NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

I have to say I agree with her, if she said that (rightists like the esteemed Eutrusca have been flinging so much poo at this woman, that you just can't trust anything said about her any more). The US is not worth dying for.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

The foolish man dies nobly for a cause, the wise man lives humbly for that cause. ;)

She's nothing more than a hard-left activist who is using her son's death to push her radical agenda (Israel out of Palestine? What does that have to do with her son or Iraq? :rolleyes: ). She's going against the wishes of her family and her son, and is doing nothing more than denigrating the cause for which her son and many others die. She's trashing every single person who has ever died in the service of America. People like her make me sick. :mad:

You know what's really sad? Nobody is going to remember her son and his sacrifice, only her protesting; if that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

This just seems to add to the evidence that she isn't doing this for her son's memory. She'll do anything at this point to remain in the media spotlight even if it's saying something as idiotic as that.

You know what's really sad? Nobody is going to remember her son and his sacrifice, only her protesting; if that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

Would you have remembered him anyway?

You know, I'm confused. I haven't been keeping up to date tabs on what this women is doing, but as far as I knew she was only "protesting" to see Bush. From what I know of this event, she only wishes to ask Bush a few questions? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really do want to know the truth. Links to articles are a plus!

Would you have remembered him anyway?

Quiet, you. You're exposing the hypocrisy!

I have to say I agree with her, if she said that (rightists like the esteemed Eutrusca have been flinging so much poo at this woman, that you just can't trust anything said about her any more). The US is not worth dying for.

The US is worth dieing for, A single man's agenda isn't.

Would you have remembered him anyway?

I would try to. I keep a list of the people killed in Iraq and donate to charities in their memory, so it would be my goal to remember all who gave their lives in some form.

Even if I didn't, the point is still there that she is totally pushing her son to the wayside in the name of her agenda.

There's a difference between dying for a just cause like defending your country (which in the case of the Iraq war does not apply) or dying because the President made very unwise decisions and (the American) people have to suffer from it.

The counterexamples you gave are at the far end of the scale as well, reaching the stupidity levels.

All in all, I strongly believe that it is worth much more living for something than dying for it.

Besides, as much as you dislike that mother voicing her opinion - as far as I'm concerned, she has every right to say whatever she likes - just as much as it is yours to disagree with her and to not listen to what she has to say. Freedom of speech goes both ways!

Quiet, you. You're exposing the hypocrisy!

Do I win an award or do I just get taken around back and shot? :eek:

I am not aware much of the ranting of Mrs. Sheehan as I really don't pay attention to left wing lunatics who encourage people to betray their own country.

I would try to. I keep a list of the people killed in Iraq and donate to charities in their memory, so it would be my goal to remember all who gave their lives in some form.

Even if I didn't, the point is still there that she is totally pushing her son to the wayside in the name of her agenda.

What about all the people killed in WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam , etc? I'm sure very few of them are actually remembered outside of close family and friends

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

What about all the people killed in WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam , etc? I'm sure very few of them are actually remembered outside of close family and friends

Memorials and monuments are ways of honoring and remembering fallen soldiers. Last time I checked...yep we got those.

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.
I agree

Do I win an award or do I just get taken around back and shot? :eek:

The good news is, you're perceptive.

The bad news is, the people you're perceptive about aren't. By their own volition or for whatever reason.

What about all the people killed in WW1 , WW2 , Vietnam , etc? I'm sure very few of them are actually remembered outside of close family and friends

The difference between them and Sheehan's son is that they are remembered for their sacrifice and aren't pushed to the wayside in the name of pushing your agenda and milking your son's death for TV time. People still remember them.

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.


Uh not really. Life is worth living for, is life worth dying for? What if I want to live? Is my estimation that it is worth living, false because I do not simultaneously hold the belief that I should die in order to live?

This kind of macho bullshit is just that - bullshit. All humans have this little thing called a survival instinct. If you don't have it, really don't have it, if you want to give yourself up for the "collective good," maybe you have a martyr complex or maybe you're just lying. Me, I choose life. Watch, someone will call me a coward... for being honest.

I have to say I agree with her, if she said that (rightists like the esteemed Eutrusca have been flinging so much poo at this woman, that you just can't trust anything said about her any more). The US is not worth dying for.

If Eutrusca is a rightist, I'm Rush Limbaugh.

The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists. It seems to me as though she only wants the media attention, and doesn't really care about her son. Saying it's 'Bush's fault' isn't going to help one bit. The kid knew damn well when he signed up that he could die. And if he didn't feel that the US was worth dying for, then why the hell was he over there? I mean, if there wasa draft I could see this woman's argument. But I can't.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

The US is indeed worth dying for.

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

I quit cheating on my taxes... *hops on boat*

Memorials and monuments are ways of honoring and remembering fallen soldiers. Last time I checked...yep we got those.

Her son will never be remembered as an individual. Only the actions of all soldiers, collectively, will be remembered and therefore all that Sheehan says will make no difference to this memory. This is what I meant when I replied to the initial post

Her son will never be remembered as an individual. Only the actions of all soldiers, collectively, will be remembered and therefore all that Sheehan says will make no difference to this memory. This is what I meant when I replied to the initial post

No, because it will push the sacrifice of all of the soliders to the wayside and focus on her protesting. It's fundamentally selfish to put her agenda before the wishes of her family and those of her son.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

While I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's agenda and believe she has often contradicted herself, she didn't say America wasn't worth dying for. She was refering to Iraq and said that nation wasn't worth dying for.

I know where a link is to a site that has the transcript of her speech. I'll be back soon with it and everyone will see that she wasn't talking about the US.

The reporter who first came out with this story only qouted two sentences of Cindy's which together made it look like she was saying the US wasn't worth dying for.

If Eutrusca is a rightist, I'm Rush Limbaugh.

The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists. It seems to me as though she only wants the media attention, and doesn't really care about her son. Saying it's 'Bush's fault' isn't going to help one bit. The kid knew damn well when he signed up that he could die. And if he didn't feel that the US was worth dying for, then why the hell was he over there? I mean, if there wasa draft I could see this woman's argument. But I can't.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

The US is indeed worth dying for.

Okay Rush,

Then by your rational, if people from the U.S. believe that the U.S. is worth dying for does this mean suicide bombers in Palestine have the right to believe their country and way of life is worth dying for too?

You know, I'm confused. I haven't been keeping up to date tabs on what this women is doing, but as far as I knew she was only "protesting" to see Bush. From what I know of this event, she only wishes to ask Bush a few questions? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really do want to know the truth. Links to articles are a plus!

She did start a protest by stationing herself outside the Crawford ranch, demanding to speak to President Bush. He had met with her earlier, as the mother of a fallen soldier. She wanted to meet with him again to protest the war. Considering her inflammatory accusations and name calling concerning Bush, I don't blame him for refusing to meet with her again. Since that time, every organization and nut case that is opposed to Bush, has jumped on the bandwagon. You can find her blog on Michael Moore's website. Since she put herself on the daily newscast, other speeches she has made in the past, recent anti-semantic statements, and her own family's rejection of her opinions and behavior have done a lot to discredit her as merely a grieving mother. It is coming to notice that her rhetoric started before her son volunteered and died.

Is America worth dying for? Are your family, friends, and neighbors worth dying for? Is the country that nurtured and protected you worth dying for? Are your beliefs worth dying for? Is your freedom worth dying for? Yes!! When she said that America isn't worth dying for, she devalued the ultimate sacrifice her son made for the better good of his country, his family, and his mother.

Then by your rational, if people from the U.S. believe that the U.S. is worth dying for does this mean suicide bombers in Palestine have the right to believe their country and way of life is worth dying for too?

There's a difference. Suicide bombers attack with the intent of murdering as many civilians as possible and do this as a standard doctrine of fear and hatred. The US does not sanction the intentional murder of civilians, and you cannot begin to equivocate the two.

While I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's agenda and believe she has often contradicted herself, she didn't say America wasn't worth dying for. She was refering to Iraq and said that nation wasn't worth dying for.

I know where a link is to a site that has the transcript of her speech. I'll be back soon with it and everyone will see that she wasn't talking about the US.

The reporter who first came out with this story only qouted two sentences of Cindy's which together made it look like she was saying the US wasn't worth dying for.

I told you - poo-flinging. The mother of a fallen soldier supporting the war is a saint, while the mother not supporting the war is a bitch. She has to be made into one.

There's a difference. Suicide bombers attack with the intent of murdering as many civilians as possible and do this as a standard doctrine of fear and hatred. The US does not sanction the intentional murder of civilians, and you cannot begin to equivocate the two.

Actually you can. The US just kills them with bigger bombs. You do know that many of the 'civilians' in Israel are IDF members off-duty?

If Eutrusca is a rightist, I'm Rush Limbaugh.

The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists. It seems to me as though she only wants the media attention, and doesn't really care about her son. Saying it's 'Bush's fault' isn't going to help one bit. The kid knew damn well when he signed up that he could die. And if he didn't feel that the US was worth dying for, then why the hell was he over there? I mean, if there wasa draft I could see this woman's argument. But I can't.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

The US is indeed worth dying for.

I agree, the United States in its collective self is greater than the individual, to risk one's life for it is a noble thing to do. However, you should not intend to die for the country in combat, but make the enemy die for his (paraphrasing Patton). Its not a pleasant thing, it is noble, hence the "ultimate sacrifice". However I do not suggest screaming "Dulce Et Decorum Pro Patria Mori", it may be noble, and indeed is worthy of honor and respect, but the object of combat is not to die, but to accomplish the objective...so personally, I would die for my country, but I'd rather kill for it.

Okay Rush,

Then by your rational, if people from the U.S. believe that the U.S. is worth dying for does this mean suicide bombers in Palestine have the right to believe their country and way of life is worth dying for too?

Suicide bombing a bus with 40 noncombatants on it, isn't exactly protecting your way of life. It's an attempt to destroy theirs.

Okay Rush,

Then by your rational, if people from the U.S. believe that the U.S. is worth dying for does this mean suicide bombers in Palestine have the right to believe their country and way of life is worth dying for too?

That's not my rationale at all. Way to take that one to the bank. :rolleyes:

But yes, they do have that right to believe that. Not that it's right to believe something as insane as that.

Oh, and BTW, according to the political compass, Eutrusca is actually left of center.

Actually you can. The US just kills them with bigger bombs. You do know that many of the 'civilians' in Israel are IDF members off-duty?

The US does not attack with the intent of killing civilians whereas terrorist groups do.

While I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's agenda and believe she has often contradicted herself, she didn't say America wasn't worth dying for. She was refering to Iraq and said that nation wasn't worth dying for.

I know where a link is to a site that has the transcript of her speech. I'll be back soon with it and everyone will see that she wasn't talking about the US.

The reporter who first came out with this story only qouted two sentences of Cindy's which together made it look like she was saying the US wasn't worth dying for.
Wow. American media bending comments around to get their agenda across? Never! :rolleyes:

The cynicism is overwhelming. :)

She made her decisions, and now has to live with the new company she keeps. She can try to say "but I don't belive like David Duke does!" and no one will believe her.

Besides, I prefer Patton's quote on that. "The point is not to die for your country, but make the other guy die for his!"

.

Oh, and BTW, according to the political compass, Eutrusca is actually left of center.

And we well know that the political compass never gets it wrong and you can't fake results. True, in real life I'm more centre than my posts here suggest but what tends to matter is public perception.

I agree, the United States in its collective self is greater than the individual, to risk one's life for it is a noble thing to do. However, you should not intend to die for the country in combat, but make the enemy die for his (paraphrasing Patton). Its not a pleasant thing, it is noble, hence the "ultimate sacrifice". However I do not suggest screaming "Dulce Et Decorum Pro Patria Mori", it may be noble, and indeed is worthy of honor and respect, but the object of combat is not to die, but to accomplish the objective...so personally, I would die for my country, but I'd rather kill for it.

Good post.

But the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't think your country is worth fighting and dying for, what the hell are you doing in the military?

There's a difference. Suicide bombers attack with the intent of murdering as many civilians as possible and do this as a standard doctrine of fear and hatred. The US does not sanction the intentional murder of civilians, and you cannot begin to equivocate the two.


Originally posted by Wurzelmania
Actually you can. The US just kills them with bigger bombs. You do know that many of the 'civilians' in Israel are IDF members off-duty?

We are talking about motives and sentiment. Suicide bombers are suicide bombers because they don't have the resources to use conventional weapons. The brand of patriotism you and other Bush supporters are espousing is no different than the blind patriotism that caused Japanese Kamikazee pilots to slam their planes into U.S. naval vessels.

And we well know that the political compass never gets it wrong and you can't fake results. True, in real life I'm more centre than my posts here suggest but what tends to matter is public perception.

Of course. I know it's not perfect. But it does tend to put you in the general area of where you stand, correect?

The US does not attack with the intent of killing civilians whereas terrorist groups do.

And intent is everything! If I decide to demolish a building, with a rocket launcher say, I can't be held responsible for someone being in there and getting killed because I did not intend to kill them. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm just an innocent guy, launching high explosives at a house.

Similarly, if you were killed by a bomb, you wouldn't mind as long as the guy who dropped it was aiming for someone else. You'd be up there in Heaven afterwards, full of forgiveness and peace because you understood the necessity of eggs breaking to make omelettes.

And what is our omelette? WMDs? No not really. Saddam? Gone already. Democracy? in Iraq? Mm, tasty. ;)

Suicide bombing a bus with 40 noncombatants on it, isn't exactly protecting your way of life. It's an attempt to destroy theirs.

And what was bombing Baghdad doing for the average U.S. citizen?

We are talking about motives and sentiment. Suicide bombers are suicide bombers because they don't have the resources to use conventional weapons. The brand of patriotism you and other Bush supporters are espousing is no different than the blind patriotism that caused Japanese Kamikazee pilots to slam their planes into U.S. naval vessels.

That's not true. There have been hundreds of resistances throughout the history of mankind that were as equally desparate as these militants and did not resort to blowing up restaurants and shopping malls to advance; they fought the actual military and didn't take out their hatred on innocent civilians (including children) motivated by hatred for the Jews and any other "infidels".

That's not my rationale at all. Way to take that one to the bank. :rolleyes:

But yes, they do have that right to believe that. Not that it's right to believe something as insane as that.

Oh, and BTW, according to the political compass, Eutrusca is actually left of center.

According to whose compass? When you open your eyes you'll see the spectrum is a lot wider than you think.

Actually you can. The US just kills them with bigger bombs. You do know that many of the 'civilians' in Israel are IDF members off-duty?

Could that be because military service is required in Israel if you are physically and mentally able? Of course, I have to question what the Israeli children killed in these bombings did that they deserved such brutal deaths.

Good post.

But the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't think your country is worth fighting and dying for, what the hell are you doing in the military?

Women go for a man in uniform. :D

Wow. American media bending comments around to get their agenda across? Never! :rolleyes:

Cindy herself has bent her story many times but that's another matter.

I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.


Here's the link to the transcript. Scroll down to get to Cindy Sheehan's speech.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

And intent is everything! If I decide to demolish a building, with a rocket launcher say, I can't be held responsible for someone being in there and getting killed because I did not intend to kill them. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm just an innocent guy, launching high explosives at a house.

Similarly, if you were killed by a bomb, you wouldn't mind as long as the guy who dropped it was aiming for someone else. You'd be up there in Heaven afterwards, full of forgiveness and peace because you understood the necessity of eggs breaking to make omelettes.

And what is our omelette? WMDs? No not really. Saddam? Gone already. Democracy? in Iraq? Mm, tasty. ;)

The US army takes many measures to try and minimise the civilian casulaties in war i'm sure. Terrorist attacks show no such thought but more a complete willingness to kill the enemy at any cost. I might not support the actions of either but there is no need to compare them.

Okay Rush,

Then by your rational, if people from the U.S. believe that the U.S. is worth dying for does this mean suicide bombers in Palestine have the right to believe their country and way of life is worth dying for too?

Come on now. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, because who can honestly take away from you your innermost thoughts and beliefs? Stupid question.

Rather, we should ask whether their cause is seen as just in the eyes of those impartial observers who do not have ties to the lands of Israel, or who have had family and friends killed by Israeli retaliation. There are many non-Palestinians who support violence in order to push Israel out of the Holy Land. A vain effort, I'm afraid. Some Palestinian supporters simply believe it is wrong for a people (The Jews) that has been oppressed and driven from their homes for thousands of years to want a homeland. We call those people Nazis. Other Palestinian supporters are more sinister. For example, the PLO was founded and continues to be supported and funded by governmental and religious organizations from all over the Arab world. IT WAS NOT CREATED BY PALESTINIANS. It was created by Arabs who had an agenda: trying to remove the Jews from the tiny strip of land that was their home millenia ago, and was finally restored to them in 1945.

This is the whole root of the issue. Most citizens of any nation will believe that their country and way of life is just. Rightfully so: they have ties to that country. Israel and Palestine each have their rights, and each argues that they should have priority over the other. However, the real test is applied when outsiders consider the argument. This is the crux of the Israel-Palestine conflict: there is no easy answer. No one side is exclusively in the right or the wrong.

