NationStates Jolt Archive

*CanuckHeaven* rolls up sleeves.

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.
Yet the UN inspectors weren't finding ANYTHING, zero, nada, zip ziltch.

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."
Common knowledge huh? Yet the UN inspectors weren't finding ANYTHING, zero, nada, zip ziltch. Oh, except for these:

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml)

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, the Iraqis say, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.

What did Powell think about all of this afterwards?

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/)

Iraq did have WMD's... Bush knew it... he took action.
They did?......He did?......WHY???????????

The way the US is run. It is not worth dying for. Neither is Democracy. Its an unreliable system of government. And thats why im a practicing Communist.

Well, I guess we could call them very illegal-ranged missiles.Yeah, but still not a WMD....or a serious threat to the US. In case you haven't noticed we're still well out of range of even those missles....

Oh, you mean kinda like you try to smear everyone on here who takes issue with your far left nonsense? Mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.
And of course you would never do anything like that? :rolleyes:

And of course you would never do anything like that? :rolleyes:


Of course he doesn't! It's only when someone takes issue with the far-right nonsense that he blows up and smears people and gets just plain mean.

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

Excuse me. I was there. I fought.
Now, I'd like to hear how PRECISELY we were defending freedom with our occupation in Iraq?

*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausmacht2
Now if you want to talk about actual WMD's, this link:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issue...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."


Common knowledge huh? Yet the UN inspectors weren't finding ANYTHING, zero, nada, zip ziltch.



There's a key word in there describing the missiles. Hidden. An Iraqi Scientist Defector is saying this! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it not true.

Of course he doesn't! It's only when someone takes issue with the far-right nonsense that he blows up and smears people and gets just plain mean.
Or if you challenge his self-proclaimed centrism, which isn't at all true anymore if it was ever true in the past.

Of course he doesn't! It's only when someone takes issue with the far-right nonsense that he blows up and smears people and gets just plain mean.
This whole thread is a troll. The title is totally inaccurate (misquoted) and meant to invoke the anger that has splashed forward? Sad to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausmacht2
Well, I guess we could call them very illegal-ranged missiles.

The Lost Planet
Yeah, but still not a WMD....or a serious threat to the US. In case you haven't noticed we're still well out of range of even those missles....

..


Well I guess that shows how true we are to our purpose of crushing evil. Even though those ILLEGAL missiles aren't a threat to us, they are to others. And by attacking Iraq we're defending Iraq's enemies.

Excuse me. I was there. I fought.
Now, I'd like to hear how PRECISELY we were defending freedom with our occupation in Iraq?

Where were you?

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...

Yes, I habe bad spelling. Not much I can do about that right now. Can we get past it please?

4 times the number of CIVILIANS, not people. Not even counting militants and terrorists, Israel has killed 4 times the number of innnocent people.

How does the land marked "Palestinian" on every treaty and accord belong to Israel? Why did the British have the right to give any land to Israel? Don't give me that homeland for the Jews crap, more Jews live in New York City then in the entire nation of Israel.

Helecopter strikes arn't percision when you're after 1 or two guys and you raze a whole village. They arn't percision when you're after one car full of bad guys, and you end up killing 20 innocent civilians in the same intersection.

There's a key word in there describing the missiles. Hidden. An Iraqi Scientist Defector is saying this! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it not true.

He could have lied... its known to have happened with Iraqi exiles who hate Saddam.

We've been in Iraq for two and a half years and haven't found a single shread of evidence to suggest WMDs. Maybe you should exept there so well hidden because they don't exist and never did.

This whole thread is a troll. The title is totally inaccurate (misquoted) and meant to invoke the anger that has splashed forward? Sad to say the least.
That's about what I've come to expect out of you ... don't like what's posted? "Oh! This whole thread is a troll!" Right. :rolleyes:

Well I guess that shows how true we are to our purpose of crushing evil. Even though those ILLEGAL missiles aren't a threat to us, they are to others. And by attacking Iraq we're defending Iraq's enemies.OK you want to open that door... lets take a peek inside shall we.

So America is now the worlds police force...we're gonna take down all the bad guys.

So why haven't we? There's still injustice, genocide and repression happening in a hundred places around the globe. Why aren't we doing something about it?

How come we only are intervening in places where powerfull corporations seem to be turning a large profit?

He could have lied... its known to have happened with Iraqi exiles who hate Saddam.

We've been in Iraq for two and a half years and haven't found a single shread of evidence to suggest WMDs. Maybe you should exept there so well hidden because they don't exist and never did.

Well, I addressed the issue of not finding them a while back. I said that it was scary that we never found them and we should be wondering where they went instead of if they existed. Because someone who is going to risk there life to get away from the torture of Iraq isn't just going to lie to the US.

OK you want to open that door... lets take a peek inside shall we.

So America is now the worlds police force...we're gonna take down all the bad guys.

So why haven't we? There's still injustice, genocide and repression happening in a hundred places around the globe. Why aren't we doing something about it?

How come we only are intervening in places where powerfull corporations seem to be turning a large profit?

So, first you don't think we should be in Iraq and now you're questioning why we aren't in another 100 places around the globe helping people?

Or if you challenge his self-proclaimed centrism, which isn't at all true anymore if it was ever true in the past.
I rest my case: mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.

Well, I addressed the issue of not finding them a while back. I said that it was scary that we never found them and we should be wondering where they went instead of if they existed. Because someone who is going to risk there life to get away from the torture of Iraq isn't just going to lie to the US.

Really? We have the testomony of a few scientists. If I was an Iraqi who escaped for the US I would lie about WMDs to get them to liberate my home. Wouldn't you?

And no evedence found for WMDs. Wondering where they went? No where since there is no physical evedence they existed.

That's about what I've come to expect out of you ... don't like what's posted? "Oh! This whole thread is a troll!" Right. :rolleyes:
That's the third time I've seen you use that line in about a month. It's now about what I've come to expect from you. That's all you do when you start losing--you just insult the other side and arrogantly shrug it off.

I rest my case: mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.
Well, you know how it goes: mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate in; mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate out.

So, first you don't think we should be in Iraq and now you're questioning why we aren't in another 100 places around the globe helping people?You opened the door... whatsamatter? The view make you uncomfortable?

For the record, I wouldn't have a problem if all we were doing in Iraq is "helping people"...

There's a key word in there describing the missiles. Hidden. An Iraqi Scientist Defector is saying this! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it not true.
Yet Blix asked for more time to inspect all Iraqi sites but unfortunately Bush declared war. Since then, there has been 3 inspections and guess what?

NOTHING, zero, nada, zip ziltch.

Has it occurred to you that the Iraqi scientist was a shill? Chalabi also gave misleading information, and he was rewarded.

The rest of the world was duped into believing that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US, or at least Bush thought they would be duped, along with the American people.

Here is a good read:

Trusting Chalabi (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/chalabi.html)

So was there an imminent threat? I mean, were you not engaged in talking to people in the Defense Department and telling them that you thought there was a serious threat in Iraq beyond the threat to the Iraqi people? There's no question that Saddam Hussein was a monster who terrorized his own people.

You ask me about whether what specific information we provided to the United States about weapons of mass destruction. I told you about the three defectors. We provided no other information of any kind about weapons of mass destruction.

Talk about deception. :rolleyes:

You opened the door... whatsamatter? The view make you uncomfortable?

For the record, I wouldn't have a problem if all we were doing in Iraq is "helping people"...
But we are helping them! We're helping them reach Civil War, we're helping them give birth to deformed babies, we're helping them by killing them! Who would want to live there now anyway?

You opened the door... whatsamatter? The view make you uncomfortable?

For the record, I wouldn't have a problem if all we were doing in Iraq is "helping people"...


Well, unfortunately helping people sometimes involves killing others.

That's about what I've come to expect out of you ... don't like what's posted? "Oh! This whole thread is a troll!" Right. :rolleyes:
You misquoted Sheehan and yes I think you were reaching for the "sensational" again. Why try and mislead people and raise anger? Actually, it looks bad on America, but some way or another, you are like Shylock looking for that pound of flesh and you know how that turned out?

It looks good on you. :rolleyes:

Well, unfortunately helping people sometimes involves killing others.
Even if it means killing more than Saddam was alledged to have killed?

Such a noble cause. :rolleyes:

Well, unfortunately helping people sometimes involves killing others.Back to the point...You portraited the US as "crushing evil".. so why are we so selective about what evil we crush? There's at least a dozen hot spots around the globe with dictators as bad as Saddam was and people as repressed as the Iraqi's were...

Most of 'em would roll over with even less trouble than Iraq... why aren't we doing something about them?

You misquoted Sheehan and yes I think you were reaching for the "sensational" again. Why try and mislead people and raise anger? Actually, it looks bad on America, but some way or another, you are like Shylock looking for that pound of flesh and you know how that turned out?
So you think that by calling me a Jewish moneylender you are rebutting what I have said? Hmmm. That's not even borderline rational.

Even if it means killing more than Saddam was alledged to have killed?

Such a noble cause. :rolleyes:

Have we done that?

Back to the point...You portraited the US as "crushing evil".. so why are we so selective about what evil we crush? There's at least a dozen hot spots around the globe with dictators as bad as Saddam was and people as repressed as the Iraqi's were...

Most of 'em would roll over with even less trouble than Iraq... why aren't we doing something about them?

Could you tell me what hot spots you're talking about?

Have we done that?
Might have, but give it a few more years and/or when civil war breaks out to be on the safe side.

Might have, but give it a few more years and/or when civil war breaks out to be on the safe side.

Knowing that we've killed at least 400,000 innocent people so far is a big suprise to me.

To live for the country is to die for the country!

So you think that by calling me a Jewish moneylender you are rebutting what I have said? Hmmm. That's not even borderline rational.
First of all, I didn't call you "a Jewish moneylender", and secondly, you are trying to run away from the fact that you misquoted Sheehan to start this thread by suggesting that I am irrational.

Your debating skills sir are poor to non-existent.

Could you tell me what hot spots you're talking about?N.korea, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, about half a dozen 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR, the same number of west African nations...to name a few. Take your pick.

You're stalling I know...

Knowing that we've killed at least 400,000 innocent people so far is a big suprise to me.
YOU can prove that Saddam killed 400,000 INNOCENT people? Good luck.

YOU can prove that Saddam killed 400,000 INNOCENT people? Good luck.
He probably has. But the point is we're killing people to prevent a possible killing of an unknown number of people.

YOU can prove that Saddam killed 400,000 INNOCENT people? Good luck.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.


I think that's pretty clear.

N.korea, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, about half a dozen 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR, the same number of west African nations...to name a few. Take your pick.

You're stalling I know...

Actually i'm not stalling... i'm just not familliar with the topic... i'd have to research it a bit. So, for now you win.

Though... i'm pretty sure Clinton was dealing with Somalia and then pulled out like a wimp... but, don't yell at me too much if i'm wrong

He probably has. But the point is we're killing people to prevent a possible killing of an unknown number of people.
I really don't know the numbers but the key word is innocent. If the people that died were in revolt, are they innocent? How many Shiites died after Bush urged them to revolt and then the US didn't provide the promised backing?

There is also two sides to the gassing Kurds story.

And it is important to remember that the US supported Saddam throughout those years that he was supposedly killing people.

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?


No. We love the idea of Iraq having IT'S OWN Democracy. Not an American -puppet-Corporatocracy. But we also do not believe it to be our duty or responsibility to bring that Democracy (or American-puppet-corporatocracy) to Iraq.
Come on, right wingers!! Be fucking honest...you guys don't want Iraq to have IT'S OWN democracy, either. What you really want is for them to have a "democracy" that America APPROVES of (in other words a puppet-Corporatocracy)
Just be fucking honest!! We, on the left...already know what you guys won't admit...not even to yourselves!

Oh, you mean kinda like you try to smear everyone on here who takes issue with your far left nonsense? Mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.

And how, precisely, do I do this? Examples?
And even if I do...hey, if it's good for the goose.....

And it is important to remember that the US supported Saddam throughout those years that he was supposedly killing people.
And the fact we put him in power in the first place.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.


I think that's pretty clear.But actions now don't help those who lie in those graves, why didn't we act earlier?

Hell, why didn't we act to prevent or limit the Rwandan genocide (in case you're wondering, that's one of those west Africa places I was refering to in my last post)?

Of course he doesn't! It's only when someone takes issue with the far-right nonsense that he blows up and smears people and gets just plain mean.

LOL. Like I said...I don't believe I do this, such as I was accused by the person this original quote was addressed to...but, again, even if I do...hell, if it's good for the goose...

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.

