Whom, in today's world, would the MSM lionize as "boulders of opposition"?
With the sentence, "[the pacifist] parents are also reacting to what they see as the military's increased intrusion into the lives of their children", Damien Cave's NYT article goes on to take as granted the "pacifists'" claim — conscious or not — that all a community's children are the collective responsability of all its parents (so far, no problems) and that this means — ipso facto — that the said "pacifists" are the ones carrying out the protective duties of the innocent generation (suggesting in turn that those not opposing the military recruiters, or even failing to act or speak up, are not doing their protective duty and are thus, directly or not, unworthy of having their opinions considered).
In related news, we have this from The (London) Times' Richard Beeston (shookhran to the reader whose email has vanished from my screen):
THE invasion of Iraq and its aftermath caused the deaths of 24,000 Iraqis, including many children, according to the most detailed survey yet of postwar life in the country.Which brings us to Thomas Sowell (quoted by the Federalist Patriot):
The UN report paints a picture of modern Iraq brought close to collapse despite its oil wealth. Successive wars, a decade of sanctions and the current violence have destroyed services, undermined health and education and made the lives of ordinary Iraqis dangerous and miserable.
The survey for the UN Development Programme, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 [and] released by the Ministry of Planning yesterday, could finally resolve the debate over how many Iraqis were killed in the war that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.
The 370-page report said that it was 95 per cent confident that the toll during the war and the first year of occupation was 24,000, but could have been between 18,000 and 29,000. About 12 per cent of those were under 18.
The figure is far lower than the 98,000 deaths estimated in The Lancet last October, which said that it had interviewed nearly 1,000 households. But it is far higher than other figures.…
[Barham Salih, the Iraqi Planning Minister,] said that the condition of his country was particularly tragic given its huge oil wealth and access to water. He insisted that the blame lay with Saddam’s regime, which had embarked on two wars against its neighbours, persecuted its population and provoked sanctions. “Undeniably, from the perspective of many, the former regime’s aggressive policies, its wars, its repression and mismanagement of the economy are an important part of why we are here today,” he said.
The frivolous demands made on our military — that they protect museums while fighting for their lives, that they tiptoe around mosques from which people are shooting at them — betray an irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line to protect us. It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media. If American troops kill a hundred terrorists in battle and lose ten of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: 'Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today.' Those in the media who have carped at the military for years, and have repeatedly opposed military spending, are now claiming to be 'honoring' our military by making a big production out of publishing the names of all those killed in Iraq. Will future generations see through this hypocrisy — and wonder why we did not?