Sunday, March 20, 2005

Small Town Americans Are Dying in Iraq

First the surprizing news:
"Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from rural Missouri, says small towns are paying more than their share. His statistics show that 43 percent of those killed in action in Iraq and 44 percent killed in Afghanistan through mid-February came from towns of 20,000 people or fewer. Less than 23 percent of the U.S. population lives in towns that size."
Now the social impact of those deaths:
"Paul Oliver, mayor of Cedar Key, said military deaths shake towns his size more deeply than big cities.... About 1,200 people turned out for the funeral of Lance Cpl. Brian Buesing. Fewer than 800 people live in the town."

2 Comments:

Anonymous unrepentant carpenter said...

maybe because small towns are the "heartland" of America and the big cities are proportionately more
"leftist" and subsequently more opposed to aiding the oppressed of the world, preferring instead to maintain the "stability" of the brutal conditions extant in so much of the world. irrelavent, the calcified left is reduced to bleating it's opposition to the current administrations actions, so obsessed with attacking the evil U.S. that they cannot bring themselves to be supportive of any
progress made by members of the family of humanity. so consumed by hate is the left, and so important is the struggle to subvert the efforts of the U.S.,that honesty, the efforts towards democratic freedom made by the people of the world(often at great risk to themselves), and the reality of the selfless actions of Americans in the aid of total strangers are willingly discarded, ignored, and denied in pursuit of the primary objective of destroying what makes the U.S. the greatest, most wonderful place in the world.
until they need us to save their sorry ass.

12:48 pm  
Blogger Fintan, BreakForNews.com said...

> "the efforts towards democratic freedom made by the people of the world(often at great risk to themselves)"

The Iraq war marks the first time the U.S. has moved against a "brutal dictator." Around the world for decades the U.S. is the one supporting or even installing dictators. Read some history.

Anyway the objective of the 2liberation" of Iraq, is to install a modern, US-led dictatorship to replace Saddam. A modern dictatorship enforced by modern nulear weapons: complete with death squads, torture, and attacks against civillians [Fallujah] which rival those of the Saddam era.

I agree that democracy is an advance on dictatorship. The will of the people is indeed preferrable to the brutal will of the elite.

Which is why the U.S. should respect the clear will of the majority of Iraqi people... and get the fuck out.

> "so consumed by hate is the left"

Actually, the point made clear by the article is the opposite. It is the armed forces men and wonem of the right-leaning "heartlands" you describe who are so disproportionately being consumed by hate. A hatred of the "terrorists," whipped up by the fake 9/11 attack, which masks and enables the imperial ambitions of the elite.

> "until they need us to save their sorry ass"

A lot of this type of rethoric is based on the WWII experience. Note that it was the Russians who did the tough work against the Third Reich - another dictator seeded by U.S. elite interests [see Prescott Bush]. U.S. intervention only came in order to stop the Russian advance -after they broke the back of the Nazi war machine built by the U.S. proxy: Adolf Hitler.

Speaking of which, the Iranians at great cost did the same in modern times against another U.S. proxy: Saddam Hussein.

The dictators change. The M.O. stays the same.

3:33 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home