Bleh. How does being anti-American in thought hurt your country in any way? :rolleyes:

I'm not anti-American in all sorts of ways. I like well....well....some people from your country. Heh. ;)

Actually i'm not stalling... i'm just not familliar with the topic... i'd have to research it a bit. So, for now you win.

Though... i'm pretty sure Clinton was dealing with Somalia and then pulled out like a wimp... but, don't yell at me too much if i'm wrongNo you're right...Clinton pulled out. He didn't have any corporate interests trying to keep him there...Somalia had no profit potential.

Rule one...follow the money. If you really can stomache the truth, you'll get closer to it by following the money than reading press releases.

Iraq is all about money. We don't pull out now because too many US companies have interests there that need "protecting".

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London.
Yeah, like we will trust Tony (covering his ass) Blair on this one. :rolleyes:

The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."
Estimates is the key word. And of course the US cut off diplomatic relation with Iraq when this happened? NOT!!

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

Ahhh Pol Pot is on the list. The same Pol Pot that the US backed in Cambodia....oh my!! We won't even talk about how many innocent people died in Vietnam?

I think that's pretty clear.
Yup, fairly clear. :rolleyes:

But actions now don't help those who lie in those graves, why didn't we act earlier?

Hell, why didn't we act to prevent or limit the Rwandan genocide (in case you're wondering, that's one of those west Africa places I was refering to in my last post)?

That is a good question. Why was the liberal Clinton too wimpy to act? Because if he would have taken adequate action things might have been different.

That's about what I've come to expect out of you ... don't like what's posted? "Oh! This whole thread is a troll!" Right. :rolleyes:

but it is! Because the quote you are quoting is taken entirely out of context in the title of this thread. sheehan was referring to IRAQ as not being a country worth dying for. And you guys on the right damn well know it, too. You just are using this snippet as another piece of ammo in your smear-Cindy campaign to protect your little Bushie-boy.

If you read the entire quote, there is only one possible context. Sheehan was saying that IRAQ was not a country worth dying for.

And you guys all damn well know it, too.

If Sheehan had meant AMERICA wasn't worth dying for, then you explain why she would add the two sentences that follow "This country isn't worth dying for." Because the next two sentences seem to make it pretty clear sheehan herself WOULD die for this country if we were attacked!

Quit taking her words out of context to score cheap political points. You know damn well what Cindy meant.

OK you want to open that door... lets take a peek inside shall we.

So America is now the worlds police force...we're gonna take down all the bad guys.

So why haven't we? There's still injustice, genocide and repression happening in a hundred places around the globe. Why aren't we doing something about it?

How come we only are intervening in places where powerfull corporations seem to be turning a large profit?


HEY!!! You aren't supposed to notice that!!
Look...SHINY THING OVER HERE!!! - RUNAWAY BRIDE OVER THERE!! You aren't supposed to notice that other stuff!!

And the fact we put him in power in the first place.
Well silly me, how could I forget such a truth. And is this where I should mention that the US gave Saddam chemical/biological weapons as well or should that come later in the thread?

Yeah, like we will trust Tony (covering his ass) Blair on this one. :rolleyes:


Estimates is the key word. And of course the US cut off diplomatic relation with Iraq when this happened? NOT!!



Ahhh Pol Pot is on the list. The same Pol Pot that the US backed in Cambodia....oh my!! We won't even talk about how many innocent people died in Vietnam?


Yup, fairly clear. :rolleyes:

I give you a good source... you say they're lying... I give you a good source... you say they're lying... then again i give a good source... what happens?... you say they're lying. Why does everyone that doesn't agree with you have to be lying?

That is a good question. Why was the liberal Clinton too wimpy to act? Because if he would have taken adequate action things might have been different.Get real. Like I said follow the money... none to be had in west Africa. So no action was taken.

Why doesn't Dubya act in Sudan? It's all about profit.

Well silly me, how could I forget such a truth. And is this where I should mention that the US gave Saddam chemical/biological weapons as well or should that come later in the thread?
It's best to lay down the truth slowly, else they might think it's a massive conspiracy.

Get real. Like I said follow the money... none to be had in west Africa. So no action was taken.

Why doesn't Dubya act in Sudan? It's all about profit.

You were saying we should be intervening in those "hot spots". And now you say there was no point to be there? That's a big change...

You were saying we should be intervening in those "hot spots". And now you say there was no point to be there? That's a big change...I'm not saying we shouldn't...I'm saying it's not gonna happen.

I'm schooling you on how things really operate.

You said we were in Iraq to combat evil, I pointed out that if that were true there's much more evil we're ignoring.

We're in Iraq because money is being made.

Sudan actually has substantial oil reserves. But those reserves are controlled by the mostly Arab government (which condones and assists in the genocide there) not the ethnic Africans who are being slaughtered.

And the Oil companies are happy with their contracts with the Sudanese government and don't want the production there interupted.

So no US intervention in Somalia.

Maybe you can decide which is worse, refusing to act because no money can be made, or refusing to act because you don't want to stop making money. I can't.

but it is! Because the quote you are quoting is taken entirely out of context in the title of this thread. sheehan was referring to IRAQ as not being a country worth dying for. And you guys on the right damn well know it, too. You just are using this snippet as another piece of ammo in your smear-Cindy campaign to protect your little Bushie-boy.

If you read the entire quote, there is only one possible context. Sheehan was saying that IRAQ was not a country worth dying for.

And you guys all damn well know it, too.

If Sheehan had meant AMERICA wasn't worth dying for, then you explain why she would add the two sentences that follow "This country isn't worth dying for." Because the next two sentences seem to make it pretty clear sheehan herself WOULD die for this country if we were attacked!

Quit taking her words out of context to score cheap political points. You know damn well what Cindy meant.

"Centrists" go to any lengths when they want to demonize and declare all critics as irrelevant, especially taking quotes out of context.

"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.

Prove specifically that she said "America" and "Not worth dying for" in the same sentence.

Unless you can, you have only proven that your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you are deliberately parroting a statement and attempting to link it to an unrelated event/condition.

It's best to lay down the truth slowly, else they might think it's a massive conspiracy.

Anything that paints Il Duh-ce in a less than divine light is always a massive conspiracy to them.

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. ]

Dude... I can tell your a little dude, or rather naive. All I can say to you is just ignore it. Its a media feeding frenzy thing that nobody really has control over. Its a media mob mentality that is what is actually transpiring.

Whatever you think about her, she has her right to do whatever she is doing. I mean this is America. The Minutemen for example have every right to gather along the boarder and force the issue of the immigration policies to the media spotlight which Bush turned around and called them vigilantes. This whole fiasco is really just pointless to concern yourself over if you support the war. Do I personally care? Hell I'm more intrested in having our damned president follow article 1 of the Constitution he swore to protect. He ****ed up when he started ignoring the Constitution, lied to everybody, and got us in this situation. Now we have to stick it out and it would be MORE constructive if protesters were actually demanding we hold his balls to the fire by demanding our politicians enforce Congress' power to declare war instead of a potential stooge or power hungry president.

This chick has no serious sway over my and others opinion. I ignore it and move on to the other news. I recommend you do so as well. Its a smokescreen issue distracting you from real news events.

So if you could, can you stop being as big of a sissy as the protesters? Kthnxbi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlila
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!
Wow. American media bending comments around to get their agenda across? Never! :rolleyes:

The real question is.. is Freedom worth dying for ? Regardless of what intentions were behind the initial invasion, or what agendas maybe playing in the background... the ultimate result if successful will be a Democratic Iraq. It has always been Americas stance since World War one to Bosnia and onwards to protect the freedoms of individuals even at the cost of our own lives. Is dying to give another person freedom a worthy cause ? America has always belive it so.. Perhaps Sheehan is simply out of touch on American morals... by adopting the position that American lives are more valuable then Iraqi ones surely constitute nothing less then racisim, while at the very least scoffing at the American idea that it is better to die with freedom then live in servidtude (thus the value of freedom).

We best not forget.. her voice is only tolerated because others died for her freedom... is it not then fitting that her son die so others may express their own opinions?

Dude... I can tell your a little dude, or rather naive. All I can say to you is just ignore it. Its a media feeding frenzy thing that nobody really has control over. Its a media mob mentality that is what is actually transpiring.

Whatever you think about her, she has her right to do whatever she is doing. I mean this is America. The Minutemen for example have every right to gather along the boarder and force the issue of the immigration policies to the media spotlight which Bush turned around and called them vigilantes. This whole fiasco is really just pointless to concern yourself over if you support the war. Do I personally care? Hell I'm more intrested in having our damned president follow article 1 of the Constitution he swore to protect. He ****ed up when he started ignoring the Constitution, lied to everybody, and got us in this situation. Now we have to stick it out and it would be MORE constructive if protesters were actually demanding we hold his balls to the fire by demanding our politicians enforce Congress' power to declare war instead of a potential stooge or power hungry president.

This chick has no serious sway over my and others opinion. I ignore it and move on to the other news. I recommend you do so as well. Its a smokescreen issue distracting you from real news events.

So if you could, can you stop being as big of a sissy as the protesters? Kthnxbi.Eutrusca can actually qualify for the senior discount in most places... he's just a little rabidly right wing.

Prove specifically that she said "America" and "Not worth dying for" in the same sentence.

Unless you can, you have only proven that your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you are deliberately parroting a statement and attempting to link it to an unrelated event/condition.
I think you will have to blame Eutrusca for most of the confusion, seeing that he entitled this thread wrong from the getgo?

Eutrusca can actually qualify for the senior discount in most places... he's just a little rabidly right wing.

Fine, then he's just naive. I'm actually very right wing. I'm a big paleo-conservative. He's probably just a naive and uninformed neo-con puppet.

Prove specifically that she said "America" and "Not worth dying for" in the same sentence.

Unless you can, you have only proven that your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you are deliberately parroting a statement and attempting to link it to an unrelated event/condition.

So you're saying that when she said "This country is not worth dying for" she was talking about Canada? :rolleyes:

*snicker*

When sophistry is all the Left has left then they are left with nothing. :D

So you're saying that when she said "This country is not worth dying for" she was talking about Canada? :rolleyes:

*snicker*

When sophistry is all the Left has left then they are left with nothing. :D

Oh please, she was talking about Iraq.

And you say the Left has nothing but sophistry? The starting post was nothing but Sophistry in action.

:rolleyes:

So you're saying that when she said "This country is not worth dying for" she was talking about Canada? :rolleyes:

*snicker*

When sophistry is all the Left has left then they are left with nothing. :D
Cute, but no cigar for you. :eek:

Please try and keep up, the thread is about Iraq not worth dying for. :D

Oh please, she was talking about Iraq.

And you say the Left has nothing but sophistry? The starting post was nothing but Sophistry in action.

:rolleyes:

All the pleading in the world will not allow you to escape the truth. :p

from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm (First posted by Stinky Head Cheese)

Cindy Sheehan:"*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. ..."

Yeah, that lead-in really makes it sound like she was talking about Iraq doesn't it? :rolleyes:

BTW, I notice from the transcript that one of the sponsors was the *I.S.O.*. But of course, we're not supposed to notice when Communist cults sponsor "anti war" rallies, are we? :p

Fine, then he's just naive. I'm actually very right wing. I'm a big paleo-conservative. He's probably just a naive and uninformed neo-con puppet.Bullshit. Eut is extremely touchy when it comes to protest and the military, and not neo-con "puppet".

All the pleading in the world will not allow you to escape the truth. :p

from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm (First posted by Stinky Head Cheese)

Cindy Sheehan:"*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. ..."

Yeah, that lead-in really makes it sound like she was talking about Iraq doesn't it? :rolleyes:

BTW, I notice from the transcript that one of the sponsors was the *I.S.O.*. But of course, we're not supposed to notice when Communist cults sponsor "anti war" rallies, are we? :p


...completely ignoring the rest of the quote where she says(paraphrasing), if America were attacked or invaded, that she would gladly take up her rolling pin and fight off the invaders.

So you're saying that when she said "This country is not worth dying for" she was talking about Canada? :rolleyes:

*snicker*

When sophistry is all the Left has left then they are left with nothing. :D

And by what sophistry do you use when you link the word "country" to "America"?

You fail at English comprehension.

You can twist the words to make them sound however you want it to sound. But you lose any moral right to complain when others interpret it differently.

...completely ignoring the rest of the quote where she says(paraphrasing), if America were attacked or invaded, that she would gladly take up her rolling pin and fight off the invaders.

Classic Bushevik tactics. Commit a crime then condemn the opposition for the same thing.

Use cheap Sophistry then call Liberals and Democrats Sophists.

Call John Kerry a flip-flopper then start flip-flopping on government policies.

See a pattern here? Don't you just love Busheviks?

...completely ignoring the rest of the quote where she says(paraphrasing), if America were attacked or invaded, that she would gladly take up her rolling pin and fight off the invaders.

