Cindy Sheehan and W to be neighbors

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It's been done dozens of times over the last three years...and ignored every single time.

I have yet to see anyone account for the WMD's that Hussein was known to have when he kicked out the inspectors the final time. And nobody will do it again...because they can't.

Does that mean you aren't prepared to summarize what you see as a justification for the war? That's unfortunate.

It is beyond me how anyone can defend the war in Iraq at this point. How do you justify to the last American soldier to die there that giving up his life was worth it? The country and region is now so much worse off than when the US went in.

At any rate, my main issue here is the tying of the war in Iraq to 9/11. I don't see how anyone could still argue that one is related in some way to the other (like the Bush administration does on a regular basis by calling it "part of the war on terror"). Putting aside the WMD's for the moment, there simply were no connections to Al Quedea. Everything that comes afterwards is non sequiter as far as I am concerned.

As far as the WMD's go, it isn't really relevant. The US used their alleged presence as part of the justification to invade. It doesn't matter if they are found or not - the whole issue is a red herring. There are lots of "bad countries" out there that may or may not have WMD's. You don't see the US invading them. There are a lot of horrible dictatorships. There are a lot of mass murderers. It isn't as easy as just "taking them out".

Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Looking at the current situation, probably not. He was a horrible dictator, but he was able to hold 3 ethnic groups that hate each other together. In terms of body count, the thousands he killed, and would have killed have to now be balanced against the 10's of thousands that are dying, and are going to be killed in the upcoming civil war.

At the end of the day, I look at the actions of the American government and see nothing but wasted lives (mostly Iraqi) and no reason for having gone in in the first place.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Looking at the current situation, probably not. He was a horrible dictator, but he was able to hold 3 ethnic groups that hate each other together. In terms of body count, the thousands he killed, and would have killed have to now be balanced against the 10's of thousands that are dying, and are going to be killed in the upcoming civil war.

At the end of the day, I look at the actions of the American government and see nothing but wasted lives (mostly Iraqi) and no reason for having gone in in the first place.

This has to be one of the most pathetic defenses of not going to war. It involves ignoring history and then making up things.

1) Hussien kepth the three groups together has to be the biggest laugher.
- Umm no. He elevated his Sunni group and supressed the rest killing 100's of thousands. Nevermind the millions he killed in wars of aggression.

2) No terrorist link. I think not. Off the top of my head wuld be his 25000 dolars for suicide bomber families. Kill a JOOOO for bucks! More JOOWS the better!

3) Those wasted lives. I mean the Kurds in the north, out from under Saddams thumb. The return of 800,000 to a million Kurds to their homes in safety and a local democratic government. Or the Shias in the south of Iraq who have lived in relative peace with an occasional riot against the British. Or the 250,000 Marsh Arabs returning to a newly flooded home.

Wasted! Absolutely WASTED!

The violence in Iraq is very localised. The Americans are having trouble and making mistakes but that does not mean it is a waste. A waste will be if the Americans return home without finishing the job.

4) Let not forget that they do have a democratic government which the majority of Iraqis have voted for!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moon

For me it is enough to go in because Saddam was a muderere who was using gas on his own citizens, had already attacked a neighbour and basically deserved to be taken out of power. I didn't care if he had WMD's or was a direct supporter of terrorism he had already done enough to indicate to me that he would always be a threat.

Also I have no problem if the only reason that they went in was for oil. I want oil, need oil and if this war helps the US gain more control and access to that oil thats fine with me.

Hmmm. Let me get this straight.

1. The war is justified because Saddam killed Iraqi citizens.

2. Killing Iraqi citizens is justified because so you can have cheap gas.

Is that about it?

Ho hum. I don't have all Saturday to argue about this stuff. Last night I called the cops on my neighbour because he was beating his kids, and now the guy is in jail and his kids are making a racket so I'm going over there to beat them.

