NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the biggest arguments that people who criticize Cindy Sheehan's protest toss out is that she had one meeting with Bush already, and that somehow that means she doesn't deserve another. You all probably know how I feel about that argument, that it smells largely of fecal matter.

But in yet another example of how IOKIYAR (it's ok if you're a Republican) is the standing order of the day, we discover the story of Dawn Rowe, widow of Captain Alan Rowe (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2005/08/25/news_topstory/news_topstory.1.txt), who just finished her second meeting with Bush while he was in the hostile environs of Idaho [/sarcasm] trying to whip up support for his debacle in the desert.

Double standard? Business as usual? Or do I repeat myself?

Take the poll.

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly refused to meet with Frederick Douglas.

For Bush, business as usual.

I don't get into the whole Sheehan ordeal much other than knowing the basics of it, but for the people that claim she should go home and that silent mourning is more respectful to those that have fallen, they seem to be ignorant of the fact that Vietnam was not cut short due to silence.

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly refused to meet with Frederick Douglas.
And that has what to do with this thread?

This whole ordeal is just Bush going out of the way to show how much of an ass he is. I mean, he was even in Crawford at the same bloody time as her and still wouldn't even take the time to hear her out.

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly refused to meet with Frederick Douglas.
I'm having a hard time finding anything suggesting that. Do you have a link?

heh read the news article I found the protesters slogon to be funny,

something along the lines of "Idaho National Guard for Idaho, not imperialst wars for oil" something along those lines he went on to state that The national guard was only for state emergences such as disasters and defense against invasion.

Funny that I look at the uniform of a Guardsmen and it says U.S Army on it not national guard. Guardsmen swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States not Idaho. The only difference between a Guard Unit and an Active Duty unit is that th Guards can be moblilzed by the state government as well. Thier duty however has always been and will be to the United States.

sorry if its off topic but that guy irked me

Smells like a double standard to me.

But honestly, what would another meeting with Sheehan amounted to? Bush would've told her the same shit over again....Your son died for a good cause...I grieve with you...The freedom of Iraq will honor your son's memory...

For Bush, business as usual.

I don't get into the whole Sheehan ordeal much other than knowing the basics of it, but for the people that claim she should go home and that silent mourning is more respectful to those that have fallen, they seem to be ignorant of the fact that Vietnam was not cut short due to silence.

...or to the fact that the hippies sabotaged the US effort to keep South Vietnam free from the shackles of communism. Some of us weren't too happy about that, and aren't too happy with these new-age hippies trying to wreck US intentions again. It'd be nice if they'd get on our team.

President bush gave a speech to Sheehan about a rumour that he was sending the Secret service to kill her.I'd just like to say on the record that at no time did I participate in any plot to have Casey Sheehan killed.

"I was too busy controlling Hollywood, manipulating Congress, setting world oil prices, altering the weather with hidden satellites, spying on everyone's public library reading habits, fixing World Cup matches, extracting blood from Muslim babies to bake bread, bringing down the Kremlin, and killing Jesus.

But, Cindy, I'm flattered you think I can multitask so effectively that I can fit just one more thing into my alread busy schedule.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to frame Spacemonkey and Frank for a numbers racket in Palm Beach."

I'm pretty sure some of you will think this is real and the end of the world is nigh...


Good.

Viva bush.

Smells like a double standard to me.

But honestly, what would another meeting with Sheehan amounted to? Bush would've told her the same shit over again....Your son died for a good cause...I grieve with you...The freedom of Iraq will honor your son's memory...

...stop being a traitor to your son's memory and our war effort...

Well funny you mention Sheehan.

I was listening to NPR and they were going to have her on with other family's that lost children, husbands, etc.

The interviewer started to ask her about her meeting with the shrub and she got a defensive tone and said that she has talked about that so many times and aren't there any questions going to be asked? The interviewer said he handed heard of her experiences and asked again. At that point she suddenly announced that she had 2 minutes to talk.

She gave her speech and mentioned she asked/told the shrub to not use her son for political purposes. The interviewer mentioned that there were other families the made the same request of her using their loved ones for political gain. She then went on this spin about should she stop caring for other children being sacrificed for lies, etc. etc.

The interviewer pressed her again and then she started saying "hello hello hello" Then she said the cell service was bad in Crawford.

There a little more chit chat and then she said the 2 minutes were up and she had to go.

The interviewer apologised to the listeners saying that originally she signed on to take questions for callins.

Now we all know what a right wing politically motivated hate spewing station NPR is. [/sarcasm for the sarcastic impaired] and I think my viewpoints on the shrub are well known.

