Cindy Sheehan and W to be neighbors

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

Yeah, I'd probably be a little unhappy if my mom was protesting about my death if I was still alive, so you have a point there.

If this guy is sitting on a cloud watching this all unfold, I really don't know what he might be thinking. I'm sure though that he doesn't like to see a bunch of dimwitted armchair Generals and fatass coward pundits calling his mother a moron, and claiming to be defending his honor while doing so.

[jolinar of malkshor]

You know what I mean.

It's ok for you to assume what he thinks but not others?

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, I'd probably be a little unhappy if my mom was protesting about my death if I was still alive, so you have a point there.

Just incase you still dont understand, I am talk about someones parents publically denouncing their child while he is still alive doing what he is doing.

This is why Logger was so ****ed off. People just try and re-spin the post to what ever they want it to say.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It's ok for you to assume what he thinks but not others?

I'm not really in a position to assume he thinks anything at all. But if he does, I doubt he likes to see his mother as the object of ridicule on the nightly news. Do you think otherwise?

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Marv

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.

So should I have a picture of Ted Nugent instead Marv? I don't care that Rollins is against the war and Bush. That does not change that I think Cindy Sheehan is a blabbing sobbing idiot who isn't very intelligent. Making comments like "no wars in the history of the world have accomplished anything good," are silly and overly emotional.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not really in a position to assume he thinks anything at all. But if he does, I doubt he likes to see his mother as the object of ridicule on the nightly news. Do you think otherwise?

I agree with you. Nobody wants people to talk bad about their mother. But my position has always been that I don't think he would appreciate the fact that his mother has so public displayed the fact that she believes what her son was doing was wrong and unjust.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree with you. Nobody wants people to talk bad about their mother. But my position has always been that I don't think he would appreciate the fact that his mother has so public displayed the fact that she believes what her son was doing was wrong and unjust.

Well if you believe that she's ridiculing her son then I guess you have a point.

I don't believe she's ridiculing him though, but ridiculing the people and policies that sent him there. The difference is pretty big.

Anyhow, I'm surprised nobody has stepped forward to say that her son is a disgrace. It seems like a forgone conclusion that she has disgraced him, but nobody is stepping forward to admit that he's become a disgrace in their eyes.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well if you believe that she's ridiculing her son then I guess you have a point.

I don't believe she's ridiculing him though, but ridiculing the people and policies that sent him there. The difference is pretty big.

Anyhow, I'm surprised nobody has stepped forward to say that her son is a disgrace. It seems like a forgone conclusion that she has disgraced him, but nobody is stepping forward to admit that he's become a disgrace in their eyes.

I don't think anyone is saying that all of a sudden he is now a disgrace, I am saying that her actions maybe disgraceful only to him.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lanny don't be so narrow minded. Terrorists are any group that use terror to fight.

Does that include countries that use "shock and awe" tactics during their invasion? The Americans thought this first few nights of bombing would "scare" the Iraqis into giving up. Is that not terrorism? Based on what you just said, it is.

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.

Well, that's semantics. Some would argue that the opposition to the United States is using guerilla tactics, just like those taught to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. And some would argue that its going on on both sides. Americans are routinely storming into houses at night, putting hoods over the heads of civilians, and taking them away to be "interogated". They've been caught beating and raping civilians. They've been caught destroying property for the sake of demoralizing the people of a town/city. Are those not terrorist tactics as well?

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.

Sorry, evey example you used was from before the Gulf War. And things have really changed since the Americans took over, but for the worst. The Americans have proven to be just as blood thirsty and just as opressive as Saddam.

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.

It is no longer credible. Not after it "selected" the intelligence to get into the war in the first place. You fudge the numbers once without admitting your error and you lose your credibility as a viable source of truth. Just ask Arthur Anderson.

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.

We know Saddam was an *******, but was he any worse than what they have now? It's anarchy over there. Some people say its darkest before the dawn, but you gotta make it to dawn. Iraq is looking more and more like a Hollywood slasher flick, and we know that not too many make it to dawn in those scripts. I pity the Iraqi people trying to live in that scenario.

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.

Hey, we agree on something. Oil is a part of things, but I don't think its the only thing. I think this is about saving the empire, and the neo-cons think they can save it through expansion. Good luck to them, I think they're going to be falling on their swords quick enough.

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.

Parents have a right to think what they want. Some are tough to please. I know guys that are pharmacists and their folks were disppointed because they thought they would be doctors. I'm sure there are lots of folks out there that aren't overly excited about their daughters becoming "artisans of the brass pole", but when they look at the money they are bringing in, and how they set themselves up for life, they might change their tune. Maybe Cindy Sheehan thought he son could do much greater things than carry a gun and follow orders. Maybe she thought he could help people in contructive ways here in America. Maybe she thought him dying in Iraq was a waste of life, and that his life being snuffed out prevented him from doing all of the things he had dreamed of. Like I say, I can see her point. I'm willing to walk a mile in the woman's shoes (as long as they aren't heels) to get an idea what her position is. I wish those that chastize her would do the same, because I find most of those critics would likely be just as vocal if their kid got killed in an action they didn't agree with.

[Marv]

So should I have a picture of Ted Nugent instead Marv? I don't care that Rollins is against the war and Bush. That does not change that I think Cindy Sheehan is a blabbing sobbing idiot who isn't very intelligent. Making comments like "no wars in the history of the world have accomplished anything good," are silly and overly emotional.