[Dark Gretzky]

I would send her this letter:

Dear Mrs. Cindy Sheehan,


I dont know you from atom, and u dont quite know me either. I happen to be a very opinionated teenager who watches The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I also keep close tabs on the news and War. I understand that you are grieving the loss of ur son, Casey, but what ur doing is a bit extreme. What you need to understand is that ur son swore to protect and die protecting this country. And so he has, so do you honestly think the moral thing to do is to disrespect him by blaming the president for his death? Not only are you disrespecting ur son, ur also disrespecting the men and women that are out there fighting and dying, those who have fought and died, and those veterans who fought to protect us. Do you really want that? And as for this "Noble Cause" of a war, I think President Bush would put his own daughters in place of a soldier who wants to come home but honestly, in the words Jon Stewart "Barbra and Jenna? No offense but we are trying to WIN this war. We dont need any martini drinkin, dry-humping things in there". But do understand that our job, yes OURS as i am enlisting in the United States Navy, and am part of the NJROTC program, our job is to not question the president and just go and do. Its a little something called the Chain-of-Command. Though i do not agree with wat the president said "I have to move on" i do agree with wat Jon Stewart said "Oh yes, let me put this womans dead son behind me and move on". Bush was wrong in saying that, so you got that out of me. People at first respected ur whole anti-war vigil until u enlisted the aid of one MICHAEL MOORE. Just so everyone understands that Mr. Moore is nothing but an instigator tht sticks his nose into anything that makes him look good. Plainly said, He using this as a publicity gimmick. Vigo Mortensen? I dunno wat he was doing there but whatever. We all know you feel strongly, but feel strongly about it ur own house before the President gets a 10 mile restraining order on you [oh yes, hes the big guy in the C-o-C so he can do that]. So on behalf of us ppl who think you are a crazy, pyscho, crack-pot lady, please give up on ur Vigil. [Note: This was thought up before Mrs. Sheehan left the vigil to be at her sick mothers side, frankly i think this was a sign from the beyond saying "GIVE THE HELL UP LADY"]

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dark Gretzky

I would send her this letter:

Dear Mrs. Cindy Sheehan,


I dont know you from atom, and u dont quite know me either. I happen to be a very opinionated teenager who watches The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I also keep close tabs on the news and War. I understand that you are grieving the loss of ur son, Casey, but what ur doing is a bit extreme. What you need to understand is that ur son swore to protect and die protecting this country. And so he has, so do you honestly think the moral thing to do is to disrespect him by blaming the president for his death? Not only are you disrespecting ur son, ur also disrespecting the men and women that are out there fighting and dying, those who have fought and died, and those veterans who fought to protect us. Do you really want that? And as for this "Noble Cause" of a war, I think President Bush would put his own daughters in place of a soldier who wants to come home but honestly, in the words Jon Stewart "Barbra and Jenna? No offense but we are trying to WIN this war. We dont need any martini drinkin, dry-humping things in there". But do understand that our job, yes OURS as i am enlisting in the United States Navy, and am part of the NJROTC program, our job is to not question the president and just go and do. Its a little something called the Chain-of-Command. Though i do not agree with wat the president said "I have to move on" i do agree with wat Jon Stewart said "Oh yes, let me put this womans dead son behind me and move on". Bush was wrong in saying that, so you got that out of me. People at first respected ur whole anti-war vigil until u enlisted the aid of one MICHAEL MOORE. Just so everyone understands that Mr. Moore is nothing but an instigator tht sticks his nose into anything that makes him look good. Plainly said, He using this as a publicity gimmick. Vigo Mortensen? I dunno wat he was doing there but whatever. We all know you feel strongly, but feel strongly about it ur own house before the President gets a 10 mile restraining order on you [oh yes, hes the big guy in the C-o-C so he can do that]. So on behalf of us ppl who think you are a crazy, pyscho, crack-pot lady, please give up on ur Vigil. [Note: This was thought up before Mrs. Sheehan left the vigil to be at her sick mothers side, frankly i think this was a sign from the beyond saying "GIVE THE HELL UP LADY"]

That'll teach her.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That'll teach her.