She did not present herself too well here.

Well funny you mention Sheehan.

I was listening to NPR and they were going to have her on with other family's that lost children, husbands, etc.

The interviewer started to ask her about her meeting with the shrub and she got a defensive tone and said that she has talked about that so many times and aren't there any questions going to be asked? The interviewer said he handed heard of her experiences and asked again. At that point she suddenly announced that she had 2 minutes to talk.

She gave her speech and mentioned she asked/told the shrub to not use her son for political purposes. The interviewer mentioned that there were other families the made the same request of her using their loved ones for political gain. She then went on this spin about should she stop caring for other children being sacrificed for lies, etc. etc.

The interviewer pressed her again and then she started saying "hello hello hello" Then she said the cell service was bad in Crawford.

There a little more chit chat and then she said the 2 minutes were up and she had to go.

The interviewer apologised to the listeners saying that originally she signed on to take questions for callins.

Now we all know what a right wing politically motivated hate spewing station NPR is. [/sarcasm for the sarcastic impaired] and I think my viewpoints on the shrub are well known.

She did not present herself too well here.


NPR? Conservative? Since when?

Surely thou jest.

It's also worth remembering that Casey Sheehan's mom has gone on public record as indicating that her supposed desire to meet with the President is completely phony. :p

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

NPR is conservative to... a dyed-in-the-wool Communist?

Next time I guess I should make the following bold.

[/sarcasm for the sarcastic impaired]

:D

The problem with Cindy Sheehan is that she seems to think that the President of the United States, the most influential leader in the free world, should take time off to meet with every hack with a political agenda who wants to talk with him. Don't even get me started on all the reasons I dislike her and her supporters, just mentioning the idiocy of her activity.

I think that anyone who has family that died in Iraq, who Sheehan and her asociates are using thier names to promote thier cause, should sue them all for all that those nutjobs are worth.

...or to the fact that the hippies sabotaged the US effort to keep South Vietnam free from the shackles of communism. Some of us weren't too happy about that, and aren't too happy with these new-age hippies trying to wreck US intentions again. It'd be nice if they'd get on our team.

Actually what ended the war in Vietnam wasn't the hippies, in fact it had a lot more to do with The Pentagon Papers. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)

I think that anyone who has family that died in Iraq, who Sheehan and her asociates are using thier names to promote thier cause, should sue them all for all that those nutjobs are worth.

yeah, biggest civil case ever: United States of America suing Sheehan's Hippie Brigade for $50,000,000,000 to help offset the cost of the war.

contention: Sheehan's anti-US demonstrations are causing lower morale in the US, which is being felt by the soldiers in Iraq, which makes their job (of killing terrorists/insurgents and protecting the new Iraqi republic) that much harder to do...

judge's ruling:

You (Sheehan et al.) are hereby ruled to support the United States and her troops in Iraq so that they may get the job done and come home... failure to do so will result in a judgment in favor of the US government of $50,000,000,000, payment of which will be assigned to various hippies and other anti-America good-for-nothings in the United States.
-----
hehe

For Bush, business as usual.

I don't get into the whole Sheehan ordeal much other than knowing the basics of it, but for the people that claim she should go home and that silent mourning is more respectful to those that have fallen, they seem to be ignorant of the fact that Vietnam was not cut short due to silence.
It could have been a PR coupe instead of a nightmare where they have to demonize a greiving mother. One meeting, early on-bam, not just 'no story' but 'caring president.' But no....

I didn't think much of this until the Republicans started flailing all about over it. Nice job, guys. Here's hoping this and Schiavo bites you in the ass in 2006.

Actually what ended the war in Vietnam wasn't the hippies, in fact it had a lot more to do with The Pentagon Papers. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)

the hippies didn't help. at any rate, we might have won if they'd been behind America. (and my posts in here are half in jest anyway... i don't really care about sheehan... only to the extent that she might be hurting the effort to build and maintain iraqis' newfound freedom)

It's not Bush making the decisions, we all know that. It's the men of the Republican Party and the oil companies. This is just a useless war, and this woman is proving that.

One of the biggest arguments that people who criticize Cindy Sheehan's protest toss out is that she had one meeting with Bush already, and that somehow that means she doesn't deserve another. You all probably know how I feel about that argument, that it smells largely of fecal matter.

But in yet another example of how IOKIYAR (it's ok if you're a Republican) is the standing order of the day, we discover the story of Dawn Rowe, widow of Captain Alan Rowe (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2005/08/25/news_topstory/news_topstory.1.txt), who just finished her second meeting with Bush while he was in the hostile environs of Idaho [/sarcasm] trying to whip up support for his debacle in the desert.

