Hi, I'm back.
Miss me?
I personally think arguing with the choice of words here is *not* helping make the point. I stated what I meant, clearly. Some folks chose not to read the thread before posting, and *that* is what I believe deserves ridicule.
The idea of a provocative headline is to bring readers in, and then once they read the article they understand the point being made and debate it.
Your concern is for people who did *not* read the article, and think I'm insulting the troops, or making light of the horrors of war.
What you have to understand is, I don't care about such folks one bit. Anyone who is of a habit of commenting without reading what the topic is . . . all emotion, no reason.
No, didn't miss you one bit.
I have an issue with someone who is too intellectually weak or dishonest to be able to discuss an issue on its merits without having to resort to attention getting devices that are designed specifically to push buttons.
You don't have the convictions or the honesty to make that statement to the face of anyone who has served in combat in Iraq.
In front of Walter Reed, the Code Pinkos desert the scene every Friday night before the bus full of recovering soldiers returns from their night out, much for the same reasons.