NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, i feel it was alright for her to protest, but I still dont understand why people keep asking the same questions that have been answered millions of times and i will answer them again now. Questions like why are we in the war, when are we pulling out...

Ok here we go:

we went into Iraq b/c he was a brutal dictator who we KNEW absolutely had chemical weapons, and long range missiles (which could hurt our assets in the middle east). We also KNEW that Saddam was not showing proof of the destruction of these known weapons, as well as proof that he did not have nuclear capabilities. Saddam was toying with the UN since the Gulf War, and since the US was preaching peace and justice in the Middle EAst at the time (Afghanistan), we decided that if we could make a model democratic nation out of Iraq, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the area would realise that Democracy is better than corrupt and oppressive dictatorships.


so... we took out Saddam, and people want to know, when are we leaving?
We will leave Iraq, when they are infact ready to control themselves. At the beginning of the war, they had no police of army that wasnt part of Saddam's oppressive regime. So we needed to start training one so that they can be self-sustaining. IF we pull out too early, then there is a large probability that another post 'cold war afghanistan-like' government would take control (and we all know how great Afghanistan was after we ditched them after we fought the commies). So leaving to early is not an option now.

Unfortunately, as this is war, people die. Lucky for us, it isnt anything like Vietnam (for which i have heard many comparison), but rather far from it. Im not sure of all of the questions Cindy Sheehan asked Bush, but they were the ones that we keep hearing over and over again, and they have been answered. I undestand that she's mad because her Son died. But to blame the death of her son on Bush is illogical and unnecessary. Her son died at the hands of the enemy who we are trying to destroy, how dare she blame Bush for this. Honestly, her son was a marine, she has to assume that he's going to be in terror when he signed up for the job. Blaming the president is just as offcourse as blaming her sons 5th grade science teacher who failed him and ruined his chance to get into honors science and one day become a doctor, but instead he joined up in the army because he realised he didnt have the grades to get into honors science. <<< yes, thats how much blaming the president makes sense.>>>

so in conclusion. Stop your whining about how we shouldnt have gone into the war... its too late, were in it. Stop your whining about when we're going to leave, we will leave when Iraq can control itself and not a day sooner. Stop your whining about "its Bush's fault this, its Bush's fault that" its your fault for voting for him, or if you didnt, its your fault for not having a better candidate who could beat him. And dont blame him for your son's death when your son decided to be a marine during a war, and your son died at the hands of the enemy.

It's amazing how big a deal this has become. One lone woman has been able to ager so many people! I admire that sort of skill and strength!

It's amazing how big a deal this has become. One lone woman has been able to ager so many people! I admire that sort of skill and strength!
Some one should make a video game

its more of an annoyance... kind of like a mosquito that wont leave you alone... rather than anger.

It's amazing how big a deal this has become. One lone woman has been able to ager so many people! I admire that sort of skill and strength!

Yeah, well, idiocy gets under everyone's skin fast. She's moved from mourning to attention-seeking publicity hound. Her family has disowned her actions, and even she's flip flopped on how Bush treated her.

I have no sympathy for her. I'm sorry her son is dead, but he joined of his own will, or at least knew he'd see action one day. It's the risk you take.

People are free to be idiots in democracy. I'll defend that even with my life. She can be a idiot with her idiotic beliefs. That's fine by me. She's most certainly wrong and she has associated herself with extreme left wing organizations including moveon and code pink I believe.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

we went into Iraq b/c he was a brutal dictator who we KNEW absolutely had chemical weapons, and long range missiles (which could hurt our assets in the middle east).
He had neither. There was no evidence that he had any of them for several years. No WMDs have been found. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Kaput. Zero. Other term that is synonymous with "none".

He had neither. There was no evidence that he had any of them for several years. No WMDs have been found. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Kaput. Zero. Other term that is synonymous with "none".

Well, my argument for the war was based on entirely different aspects of Hussein. I don't want to get into that right now...

People are free to be idiots in democracy.

Which is exactly why when I am king of the world there will be Idiot Police. :D

Which is exactly why when I am king of the world there will be Idiot Police. :D

Same here. I'm sure I'll end up getting corrupted severely by power and running the world (or a country) like my NS nation.

He had neither. There was no evidence that he had any of them for several years. No WMDs have been found. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Kaput. Zero. Other term that is synonymous with "none".


i dont want this to turn into another conversation, so i wont reply to a response to this:

Heres how the story goes. We knew he had them. There was no evidence that he destroyed them.. so obviously, you assume he didnt b/c he was messing with the UN inspectors for 10 years. Our faulty intelligence was not that he didnt have them... but the faulty intelligence was that he didnt have them in the same place. He could have easily moved them to Syria (which Israeli intelligence says they witnessed) or any other place.<< that was all for chemical weapons>> As for the nuclear weapons we knew he had the capability to have the nuclear weapons, we just didnt know if he did or did not. in this case, when somebody's screwing around with UN weapons inspectors (ie: not letting them in, or telling them which buildings to check...) you assume the worst, and hope for the best. We assumed the worst and we didnt find the worst... which i think is good news rather than bad. So anyway, we didnt find nukes or the chemical weapons, but that doesnt mean he didnt have them or have them moved. why would he f*ck around with the UN if he didnt have anything to hide. He also didnt abide by the ultimatum Bush gave... for him to show proof once and for all that he destroyed the weapons... saddam wiped his ass with the ultimatum.. so we decided to take him out, and help his poor and starving opopressed people (special thanks to corrupt UN officials who screwed the Iraqis over in the oil-for-food scandal). and thats it with the weapons.. start a different thread if you want more... but theres a new one about the topic almost every day anyway ...

i dont want this to turn into another conversation, so i wont reply to a response to this:

Heres how the story goes. We knew he had them. There was no evidence that he destroyed them.. so obviously, you assume he didnt b/c he was messing with the UN inspectors for 10 years. Our faulty intelligence was not that he didnt have them... but the faulty intelligence was that he didnt have them in the same place. He could have easily moved them to Syria (which Israeli intelligence says they witnessed) or any other place.<< that was all for chemical weapons>> As for the nuclear weapons we knew he had the capability to have the nuclear weapons, we just didnt know if he did or did not. in this case, when somebody's screwing around with UN weapons inspectors (ie: not letting them in, or telling them which buildings to check...) you assume the worst, and hope for the best. We assumed the worst and we didnt find the worst... which i think is good news rather than bad. So anyway, we didnt find nukes or the chemical weapons, but that doesnt mean he didnt have them or have them moved. why would he f*ck around with the UN if he didnt have anything to hide. He also didnt abide by the ultimatum Bush gave... for him to show proof once and for all that he destroyed the weapons... saddam wiped his ass with the ultimatum.. so we decided to take him out, and help his poor and starving opopressed people (special thanks to corrupt UN officials who screwed the Iraqis over in the oil-for-food scandal). and thats it with the weapons.. start a different thread if you want more... but theres a new one about the topic almost every day anyway ...



The problem with this argument is that more Iraqi civilians have died in the time AFTER the end of "major combat operations" than in any comparable amount of time during Saddam's regime.

I also hear a ton of revisionist historical accounts about how Saddam was in collusion with Al Quaida, which is the most ridiculous thing in the universe. Islamic whackos HATED Saddam, because he ran a secular government. And, he HATED them, for wanting to bring hardcore islam into his government.

All that aside, why break international laws? Why not do things properly, going through the right channels, use diplomacy. We didn't find ANYTHING, which means Saddam was a paper tiger. I don't buy any of these bullshit excuses that seem to be circulating lately. It's all backpeddaling nonsense.

In the end there was no justification for this war except for greed and personal revenge. The proof is there, all you have to do is WANT to see it.

The problem with this argument is that more Iraqi civilians have died in the time AFTER the end of "major combat operations" than in any comparable amount of time during Saddam's regime.


No. That's all I'm going to say. That's simply not true at all.

No. That's all I'm going to say. That's simply not true at all.
Excluding the 600,000+ deaths from sanctions, most estimates peg the deaths under Saddam's reign at 60,000. The deaths in Gulf War II, on the other hand, are, at the barest minimum, 25,000. The WHO pegs the death toll at over 100,000.

No. That's all I'm going to say. That's simply not true at all.


An unsubstantiated argument is really no argument at all. "That's all I'm going to say."

what a egocentric whore, she plans to ask Bush "why her son had to die" - what does she think thats goingl to do exactly? does she think that'll suddenly change everything he believes in? then she says she'll ask him to "bring the troops home in her son's honor" - why did she ever want to bring them back before then? why did her family support the war before their son died but now it has to be brought to an end? what was so special about her son that now the war has to end?

:rolleyes: Excluding the 600,000+ deaths from sanctions, most estimates peg the deaths under Saddam's reign at 60,000. The deaths in Gulf War II, on the other hand, are, at the barest minimum, 25,000. The WHO pegs the death toll at over 100,000.

Bullshit. Under 60,000? More like 1,000,000. The 60,000 number.. where did you pull that one out of? Most estimates say 1,000,000. There have been mass graves found throughout the country putting the number at 700,000 dead by Saddam's police state. I seriously think you missed a zero of the deaths from Saddam's reign.. what do I expect.. you are similiar to those people who try to minimize the holocaust or claim it never happened.

what a egocentric whore, she plans to ask Bush "why her son had to die" - what does she think thats goingl to do exactly? does she think that'll suddenly change everything he believes in? then she says she'll ask him to "bring the troops home in her son's honor" - why did she ever want to bring them back before then? why did her family support the war before their son died but now it has to be brought to an end? what was so special about her son that now the war has to end?


This is the single most disgusting thing EVER said about anyone on the face of the earth! You, sir, are a complete asshat

:rolleyes:

Bullshit. Under 60,000? More like 1,000,000. The 60,000 number.. where did you pull that one out of? Most estimates say 1,000,000. There have been mass graves found throughout the country putting the number at 700,000 dead by Saddam's police state. I seriously think you missed a zero of the deaths from Saddam's reign.. what do I expect.. you are similiar to those people who try to minimize the holocaust or claim it never happened.

Quit your hole digging while you can still climb out, man. "That's all I have to say."

Quit your hole digging while you can still climb out, man. "That's all I have to say."

go bang your head against the wall more.. maybe screws will get even more loose.

It is well recognized by several organizations that Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.. up to a million perhaps.

This is the single most disgusting thing EVER said about anyone on the face of the earth! You, sir, are a complete asshat

so tell me, what exactly is she thinking? what does she think is going to happen? why is she only protesting now that her son is gone?

People are free to be idiots in democracy. I'll defend that even with my life. She can be a idiot with her idiotic beliefs. That's fine by me. She's most certainly wrong and she has associated herself with extreme left wing organizations including moveon and code pink I believe.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.Cindy Sheehan was on the Ed Schultz show this afternoon and he asked her about the author of this letter--it's her sister-in-law, her husband's sister, who, according to Cindy, hasn't spoken to the family since her son Casey was killed. They're hard-core Republicans who back everything Bush does unquestioningly.

In short--who the fuck does this woman think she is, purporting to speak for the rest of the family? Cindy's husband supported the war, and for all I know, still does, and yet he's not out there denouncing his wife's actions. If this woman wants to make her feelings known, fine--let her put her name and only her name on the letter. The rest of the family, if they agree, let them sign the letter. But none of them have the right to slam this woman for doing what she feels she must to honor her son--it's her son, for fuck's sake.