The same logic must be applied to America. We as Americans believe that our country and way of life are Good. Many of us would die to protect America. Many of us have died because the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States decided to invade Iraq. Some will call this one man's whim, others will call it the best military decision America has made in years. When viewed by an outside observer, it appears to many to be the wrong decision, including Cindy Sheehan. But for her to say that America is not worth dying for when millions of men have died for her AND HER SON in the past: From the American Revolution to World War II to Iraq, Americans have died in service to their country. They have died to protect us and our loved ones, and no matter what anyone says, their sacrifice should be respected. Cindy Sheehan has demeaned the sacrifice of her son by using his death as a media tool. She had essentially labelled as fools the millions who died so that she might live the life she lives. Cindy Sheehan thoroughly disgusts me.

Women go for a man in uniform. :D

Do they, now?

*fudges age and enlists*

Could that be because military service is required in Israel if you are physically and mentally able? Of course, I have to question what the Israeli children killed in these bombings did that they deserved such brutal deaths.

Probably the same thing that Arab children did.

That's not true. There have been hundreds of resistances throughout the history of mankind that were as equally desparate as these militants and did not resort to blowing up restaurants and shopping malls to advance; they fought the actual military and didn't take out their hatred on innocent civilians (including children) motivated by hatred for the Jews and any other "infidels".

So the U.S. has never knowingly targeted innocent civilians?

And what was bombing Baghdad doing for the average U.S. citizen?

I'll answer that as soon as you tell me what Palestein gets from suicide bombing civilian busses.

I get nothing from the war, I never agreed to it in the first place. But bombing Bahgdad's radar bunkers and enemy emplacements made it easier for our soldiers to push forward (Thus more of our soldiers come home). Where as the bus load of civilians possed what kind of threat to anyone?

So the U.S. has never knowingly targeted innocent civilians?

We have committed atrocities; to deny that is foolish and morally wrong.

We try to avert them whenever possible and do not intentionally target them; bombings may kill civilians, which is a terrible event and should be avoided at all costs, but the bombings are meant to hit military targets. The main exception is the atomic bomb, but whether or not that was necessary is a debate in itself.

I'll answer that as soon as you tell me what Palestein gets from suicide bombing civilian busses.

You've answered my question and made my point for me...

I get nothing from the war, I never agreed to it in the first place.

To clarify my point, the war in Iraq is just as pointless and contemptable as a suicide bombers attack on a busload of innocent civilians.

But bombing Bahgdad's radar bunkers and enemy emplacements made it easier for our soldiers to push forward (Thus more of our soldiers come home). Where as the bus load of civilians possed what kind of threat to anyone?

I guess it was a pre-emptive strike as you never know what kind of weapons of mass destructions those innocent civilians might develope in the years to come.

Probably the same thing that Arab children did.

The Israelis do not go out of their way to commit mass murder of innocent civilians as they ride a bus, or go to a nightclub. The Palestinian militants target these civilian areas because they are soft-targets, as the Israeli military is qualitatively too good and effective for them to engage in battle. Instead they resort to mass-murder, befouling their cause, and dishonoring their people.

Israel is a modern, functioning democracy, it has defended itself from repeated attacks from its neighbors, and has carved out a small, safe corner of the world for its people. It aquired the areas of Palestine in a defensive war, the objective of its enemies being the destruction of Israel and its citizens...the Palestinians were not a state, supported this war, were defeated, and paid the price. The land belongs to Israel, and I'd much rather see the West Bank populated by Israeli settlements, and protecting the nation of Israel from invasion, than see it part of a Palestinian "state".

We have committed atrocities; to deny that is foolish and morally wrong.

We try to avert them whenever possible and do not intentionally target them; bombings may kill civilians, which is a terrible event and should be avoided at all costs, but the bombings are meant to hit military targets. The main exception is the atomic bomb, but whether or not that was necessary is a debate in itself.

When you say "we", who are you refering to? Do you play an active role in your nation's foreign policy? Do you decide what tactics are used to minimize civilian casualties? Are you aware that the U.S. routinely uses chemicals to defoliate jungles and that these chemicals are responsible for irreparably damaging the environment and killing innocent men, women and children?

The Israelis do not go out of their way to commit mass murder of innocent civilians as they ride a bus, or go to a nightclub. The Palestinian militants target these civilian areas because they are soft-targets, as the Israeli military is qualitatively too good and effective for them to engage in battle. Instead they resort to mass-murder, befouling their cause, and dishonoring their people.

Israel is a modern, functioning democracy, it has defended itself from repeated attacks from its neighbors, and has carved out a small, safe corner of the world for its people. It aquired the areas of Palestine in a defensive war, the objective of its enemies being the destruction of Israel and its citizens...the Palestinians were not a state, supported this war, were defeated, and paid the price. The land belongs to Israel, and I'd much rather see the West Bank populated by Israeli settlements, and protecting the nation of Israel from invasion, than see it part of a Palestinian "state".

Based on information which you have provided the highlighted statement is false. With regards to soft targets, I've seen documentaries and read accounts of how the Isrealis fire rockets into the houses of the parents of suicide bombers, shoot on children for throwing stones at tanks and abduct Arab suspects in the middle of the night.

I don't agree with Palestinean tactics or suicide bombing, but the Israelis are not saints in this conflict.

And what was bombing Baghdad doing for the average U.S. citizen?

The war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi people as a whole. It was waged against Saddam and his legions in the belief that he had WMD and intended to use them against the US, Israel, and other nations of the free world. This has proved to be a false belief, but, unlike in 1991, the US and her allies are not cutting and running. We're staying to help Iraq build a democratic government and to develop another ally.

The war in Iraq IS about 9/11. Not 9/11/01, but 9/11/09, 9/11/17, 9/11/38, and for all future times. There is a radical thinking, based on ignorance, fear, religious intolerance, and poverty, that is spreading throughout the Muslim communities. It is based on the same intolerance that we saw in Nazi Germany, the KKK, the ethnic cleansings, ....countless times throughout history and today. It is a cancer that threatens to destroy people and their rights, and we cannot allow it to grow and spread. After 9/11 and the initial invasion into Afghanistan, Bush clearly said that we were embarking on a war against terrorism. He said that it would not end in Afghanistan, but would continue on to any place that harbored those who wished harm to the US. He also warned that this would not be over in a few months, or a few years...but would extend for generations. At that time, still in shock and horror of the slaughter that had just occurred, the majority of the free world supported that agenda. Now, with many of the sights and sounds of that attack faded from our memory, it has turned into a political & international pissing contest.

When you say "we", who are you refering to? Do you play an active role in your nation's foreign policy? Do you decide what tactics are used to minimize civilian casualties? Are you aware that the U.S. routinely uses chemicals to defoliate jungles and that these chemicals are responsible for irreparably damaging the environment and killing innocent men, women and children?

The United States government and the people serving in the military, as well as the citizens who elect the government. The United States is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites and tries to reduce the civilian casualties it inflicts and minimize them whenever possible. Our attacks do not intentionally target civilians, and any deaths are caused unintentionally.

Agent Orange hasn't been used on a large scale since Vietnam, and neither has any other defoliant. Vietnam was the last major military action in a jungle environment, and the effects of it wern't fully known until after the war. It was a mistake, but AO was never intended to harm civilians.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]
Okay--if you're going to put a quote like that in the thread title, you better fucking well have backup for it. Otherwise, you're libeling her. No link in the original thread to that quote, no basis for it. This is Limbaugh-style shit, Eutrusca, and you ought to be ashamed of it.

You've answered my question and made my point for me...
Since I only see you not answering his question, I don't understand any point.
To clarify my point, the war in Iraq is just as pointless and contemptable as a suicide bombers attack on a busload of innocent civilians.
So, the 26,000,000 people who live there are pointless? I guess France should have given the colonies the finger and let them fight the British on their own, because after all, what difference does their future freedom make to anyone? It is only 13 meager little colonies. A little over 160 years later, why didn't the US tell the French to F off when they were under German occupation and let Britain be bombed to the floor? That way they could just focus their recourses on the Japanese. It was their own crappy policies and military that had gotten them there, and it isn’t the US’ place to help when they screwed up.

To say that, "Yes, many have given their lives to freedom, and we would too! ...but only where it concerns us." is utterly hypocritical.
I guess it was a pre-emptive strike as you never know what kind of weapons of mass destructions those innocent civilians might develope in the years to come.
Wow, have we already forgotten the despotic totalitarian leader who would subject his own citizens to torture and death and poured the money taken from taxes into his own bank account, properties, or "special programs"? Apparently so.

The United States government and the people serving in the military, as well as the citizens who elect the government. The United States is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites and tries to reduce the civilian casualties it inflicts and minimize them whenever possible. Our attacks do not intentionally target civilians, and any deaths are caused unintentionally.

Agent Orange hasn't been used on a large scale since Vietnam, and neither has any other defoliant. Vietnam was the last major military action in a jungle environment, and the effects of it wern't fully known until after the war. It was a mistake, but AO was never intended to harm civilians.

What about glyphosate?

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0105/010508.htm

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia114.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/062800-105.htm

Probably the same thing that Arab children did.

After the invasion of Iraq, huge stores of arms and ammunition were found stored in the schools...in the very classrooms where their children sat every day. Some children have unfortunately died in this war. But, the allied soldiers do everything they can to reduce injury to innocent civilians. It was one of the "freedom fighters" who detonated a car bomb in the midst of children. It is these "freedom fighters" who blow up hospitals, schools, markets, with no consideration for the children or anyone else. Their agenda is to spread fear to force the acceptance of their warped values. I was honored to sit next to an Army officer, recently returned from Iraw, on a flight home one day. He and his command had spent a great deal of time with the Iraqi citizens. He compared their mental and emotional health to the holocaust survivors.

Contemplate, for a moment.

This dogma of "their's not to reason why, their's but to do and die" is a very outdated one. Not only is 'dying for one's country' foolish, but it is unfortunate. Die for your country's ideals, I suppose, or defending them, but don't die for your country when it declares war against a harmless theocracy, allegedly in the name of 'democratic enlargement', simply to settle daddy's little score. Sorry, I have big issues with that pointless war.

If Eutrusca is a rightist, I'm Rush Limbaugh.

The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists. It seems to me as though she only wants the media attention, and doesn't really care about her son. Saying it's 'Bush's fault' isn't going to help one bit. The kid knew damn well when he signed up that he could die. And if he didn't feel that the US was worth dying for, then why the hell was he over there? I mean, if there wasa draft I could see this woman's argument. But I can't.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

The US is indeed worth dying for.
High fives, bro.

Source that direct quote please Eutrusca, or take it down.

Oh, and BTW, according to the political compass, Eutrusca is actually left of center.
But haven't you heard? The political compass is only valid when you toe the party line on all the leftist agenda. Why, you can't possibly be left of center if you believe in the Constitution and the flag and motherhood! How dare you make a mockery of the political compass that way! Sigh. :rolleyes:

What about glyphosate?
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0105/010508.htm
http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia114.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/062800-105.htm

That is being used to destroy cocaine fields, not civilians. Although the War on Drugs' utility is debatable, we are still not intentionally killing civilians.

And we well know that the political compass never gets it wrong and you can't fake results. True, in real life I'm more centre than my posts here suggest but what tends to matter is public perception.
See what I mean? "Why you can't be for the US and still be left of center, or even centrist! That's just impossible and the political compass is obviously lying in your case!"

And it's obvious that what leftists believe about you is of far more importance than how you see yourself, or what you advocate ( unless it blends perfectly with what we believe! ).

SIGH! :rolleyes:

What about glyphosate?

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0105/010508.htm

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia114.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/062800-105.htm
Perhaps you should quote from these wonderful, respected, reputable sources :rolleyes: where it says the US used herbicide on Columbian people?

That is being used to destroy cocaine fields, not civilians. Although the War on Drugs' utility is debatable, we are still not intentionally killing civilians.

Read the articles.

The United States government and the people serving in the military, as well as the citizens who elect the government. The United States is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites and tries to reduce the civilian casualties it inflicts and minimize them whenever possible. Our attacks do not intentionally target civilians, and any deaths are caused unintentionally.

Agent Orange hasn't been used on a large scale since Vietnam, and neither has any other defoliant. Vietnam was the last major military action in a jungle environment, and the effects of it wern't fully known until after the war. It was a mistake, but AO was never intended to harm civilians.

The U.S. uses Depleted Uranium shells, though. They cause major damage to the civilian population in the same way that AO did, and it's very well documented.

I, for one, have no overall opinion on the Iraq War. I just think that the way Bush went about it was incredibly inept. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam had WMDs, and gas prices are still soaring, so I don't believe that the war was just for oil. If you've got sources that could raise some reasonable doubt on my stance though, just direct me to them. ;)

Lets weigh the options.

Joining a war that only purpose is to make a handful of corporate fat cats richer, allow the Government to hide new military bases, and allow them to control the nation with a puppet pro-Corporate government.

Or will I agree with telling the world how moronic the war is.

Yeah I'll fight to defend Exxon and BP's right to have Big $$$$!!! /Sarscam

Keep at it Cindy, make him suffer.

The reason why Gas prices are so high is because all the oil is imported currently.

The 'local' oil. (The ones from the oil fields in texas and Alaska and the rest of the nation) are going only one place. HUGE storage tanks, to sit for around 10 years until they decide to use them.

It's a question of personal philosophy, some people simply consider their friends, family and community separately from their State. Maybe it's worth dying for the people by your side, but not for an abstraction like your nation. That's pretty much how I see it.

The war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi people as a whole. It was waged against Saddam and his legions in the belief that he had WMD and intended to use them against the US, Israel, and other nations of the free world. This has proved to be a false belief, but, unlike in 1991, the US and her allies are not cutting and running. We're staying to help Iraq build a democratic government and to develop another ally.

The war in Iraq IS about 9/11. Not 9/11/01, but 9/11/09, 9/11/17, 9/11/38, and for all future times. There is a radical thinking, based on ignorance, fear, religious intolerance, and poverty, that is spreading throughout the Muslim communities. It is based on the same intolerance that we saw in Nazi Germany, the KKK, the ethnic cleansings, ....countless times throughout history and today. It is a cancer that threatens to destroy people and their rights, and we cannot allow it to grow and spread. After 9/11 and the initial invasion into Afghanistan, Bush clearly said that we were embarking on a war against terrorism. He said that it would not end in Afghanistan, but would continue on to any place that harbored those who wished harm to the US. He also warned that this would not be over in a few months, or a few years...but would extend for generations. At that time, still in shock and horror of the slaughter that had just occurred, the majority of the free world supported that agenda. Now, with many of the sights and sounds of that attack faded from our memory, it has turned into a political & international pissing contest.

The invasion can be considered a resumption of the 1991 Gulf War, which ended with a conditional ceasefire that (they contend) Iraq has subsequently breached… In 1997, Iraq expelled all US members of the inspection team, alleging that the United States was using the inspections as a front for espionage, which the U.S. later admitted was true… In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg. 17) report, Project for the New American Century, a largely Republican think tank, advocated that the United States shift to more ground-based air forces to help contain the forces of Saddam Hussein… According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country… One year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have written in his notes, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]." Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Project-for-the-New-American-Century

Okay--if you're going to put a quote like that in the thread title, you better fucking well have backup for it. Otherwise, you're libeling her. No link in the original thread to that quote, no basis for it. This is Limbaugh-style shit, Eutrusca, and you ought to be ashamed of it.

Tsk Nazz. Here's a link for you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-gelernter19aug19,1,4017629.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&track=mostemailedlink

"America has been killing people on this continent since it started. This country is not worth dying for."

This piece also brings to our attention Casey Sheehan, his enlistment, patriotism, heroism, and committment.

The real story is brief enough. Casey Sheehan enlisted in the Army in 2000 at age 20. The country was at peace. When he was asked to reenlist four years later, he knew that he would probably be sent to Iraq. He reenlisted anyway. In March 2004, he was sent to Iraq as a mechanic attached to the artillery division of the 1st Cavalry Division. When a convoy was attacked in Sadr City a month later, he volunteered to join the rescue mission — although he had no obligation to take part in combat. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.

What do other members of his family have to say about him?

"That's all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life."

Here's the link to the transcript. Scroll down to get to Cindy Sheehan's speech.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm
Here's what really happened, together with the applicable quote:

"Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. 'George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,' she said tearing up a bit. 'America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.'"

Verbatim, word for word.

Not only that, but she lied about her own son, further dishonoring him:

"While one might dismiss some of Sheehan’s hyperbole due to grief over her son’s death, a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had reenlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey’s unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, 'I go where my chief goes.' He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself."

[QUOTE]Since I only see you not answering his question, I don't understand any point.

The point is that if you are going after one man (ie. Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, tomorrow who knows?) why do you drop bombs on a city of innocent people?

