Left as anti-American. If I can figure out how to find the Back button on my browser I'll double check just to make sure.

I couldn’t find my back button, but your theory about people who are quick to call someone anti-American applies to Larry calling Champ anti-American. If you are now disclaiming it’s otherwise clear applicability to this situation, I guess we have the loop hole in your theory that permits one to call a statement anti-American and still know what it is to be an American. I’m sure Larry feels much relieved.

If you can find some WD40 to apply between the ears you might want to ponder if America would be democratic under a one party system. I mean if the Left, defined as members of the Democratic Party, were anti-American as Larry says, then our two party system might cease to exist, no? See the conundrum here? Larry's assertion that the Left is anti-American is paradoxical.

In other words, if the Left were to hold a position which is opposed to the official policies of the United States, democracy in this country might cease to exist. This is a riveting paradox that offers many possibilities for fascinating discussion. Lets make it a “mute” discussion. :laugh:

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I could have sworn that my issue was with Larry categorizing the Left as anti-American.

Actually, Kurp, your original issue with me was that you apparently felt I was somehow limiting Champ and JackC's rights by commenting that their views were anti-American...

Originally posted by TheKurp

As far as I can tell, it's every American's right to express his feelings regardless of how unpopular they come across.

I believe America is about guaranteed rights. Whatever Champ and JackC said, how did they infringe on anyone's rights?

But the point has been made clear several times that in fact nobody had infringed upon anyone's rights. Champ and JackC exerted their right to speak their mind, and I exerted my right to comment on their comments. But they did not infringe upon my rights, nor did I infringe upon theirs.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Larry Brown #43

But the point has been made clear several times that in fact nobody had infringed upon anyone's rights. Champ and JackC exerted their right to speak their mind, and I exerted my right to comment on their comments. But they did not infringe upon my rights, nor did I infringe upon theirs.

I'm reminded of a dog chasing its tail.

To be anti-American means to be opposed to that which defines America (Bill of Rights/Constitution).

Yes, you have the right to say Champ is anti-American. The mere fact that Champ did nothing or said nothing to detract from that definition makes him NOT anti-American, but makes you wrong for labeling him as such.

Again, if you want to characterize his statement as un-American, then we have no quarrel.

[Art]

Ok. Enough Kurp.

Clearly you're dead wrong about anti versus un, as I and now two others have clearly shown. You were also wrong about moot versus mute, which WOULDN'T be an issue whatsoever if YOU hadn't trotted out the Mr. Big Brain, you must be careful what words you use.

You should be tired of chasing YOUR tail here. This is unlike you. Usually you just smile away easily rebuked statements and move on to the next point. I have NEVER seen you hammer away at losing issues for you as you are here. I'm not sure why you are now, especially over what, even if you were precisely right and unquestionably so, would be, at best, a victory in semantics that does little to address the conversation itself.

But, let's put the conversation to bed in this way.

It is anti-American to say the country has not been great. If you don't think so, then you don't think so, but I do, and I'm smart too, and that means you have to address the conversation, which means anything else is not mute or moot, because, as shown, you're still talking about it, which means it's neither mute nor moot and you need to make it so, since you said it was, or you need to move on to the next, or no one will take your directives about when a conversation has reached an end point seriously again.

I'm not going to qualify Champ's comments and not American. I'm stunned you'd want to do that. That you would engages an entirely new quarrel where I'll simply ask you to consider what you said when you entered this thread. A person willing to say someone is not American probably doesn't know what being an American is. Someone who is willing to recognize that something said is against America, probably does realize it. And a person who doesn't realize what anti-American means, probably shouldn't have started talking.

[JackC]

Art,

In which period was America great? Are we great now? I will say at times we were the best but we've never been great.

Larry,

If you think I'm Un or Anti American than you don't know me at all.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Ok. Enough Kurp.

Clearly you're dead wrong about anti versus un, as I and now two others have clearly shown. You were also wrong about moot versus mute, which WOULDN'T be an issue whatsoever if YOU hadn't trotted out the Mr. Big Brain, you must be careful what words you use.

