Thanks for sharing. The cartoon is about right, and I just read Ender's Game a few months ago, so I was interested in the OSC article.
Tim! Happy Birthday! (again
Hi Tim. We wanted to wish you a very happy and blessed birthday. God has done so much in your life. You are a dear friend. May you be blessed and shown by the Lord as to all He has for you.
Very Sincerely in Jesus,
Mr. and Mrs. Swift
well, i guess it's your birthday... many happy returns!
See my post for my opinion of OSC.
I laughed at the cartoon, but I have some qualms with some of the views of the writer. I quote: >>>> But, hamstrung by an apparent moral uncertainty or confusion, he is not willing to fight to win. Worse still, he often sacrificially puts our troops at risk in order to spare civilians and even the enemy. Instead of rallying Americans to fight for a clearly defined victory against an obvious threat, he urges to us "stay the course" in a "long war" that is more and more about helping Iraqis and Afghans and less and less about aggressively eliminating our enemy. >>>>
How do we "aggresively eliminate" our enemy without, as Card said, putting something in their place? If we destroy one enemy to make another, why bother? "Sacrificially putting our troops at risk," while doing their job and fighting terrorists, is the only thing that is going to convince the neutrals that we are better than the other guys.
I'm betting the writer would support the recent Gaza incursions of Israel, where it doesn't seem like they were stupidly "sacrificially puttin their troops (or civilians) at risk." At least 78 Palestinians were killed, presumably to stop rocket attacks. Rocket attacks that mostly fall harmlessly in Israeli fields. Terrible, yes. Completely unacceptable, yes. An act of war, yes. But what does the response accomplish? It takes a closet, a shed, or a small dugout to hide an artillery launcher and a few shells. How is it possible to have effective intelligence on that? How can you hope, by blowing up a bunch of houses and killing indiscrimately, to stop rocket attacks? How many closets, sheds, or dugouts are left?
I heard an interview on NPR with a Palestinian whose house was destroyed, and claims he had nothing to do with it. He says he has chased off militants with rockets before. But if they come back, he said despondently, he won't stop them. Let them fire their rockets, if they want to. He doesn't care.
"Stay the course" is just about as accurate a description as one could hope for regarding what we need to be doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan, in my opinion.
Comments (5)
hey, tim! when are you going to be around this week? we'd love to see you... can you email me at
aday@campbell.k12.va.us
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
Thanks for sharing. The cartoon is about right, and I just read Ender's Game a few months ago, so I was interested in the OSC article.
Tim! Happy Birthday! (again
Hi Tim. We wanted to wish you a very happy and blessed birthday. God has done so much in your life. You are a dear friend. May you be blessed and shown by the Lord as to all He has for you.
Very Sincerely in Jesus,
Mr. and Mrs. Swift
well, i guess it's your birthday... many happy returns!
See my post for my opinion of OSC.
I laughed at the cartoon, but I have some qualms with some of the views of the writer. I quote:
>>>>
But, hamstrung by an apparent moral uncertainty or confusion, he is not willing to fight to win. Worse still, he often sacrificially puts our troops at risk in order to spare civilians and even the enemy. Instead of rallying Americans to fight for a clearly defined victory against an obvious threat, he urges to us "stay the course" in a "long war" that is more and more about helping Iraqis and Afghans and less and less about aggressively eliminating our enemy.
>>>>
How do we "aggresively eliminate" our enemy without, as Card said, putting something in their place? If we destroy one enemy to make another, why bother? "Sacrificially putting our troops at risk," while doing their job and fighting terrorists, is the only thing that is going to convince the neutrals that we are better than the other guys.
I'm betting the writer would support the recent Gaza incursions of Israel, where it doesn't seem like they were stupidly "sacrificially puttin their troops (or civilians) at risk." At least 78 Palestinians were killed, presumably to stop rocket attacks. Rocket attacks that mostly fall harmlessly in Israeli fields. Terrible, yes. Completely unacceptable, yes. An act of war, yes. But what does the response accomplish? It takes a closet, a shed, or a small dugout to hide an artillery launcher and a few shells. How is it possible to have effective intelligence on that? How can you hope, by blowing up a bunch of houses and killing indiscrimately, to stop rocket attacks? How many closets, sheds, or dugouts are left?
I heard an interview on NPR with a Palestinian whose house was destroyed, and claims he had nothing to do with it. He says he has chased off militants with rockets before. But if they come back, he said despondently, he won't stop them. Let them fire their rockets, if they want to. He doesn't care.
"Stay the course" is just about as accurate a description as one could hope for regarding what we need to be doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan, in my opinion.
Comments are closed.