[QUOTE]So, the 26,000,000 people who live there are pointless?

Unless ofcourse you can use them to justify your agenda. ;)

I guess France should have given the colonies the finger and let them fight the British on their own, because after all, what difference does their future freedom make to anyone?

It certainly made little difference to the slaves.

It is only 13 meager little colonies. A little over 160 years later, why didn't the US tell the French to F off when they were under German occupation and let Britain be bombed to the floor?

I thought they did. The U.S. could have become more active much earlier, but decided to wait until both sides where weak and it would be easier for the U.S. to determine the conditions of any peace treaties.

That way they could just focus their recourses on the Japanese. It was their own crappy policies and military that had gotten them there, and it isn’t the US’ place to help when they screwed up.

This seems rhetorical so I'll treat it as such.

To say that, "Yes, many have given their lives to freedom, and we would too! ...but only where it concerns us." is utterly hypocritical.

My sentiments exactly.

Wow, have we already forgotten the despotic totalitarian leader who would subject his own citizens to torture and death and poured the money taken from taxes into his own bank account, properties, or "special programs"? Apparently so.

Apparently there are plenty of his henchment being reinstated into their old positions to help remind us.

Lets weigh the options.

Joining a war that only purpose is to make a handful of corporate fat cats richer, allow the Government to hide new military bases, and allow them to control the nation with a puppet pro-Corporate government.

Or will I agree with telling the world how moronic the war is.

Yeah I'll fight to defend Exxon and BP's right to have Big $$$$!!! /Sarscam

Keep at it Cindy, make him suffer.

The reason why Gas prices are so high is because all the oil is imported currently.

The 'local' oil. (The ones from the oil fields in texas and Alaska and the rest of the nation) are going only one place. HUGE storage tanks, to sit for around 10 years until they decide to use them.
Yes, those companies control the country! Like from some third-rate sci-fi flick, these evil corporations (that employ hundreds of thousands, pay massive amounts in taxes to the government, and consist of most of the economic strength of the US) are taking over! Never mind that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and other laws from nearly a full century ago ensure they can't.

As for making Bush suffer, yeah, I'm sure he is suffering in his air conditioned ranch, riding around on horses and taking bike rides with Lance Armstrong while listening to his iPod. This is of course while the protestors walk around outside in the Texan heat yelling dim-witted slogans. It is things like this that make me love America.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/12/bush.ipod/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081400634.html

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

Don't you know what's he problem, Eutrusca?
The problem is that your second paragraph fits perfectly in the mouth of an islamist suicide, with the addition that he will be blessed by God for the blast.
We all need an alternative. Look to the UN and read about the Alliance of Civilizations, created both for Spain and Turkey. Join, and dream with a better future free of wars and suffering for the differences.

Shall the difference make us richer.

I have nothing to say, but that I support Cindy Sheehan, our president has is a greedy self centered republican who has killed 1863 americans and ruined the lives of at least a million Iraqi citizens. Needless to say, I don't support this horrible war.

Perhaps you should quote from these wonderful, respected, reputable sources :rolleyes: where it says the US used herbicide on Columbian people?

If you want to start another thread on the subject I'll gladly supply you with pages of evidence from sources such as the U.S. State Department, the DEA, El Pais, CNN, BBC, etc...

But for the time being I'll point out that the U.S. currently has over 800 military advisors in Colombia (minus five who were arrested for drug trafficking and two who were arrested for supplying arms to right winged militias). These advisors are responsible for teaching the Colombian military anti-insurgent and anti-narcotics tactics. Often their instruction comes as "on the job training", so if they aren't directly harming innocent civilians, at the very least they are teaching a corrupt government how to do it.

I agree - this country isn't worth dying for. This country is built upon the murder of countless innocents and should never have existed in the first place. I do like alot of the great things I am afforded in the US but that doesn't make it worth dying for (I could just as easily find those things in other countries). Especially with the corrupt dicks in charge who make the decision on who to kill next. Besides, we are not defending the US with the Iraq war.

The US is worth fighting for, and if it comes down to it I will give my life to defend it. I've put my money where my mouth is. I've been in iraq.

What the press feeds the public has nothing to do witht he reality of the situation on the ground over there.

if you don't think that the US is worth fighting for, what country do you think would be?

The point is that if you are going after one man (ie. Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, tomorrow who knows?) why do you drop bombs on a city of innocent people?
Your ignorance, or blindness, startles me. The US does not attack civilians. The US does not terror bomb. The US uses precision laser-guided missiles to destroy enemy bunkers and HQs. The US uses air strikes to take out enemy defensive positions NOT located in an urban or otherwise heavy populated area. You keep crying about how the US bombs civilians without care – if that’s the way it is, then why not just level the whole goddamned city instead of risking the lives of soldiers to occupy it and keep order?

Unless ofcourse you can use them to justify your agenda. ;)
And tell me, what is the agenda? Oil? Because the fields have not been seized and petroleum prices continue to skyrocket. I have to say, you are a skilled debater, not because you know what you are talking about, but because you speak so vaguely and abstractly that anyone can twist your words into a distorted truth.

It certainly made little difference to the slaves.
It did to the ones in the free North. The first man to die in the fight against the British was a black man in the Boston Massacre. And in actuality, it did to all of them, even though it took a much longer period of time for those in the South to be freed. But had the colonies' rebellion been crushed, rest assured that the people there would ALL have been slaves.

I thought they did. The U.S. could have become more active much earlier, but decided to wait until both sides where weak and it would be easier for the U.S. to determine the conditions of any peace treaties.
Right, that is why the US created and executed the plan for D-Day and had enough soldiers to make up the bulk of the landing force. This being after various forms of aid to help the Allies while maintaining official neutrality, which would not be repaid in accordance to the Marshall Plan.

Have you ever even read a history book? The US waited for nothing - it went to war after being attacked by the Japanese. It did not leer in the background, waiting for all the other countries of the world to get mauled before stepping in. Peace treaties were a nonissue - the demand from the onset had been unconditional surrender. Even this was adjusted somewhat in regards to the Japanese so they could keep their emperor. And once again, war repressions were not made in according to the Marshall Plan.

My sentiments exactly.
Then…I believe you have just called yourself a hypocrite unless you would not fight for the freedom of your own country. In that case, I don’t believe you deserve the status of citizenship in that country, whatever it may be.

Apparently there are plenty of his henchment being reinstated into their old positions to help remind us.
Such as?
If you want to start another thread on the subject I'll gladly supply you with pages of evidence from sources such as the U.S. State Department, the DEA, El Pais, CNN, BBC, etc...
-Calls your bluff- Ok.

I have nothing to say, but that I support Cindy Sheehan, our president has is a greedy self centered republican who has killed 1863 americans and ruined the lives of at least a million Iraqi citizens. Needless to say, I don't support this horrible war.
Because…their lives were better under Saddam? What the hell? I shouldn’t even dignify this post with an answer, but I need to out of sheer disbelief.

The US is worth fighting for, and if it comes down to it I will give my life to defend it. I've put my money where my mouth is. I've been in iraq.

What the press feeds the public has nothing to do witht he reality of the situation on the ground over there.

if you don't think that the US is worth fighting for, what country do you think would be?

At this time, anybody.

Here's what really happened, together with the applicable quote:

"<snipped> Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, <snipped>.'"

Verbatim, word for word.

Not only that, but she lied about her own son, further dishonoring him:

"While one might dismiss some of Sheehan’s hyperbole due to grief over her son’s death, a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had reenlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. <snipped>"

Where is the lie? In the portion quoted concerning campus recruiters, Sheehan does not say specifically that her son was "tricked." There is evidence that recruiters are lying to kids to meet their quotas. That Bush wasted the goodwill of the world on his nasty little war is a shame. That we're wasting our young and abusing our natural sense of patriotism is a crime.

It is however, rational to assume (dispite the time sequence distortion in her account, which could very well be attributable to her grief rather than any nefarious manipulation by the evil peaceniks) that Casey Sheehan was promised a chaplain's assistant position at his initial enlistment. That he didn't receive that assignment isn't unusual (very few enlistees receive the assignments promised by the recruiter). That he voluntarily re-enlisted does not negate the original "betrayal" of the recruiter as she sees it.

Only the blindly patriotic see Sheehan's protest as "dishonoring" her son.

I agree - this country isn't worth dying for. This country is built upon the murder of countless innocents and should never have existed in the first place. I do like alot of the great things I am afforded in the US but that doesn't make it worth dying for (I could just as easily find those things in other countries). Especially with the corrupt dicks in charge who make the decision on who to kill next. Besides, we are not defending the US with the Iraq war.
Compare US history to that of the British Empire, or the Pre-WWII Japanese, or the darker periods of Germany, or the communist Russia led by genocidal Stalin, or Napoleon's France, or Spain's bloody conquests in the New World by wiping out hundreds of millions of natives.

Now, please tell me, what such atrocities on those levels have been committed by the US? Prove to me you have some idea of what you are talking about.

As someone else asked, if the US isn’t worth fighting for, what country is? Probably to you, none, which would make you more of a parasite then a citizen.

As someone else asked, if the US isn’t worth fighting for, what country is? Probably to you, none, which would make you more of a parasite then a citizen.

I don't see how can it happen.

Atrocities commited by the US?

-Hiroshima
-Nagasaki
-Granada
-Panama
-Vietnam
-The same USA; in the figure of the natives.

The United States government and the people serving in the military, as well as the citizens who elect the government. The United States is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites and tries to reduce the civilian casualties it inflicts and minimize them whenever possible. Our attacks do not intentionally target civilians, and any deaths are caused unintentionally.
...
Maybe not since WW2, right? Carpet bombing was indeed targeted at the civilians. Not to mention those who had a run-in with Little Boy Fat Man...

And while the attacks might not intentionally target civilians, the feeling is created that civilian casualties don't matter as much when the goal (whatever that might be in Iraq - the priorities seem to shift every other day) has been achieved.

The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

I refer to the "insurgents" as militia, or gurillas. It is more accurate. The resistance predates the US-installed government, therefor cannot be an "insurgency."

Sheehan lives here, and she did not say that, her words were twisted.

I live in the US, and I say the US is not worth dying for.


The fact is, this woman's aligned herself with Scummy leftists like Michael Moore (referring to the insurgents as minutemen) and democracynow, and these crazy leftists.

Also, I don't think you really have the authority say that the US is not worth dying for, as you don't even live her. I don't spout shit about your country.

I refer to the "insurgents" as militia, or gurillas. It is more accurate. The resistance predates the US-installed government, therefor cannot be an "insurgency."

Sheehan lives here, and she did not say that, her words were twisted.

I live in the US, and I say the US is not worth dying for.

recent anti-semantic statements

Please quote these statements. All I have heard is anti-Israel, which does *not* mean anti-semetic

The US does not sanction the intentional murder of civilians

School of the Americas

Funding of the Contras

Bringing to power and supporting of Pinochet

the CIA

Viet Nam

need I go on?

The US does not attack with the intent of killing civilians whereas terrorist groups do.

See above. We did during WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, Granada, plus those I’ve listed above.


We have committed atrocities; to deny that is foolish and morally wrong.

We try to avert them whenever possible and do not intentionally target them; bombings may kill civilians, which is a terrible event and should be avoided at all costs, but the bombings are meant to hit military targets. The main exception is the atomic bomb, but whether or not that was necessary is a debate in itself.

There have benn many, many more exceptions

The Israelis do not go out of their way to commit mass murder of innocent civilians as they ride a bus, or go to a nightclub. The Palestinian militants target these civilian areas because they are soft-targets, as the Israeli military is qualitatively too good and effective for them to engage in battle. Instead they resort to mass-murder, befouling their cause, and dishonoring their people.

Israel is a modern, functioning democracy, it has defended itself from repeated attacks from its neighbors, and has carved out a small, safe corner of the world for its people. It aquired the areas of Palestine in a defensive war, the objective of its enemies being the destruction of Israel and its citizens...the Palestinians were not a state, supported this war, were defeated, and paid the price. The land belongs to Israel, and I'd much rather see the West Bank populated by Israeli settlements, and protecting the nation of Israel from invasion, than see it part of a Palestinian "state".

Israel has killed more than 4 times the number of civilians (not terrorists or suspected militants, civilians) then Palestinean militants have. Also, in Palestine, and in Israel, most peopple just want peace, and live together just fine. It is a small minority which carrys out terrorist attacks, but the Israeli government makes the entire populous suffer, which in turn causes more attacks.


The United States government and the people serving in the military, as well as the citizens who elect the government. The United States is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites and tries to reduce the civilian casualties it inflicts and minimize them whenever possible. Our attacks do not intentionally target civilians, and any deaths are caused unintentionally.

Agent Orange hasn't been used on a large scale since Vietnam, and neither has any other defoliant. Vietnam was the last major military action in a jungle environment, and the effects of it wern't fully known until after the war. It was a mistake, but AO was never intended to harm civilians.

The US is party to all of the major conventional warfare treatites. but is also the biggest violater of them. Intentially.

Contemplate, for a moment.

This dogma of "their's not to reason why, their's but to do and die" is a very outdated one. Not only is 'dying for one's country' foolish, but it is unfortunate. Die for your country's ideals, I suppose, or defending them, but don't die for your country when it declares war against a harmless theocracy, allegedly in the name of 'democratic enlargement', simply to settle daddy's little score. Sorry, I have big issues with that pointless war.

Accully, Iraq was the most western-like nation in the middle east, with the excaption of Isreal

That is being used to destroy cocaine fields, not civilians. Although the War on Drugs' utility is debatable, we are still not intentionally killing civilians.

We know many more civilians are dieing, we continue on with it

Originally Posted by Casey's sister, Carly
"That's all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life."

I don’t see how God got so mixed in with country. God spacificlly says that country is unimportant.

I've put my money where my mouth is. I've been in iraq.

Thank you, sir

And tell me, what is the agenda? Oil? Because the fields have not been seized and petroleum prices continue to skyrocket. I have to say, you are a skilled debater, not because you know what you are talking about, but because you speak so vaguely and abstractly that anyone can twist your words into a distorted truth.

Prices continue to skyrocket, but so do oil company profits. You lose.

The US is worth fighting for, and if it comes down to it I will give my life to defend it. I've put my money where my mouth is. I've been in iraq.

What the press feeds the public has nothing to do witht he reality of the situation on the ground over there.

if you don't think that the US is worth fighting for, what country do you think would be?


not a single one - they are all run by corrupt assholes. Borders are artificial nuciances. I wouldnt give my life for any nation.

not a single one - they are all run by corrupt assholes. Borders are artificial nuciances. I wouldnt give my life for any nation.

I wouldn't give my life for any nation.


I've got too much with myself trying to find a good job and keeping order in my social life to worry for an idea (homeland) which looks obsolet for me.

In this time when we are ramming borders down, I don't see the point on talking about "my" border.

Compare US history to that of the British Empire, or the Pre-WWII Japanese, or the darker periods of Germany, or the communist Russia led by genocidal Stalin, or Napoleon's France, or Spain's bloody conquests in the New World by wiping out hundreds of millions of natives.

Now, please tell me, what such atrocities on those levels have been committed by the US? Prove to me you have some idea of what you are talking about.

As someone else asked, if the US isn’t worth fighting for, what country is? Probably to you, none, which would make you more of a parasite then a citizen.


Why does that make me a parasite? I was born into this life in this country and have to do what I can to maky my way thru it. So what if other countries are built upon the blood of innocents as well? That doesn't make the US angelic. :rolleyes:

And your blind hubris is equally startling.

[As were all the other quoted pieces below.]The US does not attack civilians. No. They redefine civilians as "collateral damage" or "enemy combatants" and justify whatever it is they want to do anyway. You're right, the US doesn't use terrorism (in its classical definition), but then it doesn't have to now, does it.
...Tell me, what is the agenda? Oil? Because the fields have not been seized and petroleum prices continue to skyrocket.Uhm, securing the oil fields was one of the first tasks accomplished. And why shouldn't petroleum prices continue to rise...it keeps the Saudis and the big oil shareholders dancing in the streets.
But had the [US]colonies' rebellion been crushed, rest assured that the people there would ALL have been slaves.Yeah, like all those slaves in Canada, eh.
Right, that is why the US created and executed the plan for D-DayEh? And Montie and the Brits had nothing to do with it, I suppose. Back to world history for you.
Have you ever even read a history book? The US waited for nothing - it went to war after being attacked by the Japanese. It did not leer in the background, waiting for all the other countries of the world to get mauled before stepping in. Well, I don't know about the leering, but the US was very reluctant to enter WWII and a frightful number of countries (let's see, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Britain, China, just off the top of my head) were indeed "mauled" before Pearl Harbor and the US's entrance. Roosevelt's under-the-table aid to Churchill and Britain is quite well known. So, you need to add a US history course to your remedial reading.
Because…their lives were better under Saddam? What the hell? I shouldn’t even dignify this post with an answer, but I need to out of sheer disbelief.Too early to tell yet really. For Iraqi women certainly, life under the Baathists may very well end up having been better.