Double standard? Business as usual? Or do I repeat myself?

Take the poll.

im sorry... did you fail to realize that Ms. Rowe was invited by the govenor ? and not Bush... and what would be the point of meeting sheehan other then giving presadent to have to meet every wack job out there.. we know what she wants, he knows what she wants, its not realistic.. he met with her before and told her this already. Sooooo where is the piont ?

What I want to know is.. how can she proclaim this to be inhumane when pulling troops out now (which she wants to do) would kill thousands more iraqis ? is she so racist to say American lives are more important then Iraqi lives ? That her freedoms (which someones child died for) are more important then Iraqi freedoms ?

im sorry... did you fail to realize that Ms. Rowe was invited by the govenor ? and not Bush... and what would be the point of meeting sheehan other then giving presadent to have to meet every wack job out there.. we know what she wants, he knows what she wants, its not realistic.. he met with her before and told her this already. Sooooo where is the piont ?

What I want to know is.. how can she proclaim this to be inhumane when pulling troops out now (which she wants to do) would kill thousands more iraqis ? is she so racist to say American lives are more important then Iraqi lives ? That her freedoms (which someones child died for) are more important then Iraqi freedoms ?
I'm starting not to care if he meets with her or not, though I think he should. But how about answering her questions?

...or to the fact that the hippies sabotaged the US effort to keep South Vietnam free from the shackles of communism. Some of us weren't too happy about that, and aren't too happy with these new-age hippies trying to wreck US intentions again. It'd be nice if they'd get on our team.What team? The team of continued permanent military occupation in Persian Gulf states?

And it wasn't hippies ruining the war effort.

It was 50,000 US casualties ruining the war effort.

Hippies suck. Stupid long haired freaks not wanting to die for less than noble causes. The road to peace is paved with losers. Am I right?

It's not Bush making the decisions, we all know that. It's the men of the Republican Party and the oil companies. This is just a useless war, and this woman is proving that.

...she is proving nothing but that whenever America is fighting overseas to help others, you can count on a few people to open their mouths and bitch about it... she isn't helping anyone, certainly not the troops.

the "war for oil" argument is shot... totally invalid. try another catch-phrase to try to give some basis for your irrational hatred for President Bush.

And it wasn't hippies ruining the war effort.

It was 50,000 US casualties ruining the war effort.

many, many more americans died in the US Civil War and in World War II... I guess Americans then had pride and dignity to stick to the job, regardless.

That said, there are two ways (at least) that Vietnam, if bad, was WAY WORSE than the events in Iraq:

1)57,000ish died in Vietnam... less than 2000 have died in Iraq.

2)There was a draft for the Vietnam conflict... every single soldier in Iraq volunteered for duty.

THEY WANTED TO BE IN THE ARMY... so stop trying to tell them they were wrong, stop trampling on their service to our country.

many, many more americans died in the US Civil War and in World War II... I guess Americans then had pride and dignity to stick to the job, regardless.
You're comparing the Civil War and World War II to the War on Terrorism? No, my friend. I think a better comparison would be the War on Drugs.

What team? The team of continued permanent military occupation in Persian Gulf states?

no, 'ron, the team called USA, the team that's interested in spreading FREEDOM to Iraq, the team that took down Saddam (with the help of our friends, namely the Brits) and the team now trying to help protect the vast majority of Iraqis from the insane insurgents/terrorists trying to derail the new, free IRaq.

so stop trying to tell them they were wrong, stop trampling on their service to our country.
Bush is wrong, not the soldiers. That is what we are saying. I've yet to hear someone sensible on the left say one word against the soldiers.

You're comparing the Civil War and World War II to the War on Terrorism? No, my friend. I think a better comparison would be the War on Drugs.

...using them to show how the the support of the American public is important.

Civil War support in the north was flagging due to defeat after defeat by the incompetent Union generals in the East... then Grant won at Vicksburg and the Union won at Gettysburg on the same day (July 4, 1863)... and from then on, the Union support grew (which meant more troops to finish the job) in the northern states.

As for World War II, Americans got behind the push to defeat Hitler/Japan/Mussolini and their support didn't waver. We would do well to learn from them: get behind the cause, get behind the troops. We're trying to help a country get back on its feet after taking down a long-time evil dictator whose removal was necessary.

Bush is wrong, not the soldiers. That is what we are saying. I've yet to hear someone sensible on the left say one word against the soldiers.

freeing a people is never wrong... not if you value freedom.

they could not have done it themselves.

they were not free, were under dictators, for about 50 years. the vast majority of them lived in fear of torture or death at the hands of the Ba'athists under Saddam. Saddam killed many thousands of his own people, tortured many, many others (in acid baths, not with Harry Potter books a la Guantanamo...)... was knowingly harboring terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Yeah, three cheers for Saddam.

