The question I have to ask is what hatred, what deep down bile could get one to parade one's fellow Americans death and use their deaths as a daily political banner?

You might ask the same question of the Bush Administration, as it waved the bloody shirt of September 11 to entice us to war.

Remember Pearl Harbor?
Remember the Lusitania?
Remember the Maine?
Remember the Alamo?

You ask a good question. Politicians make politics out of events - that's what they do. Death is often exploited for political gain. However, that does not make the same practice here any less objectionable especially when it performed in such a tactless and unsubtle manner.

You wave off the soldiers' deaths as fewer than expected - tell it to their survivors.

Quite the contrary. I value each soldier's life and sacrifice manyfold over what most here probably do. I know what sort of post-conflict struggles, suffering and turmoil they will have to endure and regenerate - and so each death by ambush or sniper attack becomes all the more significant. It is the cheapening of their lives by using their deaths as political vindications that I find hurtful to the families and survivors of US servicemen.

This is maliciously personal and uncalled-for, as well as a prime example of the twisted psychological game you play when you have no other recourse: You have to hope for more deaths in order for your campaign to thrive. You have to wake up and hope that every single day some more blood is spilled for you to smear in your posts here.

Then there's this: They sacrifice a little piece of their own morality and humanity to agree with the ends rather than the means.

Pardon me, but the "ends justify the means" arguments are coming from the war's supporters - conveniently summarized as: "It doesn't matter that there are no weapons, no secret uranium deals, no provable connection between Saddam and bin Laden. We GOT the bastard! Mission accomplished - no further justification required."

I thought long and hard before including those choice tidbits into the post. I reread some of Don's previous casualty posts to confirm indeed that I felt the statements were justified. They may seem malicious - but they are really only such if they are true. My statements mean nothing to the genuinely good intentioned "informer." However, they will seriously IRK the person who sees perhaps too much truth therein - only then do they become hurtful and painful.

If they are truly invalid, everyone can just marvel at how off-the beam my assessments can be. For the statements to be malicious requires that I hate Don and want to hurt him. I don't hate Don. That's fairly obvious to anyone who has a cumulative summary of all our handful of post-interactions over the past years. I used the very unyielding statements to best illustrate and make clear what may be entirely invisible to him himself. I wish no ill-will towards Don, instead I would rather try to help him realize how his posts appear. When I make tasteless posts and am called on them - I genuinely appreciate the concern, much as I appreciate your concern regarding my apparent foray into maliciousness.

As for the ends justify the means, my point was exactly that - we may indeed believe the end justifies the means in Iraq, but despite your protestations about this being a flawed premise, the folks in opposition to the war also apparently believe in using any means to achieve "the agenda." This makes their protestations of Bush's war justifications individual testimonials to their own hypocrisy - or even more likely - their limited perspective.

It's been said in other threads that this "mirror principle" of yours is getting old. It's already extremely old, and has been use for millennia; it's called demonizing

Well, I try to use it on myself to my own betterment. It keeps my emotions in check and is great at providing ego deflations when one wants to point the finger. However, the mirror principle is NOT just that the people or things you see become mirrors for oneself - but rather the things one views which extremely EMOTIONALIZE one become the mirrors. This is an ALL-important nuance. If I see kids playing marbles - doesn't mean I'm a marble player too. But if I see a kid cheating at marbles and I just can't stand that kid because of his actions - I can safely assume that I am off-equilibrium in regards to cheating. I may not realize how in the past I have cheated others or have let cheating occur, etc. Intense personal emotion is the conditional that has to be factored in for the mirror principle to be used most effectively.

Thanks for your concern Fox, but I genuinely didn't intend Don any hurt - only perspective.

SDAI-Tech1