So you're saying that she was in favor of America after she was against it? :P

Sorry, no takebacks in chess and I don't allow them in prepared stump speeches either. If you or I or any normal person were truly talking about Iraq wouldn't we first *mention* Iraq? Just a thought.

Non-Aligned States,
So you're saying that America isn't a country? Get thee to a dictionary! :p

Edit: Poor Gauther! Don't get *too* Red in the face when you lose a debate. ;)

Sorry, no takebacks in chess and I don't allow them in prepared stump speeches either.Good that we're not playing chess and instead attempt to change peoples' minds...
If you or I or any normal person were truly talking about Iraq wouldn't we first *mention* Iraq? Just a thought.Which is why she said "Iraq didn't attack us."

Edit:
Edit: Poor Gauther! Don't get *too* Red in the face when you lose a debate. ;)If you really have to insult people, you can at least spell their names right. ("Lost"? I had a girlfriend that always said "I won" when she lost... ;) )

So you're saying that she was in favor of America after she was against it? :P

Sorry, no takebacks in chess and I don't allow them in prepared stump speeches either. If you or I or any normal person were truly talking about Iraq wouldn't we first *mention* Iraq? Just a thought.

That's just the thing, she did.

That whole portion of her speech was saying that she would do everything she could do to fight off someone who was attacking the United States, that she would die in defense of her country. However, she does not believe that the Iraq War, nor Iraq, is worth dieing for.

So you're saying that she was in favor of America after she was against it? :P

Much like how you support a man who seemed to think that a certain someone was all important to capture, only to say that "he didn't care about him at all" 2 years later hmmm?


Non-Aligned States,
So you're saying that America isn't a country? Get thee to a dictionary! :p


No. I am saying was there any corellation to her use of the word "country" and "America". Can you prove there is. Or more importantly, if you are all so fired up about the truth of the matter, why not ask her personally?

Or would you prefer your assumptions which fuel your hatred?

Edit: Poor Gauther! Don't get *too* Red in the face when you lose a debate. ;)

Lost the debate? You're the one who picked a select portion of Cindy Sheehan's quote to paint her as a Commie Mutant Traitor then say the Liberals have nothing left except Sophistry?

Wow, you really are in denial more than Cleopatra had ever been.

:rolleyes:

All the pleading in the world will not allow you to escape the truth. :p

from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm (First posted by Stinky Head Cheese)

Cindy Sheehan:"*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. ..."

Yeah, that lead-in really makes it sound like she was talking about Iraq doesn't it? :rolleyes:

The point has clearly slipped away from you? Sheehan states quite clearly that America IS worth dying for with these words:

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

Transcript from the original right wing source (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19195)

BTW, I notice from the transcript that one of the sponsors was the *I.S.O.*. But of course, we're not supposed to notice when Communist cults sponsor "anti war" rallies, are we? :p
Socialists don't have the same rights that "other" Americans have? Are you suggesting that all opposition should be stifled?

Good that we're not playing chess and instead attempt to change peoples' minds...

Chess would probably accomplish more. :D


Which is why she said "Iraq didn't attack us."

Yeah. A few sentences *after* she had said "America has always been killing people. This country is not worth dying for."
Once again, if you were honestly talking about Iraq in a *prepared stump speech* would you not first mention Iraq? I mean I can just see you getting on a stump and saying "Germany sucks. This country is not worth dying for. BTW, I was really talking about Bosnia."

NOT! *You* have a mind that is capable of logic. I'm sure the person who wrote her speeches and used her as a puppet meant every word of "This country is not worth dying for" just as I am sure that he expected certain 'useful idiots' to use the latter part of the speech to provide him with a figleaf for what he said. But hey! If you really think I'm hammering Casey Sheenhan's mom unfairly for allowing herself to become demented enough to be used as a meatpuppet by concentrating on *this* speech then I'll be glad to come in sometime latter this week with some other classic speeches of hers in which she's babbled about Zionist conspiracies and the like. Won't that be fun? ;)

One thing the Democrats need to learn, if you lay down with dirty dogs you're going to end up with fleas. The cultists who are using Casey Sheenan's mom are very much dirty dogs.

Earth Government,
Yeah, I'm sure that if you were giving a speech saying, "People with brown skin aren't worth dying for" that you would open it with phrases like "This is not a war *on* terror. This is a war *of* terror." and say "America is always killing people". :rolleyes:

But while that was a part of her speech it was not the sum. The latter portion of her speech said what you claimed it did. That was not the message that the former portion sent. Defend this speech if you like. But if I were you I'd find something worth defending instead.

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. ]

Im not asking you to like her.

Im not asking you to agree with her.

But as you said..you came close to dying for your country.

Remember this:

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

People like you fight wars so this woman, and everyone else, has the right to say whatever stupid shit that comes to thier minds.

I would have thought better of you.

If my country was invaded (and only then) I would say, yes, you should take up arms and move against the aggressor.

But just proclaiming that a country is worth dying for is like saying an abstract cause is worth dying for. And causes are definitively not dying for because while you have only one life, you can pick up 10 causes at the next street corner.
Were less people willing to give their life for a cause, perhaps this world would be a more peaceful place.

About Sheehan - I find it so funny how all those right wing people get upset at her using her right of free speech. Isn't that one of the things embodied by the idea that is America? Isn't that one of the things people die for when they die for their country? Even Bush stated that she has the right to her opinion and the right to say it. So what is it with you people?

I do not agree with her on many points, mostly about pulling out immediately. Although I've opposed the war in Iraq right from the start, I think that pulling out now would be counter-productive. Iraq would probably descend into civil war and the whole area would remain even less stable than it was before the invasion.

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.

There are other people who think that Israel was given to the Israelis by the British government at the end of WWII wth some fairly specifically designated borders and that the plan was that it should stay within them. We call these people history students.

Still other people have trouble with the idea that you could clas Israelis using extreme violence in the occupied territories since the eighties as retaliation for the suicide bombings on non-military targets that started in the nineties, but that's another story.

The point is that Jerusalem's really pretty holy to a few people, and OTHER people have been living on the West Bank for a little while. If you're going to go marching in there yellng "It's Jewish land - we've got a Holy Book that says so" then you really can't be surprised when a whole load of other political extremists start brandishing their Holy Book to similar crowd-pleasing effect and bomb the shit out of you.

Sadly, as gets pointed out at length in the case of Israel, most of the people getting bombed on buses seem to be reasonable people who have no strong religious expansionist streak and just got caught up in the crossfire. Similarly for the somewhat larger though more media-shy number of Palestinian casualties whose fanatics are dragging them into a conflict.

Yeah. A few sentences *after* she had said "America has always been killing people. This country is not worth dying for."
Once again, if you were honestly talking about Iraq in a *prepared stump speech* would you not first mention Iraq? I mean I can just see you getting on a stump and saying "Germany sucks. This country is not worth dying for. BTW, I was really talking about Bosnia."You see the logical fallacy in your statement? "America has always been killing people" is a fact while "Germany sucks" is an opinion.
NOT! *You* have a mind that is capable of logic. I'm sure the person who wrote her speeches and used her as a puppet meant every word of "This country is not worth dying for" just as I am sure that he expected certain 'useful idiots' to use the latter part of the speech to provide him with a figleaf for what he said. But hey! If you really think I'm hammering Casey Sheenhan's mom unfairly for allowing herself to become demented enough to be used as a meatpuppet by concentrating on *this* speech then I'll be glad to come in sometime latter this week with some other classic speeches of hers in which she's babbled about Zionist conspiracies and the like. Won't that be fun? ;)Ah, so no it's all her fault that she made you criticize her... Because of her words... that aren't even her own...
As for the other speeches, go ahead. Just please don't quote out of context.
One thing the Democrats need to learn, if you lay down with dirty dogs you're going to end up with fleas. The cultists who are using Casey Sheenan's mom are very much dirty dogs.And Bush is a murdering bastard (IMO). Does that make you a murdering bastard?
But while that was a part of her speech it was not the sum. The latter portion of her speech said what you claimed it did. That was not the message that the former portion sent.Course not. Seeches tend to end in their main points. Why would she use the statement she's trying to make before she needs it?
Defend this speech if you like. But if I were you I'd find something worth defending instead.Like the Iraq war? :rolleyes:

Chess would probably accomplish more. :D

Yeah. A few sentences *after* she had said "America has always been killing people. This country is not worth dying for."
Once again, if you were honestly talking about Iraq in a *prepared stump speech* would you not first mention Iraq? I mean I can just see you getting on a stump and saying "Germany sucks. This country is not worth dying for. BTW, I was really talking about Bosnia."
Maybe she should take lessons from this person:

"But Iraq has—have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future."

"I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else, to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God."

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week—we will have an all-volunteer army. Let me restate that."

And the classic one:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

There are tons more of these:

The Complete Bushisms (http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/)

Maybe that is why you can't understand Sheehan's dialogue because you are just getting comfortable understanding what Bush says?

One thing the Democrats need to learn, if you lay down with dirty dogs you're going to end up with fleas. The cultists who are using Casey Sheenan's mom are very much dirty dogs.
Republicans love smear campaigns?

But while that was a part of her speech it was not the sum. The latter portion of her speech said what you claimed it did. That was not the message that the former portion sent. Defend this speech if you like. But if I were you I'd find something worth defending instead.
It appears that they already have found something "worth" defending?

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

Really want to know ? or prefer it be secret so no fretting :P

There are other people who think that Israel was given to the Israelis by the British government at the end of WWII wth some fairly specifically designated borders and that the plan was that it should stay within them. We call these people history students.

Still other people have trouble with the idea that you could clas Israelis using extreme violence in the occupied territories since the eighties as retaliation for the suicide bombings on non-military targets that started in the nineties, but that's another story.

The point is that Jerusalem's really pretty holy to a few people, and OTHER people have been living on the West Bank for a little while. If you're going to go marching in there yellng "It's Jewish land - we've got a Holy Book that says so" then you really can't be surprised when a whole load of other political extremists start brandishing their Holy Book to similar crowd-pleasing effect and bomb the shit out of you.

Sadly, as gets pointed out at length in the case of Israel, most of the people getting bombed on buses seem to be reasonable people who have no strong religious expansionist streak and just got caught up in the crossfire. Similarly for the somewhat larger though more media-shy number of Palestinian casualties whose fanatics are dragging them into a conflict.

Might be wrong , but thought their settlements came after the middle east attacked israel and israel kicked their asses ?

I don't get it. What on earth is so upsetting about that woman speaking her mind?

So she thinks that the USA should withdraw from Iraq, so what? I remember dozens of thread right in this forum where people voiced the same opinion, why shouldn't she?

So she thinks it's somehow wrong to die in a foreign country on a state-sponsored expedition to kill the inhabitants. So? As I said, that's her opinion. Why would you hate somebody for their opinion?
The one thing I would criticise her for is not trying to talk her son out off joining the army in the first place and place the blame afterwards, she should have know better, I think.
I personally think no country is worth dying for, especially not as pointless as that. But more important, I don't think anything in the world is worth killing for.
Does that make me an evil person??? Or do I have to get a son killed first to reach her level of evilness?

One thing the Democrats need to learn, if you lay down with dirty dogs you're going to end up with fleas.
Like Rumsfeld learnt after he lay down with Hussein? Wasn't Hussein greatly helped by US representatives in building up a chemical arsenal? Oh silly me, that was completely different, of course, as these "WMD" were to be used against Iran.
And didn't the US help and finance the taliban and Al Qaeda? Again silly me, that was of course to help in the fight against the Soviet Union.

I mean, who would seriously consider that giving highly mental and/or religious fanatics weapons could result in these weapons being used against us? Only naughty people would do such a thing.

Like Rumsfeld learnt after he lay down with Hussein? Wasn't Hussein greatly helped by US representatives in building up a chemical arsenal? Oh silly me, that was completely different, of course, as these "WMD" were to be used against Iran.
And didn't the US help and finance the taliban and Al Qaeda? Again silly me, that was of course to help in the fight against the Soviet Union.

I mean, who would seriously consider that giving highly mental and/or religious fanatics weapons could result in these weapons being used against us? Only naughty people would do such a thing.


Exscuse me..I think your standing in a puddle of sarcasm.

Looks like you have some on your shoe.

Like Rumsfeld learnt after he lay down with Hussein? Wasn't Hussein greatly helped by US representatives in building up a chemical arsenal? Oh silly me, that was completely different, of course, as these "WMD" were to be used against Iran.
And didn't the US help and finance the taliban and Al Qaeda? Again silly me, that was of course to help in the fight against the Soviet Union.

I mean, who would seriously consider that giving highly mental and/or religious fanatics weapons could result in these weapons being used against us? Only naughty people would do such a thing.