I can't tell you what I would do if something happened to my daughter and my (now ex) in-laws deigned to criticize me for it, but I guarantee you this--they'd remember whatever came out of it.

And Schrandtopia, Cindy Sheehan was an activist against the war long before her son was killed. This is nothing new for her--the focus has changed and become more personal, but the essence is still the same.

In short--who the fuck does this woman think she is, purporting to speak for the rest of the family? Cindy's husband supported the war, and for all I know, still does, and yet he's not out there denouncing his wife's actions. If this woman wants to make her feelings known, fine--let her put her name and only her name on the letter. The rest of the family, if they agree, let them sign the letter. But none of them have the right to slam this woman for doing what she feels she must to honor her son--it's her son, for fuck's sake.


Cindy is using her son for political purposes. She's not honoring son. In fact I think what she is doing is fucking sick.

There is only one bottom line here.

Its this:

You dont have to like what shes says.
You dont have to agree with it, either.

But anyone who calls here names, or demeans her in such ways demonstrated in this thread, arent very good Americans.

Freedom of speech is something many people take for granted.

She is protesting against what she feels is wrong, regardless of wether shes being opportunistic over her son's death or not.

"I may not agree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it."

Cindy is using her son for political purposes. She's not honoring son. In fact I think what she is doing is fucking sick.
Do you have a child? Have you ever lost a child? If you're telling the truth in your sig, then the answer's probably no--you're a twenty year old gay man living in Los Angeles. And you dare to judge this woman's actions? You dare to step in her shoes and say that she's not expressing her grief in the most constructive way she can think of? Who the hell do you think you are?

Just for once--once!--try to show a little empathy here. Try to look beyond the orbit of your own ass and consider what she's going through, even if you don't agree with her politics.

Oh she can protest all she wants. She can protest till she turns blue. That's fine with me. Remember: In democracy, people have the freedom to be idiots. :)

I'm a good american thank you very much. But I have my freedom of speech to call her an idiot. :)

Do you have a child? Have you ever lost a child? If you're telling the truth in your sig, then the answer's probably no--you're a twenty year old gay man living in Los Angeles. And you dare to judge this woman's actions? You dare to step in her shoes and say that she's not expressing her grief in the most constructive way she can think of? Who the hell do you think you are?

No, but I have two relatives in Iraq right now. One of which who was nearly killed in an IED. But yes I can question her actions. I don't really like her views, but she has her right to voice them all she wants.

I'm saddened by the fact that her son was killed. But that doesn't change my view on the war.

You can also not attack me personally. Thanks.

No, but I have two relatives in Iraq right now. One of which who was nearly killed in an IED. But yes I can question her actions. I don't really like her views, but she has her right to view them all she wants.

I'm saddened by the fact that her son was killed. But that doesn't change my view on the war.

You can also not attack me personally. Thanks.
There's nothing even resembling a personal attack in that post, but go ahead and report me in Moderation if it'll make you feel better.

There's nothing even resembling a personal attack in that post, but go ahead and report me in Moderation if it'll make you feel better.

"Try to look beyond the orbit of your own ass and consider what she's going through, even if you don't agree with her politics. "

I have a nice ass thank you very much, not a big one.

I have no idea what Ms. Sheehan expects to accomplish with this. She has a right to protest, no right to meet the President, and there can be no practical results except media exposure - maybe that's all she wants, but somehow I think she's not rational about this. Camping out until the President meets with her is analogous to a hunger strike, but more meaningless under the circumstances.

She doesn't have much of a case. "I want to ask the president, `Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" she said..." She could be asking that of many members of Congress, including John Kerry, who voted in support of the war.

"Try to look beyond the orbit of your own ass and consider what she's going through, even if you don't agree with her politics. "

I have a nice ass thank you very much, not a big one.
Yeah--try looking beyond your own personal and petty concerns and show some fellow-feeling for a person who is suffering. It's a metaphor, not a comment on your physical appearance, of which I have absolutely no knowledge and about which I would make no assumptions.

I have no idea what Ms. Sheehan expects to accomplish with this. She has a right to protest, no right to meet the President, and there can be no practical results except media exposure - maybe that's all she wants, but somehow I think she's not rational about this. Camping out until the President meets with her is analogous to a hunger strike, but more meaningless under the circumstances.

She doesn't have much of a case. "I want to ask the president, `Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" she said..." She could be asking that of many members of Congress, including John Kerry, who voted in support of the war.The really dumb thing about all this--as I said on the other thread on this subject--is that none of this would have ever been a story if Bush had just come out to the driveway on the first day, brought her inside, said "no reporters, just the two of us to talk," given her a glass of lemonade, and stared at her while she talked. He wouldn't even have to listen to her--just mumble some of the same old crap he trots out at his rare press conferences, and send her on her way. Do that, and this isn't even a story. Now it's a pr fiasco for Bush. Who is running the show over there? They're the most incompetent bunch of public relations morons ever, that's for damn sure.

Clinton would never have let this sort of thing get out of control--he suckered Newt Gingrich so many times and so badly that the rest of the Republican leadership stopped letting him go to the White House alone. What do you think he'd have done with someone like this?

It is well recognized by several organizations that Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.. up to a million perhaps.

Mmhmmm, let me guess. These organizations you speak of are Mesatecala's Imagination, Mesatecala's Raving and Mesatecala's nether region. Any links or proof of a reputable organization that has claims that matches yours?

also hear a ton of revisionist historical accounts about how Saddam was in collusion with Al Quaida, which is the most ridiculous thing in the universe. Islamic whackos HATED Saddam, because he ran a secular government. And, he HATED them, for wanting to bring hardcore islam into his government.

WRONG.

1Saddam aided, abetted and funded Al Quaeda.

Saddam Hussein aided, abetted and assisted Abu Nidal, one of the worst terrorists known.he was found In iraq

Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib has reportedly discovered a memo archived by the Saddam Hussein regime that shows Baghdad was supporting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda terrorist thought to be leading the insurgency in Iraq today. Other support of al-Qaeda is also discussed in the memo. Some suggest this memo could prove to be the smoking gun to prove Hussein’s support for Osama bin Laden’s network leading up to 9-11 and thereafter.

But, not only Hussein was supporting al-Qaida, according to the memo, so was Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Many of the Sunni clerics in Iraq and throughout the Mideast were, too. And Russian intelligence was also lending its support.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/22/rusiran.shtml

The dossier says Abu Zubair, also known as Fowzi Saad al-Obeidi, was an Iraqi intelligence officer trained in using terror against the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Abu Zubair, who weighs 140 kilograms and is nicknamed The Bear, ran training camps in Afghanistan for bin Laden before September 11 last year. But he vanished shortly before the US invasion.

Rafid Fatah, also known as Abu Omer al-Kurdi, was likewise trained by President Saddam and worked with Abu Zubair against the Kurds.

Hussein was funding the Palestinians in suicide bombings to the tune of $25,000 per "martyr"

Hussein aided and abetted the attack on the USS Cole

Hussein aided, funded,supported and equipped terrorist cells along with Moammar Ghadaffi.

Please, allow me to introduce some of Saddam's legacy to you.

http://massgraves.info/

I am sick of revisionists apologising or making excuses for the atrocities this man committed..to say nothing of his two sons Uday and Qusay..who made the fatal mistake of pointing a weapon at US Marines..(it was also, I am happy to say, the last mistake they ever made.)

we went into Iraq b/c he was a brutal dictator who we KNEW absolutely had chemical weapons, and long range missiles (which could hurt our assets in the middle east). We also KNEW that Saddam was not showing proof of the destruction of these known weapons, as well as proof that he did not have nuclear capabilities. of Saddam's oppressive regime. So we needed to start training one so that they can be self-sustaining. IF we pull out too early, then there is a large probability that another post 'cold war afghanistan-like' government would take control (and we all know how great Afghanistan was after we ditched them after we fought the commies). So leaving to early is not an option now.


Those reasons for war is what we have been told, but I do not recall ever seeing any proof. If invading countries to remove brutal dictators is the new game, then, well, we have alot of allies to go and get.
And, her son was not a MARINE. He was an Army mechanic from the 1st Cav. Now I have no beef with the 1 CAV, but he wasn't a Marine.
Why blame Bush? Hmm... well.... because HE invaded the country?

WRONG.

1Saddam aided, abetted and funded Al Quaeda.

Saddam Hussein aided, abetted and assisted Abu Nidal, one of the worst terrorists known.he was found In iraq


http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/22/rusiran.shtml


Hussein was funding the Palestinians in suicide bombings to the tune of $25,000 per "martyr"

Hussein aided and abetted the attack on the USS Cole

Hussein aided, funded,supported and equipped terrorist cells along with Moammar Ghadaffi.

Please, allow me to introduce some of Saddam's legacy to you.

http://massgraves.info/

I am sick of revisionists apologising or making excuses for the atrocities this man committed..to say nothing of his two sons Uday and Qusay..who made the fatal mistake of pointing a weapon at US Marines..(it was also, I am happy to say, the last mistake they ever made.)

How about recounting the history of how Saddam came to power, who helped fund and arm him, and who supported his reign for so long?

This woman is a poor, ignorant, unwitting pawn being used by George Soros. Its a shame she lost her son.
Its a shame she will probably write a book about this experience too.

Excluding the 600,000+ deaths from sanctions, most estimates peg the deaths under Saddam's reign at 60,000. The deaths in Gulf War II, on the other hand, are, at the barest minimum, 25,000. The WHO pegs the death toll at over 100,000.


I love deaths being attributed to "sanctions". Sanctions brought on directly by sadaam's own actions. Whilst sadaam and his insane homidical sons lived in 20 various palaces with truckloads-literally-containing billions in US dollars.
Dont tell me about sanctions. Dont tell me about babies that couldnt get medicine and kids that starved to death. The counties dictator could have fed,clothed and educated every child in that country with a fraction of what he hoarded for himself and the small cadre of maniacs.
Instead, they filled mass graves-containing many women and childen-found with bullets in their heads and were then bulldozed over. maybe he was putting them out of their misery? Or maybe they were guilty of crimes and that was their sentence? Or maybe he just liked a good purge from time to time to keep the survivors in line.

No-the sanction story may make self loathers feel swell, but its all bullshit.

As the rest of the Sheehan family told Cindy, shut up and go home! They do not want her exploiting a private grief for her twisted political agenda. It'll be a great day when her husband cuts off her spending.

As the rest of the Sheehan family told Cindy, shut up and go home! They do not want her exploiting a private grief for her twisted political agenda. It'll be a great day when her husband cuts off her spending.
Yeah, I'll bet that's a fun dinner table to sit at. I see a parting of the ways in their future.

Actually I'm a bit puzzled by the opening post. My impression is that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Nor has there been any conclusive evidence that he was supporting Al-Qaeda. These were pretty much the most compelling reasons for invasion, and were not supportable by real evidence.

Having stated that, the really important reason for invasion of Iraq would more likely be the need to establish a pro-Western status quo in the Middle East. That may sound cynical but in fact it is a bit like Vietnam. To some degree it could be said to be the results of short sighted diplomacy, or for instance the typical tug of war games that take place between allies and even between government departments in one's own country. (a good example of this is the struggle for influence between the elected government and certain voices in the State Department in the US) As with Vietnam policies that have NOT led to an amiable status quo can lead to war. This should remind people that what we do now can lead to a troubling future, and our regret and sorrow over the casualties should also remind us that soldiers may pay the price for these policies with their lives.