Yup--it's the new secret weapon of the neocons. Writing so bad it'll make anyone who reads it go into instant grammarphylactic shock.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dark Gretzky

I would send her this letter:

Dear Mrs. Cindy Sheehan,


I dont know you from atom, and u dont quite know me either. I happen to be a very opinionated teenager who watches The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I also keep close tabs on the news and War. I understand that you are grieving the loss of ur son, Casey, but what ur doing is a bit extreme. What you need to understand is that ur son swore to protect and die protecting this country. And so he has, so do you honestly think the moral thing to do is to disrespect him by blaming the president for his death? Not only are you disrespecting ur son, ur also disrespecting the men and women that are out there fighting and dying, those who have fought and died, and those veterans who fought to protect us. Do you really want that? And as for this "Noble Cause" of a war, I think President Bush would put his own daughters in place of a soldier who wants to come home but honestly, in the words Jon Stewart "Barbra and Jenna? No offense but we are trying to WIN this war. We dont need any martini drinkin, dry-humping things in there". But do understand that our job, yes OURS as i am enlisting in the United States Navy, and am part of the NJROTC program, our job is to not question the president and just go and do. Its a little something called the Chain-of-Command. Though i do not agree with wat the president said "I have to move on" i do agree with wat Jon Stewart said "Oh yes, let me put this womans dead son behind me and move on". Bush was wrong in saying that, so you got that out of me. People at first respected ur whole anti-war vigil until u enlisted the aid of one MICHAEL MOORE. Just so everyone understands that Mr. Moore is nothing but an instigator tht sticks his nose into anything that makes him look good. Plainly said, He using this as a publicity gimmick. Vigo Mortensen? I dunno wat he was doing there but whatever. We all know you feel strongly, but feel strongly about it ur own house before the President gets a 10 mile restraining order on you [oh yes, hes the big guy in the C-o-C so he can do that]. So on behalf of us ppl who think you are a crazy, pyscho, crack-pot lady, please give up on ur Vigil. [Note: This was thought up before Mrs. Sheehan left the vigil to be at her sick mothers side, frankly i think this was a sign from the beyond saying "GIVE THE HELL UP LADY"]

Holy ****, if that doesn't just make you wonder about the "high educational standard" in the United States, nothing will. The only question I have is how short is the bus that takes this kid to school?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Here's an op-ed from Iraq on the situation and what people think of America. There is no copyright notice so I'll post the whole article and the link.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index...07-27\kurd.htm

By Fatih Abdulsalam

Azzaman, July 26, 2006

Some 230 years have passed since the declaration of independence in the United States. But as the Americans hold festivities to celebrate their national day, they certainly have the terrible experience of their Iraqi adventure at the back of their mind.

The barren years the Americans, whether officials, civilians or in uniform, have spent in Iraq will haunt the United States for decades to come although their presence in the country is ostensibly under the U.N. flag.

Almost all over the world the U.S. flag indicates the values of a civilized society which has transformed the face of the globe in the past seventy years.

But unfortunately that is not the case in Iraq where totally different connotations are associated with the U.S. flag.

In Iraq the U.S. flag is seen as symbol of decadence of morality. It has got nothing to do with technology, democracy, welfare and human rights.

It is indeed incredible to see the United States getting rid of all the values it fiercely fought and struggled for in its occupation of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, many Iraqis had hopes of having at least a slight share of the sublime values which Washington trumpeted.

But alas the world's most powerful country does not seem to have a capacity to learn from its mistakes whether in Iraq or the larger Middle East.

The United States loves creating its own enemies by its own hands and as a result both its Iraq and Middle East policies are heading towards the unknown.

The U.S. has turned Iraq into a venue for "international terror" and a meeting point for the covetous intentions of neighboring states.

The U.S. has turned Iraq into an example that now runs contrary to all the values, beliefs and assumptions it had in mind for it.