I know it's cruel, but there are times when I cannot help but laugh at the irony of this. The US has a habit of sponsoring terrorist and militarist groups hoping they will do their dirty work for them. And it just keeps going wrong, wrong and wrong again. But that doesn't mean that the US would stop that policy and rather take a moment to look around for sound and stable allies, no way. Go for the guy with the biggest gun who says he's on your side right now, you can't possibly be wrong. :rolleyes:

Exscuse me..I think your standing in a puddle of sarcasm.

Looks like you have some on your shoe.
And proud of it!

Especially since apparently content-wise you had no arguments to counter my remarks :D

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

Since the US military indeed has killed abnormal numbers of civilians in Iraq (in one extreme instance managing to bomb a wedding party), the two (non-exclusive) possibilities on the table are really:

1. The US military is staffed and run by a bunch of incompetent fools.
2. The US military does attack with the intent of killing civilians.

Since the US military indeed has killed abnormal numbers of civilians in Iraq (in one extreme instance managing to bomb a wedding party), the two (non-exclusive) possibilities on the table are really:

1. The US military is staffed and run by a bunch of incompetent fools.
2. The US military does attack with the intent of killing civilians.

An Spanish newspaper published a shocking new: When the spanish troops were on the ground the americans messed to involve them in a battle with some rebels.

The battle took place, and it's knows as "the battle of April 4th".

About 50 rebels were killed in that operation.

The paper also describes how the american mercenaries LIKED to shoot the widow women. Imagine, old women, widow, blak dressed, muslim-style. The mercenaries paid by the americans called these people "Ninjas".

Since the US military indeed has killed abnormal numbers of civilians in Iraq (in one extreme instance managing to bomb a wedding party), the two (non-exclusive) possibilities on the table are really:

1. The US military is staffed and run by a bunch of incompetent fools.
2. The US military does attack with the intent of killing civilians.Overgeneralization. Under certain circumstances, the military will prefer civilian casaulties to American ones. This usually occurs in "when in doubt" situations and is not based on either incompetence or any intent. It isn't right, but what you said it was isn't either.

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

None.

Edit: Sorry for generalizing. Of course, an organization doesn't need to be completely made up of morons/villains in order to make incompetent/evil decisions. Still, the decisions that are made are wrong, and therefore either through bad intent or through bad judgement.

And proud of it!

Especially since apparently content-wise you had no arguments to counter my remarks :D


Ummm..I wasnt trying to debate you..just make a quick funny about the sarcasm-laden post you made.

See...sometimes....its good not to be 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. ]

As far as I'm concerned she's just a grieving mother who's gone a little buggers from losing her son . The few parasites around her and the media attention do not change that fact . That and the fact she has a few hundred followers out of 300,000,000 . That fact wont change no matter how many times the idiots put her on TV . They are a small minority that makes noise out of proportion to their influence thanks to the media trumpets . Ignore her and she will go away . No coverage for a week and " poof " the circus will go someplace else .

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?

One of the reasons he had some is because we armed him with them. We know that North Korea has WMDs too, and yet we did not go war with them. It is not the 'liberal media' that poisons peoples minds. It is an apathy and a lack of desire to understand what is really going on. You can sit here and spur your little warhorse for all it's worth, but I bet you won't ever put your money where your mouth is and go see it for yourself.

Iraq destroyed his arsenals after the Gulf War.

Believing what Cheney said -a guy only interested in oil- is being a fool and risking your own life.

I can explain it...

I can explain it...Please do. What you're saying makes the case weaker for the rest of us (Cheney is more interested in controlling the ME than in oil, I'd wager)

Where were you?
Operation Southern Watch against Iraq prior to the the war, Operation Northern Watch in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Here I go.

You can talk me about teories pronounced by liers; you can tell me that this analist says that or this one says the other thing, but:

The fact is that 7-July only happened after the England support of the wars on muslim countries.
The fact is that 11-March only happened after the Spain support of the wars on muslim countries.
The fact is that before these wars, the only objective was the USA. Why?

Because they see you as a menace.

First, the israeli-palestinian conflict; which gained many hate among the muslim world for your continuous support of Israel.
Second, selling weapons both to Iran and Iraq to make them kill theirselves.
Third, the continuous presence of USA soldiers in the Middle East, which is seen for many people as a covered occupation.

Every country your troops go on, the more it feeds the hate of the people.

Cheney, BTW; follows the neocon agenda, which drives your government to runover as many mideast countries as possible. This makes the people to hate you more and more.

I have not enough time to talk, so I'll by brief: what I can pre-see is that war on terrorism will never end while the neocons stay in the government.

This means more countries occupied, and more and more risk in your own country.

The terrorists only attack a country if its a demonstrated menace.

And I will follow. PM or telegram me. Keep talking!!!!

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

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?

No. We love the idea of Iraq having IT'S OWN Democracy. Not an American -puppet-Corporatocracy. But we also do not believe it to be our duty or responsibility to bring that Democracy (or American-puppet-corporatocracy) to Iraq.
Come on, right wingers!! Be fucking honest...you guys don't want Iraq to have IT'S OWN democracy, either. What you really want is for them to have a "democracy" that America APPROVES of (in other words a puppet-Corporatocracy)
Just be fucking honest!! We, on the left...already know what you guys won't admit...not even to yourselves!

The Iraqi constitution is being written and fought over by the delegates elected by the Iraqi people themselves. These delegates were not appointed, they were not assigned, and the Americans are not writing the constitution for them.

The extremely successful Japanese constitution, for example, was written by the Americans and was forced on them after WWII with narely a lick of Japanese input by comparison to this one in Iraq. And I would argue that the Japanese one has been very successful and the Iraqi one is being hashed out by a very Iraqi self-determining fashion.

For a more recent comparison, Panama’s government went through a forced and successful regime change and Afghanistan is looking hopeful and improving even though they are still fighting there as well. It can be done, and it is being done. To argue that the new Iraqi government will be a puppet regime is utter ridiculousness and shows a lack of understanding of what is going on over there politically. The mere fact that they are fighting tooth and nail over what goes into the developing constitution is proof positive of it’s Iraqi influence. Much like the American delegates over two hundred years ago in the colonies, there were times when Benjamin Franklin thought that a national constitution would never get approved without further bloodshed. The Iraqi people are just as able as anyone else, they are just as human and deserving of self-determination via elections as anyone in Europe or the Americas. To suggest that we pull out now and leave them like America abandoned Somalia is crass and calloused. Open your eyes to the people like the Kurds, oppressed for longer than many of the people in this forum have been alive, fighting for their liberties and rights, finally a glimmer of hope and international recognition and help (long since over due) and the peaceniks in America would have us abandon them yet again …

The American service people have done and are continuing to do a fantastic job.

<snip>
The only thing I have a problem with is your comparison of the Japanese constitution to the potential Iraqi one.
Iraq isn't as unified as Japan was and there is no big enemy they need prolonged protection from that the US can offer.

Open your eyes to the people like the Kurds, oppressed for longer than many of the people in this forum have been alive, fighting for their liberties and rights, finally a glimmer of hope and international recognition and help (long since over due) and the peaceniks in America would have us abandon them yet again …

Not bloody likely, as American ally Turkey continues to oppress them.

Cindy Sheehan pisses on her son's grave and the american media just eats it up.

That's incredible! Do you have pictures to support that!?

The US is worth dying for but Iraq is not.


It has probably already been said but I'm not reading through 25 pages to find it.

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

What harm does it do?

Democracy, Freedom of Speech. These mean anything?

I mean really, how hard would it have been to suck it up?

So - she comes into his office and yells at him for twenty minutes. I've worked in store jobs... getting yelled at by the clients is a risk of ANY job dealing with the public.

So - she yells. She gets over it. He sucks it up. She feels better.

Game over, and nobody ended up camped on the grass, attracting media attention.

I've been very critical of Cindy Sheehan in other forums becasue she has changed her story on a number of occasions and I've documented that on other forums. I believe she's a left wing radical and her own comments back that up.

That being said, the arguement that she said America is not worth dying for is a false one. That allegation comes from an article published in a April frontpagemag.com article where the author qouted two sentences of Cindy's which by themselves make it look like she was talking about America. However, the actual transcript of her speech clearly shows she was talking about Iraq as being not worth dying for. An August frontpagemag.com article correctly qoutes her.

I don't trust Cindy Sheehan bacause she has changed her stroy of different events several times in various interviews and speeches. One example of this is her description of how Bush acted in his meeting with the Sheehan family in June of last year. I've read four articles where Cindy was interviewd and she has given a differnet account of her meeting with Bush in each one of them. One is the Vacaville Reporter article, an other is an interview with buxzzflash in Oct. of 2004, another is an interview published in LewisNews in July of this year and the final one is the transcript of her interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Four different interviews and four different versions.

As I said, I don't trust Cindy becasue I beleive she will say what she thinks needs to be said to promote her agenda and facts be damned. I also don't trust those who keep on insisiting that Cindy said America isn't worth dying for even though the facts say otherwise. IMO, they who do this are no better then Cindy as they are willing to fudge the truth in order to promote their own agenda.

She can emigrate to any nation that would have her.



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. ]

<snip>That is a post well worthy of praise. It's good that some people are willing to consider allegations as false when they are proven wrong.

I've been very critical of Cindy Sheehan in other forums becasue she has changed her story on a number of occasions and I've documented that on other forums. I believe she's a left wing radical and her own comments back that up.

That being said, the arguement that she said America is not worth dying for is a false one. That allegation comes from an article published in a April frontpagemag.com article where the author qouted two sentences of Cindy's which by themselves make it look like she was talking about America. However, the actual transcript of her speech clearly shows she was talking about Iraq as being not worth dying for. An August frontpagemag.com article correctly qoutes her.

I don't trust Cindy Sheehan bacause she has changed her stroy of different events several times in various interviews and speeches. One example of this is her description of how Bush acted in his meeting with the Sheehan family in June of last year. I've read four articles where Cindy was interviewd and she has given a differnet account of her meeting with Bush in each one of them. One is the Vacaville Reporter article, an other is an interview with buxzzflash in Oct. of 2004, another is an interview published in LewisNews in July of this year and the final one is the transcript of her interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Four different interviews and four different versions.

As I said, I don't trust Cindy becasue I beleive she will say what she thinks needs to be said to promote her agenda and facts be damned. I also don't trust those who keep on insisiting that Cindy said America isn't worth dying for even though the facts say otherwise. IMO, they who do this are no better then Cindy as they are willing to fudge the truth in order to promote their own agenda.
It didn't seem to me to be taken out of context or misquoted. Do you have a link to the original transcript of her speech, by any chance?

If anyone can prove to my satisfaction that she intended her "not worth dying for" remark to apply to Iraq, I will withdraw my contention.

It didn't seem to me to be taken out of context or misquoted. Do you have a link to the original transcript of her speech, by any chance?

If anyone can prove to my satisfaction that she intended her "not worth dying for" remark to apply to Iraq, I will withdraw my contention.Have you missed the ones in the thread or did you not consider them satisfactory?

It didn't seem to me to be taken out of context or misquoted. Do you have a link to the original transcript of her speech, by any chance?

If anyone can prove to my satisfaction that she intended her "not worth dying for" remark to apply to Iraq, I will withdraw my contention.

It's been posted in this thread a number of times... all you really have to do is read it...

Eut, Here's the post where CanuckHeaven delivered what you asked for: Post 330 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9492866&postcount=330)

Even though I'm not American (Australian, actually) This woman annoys me too, although I think to an extent she has a right to act the way she does - she has, after all, just lost her son.
However, her actions devalue the ultimate sacrifice that all soldiers make for their countries when they fight and die in war.
That this isn't the Great War, WWII, Viet Nam or any of the more celebrated wars makes the loss of a soldier's life no more or less tragic, and it shouldn't take away from the respect people show for them. It's not the soldier's fault that they happened to die in a war that they, just like everyone else, had no say in the happenings of.

And finally, I think that this woman asking for the war to be called off completely devalued her son's sacrifice - if the war is called off, he will have died for nothing.

(Personally I would have preferred if the war had never started, but I believe that you can't just start stuff like that and then back out of it. You make a commitment, you see it to the end. Especially when people's lives are involved. If that makes me an evil or bad person... so be it. I don't feel bad about my opinions)

... unwilling to take action when we really need to.The action we needed to take was LET BLIX FINISH HIS FUCKING JOB...

That was the action needed to be taken...thats leadership...

You want to help?...Rwanda is/was in much more need...

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.

Well said.