However while this woman may seem to just be ignorant, she is grieving, she has reason to grieve, and should be understood a little better. The Vietnam comparison, in my opinion, holds here, because rhetoric aside there is clearly a lack of a strong mandate to support the conflict in Iraq. This sometimes happens, and sometimes the problem is that the leaders are not making the case for the war in such a way as resonates in the hearts and minds of the people. This woman not only has a right to protest, but in a sense should protest. If she cannot be answered, it is hardly her fault. A government SHOULD be able to justify the deaths of those in the service in a clear and honest fashion.

If El Presidente can't be bothered to speak to her, he'd better be prepared to not speak to any other grieving parties, lest he be (properly) castigated for using the victims of his pointless, blood-soaked vendetta to bolster his political fortunes.

What a terminal fool.

so tell me, what exactly is she thinking? what does she think is going to happen? why is she only protesting now that her son is gone?

Here's a quote from a conservative blogger that pretty much summs it up.

"Even when something really outrages me, usually that outrage gives way to a bit of calm, measured thinking. With the Cindy Sheehan story, that's not the case.

...

If one needed any further proof that this incarnation of "Republicans" and alleged conservatives includes a faction that has gone completely and tragically over the edge, the smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan is it.

The essence of the right-wing smear machine's "outing" of Cindy Sheehan is her supposed flip-flop from supporting President Bush in 2004 to disapproving of him in 2005. As details of this have become clearer, it's obvious the flip-flop is nothing more than a canard. But setting aside the Sheehan story for a moment, have any of the shameless smearsters seen the public opinion polls recently? Here's some breaking news for them: a whole lot of Americans who supported Bush a year ago---including an increasingly large part of his "base"---have turned against him. And that includes many millions of people who haven't lost a parent, child, or sibling in Iraq.

There are so many side issues of shamelessness and crass opportunism in this story it makes my head spin. Think about the gall of a political and media machine "accusing" a private citizen of changing her mind (imagine that!) about an elected and supposedly accountable public official. When did a private citizen supposedly changing her opinion about something rise to the same level as a flip-flop about firing anyone involved in the leaking a CIA agent's name? At what point did the ability to change one's mind about a politician become something to be ridiculed and accused of instead of cherished as a basic right? And it's not as if in the past year we haven't learned anything about the pre-war manipulation of intelligence, as well as the incompetent planning, that resulted in the death of Cindy Sheehan's son and thousands of others like him.

Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story."

(Emphasis is mine, and yes aimed specifically at you)

As the rest of the Sheehan family told Cindy, shut up and go home! They do not want her exploiting a private grief for her twisted political agenda. It'll be a great day when her husband cuts off her spending.

What about Bush using everyone's grief to further his political agenda?

One of the main reasons she is doing this is that the president point-blank told many of the families of fallen soldiers that he would not use their deaths for gain, or to push his agenda. And yet, he does, every time he says that we must push on to honor the fallen - and that is what she is angry about.

It is just like Bush saying that he would not use 9/11 for political gain, then running approved ads with the rubble behind him and dead bodies being carried out behind him.

The man doesn't live up to his word - and she is telling people that.

WRONG.

1Saddam aided, abetted and funded Al Quaeda.

If you believe that, then you're a good American, a good patriot and will make Mr Bush very proud!

He had neither. There was no evidence that he had any of them for several years. No WMDs have been found. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Kaput. Zero. Other term that is synonymous with "none".

so what?

Howard Zinn: While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we're exercising that right to dissent, it's a patriotic act.

One of the great mistakes made in discussing patriotism -- a very common mistake -- is to think that patriotism means support for your government. And that view of patriotism ignores the founding principles of the country expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is: the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that governments are artificial creations set up to achieve certain ends -- equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness -- and when governments become destructive of those ends it is the right of the people in the words of the Declaration, to alter or abolish the government.

In other words, obedience to government certainly is not a form of patriotism. Governments are the instruments to achieve certain ends. And if the government goes against those ends, if the government is not defending our liberties, but is diminishing our liberties, if the government is sending young people into war or making war which is unjustified, well then the government is not following the principles of caring about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. When the government is taking huge sums of money from education and health, and using that money for military purposes, that's a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And a government like that cannot be obeyed. To obey a government like that is not being patriotic. At that point, when a government behaves like that, it is the most patriotic thing to disobey the government. ...

read the rest at: http://www.tompaine.com/scontent/5908.html

I wholeheartedly defend this woman's right to protest, whether or not i agree or disagree with her. YAY for american freedoms.

The problem with this argument is that more Iraqi civilians have died in the time AFTER the end of "major combat operations" than in any comparable amount of time during Saddam's regime. .

the question is, though, by whose hands?


All that aside, why break international laws? Why not do things properly, going through the right channels, use diplomacy. We didn't find ANYTHING, which means Saddam was a paper tiger. I don't buy any of these bullshit excuses that seem to be circulating lately. It's all backpeddaling nonsense.

What international laws were broken? None by the US. There were 17 resolutions, the 17th of which was voted unanimously stating clearly what had to happen or else military action would be used. The right channels were gone through and diplomacy was used for 12 years to no avail. We didn't find anything but this is AFTER the fact. We didn't know we wouldn't find anything BEFORE the fact.

In the end there was no justification for this war except for greed and personal revenge. The proof is there, all you have to do is WANT to see it.

There was and is plenty of justification for this war. The proof, as you say, IS there, you're not looking hard enough.

I have no idea what Ms. Sheehan expects to accomplish with this. She has a right to protest, no right to meet the President, and there can be no practical results except media exposure - maybe that's all she wants, but somehow I think she's not rational about this. Camping out until the President meets with her is analogous to a hunger strike, but more meaningless under the circumstances.

She doesn't have much of a case. "I want to ask the president, `Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" she said..." She could be asking that of many members of Congress, including John Kerry, who voted in support of the war.

Unlike in Viet Nam, her son was a volunteer. He knew the risks and was willing to take them. You don't become a Lumberjack with the anticipation of never climbing a tree.

Soldiers Die and Mommies Cry. That's the way of the world. At this point, IMO she is shamelessly exploiting her son's death. If he had been electrocuted while acting as a lineman for a power company, would she be blaming the Utility CEO? I don't think so.

AFAIC, her protest has all the utility of protesting electricity tranmission cables. She is welcome to do it, but she only looks silly.

As the rest of the Sheehan family told Cindy, shut up and go home! They do not want her exploiting a private grief for her twisted political agenda. It'll be a great day when her husband cuts off her spending.
Cindy Sheehan's sister-in-law was the only one who actually put a name on the paper, so it's more than a bit misleading to say that "the rest of her family" told her to shut up and go home. Of course, accuracy has never been your strong suit.

The really dumb thing about all this--as I said on the other thread on this subject--is that none of this would have ever been a story if Bush had just come out to the driveway on the first day, brought her inside, said "no reporters, just the two of us to talk," given her a glass of lemonade, and stared at her while she talked. He wouldn't even have to listen to her--just mumble some of the same old crap he trots out at his rare press conferences, and send her on her way. Do that, and this isn't even a story. Now it's a pr fiasco for Bush. Who is running the show over there? They're the most incompetent bunch of public relations morons ever, that's for damn sure.

Clinton would never have let this sort of thing get out of control--he suckered Newt Gingrich so many times and so badly that the rest of the Republican leadership stopped letting him go to the White House alone. What do you think he'd have done with someone like this?

I think you're wrong. Bush HAS spoken to her and she praised him for it. Later she's changed her tune and is now badmouthing him and crying for impeachment. If Bush had brought her in with no reporters to "chat" over lemonade, he'd be opening himself up for an attack by her and Michael Moore with made up accusations of what he did or didn't say afterwards.

I feel bad that she lost her son. I'm a veteran from Gulf War I, I understand she's still grieving her son. I disagree with her tactic in grieving, I consider it a dishonor to her son. He was a true hero. He volunteered 4 times to go to Iraq before they finally sent him. He was a HumV mechanic but he VOLUNTEERED to go help get his fellow soldiers out of trouble. The boy was a TRUE hero. Her actions are NOT honoring his memory. Aligning herself with Michael Mooron isn't either.

How about recounting the history of how Saddam came to power, who helped fund and arm him, and who supported his reign for so long?

so what? That was 30 years ago. This is irrelevant to what he became

so what? That was 30 years ago. This is irrelevant to what he became


Wha??? The people that put him in power knew what kind of guy he was. Just like they knew what kind of guy the Shah of Iran was. Same thing with Musharif. This kind of haphazard crap is S.O.P for us. All we really want is smiles and handshakes when we're looking. We don't care what they do when we're not. Until, of course, political winds change and we no longer need them, or they have somehow outlived their usefulness.

Wha??? The people that put him in power knew what kind of guy he was. Just like they knew what kind of guy the Shah of Iran was. Same thing with Musharif. This kind of haphazard crap is S.O.P for us. All we really want is smiles and handshakes when we're looking. We don't care what they do when we're not. Until, of course, political winds change and we no longer need them, or they have somehow outlived their usefulness.

You also have to take into account that the people you are talking about are NOT this administration. That was some other guy and some other guy's administration that put Saddam in power and who supported him. We're a different country today with a different set of leaders. It is irrelevant to ask about what some other president did 30 years ago.

I think you're wrong. Bush HAS spoken to her and she praised him for it. Later she's changed her tune and is now badmouthing him and crying for impeachment. If Bush had brought her in with no reporters to "chat" over lemonade, he'd be opening himself up for an attack by her and Michael Moore with made up accusations of what he did or didn't say afterwards.

I feel bad that she lost her son. I'm a veteran from Gulf War I, I understand she's still grieving her son. I disagree with her tactic in grieving, I consider it a dishonor to her son. He was a true hero. He volunteered 4 times to go to Iraq before they finally sent him. He was a HumV mechanic but he VOLUNTEERED to go help get his fellow soldiers out of trouble. The boy was a TRUE hero. Her actions are NOT honoring his memory. Aligning herself with Michael Mooron isn't either.
First of all--Sheehan has never changed her story. If you're going off of the story that Drudge has been posting, then you should know that he quoted her way the hell out of context. She's been opposed to Bush since day one, and nothing about that has changed. The Michael Moore shot is cheap, and not even worth discussing.

But more importantly, even if she doesn't have a legitimate gripe, the fact is that any half-decent public relations person should have seen this coming a mile away and defused it immediately. Now it's a big story, and it never should have been. I support what Sheehan is doing and I'm saying that. If Bush had met with her on day one, this never would have hit the papers. Now it's everywhere. Stupid move on the part of the Bush adminstration.

You also have to take into account that the people you are talking about are NOT this administration. That was some other guy and some other guy's administration that put Saddam in power and who supported him. We're a different country today with a different set of leaders. It is irrelevant to ask about what some other president did 30 years ago.

Again, wha??? In this case the fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree. Bush '41 is the guy who is primarily responsible for getting Saddam into power. Try again.

EDIT: And, I know what you're going to say... "Bush '41 wasn't president when Saddam took power..." An, no he wasn't, he was in charge of the CIA, and that's how he orchestrated it all.