I cannot say that I hate Bush or Sheehan since I've never met any of those people. However, I can say that the war in Iraq seems to be our own fault...To me, the Iraqis, possibly much of the Middle East, seems to feel threatened, so they are retaliating with underhand tricks in an attempt protect what they believe in...In some ways it seems to be parallel to the Revolutionary way, though the US was a colony rather than it's own country at the time...As for dying for a country...War proves nothing...It just proves who is stronger and who survives...Good and evil are simply overrated cliches...

I don't see how can it happen.

Atrocities commited by the US?

-Hiroshima
-Nagasaki
-Granada
-Panama
-Vietnam
-The same USA; in the figure of the natives.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were required to end the Second World War. Without them, US military estimates were that there would be 500,000 - 1,000,000 US casualties, and 10,000,000 - 13,000,000 Japanese dead. If you still think it is an atrocity, tell me now, so I can skip over the rest of your posts as they will not be deemed rational enough to put time into reading.

The invasion of Grenada, Operation Urgent Fury, resulted in 100 deaths to a coalition force comprised of the US and several other Caribbean nations. The purpose was to halt a buildup that would increase Soviet forces in the Western Hemisphere, a great concern since Cuba had already been lost. Reagan expressed concern over a couple hundred American students on the island. Considering this was all that happened under Reagan (who was an absolutely crazy sob, which is probably why I love him), and more importantly, it was a battle of military forces versus other military forces, it is not an atrocity in any way. Perhaps an unnecessary police action, but if you know anything about the Cold War, you’d know that these happened on both sides constantly and consistently.

Panama was attacked because the leader, Noriega, publicly declared that an unofficial state of war existed between Panama and the US, which also threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and security of some 30,000 – 40,000 Americans who lived there. It was quite a place for money laundering as well. After a year of tension, the final straw was that he outlawed elections. Once again, forces attacked Panamanian military and paramilitary forces and bombed strategic targets and military headquarters. In all, about 500 Panamanians were killed, and a new democratic leader came to power.

Vietnam was a police action, yet again directed towards the communist Viet Cong military forces. Civilian deaths were a result not of intentional targeting as they were of poor leadership and execution of orders among soldiers. If you look at each individual assault or series of airstrikes from the US, you can see that most were a direct result of an enemy offensive. The primary purposes of all such strikes were to destroy strategic targets, such as HQs, military and industrial bases, ground and air defenses, and the flow of soldiers and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Now, if you want a list from any of the countries I mentioned, perhaps you will see what a true atrocity is.

I have to say I agree with her, if she said that (rightists like the esteemed Eutrusca have been flinging so much poo at this woman, that you just can't trust anything said about her any more). The US is not worth dying for.



Maybe not to a blatantly arrogant Swede, but to others it is.

Please quote these statements. All I have heard is anti-Israel, which does *not* mean anti-semetic

As Israel is recognized internationally as a Jewish nation, how else do you interpret her condemnation? In case you still don't equate the two...

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11278


Originally Posted by Casey's sister, Carly
"That's all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life."

I don’t see how God got so mixed in with country. God spacificlly says that country is unimportant.


His sister was naming his two priorities, God and country. As I understand it, he was a devout Catholic. In addition he seems to have felt a call to duty to enlist a second time, knowing he would probably be sent to Iraq. How does this young man's 2 priorities mix into your confusion?

[QUOTE]Your ignorance, or blindness, startles me.

You are easily startled.

The US does not attack civilians.

Does the name My Lai ring a bell?

The US does not terror bomb.

Does Nagasaki ring a bell? How about Hiroshima? Loas? Cambodia?

The US uses precision laser-guided missiles to destroy enemy bunkers and HQs.

Ofcourse, that explains all those friendly fire incidents during the Gulph War.

The US uses air strikes to take out enemy defensive positions NOT located in an urban or otherwise heavy populated area.

So I guess those images of Bahgdad being bombed were special effects designed by pro Democrat Hollywood producers?

You keep crying about how the US bombs civilians without care – if that’s the way it is, then why not just level the whole goddamned city instead of risking the lives of soldiers to occupy it and keep order?

Well there is the looting aspect...

And tell me, what is the agenda? Oil?

Oil, power, the money made from manufacturing weapons required to engage in such a campaign, a way to contain unemployment... I mean for every soldier that dies in Iraq, that's one less person standing in the unemployment line.

Because the fields have not been seized and petroleum prices continue to skyrocket. I have to say, you are a skilled debater, not because you know what you are talking about, but because you speak so vaguely and abstractly that anyone can twist your words into a distorted truth.

Well you certainly try.

It did to the ones in the free North. The first man to die in the fight against the British was a black man in the Boston Massacre. And in actuality, it did to all of them, even though it took a much longer period of time for those in the South to be freed. But had the colonies' rebellion been crushed, rest assured that the people there would ALL have been slaves.

Except, of course, for those slaves who ran north to a British colony that would eventually become known as Canada.

Right, that is why the US created and executed the plan for D-Day and had enough soldiers to make up the bulk of the landing force. This being after various forms of aid to help the Allies while maintaining official neutrality, which would not be repaid in accordance to the Marshall Plan.

I'm sure there will be some Brits and Canucks who could point out their own contributions to D-Day. As well as Russians who would point to their contributions on the Eastern front. But if the U.S. did make the most difference it was because, aside from Pearl Harbour, they had not encountered attacks on U.S. soil and had, as I have previously stated, kept out of the war until they were certain they would be in a position to control the peacetalks.

Have you ever even read a history book? The US waited for nothing - it went to war after being attacked by the Japanese. It did not leer in the background, waiting for all the other countries of the world to get mauled before stepping in. Peace treaties were a nonissue - the demand from the onset had been unconditional surrender. Even this was adjusted somewhat in regards to the Japanese so they could keep their emperor. And once again, war repressions were not made in according to the Marshall Plan.

I've read many history books. The U.S. did wait, it waited until it was attacked by Japan. Now if you read some history books, maybe you could answer this question; Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? I do hope you will respond with something a little bit more informed then "Cuz they wuz evil!"

Then…I believe you have just called yourself a hypocrite unless you would not fight for the freedom of your own country. In that case, I don’t believe you deserve the status of citizenship in that country, whatever it may be.

I would not fight for any country (if the word fight implies military tactics). What earns me the citizenships to the countries to which I belong (I have multiple citizenships) is that I contribute to the economy by working, spending and paying taxes. You see, my loyalty is demonstrated by what I can build, not by what I can destroy.

Such as?

Hang on, I'll provide you with a link. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435188

-Calls your bluff- Ok.

Does this mean you are going to post a thread dealing with the hypocrisy of the U.S. War on Drugs? *salivates*

Based on information which you have provided the highlighted statement is false. With regards to soft targets, I've seen documentaries and read accounts of how the Isrealis fire rockets into the houses of the parents of suicide bombers, shoot on children for throwing stones at tanks and abduct Arab suspects in the middle of the night.

I don't agree with Palestinean tactics or suicide bombing, but the Israelis are not saints in this conflict.

By safe, that is from religious persecution and wholesale murder with no defense against it... Compared to the Palestinian actions, the Israelis wear the white hats indeed. The Palestinians resorted to massacring Olympic athletes for god's sake...I have no pity or sympathy for them.

[QUOTE]Compare US history to that of the British Empire, or the Pre-WWII Japanese, or the darker periods of Germany, or the communist Russia led by genocidal Stalin, or Napoleon's France, or Spain's bloody conquests in the New World by wiping out hundreds of millions of natives.

If Spain wiped out all these natives, why is it that people of indegenous descent, ie. Inca, Aztec, Mayan, Muisca, Kuna Yala, etc. make up the majority of the population in the countries in which they live?

Now, please tell me, what such atrocities on those levels have been committed by the US? Prove to me you have some idea of what you are talking about.

Are you not familiar with U.S. history? ie. Slave Trade and the genocide of the indegenous people, which continued after the U.S. declared Independance from England.

As someone else asked, if the US isn’t worth fighting for, what country is? Probably to you, none, which would make you more of a parasite then a citizen.

You have a strange concept of loyalty. If a child gets into a fight, should it's mother jump into the fight and kill or be killed in order to demonstrate her devotion to her child? Or would society be better served if the child's mother stopped the fight and explained that fighting is not a productive form of behaviour?

Here's what really happened, together with the applicable quote:

"Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. 'George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,' she said tearing up a bit. 'America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.'"
"

You got that from an article written by one Lee Kaplan that was published in Frontpagemag.com on May 2, 2005. But lets look at a more recent Frontpagemag.com article where they refer to the actual transcripts of the speech:

FrontPageMagazine.com | August 19, 2005

I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19197

By safe, that is from religious persecution and wholesale murder with no defense against it... Compared to the Palestinian actions, the Israelis wear the white hats indeed. The Palestinians resorted to massacring Olympic athletes for god's sake...I have no pity or sympathy for them.

And Golda's List ensured that every Palestinean leader had a price on his head in the decades that followed.

As far as you not having any pity or sympathy, people from around the world are becoming more aware of this Western attitude and this is pricisely why British subways are being bombed.

This just seems to add to the evidence that she isn't doing this for her son's memory. She'll do anything at this point to remain in the media spotlight even if it's saying something as idiotic as that.

Could someone please point to a credible source on this quote? All I've found are fascist bloggers like Ann Coulter saying that that's what Sheehan thinks, and since they lie so regularly about stuff that is verifiably false, I'm not going to accept their word on something that seems to just be their opinion.

Could someone please point to a credible source on this quote? All I've found are fascist bloggers like Ann Coulter saying that that's what Sheehan thinks, and since they lie so regularly about stuff that is verifiably false, I'm not going to accept their word on something that seems to just be their opinion.
Whenever I ask for sources I get bloggers with the most credible source being from Fox News. I believe that is the first time anyone has ever put together these words in that combination "the most credible source being from Fox News." Can I trademark that?

The only credible source I could find was the Newsweek article...Though Newsweek is rather left oriented, this article was carefully neutral with cited quotes from both the left and the right sides. No where does it mention the "America is not worth dying for quote" though...

Why does that make me a parasite? I was born into this life in this country and have to do what I can to maky my way thru it. So what if other countries are built upon the blood of innocents as well? That doesn't make the US angelic. :rolleyes:
You are absolutely right, the US in certainly not angelic. I never said it was. But to say a country is built on the "blood of innocents" makes me picture you as the character of some second-rate soap opera. Human history is pretty much nothing but wars, and the results of them. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you get over your ideas. The difference is that some countries wage war in the name of tyranny, and other countries wage war in the name of freedom.
And your blind hubris is equally startling.
Thank you.
No. They redefine civilians as "collateral damage" or "enemy combatants" and justify whatever it is they want to do anyway. You're right, the US doesn't use terrorism (in its classical definition), but then it doesn't have to now, does it.
Easy way to look at it: does US military doctrine advocate or direct firepower to the killing of civilians? No. Do civilian deaths occur? Of course. It is difficult to avoid civilian deaths when insurgents (who in themselves appear to be civilians) have no qualms with running into a crowd and killing their own people.
Uhm, securing the oil fields was one of the first tasks accomplished. And why shouldn't petroleum prices continue to rise...it keeps the Saudis and the big oil shareholders dancing in the streets.
Reading over what I said, I realize I did not make myself clear. What was meant is that we have not seized their actual oil. While their fields and oil are under US control, they are not being taken and used, but instead being left for whenever Iraq can defend itself. Otherwise our prices would be much lower. As for your wonderful imagery of dancing Saudis, perhaps you can give an actual answer instead of trying to dodge the question.
Yeah, like all those slaves in Canada, eh.
Uh, while I don’t know much about Canadian history, most of Canada was British territory, hence the attacks during the War of 1812. It remained this way for a great period of time until Britain allowed it to peacefully separate and at first form a Confederation. They did not fight for their independence.
Eh? And Montie and the Brits had nothing to do with it, I suppose. Back to world history for you.
Did I say that? No. Perhaps you should not put words in my mouth. What I did say was that the US planned and executed D-Day, with US forces making up the bulk of the attack force. Eisenhower was made Supreme Allied Commander in 43, and planned the invasion. The American sector of Utah and Omaha were those deemed to have the greatest defenses, as opposed to the British and Canadian sectors of Juno, Sword, and Gold. Perhaps you should go review world history yourself, huh?
Well, I don't know about the leering, but the US was very reluctant to enter WWII and a frightful number of countries (let's see, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Britain, China, just off the top of my head) were indeed "mauled" before Pearl Harbor and the US's entrance. Roosevelt's under-the-table aid to Churchill and Britain is quite well known. So, you need to add a US history course to your remedial reading.
Does that mean that the US waited for these countries to be destroyed before entering, as was originally suggested? No. Once again, you change the wording and situation of the argument for your own purposes. WWII, as was WWI, was not the US’ problem, period. The only reasons why either time the US entered was because of a direct threat of attack, or actual attack (Sinking of the Lusitania, Zimmerman Note, Pearl Harbor). Both started purely as a result of European nations and their actions (or for WWII, lack of action), and only in extreme circumstances did the US find it necessary to abandon the Monroe Doctrine and the parting words of George Washington, to never become dedicated to an alliance. Being as though you didn’t even mention any of this, once again, perhaps it is you who requires the history lesson. And maybe an English lesson as well, because you are either apparently intent on bending other people’s words, or simply can’t read.
Too early to tell yet really. For Iraqi women certainly, life under the Baathists may very well end up having been better.
I think that unless the US invasion is an absolute failure and things fall back to how they were before, we can safely assume that it will be better now. While the early periods are indeed tough because of the damage to infrastructure by destruction of enemy strongholds and enemy suicide bombers, that is something that can be easily resolved as opposed to a ruthless dictator.

Oye Oye, I’ll smack down your points in a little bit. I just need some time to rest after all these.

As Israel is recognized internationally as a Jewish nation, how else do you interpret her condemnation? In case you still don't equate the two...

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11278

I can critisize the temporal nation of Israel without hating Judiesm and Jewish people. I have many Jewish friends, in fact, some of which are quite opposed to Israel's policies.

was naming his two priorities, God and country. As I understand it, he was a devout Catholic. In addition he seems to have felt a call to duty to enlist a second time, knowing he would probably be sent to Iraq. How does this young man's 2 priorities mix into your confusion?

True, I'm sorry. It was more a reaction to society mixing the two, not the spacific situation.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were required to end the Second World War. Without them, US military estimates were that there would be 500,000 - 1,000,000 US casualties, and 10,000,000 - 13,000,000 Japanese dead. If you still think it is an atrocity, tell me now, so I can skip over the rest of your posts as they will not be deemed rational enough to put time into reading.

Japan offered to surender seveal times before the bombs were dropped.

The invasion of Grenada, Operation Urgent Fury, resulted in 100 deaths to a coalition force comprised of the US and several other Caribbean nations.

Also, in the deaths of a Cuban construction crew building an airfeild. Granada was about preventing a sovern nation from outsourcing to Cuba.


Panama was attacked because the leader, Noriega, publicly declared that an unofficial state of war existed between Panama and the US, which also threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and security of some 30,000 – 40,000 Americans who lived there. It was quite a place for money laundering as well. After a year of tension, the final straw was that he outlawed elections. Once again, forces attacked Panamanian military and paramilitary forces and bombed strategic targets and military headquarters. In all, about 500 Panamanians were killed, and a new democratic leader came to power.

I don't know much about this incident, so I'm just ganna have to take your word for it untill I can do some reaserch to either conferm or refute it.


Vietnam was a police action, yet again directed towards the communist Viet Cong military forces. Civilian deaths were a result not of intentional targeting as they were of poor leadership and execution of orders among soldiers. If you look at each individual assault or series of airstrikes from the US, you can see that most were a direct result of an enemy offensive. The primary purposes of all such strikes were to destroy strategic targets, such as HQs, military and industrial bases, ground and air defenses, and the flow of soldiers and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The Viet Nam was killed over 4 million Viet Namese civilians. South Viet Nam was a creation fo the US. And yes, we intentionally bombed and kill civilians. We also intentiaonlly flooded feilds with the intention of causing famine, to weaken the peasent population, because that is where the Viet Cong drew their recruits.

By safe, that is from religious persecution and wholesale murder with no defense against it... Compared to the Palestinian actions, the Israelis wear the white hats indeed. The Palestinians resorted to massacring Olympic athletes for god's sake...I have no pity or sympathy for them.


Israel fires machine guns at school children tauntung tanks. Israel comes in with helecopters and missles and kills hundrends.

Israel has killed 4 times the number of civilians as Palistine has, and sets up illegal settlements in Palestinian land.


Israel hardly wears a white hat.

Oye Oye, I’ll smack down your points in a little bit. I just need some time to rest after all these.

Smack down? What are you King Kong? Okay Kong, you get your rest, just don't forget to post that thread on the U.S. Drug War/Trade

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

I wholeheartedly agree with your qoute. The woman needs to keep drinking the good ol' koolaid (Remember that cult in CA?) and take a healthy cup of STFU.