How come there is not one single wise man in the world's mightiest country to tell its leaders that they have turned their nation into a hostage of their own polices.

How come there is not one single adviser to tell the White House that U.S. enemies whether in Iraq and the Middle are the product of its policies.

The world's only superpower gathers its own enemies, nourishes them, solidifies them and buttresses their platforms by its own hands.

As a result U.S. policies in the region are heading for the abyss.

And for this reason the U.S. flag and the U.S. tank are both powerless to contain the murderous militias in Iraq.

The U.S. flag is associated in Iraqi minds with the surgical strikes in crowded cities such as Falluja, Tal Affar, Ramadi, Qaim and Baaquba.

The U.S. flag is associated with humiliating practices like ordering university female students in Mosul to take off their clothes inside the campus.

The U.S. flag is linked to the sexual scandals committed at Abu Ghraib prison which has now become more notorious than the days of the former President Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. flag is related to those marines who raped and then murdered the Iraqi virgin in the city of Mahmodiya.

These are a few examples of the things that prop up in Iraqi minds once spotting the U.S. flag.

No wonder, there is no trace of this flag anywhere in Iraq apart from the Green Zone ringed by huge slabs of reinforced concrete.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Does that mean you aren't prepared to summarize what you see as a justification for the war? That's unfortunate.

It is beyond me how anyone can defend the war in Iraq at this point. How do you justify to the last American soldier to die there that giving up his life was worth it? The country and region is now so much worse off than when the US went in.

At any rate, my main issue here is the tying of the war in Iraq to 9/11. I don't see how anyone could still argue that one is related in some way to the other (like the Bush administration does on a regular basis by calling it "part of the war on terror"). Putting aside the WMD's for the moment, there simply were no connections to Al Quedea. Everything that comes afterwards is non sequiter as far as I am concerned.

As far as the WMD's go, it isn't really relevant. The US used their alleged presence as part of the justification to invade. It doesn't matter if they are found or not - the whole issue is a red herring. There are lots of "bad countries" out there that may or may not have WMD's. You don't see the US invading them. There are a lot of horrible dictatorships. There are a lot of mass murderers. It isn't as easy as just "taking them out".

Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Looking at the current situation, probably not. He was a horrible dictator, but he was able to hold 3 ethnic groups that hate each other together. In terms of body count, the thousands he killed, and would have killed have to now be balanced against the 10's of thousands that are dying, and are going to be killed in the upcoming civil war.

At the end of the day, I look at the actions of the American government and see nothing but wasted lives (mostly Iraqi) and no reason for having gone in in the first place.

IMO the USA attacked Iraq under false pretenses. However, regardless of what excuse they used to attack Iraq, I still support them being there. The Iraqi people will be much better off in the future. They are going through hard times now but that is because of the terrorists.

Saddam killed MANY MANY people
.................................................. ...........................

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

This site goes on to show that he killed many hundreds of thousand more, espesially after the US didn't help the uprising after the first gulf war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030404-1.html

According to this website the Max civilian casualty is about 43,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Still terrible but maybe over the last several years that is what Saddam would have done if he was still in power.

As for this idea that USA attacked Iraq for oil? What?? This website has the total cost of the war sitting around 300 billion dollars to date and rising.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

After Iraq stablizes, the US is not going to get free oil. They will have to pay for it at world price. Not to mention one of Bush's plans is to ween the US off oil imports from OPEC and other overseas countries. So I don't think that argument makes sense.

As for Cindy, I think any parent has to respect the occupation that their child goes into regardless if the parent agrees with it or not. Thats what he wanted to do and he knew the risks, who are we to tell this young man his decision was wrong.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gotta jump all over this post because there are so many errors and leaps of logic that its not even funny.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

IMO the USA attacked Iraq under false pretenses. However, regardless of what excuse they used to attack Iraq, I still support them being there. The Iraqi people will be much better off in the future. They are going through hard times now but that is because of the terrorists.