You also have to take into account that the people you are talking about are NOT this administration. That was some other guy and some other guy's administration that put Saddam in power and who supported him. We're a different country today with a different set of leaders. It is irrelevant to ask about what some other president did 30 years ago.
Different people you say?
http://www.modkraft.dk/images/nyheder/handshake.jpg
That's Don Rumsfeld with Hussein.
Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Reagan.
And there are tons more connections.
You might want to rethink that post.

I know she is extremely sad, and very angry that her son had to die. However, she is disgracing her son by protesting against something he chose to do. The people she should be mad at are the sickos who actually killed him, the terrorists(not insurgents, not "freedom fighters", the demonic terrorists). If it wasn't for the terrorists, her son would still be alive. She would bring honor back to her and her son if she spoke out against the jihadist bastards.

I know she is extremely sad, and very angry that her son had to die. However, she is disgracing her son by protesting against something he chose to do. The people she should be mad at are the sickos who actually killed him, the terrorists(not insurgents, not "freedom fighters", the demonic terrorists). If it wasn't for the terrorists, her son would still be alive. She would bring honor back to her and her son if she spoke out against the jihadist bastards.

Never mind--I can't do this without calling you names, because your post is so full of crap, and I'm not going to flame.

Never mind--I can't do this without calling you names, because your post is so full of crap, and I'm not going to flame.
I ask you this. Who is the ones who actually pulled the trigger, or pushed the bomb detonator? The terrorists. They killed him. They, and their sick twisted ideals. They must be accused, because if it wasn't for them, Casey wouldn't be dead.

so what?
Reason to go to war: He has WMD. Turns out there are none. and all you ask is "so what?"

You don't mind at all being lied to in order for troops and innocents to die for a hiiden goal that is not spelled out?

What kind of apathy has befallen on the US people for this to happen?

Reason to go to war: He has WMD. Turns out there are none. and all you ask is "so what?"

You don't mind at all being lied to in order for troops and innocents to die for a hiiden goal that is not spelled out?

What kind of apathy has befallen on the US people for this to happen?
The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great.

Never mind--I can't do this without calling you names, because your post is so full of crap, and I'm not going to flame.

right because it would be insane to actually blame the people who DIRECTLY killed him. How could it possibly THEIR fault?

What international laws were broken? None by the US. There were 17 resolutions, the 17th of which was voted unanimously stating clearly what had to happen or else military action would be used. The right channels were gone through and diplomacy was used for 12 years to no avail. We didn't find anything but this is AFTER the fact. We didn't know we wouldn't find anything BEFORE the fact.

The Us has broken international law. Specifically, the UN charter the US has signed that says that no signatory country will go to war without the consent of the UN security council.

Those 17 resolutions ALL states that the decision to go to war remains in the hand of the security council. Does the US has the agreement of the Security Council for this war? I think not.


There was and is plenty of justification for this war. The proof, as you say, IS there, you're not looking hard enough.
There was plenty of justification, yes. They were all shut down as innacurate one after the other.

WMD? Nope.
Ties to Al-Queda? Well they both have an "a" in their name...
Buying nuclear from an african country? No. And the administration was so pissed that someone called their bluff that they outed a CIA operative.
Links to 9/11? None whatsoever.

until you come to the catch 22 justification. "Saddam is a baaaad man." To this I say: yes, but so deos a great many other head of states. Do you honestly think that you went into Iraq just to remove Saddam? Please! That justification is still around only because it cannot be disproven.

Reason to go to war: He has WMD. Turns out there are none. and all you ask is "so what?"

You don't mind at all being lied to in order for troops and innocents to die for a hiiden goal that is not spelled out?

What kind of apathy has befallen on the US people for this to happen?

WMD was only one reason Bush gave for going to war. There were several other reasons and some of which ALONE would have been enough. And again, for all you people who can't figure it out, being wrong about something (assuming he was) does NOT equate to lying about it.

The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great.
Yes it does. In fact, it has been the instrument behind numerous brutal dicators's rise to power.

You take actions only when it suits your purpose. That does not make you great.

I ask you this. Who is the ones who actually pulled the trigger, or pushed the bomb detonator? The terrorists. They killed him. They, and their sick twisted ideals. They must be accused, because if it wasn't for them, Casey wouldn't be dead.
Let me ask you this--who ordered Casey into that unnecessary and wasteful war? Iraq never attacked the US, and wasn't even remotely a danger to us--so who's responsible? I'll tell you--it's that fucker on vacation in Crawford Texas, George W. Bush.

It's real simple, bub--no invasion, Casey's alive. Bush is the cause of the invasion; ergo, Bush is responsible for Casey Sheehan's death. I accuse.

The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great.

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes it does. In fact, it has been the instrument behind numerous brutal dicators's rise to power.

You take actions only when it suits your purpose. That does not make you great.
None of you people understand. Ask an Iraqi citizen who was alive during Saddam's regime. They'll tell you this:

If you said anything bad about him, you would just disappear.

Ways he executed you: lowering into a pit filled with circular saws, shooting squad, gas, beheading, just to name a few.

Ways he tortured you: They are too gruesome to even speak of.

We may have been behind his rise to power, but we realized our blunder and got rid of him.

Are you being sarcastic?
No. I know some people think Bush is a brutal dictator, but he isn't.

Let me ask you this--who ordered Casey into that unnecessary and wasteful war? Iraq never attacked the US, and wasn't even remotely a danger to us--so who's responsible? I'll tell you--it's that fucker on vacation in Crawford Texas, George W. Bush.

It's real simple, bub--no invasion, Casey's alive. Bush is the cause of the invasion; ergo, Bush is responsible for Casey Sheehan's death. I accuse.
what a load of shit. You need to stop watching Michael Mooron's propoganda. Iraq never attacked the US huh? Do you not consider shooting at an American OR a British plane attacking? How about shooting at it 450 times a year for 12 years breaking the cease fire agreements put in place in Gulf War I? Nobody ordered Casey to join the military. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER for Iraq duty 4 times. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER to leave his relatively safer job as a mechanic for the much more dangerous job of helping pull his fellow soldiers out of harms way.

None of you people understand. Ask an Iraqi citizen who was alive during Saddam's regime. They'll tell you this:

If you said anything bad about him, you would just disappear.

Ways he executed you: lowering into a pit filled with circular saws, shooting squad, gas, beheading, just to name a few.

Ways he tortured you: They are too gruesome to even speak of.

We may have been behind his rise to power, but we realized our blunder and got rid of him.
That is not the point.

You said that the US does not sit around while brutal dictators abuse their citizens. I called you on it. Where was the US during the Pinochet years? Why is the US not in North Korea or Darfur right now?

I am not interested in Saddam's modus operandi. I do not deny he was a bad man. I deny your claim that you went in there "for the Iraqi people" and "to remove a brutal dictator". Especially since the US in the habit of setting up pro-US dictators in the first place.

No. I know some people think Bush is a brutal dictator, but he isn't.

No where in my post did I mention Bush. My comment was in response to The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great. Which is far as I'm concerned utter is bullshit. The US did nothing in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 thousand died or more recently the genocide in Sudan.

Let me ask you this--who ordered Casey into that unnecessary and wasteful war? Iraq never attacked the US, and wasn't even remotely a danger to us--so who's responsible? I'll tell you--it's that fucker on vacation in Crawford Texas, George W. Bush.

It's real simple, bub--no invasion, Casey's alive. Bush is the cause of the invasion; ergo, Bush is responsible for Casey Sheehan's death. I accuse.
First off, that's very sophisticated of you to drop the f-bomb, that really makes you a great debater. :rolleyes:

Second, Casey knew the risks, and he accepted them. It was his choice, and in my opinion, a very brave and courageous choice at that.

Third, it is not unnecessary, it is not wasteful. The Iraqi people are free, and freedom is a necessity. It is not a waste to help people either. Iraq might have never attacked the U.S., but Saddam's regime was a threat, WMDs are not. Besides, the fact that Saddam gassed about 2 million Kurds proves he has the potential to make WMDs.

Fourth, Bush is not the cause of invasion, he's not the one who declared war. If you read the Constitution, you'll see that its Congress who declares war. Bush only orders the troops after war is declared.

Fifth, Bush is not responsible for Casey's death. Like I've said many times before, it was the evil terrorists who killed Casey. Its that simple. Accusing Bush of Casey's death is like accusing a witness of the death of a man, when it was clearly the suspect.

what a load of shit. You need to stop watching Michael Mooron's propoganda. Iraq never attacked the US huh? Do you not consider shooting at an American OR a British plane attacking? How about shooting at it 450 times a year for 12 years breaking the cease fire agreements put in place in Gulf War I? Nobody ordered Casey to join the military. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER for Iraq duty 4 times. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER to leave his relatively safer job as a mechanic for the much more dangerous job of helping pull his fellow soldiers out of harms way.
Some US and UK planes are flying in the Iraqi airspace, breaking the same cease fire agreement you hide behind and it Saddam's fault for firing at them?

Call me crazy, but if I was a head of state and some plane were flying overhead to bomb some of my facilities, I would respond in kind.

No where in my post did I mention Bush. My comment was in response to Which is far as I'm concerned utter is bullshit. The US did nothing in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 thousand died or more recently the genocide in Sudan.
Okay, I'm going to admit it, you've got me there. Yes, the United States should have done and do something. Why we didn't help in Rwanda, I don't know. I don't remember it too well as I was only 3. Same when it comes to the current slaughter in Sudan. But it will be tough to manage two large forces in two areas like that.

That is not the point.

You said that the US does not sit around while brutal dictators abuse their citizens. I called you on it. Where was the US during the Pinochet years? Why is the US not in North Korea or Darfur right now?

I am not interested in Saddam's modus operandi. I do not deny he was a bad man. I deny your claim that you went in there "for the Iraqi people" and "to remove a brutal dictator". Especially since the US in the habit of setting up pro-US dictators in the first place.
Again, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know! I am not commanding the troops, I'm a 14 year old conservative guy.

what a load of shit. You need to stop watching Michael Mooron's propoganda. Iraq never attacked the US huh? Do you not consider shooting at an American OR a British plane attacking? How about shooting at it 450 times a year for 12 years breaking the cease fire agreements put in place in Gulf War I? Nobody ordered Casey to join the military. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER for Iraq duty 4 times. Nobody ordered Casey to VOLUNTEER to leave his relatively safer job as a mechanic for the much more dangerous job of helping pull his fellow soldiers out of harms way.
Gee--speak out against the war and you're suddenly a brainless slave of Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

I saw this pantload of a war coming long before Micheal Moore even started filming, and I saw through the lies coming out of the White House as well. And I see through the shit that's coming out of your keyboard as well. Bleat on all you want about no-fly zone infractions--the fact is that this war was unnecessary, and over 1800 US soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqis are dead now because of it. And the wounded number at least ten times that number. So spare me your tough guy talk, please. George W Bush is responsible for those deaths and those wounds. It was his call, and he stands accused.

Gee--speak out against the war and you're suddenly a brainless slave of Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

I saw this pantload of a war coming long before Micheal Moore even started filming, and I saw through the lies coming out of the White House as well. And I see through the shit that's coming out of your keyboard as well. Bleat on all you want about no-fly zone infractions--the fact is that this war was unnecessary, and over 1800 US soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqis are dead now because of it. And the wounded number at least ten times that number. So spare me your tough guy talk, please. George W Bush is responsible for those deaths and those wounds. It was his call, and he stands accused.
For God's sake people, quit saying he lied to us! He might have made a mistake, that doesn't neccesarily mean he lied.