FOAD bitch.

:rolleyes:

If I was anycloser to her I'd go down there and protest with the one Iraqi woman who was protesting against Sheehag...and buy the Iraqi a big cup of American Coffee.

Quiet, you. You're exposing the hypocrisy!

Fass is anyone going to remember you after you die other than your immediate family and friends? Lets be realistic here. I know who her son is now because of what he did. A heroic act he did when he didnt have to. To volunteer to go help get your fellow soldiers out of trouble is a basic thing in the US military. It was a knee jerk reaction im sure. He probably didnt think about it. Same stories came from Somalia, Balkans and GW1. Let alone the many other wars that America has fought. The man was a mechanic not trained to be a combat soldier other than basic military training. Many men and women have done it before and will do it again. He deserves the bronze star he recieved.

As far as the mother she is a severly misguided and needs some mental health help. She is being used by the far left and is a pawn in there game. I see this as a disgrace to her son. I am sure he wouldnt approve of her behavior as much as the rest of the living family does not.

As far as you and your ilk fass. Maybe being from outside of the US you just dont get what it means to be an American. I do find it somewhat amusing that you and others seem to think of yourselves sitting on a high perch. You let off your comments as you know what your talking about and are in the right. Myself and others that have served in defense of our nation can see through your hypocracy and that of people that think like you.

I wholeheartedly agree with your qoute. The woman needs to keep drinking the good ol' koolaid (Remember that cult in CA?) and take a healthy cup of STFU.

FOAD bitch.

:rolleyes:

If I was anycloser to her I'd go down there and protest with the one Iraqi woman who was protesting against Sheehag...and buy the Iraqi a big cup of American Coffee.

I resent that...Are you saying all Californians are like Sheehan? Despite the fact that California is left wing, we aren't all left wing...Our esteemed <insert sarcasm> governor is a right wing politician with little to no political experience...

The US is worth dieing for, A single man's agenda isn't.

Surely, the US is just a piece of land?

If there IS something worth dying for about that land, it is some spirit of the people... some nobler intention or cause?

Maybe not EVERYONE sees the enforced removal of political opponents, and the rape of their sovereign territories, as shining examples of that 'spirit'.. of that 'intention'.... of that 'people'.

Maybe she is right. Maybe the America her son died for is NOT worth dying for.

You are easily startled.
In regards to the proportions of what I stated, I think it would be about right.

Does the name My Lai ring a bell?
Indeed it does. Too bad for your argument that was an isolated incident conducted by a single platoon, not under orders or in accordance to Rules of Engagement. Many in the platoon refused to participate.

Does Nagasaki ring a bell? How about Hiroshima? Loas? Cambodia?
I already brought up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As I told the other person, if you do not think the droppings of the bomb was founded, tell me now, and I will not longer read your posts on the basis of a complete lack of rationality. Laos and Cambodia were attacked by airstrikes to stop the flow of men and shipments for the Viet Cong.

Ofcourse, that explains all those friendly fire incidents during the Gulph War.
Yes, because that was a daily occurrence, right? Such things result mostly from occasional pilot error or ground troops not being properly positioned.

So I guess those images of Bahgdad being bombed were special effects designed by pro Democrat Hollywood producers?
I already said, precision bombs were used to take out strategic targets and enemy bunkers. As the capital, I think anyone with this wonderful thing called common sense could assume these might exist in Baghdad. Air strikes are often called in by ground troops to take out enemy positions, and may not be as accurate.

Well there is the looting aspect...
Because there are lots of things the average Iraqi has that a soldier would want to steal and risk getting court-marshaled over, right? As with the other person, don’t dance around the question and give me an answer.

Oil, power, the money made from manufacturing weapons required to engage in such a campaign, a way to contain unemployment... I mean for every soldier that dies in Iraq, that's one less person standing in the unemployment line.
Sure, despite the fact that a person in the military is employed, right?

Well you certainly try.
Try to be vague? Absolutely not. My points are supported by these wonderful things called common sense, fact, statistics, and proof. Prooooof. It’s such a pretty word, don’t you think?

Except, of course, for those slaves who ran north to a British colony that would eventually become known as Canada.
Do you think that they would be welcomed?

I'm sure there will be some Brits and Canucks who could point out their own contributions to D-Day. As well as Russians who would point to their contributions on the Eastern front. But if the U.S. did make the most difference it was because, aside from Pearl Harbour, they had not encountered attacks on U.S. soil and had, as I have previously stated, kept out of the war until they were certain they would be in a position to control the peacetalks.
As with the other person who responded, I never said they didn’t help. I never said the US did everything, or that it is responsible for victory. I DID say that the US planned and executed D-Day (Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander since a year before) and that US forces made up the bulk of the attack force. The US did not encounter attacks because it generally wanted to keep the hell out of foreign wars, in accordance to the Monroe Doctrine and Washington’s parting words. Peacetalks didn’t matter, I don’t know why you keep going back to that. It was unconditional surrender, or nothing. For this, their entire country had to be occupied (Germany, Italy) or threatened with invasion and complete systematic destruction (Japan). The US waiting would not have helped peacetalks, as the longer the stayed out, the stronger the Axis became.

I've read many history books. The U.S. did wait, it waited until it was attacked by Japan. Now if you read some history books, maybe you could answer this question; Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? I do hope you will respond with something a little bit more informed then "Cuz they wuz evil!"
Because an embargo was issued as a direct result of the Japanese attack and massacres in China?

I would not fight for any country (if the word fight implies military tactics). What earns me the citizenships to the countries to which I belong (I have multiple citizenships) is that I contribute to the economy by working, spending and paying taxes. You see, my loyalty is demonstrated by what I can build, not by what I can destroy.
Your loyalty should not be determined by what you can destroy, but what you can defend. And in the case of America, what you should be ready to defend is the very principles America was founded on.

Hang on, I'll provide you with a link. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435188
Generally, it says that the people being put back to work are people that were in the former Iraq military. They even mention an officer who was to be sentenced to death for conspiring against Saddam. By the way, most of those aren’t exactly reputable…much like your last batch.

Does this mean you are going to post a thread dealing with the hypocrisy of the U.S. War on Drugs? *salivates*
I’m not posting anything. If you want to do it, go ahead, and depending on what you have to say, I will respond for or against.

If Spain wiped out all these natives, why is it that people of indegenous descent, ie. Inca, Aztec, Mayan, Muisca, Kuna Yala, etc. make up the majority of the population in the countries in which they live?
Provide demographical proof. I know many still exist, but as for making up the majority of the entire country? And does this mean you deny that Spanish conquistadors, such as Cortez that slaughtered 400,000 people in the capital city of the Aztecs, in reality did no harm?

Are you not familiar with U.S. history? ie. Slave Trade and the genocide of the indegenous people, which continued after the U.S. declared Independance from England.
Slave trade was started way before the US was independent. It was halted in the early 1800s by Congressional legislation. Genocide of the natives at this point was not genocide, but forced relocation. Both a terrible thing indeed. Slavery is easily the biggest scar on US history. But that has been rectified though a bloody civil war (only one civil war, which also is very irregular in comparison to other countries), three Constitutional Amendments, and a slew of Civil Rights laws.

You have a strange concept of loyalty. If a child gets into a fight, should it's mother jump into the fight and kill or be killed in order to demonstrate her devotion to her child? Or would society be better served if the child's mother stopped the fight and explained that fighting is not a productive form of behaviour?
I think if we altered this situation so that the children were battling with knives with the intent to main or kill. Then that would be an appropriate allegory. And in such a case, yes, any true parent would do whatever it takes, even die, protecting their young, until their young can defend and make decisions for themselves.

Japan offered to surender seveal times before the bombs were dropped.
Uh, no they didn’t. The Allies had demanded unconditional surrender for about a year before then, and they would not submit. They trained children to fight with knives and sharpened bamboo sticks. A coup was even going to be staged after the nuclear attacks by military leaders in order to prevent Japan from surrendering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-2005/news/story/334533p-285839c.html

The Viet Nam was killed over 4 million Viet Namese civilians. South Viet Nam was a creation fo the US. And yes, we intentionally bombed and kill civilians. We also intentiaonlly flooded feilds with the intention of causing famine, to weaken the peasent population, because that is where the Viet Cong drew their recruits.
Nope. About 3 million Indochinese (from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were killed in total. These are not just civilians, but include the Viet Cong. The problem with Vietnam is that in the morning, a local could serve you breakfast with a smile on his face, go home, and continue to plot with his family how they would kill US soldiers. Often, the civilians WERE the enemy soldiers, just as the insurgents are in Iraq. This is what causes the problem of civilian casualties, in addition to people blowing up crowds of their fellow civilians.

I already brought up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As I told the other person, if you do not think the droppings of the bomb was founded, tell me now, and I will not longer read your posts on the basis of a complete lack of rationality.

Because, of course, YOUR opinion must be so much more valuable than any other...

Is America worth dying for? Are your family, friends, and neighbors worth dying for? Is the country that nurtured and protected you worth dying for?

I think most Americans would say yes! However that is not what is happening. What is happening is American treasure (young men & women) are dying for Iraq, a country that was not doing anything wrong to America and your president who led American treasure to a war of want and not a war of need. And that is never worth dying for.

I resent that...Are you saying all Californians are like Sheehan? Despite the fact that California is left wing, we aren't all left wing...Our esteemed <insert sarcasm> governor is a right wing politician with little to no political experience...

Nope. I was born in California, however I left as soon as things went down the crapper in the late 80's.

American soldiers do not target civilians. Period. If one does, he will be sitting in Fort Leavenworth for a long long time.

The left in this country must try and make out soldiers to be stupid and poor because it fucks up thier world view to have someone who is even in the middle class want to fight for this country.

I've seen DU listed alot here as well. DU is only effective against armor. Its pointless to use it against infantry, even if they are in hardened postion. Its hasn't been used since the opening days of the war, so how are we littering the country with it?

What Mrs. Sheehan is doing is dishororing the memory of her son. He did agree with her on the issue of the war and now she's using his death to get even. Disgraceful.

Nope. I was born in California, however I left as soon as things went down the crapper in the late 80's.

Who was governor in the 80s? Sorry, I wasn't around at that time...

That seems to be the question. Now if you would ask me whether I'd consider America worth dying for I'd give you a definite... maybe. It depends on the situation. I have no job that currently would require me to lay down my life for a President that I don't respect. That is not the America I'd be willing to die for. I'd be willing to die if I was in a situation where other Americans would be in a direct danger of being harmed and my death or risking my death would actually avert that harm. I would not actively seek out such situations, but if I find myself in such a situation, I might well actually do something (depending on my courage).
Ask me "Would you give your life for America?" and I'll answer "Not all of it."

Whenever I ask for sources I get bloggers with the most credible source being from Fox News. I believe that is the first time anyone has ever put together these words in that combination "the most credible source being from Fox News." Can I trademark that?

Well, I think FOX itself decided that question with their unsuccesful lawsuit against Al Franken.

I think "...the most credible source being FOX news" has a long tradition of use along with such phrases as "strong as an Ox and twice as smart" or the more odious (but not so odious as FOX news) "as fast as a special olympic hurddler."

Fass is anyone going to remember you after you die other than your immediate family and friends? Lets be realistic here. I know who her son is now because of what he did.

No. You know who he is because of his mother drawing your attention to his case. If she had not brought all this attention to Crawford you wouldn't be able to pick his name off of the list. (http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html)

Is America worth dying for? Are your family, friends, and neighbors worth dying for? Is the country that nurtured and protected you worth dying for?

I think most Americans would say yes! However that is not what is happening. What is happening is American treasure (young men & women) are dying for Iraq, a country that was not doing anything wrong to America and your president who led American treasure to a war of want and not a war of need. And that is never worth dying for.

Just curious, how many people that said that America is worth dying for is a soldier or is planning on helping out on the front line?

Indeed it does. Too bad for your argument that was an isolated incident conducted by a single platoon, not under orders or in accordance to Rules of Engagement. Many in the platoon refused to participate.

The man who the government put in charge of the Mi Lai investigation said "this is only what you hear back home. Every unit of batillion size of larger has it's Mi Lai tucked away somewhere." If I can find my book, I'll give you his name. It happened much more then that once. Crops were burned, people shot, villages razed by American GIs throughout the war.

And the guy in charge served a couple of years in jail, then a couple of years house arrest. Pathetic. No one else who took part got any criminal sentence. That is disgusting.

I already brought up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As I told the other person, if you do not think the droppings of the bomb was founded, tell me now, and I will not longer read your posts on the basis of a complete lack of rationality. Laos and Cambodia were attacked by airstrikes to stop the flow of men and shipments for the Viet Cong.

I'll deal with the nuclear attacks below.

Yes, because that was a daily occurrence, right? Such things result mostly from occasional pilot error or ground troops not being properly positioned.

The point being, the bombs go off course much more often then Washington would have you believe. There have been many instances of civilian neibhorhoods being bombed in Iraq, in both the first war and this present invasion.

I already said, precision bombs were used to take out strategic targets and enemy bunkers. As the capital, I think anyone with this wonderful thing called common sense could assume these might exist in Baghdad. Air strikes are often called in by ground troops to take out enemy positions, and may not be as accurate.

His comment was in responce to someone saying that we only bomb rual, out of the way targets with no built up area around it.



Your loyalty should not be determined by what you can destroy, but what you can defend. And in the case of America, what you should be ready to defend is the very principles America was founded on.

O, I am. I am just not ready to kill to do it, because I have a bigger loyalty to God. But as I said, I will defend the priciples America was founded apon, not what it has become.

Generally, it says that the people being put back to work are people that were in the former Iraq military. They even mention an officer who was to be sentenced to death for conspiring against Saddam. By the way, most of those aren’t exactly reputable…much like your last batch.

embers of the Republican Guard and Saddams secret police (who carried out all those nasty things people get mad at Saddam for) have been re-hired by the US occupation. These people are now pulling off finger nail, beating, torturing, mass arresting, and killing guilty and innocent alike for the US, instead of Saddam.





Uh, no they didn’t. The Allies had demanded unconditional surrender for about a year before then, and they would not submit. They trained children to fight with knives and sharpened bamboo sticks. A coup was even going to be staged after the nuclear attacks by military leaders in order to prevent Japan from surrendering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-2005/news/story/334533p-285839c.html

The "unconditional" was the sticking point. Japan offered a few times to surrender with conditions, and each time they asked for less and less, untill the US started nuking civilians (we had been firebombing and blowing up civilians the whole war long), and threatened to do it again.

Nope. About 3 million Indochinese (from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were killed in total. These are not just civilians, but include the Viet Cong. The problem with Vietnam is that in the morning, a local could serve you breakfast with a smile on his face, go home, and continue to plot with his family how they would kill US soldiers. Often, the civilians WERE the enemy soldiers, just as the insurgents are in Iraq. This is what causes the problem of civilian casualties, in addition to people blowing up crowds of their fellow civilians.

From Wikipedia:
"Civilian Casualties: c. 2—4 million" Sorry, it was not over 4 million, but neither was it 3 million total, including combatants. So we were both wrong.

The point being, there were an extremely high number of civilian casualties. And most civilian casualties were caused by US bombs and starvation resulting therein of.

Just curious, how many people that said that America is worth dying for is a soldier or is planning on helping out on the front line?

I think that is a two part question really.

1) Would you die to protect America?

or

2) Would you be willing to die for another county such as Iraq that had nothing to do with protecting America?

Israel fires machine guns at school children tauntung tanks. Israel comes in with helecopters and missles and kills hundrends.

Israel hardly wears a white hat.

Israel doesen't kill innocent civilians diliberatly. Any soldiers who do are tried for it and punished.

The IDF Code of Conduct against terrorists number one rule is "Military action can only be taken against military targets."

Its eleventh rule is "Soldiers must report all violations of this code."

American soldiers do not target civilians. Period. If one does, he will be sitting in Fort Leavenworth for a long long time.

The left in this country must try and make out soldiers to be stupid and poor because it fucks up thier world view to have someone who is even in the middle class want to fight for this country.

I've seen DU listed alot here as well. DU is only effective against armor. Its pointless to use it against infantry, even if they are in hardened postion. Its hasn't been used since the opening days of the war, so how are we littering the country with it?

What Mrs. Sheehan is doing is dishororing the memory of her son. He did agree with her on the issue of the war and now she's using his death to get even. Disgraceful.

Amen...

+1

I will not sacrifice my children upon the altar of your ideology!
That's in your signature? Was it originally said by Cindy Sheehan?

Israel doesen't kill innocent civilians diliberatly.

That's pretty subjective, sure it's what is known as "collateral damage" but just because they have a policy that says you don't "deliberately" kill civilians that doesn't mean they don't know it's going to happen. So when push comes to shove, is there really a difference? Perhaps in semantics, but other than that, I would say no.

I think that is a two part question really.