My point is that Rollins is voicing the very same criticisms of Bush and the Iraq war as Cindy Sheehan is. So to ridicule Cindy for her stance while at the same time (apparantly) holding Henry Rollins in esteem seems a smidge contradictory. Having Ted Nugent's picture instead may be the way to go, seeing as your views have more in common with his than Rollins's.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't think anyone is saying that all of a sudden he is now a disgrace, I am saying that her actions maybe disgraceful only to him.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't know how close their relationship was, but I'm going to guess she was a lot closer to him than you, I or Bill O'Reilly were. Maybe she knows a little more about his wishes than we do?

I can say absolutely that my parents know more about me and would speak more directly to what I believe than any member of the media would, so I'm not going to presume that this woman didn't know her own kid well enough to do the same.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't know how close their relationship was, but I'm going to guess she was a lot closer to him than you, I or Bill O'Reilly were. Maybe she knows a little more about his wishes than we do?

I can say absolutely that my parents know more about me and would speak more directly to what I believe than any member of the media would, so I'm not going to presume that this woman didn't know her own kid well enough to do the same.

No kidding! His mom knows more about him then us. WOW what a revalation.

We probaly won't know his exact intentions but the simple fact that he rejoined the military when he could have walked away, speaks a lot for what his belief system may have been.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No kidding! His mom knows more about him then us. WOW what a revalation.

We probaly won't know his exact intentions but the simple fact that he rejoined the military when he could have walked away, speaks a lot for what his belief system may have been.

Not necessarily. I've heard more than one eulogy for a fallen soldier who personally opposed the war, but went anyway because of his dedication to his unit and his committment to follow orders. Who knows what her son's belief system was. It's unusual to have core beliefs that are radically different from your parents'--though I'll admit that it isn't unheard of.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Does that include countries that use "shock and awe" tactics during their invasion? The Americans thought this first few nights of bombing would "scare" the Iraqis into giving up. Is that not terrorism? Based on what you just said, it is.

There tactics were definately disigned to terrorize the Iraqi military. They weren't targeting civilians like the insurgents are.

Sorry, evey example you used was from before the Gulf War. And things have really changed since the Americans took over, but for the worst. The Americans have proven to be just as blood thirsty and just as opressive as Saddam.

OK, did the rebellion come after the invasion or before? Thats right after.

It is no longer credible. Not after it "selected" the intelligence to get into the war in the first place. You fudge the numbers once without admitting your error and you lose your credibility as a viable source of truth. Just ask Arthur Anderson.

You can't discredit an organization just because another, discreditable organization cites their research or material. If you think the data is wrong show me.

We know Saddam was an *******, but was he any worse than what they have now? It's anarchy over there. Some people say its darkest before the dawn, but you gotta make it to dawn. Iraq is looking more and more like a Hollywood slasher flick, and we know that not too many make it to dawn in those scripts. I pity the Iraqi people trying to live in that scenario.

For someone who always lables people "lap dogs of the media" you seem to be believing everything that the media is feeding you about the plight of the IRAQI's. Most of the conflict is coming from a specific area of IRAQ. Now before you start claiming that I know all about IRAQ I don't but it makes sense that the media would cover stories about death and destruction over happy feel good stories. Just like the media focused on a few people that complained about the evacuation of Canadians and we heard nothing about ALL the people that were happy.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not necessarily. I've heard more than one eulogy for a fallen soldier who personally opposed the war, but went anyway because of his dedication to his unit and his committment to follow orders. Who knows what her son's belief system was. It's unusual to have core beliefs that are radically different from your parents'--though I'll admit that it isn't unheard of.

Belief systems change with time and the environment one is in. Like I said it "maybe " be an indication of what is beliefs were.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not necessarily. I've heard more than one eulogy for a fallen soldier who personally opposed the war, but went anyway because of his dedication to his unit and his committment to follow orders. Who knows what her son's belief system was. It's unusual to have core beliefs that are radically different from your parents'--though I'll admit that it isn't unheard of.

Exactly.

It is not the soldiers job to decide whether the war was unjust or not; when they join the military, they should expect to do things they might not agree with.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly.

It is not the soldiers job to decide whether the war was unjust or not; when they join the military, they should expect to do things they might not agree with.

Agree with you when they are in the course of their duty. But, I would think, that if one disagreed with the war and had the chance to not go back, they would not go back. If they did, usually it is an endorsment for what is going on, but yes not in all cases.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No kidding! His mom knows more about him then us. WOW what a revalation.

We probaly won't know his exact intentions but the simple fact that he rejoined the military when he could have walked away, speaks a lot for what his belief system may have been.

Apparently it's a revelation that you refuse to accept because yet again you are suggesting that his mother didn't know her own son's "belief system" any better than you do.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Apparently it's a revelation that you refuse to accept because yet again you are suggesting that his mother didn't know her own son's "belief system" any better than you do.

Where did I say his mother didn't know his "belief system" any better than me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Agree with you when they are in the course of their duty. But, I would think, that if one disagreed with the war and had the chance to not go back, they would not go back. If they did, usually it is an endorsment for what is going on, but yes not in all cases.

Not really.

Like IFF said, the soldiers duty towards those they serve with, could be drawing them back.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the war, or their belief in it.