The problem in Iraq is not from terrorists. That's what the Bush administration would like you to believe, but that's not the case. The majority of the violence is ethnicly based. The *****es and the Sunnis will continue to go at until someone makes them get along. The Hussein loyalists are still fighting and will continue to fight. They are well armed and understood this is the type of war they would have to fight.

Saddam killed MANY MANY people
.................................................. ...........................

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

And all of that happened prior to 1991. If it was such a big deal, why didn't Bush41 go in and finish the job? Because he knew Hussein was the only thing holding the region together. He was smart enough to listen to the military and the intelligence community and take their advice. His ######ed son just happened to surround himself with guys smarter than him (there are canned veggies smarter than Dumbya) and manipulative. These were veterans who were denied under Bush41, they were not going to be denied under Bush43.

This site goes on to show that he killed many hundreds of thousand more, espesially after the US didn't help the uprising after the first gulf war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030404-1.html

Wow, great source! The White House hasn't put out any propaganda in the last five years now, have they? Bush43 learned his lessons well from Bush41. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the women in the article is this little girl all "growed up".

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...-iraq-lie.html

According to this website the Max civilian casualty is about 43,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Still terrible but maybe over the last several years that is what Saddam would have done if he was still in power.

Yes, because conditions under Saddam were worse, right? Well, not according to those who lived it. The op/ed piece I posted earlier says that in spades.

As for this idea that USA attacked Iraq for oil? What?? This website has the total cost of the war sitting around 300 billion dollars to date and rising.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

You're right, oil is but a small part of the bigger biger picture. But where do you think that $300 billion is coming from? American tax payers. And where do you think that money is going? To American companies in the military industrial complex. How the hell do you think Bush is keeping the economy afloat in the United States? Through borrowed money. He borrows money, its paid to all of the companies that are going great guns (pardon the pun) manufacturing weopons and support services, and that gets reported as economic growth and prosperity. Without the war this growth wouldn't be on the books. American tax payers are the ones funding this war, funding the reconstruction effort, and funding the "economic growth" the Republicans are crowing about.

After Iraq stablizes, the US is not going to get free oil. They will have to pay for it at world price. Not to mention one of Bush's plans is to ween the US off oil imports from OPEC and other overseas countries. So I don't think that argument makes sense.

We'll see. I'm sure America will get a substantial discount. And as I pointed out in another post, the invasion of Iraq also prevented them from adopting the Euro as their standard currency for trade. The invasion made Iran put the brakes on a similar move. The invasion likely prevented the first sidnificant domino from being toppled that could have lead to a major devaluation of American currency.

As for Cindy, I think any parent has to respect the occupation that their child goes into regardless if the parent agrees with it or not. Thats what he wanted to do and he knew the risks, who are we to tell this young man his decision was wrong.

Bull****. A parent has the right to honor their child they way they wish. I don't agree with her tactics, but she has the right to do what she thinks is the right thing.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Lanny,

We agree for the most part. Bush has already met with her before she started her world tour. But, I would've met with her again and even again just to avoid the fuel that not meeting her has become.

The term 'DNC operative' is just colorful language, but yeah I believe she is being paid by the DNC and/or it's supporters. I haven't heard that anywhere, it's just my own theory. I'm not saying there is anything foul here other than the general foulness of politics. If she is indeed supported by them I doubt its illegal and I'm certainly supportive of her right to express herself however she sees fit.

I don't watch FOX news believe it or not. I watch my local news (NBC affiliate) if I have the time. Everything else I get by reading.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Not wanting ti hijack the thread, but Dis, what do you think about direction of the Republican party. A lot fo the guys you thought were the face of the party are not going to get re-elected. The guy you were saying was the face of the party (Santorum) is going to be looking for work come fall. Do you find this disturbing to see that those "moderates" that were the ones you considered the "real" face of the party getting ousted and those hardliners I suggested as the face maintaining their seats? Where does that leave the voter? Neo-con wackos or spineless democrats? Wow, that a choice!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Why? Because she is willing to take a stand and speak out against Dumbya and his war? I have to give her credit, she is tenatious. I would have given up a long time ago.