1) Would you die to protect America?

or

2) Would you be willing to die for another county such as Iraq that had nothing to do with protecting America?

No, I'm actually asking are you enlisted or planning on enlisting in the Armed Forces...Everyone already stated whether or not they wanted to die for America or whatever country that they are part of...I just wanted to know how many people are gonna risk their lives on the front line...It's not a hypothetical question...

Israel doesen't kill innocent civilians diliberatly. Any soldiers who do are tried for it and punished.

The IDF Code of Conduct against terrorists number one rule is "Military action can only be taken against military targets."

Its eleventh rule is "Soldiers must report all violations of this code."

But that's not always how it happens.

No, I'm actually asking are you enlisted or planning on enlisting in the Armed Forces...Everyone already stated whether or not they wanted to die for America or whatever country that they are part of...I just wanted to know how many people are gonna risk their lives on the front line...It's not a hypothetical question...

Well, I'm a married woman with two small (young) children and I'm 36, so unless someone actually attacked my country, I doubt I would be able to enlist nor would I want to. However, if someone attacked my country (Which is Canada btw) I would take up arms in a New York minute and fight the bastards off.

However, I agree with Sheehan and what she is doing, the war in Iraq has been proven to be a debacle, it's time for Dubya to pony up!

That's pretty subjective, sure it's what is known as "collateral damage" but just because they have a policy that says you don't "deliberately" kill civilians that doesn't mean they don't know it's going to happen. So when push comes to shove, is there really a difference? Perhaps in semantics, but other than that, I would say no.

True. But shooting school children is deliberate killing. It might happen, but those who do it are tried as criminals.

But that's not always how it happens.

But its whats supposed to happen and usally does. There have been cases of troops of all nations ignoring their rules and commiting crimes and sheltering those who commit crimes. Its unfair to accuse one nation of it when it has been happening in military for ever.

Israel tries its criminals. It doesen't just let them off.

Well, I'm a married women with two small (young) children and I'm 36, so unless someone actually attacked my country, I doubt I would be able to enlist nor would I want to. However, if someone attacked my country (Which is Canada btw) I would take up arms in a New York minute and fight the bastards off.

However, I agree with Sheehan and what she is doing, the war in Iraq has been proven to be a debacle, it's time for Dubya to pony up!

Thanks, Stephistan! I really appreciate your honesty, but I'm confused by the fact that a lot of people are flaming Sheehan and saying that America is worth dying for when all I see are words and no action...I'm even more puzzled by the fact as to why Bush isn't on the front line...He's the commander-in-chief and it's his war...

But its whats supposed to happen and usally does. There have been cases of troops of all nations ignoring their rules and commiting crimes and sheltering those who commit crimes. Its unfair to accuse one nation of it when it has been happening in military for ever.Not really. It would be wrong to only accuse one nation...
If said nation claims to be defending certain values though, then it deserves double the scrutiny, especially if you are a citizen of said country. It's probably why I don't rant about the Chinese military that much. They're worse, but I'm not Chinese.

[as are the rest]...you are either apparently intent on bending other people’s words, or simply can’t read.No twisting of words occurred and I read very well, thank you. If you don't recognize (or don't want to claim) what you've written when it is reflected back to you, you perhaps should re-examine what and how you express your thoughts.

...Does US military doctrine advocate or direct firepower to the killing of civilians? No.There is always a gap between doctrine and actuality. In addition, the original comment I was responding to didn't limit itself to official military doctrine. Should we exclude actions of the CIA and other black ops from the "no civilians" statement? I did notice however, that you didn't deny the prevarication the US is willing to engage in in order to justify its military goals.

...While their fields and oil are under US control, they are not being taken and used, but instead being left for whenever Iraq can defend itself. Otherwise our prices would be much lower. As for your wonderful imagery of dancing Saudis, perhaps you can give an actual answer instead of trying to dodge the question.I should point out that you set up the original straw man by suggesting the agenda for attacking Iraq was the aquisition of Iraqi oil. Control of Iraqi oil doesn't require acquisition. Colorful metaphor is dodging the question? The absence of the Iraqi oil in the world market is only a minor contributor to the high price of crude and has even less to do with the high price of gasoline in the US. Processing bottlenecks and fear of widespread Middle East war (triggering wild speculation on the futures market) have more to do with the cost at this time.

...most of Canada was British territory ... It remained this way for a great period of time until Britain allowed it to peacefully separate Um, that was the point. To recap: You: Rah rah Independence War. OyeOye: Not for the slaves. You: If we hadn't have won, we'd all be slaves. Which is silly. Had the US lost the War of Independence, the British would have come down on us like a ton of bricks, true. But slavery for all? Not a chance.

Did I say that? No. Yes, yes you did. "That is why the US created and executed the plan for D-Day" were your exact words. The Normandy invasion was a cooperative effort from the planning stages to the execution. It's chest-puffery like yours that pisses the rest of the world off at the US.

Does that mean that the US waited for these countries to be destroyed before entering [WWII] You didn't actually read what I wrote did you? I did not say I supported Oye Oye's contention as to why the US delayed entry. But your initial contention that the US didn't wait until after other countries had been overrun was patently false. Your reference to the Monroe Doctrine is irrelevant in the context and specious in the abstract. The Monroe Doctrine is trotted out when the US doesn't want to get involved and conveniently ignored when we do.

I think that unless the US invasion is an absolute failure and things fall back to how they were before, we can safely assume that it will be better now. And that's mighty white of us. An absolute failure by whose definition? The fact that consideration is being given to incorporating sharia into the new constitution alone points to things being much worse than they were. That Iraq is far closer to civil war now than before the invasion points to things being worse. Is Vietnam better or worse off for our intervention?

Tsk Nazz. Here's a link for you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-gelernter19aug19,1,4017629.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&track=mostemailedlink


Here's the problem with your source--David Gelertner, who wrote the op-ed, is quoting FrontPage magazine, which is run by David Horowitz, and I wouldn't trust Horowitz to tell me the sky is blue, because he's a dirtbag liar and has been for decades. If there's another source that doesn't involve Horowitz, I'd love to see it.

And here's where I'm going to get flamed.

The America we live in right now is not worth dying for, because it's a sham, a shadow of what it should be. What we have done in the last five years as a nation is despicable, and were I to leave the country on vacation, I would do everything I could to downplay my nationality. I am ashamed of my government right now, and of the 51% of the voters who voted for George W. Bush. You people have blood on your hands--American and Iraqi blood--that you will never be able to cleanse yourselves of, and you've made me dirty by association, and I will never forgive you for that.

You have made me a murderer by association. You have made us all murderers, because the rest of the world does not look at us as Democrats and Republicans--they look at us as Americans, and they see America as a despotic, imperialistic, short-sighted, greedy, hypocritical country.

And they're right to do so, because that's exactly what we are.

The worst part of it is that we should not be this way. If we lived up to the standards we set for ourselves in our founding documents, we'd be a hell of a country, one with the moral high ground to demand better of the rest of the world. But we don't, and more's the shame for us.

Just curious, how many people that said that America is worth dying for is a soldier or is planning on helping out on the front line?

i did say that america was worth dying for, i am a soldier and I was on the front lines in Iraq.

Here's the problem with your source--David Gelertner, who wrote the op-ed, is quoting FrontPage magazine, which is run by David Horowitz, and I wouldn't trust Horowitz to tell me the sky is blue, because he's a dirtbag liar and has been for decades. If there's another source that doesn't involve Horowitz, I'd love to see it.Theres another problem with it. It's an editorial. Editiorials are known for being opinions, not facts and I don't consider them sources (which is why I'll spend a whole lot of time on finding a reliable source that supports my opinion or change my mind...)

Theres another problem with it. It's an editorial. Editiorials are known for being opinions, not facts and I don't consider them sources (which is why I'll spend a whole lot of time on finding a reliable source that supports my opinion or change my mind...)
I've no problem taking a second-party quote from an editorial, if it's from a reputable source. FrontPage magazine is not a reputable source.

Here's an example of FrontPage's ethical problems. David Horowitz challenged Michael Berube to a debate via email, with the public pledge to post the debate, in its entirety, on the FrontPage site. He then cut two-thirds of Berube's response, posted it, and then chided Berube for not going into greater detail on his answer. Berube had kept copies of the email exchange, and then posted them on his website. Horowitz was busted as being a lying sack of shit. So I have my reasons for distrusting anything he has to say.

Now if anyone can come up with another source for that quote other than a highly partisan or one with a record of dishonesty, I'll take another look at it, but not the way it currently stands.

And I stand by my latter statements in that post.

Here's the problem with your source--David Gelertner, who wrote the op-ed, is quoting FrontPage magazine, which is run by David Horowitz, and I wouldn't trust Horowitz to tell me the sky is blue, because he's a dirtbag liar and has been for decades. If there's another source that doesn't involve Horowitz, I'd love to see it.

And here's where I'm going to get flamed.

The America we live in right now is not worth dying for, because it's a sham, a shadow of what it should be. What we have done in the last five years as a nation is despicable, and were I to leave the country on vacation, I would do everything I could to downplay my nationality. I am ashamed of my government right now, and of the 51% of the voters who voted for George W. Bush. You people have blood on your hands--American and Iraqi blood--that you will never be able to cleanse yourselves of, and you've made me dirty by association, and I will never forgive you for that.

You have made me a murderer by association. You have made us all murderers, because the rest of the world does not look at us as Democrats and Republicans--they look at us as Americans, and they see America as a despotic, imperialistic, short-sighted, greedy, hypocritical country.

And they're right to do so, because that's exactly what we are.

The worst part of it is that we should not be this way. If we lived up to the standards we set for ourselves in our founding documents, we'd be a hell of a country, one with the moral high ground to demand better of the rest of the world. But we don't, and more's the shame for us.

I agree 100%

starts a slow clap

starts a slow clapAdds to it:
clap

i did say that america was worth dying for, i am a soldier and I was on the front lines in Iraq.


Thanks! I appreciate your honesty as well. It's good to see that some people are still as good as their word.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were required to end the Second World War. Without them, US military estimates were that there would be 500,000 - 1,000,000 US casualties, and 10,000,000 - 13,000,000 Japanese dead. If you still think it is an atrocity, tell me now, so I can skip over the rest of your posts as they will not be deemed rational enough to put time into reading.


A quick question. If terrorists determined that killing one America in America caused the same amount of political will for capitulation as twenty soldiers in Iraq, would they then be morally justified in attacking civilian targets over millitary ones?

A quick question. If terrorists determined that killing one America in America caused the same amount of political will for capitulation as twenty soldiers in Iraq, would they then be morally justified in attacking civilian targets over millitary ones?Ooh! Good point.

A quick question. If terrorists determined that killing one America in America caused the same amount of political will for capitulation as twenty soldiers in Iraq, would they then be morally justified in attacking civilian targets over millitary ones?If you are saying that the TERRORISTS are a recognized Nation, with a standing Army of their Citizens, then yes. For we would be in a state of TRUE WAR with them. and thus any American caught working for the ENEMY will be tried as Treason and then the normal punnishments for TREASON would be adhered to. As well as there would then be proper treatment of Prisoners on both sides.

And realize also, them bombing us will be justified, but so will us bombing them. and if you think the US has show all that it can do, you are wrong. what we can do during a state of TRUE WAR (not this sophmoric war on terror,) with another Nation, is much much worse.

If you are saying that the TERRORISTS are a recognized Nation, with a standing Army of their Citizens, then yes.So Iraq isn't (or better wasn't) a terrorist nation before?
For we would be in a state of TRUE WAR with them. and thus any American caught working for the ENEMY will be tried as Treason and then the normal punnishments for TREASON would be adhered to.Like? The only instance that comes to mind is the guy that fought for the Taliban, and I consider him a traitor. (Not that I'd want him executed though. I'm not for the death penalty)
As well as there would then be proper treatment of Prisoners on both sides.Just like in WW2...
And realize also, them bombing us will be justified, but so will us bombing them. and if you think the US has show all that it can do, you are wrong. what we can do during a state of TRUE WAR (not this sophmoric war on terror,) with another Nation, is much much worse."We'll bomb them back to the stone age" sure sounds like they weren't trying...
I suppose bombing the Vietnamese was acceptable, since it was a "true war" and the war on terror isn't (which was probably why Bush called it a "war" because he thinks it isn't and it's why he gets called a "war-president" because he actually isn't) since we "had to destroy their cities to save them".

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.
May I marry you.

I'd love nothing more than going down in a hail of fire, but taking down a dozen insurgents or communists or Neo-Nazi rebels with me.

May I marry you.

I'd love nothing more than going down in a hail of fire, but taking down a dozen insurgents or communists or Neo-Nazi rebels with me.

My guess is that you've never been in a real fight.

Here's the problem with your source--David Gelertner, who wrote the op-ed, is quoting FrontPage magazine, which is run by David Horowitz, and I wouldn't trust Horowitz to tell me the sky is blue, because he's a dirtbag liar and has been for decades. If there's another source that doesn't involve Horowitz, I'd love to see it.
.


The only other source I've found is the actual transcript of the Cindy Sheehan speech which i provided a link to earlier in this thread.

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.


Was that a Cheap shot at My country? (United Kingdom)

The only other source I've found is the actual transcript of the Cindy Sheehan speech which i provided a link to earlier in this thread.
Which is from Dirtbag Horowitz. Sorry--I need something better than that. According to Horowitz's site, this was a rally attended by all manner of left-wing radicals. So why isn't there a transcript from 1) a news source, 2) one of the left-leaning groups who was there, 3) another right-wing source who could act as weak corroboration, or 4) anyone else at all?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, or that Sheehan didn't say those words--I wasn't there, and I don't know. But I don't believe Horowitz for a second, because he's a dishonest hack who lies regularly about anyone who disagrees with him or his views.

I’m against the war, but this women has always rubbed me the wrong way. The truth is, she always disagreed with her son politically, and the boy’s step-mom and dad raised him, not her, and now she says something like this? The United States of America is worth dieing to preserve. I don’t think that that is what is going on in Iraq, but for her to say that the country isn’t ever worth dieing for puts the whole situation into a new light. I pity her and her desperate attention grabbing. I really do.

I’m against the war, but this women has always rubbed me the wrong way. The truth is, she always disagreed with her son politically, and the boy’s step-mom and dad raised him, not her, and now she says something like this? The United States of America is worth dieing to preserve. I don’t think that that is what is going on in Iraq, but for her to say that the country isn’t ever worth dieing for puts the whole situation into a new light. I pity her and her desperate attention grabbing. I really do.She agrees with you. Somewhere in the thread someone posted what they cut out of her statement. It was basically about doing whatever it took if we were actually attacked, but that that wasn't the case.

fuck america I hate it here when I get enough money I'm moving to holland

fuck america I hate it here when I get enough money I'm moving to holland

Well good luck to you, and I'm just going to leave it at that.

America's a great country, the best in the world, although I don't think it's worth dying for. Of course there are plenty of people who do, and there's certainly nothing wrong with loving your country to that extent.
But part of what gets me about Iraq is that the US troops there are not risking their lives for America. The troops in Afghanastan who are killed died for America. The killed soldiers in WW2 gave their lives for America. The soldiers in Iraq are being used as tools to inflate Bush's ego.

And I'm really getting sick of all this bashing against the poor lady. One thing that is undeniably worth fighting for is friends and family, and she is campaigning for the sake of everyone with friends and family in the military who may be sent over for something as needless as the Iraq war. And all the power to her for it.

fuck america I hate it here when I get enough money I'm moving to hollanddon't forget to renounce your Citizenship with a noterized letter, signed and witnessed. After all, you probably don't want any ties with the US when you're overseas.

i did say that america was worth dying for, i am a soldier and I was on the front lines in Iraq.

My guess is that you're not rich.

How many national-level politicians have children in Iraq? How many soldiers in active areas are from very rich backgrounds?

It seems to me that the rich, white power elite steer this country to their benefit at the expense of the poor (and often minority). It also appears that their conditioning of the population is pretty effective, with many people (though no longer the majority) fanatical and loud in their support of the war, even though they qoute reasons that are simply rehashed propoganda and trite, trendy patriotism open to frequent change (remember when it was about WMDs?). The thinking population is supposed to believe the current state of affairs is a good thing, or that it even has something to somehow do with "dying for our country"? And, of course, the lies and manipulation, and the rich ruling the poor, is only human nature and certainly is not new. However, I do hate being lied to, and I dislike seeing the sheep "run the show" (for now).

For the record, I'm handicapped so I can't serve; however, I'm from an Army family. My grandpa was a colonel, and fought in the Battle of the Bulge and Normandy Beach. My uncle fought in Vietnam. My brother served MI in Korea. My cousin is a Ranger currently stationed in Iraq.

I'm not against military; I just really wish our leaders would use our soldiers responsibly, instead of for bullshit rhetoric that their families never feel the full effects of.

fuck america I hate it here when I get enough money I'm moving to holland

It's nice and considerate of you to wish that we never have to go without sex ^_^

But honestly, I never can figure out what people have against the place... the government isn't great, but they're a lot better than what some other places have (although I admit total ignorance toward Holland... I understand it is a nice place, but I have no clue about much of it) and government aside it's an amazing place. Although we're all entitled to our own opinions...