If you and two others have clearly shown it, I've missed it. You have on more than one occasion elevated your own self-importance by declaring somone wrong, and then on your say so expect the issue resolved.

You've shown nothing Art. I've established the bounds for "un", "anti", "moot", and "mute" by providing links to their definitions and framed my arguments within that context. You (and others) have simply used contrived meanings and then proceeded to stumble through a line of reasoning based on incorrect, albeit common usage.

You should be tired of chasing YOUR tail here. This is unlike you. Usually you just smile away easily rebuked statements and move on to the next point. I have NEVER seen you hammer away at losing issues for you as you are here. I'm not sure why you are now, especially over what, even if you were precisely right and unquestionably so, would be, at best, a victory in semantics that does little to address the conversation itself.

No Art, it is precisely me. I abhor negative stereotyping. This board is rife with members who castigate others whose political thoughts don't square with conservative ideology. I have no problem when one debates the merits of another's statements. But all too often the discussion either starts with or ends with pasting a label on not only the poster, but on an entire category of people whom that poster is assumed to represent.

But, let's put the conversation to bed in this way.

It is anti-American to say the country has not been great. If you don't think so, then you don't think so, but I do, and I'm smart too, and that means you have to address the conversation, which means anything else is not mute or moot, because, as shown, you're still talking about it, which means it's neither mute nor moot and you need to make it so, since you said it was, or you need to move on to the next, or no one will take your directives about when a conversation has reached an end point seriously again.

The conversation won't be put to bed until I get a retraction or an admission that categorizing the Left as anti-American was a flippant and ill-conceived remark. The rest is superfluous in spite of my correcting others on the semantics of the words in question.

[Burgold]

Isn't the ability to complain about the government a very American quality? The right to disagree is precisely what makes this country strong and good. I have not read a majority of posts on this thread, so I may be off track in what I have gathered, but the position one takes on an issue does not usually make one pro or anti american or even necessarily pro or anti the US government.

[Art]

Burgold,

Feel free to flash back a few pages, but you are rediscovering old territory. In fact I think we all agree that it is perfectly within the rights of every American to disagree. It is even within the rights of every American to be anti-American. No one has said anything opposite. The conversation took a turn toward the semantic by the recriminating assertion Kurp offered that in some way a person who would take exception to that sentiment -- which is also the right of every American -- is proably, himself, anti-American.

Kurp,

The information provided to you as to how you are incorrect in your narrow defining of how anti or un may be used should have been illuminating. I'm sorry it hasn't been. The very thorough response to you by Kyle regarding the use of mute as you phrased it also should have been enough to allow a smile and, "Ok, you got me." I'm sorry it didn't. Pride is a trait that finds us all at various points and here, I see, is where your pride has gotten the better of your position. I see that. You don't. Perhaps you never will. I won't hold it against you too much.

I will though try to get us back engaged in some of the furthering of the conversation you wanted to have earlier. Specifically, when it is acceptable to risk the lives of civilians in an effort to limit the potential harm to Americans. I figure it's appropriate to engage in this conversation because a van filled with women and children was shot up by our forces and soon, someone will point this out as a problem, where I will point to it as a shining example of how to correctly respond to the situation.

Two days ago we lost four soldiers to a suicide bomber. Immediately after, we altered our rules of engagement so that any vehicle that didn't stop upon first challenge was to be met with a shot into the radiator, and then, immediately into the vehicle itself. Here women and children died. As tragic as this is, this is a perfect example as to how policy is appropriate to limit the potential dangers to us, even at the risk of propoganda against us that portrays us as indiscriminate killers of innocents.

The duty is to protect each of the men on the front who are engaged in this effort even if it may at times mean the death of non-combatants. This reaction is appropriate given the circumstances of the Iraqi military stance toward us and the risk we face now any time a vehicle doesn't stop.

What won't be shown on the Arab news is how our troops felt about what happened. No one will show the tears of the men involved as they buried these people. No one will discuss their dreams stemming from this. And, despite that, the action was not only appropriate, but, in fact, the only reasonable thing. No matter the paint brush applied by members of our liberal media or the Arab press.