Anti-war train drivers refuse to move arms freight
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:31:50 -0700
Al Diablito wrote:
>> US soldiers are not treated as cannon fodder, and no vaguely clueful
>> person would think so.
> I think I am at least vaguely clueful
Your comments on this matter indicate otherwise.
> and I think that all soldiers are cannon fodder.
You are absolutely, unequivocably incorrect.
No, that's not the right way to put this.
You are saying "cannon fodder" for emotional effect, knowing that it
brings to mind images of promising young men being mowed down by the
tens of thousands in a futile attempt to collapse an enemy position
by sheer weight of numbers.
Now, you certainly don't believe that American soldiers, the topic of
your comment, are being slaughtered in the tens of thousands to serve
our need for oil--at least you don't if you live in the real world,
where American soldiers die by the hundreds or thousands every year,
mostly from accidents. So perhaps you mean that you expect American
military planners to adopt these sort of tactics during the next armed
conflict they find themselves party to--but if that is the case then you
*are* as clueless on military matters as others have alleged. Most
likely, though, is that you don't believe either of those things and are
using the word because you like the emotional impact it gives your
argument regardless of whether it is actually true.
This sort of intellectual and rhetorical dishonesty is the reason that
most Americans find the modern left so unworthy of respect. It's also
the reason that you've ended up killfiled. You don't get to just change
the definitions of terms to suit you, hoping that others won't notice.
Not if you want to be taken seriously.