Links to articles are a plus!

Cindy Sheehan Steps Into the Leadership Void
Thu Aug 11.

During my many years as a writer, I’ve interviewed hundreds of people. But talking with Cindy Sheehan this morning was unlike any conversation I’ve ever had. Even though we were talking via cell phone -- and had a crummy, staticky connection at that -- her authenticity and passion reached through the receiver and both touched my heart and punched me in the gut.

She spoke with a combination of utter determination, unassailable integrity, fearlessness, and the peace of someone who knows that their cause is just. Her commitment was palpable -- and infectious. It reminded me an old quote about the great Greek orators: “When Pericles spoke, the people said, ‘How well he speaks.’ But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, ‘Let us march!’”

That’s the feeling I got from this former Catholic youth minister. She of the floppy hat and the six foot frame (though she’s standing even taller than that these days). A woman driven by faith and conviction who used to think that one person couldn’t make a difference and is learning otherwise. Her humanity stands in stark contrast to the inhumanity of those who refuse to admit their mistakes and continue to send our young men and women to die in Iraq.

She may not be the kind of media figure the cable news channels would order up from newsmaker central, a la Natalee Holloway. But she is the kind of unexpected leader I’ve been writing about for years. One who springs not from the corridors of power, but from among the people. One who may come from Vacaville, California, but who makes nonsense of red state/blue state distinctions.

The time has passed when we can stand around waiting for a knight on a white horse to ride to our rescue. We’ve got to look to ourselves -- to the leader in the mirror. Our elected officials have woefully failed to provide the leadership needed on this most vital issue of our time. And stepping into that void is Cindy Sheehan. Inspiring us. Touching our conscience. Calling forth our courage and our commitment. Focusing our outrage. And acting as a catalyst for the tens of millions of Americans who know that the war in Iraq is a disgrace.

Who knows, her example might even be just the thing to give Hillary and Harry and the rest of the Democratic leaders the spine transplant they so desperately need. But don’t hold your breath. Instead, use it to show your support for Cindy Sheehan -- and for our troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050811/cm_huffpost/005480_200508111708

She agrees with you. Somewhere in the thread someone posted what they cut out of her statement. It was basically about doing whatever it took if we were actually attacked, but that that wasn't the case.
Aright then. I still don’t like her. I get feelings about people that are hard to change. To me, she's an attention whore.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.I agreeyou neoCons talking shit about the Brits...and other Europeans.
Only cos they dont agree with your war.

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.

-Wilhelm Stekel, Psychoanalyst

Patton would have been ashamed of the bunch of you "worth dying for" people. After all, didn't he say that the objective of war wasn't to die for your country but to make the other guy die? Tsk. He probably would have kicked the lot of you out of his army. Or sent you on suicidal jobs.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]Cindy Sheehan pisses on her son's grave and the american media just eats it up. And the left thinks it's the greatest thing ever.

I especially love how the party of hate AMerica, hate the church, hate the cross is all upset because a sham memorial they set up was destroyed. Hypocrites.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]
Did Sheehan actually say the words that you used as the title for this thread? I can't seem to find any credible news links with that title, leaving me to suspect that right wing extremists are trying to sensationalize the matter.

What she should say though is this:

Mr. President, Oil Isn't Worth Dying For (http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1123-06.htm)

Did Sheehan actually say the words that you used as the title for this thread? I can't seem to find any credible news links with that title, leaving me to suspect that right wing extremists are trying to sensationalize the matter.

What she should say though is this:

Mr. President, Oil Isn't Worth Dying For (http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1123-06.htm)
She said it, and she will say it again. She is as anti-american as anyone on the left in this nation.

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Patton would have been ashamed of the bunch of you "worth dying for" people. After all, didn't he say that the objective of war wasn't to die for your country but to make the other guy die? Tsk. He probably would have kicked the lot of you out of his army. Or sent you on suicidal jobs.
He said it the object of war was to kill the other guy, true. I think you’ve misunderstood what people mean when they say they are willing to die for their country. Dieing for your country isn’t something you want to do, but it’s something you would do if you had to.

She is as anti-american as anyone on the left in this nation.

Oh, then she's OK then, a true patriot.

'cause those of us on the left look at the right-wing tools of big buisiness as the real anti-americans.

He said it the object of war was to kill the other guy, true. I think you’ve misunderstood what people mean when they say they are willing to die for their country. Dieing for your country isn’t something you want to do, but it’s something you would do if you had to.


I don't think that's really the point of Patton's quote. When he said that the object is to make the other poor $!*%^## die for his country. He's just trying to say none of our people should have the thought of death in our minds. We should think of ourselves as near invincible and carry out operations that way.

Oh, then she's OK then, a true patriot.

'cause those of us on the left look at the right-wing tools of big buisiness as the real anti-americans.

She's not a patriot. She's poisoning our minds with this Bush killed my son junk. She and the left wing are making this country weak and unwilling to take action when we really need to.

What so wrong about being anti-American?

I don't think that's really the point of Patton's quote. When he said that the object is to make the other poor $!*%^## die for his country. He's just trying to say none of our people should have the thought of death in our minds. We should think of ourselves as near invincible and carry out operations that way.
When I was in the Marines, I never fought for America. I fought for the Marines to the left and right of me. I am not willing to die for my country, only for those fighting alongside me.
Many of us have become increasingly disillusioned about what we fought for in Iraq. We were told that Saddam had WMD's, was a grave threat to the United States, and had been closely cooperating with bin Laden. Over two years after we invaded, those things are speculation. It seems that the government created a case for war that fell on it's face, so they had to shift tactics to a "we did it to free the Iraqi people." WHile I was over there, I met civilians who were making over one hundred dollars an hour, tax-free, doing things like garbage collection. If thier companies were paying them that much from the no-bid contracts that the government had awarded them, then I shudder to think about how big those contracts must have been. And it is no coincidence that as the months went by, we began to see more and more oil rigs, trucks and pipelines in operation, mostly staffed by Americans. So people started making money, big money off of the deaths of my friends and God only knows how many Iraqi civilians. I still don't knwo how to feel about alot of it, the waste, terror and desolation, but I get angrier as every day goes by.

What so wrong about being anti-American?


Are you serious?...

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]
Well, if you're so convinced, how come you aren't writing this from Iraq?

She's not a patriot. She's poisoning our minds with this Bush killed my son junk. She's and the left wing are making this country weak and unwilling to take action when we really need to.Gimme a freakin break...when we need to?... or when it's profitable for the right people?

Whats weak is the minds of people who actually buy into that crap you just posted.

She said it, and she will say it again. She is as anti-american as anyone on the left in this nation.

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Bad boy. Incomplete quote. *smacks head*

This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.


He said it the object of war was to kill the other guy, true. I think you’ve misunderstood what people mean when they say they are willing to die for their country. Dieing for your country isn’t something you want to do, but it’s something you would do if you had to.

Which is still something that shouldn't be done. That's fatalism, accepting death when there might be a way to get around it. That kind of thinking gets people killed.

I may not be sure, but I think Patton had this kind of mentality. "You fight where I tell you to fight, but you bastards better come back alive or I'll kill the whole lot of you."

Emphasis on the alive part.

Are you serious?...
Read the siggy. There's only something wrong about being anti-Sinitic, not anti-American. :D

Well, if you're so convinced, how come you aren't writing this from Iraq?Well to start with I believe E is pushing 60.... but we get your drift.

Many of us have become increasingly disillusioned about what we fought for in Iraq. We were told that Saddam had WMD's, was a grave threat to the United States, and had been closely cooperating with bin Laden. Over two years after we invaded, those things are speculation. It seems that the government created a case for war that fell on it's face, so they had to shift tactics to a "we did it to free the Iraqi people."


It's unfortunate that the liberal media is full conspiracy theorists that decide that the government just decided to have a war without good reasons. Our government has talked to Iraqi scientist defectors that have told us of WMD's and big operations on making them. AND Saddam has even used WMD's in the past. Clinton new he had them but he was too much of a wimp to take neccessary action. Bush was aware of this threat and took action. The scary part is we DIDN"T find any. The question isn't if he had them because that's already been proven. The question is where did they go?

It's unfortunate that the liberal media is full conspiracy theorists that decide that the government just decided to have a war without good reasons. Our government has talked to Iraqi scientist defectors that have told us of WMD's and big operations on making them. AND Saddam has even used WMD's in the past. Clinton new he had them but he was too much of a wimp to take neccessary action. Bush was aware of this threat and took action. The scary part is we DIDN"T find any. The question isn't if he had them because that's already been proven. The question is where did they go?
Anybody else smell a troll?

Read the siggy. There's only something wrong about being anti-Sinitic, not anti-American. :D


There is something wrong with being anti-American because it hurts our country. Though i guess if you're anti-American you wouldn't care about that.

Anybody else smell a troll?

I see a tape recording. Trolls usually have a bit more imagination.

I am sick unto death of this woman mocking the memory of her own son and making comments like this about the Country for which he gave his life. This is just dispicable. I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. My family lives here. Most of my friends who are still alive live here. Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?

We're all going to die someday. Far, far better, IMHO, to die for something worthwhile than to kill yourself through reckless or drunk driving, suicide, smoking yourself to death, or any one of a thousand other ways of ending your life in a totally worthless manner. A man's or woman's life should count for something.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable flaming. ]

By the way, how DARE you put words in Cindy's mouth...she never said this country wasn't worth dying for...she said this particular war (Iraq) was not worth dying for. And, I have to agree.

By the way, how DARE you put words in Cindy's mouth...she never said this country wasn't worth dying for...she said this particular war (Iraq) was not worth dying for. And, I have to agree.


Why is this war not worth dying for?

There's a difference between dying for a just cause like defending your country (which in the case of the Iraq war does not apply) or dying because the President made very unwise decisions and (the American) people have to suffer from it.

The counterexamples you gave are at the far end of the scale as well, reaching the stupidity levels.

All in all, I strongly believe that it is worth much more living for something than dying for it.

Besides, as much as you dislike that mother voicing her opinion - as far as I'm concerned, she has every right to say whatever she likes - just as much as it is yours to disagree with her and to not listen to what she has to say. Freedom of speech goes both ways!


Actually, freedom of speech actually belongs more to Cindy than anyone else in this case. Freedom of Speech was intended to protect unpopular sppech. by definition, popular speech needs no protection.

She said it, and she will say it again. She is as anti-american as anyone on the left in this nation.

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for." (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)
"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq

Ummm, I think she is referring to Iraq not worth dying for, not America. That is how it reads to me.

BTW, your source is not exactly unbiased?

Why is this war not worth dying for?Why don't you join up and find out for yourself? You seem to be just what uncle Sam is looking for these days.

I am not aware much of the ranting of Mrs. Sheehan as I really don't pay attention to left wing lunatics who encourage people to betray their own country.

so now, asking Bush to answer a few tough questions, and to be honest, and accept accountability for his policies/actions is tantamount to "betraying your country?" Fascinating definition of "betraying your country."

Doesn't seem like when you guys were asking CLINTON to accept accountability for HIS actions, you thought that was "betraying your country!"

WTF IS IT with these goddamn Bush supporters, anyway?!?! You can't EVER criticize their guy, or hold him accountable for jack-shit, and if you try to, suddenly, you are an "America-hater" you are a "terrorist" you are "betraying your country" I mean, WTF gives here?

Goddamn, I though REAGAN was the fucking Teflon President...seems loike with Bush, here, not only is he Teflon, but they sparyed his ass with PAM Cooking Spray on top of the fucking Teflon!!

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

Who the hell EVER said there were NO circumstances in which the U.S, was worth dying for? I don't think Cindy ever said that. If she did, then prove it. If ANYONE ever did, then prove it.

I think if we were nuked, invaded, or attacked by a foreign power, damn well it would be worth dying for to go after them. Which is why I supported Afghanistan. I'd support action against North Korea. but not Iraq. That whole bunch of bullshit should be called "Operation Anigo Montoya!!"

Dubya: "He tried to kill my Daddy!!"

By the way, how DARE you put words in Cindy's mouth...she never said this country wasn't worth dying for...she said this particular war (Iraq) was not worth dying for. And, I have to agree.
"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Save your indignation and your righteous anger.:rolleyes: What a joke. She did say America was not worth dying for.

The President has created the media frenzy, not Cindy. If he had just met with her form the beginning, this would not be the circus that it is now. Because of his hubris he now has a much bigger problem on his hands.

Another Bush FUBAR.

Adding to the FUBAR is the over zealous rightists who think "freedom of speech" should only be in the domain of certain individuals?

All the hatred towards Cindy by the right wingers adds fuel to the fire, making this simple protest, much larger than life. And outsiders can only shake their heads in utter disbelief.

Ur Patrioism (Or However u spell it, im dyslexic) Is commendable,
But The Truth Is Your Loyal To America Caus Thats Where You Live/Were Born And U happen to be born in america, a real crap country, so sux 4 u

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

Hmm...before long these same people will be saying "Anyone who does not agree with OUR political ideology (right wing) has no right to call themselves a citizen...."

Nice to know someone put you in charge of deciding who get to be a citizen. Do you also get the power to strip people of their citizenship?

Please, tell me your real name, so I can make sure you NEVER get any political power in this country. Thanks!

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq

Ummm, I think she is referring to Iraq not worth dying for, not America. That is how it reads to me.

BTW, your source is not exactly unbiased?Only a Canadian would think an exact quote is biased.

Idiotic.

Memorials and monuments are ways of honoring and remembering fallen soldiers. Last time I checked...yep we got those.

Indeed. And last I checked, a bunch of memorial crosses were mowed down by a pick up truck trailing chains and pipes. Larry Northern, anyone?

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Save your indignation and your righteous anger.:rolleyes: What a joke. She did say America was not worth dying for.Read your own source numbnuts...I didn't see any mention of America...you took the sentence out of context, she was refering to Iraq.

Pwned!!

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Save your indignation and your righteous anger.:rolleyes: What a joke. She did say America was not worth dying for.
Again, that is not how it reads to me, and obviously others feel the same way:

I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq".

You obviously want to feed your own anger and promote hatred?

Read your own source numbnuts...I didn't see any mention of America...you took the sentence out of context, she was refering to Iraq.

Pwned!!
You are only saying that she was referring to Iraq because that is what you so desperately wish.

Pwned!!!

The President has created the media frenzy, not Cindy. If he had just met with her form the beginning, this would not be the circus that it is now. Because of his hubris he now has a much bigger problem on his hands.
To be fair, he did meet with her once before. How many times have you met with your nation’s top executive (or barring that, a similar top-ranking position)?
Adding to the FUBAR is the over zealous rightists who think "freedom of speech" should only be in the domain of certain individuals?

If Ciny has a right to protest, right wingers have a right to say they don’t think she should.

You obviously want to feed your own anger and promote hatred?
Says the master of Hate Speech.

The President has created the media frenzy, not Cindy. If he had just met with her form the beginning, this would not be the circus that it is now. Because of his hubris he now has a much bigger problem on his hands.

Another Bush FUBAR.

Adding to the FUBAR is the over zealous rightists who think "freedom of speech" should only be in the domain of certain individuals?

All the hatred towards Cindy by the right wingers adds fuel to the fire, making this simple protest, much larger than life. And outsiders can only shake their heads in utter disbelief.


He already did meet with her along with many other families. He doesn't need to meet with her again just so that she can make a bunch of accusations against him into his face.

Hmm...before long these same people will be saying "Anyone who does not agree with OUR political ideology (right wing) has no right to call themselves a citizen...."

Nice to know someone put you in charge of deciding who get to be a citizen. Do you also get the power to strip people of their citizenship?

Please, tell me your real name, so I can make sure you NEVER get any political power in this country. Thanks!
What are you talking about "before long." Limbaugh said, about a week ago, that if we got rid of people who talked against the country, we'd get rid of half the Democratic party. The insinuation, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with the Republicans is anti-American, to which I reply, "say that to my face, fucker, and see how many teeth you swallow."

Only a Canadian would think an exact quote is biased.

Idiotic.
I really don't want to get into a pissing match with you, but if you are going to quote someone, you should endeavour to preserve the exact meaning of the statement. In the example you have provided, you have totally misused the quote.

BTW, the bias I was referring to relates to the origin of the quote, or haven't you figured that out yet?

What are you talking about "before long." Limbaugh said, about a week ago, that if we got rid of people who talked against the country, we'd get rid of half the Democratic party. The insinuation, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with the Republicans is anti-American, to which I reply, "say that to my face, fucker, and see how many teeth you swallow." :eek:
HAHAHA, tough guy.

So the U.S. has never knowingly targeted innocent civilians?

Bullshit.
At least twice that I know of.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki.

Do they ring bells, anyone?