First off, that's very sophisticated of you to drop the f-bomb, that really makes you a great debater. :rolleyes:
Can be used for emphasis. It does not necessarily lowers a debater's skills. But that is a non-issue.

Second, Casey knew the risks, and he accepted them. It was his choice, and in my opinion, a very brave and courageous choice at that.

No argument there.

Third, it is not unnecessary, it is not wasteful. The Iraqi people are free, and freedom is a necessity. It is not a waste to help people either. Iraq might have never attacked the U.S., but Saddam's regime was a threat, WMDs are not. Besides, the fact that Saddam gassed about 2 million Kurds proves he has the potential to make WMDs.
Saddam gassed the kurds with weapons you sold him, 20 years ago. He never did it again. He did not have the potential to make WMD. That much has been shown by UN weapon inspectors and lack of evidence shown since the beginning of the war.

Interesting that the Bush apologist use an old fact like the gassing of Kurds but invoke "it was another administration, it is old news" argument when called upon to justify their support of Hussein back then.

Fourth, Bush is not the cause of invasion, he's not the one who declared war. If you read the Constitution, you'll see that its Congress who declares war. Bush only orders the troops after war is declared.
Congress voted to give the president the power to declare war, after all diplomatic effort was used(which is a part Bush conveniently forgot to do). It is Bush that declared war. Not congress.

That was a stupid move by the congress part, I might add.

Fifth, Bush is not responsible for Casey's death. Like I've said many times before, it was the evil terrorists who killed Casey. Its that simple. Accusing Bush of Casey's death is like accusing a witness of the death of a man, when it was clearly the suspect.
The evil terrorist were not in Iraq before the US invaded. The US invasion caused a insurgency and your are fighting freedom fighters who want you out of their land. Not all the people fighting against US troops are terrorists.

Besides, holding an ennemy combatant responsible for the death of Casey during time of war would mean that every US soldier who killed a man over in Iraq is guilty of murder. Are you agreeing with that?

In short, Saddam wasn't very nice. However, lots of world leaders aren't very nice but we gloss over their faults if:

A) They have nuclear weapons.
or
B) They aren't sitting any resources that we can take afterwards

But if neither A or B are true, then we can get all self-righteous, drop a bunch of bombs on people, etc, and use inspiring phrases as we do so like 'Axis of Evil' and, 'Stay the Course'. Truly bold words which will echo throughout history. :rolleyes:

But even though I'm against the Iraq War, I'm not feeling this Cindy Sheehan thing. I don't see any press gangs working the port cities of the Eastern US. I don't see contractors being forced to work over there at gunpoint... they're all there voluntarily, or in the military voluntarily. 99% of them opted to take that risk because either they agree with the war or because they decided some type of personal benefit, usually financial, was worth the risk. That's fine... but sometimes when people are in a country where there is a lot of shooting going on, they get shot. When people join the service or opt to work in a place like Iraq then they should know what they're getting into.

Again, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know! I am not commanding the troops, I'm a 14 year old conservative guy.
Then you are forgiven. ;)
Might I suggest that you read up on US history and their foreign policies before saying such sweeping statements as

"The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great. "

It would help you look like someone who knows what he is talking about.

Then you are forgiven. ;)
Might I suggest that you read up on US history and their foreign policies before saying such sweeping statements as

"The US, does not just sit there, and let a brutal dictator slaughter millions of his own people. We take action, and that's what makes us great. "

It would help you look like someone who knows what he is talking about.
I do look at US history quite often. And it is indeed a fascinating subject. When I look at the foreign policies of the past, they were all for defense, with the exception of the Mexican-American War, which is still being studied. So that is where I can see where you are coming from.

That being said, defense can also mean attacking to remove a possible threat. Which is exactly what we did. He may not have been a threat to us now. But what about 10 years from now? Better safe then sorry.

Also, the US is traditionally a compassionate country. We help people, its a part of being American. Not that that is a major part of my point, I'm just saying that sometimes makes us feel we have more reason to go to war.

Sorry to try and drag this back on track...

In an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8925133/) last night, Mrs Sheehan pretty much stated that she was hoping the GWB wouldn't meet with her. Then there wouldn't be any reason to continue this abomination, would there?


OLBERMANN: Last question. It‘s pure politics. The nature of the media coverage you‘re getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn‘t it really better if President Bush doesn‘t meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it‘s great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don‘t want to give them any hints. And I think that‘s something they‘ve probably already thought about.

That being said, defense can also mean attacking to remove a possible threat. Which is exactly what we did. He may not have been a threat to us now. But what about 10 years from now? Better safe then sorry.

Couldn't half the countries in the world fit the definition of 'Might be a threat to us in 10 years?'

Gee--speak out against the war and you're suddenly a brainless slave of Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

I saw this pantload of a war coming long before Micheal Moore even started filming, and I saw through the lies coming out of the White House as well. And I see through the shit that's coming out of your keyboard as well. Bleat on all you want about no-fly zone infractions--the fact is that this war was unnecessary, and over 1800 US soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqis are dead now because of it. And the wounded number at least ten times that number. So spare me your tough guy talk, please. George W Bush is responsible for those deaths and those wounds. It was his call, and he stands accused.

no spout his bullshit and you're suddenly a brainless slave of his.

Iraq is free. Iraqis are free. When they have a military and a security force capable of protecting their people, they'll be even more free. I could care less if you "believe" the reasons for going to war. I could care less if you "agree" with them and I really don't care that your closemindedness can't get past the WMD. Those people are free and that's a good thing. Regardless of what YOU and your ilk think about the reasons or anything else, its a good thing. Even if I were to agree that Bush went there solely for revenge, or oil, or whatever other conspiracy you think up (which I don't), those people are free and the motives behind it doesn't lessen THAT in the slightest. No more woodchippers, no more mass graves, no more rape camps. Blubber about WMDs till you're blue in the face, those people are FREE.

Interesting that the Bush apologist use an old fact like the gassing of Kurds but invoke "it was another administration, it is old news" argument when called upon to justify their support of Hussein back then.

the difference is, it WAS another administration that supported him, but HE is still the same guy. THAT gov't didn't change.


Congress voted to give the president the power to declare war, after all diplomatic effort was used(which is a part Bush conveniently forgot to do).

No he didn't forget it. Diplomatic efforts had been going on for 12 years to no avail. All efforts were used and failed.

you know what im tired of hearing??

im tired of hearing people saying "why did we go to Iraq and not _______"
they mention North Korea, Sudan, Darfur, Saudi Arabia...

Saying that we should have gone somewhere else first, does not disprove the necessity for war. Secondly, the UN is, or should be dealing with the problems as well, how many places do you want our troops. And anyway, if we did have troops in: afghanistan, iraq, north korea, saudi arabia and sudan... you would be complaining about how they are too spread out and not concentrated.... basically its a lose-lose situation for me... atleast from you point of view.

also lemme see if I got this straight

in the eyes of a stupid liberal (not most of them.. just the really really ignorant, and stupid ones)....

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good ... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good ... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good ... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good ... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good ... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good ... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good .. No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good ... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good ... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good .. Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good .. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good ... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good .. Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
-----
Something here sounds terribly wrong...


so anyway, we thought saddam had weapons, we went in there, and we were wrong... how does that justify going in there if we didnt know for certain when we were going in. What if we did find them, then you would say 'oo i guess it we went in for a good reason'... The reason for going to war has nothing to do with what happens during the war b/c you cannot forsee what will unfold. Saddam never showed proof that chemical weapons and such were destroyed... we gave him an ultimatum... which he also didnt abide by. He had the capabilities to make nuclear weapons... the question was 'did he have them' or not.


So in conclusion... the ppl who hate Bush, would have found another reason to hate him even IF WE DID find nuclear weapons. Hell if we never invaded Iraq and for some reason in 5 years we were attacked in some way by Iraq... they would blame Bush for NOT going into Iraq. ITs these people who you cannot reason with. ITs these people who think that everyone in the world is happy and peaceful, and that as long as theyre not bothering us directly they can do what they want. There was a similar attitude among the allied powers during WW2... where Hitler kept taking land, and the allies didnt do anything b/c they didnt want to 'make trouble' and it wasnt 'affecting them'... we all know how that ended up.. and then we all know who had to come in and save their asses in the end.

THE END.

There was a similar attitude among the allied powers during WW2... where Hitler kept taking land, and the allies didnt do anything b/c they didnt want to 'make trouble' and it wasnt 'affecting them'... we all know how that ended up.. and then we all know who had to come in and save their asses in the end.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..... KA-BOOOOM!

There it is... the 'We saved your asses in WWII' bomb! All bread-eating, surrendering Frenchmen, stuffy conservative Brits and other assorted European sympathizers please depart the thread now. :D

No he didn't forget it. Diplomatic efforts had been going on for 12 years to no avail. All efforts were used and failed.
And yet, Saddam was complying with the latest resolution and weapons inspectors were doing their job.

But Bush decided to invade before the job was finished. I disagree that he explored all diplomatic solutions.

He WANTED to go into Iraq. The administration saw that the weapon inspection would reveal the lie that was the WMD justification so he invaded before that outcome and left us before the fait accompli.

So you are in error when you say that all effort were used and failed. If that were true, the security council would have supported the war.

And yet, Saddam was complying with the latest resolution and weapons inspectors were doing their job.

But Bush decided to invade before the job was finished. I disagree that he explored all diplomatic solutions.

He WANTED to go into Iraq. The administration saw that the weapon inspection would reveal the lie that was the WMD justification so he invaded before that outcome and left us before the fait accompli.

So you are in error when you say that all effort weere used and failed. If that were true, the security council would have supported the war.

The security councel has no balls. They never have. The security council is the reason why there were SEVENTEEN resolutions instead of just ONE. Useless bunch.

And yet, Saddam was complying with the latest resolution and weapons inspectors were doing their job.

But Bush decided to invade before the job was finished. I disagree that he explored all diplomatic solutions.

He WANTED to go into Iraq. The administration saw that the weapon inspection would reveal the lie that was the WMD justification so he invaded before that outcome and left us before the fait accompli.

So you are in error when you say that all effort weere used and failed. If that were true, the security council would have supported the war.
I'm tired of all this backtracking and hindsight. Things obviously didn't work out quite the way we had hoped for in Iraq, but things haven't been all bad, either. It looks to me that GWB has just been cleaning up after a long succession of mistakes made by previous Presidents.

Way back in 1998, the Congress voted to mandate the United States to force a regime change in Iraq. That was the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If Clinton had had any sense of responsibilty, he would have carried out that law. In part, he said:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

He went on to say things that sounded remarkably like what GWB has been saying since before the war.

UN RESOLUTIONS
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

So maybe he complied with a resolution or two when it suited him. Obviously, there were several others that he just outright ignored. He hadn't even returned all POWs from the 1991 war by 1999, as evidenced by UNSCR 1284.

WMDs and AL-QAIDA LINKS
You have to have had your head stuck in the sand to think that Saddam didn't possess some kind of WMD program. He gassed the Kurds in Iraq. He gassed the Iranians when the two countries were fighting. When it comes to links to Al-Qaida, John Lehman, of the 911 Commission said it best:

But John F. Lehman, a member of the commission told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."