Oh, and Dis, what would you do if one of your kids was killed in an unnecessary and immoral war? Would you just accept the flag "from a greatful nation" or would you do something to make sure that other people didn't have to suffer that similar fate, or worse, suffer through it again with another of your children? How would you channel your sorrow and hatred?

Why should she deserve any thing more then all those millions upon millions of other moms have recieved in every other war all the way back to the founding of the United States?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Not wanting ti hijack the thread, but Dis, what do you think about direction of the Republican party. A lot fo the guys you thought were the face of the party are not going to get re-elected. The guy you were saying was the face of the party (Santorum) is going to be looking for work come fall. Do you find this disturbing to see that those "moderates" that were the ones you considered the "real" face of the party getting ousted and those hardliners I suggested as the face maintaining their seats? Where does that leave the voter? Neo-con wackos or spineless democrats? Wow, that a choice!

I have seen a lot of unsettling signs (for me personally) over the last few months.

The campaigning I'm witnessing for Republicans is really starting to cater to the religious right....or at least they are targetting that group...which to me says they believe that group is a lot bigger than I thought it was. I think there are lots of Christians who vote based on things other than their 'faith', but it seems more and more are looking to follow the Pat Robertson's of the world. That scares me.

There are still some good Republicans. I have voted for some good Democrats in the past, not all are spineless!

For instance, I'm really hoping Conrad Burns gets his walking papers in Montana. He's a BAD guy. I find his opponent, Jon Tester, to be a genuine hard working, blue-collar democrat who wants to help HIS STATE.

That is one of the key races that the Republicans are counting on to hold the Seante. I hope they don't.

You might think you've got me pegged as this guy who walks the party line. That's not me!

[jolinar of malkshor]

The problem in Iraq is not from terrorists. That's what the Bush administration would like you to believe, but that's not the case. The majority of the violence is ethnicly based. The *****es and the Sunnis will continue to go at until someone makes them get along. The Hussein loyalists are still fighting and will continue to fight. They are well armed and understood this is the type of war they would have to fight.

Lanny don't be so narrow minded. Terrorists are any group that use terror to fight. That is what they are doing in IRAQ. Did I say they were Bin Ladden forces or Hezbollah, no so dont try to siffer my writing, read what I wrote.

And all of that happened prior to 1991. If it was such a big deal, why didn't Bush41 go in and finish the job? Because he knew Hussein was the only thing holding the region together. He was smart enough to listen to the military and the intelligence community and take their advice. His ######ed son just happened to surround himself with guys smarter than him (there are canned veggies smarter than Dumbya) and manipulative. These were veterans who were denied under Bush41, they were not going to be denied under Bush43.

The rebellon happened after the Gulf war when the US said fight against Saddam and then didnt help them, thousands of people died. You think he stopped killing his people after the gulf war? No, just like Stalin he rid himself of any person that questioned him, that is how he maintainted the country, but if that is better for the Iraqi people then I guess what you say is right.

Wow, great source! The White House hasn't put out any propaganda in the last five years now, have they? Bush43 learned his lessons well from Bush41. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the women in the article is this little girl all "growed up".

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...-iraq-lie.html

HELLO, although the link is from the white house they are using other organizations data and have cited it aswell. But I guess any data that the white house uses is WRONG no matter where it comes from.

Yes, because conditions under Saddam were worse, right? Well, not according to those who lived it. The op/ed piece I posted earlier says that in spades.

The violence is front and centre, yes, but when Saddam was in power everyone knew what was going on, it was simply a don't ask, don't have to worry idea. As long as people kept their mouth shut they had little to worry about.