:eek:
HAHAHA, tough guy.
Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I don't know how to throw down. I was a bartender/bouncer in a redneck bar in south Louisiana all through college. I can handle myself.

He already did meet with her along with many other families. He doesn't need to meet with her again just so that she can make a bunch of accusations against him into his face.
You are correct, and he proved his point, much to his chagrin.

Now he has another raging forest fire, started with a modest spark. Well done Bush.

Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I don't know how to throw down. I was a bartender/bouncer in a redneck bar in south Louisiana all through college. I can handle myself.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH... :eek:


Surrender to the violent impulses.

Bullshit.
At least twice that I know of.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki.

Do they ring bells, anyone?


Do you ever wonder why we didn't pick a more devistating drop point like Tokyo? It's because there we less people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The military is always trying to kill as few innocent people as possible. They're not as stupid as you may think.

I can critisize the temporal nation of Israel without hating Judiesm and Jewish people. I have many Jewish friends, in fact, some of which are quite opposed to Israel's policies.



True, I'm sorry. It was more a reaction to society mixing the two, not the spacific situation.



Japan offered to surender seveal times before the bombs were dropped.



Also, in the deaths of a Cuban construction crew building an airfeild. Granada was about preventing a sovern nation from outsourcing to Cuba.




I don't know much about this incident, so I'm just ganna have to take your word for it untill I can do some reaserch to either conferm or refute it.




The Viet Nam was killed over 4 million Viet Namese civilians. South Viet Nam was a creation fo the US. And yes, we intentionally bombed and kill civilians. We also intentiaonlly flooded feilds with the intention of causing famine, to weaken the peasent population, because that is where the Viet Cong drew their recruits.




Israel fires machine guns at school children tauntung tanks. Israel comes in with helecopters and missles and kills hundrends.

Israel has killed 4 times the number of civilians as Palistine has, and sets up illegal settlements in Palestinian land.


Israel hardly wears a white hat.

You must also hate the Israelis because they can also spell ...

That land belongs to Israel, the helicopter strikes are comparitively precision operations. As for the four times over number, one would think a very large number of the Palestinian deaths are militants attempting to kill Israelis, or those killed actively engaging the Israeli military. Again, the Palestinians specifically target civilians...moreover...Palestine is not a nation...

To be fair, he did meet with her once before. How many times have you met with your nation’s top executive (or barring that, a similar top-ranking position)?
By the looks of things, it appears that he should have met with her again?

If Ciny has a right to protest, right wingers have a right to say they don’t think she should.
Absolutely. The only problem is that so much anger and hatred is being vetted in rebuttal that America ends up looking like the land of the intolerants rather than the upholders of democracy and freedom of speech.

Note: just the view from the outside.

By the looks of things, it appears that he should have met with her again?


Absolutely. The only problem is that so much anger and hatred is being vetted in rebuttal that America ends up looking like the land of the intolerants rather than the upholders of democracy and freedom of speech.

Note: just the view from the outside.


Meeting with her again will do nothing except allow her to scream at Bush. What good does that do?

Both sides of the argument could try to figure out how one single person can stir up controversy like this. Anyone wanna propose a theory?

Cindy Sheehan pisses on her son's grave and the american media just eats it up. And the left thinks it's the greatest thing ever.

I especially love how the party of hate AMerica, hate the church, hate the cross is all upset because a sham memorial they set up was destroyed. Hypocrites.

Larry Northern pisses all over all the memorial crosses set up for those who have fallen in this war, and the right wing people think it's just great that he did it, too. What a way to show your support for the troops. Larry Northern sucks!

As long as you guys keep on flinging poo at cindy, I'm gonna shove Larry Northern in your faces, and fling as much poo as I can at Mr. Northern.

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

Arrogant Bastard!

Oh, then she's OK then, a true patriot.

'cause those of us on the left look at the right-wing tools of big buisiness as the real anti-americans.

All's I can say to that is A-fucking-MEN!!

Oh, beautiful
For smoggy skies
Insecticided grain
For strip-mined mountains
Majesty
Above the asphalt plain

America, America
Man sheds his waste on thee
And hides the pines
With billboard signs
From sea to oily sea!!

Thank you George Carlin!!

She's not a patriot. She's poisoning our minds with this Bush killed my son junk. She and the left wing are making this country weak and unwilling to take action when we really need to.

No, she and the left wing are trying to make that shit-eating son of a Bush take ACCOUNTABILITY for his actions, for once in his life!

Meeting with her again will do nothing except allow her to scream at Bush. What good does that do?
How do you know that she would scream at Bush?

If Bush is the statesman that most rightwingers perceive him to be, then he should have been able to have a meeting with her, let her grieve over the death of her son, and diplomatically explain to the best of his ability why the troops are in Iraq. If he fails to satisfy her, at least that he would have looked like he was the "compassionate" President that he proclaims to be?

President Promotes Compassionate Conservatism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)

Utter BS.

This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.

If this is the actual quote...then the way I read it, she is saying IRAQ was not worth dying for.

This is what I read in her words...(in parenthesis my addition)

This country (IRAQ) is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.

When she said "This country is not wqorth dying for, I truly believe she was referring to Iraq, and not america. You need to read the entire quote, and take her words in context.

It's unfortunate that the liberal media is full conspiracy theorists that decide that the government just decided to have a war without good reasons. Our government has talked to Iraqi scientist defectors that have told us of WMD's and big operations on making them. AND Saddam has even used WMD's in the past. Clinton new he had them but he was too much of a wimp to take neccessary action. Bush was aware of this threat and took action. The scary part is we DIDN"T find any. The question isn't if he had them because that's already been proven. The question is where did they go?

Our main informant was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later proved to be a lying sack of shit with an agenda of his own. Which is why he is not now the P.M. of Iraq.

It turned out Chalabi was working for Iran, who had an interest in seeing Iraq fall apart.

Why is this war not worth dying for?

Well, if YOU want to die for Halliburton, and Exxon-Mobil and BP's profits, I guess you're welcome to.

Iraq never attacked us. They did not support Bin Laden...Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.

This whole goddamn war is about oil, and Operation Anigo Montoya...and a pissing contest over who's got the biggest dick.

It's not woprth dying for.

Plenty of countries commit atrocities against their own citizens, you don't see us marching in there all the time, do you?

Incidentally, I was against Kosovo, too...for the same reason. And Kosovo, in case your memory is short...happened under Clinton. I didn't support Kosovo...or, for that matter, Somalia. Neither of those wars were worth dying for, either.

How do you know that she would scream at Bush?

If Bush is the statesman that most rightwingers perceive him to be, then he should have been able to have a meeting with her, let her grieve over the death of her son, and diplomatically explain to the best of his ability why the troops are in Iraq. If he fails to satisfy her, at least that he would have looked like he was the "compassionate" President that he proclaims to be?

President Promotes Compassionate Conservatism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)

Utter BS.

Bush has already said over time why we are in Iraq and liberals have continued to argue against his reasoning and say it isn't good enough. Cindy Sheehan is just one person that lost her son. Why should Bush have to meet with her after already meeting with her and just repeat the things he's been saying all along?

Larry Northern pisses all over all the memorial crosses set up for those who have fallen in this war, and the right wing people think it's just great that he did it, too. What a way to show your support for the troops. Larry Northern sucks!

As long as you guys keep on flinging poo at cindy, I'm gonna shove Larry Northern in your faces, and fling as much poo as I can at Mr. Northern.
Who the hell do you think you're kidding? Those crosses weren't set up to honor dead American military personnel. That was proven when many of the families of those whose names were on the crosses demanded the names of their deceased family members be removed. They didn't want any part of Sheehan's Charade, and I don't blame them one bit.

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Save your indignation and your righteous anger.:rolleyes: What a joke. She did say America was not worth dying for.


No, she didn't READ THE WHOLE FUCKING QUOTE...AND THEN TAKE HER WORDS IN CONTEXT!

You are merely snipping out a part of her quote, and twisting it, presenting it out of context, to make it appear to mean something she never said or implied, because it serves your agenda of smearing Cindy.

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.'" (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Save your indignation and your righteous anger.:rolleyes: What a joke. She did say America was not worth dying for.

Oh, hey...Stinky Head Cheese...thought you were IGNORING me?? So much for wishful thinking...

You are only saying that she was referring to Iraq because that is what you so desperately wish.

Pwned!!!

YOU are only saying she was referring to America, because that is what YOU so desperately wish...in your agenda to fling poo at cindy to save your litte Bushie-boy from ever having to take accountability for his actions.

Pwned!!

Our main informant was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later proved to be a lying sack of shit with an agenda of his own. Which is why he is not now the P.M. of Iraq.

It turned out Chalabi was working for Iran, who had an interest in seeing Iraq fall apart.

Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. I mention Iraqi Scientist Defectors who describe massive research on trying to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of massive destruction.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html

He already did meet with her along with many other families. He doesn't need to meet with her again just so that she can make a bunch of accusations against him into his face.

Why not? Can't he take THE TRUTH?!?!?

If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth living for.

Any "citizen" who believes that there are no circumstances in which the United States is worth dying for has little right to call themselves a citizen to begin with.

Quitters and collaborators belong on the other side of the pond.

Arrogant Bastard!

Again, you have to look for the inadvertant ironic truths that slip in when conservatives talk.

What he's saying is that he, and almost any other Republican, is too chicken$#!t to actually go and fight on "the other side of the pond," but they're only too delighted to watch others do so. They pretend to identify with the soldier so that they can accuse liberals of being the cowards, but liberals don't want others to die for causes that they themselves don't support, conservatives do. So they redefine "support" to mean "to put a yellow bumper sticker on one's car." Again, inadvertant truth, because they wear the color of cowardice.

Bush has already said over time why we are in Iraq and liberals have continued to argue against his reasoning and say it isn't good enough. Cindy Sheehan is just one person that lost her son. Why should Bush have to meet with her after already meeting with her and just repeat the things he's been saying all along?
I have already explained my thoughts on this matter (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9491948&postcount=223)and it appears that Bush was not up for the challenge.

The backlash makes America look like the land of intolerance. Bush rolled the dice and lost, just like the war in Iraq.

Why not? Can't he take THE TRUTH?!?!?

He and many others know it isn't the truth.

What are you talking about "before long." Limbaugh said, about a week ago, that if we got rid of people who talked against the country, we'd get rid of half the Democratic party. The insinuation, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with the Republicans is anti-American, to which I reply, "say that to my face, fucker, and see how many teeth you swallow."

Day-um!! He SAID that?? And I missed it?!!?

How well do I know these right-wingers...what they think, and everything?? Absolutely amazing.

I mean, I don't even need to listen to guys like Flush Rimbaugh, since I already know exactly what they are going to say.

No, she didn't READ THE WHOLE FUCKING QUOTE...AND THEN TAKE HER WORDS IN CONTEXT!

You are merely snipping out a part of her quote, and twisting it, presenting it out of context, to make it appear to mean something she never said or implied, because it serves your agenda of smearing Cindy.
It's amazing how blown out of proportion the "right" has made this. They can't stand the fact that not everyone agrees with them. Then all the right-wing propaganda machines like Fox news and various radio shows just make them hate everyone that doesn't agree with them. This is merely another example of how well that right-wing machine is running. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. I mention Iraqi Scientist Defectors who describe massive research on trying to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of massive destruction.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.htmlDude, do you ever read your own links? He doesn't say that Iraq had WMD's or even that they had a WMD program, he say's that he trained scientists who could impliment a program if the inspectors would back off. I don't recall that they ever did.

Who the hell do you think you're kidding? Those crosses weren't set up to honor dead American military personnel. That was proven when many of the families of those whose names were on the crosses demanded the names of their deceased family members be removed. They didn't want any part of Sheehan's Charade, and I don't blame them one bit.

Oh...silly me. They were set up to honor LIVE American military personnel. Of course.
Thanks for clearing that one up for me...

Why not? Can't he take THE TRUTH?!?!?

You obviously haven't read my Health Advisory Pamphlet (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9470541&highlight=allergic#post9470541) on this very matter.

You obviously haven't read my Health Advisory Pamphlet (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9470541&highlight=allergic#post9470541) on this very matter.

LMFAO!!! Thanks!! That's a keeper!!

You rock!!

Dude, do you ever read your own links? He doesn't say that Iraq had WMD's or even that they had a WMD program, he say's that he trained scientists who could impliment a program if the inspectors would back off. I don't recall that they ever did.

You're right, this particular source did not say that they actually had WMD's, but it did say that they were developing them. The main point of this link was to show that they were developing ATOMIC weapons. This means that eventually they would be done developing and ready to fire.

Now if you want to talk about actual WMD's, this link:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_4_5_womd.html#1

Specifically says:

"Under the U.N. cease-fire resolution after the Gulf War, Iraq may legally have missiles with a range up to 93 miles. It is common knowledge that Iraq has up to 40 “Hussein” missiles, adapted from the Russian Scud-B system, that can strike up to 400 miles away, Vanity Fair reported. Those missiles lie hidden around the country on mobile launchers, the defector said."

Iraq did have WMD's... Bush knew it... he took action.

What’s so bad about just packing up and pulling out? What happened the last time we did what the peaceniks wanted and pulled out when things got tough instead of finishing?

Oh right,… so how are the elections going in Mogadishu, Somalia anyway?

The peaceniks would have us believe that we can’t help other people, or that we shouldn’t or that people have to 'fight' for their own rights for them to be real and lasting, and likewise the Iraqi's have to fight for their own constitution or it won't be 'real' either, they'll just be a puppet of the Americans if we help them do it or force it on them... Just like the Japanese government is a total flop since the Americans forced them into a new government too, and everyone knows it’s a puppet of the Americans too :rolleyes:

The simple reality seems to be that the, 'save the earth, and all the animals’ group, save all the civil liberties for everyone etc., etc., etc., all of the liberal left is really just utter nonsense when it comes to actually helping real people and causes. That or they just hate Iraqi's and figure they aren't the people worth fighting for, I'm not sure which. Don’t they like the idea of Iraqi people having their own democracy?

You obviously haven't read my Health Advisory Pamphlet (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9470541&highlight=allergic#post9470541) on this very matter.
Yeah, I would say that's a fairly typical far left response to anyone who dares question the leftist mythology. Attack the questioner, call him anything you think will make him look bad ( I am not a Republican ), attack his character, impugn his honesty, do anything you can to mock, ridicule, revile or denigrate. Anything but actually respond to the original issue. Perhaps you should write one of your bogus "health advisories" about what happens when leftists hear the truth: mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate. :)

You're right, this particular source did not say that they actually had WMD's, but it did say that they were developing them. The main point of this link was to show that they were developing ATOMIC weapons. This means that eventually they would be done developing and ready to fire.

Now if you want to talk about actual WMD's, this link:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_4_5_womd.html#1

Specifically says:

"Under the U.N. cease-fire resolution after the Gulf War, Iraq may legally have missiles with a range up to 93 miles. It is common knowledge that Iraq has up to 40 “Hussein” missiles, adapted from the Russian Scud-B system, that can strike up to 400 miles away, Vanity Fair reported. Those missiles lie hidden around the country on mobile launchers, the defector said."

Iraq did have WMD's... Bush knew it... he took action.Dude a medium range missle is not a WMD, sorry to burst your bubble...again.

What’s so bad about just packing up and pulling out? What happened the last time we did what the peaceniks wanted and pulled out when things got tough instead of finishing?

Oh right,… so how are the elections going in Mogadishu, Somalia anyway?

The peaceniks would have us believe that we can’t help other people, or that we shouldn’t or that people have to 'fight' for their own rights for them to be real and lasting, and likewise the Iraqi's have to fight for their own constitution or it won't be 'real' either, they'll just be a puppet of the Americans if we help them do it or force it on them... Just like the Japanese government is a total flop since the Americans forced them into a new government too, and everyone knows it’s a puppet of the Americans too :rolleyes:

The simple reality seems to be that the, 'save the earth, and all the animals’ group, save all the civil liberties for everyone etc., etc., etc., all of the liberal left is really just utter nonsense when it comes to actually helping real people and causes. That or they just hate Iraqi's and figure they aren't the people worth fighting for, I'm not sure which. Don’t they like the idea of Iraqi people having their own democracy?

Exactly. I like how you put that.

I think it's just the Vietnam Syndrome that is affecting people today. Nobody is willing to fight anymore.

My problem with the war is its a distraction. We should be using the troops in Iraq to hunt terrorists down, not encourage muslims to become terrorists. The terror threat is greater now due to the invasion. Iraq had little to do with Osama before.

Now it does.

Dude a medium range missle is not a WMD, sorry to burst your bubble...again.

Well, I guess we could call them very illegal-ranged missiles.

No, she didn't READ THE WHOLE FUCKING QUOTE...AND THEN TAKE HER WORDS IN CONTEXT!

You are merely snipping out a part of her quote, and twisting it, presenting it out of context, to make it appear to mean something she never said or implied, because it serves your agenda of smearing Cindy.
Oh, you mean kinda like you try to smear everyone on here who takes issue with your far left nonsense? Mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.