The Fedayeen were a special unit of volunteers given basic training in irregular warfare. The lieutenant colonel, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, has the same name as an Iraqi thought to have attended a planning meeting for the Sept. 11 attacks in January 2000, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was also attended by two of the hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hamzi and senior al-Qaida leaders.


As a man once said, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists".

The security councel has no balls. They never have. The security council is the reason why there were SEVENTEEN resolutions instead of just ONE. Useless bunch.
Well, then. There goes your reasoning behind "We were merely following the UN resolutions".

Not to mention that it doesn't adress the point of my post which is that Bush did not use all diplomatic means possible for a peaceful resolution of the conflict like the congress asked him to.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..... KA-BOOOOM!

There it is... the 'We saved your asses in WWII' bomb! All bread-eating, surrendering Frenchmen, stuffy conservative Brits and other assorted European sympathizers please depart the thread now. :D


You are completely wrong. This is a lame but deliberate attempt to twist the poster's statement. Only the ones that will feel good believing you will actually accept this stupidity.

[QUOTE=Myrmidonisia]WMDs and AL-QAIDA LINKS
You have to have had your head stuck in the sand to think that Saddam didn't possess some kind of WMD program. He gassed the Kurds in Iraq. He gassed the Iranians when the two countries were fighting. QUOTE]

Where are the weapon's of mass destruction? If you're going to say that that reason was legit you need proof. And all of the evidence since the war began suggests that Bush intentially misled the american people to war, which to me is a dispicable act and he should be impeached for it. Yes, I agree that Sadamm was an evil man and and the world is a better place without him, but I do not believe that killing tens of thousands of innocent Iroquis and well over a thousand americans was worth the price to remove him. The ends never justify the means. And remember we supported Sadamm when he gassed the Iranians and we were probably cheering him on back then. Weapons of Destruction only become a concern when we were looking for reasons to depose him so we could install a puppet goverment.

I'm tired of all this backtracking and hindsight. Things obviously didn't work out quite the way we had hoped for in Iraq, but things haven't been all bad, either. It looks to me that GWB has just been cleaning up after a long succession of mistakes made by previous Presidents.

Way back in 1998, the Congress voted to mandate the United States to force a regime change in Iraq. That was the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If Clinton had had any sense of responsibilty, he would have carried out that law. In part, he said:

He went on to say things that sounded remarkably like what GWB has been saying since before the war.

I don't care which law you might want to pass. You cannot violate the UN charter to follow a domestic law like the one you posted because internationnal treaties take precedence to domestic laws. Only the US constitution supercede internationnal treaty according to US law. So your law is all talk and nothing else.

UN RESOLUTIONS
(snipping all so-called breaches, whether they are accurate or not.)
So maybe he complied with a resolution or two when it suited him. Obviously, there were several others that he just outright ignored. He hadn't even returned all POWs from the 1991 war by 1999, as evidenced by UNSCR 1284.
In that case, it was the duty of the US to go to the security council and ask for some concerted action from the UN as it is written in ALL THE BLOODY RESOLUTIONS.

Specifically, all those resolution end with this simple sentence:
"(The Security council) Decides to remain seized of the matter." It is not up to individual member states to decide willy nilly when a breach occurs and what the consequences should be.



WMDs and AL-QAIDA LINKS
You have to have had your head stuck in the sand to think that Saddam didn't possess some kind of WMD program. He gassed the Kurds in Iraq. He gassed the Iranians when the two countries were fighting. When it comes to links to Al-Qaida, John Lehman, of the 911 Commission said it best:


As a man once said, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists".
And yet, where is those WMD programs? Surely we would have found evidence of them by now.

The gas he used during the Iran war and the Kurd is long gone. His stockpile has been dealt with throughout the years by the UN weapons inspectors. I'm sorry but using something that he had 20 years ago to say he's a threat now is simply poor intelligence gathering. Using the gas to justify this war is purely laziness after all we know now.

I am not aware of this guy from Al-Qaeda. I'd like some link to make my mind. Suffice to say that if one member of the army was a member of Al-Qaeda does not make Saddam and Ossama buddies. With this kind of logic, you only have to find one member of the KKK in the US army to accuse Bush of being racist. It just does not hold water.

Al-Qaeda has been put on the record for hating Hussein. They tried to open communication to set up camp in Iraq and Hussein didn't bother to answer. That's how much they were cooperating. Please. :rolleyes:

you know what im tired of hearing??

im tired of hearing people saying "why did we go to Iraq and not _______"
they mention North Korea, Sudan, Darfur, Saudi Arabia...

Saying that we should have gone somewhere else first, does not disprove the necessity for war. Secondly, the UN is, or should be dealing with the problems as well, how many places do you want our troops. And anyway, if we did have troops in: afghanistan, iraq, north korea, saudi arabia and sudan... you would be complaining about how they are too spread out and not concentrated.... basically its a lose-lose situation for me... atleast from you point of view.

also lemme see if I got this straight

in the eyes of a stupid liberal (not most of them.. just the really really ignorant, and stupid ones)....

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good ... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good ... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good ... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good ... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good ... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good ... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good .. No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good ... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good ... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good .. Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good .. Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good ... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good .. Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
-----
Something here sounds terribly wrong...


so anyway, we thought saddam had weapons, we went in there, and we were wrong... how does that justify going in there if we didnt know for certain when we were going in. What if we did find them, then you would say 'oo i guess it we went in for a good reason'... The reason for going to war has nothing to do with what happens during the war b/c you cannot forsee what will unfold. Saddam never showed proof that chemical weapons and such were destroyed... we gave him an ultimatum... which he also didnt abide by. He had the capabilities to make nuclear weapons... the question was 'did he have them' or not.


So in conclusion... the ppl who hate Bush, would have found another reason to hate him even IF WE DID find nuclear weapons. Hell if we never invaded Iraq and for some reason in 5 years we were attacked in some way by Iraq... they would blame Bush for NOT going into Iraq. ITs these people who you cannot reason with. ITs these people who think that everyone in the world is happy and peaceful, and that as long as theyre not bothering us directly they can do what they want. There was a similar attitude among the allied powers during WW2... where Hitler kept taking land, and the allies didnt do anything b/c they didnt want to 'make trouble' and it wasnt 'affecting them'... we all know how that ended up.. and then we all know who had to come in and save their asses in the end.

THE END.

Good work. Nice summary.

I don't care which law you might want to pass. You cannot violate the UN charter to follow a domestic law like the one you posted because internationnal treaties take precedence to domestic laws. Only the US constitution supercede internationnal treaty according to US law. So your law is all talk and nothing else.


In that case, it was the duty of the US to go to the security council and ask for some concerted action from the UN as it is written in ALL THE BLOODY RESOLUTIONS.

Specifically, all those resolution end with this simple sentence:
"(The Security council) Decides to remain seized of the matter." It is not up to individual member states to decide willy nilly when a breach occurs and what the consequences should be.


Each of the resolutions, 678, 686, and 687, gave any member nation the right to enforce them. They were never complied with, so the authority to enforce them remained.


And yet, where is those WMD programs? Surely we would have found evidence of them by now.

The gas he used during the Iran war and the Kurd is long gone. His stockpile has been dealt with throughout the years by the UN weapons inspectors. I'm sorry but using something that he had 20 years ago to say he's a threat now is simply poor intelligence gathering. Using the gas to justify this war is purely laziness after all we know now.

Here's where my theory on decisions comes into play. We know at one point Saddam had and used poison gas. The President had to make a decsion about whether he currently was trying to produce any WMD that could be used against the U.S. The decisions are simple, but contain qualifications.

A type I error is when you reject a true hypothesis when we should accept it. The type II error is when we accept a false hypothesis when we should reject it. In decision-making, there's always a non-zero probability of making one error or the other. That means we're confronted with asking the question: Which error is least costly? In this case the least costly error was to enforce the 1998 law and the UN resolutions and force a regime change.

Each of the resolutions, 678, 686, and 687, gave any member nation the right to enforce them. They were never complied with, so the authority to enforce them remained.

Resolution 678 asked Iraq to stop destroying Kuwait documents. Hes Saddam done so recently? Besides, this resolution gives the right of member states to cooperate with Kuwait to uphold resolution. Is Kuwait in the coalition of the willing? Is Kuwait the one who has declared war on Iraq?

Resolution 686 does not authorise any action by member states except cooperating with kuwait to rebuild it's infrastructures.

Resolution 687
I like this part of the resolution:
6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);
and
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

so where does it gives member states the authority to attack Iraq?

It seems like your claim are unfounded, upon closer examination.

Edit: as to your view on types of errors, I can respect that. I do not agree, but I can understand how someone would not want to take chances. However, the president could have listened to more adivces and could have asked for better intel than "we don't know, but if he continued like he did when there was no sanctions he should still have some."

Resolution 678 asked Iraq to stop destroying Kuwait documents. Hes Saddam done so recently? Besides, this resolution gives the right of member states to cooperate with Kuwait to uphold resolution. Is Kuwait in the coalition of the willing? Is Kuwait the one who has declared war on Iraq?
The way I read 678, it authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." All subsequent resolutions seem to affirm the previous ones.

You'll have to tell me what significance remaining "siezed" brings to the resolution.

Well, then. There goes your reasoning behind "We were merely following the UN resolutions".

Not to mention that it doesn't adress the point of my post which is that Bush did not use all diplomatic means possible for a peaceful resolution of the conflict like the congress asked him to.

how do you figure that? They made the resolutions. They threatened military action if he didn't comply....17 different times. They would NEVER have acted on them, they were trying to pass an 18th. All diplomatic means had been exhausted and Saddam just laughed it all off because he KNEW the UN had no balls. But he DID believe they could stop the US...he was wrong.

If you believe that, then you're a good American, a good patriot and will make Mr Bush very proud!

So who says I'm American?

Would you like some water to wash those feet down with?

Let me ask you this--who ordered Casey into that unnecessary and wasteful war? Iraq never attacked the US, and wasn't even remotely a danger to us--so who's responsible? I

WRONG.

Saddam Hussein was responsible for terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Americans, he fired on planes in the no fly zone, he harboured and abetted mad dog terrorist elements.

In that case, it was the duty of the US to go to the security council and ask for some concerted action from the UN as it is written in ALL THE BLOODY RESOLUTIONS.

*snigger*

*chortle*

*collapses laughing on the floor, holding his sides*

Oh please..stop...I'll break a rib.

The UN can do (and type this in letters of fire six feet high on your forehead) NOTHING about ANYTHING anywhere in the world without the cooperation of their member nations.

They have no troops.

They have no guns.

They have no planes, tanks or other armaments.

They have nothing. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg. Zero.

The UN is a corrupt, venal, demeaning and useless body whose only ability is to send nasty letters and to pass meaningless "resolutions" in their "councils"..they deplore the "abominable human rights record of the United States" whilst placing Sudan on their "human rights committee".

You mentioned Rwanda. Okay.

I note that no one here has bothered to look at the other states and countries in the UN.

So..Rwanda.

Whom shall we ask to send troops?

China? You have got to be kidding me, right?China cares about no one else than China and they have always been that way.

Russia? Is probably selling weapons to both sides.

Australia? No thanks, we'll send our troops when and where we want to. We also won't allow our troops to be commanded by the same UN blue helmets who seem to have a propensity for child prostitution and pornography as a side enterprise.