You're right, oil is but a small part of the bigger biger picture. But where do you think that $300 billion is coming from? American tax payers. And where do you think that money is going? To American companies in the military industrial complex. How the hell do you think Bush is keeping the economy afloat in the United States? Through borrowed money. He borrows money, its paid to all of the companies that are going great guns (pardon the pun) manufacturing weopons and support services, and that gets reported as economic growth and prosperity. Without the war this growth wouldn't be on the books. American tax payers are the ones funding this war, funding the reconstruction effort, and funding the "economic growth" the Republicans are crowing about.

Fair enough I agree with you on that point and it shows that it has little to do with oil and a lot to do with padding business exec's pocket books.

Bull****. A parent has the right to honor their child they way they wish. I don't agree with her tactics, but she has the right to do what she thinks is the right thing

Come on Lanny, you think a parent has the right to decide that YOUR proffession is or isn't worth while or justified, I think not. She is doing much more of disgracing her son than honouring him.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Come on Lanny, you think a parent has the right to decide that YOUR proffession is or isn't worth while or justified, I think not. She is doing much more of disgracing her son than honouring him.

Well, I think a parent has to decide that for themselves. The idea that somehow she's disgracing her son is a bit silly, though. Why can't we all just let her grieve for her son in her own way? Who are we to tell her what is and isn't appropriate? Did any of us lose a son in that war? Personally, I wouldn't presume to judge someone in her situation, but that's just me.

Saying that she's disgracing her son is just repeating one of the more cynical angles of Republican spin doctoring. If you don't agree with her politics, fine. Say that, and engage on the issues. Don't presume to tell her how she should grieve, or how she should look for meaning in her son's death.

[Marv]

I saw her blabbing on t.v. about how no war in history has ever accomplished anything good. I repeat, that dude (Sheehan) needs to go away!

I find such statments absolutely hilarious coming from someone who has a picture of Henry Rollins as their avatar. Rollins has been one of the most vocal critics of Bush and the Iraq war.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

. She is doing much more of disgracing her son than honouring him.

I love this line of reasoning.

In whose eyes is this kid being disgraced? Not mine, I know that. Is he a disgrace in your eyes?

Can we have a volunteer to admit that this kid who died in Iraq was disgraceful? Will someone admit that his mother's actions have convinced them that the guy was somehow a disgrace, and his death is not as heroic or noble as the other soldiers who died in combat?

Peronsally, I think this guy was just as valuable, and his death just as tragic, as any other person who went over there. What his mother is doing now doesn't change that for me. I don't know why it would change it for anyone else.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I think a parent has to decide that for themselves. The idea that somehow she's disgracing her son is a bit silly, though. Why can't we all just let her grieve for her son in her own way? Who are we to tell her what is and isn't appropriate? Did any of us lose a son in that war? Personally, I wouldn't presume to judge someone in her situation, but that's just me.

Saying that she's disgracing her son is just repeating one of the more cynical angles of Republican spin doctoring. If you don't agree with her politics, fine. Say that, and engage on the issues. Don't presume to tell her how she should grieve, or how she should look for meaning in her son's death.

Your right, how she grieves is up to her, I haven't denied that. Having said that, I expect my parents to support my occupation regardless of what political position I hold and if they decided to come out and say what I was doing was wrong and that my reason for doing my job was unjustified, I would consider that disrespectful and disgraceful.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I love this line of reasoning.

In whose eyes is this kid being disgraced? Not mine, I know that. Is he a disgrace in your eyes?

Can we have a volunteer to admit that this kid who died in Iraq was disgraceful? Will someone admit that his mother's actions have convinced them that the guy was somehow a disgrace, and his death is not as heroic or noble as the other soldiers who died in combat?

Peronsally, I think this guy was just as valuable, and his death just as tragic, as any other person who went over there. What his mother is doing now doesn't change that for me. I don't know why it would change it for anyone else.

IMO it would be disgraceful to her son if he was alive or if you believe in the afterlife disgracing him as we speak.

I don't think she would be doing this if those extreme anti war protesters didn't get her on board their band wagon.