Available at 
Tweet
I listened to a report today on NPR about the only military burn center (in San Antonio). As of today's report, the number of dead is just over 2,500, the number of wounded is over 18,000.
For better or worse, the wounded are more hurt, more physically and mentally wounded than could have / would have (maybe should have) survived previous wars. They spoke of a 19 year old who lost both legs & one arm, and was burned over 93% of his body. 93%. The only area they had to take grafts from was his scalp. This poor young man is now facing a life of pain, probably seclusion from much of the staring, gaping public, limited function ... and all for THIS WAR.
Would it be any less sad if it were for something I agreed with? Less sad - no - the life he lost is still devastating -- but less anger inducing?? I have to assume so.
We were not / are not defending or liberating a people any more tortured or persecuted than millions of others across the globe. We are not truly defending ourselves against the terrorists (well, now we probably are b/c we've created a breeding ground for them, but we sure as hell weren't when we went in there). Saddam was evil - so are 100 others. He was not an immediate threat - he was a big talker. Should we have this debate again? No. Pretty much everyone here has made it known where they stand on the topic.
But that story today made me cry. 93% of his body covered in one of the most painful wounds a person can suffer. It's unforgivable.
For better or worse, the wounded are more hurt, more physically and mentally wounded than could have / would have (maybe should have) survived previous wars. They spoke of a 19 year old who lost both legs & one arm, and was burned over 93% of his body. 93%. The only area they had to take grafts from was his scalp. This poor young man is now facing a life of pain, probably seclusion from much of the staring, gaping public, limited function ... and all for THIS WAR.
Would it be any less sad if it were for something I agreed with? Less sad - no - the life he lost is still devastating -- but less anger inducing?? I have to assume so.
We were not / are not defending or liberating a people any more tortured or persecuted than millions of others across the globe. We are not truly defending ourselves against the terrorists (well, now we probably are b/c we've created a breeding ground for them, but we sure as hell weren't when we went in there). Saddam was evil - so are 100 others. He was not an immediate threat - he was a big talker. Should we have this debate again? No. Pretty much everyone here has made it known where they stand on the topic.
But that story today made me cry. 93% of his body covered in one of the most painful wounds a person can suffer. It's unforgivable.
Comment