Even though I'm not American (Australian, actually) This woman annoys me too, although I think to an extent she has a right to act the way she does - she has, after all, just lost her son.
However, her actions devalue the ultimate sacrifice that all soldiers make for their countries when they fight and die in war.
That this isn't the Great War, WWII, Viet Nam or any of the more celebrated wars makes the loss of a soldier's life no more or less tragic, and it shouldn't take away from the respect people show for them. It's not the soldier's fault that they happened to die in a war that they, just like everyone else, had no say in the happenings of.

And finally, I think that this woman asking for the war to be called off completely devalued her son's sacrifice - if the war is called off, he will have died for nothing.

(Personally I would have preferred if the war had never started, but I believe that you can't just start stuff like that and then back out of it. You make a commitment, you see it to the end. Especially when people's lives are involved. If that makes me an evil or bad person... so be it. I don't feel bad about my opinions)

Niiiiice. I agree with you on this. Plus wanting to call off the war because HER son was killed is kinda foolish. What about other mothers? Thier son's died...oh well...but mine did so we gotta call off the war :rolleyes:

Niiiiice. I agree with you on this. Plus wanting to call off the war because HER son was killed is kinda foolish. What about other mothers? Thier son's died...oh well...but mine did so we gotta call off the war :rolleyes:

Thanks. :)
Yeah, I know... If I were a mother who had also lost her son in this war, I would be pretty annoyed with this woman. But that's just me, I guess.

Also, she should take into account that her son joined the army out of choice - it's not like America has conscription (does it? I don't actually know, but I would be so, so surprised if it does), so clearly she should... ya know, respect that he probably believed in what he was doing, and would want her to remember him with pride, rather than... discrediting his sacrifice for his country.

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

the same thing it allways does give you more friends like ossama!

“There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can’t all be worth dying for?”
“Anything worth living for is worth dying for.”
“And anything worth dying for is certainly worth living for.”
--CATCH 22.joseph heller

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 issue whether it was a "belief" remains debatable. But at least we are staying and attempting to fix the mess that is Iraq.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.And this I will not let you get away with. The war in Iraq IS about 9/11... 1973! (look up the date). It's about American arrogance in foreign politics and the ignorance that it might lead to hatred for the country as a whole. It shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing, but it certainly should stop us from doing ANYTHING WE WANT.
There is a radical thinking, based on ignorance, fear, religious intolerance, and poverty, that is spreading throughout the Muslim communities. Except for the muslim and poverty bit, that perfectly describes Anne Coulter. Be aware that such radical thinking spreads EVERYWHERE unless it is checked. 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.I agree. This cancer is the inability to accept truth and to change your mind... It happens to everyone in every political spectrum. Some just do worse things when they're convinced they're right. I think we disagree on how to combat it.
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. An Israeli friend of mine explained islamic terror to me. They aren't interested in winning in their life-time, or their children's or even their grandchildren's life-times. The war they fight will continue until something is solved. 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.No. You misunderstand "Old Europe." Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa... those are legitimate battlefields in the war on terror. Iraq wasn't until the US attacked, removing the one figure that, while supporting some terror, kept islamic terrorism at bay. This has nothing to do with the shock going away (though the US pulling off Iraq against the will of the international community does).
And now I ask you this: Why aren't we going into Pakistan? The terrorist camps that were a threat in Afghanistan have relocated there. Those are a threat to America, since there's clearly a connection between schools in Pakistan and the London bombings. It makes me doubt that Bush really intends to protect Americans and that the WMDs was a "mistaken belief" and not an outright lie.

...it's not like America has conscription (does it? I don't actually know, but I would be so, so surprised if it does)...
To answer that question, yes, we do have a system of conscription that is not in use. It's called Selective Service and you can't get state student aid or run for office if you haven't registered for it.

First, the israeli-palestinian conflict; which gained many hate among the muslim world for your continuous support of Israel.

If you can demonstrate why its wrong to support Israel then perhaps I will listen to you. There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel anymore than there is something wrong with supporting the Palisitanin civililans. Whats wrong is supporting the actions of those who kill civilians with the specific intention of killing civilians. Thats where the IDF and people like Hammass differ. The IDF wants to rid their part of the world of terrorists, not Arab's in general, just terrorists. However Hammass wants to kill all Jews, any Jews.

If you can demonstrate why its wrong to support Israel then perhaps I will listen to you. There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel anymore than there is something wrong with supporting the Palisitanin civililans. Whats wrong is supporting the actions of those who kill civilians with the specific intention of killing civilians. Thats where the IDF and people like Hammass differ. The IDF wants to rid their part of the world of terrorists, not Arab's in general, just terrorists. However Hammass wants to kill all Jews, any Jews.I'd disagree a bit. Israel pulls off a lot of shit that ruins the lives of Palestinians (like monopolizing the local water supplies). The difference is that this has no effect on Israel's right to exist as a nation and as far as I recall, Israel actually arrests its extremists if they misbehave (and I mean for less than parading around shooting their kalashnikov rounds into the air).

If you can demonstrate why its wrong to support Israel...can you prove it was wrong to support Germany or Japan in either WW
can you prove it was wrong to support the USA in the Vietnam war?

can you?

can you prove it was wrong to support Germany?.. or Japan?
can you prove it was wrong to support the USA in the Vietnam war?

can you?I can prove why it would be wrong for the US not to, too... :D

I can prove why it would be wrong for the US not to, too... :DIf you can prove that the answer is "Yes"...and can also prove that the answer is "No".

Then you can proove anything...But at the same time you are no longer a valid source.

An Spanish newspaper published a shocking new: When the spanish troops were on the ground the americans messed to involve them in a battle with some rebels.

The battle took place, and it's knows as "the battle of April 4th".

About 50 rebels were killed in that operation.

The paper also describes how the american mercenaries LIKED to shoot the widow women. Imagine, old women, widow, blak dressed, muslim-style. The mercenaries paid by the americans called these people "Ninjas".
Would you happen to have a link to this newspaper story?

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. ]
Hmmm and from that quote I understood it she was talking about Iraq not the US

If you can prove that the answer is "Yes"...and can also prove that the answer is "No".

Then you can proove anything...But at the same time you are no longer a valid source.Ah, so the world is no longer with shades of grey and is totally Black and White as Bush claims it is? Us or them? :rolleyes:

I came close many times to dying for America. A number of my best friends gave their lives for America. ... Why in God's name is that not worth dying for?


But they're not dying for America now - they're dying for Iraq, or the Neocons' idea of what Iraq SHOULD be.

But they're not dying for America now - they're dying for Iraq, or the Neocons' idea of what Iraq SHOULD be.
So you don't think that a major, free, democratic State in the Middle East is any help to America?

So you don't think that a major, free, democratic State in the Middle East is any help to America?
It could be

Though the question of the price of making it that way … then maintaining it as such… it becomes a question of IF it is enough help


Though when you state it that way it sounds like a purly selfish act rather then us trying to help them

So you don't think that a major, free, democratic State in the Middle East is any help to America?And you think the way we've gone about it is any help to America? It's strengthened the radical elements in the rest of the middle east, and while this may get more democracy into those countries, remember that Iran is more democratic than Egypt, and Egypt isn't labeled a rogue state for a reason...

And you think the way we've gone about it is any help to America? It's strengthened the radical elements in the rest of the middle east, and while this may get more democracy into those countries, remember that Iran is more democratic than Egypt, and Egypt isn't labeled a rogue state for a reason...


It's strengthened the radical elements in the middle east? Nonsense. I was in the middle east in 83' - 84' with kidnappings, killings, bombings, entire countries succumbing to the radicals (Lebanon) wars and military action all over the place and European cruise ships being taken hostage etc., etc., etc.

This Iraqi war has done no such thing.

So you don't think that a major, free, democratic State in the Middle East is any help to America?
Yeah, because that's just what we're going to get. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082200101_pf.html) Not. :rolleyes:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 22 -- Shiites and Kurds were sending a draft constitution to parliament on Monday that would fundamentally change Iraq, transforming the country into a loose federation, with a weak central administration governed by Islamic law, negotiators said.

The draft, slated for action by a Monday deadline, would be a sweeping rejection of the demands of Iraq's disaffected Sunni minority, which has called the proposed federal system the start of the breakup of Iraq. Shiites and Kurds indicated they were in no mood to compromise.

snip

Key provisions of the draft would formalize an already autonomous Kurdish state in the north, under a federal system. The rest of the country also would be allowed to form federal systems -- opening the way for the demand by the dominant Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to create a southern Shiite sub-state out of up to half of Iraq's 18 regions.

Sunnis and others say such a state would be under heavy influence from neighboring, Shiite-ruled Iran.

The draft also stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state and that no law can contradict the principles of Islam, Shiite and Kurdish negotiators said. Opponents have charged that last provision would subject Iraqis to religious edicts by individual clerics.

The Shiite and Kurdish negotiators also said draft calls for the presence of Islamic clerics on the court that would interpret the constitution. Family matters such as divorce, marriage or inheritance would be decided either by religious law or civil law as an individual chooses -- a condition that opponents say would likely lead to women being forced into unfavorable rulings for them by opponents demanding judgments under Islamic law.

Sounds like a hell of a democracy to me. Not.

Yeah, because that's just what we're going to get. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082200101_pf.html) Not. :rolleyes:

Sounds like a hell of a democracy to me. Not.
Rome wasn't built in a day, oh ye of little patience. Give it time. :p

Yeah, because that's just what we're going to get. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082200101_pf.html) Not. :rolleyes:



Sounds like a hell of a democracy to me. Not.

You should go and re-read the framing of the American constitution, and remind yourself of the fights the different colonies had in agreeing to share states power with federal power. Some knock down drag out fights were had, even between the founding fathers like Madison and Jefferson, every state wanted to maintain as much autonomy as they could, some wanted this some wanted that... In fact, I'd have to say that the Iraqi diplomats fighting about their constitution is quite civil in comparison.

Rome wasn't built in a day, oh ye of little patience. Give it time. :p
All the time in the world isn't going to turn this fiasco into a democracy. They're writing Islamic law into the Constitution. That's the equivalent of what rabid "christian" wingnuts would love to do here--the Christian Republic of the United States of America, one nation under God, unless you're a Catholic, black, gay, atheist, female or Democrat.

Get this straight--this is what you have supported all along--we have taken what was a secular state run by a madman but still stable and no threat to us or its neighbors and turned it into an unstable region, filled with terrorists, and if it gains any stability at all, it will turn into an Islamic Republic much like Iran, which, as I recall, is on the so-called Axis of Evil. Great work, dude. Hope you're fucking proud of yourself.

You aught to spend some time reading about the stuff that doesn't make it to the newspapers... such as the weekly USAID document.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/aug05/iraq_fs42_081805.pdf

You've seem to have an entirely negative view of all things Iraqi.

So you're saying that when she said "This country is not worth dying for" she was talking about Canada? :rolleyes:

*snicker*

When sophistry is all the Left has left then they are left with nothing. :D

For the last goddamned time...READ the ENTIRE QUOTE, and it is obvious she, herself, is willing to die for AMERICA. But not for Iraq.

Goddamn, how stubborn can you right-wingers BE in refusing to accept the truth?? Do you REALLY need your delusions that badly??

:brickwall:

Classic Bushevik tactics. Commit a crime then condemn the opposition for the same thing.

Use cheap Sophistry then call Liberals and Democrats Sophists.

Call John Kerry a flip-flopper then start flip-flopping on government policies.

See a pattern here? Don't you just love Busheviks?

No, I hate them!! They make me want to beat my head against a fucking brick wall!! How can they not see the forest for the trees??

Jesus Christ, we all but shove it in their faces, and they still refuse to see it!!

So you don't think that a major, free, democratic State in the Middle East is any help to America?

I assume you mean Egypt?

Maybe she should take lessons from this person:

"But Iraq has—have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future."

"I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else, to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God."

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week—we will have an all-volunteer army. Let me restate that."

And the classic one:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

There are tons more of these:

The Complete Bushisms (http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/)

Maybe that is why you can't understand Sheehan's dialogue because you are just getting comfortable understanding what Bush says?


Republicans love smear campaigns?


It appears that they already have found something "worth" defending?


My three personal favorite Bushisms all reflect different parts of the REAL character of Bush. The first his stupidity, the second, his callousness, and the third, his outright meanness.

1. I know how hard it is to put food on your family.

2. (after laughing about a single mom working three jobs) Uniquely American, isn't it?? Get much sleep? (laughs again)

3. (to Dick cheney, beleiving his mike to be off) "And there is Adam Clymer, major-league asshole from the New York Times."

I think I ought to start a thread of favorite Bushisms, and famous Bush moments, where the truth threatens to come out.