(Australian troops tend to look rather poorly on things like that,you know.Unlike the UN "commanders" who seem to be more interested in what their cut is)

Japan? Nope.

Sweden?: Sorry, we're busy.

Canada? Unenlightened self interest.

Kofi Annan? Is too busy trying to explain why he and his son are hip deep in Cotecna and the poil for food corruption. The UN is a pathetic waste of office space, and should be disbanded...or the US should leave the UN and go its own way.

Seventeen resolutions..accomplished nothing.

But wait you want Rwanda dealt with..and the only people that have the ability to airlift troops..the only ones that have the ability to get the job done....are.........

..yup.

And considering the shabby way that the US has been treated by the Unelected Nincompoops..I'm surprised they haven't evacuated that building, demolished it, sent the ambassadors and their major staff home and built a playground for children on it.

The UN had meaning fifty years ago. Now it's an outmoded, archaic, useless and venal organisation whose only purpose is to serve itself.

So please don't suggest the UN do anything..because all they can do is send "letters of protest" , pass resolutions" and send "diplomatic notes".

In my honest opinion the United States would do itself a great service by leaving the United Nations to its own devices, and seeing how they manage without them.

He had neither. There was no evidence that he had any of them for several years. No WMDs have been found. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Kaput. Zero. Other term that is synonymous with "none".
Actually WMDs have been found in several places. But their quantity was quite small and the were found in nearly empty bunkers. Almost as if those bunkers had been emptied of what else they may have contained. However, no large stockpiles of WMDs have been found.

Actually WMDs have been found in several places. But their quantity was quite small and the were found in nearly empty bunkers. Almost as if those bunkers had been emptied of what else they may have contained. However, no large stockpiles of WMDs have been found.
No--they haven't. They've found the random and rare leftover shell from the Iran-Iraq war, but nothing that could be reasonably classified WMD, or didn't you read the Duelfer report?

This thread is much more successful than the one I started. I knew I should have put a poll...

Actually WMDs have been found in several places. But their quantity was quite small and the were found in nearly empty bunkers. Almost as if those bunkers had been emptied of what else they may have contained. However, no large stockpiles of WMDs have been found.
Weapons of Minor Destruction? I haven't heard this argument before.

The way I read 678, it authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." All subsequent resolutions seem to affirm the previous ones.
The area being Kuwait. Was this war in any way, shape or form to help the Kuwaiti people regain their land and for peace along the Kuwaiti border?

You'll have to tell me what significance remaining "siezed" brings to the resolution.
Remaining seized of the matter means that the Security Council decides if and when to act upon the resolution. It means that you can't unilaterally decides that the other side has breached the resolution and can't decide unilaterally decides what the consequences are. Specifically, you cannot invade Iraq and claim it's justified by these resolution if the security council haven't given you the green light.

how do you figure that? They made the resolutions. They threatened military action if he didn't comply....17 different times. They would NEVER have acted on them, they were trying to pass an 18th. All diplomatic means had been exhausted and Saddam just laughed it all off because he KNEW the UN had no balls. But he DID believe they could stop the US...he was wrong.
Am I the only one remebering that Saddam was complying with the latest resolution and was granting all the access the weapons inspectors wanted?

Diplomacy was working but Bush didn't want any of that.

Am I the only one remebering that Saddam was complying with the latest resolution and was granting all the access the weapons inspectors wanted?

No, you're probably not the only one who remembers, although I suspect a great many warmongers and neocons drink themselves to sleep trying to forget it. =p

This topic has been hijacked as usual. But I'm responding to the themepost anyways.

Cindy Sheehan is a poor deluded fool. Her son joined of his own free will, and as far as we know he did not do so against her wishes.

Casey re-enlisted (!) shortly before he was killed in action, unequivocally indicating that he not only supported the war in Iraq but was quite willing to face death to do so.

After Casey died, his mother met with Bush as most families have done. At the time she had no problem with him, the war, or the justification for her son's death. Moreover, she was not required to meet with Bush and could have refused on principle.

Cindy Sheehan's grief in understandable, but it does not give her the right to harangue a man who couldn't have started anything in Iraq without the support of the Democrats in Congress.

Moreover, Sheehan has departed from her message of grief to preach at Bush about the causes of terrorism, stating that a US withdrawal from Iraq and an Israeli withdrawal from Palestine would completely solve this global problem. She is unqualified to say such things but the media still treats them like gold.

Cindy Sheehan is selfish. Her second-guessing over her son's decision does not entitle her to claim the the entire opertation in Iraq is senseless. If her son had been a fireman and died fighting a fire, would she still be yelling at the government? She cannot blame Bush for her son's choice, and she forfeits all credibility when she makes the illogical leap from her own grief to conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals.

This woman needs to shut up and DEAL. Nobody should make her, not in the free-speech US, but she is making everybody who listens to her more stupid by the second.

I'm going to say this as gently as possible:

WHEN SOME ONE anyone is PRESIDENT they ARE responsible for things!!! OR are you suggesting that Bush is indeed the evil muppet that he is? Fine I blame his entire administration for everything they have done! IT's his goddamn job to be president and therefore when things like a war go wrong yes I do blame him, IT IS HIS FAULT!!

Personally yes I think the war is wrong, I hate Bush and most other republicans, and I have every right to do so. We all have heard each others arguments. It's not necessary anymore everyone has their own opinion, but I want to make it clear that there are consequences for your actions and if people hating you is one of them, than it is, and you have to deal with it! Plain and simple!

My gripe is that she keeps wanting meetings with Bush even after he's already met with her and answered her questions. It's as if she won't give up until she hears the answer she wants to hear, in which case she will be there for a loooooooong time. On another note, her husband filed for divorce today, so apparently somebody else doesn't approve of her actions either :( (note the sad face: I may not agree with her, and I may even find her annoying, but divorce is one of the worst plagues on this country and I feel sorry for her.)

I'm going to say this as gently as possible:

WHEN SOME ONE anyone is PRESIDENT they ARE responsible for things!!! OR are you suggesting that Bush is indeed the evil muppet that he is? Fine I blame his entire administration for everything they have done! IT's his goddamn job to be president and therefore when things like a war go wrong yes I do blame him, IT IS HIS FAULT!!

Personally yes I think the war is wrong, I hate Bush and most other republicans, and I have every right to do so. We all have heard each others arguments. It's not necessary anymore everyone has their own opinion, but I want to make it clear that there are consequences for your actions and if people hating you is one of them, than it is, and you have to deal with it! Plain and simple!

Valium, babe. Valium.

My gripe is that she keeps wanting meetings with Bush even after he's already met with her and answered her questions. It's as if she won't give up until she hears the answer she wants to hear, in which case she will be there for a loooooooong time. On another note, her husband filed for divorce today, so apparently somebody else doesn't approve of her actions either :( (note the sad face: I may not agree with her, and I may even find her annoying, but divorce is one of the worst plagues on this country and I feel sorry for her.)

It's really quite simple. All these liberals want is:

1. Bush pulls back every single American soldier woldwide.
2. The United States puts a little bubble around itself and does absolutely nothing unless the UN says to.
3. Bush resigns immediately after publicly executing every Republican in the cabinet, Congress, and the entire Court system.
4. Bush sacrifices one of his own daughters on the steps of the Capitol, in lieu of sending her to Iraq with "blow me up" tattoed on her forehead. He gives his other daughter to Osama for his birthday.

It's really quite simple. All these liberals want is:

1. Bush pulls back every single American soldier woldwide.
2. The United States puts a little bubble around itself and does absolutely nothing unless the UN says to.
3. Bush resigns immediately after publicly executing every Republican in the cabinet, Congress, and the entire Court system.
4. Bush sacrifices one of his own daughters on the steps of the Capitol, in lieu of sending her to Iraq with "blow me up" tattoed on her forehead. He gives his other daughter of Osama for his birthday.

He's the President for godssake! Don't screw with the President.
I refer you to a quote from a very wise man:
Valium, babe. Valium.
:p

Caught with my pants down, as usual.
Damn you East Canuck! Not everybody can be smart and witty like you!

Caught with my pants down, as usual.
Damn you East Canuck! Not everybody can be smart and witty like you!
Thank you. I do try. ;)

She wants the Truth about why Bush wanted Iraq, not this bullsh*t 'Bringing Democracy' If he wanted that his father would have done it, it's all about the $$$$$$.
Sorry people but that's the truth, and YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

The only thing Saddam did to America was that he would always taunt them, stalling weapons talks because he knew it would piss our Government off. Giving honor to terrorists. He just loved to piss America off. But there was nothing wrong Internationally with being a complete Ass to America. The only Reason North Korea has nukes is to scare the US really. You actually think that they'd use them? It's more them going, "Nayah we have Nuke bombs also and there's nothing you can do about it!" And because they taunt the US they are the 'Axis of Evil'

more like the 'Axis of Annoyance.'

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism"

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."


the bitch is crazy!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism"

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."


the bitch is crazy!

Sorry that Bitch is right. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Sorry that Bitch is right. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

well since you can, tell me what it is

well since you can, tell me what it is

Okay to simplify it the War is about: $Ch-ching$

Okay to simplify it the War is about: $Ch-ching$

if this was about money Bush could have just lifted the SC sanctions on Iraq. the US would have gotten even more oil and a lesser cost and he wouldn't have had to go to war. so why did we go to war?

so why did we go to war?
Bush wanted revenge. The rest of the Executive Branch wanted to remake the Middle East in their own image. That's actually one of PNAC's stated goals.

War = Money. It's almost always been that way.
We are also trying to place an American presence in the Middle East.
Bush is also into the Apocolypse. Scary.

Bush wanted revenge.

so why didn't he just sack the place and run?

The rest of the Executive Branch wanted to remake the Middle East in their own image.

considering the current state of the middle east would that really be such a bad thing?

That's actually one of PNAC's stated goals.

so

1. so why didn't he just sack the place and run?
2. considering the current state of the middle east would that really be such a bad thing?
3. so
1. That would have been even dumber than invading in the first place.
2. Yes.
3. SO? SO?!

The really dumb thing about all this--as I said on the other thread on this subject--is that none of this would have ever been a story if Bush had just come out to the driveway on the first day, brought her inside, said "no reporters, just the two of us to talk," given her a glass of lemonade, and stared at her while she talked. Bush is shitting-in-his-pants scared ...he does not want to talk with her alone...He need his babysitter (Chenney) by his side...

http://www.americanwatchdog.org/testify1.gif

1. That would have been even dumber than invading in the first place.

but if the motive was revenge.....

2. Yes.

why? if thats true then why do so many arabs flee their native lands to come to America if we're worse than they are?

3. SO? SO?!

yeah, so? what is so significant about that

War = Money. It's almost always been that way.

Hm! So the Finns fought the Russians in the 1930a because they wanted money rather than because the Russians invaded their nation? :confused:

While money is not a bad place to look in assessing political motives it is a mistake to think it the only one. Thucydides noted that fear and honor also have roles in policy making as well. To obsess over one is to lose sight of the other 2. Only when you keep all 3 in mind can you have a clear eye upon foreign affairs.

We are also trying to place an American presence in the Middle East. Bush is also into the Apocolypse. Scary.


