Will more killing for LIES make these family members feel any better? Don't they get it?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2713677&page=1

Military Families Take Iraq Personally

<snip>Some families of fallen soldiers have joined the call to pull out troops. However, many others fear that if an American pullout leads to an all-out civil war, the deaths of their husbands, wives, sons and daughters will have served no purpose.

Sgt. Patrick Tainsh was hit in the throat by shrapnel from a roadside bomb during an insurgent attack in Baghdad. But the gunner fired 400 rounds from the top of his Humvee, saving his entire convoy. He died in the commander's arms.

His mother grows angry when she hears calls for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's absolutely bloodcurdling," said Deborah Tainsh of Georgia. "The bottom line is we can't be pulling out of there with this undone. It would dishonor all of us who have given blood out there."

John Holley's 21-year-old son, Matthew, was killed after just five weeks in Iraq last year. The San Diego father successfully lobbied Congress to send slain soldiers home with more dignity. A few weeks ago, Holley, a former soldier himself, flew to Erbil, Iraq, to see the land where his son died.

All the recent talk of withdrawal infuriates him.

"It's a knee-jerk hysteria," he said. "For us to retreat, basically, in the face of the enemy, is unconscionable."

[kentuck]

1. Their feelings are understandable but...

more young men and women dying for the same lies will not make their childrens deaths any more honorable...

[WiseButAngrySara]

2. This type of response is "knee-jerk hysteria" IMHO, and

completely "unconscionable!" The families of the dead should be joining hands with the Cindy Sheehans of the world, not advocating more blood for blood.

[The Count]

3. "Why should my kid be the only one to die?" Understandable my foot.

Their loss doesn't entitle them to wishing more loss on others. Nor to delusion. I saw that piece on ABC News. They showed both opinions.

[GCP]

4. "For us to retreat, basically, in the face of the enemy, is unconscionable."

What's unconscionable is throwing away more lives before retreating anyway. The whole war is a ghastly horrendous cluster-fuck brought to us courtesy of the Clown in the White House.
The US has been forever damaged by this, I loathe Bush with the white heat of a million suns.

[zanne]

5. Reality would be so devastating for them.

I think I understand the psychology here. It's bad enough that your child is dead; what if you wake up one morning and realize he died for nothing? I think it's a psychological defense system. If they came out of denial, the reality would be excruciating.

[Skittles]

7. exactly what I am thinking

these people, in their grief, are clinging to the notion their child died for a noble cause. Very, very sad.

[progdonkey]

8. you hit the nail on the head...

This is mostly just the obvious result of believing (though, I would say rightly) that 5000 people dying for a good cause is less of a tragedy than 500 dying for no reason at all.

These people have a choice: they can either allow themselves to finally realize that 2500 troops (not to mention countless Iraqis) have died for absolutely no reason, and suffer the following depression and regret, etc.; or they can keep believing that those 2500 who've died so far died for a noble cause and that their deaths meant something. The problem is that not only does the latter demand that more troops die to keep up that illusion, but also as the number of dead goes up, facing reality becames even more devastating.

I have sympathy for those families, but that sympathy ends when they demand that others die just so they don't have to come to the realization that they voted for and supported their loved ones' murderer.

[mwb970]

9. This is what I think as well.

I could hardly believe as I read the article that there were moms out there grieving for Iraq-dead children, saying "We have to stay there, we have to keep fighting, more have to die so my child won't have died in vain." Tell that to the moms of the soldiers who die today. Or tomorrow. Or the next day.

I'm sorry, but all American deaths in Iraq are, by definition, in vain.

The other comment that always gets me from the bereaved is "he (or she) died protecting America."

Again, I am sorry, but protecting America from what? Saddam did not attack or threaten the US or any of his neighbors. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda. We had him contained, with satellite surveillance and no-fly zones. HE WAS NO THREAT TO US. In what sense, then, are our brave soldiers "protecting America" as they die in vain? Why are we in Iraq?

These soldiers are dying for Bush's ego and Bush's legacy. It has nothing to do with America. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. And the blood drips from Bush's hands. American and Iraqi blood. By the gallon.

[AtomicKitten]

6. the wingnut theory is

more must to die to honor those that have already died.

[B Calm]

10. The same things were said during the Vietnam war..........