You should go and re-read the framing of the American constitution, and remind yourself of the fights the different colonies had in agreeing to share states power with federal power. Some knock down drag out fights were had, even between the founding fathers like Madison and Jefferson, every state wanted to maintain as much autonomy as they could, some wanted this some wanted that... In fact, I'd have to say that the Iraqi diplomats fighting about their constitution is quite civil in comparison.

Probably true... I mean, unless the Iraqi government allows free membership to it's federation, and then launches an illegal war against any that opt out... they're going to have to be ahead, right?

All the time in the world isn't going to turn this fiasco into a democracy. They're writing Islamic law into the Constitution. That's the equivalent of what rabid "christian" wingnuts would love to do here--the Christian Republic of the United States of America, one nation under God, unless you're a Catholic, black, gay, atheist, female or Democrat.

Get this straight--this is what you have supported all along--we have taken what was a secular state run by a madman but still stable and no threat to us or its neighbors and turned it into an unstable region, filled with terrorists, and if it gains any stability at all, it will turn into an Islamic Republic much like Iran, which, as I recall, is on the so-called Axis of Evil. Great work, dude. Hope you're fucking proud of yourself.So, what you are saying is that America should establish Iraq's goverment with no voice of the people? How very dictatorial of you. You must miss Saddam gassing Kurds.

So, what you are saying is that America should establish Iraq's goverment with no voice of the people? How very dictatorial of you. You must miss Saddam gassing Kurds.

I have an idea... let's see if you can make three posts in a row, WITHOUT flaming or flame-baiting anyone?

Sorry, my friend, but reading back over your posts in this thread, it just looks like a PMS workout...

I have an idea... let's see if you can make three posts in a row, WITHOUT flaming or flame-baiting anyone?

Sorry, my friend, but reading back over your posts in this thread, it just looks like a PMS workout...
Hey, pot, your black.

So, what you are saying is that America should establish Iraq's goverment with no voice of the people? How very dictatorial of you. You must miss Saddam gassing Kurds.
How did you get here from there?

So, what you are saying is that America should establish Iraq's goverment with no voice of the people? How very dictatorial of you.
It worked for Japan!

Hey, pot, your black.

Is that an attempt at refutation, stemming from a comparison between our post-styles?

I'd have worked on it a little longer, were I you...

Where is my 'thread full of flaming and flamebaiting'?

How did you get here from there?

The guy was complaining that the Iraqis are writing a constitution that he doesn't care for, so the next guy asks what other choice do we have, write one for them? And then he speculates on how that would make us, almost as bad as the first guys thinks we are already... Suggesting that perhaps he would think that Saddam was a better fit afterall since for the first guy's suggestion involved no choices for the people and seeing as how Saddam never gave them the right to determine their own futures either, that they would be similar...

Get it?

[QUOTE]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.

There where a lot of attrocities in Vietnam and in other wars. So U.S. soldiers do in fact kill 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. Laos and Cambodia were attacked by airstrikes to stop the flow of men and shipments for the Viet Cong.

Again your excuses are irrelevant. U.S. soldiers have and continue to kill civilians.

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

I don't have access to documents that will enable me to determine how often friendly fire caused injury and death to coalition forces, but the fact that there have been reported incidents provides enough evidence that U.S. military tactics lead to innocent people dying.

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.

If common sense is so wonderful why don't you try using it? How do you determine the location of a bunker in another country? How do you determine the contents of that bunker once you locate it? How do you confirm that they are WMDs (which have yet to be found), or school children taking shelter from the bombs?

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.

Well I would give you an answer, but then if you don't agree you just accuse me of not having common sense. ;)

Sure, despite the fact that a person in the military is employed, right?

Exactly my point. For every U.S. soldier that dies in Iraq, another soldier is required to take his/her place. Therefore deaths in Iraq = less unemployment. If you still can't grasp this simple equation I suggest you review the practice of employing women in factories during WW2.

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?

Again I see no evidence of this wonderful thing called common sense or proof in your arguments. All I see are claims that you support your facts with common sense when you find you have no adequate response to my posts.

Do you think that they would be welcomed?

They were welcomed and some slaves (who fled the U.S. to find freedom in Canada) were able to book passage back to Africa.

[QUOTE]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.

I guess this is why they involved themselves in Wars against, Mexico, Spain, the Phillipines and China prior to WW2?

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.

As you have already conceded, Russia, UK, Canada, China and other allied nations contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. The U.S. simply waited until both sides where weakened from war before tipping the scales. Which is what inevitably allowed them to emerge as the world's most powerful nation.

Your loyalty should not be determined by what you can destroy, but what you can defend.

So if I believe in peaceful, intellectual methods to solving problems does this mean I should be willing to kill and die to defend those principles?

And in the case of America, what you should be ready to defend is the very principles America was founded on.

Principles such as slavery, genocide and the refusal to pay taxes? Thanks but I'll leave the sacrifice of defending those values to someone gullible enough to believe they are worth dying for.

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.

And what would be a reputable source? Judging from your posts you seem to be getting most of your information from a Hollywood movie starring Ben Affleck and Cuba Gooden Jr.

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.

Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. To get out of an argument that was over his head.

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?

What's the point in providing proof? You'll simply state that my links are not reputable. But if you want proof all you have to do is travel the Americas. Ofcourse there were attrocities committed by the conquistadors, but the genocide wasn't as thorough as it was in the U.S. Which is why you still see people of native origin all over Latin America, whereas in the U.S. the story of Pocahontas is considered an exotic fairy tale.

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.

So I guess the lynchings ended with the Emancipation Proclamation? Rodney King will be so relieved to hear this.

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.

Personally I would prefer to live for my child's benefit, so I could be around to teach them that violence is not an adequate solution to life's problems.

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 realize this argument is not directed to me, but does this mean that you are admitting that the U.S. military is responsible for civilian deaths? Are you also comparing Iraq to Vietnam? And, if so, why hasn't the U.S. learned from its mistakes?

...remember that Iran is more democratic than Egypt, and Egypt isn't labeled a rogue state for a reason...Damn right...

Iran is more democratic than all the Muslim Countries that the US protects: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United-Arab-emirates, etc,etc,etc.

So, what you are saying is that America should establish Iraq's goverment with no voice of the people? How very dictatorial of you. You must miss Saddam gassing Kurds.

*rubs hands together* Ewww nice flame.

*brings out a bag of marshmellows*

Anybody want one?

For the challenged. [/sarcasm] ;)

Is that an attempt at refutation, stemming from a comparison between our post-styles?

I'd have worked on it a little longer, were I you...

Where is my 'thread full of flaming and flamebaiting'?

Oh, don't worry about it. Any time you disagree with him or make harsh, but true, comments about right-wingers, he considers it falme or flamebaiting. We had a go-round about that earlier in this thread, or in a different thread, I'm not really sure which, and too lazy to scroll back and look.

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.


can you say MEDIA WHORE,or how about a pawn/stooge for the fringe left capitalizing on the legitamate grief of families and loved ones who died there...rightly or wrongly.
she is a foolish pawn at best,and a selfish media whore at worse,let me take out my crystal ball,i see a book and movie about HER ordeal,very little about her brave son who apparently gave his life in what he believed in..or he would not have re upped.
i am not really in favor of the war,nor am i left or right,but we are there,people are dying..we need to support the men and women there,not telling them they are fighting for a lie.
i had to laugh or i would have cried the other day,i saw some asshat in berkley cali with a sign calling the soldiers baby killers,maybe accidently we have killed some kids...but really..can anyone with a semblance of a brain not realize who is actually killing babies(on purpose )over there.for some reason i think it is the imported terr's,the sunnis(wtf..they allready killed a bunch of innocents when saddam was in power)or just the merc's for hire that are getting paid to make these bombs they put..where?schoolyards,markets!
man,i can understand people hating bush..even america(which i love..warts and all)but puhleese,comparing us to the crazy pschopathic murderers they call freedom fighters is just plain pathetic.
if you disagree with the war..write your congressman,dont vote for bush..i didn't,just dont exploit your childs death to 1.further your political agenda or garner your 15 minutes of fame so you can do a tv/book deal.or worse yet 2.let some other people who dont give a rats ass for your loss or your sons,the ability to exploit it for there political agenda.
what a pathetic story,i feel bad for her loss,and i feel worse for the sick people trying to use it to further there political slant...just like i despise bush for exploiting 911 to justify iraq(a whole nother argument)
rant off :headbang:
also..wtf does the jew /palistinian issue have to do with anything at all with iraq and her loss...what a twit
another also,why is it i dont hear or know a thing about her son that died..but i see her stupid pie hole everytime i turn around with the other twit..mammoth moby moore?i wonder after this cause celebre' is over..moore will go on to bigger(no pun intended)things and she will get kicked to the curb,thats when the talk show shilling her book bs will start...just mho

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/22/D8C5913G0.html

?

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.

If they were smart they wouldn't have to resort to killing as a way to sustain their way of life.

P.S. Although atomic weapons weren't used, Tokyo was also bombed.

coming back to where?

another thread on Sheehan? This story has already been posted btw. Thanks for keeping her in the spotlight. Your attention to this story is the reason she will keep coming back, sorry to say.

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...

Okay I'm going to start a religion that says I'm legally entitled to half of China.

If they were smart they wouldn't have to resort to killing as a way to sustain their way of life.

Ummm, yeah... Riiiiight. The allies fought the war because they were too stupid to think of another way of stopping the aggression of WWII Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, I sure wish I had the forethought to recognize such obvious truths. I'm sure they all would have stopped being 'mean' if only we had asked them nicely to think about how 'others' feel about their action...
:rolleyes:

P.S. Although atomic weapons weren't used, Tokyo was also bombed.


That's right. The truth is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked because they were relatively unharmed by previous attacks. The only sure way of ensuring that the Japanese military and leadership would be forced to recognize the fact that the Americans had the power to destroy entire cities with a single attack. The Americans feared that the Japanese military leaders would think it was just more fire-bombing if the Americans dropped the atomics on Tokyo or some other place like that.

Ummm, yeah... Riiiiight. The allies fought the war because they were too stupid to think of another way of stopping the aggression of WWII Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, I sure wish I had the forethought to recognize such obvious truths.

Clearly. How many intelligent people would risk dying if they could find a way to resolve differences peacefully?

I'm sure they all would have stopped being 'mean' if only we had asked them nicely to think about how 'others' feel about their action...
:rolleyes:

Well, maybe if we asked them with a little less sarcasm. ;)

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

what a steaming pile of doodoo....oh sainted one..please deliver us from our oppressed chains..maybe mike moore can help us too...what a nauseating,i wanna be a liberal player too..ass kissing waste of space.
hitlery...another lying pile of crap..as bad as bush...were the hell did you dig this trite nonsense up..the democratic underground?
why not get the pope to saint the traitorous hypocrite/storychanging fringe liberal stooge shehan,cause she is soooo honest and pure...wow,people actually buy this nonsense?i aint even near being conservative,and i despise bush..but really...this women is a liar and her old man aint leaving her for no reason.
i wont say i know for a fact,but i have read(and it could be mindless partisan b.s.)that part of him leaving is because he is pissed about her dishonoring his son,and apparently they have dug up some old porn crap she did.not that i care about porn..hell i love it..but it sorta contradicts her supermom..sunday school teacher image she crafted...kinda like her doing a 180 about her 1st meeting with bush were she praised him..i can dig that link up i think if needed..it was her local paper interview.
what a look at me pos..i want,i need...i hope she wakes the hell up and realizes she is being a pos..but she got what she asked for..her 15 minutes...be carefull what you wish for..cindy.

Okay I'm going to start a religion that says I'm legally entitled to half of China.

Now if you can only figure out a way to start it five thousand years ago, people will respect that land claim.

You aught to spend some time reading about the stuff that doesn't make it to the newspapers... such as
Yeah, such as the hijacking of the Iraqi economy by large US corporations:

Iraq's new patent law (http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/07/09.htm)

A declaration of war against farmers

War: Trade By Other Means (http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/06/13.htm)

How The US Is Getting A Free Trade Agreement With Iraq Without The Negotiations

The hijacking of a nation (http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/05/05.htm)

Democracy and self determination are a farce in occupied Iraq

Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations)

You've seem to have an entirely negative view of all things Iraqi.

That is not difficult to have that kind of view:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency could last decade (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/27/iraq.main.intl1400/)

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at End-2004 (http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_deviraqinsurgency.pdf)

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/)

War radicalized most, probes find

And what about Afghanistan? we don't hear too much news from that corner of the world these days, Could it be that things are not so rosey?

Travel Warning (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_2121.html)

The Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) workers throughout the country. The ability of Afghan authorities to maintain order and ensure the security of citizens and visitors is limited. Remnants of the former Taliban regime and the terrorist al-Qaida network, and other groups hostile to the government, remain active.

Too bad the US didn't keep the focus on Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq.