Hm! With all due respect, how much money do you think people would spend after the Apocalypse anyway? :p


In this case I would say that one of the reasons you give for the President's motivations would seem to contradict the other. ^_~

Edit: Changed because I screwed up the quotations. Gomen. :headbang:

Bush is shitting-in-his-pants scared he does not want to talk with her alone...He need his babysitter (Chenney) by his side...

which is why he talked with her, her family and several other alone before? have you actually listened to what the bitch has said? she is crazy

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]War = Money. It's almost always been that way. [QUOTE]

Hm! So the Finns fought the Russians in the 1930a because they wanted money rather than because the Russians invaded their nation? :confused:

While money is not a bad place to look in assessing political motives it is a mistake to think it the only one. Thucydides noted that fear and honor also have roles in policy making as well. To obsess over one is to lose sight of the other 2. Only when you keep all 3 in mind can you have a clear eye upon foreign affairs.



Hm! With all due respect, how much money do you think people would spend after the Apocalypse anyway? :p

In this case I would say that one of the reasons you give for the President's motivations would seem to contradict the other. ^_~
Yeah. I know. Our president is all types of dumb.
There has been cause for war when money wasn't at the heart. But rarely do the winners come out poor. I'm not a man to be arguing with Thucydides.

why? if thats true then why do so many arabs flee their native lands to come to America if we're worse than they are?

PNAC's image is not the same as the U.S. It's much different.

PNAC's image is not the same as the U.S. It's much different.
Yes, I know. It's just that PNAC's image is the same as the U.S. Government.

PNAC's image is not the same as the U.S. It's much different.

which is why the PNAC isn't the American government but rather a lobbying group that tries to influence it as do thousands of other think-tanks and such groups. so once again, what would be wrong with the middle east being more like America?

Yes, I know. It's just that PNAC's image is the same as the U.S. Government.
No. It's not. PNAC wants fascism.

Yeah. I know. Our president is all types of dumb.

or....perhaps.........not

No. It's not. PNAC wants fascism.
You said it.

which is why he talked with her, her family and several other alone before? have you actually listened to what the bitch has said? she is crazythis is a bleeding mother you are talking about...I am not going to stand while you insult her.
She is not more or less a Bitch than your mother...

Is your mother a Bitch?

No. It's not. PNAC wants fascism.

hmm, I'm pretty sure they just want to keep American power overseas strong but feel free to cite anything that would prove me wrong

or....perhaps.........not
No. I'd rather think our president was dumb rather than evil.

She is not more or less a Crazy Bitch than your mother...

"get the US out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestien and you'll end terrorism"

the bitch is crazy

"get the US out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestien and you'll end terrorism"

the bitch is crazynot more than your mama.

we went into Iraq b/c he was a brutal dictator who we KNEW absolutely had chemical weapons, and long range missiles (which could hurt our assets in the middle east). We also KNEW that Saddam was not showing proof of the destruction of these known weapons, as well as proof that he did not have nuclear capabilities. Saddam was toying with the UN since the Gulf War, and since the US was preaching peace and justice in the Middle EAst at the time (Afghanistan), we decided that if we could make a model democratic nation out of Iraq, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the area would realise that Democracy is better than corrupt and oppressive dictatorships.


That's referred to as the Domino Theory, and it's just that: Theory. It holds no basis in reality. If anything it was proven wrong when a loss in Vietnam didn't cost America the Cold War (As was predicted as a reason for being there). It sounds good, but that's about the only reason for believing in it.

Why do people hold onto notions that have been disproven? What drives you? Do you acknowledge to yourselves on some level that it is merely an argument of convenience, and that it'll just be proven wrong yet again? And why oh why are you gambling the world's and your civilization's future on it? Enlighten me please.

not more than your mama.

and you wonder why we won the election

I'm against the war, but some of the things she's saying are simply ridiculous. Still though, she has a right to protest.

and you wonder why we won the electionwhy do you think you won the election?

why?

That's referred to as the Domino Theory, and it's just that: Theory. It holds no basis in reality.

so Cambodia and Loas didn't fall to communism after South Vietnam?

No. I'd rather think our president was dumb rather than evil.

Here's a radical suggestion, what if he's *neither*?

why did you think you won the election?

For how long do you plan to swim De Nile? ;)

It's amazing how big a deal this has become. One lone woman has been able to ager so many people! I admire that sort of skill and strength!

Pardon my english, but she is a fucking moron. She is dishonoring her son that was NOT killed by bush, but by terrorists (the same kind that would like to kill all of us.

Her family wanted her to stop running around being an idiot. she didnt. Now she is getting divorced by her husband.

There is nothing right about what she is doing.

Here's a radical suggestion, what if he's *neither*?
I would say, "Thats a good joke. Now, seriously..."

Pardon my english, but she is a fucking moron. She is dishonoring her son that was NOT killed by bush, but by terrorists (the same kind that would like to kill all of us.

Her family wanted her to stop running around being an idiot. she didnt. Now she is getting divorced by her husband.

There is nothing right about what she is doing.
There is everything right about what she is doing. Unless you believe that the government can never be contested. Is that what you believe?

Shes dishonoring her son. That is terrible.
She is dishonoring her family. Also Terrible.
She is questioning the government in the wrong way. Its like shes trying to bring back the protests of vietnam.

She is being used by the media, and the worst part is she doesnt even know it.
Or at least she doesnt show it... I detest that woman.

For how long do you plan to swim De Nile? ;)since you are not willing to give me an straight answer...

Im going to tell you straight why I think You (the Bushites) won the Elections...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437816

BTW that was the first thread about Cindy Sheehan.

There is everything right about what she is doing. Unless you believe that the government can never be contested. Is that what you believe?

the government can always be contested, this john isn't arguing about that he is angry about the fact that she is a "fucking moron" and I've got to agree

it isn't how or that the message is being sent its the message itself which offends

I answered your question, I dont question her right to protest, but her ill suited means.

Im going to tell you straight why I think You (the Bushites) won the Elections....

are you at least prepared to conceed that fact that maybe 52% of the vote is a majority?

Shes dishonoring her son. That is terrible.
She is dishonoring her family. Also Terrible.
She is questioning the government in the wrong way. Its like shes trying to bring back the protests of vietnam.

She is being used by the media, and the worst part is she doesnt even know it.
Or at least she doesnt show it... I detest that woman.
The protest of Vietnam were right. She is honoring her son the way she knows how to. She disagreed with her husband strongly enough to do what she believes is right. And if you want my opinion, I think it's she that is using the media. Not the other way around.

The protest of Vietnam were right. She is honoring her son the way she knows how to. She disagreed with her husband strongly enough to do what she believes is right. And if you want my opinion, I think it's she that is using the media. Not the other way around.


Theres nothing honorable about saying your son was killed by the man he chose to serve. The man who was chosen by the people to serve them. The protests of vietnam may or may not have been right, I disagree with the war, simply because of the way it was fought. But then I hate the hippys because they made the war impossible to win.

And how is she using the media, which loves to give bush bad press?

The protest of Vietnam were right.

how? the protesters of vietnam didn't know where vietnam was let alone what they was talking about

She is honoring her son the way she knows how to.

he son was pro-army and pro-war. how is she honoring him? using his death to advocate a cause he would have spat upon?

how? the protesters of vietnam didn't know where vietnam was let alone what they was talking about



he son was pro-army and pro-war. how is she honoring him? using his death to advocate a cause he would have spat upon?


I completely agree with this.

I would also like to add this: I hate hippys with a passion

are you at least prepared to conceed that fact that maybe 52% of the vote is a majority?
52 is a number, a result...

It does not answer the question "Why you won"

so Cambodia and Loas didn't fall to communism after South Vietnam?

Seeing as though not even the Soviets considered either of those regimes to be communist, no. And you really ask too many questions. The Socratic method is only one component of a healthy debating technique.

52 is a number, a result...

It does not answer the question "Why you won"

Yes it does.
Idiot democrats couldnt figure out who they should back, and so bush won.

When she met with the president the first time, as many of you like to point out that she has met with him, when she did it was not the platform to discuss her politics. It was to honor her son, which she did and she was polite. The president is using her son and soldiers like him to promote what he thinks is a just and noble cause. She disagrees. She believes it is not noble or just and soldiers died for lies told to the American people. Now, her son was taken away from her for reasons she passionately believes were false. You would be blessed to have someone care for you as much as she so clearly continues to care for him.

Yes it does.
Idiot democrats couldnt figure out who they should back, and so bush won.And who should the've backed up in 2004?

And who should the've backed up in 2004?

Someone besides kerry, or whatever else was up there.

My vote goes to regan.

LONG LIVE REGAN!

Someone besides kerry, or whatever else was up there.

My vote goes to regan.

LONG LIVE REGAN!
I wish I could hurt you with words. Is that flaming?

When she met with the president the first time, as many of you like to point out that she has met with him, when she did it was not the platform to discuss her politics. It was to honor her son, which she did and she was polite. The president is using her son and soldiers like him to promote what he thinks is a just and noble cause. She disagrees. She believes it is not noble or just and soldiers died for lies told to the American people. Now, her son was taken away from her for reasons she passionately believes were false. You would be blessed to have someone care for you as much as she so clearly continues to care for him.


That is fine that she disagrees.

However, that does not in any way make it right for her to be dishonoring her son, or anyone elses.

That is fine that she disagrees.

However, that does not in any way make it right for her to be dishonoring her son, or anyone elses.
We have different ideas about honor. I think that honor should at least have the ring of truth to it.

52 is a number, a result...

It does not answer the question "Why you won"

the question was never why. why don't matter. the only question is "did?"

Yes it does.
Idiot democrats couldnt figure out who they should back, and so bush won.Someone besides kerry, or whatever else was up there.Let me see...the idiot Democrats cant figure who to back-up...

You on the other hand..... ;)

When she met with the president the first time, as many of you like to point out that she has met with him, when she did it was not the platform to discuss her politics.

and a road-side ditch is?

You would be blessed to have someone care for you as much as she so clearly continues to care for him.

is she loved him she would have accepted his will instead of manipulating his memory for her own

and a road-side ditch is?



is she loved him she would have accepted his will instead of manipulating his memory for her own
What are you talking about? She has never manipulated his memory. It's not like she's saying that he was taken against his will in the middle of the night and sent to die in Iraq. Really. I don't get what you're trying to say. She has come to her own conclusions for being against the war and she wishes that her son had seen things like she had. His major reason for going back was to help his buddies because he didn't want them to fight alone.

And no. A road side ditch is no place for such a discussion. Bush should invite her in for some tea.

the question was never why. why don't matter. the only question is "did?"Why? and How? are the most important questions.

If the Democrats do not ask and answer those all important questions...they are going to get Pwned again.

example: 5 armored marines inside a newly blinded Humvee are Pwned by a home-made bomb.

The most important question is not "DID?"...Most important is to ask WHY? and/or HOW?

I would say, "Thats a good joke. Now, seriously..."

But the thing is, until you can think that about your rival you will not be able to oppose him with a clear mind.

One thing worth remembering is that she doesn't seem all that sincere in here stated desire to meet the President...

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/president_pleases_opponent/

Any bets as to for how long the Left will use this poor woman as a puppet before they toss her aside when she ceases to bring them publicity? :(

But the thing is, until you can think that about your rival you will not be able to oppose him with a clear mind.
I'll keep that in mind when I run for Pres.