I still say that Eutrusca ought to change--or be made to change--the thread title, since he quotes Cindy Sheehan as saying something she did not say. Eutrusca may have an accurate paraphrase, although I disagree, but paraphrases are not put in quotation marks, and in my non-lawyer opinion, his thread title is potentially libelous.

can you say MEDIA WHORE,

Kind of like the shrub and the rest of the goverment a few years back.

9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th....

Kind of like the shrub and the rest of the goverment a few years back.

9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, September the 11th....
You missed a few words in there:

threat

Saddam Hussein

Iraq

WMD

Al Qaida

Receipe for invasion:

Intersperse above words liberally throughout 9/11 dialogues and spread over the masses. Repeat recipe often enough and it takes on a growth of its' own.

You missed a few words in there:

threat

Saddam Hussein

Iraq

WMD

Al Qaida

Receipe for invasion:

Intersperse above words liberally throughout 9/11 dialogues and spread over the masses. Repeat recipe often enough and it takes on a growth of its' own.


NOW YOU WAIT JUST A DAMN MINUTE!!

YOU FORGOT POLAND!!!:D

coming back to where?

crawford

Eutrusca: If you can provide any links as to where Sheehan said "America not worth dying for", please do so.

The Nazz: If you can provide links to what you're trying to prove, please do so as well.

"Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists"

What a surprise

Eutrusca: If you can provide any links as to where Sheehan said "America not worth dying for", please do so.

The Nazz: If you can provide links to what you're trying to prove, please do so as well.
Here's a link (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm) to the transcript. The quote is in this paragraph: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. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}
As I said in the Moderation thread, even if Eutrusca's interpretation is correct, he's not quoting her accurately in the title of the thread.

For an example of the debate over the meaning of Sheehan's words, I can give you this link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9492866&postcount=330)

"Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists"

What a surprise

there were probably people in the crowd who would call themselves communists if not in that "camp"

"Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists"

What a surprise
Ever notice anyone who opposes a Republican war is a pinko-liberal?

Eutrusca: If you can provide any links as to where Sheehan said "America not worth dying for", please do so.


I would be curious to that as well Eut. All I can google are rightwing sites and the great she bitch annie so the credibility factor is in question. Especially when they only give a quote with no reference to the whole speech......

A neutral source would be good.....

Like I said in the other thread, best way to piss off a Pro-Bush person is to hold a counter-counter protests because God knows they love their counter-protests.

Like I said in the other thread, best way to piss off a Pro-Bush person is to hold a counter-counter protests because God knows they love their counter-protests.
Oh sweet Mother of Jesus... I see where this is going... and it ain't pretty neither. :headbang:

Oh sweet Mother of Jesus... I see where this is going... and it ain't pretty neither. :headbang:

I think the law of double-negatives applies

Here's a link (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm) to the transcript. The quote is in this paragraph:
As I said in the Moderation thread, even if Eutrusca's interpretation is correct, he's not quoting her accurately in the title of the thread.

For an example of the debate over the meaning of Sheehan's words, I can give you this link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9492866&postcount=330)

Thanks Nazz. As I read her comments came across as "this is not the america we should be dying for"

However, he comments of Iran and Syria can't have nukes but others can. I give her a :rolleyes: I agree with them not having them......

Thanks Nazz. As I read her comments came across as "this is not the america we should be dying for"

However, he comments of Iran and Syria can't have nukes but others can. I give her a :rolleyes: I agree with them not having them......
As I've said elsewhere, I'm leery of the transcript--the only place I've seen any sort of transcript is the link I posted, and that's from Horowitz, who's about as dishonest as they come. I'd trust Limbaugh before I trust Horowitz, and that's truly saying something.

I think the law of double-negatives applies
Nope the second negative occurs after the subject, but ti still is s gross crime against English.

Etruscia,
Pardon me for not adhering to the rules of NationStates engagement, and so speaking out of turn. (29 pages and I have dial up and am back after a hiatus since I have young children and thought I better be tending too their raising that playing online games and posting in forums).
Let it be known: I haven't read this whole thread! It's bookmarked, and I'm coming back to it, just as soon as I send my youngest off to kindergarten next week. (Those of you with children might understand, those without I doubt you ever will, despite your almost inevitable position as being a future parent).
Are you really blasting this woman? Do you have any idea how many people I know who have served/are serving in this war who think it is complete bunk? For the record, I happen to know a few who are biting at the bit to go overseas and kill Muslims; (though somehhing tells me they aren't quite getting the right message). People have the cahones to say that she is disgracing the memory of her own son? How do you know that? Maybe the kid really was confused and he felt he was just following orders; maybe he wasn't really that bright and all he knew was to follow orders.
No one may ever know the full story of this woman and the life of her son. So it's really kind of disgraceful that she has became both the "cause celebre" of the liberals and the "whipping boy" of the conservatives.
Leave this woman alone. Her son is dead. Peroid. She wants answers. Who can honestly blame her?

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.

Just a point I thought of reading this: terrorists think like that, too. Die for a cause, I mean... I guess maybe soldiers and freedom fighters/terrorists have that philosophy in common. Death means more than life.

That's right. The truth is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked because they were relatively unharmed by previous attacks. The only sure way of ensuring that the Japanese military and leadership would be forced to recognize the fact that the Americans had the power to destroy entire cities with a single attack. The Americans feared that the Japanese military leaders would think it was just more fire-bombing if the Americans dropped the atomics on Tokyo or some other place like that.
The first part is correct, both cities were picked because they had escaped any great distruction so far. However, this was necessary to later on pinpoint exactly how great the distruction created by the bombs was. Because mostly this was one big test (and it is still going on now - the US financing resarch in both places to check what the long term effects are).
The Japanese had already signalled that they would surrender, there was no necessary military reason to drop those bombs. Note the plural, because after Hiroshima, the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary, even if you still believe the propaganda that the Japanese hat to see the might of the new weapon before surrendering.

The US is worth dying for but Iraq is not.

I don't find worth dying for "a nation". That's a Middle Age thought -¡My honour!- or -¡My kingdom!-

I don't find worth dying for "a nation". That's a Middle Age thought -¡My honour!- or -¡My kingdom!-

Middle Ages was more dying for Christianity than anything else. There was also for Loyalty to the king or a Noble but nothing compared to the Idea of a Nation. Nations as we know them today did not begin until the early modern period. Nationalism had its beginnings in the very late Middle Ages. Around the time of the Hundred Years War (France vs. England) 14th century. More Modern Examples, The Reformation (which only took hold because of German Nationalism), Imperialism, The French Revolution, The Unification of Germany and of Italy, World War 1, World War 2, The Current problems between Israelis and Palestinians. So Dying for a nation is a pretty modern idea.

Middle Ages was more dying for Christianity than anything else. There was also for Loyalty to the king or a Noble but nothing compared to the Idea of a Nation. Nations as we know them today did not begin until the early modern period. Nationalism had its beginnings in the very late Middle Ages. Around the time of the Hundred Years War (France vs. England) 14th century. More Modern Examples, The Reformation (which only took hold because of German Nationalism), Imperialism, The French Revolution, The Unification of Germany and of Italy, World War 1, World War 2, The Current problems between Israelis and Palestinians. So Dying for a nation is a pretty modern idea.


Since a nation is a modern idea, I think it's time to adapt ourselves and renew our costumes. Nations are inventions.

Do you find worthy to die for the planet of Chewbacca?

A border is a painting on a paper, dude!!!!!

Since a nation is a modern idea, I think it's time to adapt ourselves and renew our costumes. Nations are inventions.

Do you find worthy to die for the planet of Chewbacca?

A border is a painting on a paper, dude!!!!!

I think a international government is a bad idea. Plus, there is no way we could start one since there is so much Nationalistic fervor still in the world. Also, Religious groups would oppose it to no end.

I think a international government is a bad idea. Plus, there is no way we could start one since there is so much Nationalistic fervor still in the world. Also, Religious groups would oppose it to no end.

If that international government would respect the religious groups... More even, if those religious groups participate in the foundation of that government, there wouldn't be any problem. Look, there's a Religions Parliament!!!

And about the nationalistic fervor... things like the EU and the AU are the antidote.

I would like an international government, but it would have to be based on non-particular interests.

If that international government would respect the religious groups... More even, if those religious groups participate in the foundation of that government, there wouldn't be any problem. Look, there's a Religions Parliament!!!

And about the nationalistic fervor... things like the EU and the AU are the antidote.

I would like an international government, but it would have to be based on non-particular interests.

According to Religions who are based on the Judeo-Christian World View, A world government is a sign of the end of the world, and it will be headed by the Anti-Christ. So, don't think you'd get them on board.

Haha... that's not a problem. Isn't written that after that Jesus will return and will save the fair and right people? Then they shouldn't be scared, they should work harder for it!!

But only if they are the right people, of course :D :D :D j/k

Haha... that's not a problem. Isn't written that after that Jesus will return and will save the fair and right people? Then they shouldn't be scared, they should work harder for it!!

But only if they are the right people, of course :D :D :D j/k


Yes, but some truly horrible things will happen before Jesus Returns. So they tend to look at it as a bad thing rather than a good thing.

Hey, a christian dilemma!!

What's more important: the unavoidable bad things the Antichrist will do? Or the return of Jesus Christ and my saviour if I have been a good guy?

If I had to choose I'd go with the second option, dude.

Hey, a christian dilemma!!

What's more important: the unavoidable bad things the Antichrist will do? Or the return of Jesus Christ and my saviour if I have been a good guy?

If I had to choose I'd go with the second option, dude.

Even though it will happen the delaying of it would probably be in everyone's best interest not just Christian's

I think we should put Stinky Head Cheese and Lyric into a room together and watch from outside!

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.
Actually the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because unlike Tokyo, they were built on flat land, where the bombs could inflict maximum damage.

Attack the questioner, call him anything you think will make him look bad, attack his character, impugn his honesty, do anything you can to mock, ridicule, revile or denigrate. Anything but actually respond to the original issue.
This is exactly what I have many times heard liberals accusing Republicans of doing. For example, Bob Woodward. Instead of responding to his criticisms of the administration, Republicans attacked his credibility.

Admit your hypocrisy... embrace it!

Oh, you mean kinda like you try to smear everyone on here who takes issue with your far left nonsense? Mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.
It must be far left if the centrist disagrees with it.

This whole thread is a troll. The title is totally inaccurate (misquoted) and meant to invoke the anger that has splashed forward? Sad to say the least.
This whole thread is amusing.

Excuse me. I was there. I fought.
Now, I'd like to hear how PRECISELY we were defending freedom with our occupation in Iraq?
The US is defending freedom there because it is fighting against jihadists, whose political goals are certainly not compatible with freedom.

OK you want to open that door... lets take a peek inside shall we.

So America is now the worlds police force...we're gonna take down all the bad guys.

So why haven't we? There's still injustice, genocide and repression happening in a hundred places around the globe. Why aren't we doing something about it?

How come we only are intervening in places where powerfull corporations seem to be turning a large profit?
Good point. I take it that you would be in favour of military intervention in the hundred places where injustice, genocide and repression are rife?

I rest my case: mock, ridicule, revile, denigrate.
So it's not mocking when you use "far left" as an insult, but when the Canuck uses "centrism" as an insult, it is mocking?

Even if it means killing more than Saddam was alledged to have killed?
Hussein killed around 300,000 Iraqis in his time. Since March 2003 less than a tenth of that number have been killed. The occupation forces have killed less than one-thirtieth of 300,000 people. ( www.iraqbodycount.org )

Hum... If somebody believes in something because is hoping the return of his/her Messiah, I suppose that if that person is a TRUE believer, will bear the precedent acts of the Anti-Christ.

Also, if I were a believer, I'd like the return of my Messiah as soon as possible.

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

I believe Martin Luther King once said something along the lines of:

"He who has no cause to die for, does not deserve life"

The US is not worth dying for.
Absolutely.

Yeah, such as the hijacking of the Iraqi economy by large US corporations:

Iraq's new patent law (http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/06/13.htm)

This was the implementation of a Free Trade Agreement, like NAFTA, maybe it’s political as far as whether or not you like it, but it’s certainly not evil nor taking advantage of Iraq in a way that they aren’t willing to do in their own country as well. Something the democrats object to there as well, different outlook and all. Nothing near a war crime though, that’s absurd.


A declaration of war against farmers
War: Trade By Other Means ( http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/07/09.htm)

It is unrealistic to think that farmers plowing their fields with horses and animal husbandry that has dairy cows (buffalo in Iraq) stop producing milk during the hot summer months is going to be sufficient for the production of food in Iraq. Modern farming technologies and animal husbandry is being introduced there and the farmers are being taught how to manage a modern day farm. You may have sentimental favoritism to old fashioned farming techniques (like the Amish in America) but to expect them to be able to support a modern day society with cities is absurd. Iraq will never be self sufficient unless we teach their farmers how to produce enough food for their own country... I don't see how this is a bad thing despite what the editorial writers of that article think.

The other two links are more of the same, from the same group… It’s political opposition, not human rights opposition nor war crimes stuff.


That is not difficult to have that kind of view:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency could last decade (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/27/iraq.main.intl1400/)

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at End-2004 (http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_deviraqinsurgency.pdf)

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/)


Bah, these are all reasons why the troops need to stay there until the new government is safe and can protect itself… Not reasons for us to leave now, why did you want to link to stuff that says we need to help them finish the job since you think we should pull out?

I believe Martin Luther King once said something along the lines of:

"He who has no cause to die for, does not deserve life"
To which I reply as I did in an earlier post Message 333 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9492897&postcount=333):
Just proclaiming that a country is worth dying for is like saying an abstract cause is worth dying for. And causes are definitively not dying for because while you have only one life, you can pick up 10 causes at the next street corner.

And causes are definitively not dying for because while you have only one life, you can pick up 10 causes at the next street corner.But you could have children... ;)

But you could have children... ;)
... and indeed I have. Which is another reason to hang on to my life, as I don't want him to grow up fatherless. Actually, selfish as I am, I want to see him grow up. :p

... and indeed I have. Which is another reason to hang on to my life, as I don't want him to grow up fatherless. Actually, selfish as I am, I want to see him grow up. :pWell, I was hinting at that you could have your children do the dying for your 10 other causes, as some extremist groups seem to have taken up... :(

Well, I was hinting at that you could have your children do the dying for your 10 other causes, as some extremist groups seem to have taken up... :(
Oh, I see. :eek:
No, still to selfish - I want to see the little rascal grow up. :p
And later on he's supposed to work for my pension!

Oh, I see. :eek:
No, still to selfish - I want to see the little rascal grow up. :p
And later on he's supposed to work for my pension!You'll need more than one, then :D

Haha... that's not a problem. Isn't written that after that Jesus will return and will save the fair and right people? Then they shouldn't be scared, they should work harder for it!!

But only if they are the right people, of course :D :D :D j/k

Yeah, well....a lot of the people who THINK they are the "right people" are gonna be in for a hell of a rude awakening!

even the Bible says something like this, and this refers largely to the current crop of Bible-thumpers, by the way, I'm paraphrasing, because I don't have my Bible in front of me at the moment....

"and they will say Lord, Lord....and the Lord will say unto them, turn away from me for I knew you not."

You see, all these Thumpers think they are doing such things for the Lord...like gay-bashing, etc...they are gonna find out, rudely, in the end, that this is not what our Lord and Savior wanted those people to do.

I think some of our modern-day Pharisees, like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Phelps, et al...are gonna be real surprised by who gets saved, and who doesn't.

Now if you can only figure out a way to start it five thousand years ago, people will respect that land claim.

Way ahead of you. See I'm actually a time traveller and China, being the only nation in 7005 that hasn't contaminated it's water supply with pollution, is prime real estate. ;)

I believe Martin Luther King once said something along the lines of:

"He who has no cause to die for, does not deserve life"

And what happened to Mr. King?

I think we should put Stinky Head Cheese and Lyric into a room together and watch from outside!
(snippy, snippy)


And the point of this comment was what, exactly?? I mean, nothing that you posted after it had been posted by either of us...or had anything to do with either of us. So what was the point of that comment? Are you trying to reignite a shouting match that has since calmed down?

Obviously, Stinky and I have very diametrically opposed views on literally every subject. I think we could conceivably get into an argument over whether the sun rises in the east or the west!!!

But, in all seriousness, I really wish you would not introduce a book of matches into a pure-oxygen atmosphere, okay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New British Glory
I believe Martin Luther King once said something along the lines of:

"He who has no cause to die for, does not deserve life"


And what happened to Mr. King?


Well, to quote the late Sam Kinison...

"anyone who tries to help, right?? JFK, Gandhi, Sadat...Martin Luther King: I have a dream!! (bang bang bang bang) I have a fucking head wound!! Thanks a lot!!"

Um... I'm a Navy vet; Gulf War, blah blah blah etc.

I oppose my country's involvement in that which transpires in the Middle East, currently. Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to please the masses. Fine. I can deal with that.
The events in Iraq, however, are beyond the pale. I had the utmost respect for Colin Powel, up until the moment he gave his little speech to the UN. He regained some of that when he quit his job.

Did her son die for a BS cause? I think so.
Do I think America is worth fighting for? Yes.
But we're not fighting for America; there is a difference.

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.

Um... I'm a Navy vet; Gulf War, blah blah blah etc.

I oppose my country's involvement in that which transpires in the Middle East, currently. Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to please the masses. Fine. I can deal with that.
The events in Iraq, however, are beyond the pale. I had the utmost respect for Colin Powel, up until the moment he gave his little speech to the UN. He regained some of that when he quit his job.

Did her son die for a BS cause? I think so.
Do I think America is worth fighting for? Yes.
But we're not fighting for America; there is a difference.

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.

Hear hear! *high five*

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.
:fluffle: Well said. Thank you!

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.*Gives an appreciation cookie* :)

Um... I'm a Navy vet; Gulf War, blah blah blah etc.

I oppose my country's involvement in that which transpires in the Middle East, currently. Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to please the masses. Fine. I can deal with that.
The events in Iraq, however, are beyond the pale. I had the utmost respect for Colin Powel, up until the moment he gave his little speech to the UN. He regained some of that when he quit his job.

Did her son die for a BS cause? I think so.
Do I think America is worth fighting for? Yes.
But we're not fighting for America; there is a difference.

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.good points...

5 stars.

Is this country worth dying for?

“Ask me again five minutes after I’m dead."

Like Patton said " The goal in war is not to die for your country , its to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his ! " or something like that . :)

Like Patton said " The goal in war is not to die for your country , its to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his ! " or something like that . :)

Agreed

Like Patton said " The goal in war is not to die for your country , its to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his ! " or something like that . :)

Sounds like we need to pull out the big guns now. Don't we?

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. ]
Dying for your country is unworthy. Dying for your family or friends is not. If your country is fighting for something worthwhile, then that complicates the issue.

The US was not, sadly. The Sheehan lad's death was a waste.

Former First Lady Barbara Bush said of the war in Iraq: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"


I believe the proper response is Fuck you Barbara.

Former First Lady Barbara Bush said of the war in Iraq: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"


I believe the proper response is Fuck you Barbara.
Yeah her good morning America interview , what a crock

Yeah her good morning America interview , what a crock

Funny that no one on the right that I know of has ever chastised her for "dishonoring the troops."

Um... I'm a Navy vet; Gulf War, blah blah blah etc.

I oppose my country's involvement in that which transpires in the Middle East, currently. Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to please the masses. Fine. I can deal with that.
The events in Iraq, however, are beyond the pale. I had the utmost respect for Colin Powel, up until the moment he gave his little speech to the UN. He regained some of that when he quit his job.

Did her son die for a BS cause? I think so.
Do I think America is worth fighting for? Yes.
But we're not fighting for America; there is a difference.

And no country is worth dying for. Ever.

Ever.

My family is worth fighting and *living* for.
I did/would/will fight for *you* or your family. America is a word. The people are what matter.
Bullshit.

Funny that no one on the right that I know of has ever chastised her for "dishonoring the troops."
Perhaps because I've never heard of that interview, or the quote. You have a link, I presume?

Bullshit.

Wow, you're up to all sorts of no good today.

Perhaps because I've never heard of that interview, or the quote. You have a link, I presume?

Wasn't my original comment. I have no idea where the poster found it or if it's authentic or not.

Wow, you're up to all sorts of no good today.
No, I just recognize bullshit when I see and smell it.

No, I just recognize bullshit when I see and smell it.

Well, if he does turn out to have served in the military, then I hope you apologize to him for dishonoring "the troops."

I'm curious as to what exactly it is that makes America more important than other things. Why is it that I should be willing to die for America? If I was made to die for something, I'd rather die for freedom, or to save the lives of others, or something like that. Why America?

Bullshit.
What, exactly, was 'bullshit'? The navy vet claim? Or the opinions expressed thereafter? Sign me up for some more of that bullshit, it smells sweet to me.

Bullshit.
I see you're being very courteous to a fellow vet.

You, Sir, a definitely a shining example to us all in regards to debating style!

You know what's really ridiculous? Conservatives who go on about "crazy leftists" and then claim they want to kill them all. Or see them die. Or whatever.

Jesus, do you people realize just how psychotic you sound?

You don't even have any real leftists that have a chance of getting into power, anyways. The Democratic party is right of centre.

it is Cindy Sheehan who is not worth fighting for. I say we strip her of her citizenships and give her the permanent boot out of our country. She don't like America so we should we allow her to stay. After all the support she's given to Al Qaeda?

it is Cindy Sheehan who is not worth fighting for. I say we strip her of her citizenships and give her the permanent boot out of our country. She don't like America so we should we allow her to stay. After all the support she's given to Al Qaeda?
And she supported Al Qaeda how?

And she supported Al Qaeda how?


You were talking to a person that is wrong about her having a right to be an American. She raised and American soldier, she's earned the right to be here...

However, I also know that she supports al-qaeda by saying that we should leave Iraq now and let the terrorist have the entire country under their collective terrorist thumb. How is giving them a country to own NOT supporting them? Of course it supports them.

You were talking to a person that is wrong about her having a right to be an American. She raised and American soldier, she's earned the right to be here...

However, I also know that she supports al-qaeda by saying that we should leave Iraq now and let the terrorist have the entire country under their collective terrorist thumb. How is giving them a country to own NOT supporting them? Of course it supports them.

A) You don't have to earn the right to be an American if you're born in America.
B) Show me where she said "let the terrorist have the entire country under their collective terrorist thumb". If the US left, it would propably result in a civil war between Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds. Al Qaeda doesn't really enter the equation here.

it is Cindy Sheehan who is not worth fighting for. I say we strip her of her citizenships and give her the permanent boot out of our country. She don't like America so we should we allow her to stay. After all the support she's given to Al Qaeda?

Yes, for the sake of Democracy, the US must strip all americans who disagree with their government of citizenship and expel them! Actually, you can save money on wasteful elections too, as anyone who fails to vote Republican must lose their voting rights anyway.

Jeez, no country is intrinsically worth dying for. Freedom, sure, but a lot of Americans seem to instantly believe that any war fought for economic and political advantage is a struggle between Good and Evil. I'm sure the US could invade Canada next week and there'd still be plenty of people convinced that they were fighting for Freedom.

I would just like to say this on the whole matter. This country might not be worth dying for, but killing Cindy Sheehan to make it all go away might be.

I would just like to say this on the whole matter. This country might not be worth dying for, but killing Cindy Sheehan to make it all go away might be.

Congratulations!!!! You are a fundamentalist! :)

Bullshit
No, I just recognize bullshit when I see and smell it.

The reason of democracy is to f*** oneself when the other says something opposed to our believing; not THIS.

it is Cindy Sheehan who is not worth fighting for. I say we strip her of her citizenships and give her the permanent boot out of our country. She don't like America so we should we allow her to stay. After all the support she's given to Al Qaeda?

Cindy Sheehan is the worthiest reason to die for. She is the only one person with guts to shout out loud what's happening without fear. The second phrase is dishonrous for a civilized human, unless you don't like plurality. And NOT, being pacifist is not being pro-terrorist.

You were talking to a person that is wrong about her having a right to be an American. She raised and American soldier, she's earned the right to be here...

However, I also know that she supports al-qaeda by saying that we should leave Iraq now and let the terrorist have the entire country under their collective terrorist thumb. How is giving them a country to own NOT supporting them? Of course it supports them.

LOL

I would just like to say this on the whole matter. This country might not be worth dying for, but killing Cindy Sheehan to make it all go away might be.

Yes! Murder for political reasons, what a great idea!

Why didn't anyone else think of that?

Oh wait. Someone did. (http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/tv2003/active/topics/example.images/osama-bin-laden.jpg)

Yes! Murder for political reasons, what a great idea!

Why didn't anyone else think of that?

Oh wait. Someone did. (http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/tv2003/active/topics/example.images/osama-bin-laden.jpg)
He's in good company. There's also Pat Robertson.

it is Cindy Sheehan who is not worth fighting for. I say we strip her of her citizenships and give her the permanent boot out of our country. She don't like America so we should we allow her to stay. After all the support she's given to Al Qaeda?

Why should she be stripped of her citizenship? A democracy (even the Federal Republic version of a democracy) allows free-speech.

Why would you wish to see that right revoked?