So we took him out, and are trying to help Iraq get back on its feet... a better, free(-r) Iraq, where the people may vote to decide who leads them.

Show the error in this effort.

I'm starting not to care if he meets with her or not, though I think he should. But how about answering her questions?

He has... she asks why her son died.. he says for freedom every day... she asks how it was nobel... he says dying for freedom (in the spirit of american history) is a nobel thing everyday...

She asks, why we dont bring our troops home today...he says because thousands more would die if that happend and things would only get worse ... every... day!

So what has gone unanswered ? What is the point of seeing this woman...

He has... she asks why her son died.. he says for freedom every day... she asks how it was nobel... he says dying for freedom (in the spirit of american history) is a nobel thing everyday...

She asks, why we dont bring our troops home today...he says because thousands more would die if that happend and things would only get worse ... every... day!

So what has gone unanswered ? What is the point of seeing this woman...

nothing... she just wants her moment in the sun to show her true hippie colors and WHINE, WHINE, WHINE some more.

here, i'll help her:

whaa

whaa

whaa

"I'm a socialist stuck in a free-enterprise country"

whaa

whaa

whaa

"i'm a dove who can't stomach war, even when it's for a good cause, like helping a country become free from wide-spread oppression at the hands of a dictator"

whaa whaa whaa

hehe

And it wasn't hippies ruining the war effort.

It was 50,000 US casualties ruining the war effort.
And... it's gonna take another 50,000 to take down this war effort... What's kind of creepy is that Al Queda pretty much has the US military exactly where he wants them... stretched between two countries with populations that will tend to lean towards his group simply because of the perception that Americans are simply not interested in keeping the peace.

One odd comparison made was one of American Constitutional process vs. the Iraqi Constitutional process... it's hard not to notice that the American Constitutional process did not have three major factions, one of which has lost almost all power, violently attacking each other in the streets...

The Iraqi constitutional process is not going to succeed unless the United States can bring peace to the cities AND physically prove to the rest of the population that cooperation is beneficial by improving cities that they bring peace too (Thank you NYtimes). Certainly makes more sense and seems more productive than breaking down doors and doing random searches in small squads and trying to move troops all over the place to reinforce those in combat on roads which every bump in the road, every rock, or every discarded piece of litter could be a bomb.

*cough* Anyhoo, carrying on... the problem with this strategy? Manpower... the last 'successful' occupation and restoration mission that occured in an overall hostile country used up to and over half a million troops and a multilateral force consisting of France, England, United States, and the Soviet Union in the former Nazi Germany... now we're dealing with religious fanatics from within and neighboring countries, that are devoted as much, if not more so, than former Nazi Germany to their own ideas willing to take their own lives just to make us pay with as much manpower as possible... and we're in there with less than half the numbers? You know, our destructive power is almost immeasureable... but for peacekeeping... nationbuilding... we're just not taking the right steps... we're winning all our battles, but the war just keeps rolling downhill...

freeing a people is never wrong... not if you value freedom.

they could not have done it themselves.

they were not free, were under dictators, for about 50 years. the vast majority of them lived in fear of torture or death at the hands of the Ba'athists under Saddam. Saddam killed many thousands of his own people, tortured many, many others (in acid baths, not with Harry Potter books a la Guantanamo...)... was knowingly harboring terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Yeah, three cheers for Saddam.

So we took him out, and are trying to help Iraq get back on its feet... a better, free(-r) Iraq, where the people may vote to decide who leads them.

Show the error in this effort.
Scroll back three years and if they said we went to war for that reason, maybe I'd agree with you. To think that this administration honestly cares about the freedom of people half a world away while atrocities happen daily south of our border, is to not be thinking clearly.

Scroll back three years and if they said we went to war for that reason, maybe I'd agree with you. To think that this administration honestly cares about the freedom of people half a world away while atrocities happen daily south of our border, is to not be thinking clearly.

the difference is.. no body south of our boarder ever used wmd.. especially on their own people. >.>

And if you followed Bush's speeches, freeing the iraqi people was always a key part of it. Hell the mission itself was called Iraqi Freedom >.>

...or to the fact that the hippies sabotaged the US effort to keep South Vietnam free from the shackles of communism. Some of us weren't too happy about that, and aren't too happy with these new-age hippies trying to wreck US intentions again. It'd be nice if they'd get on our team.

The US was trying to keep South Viet Nam (a US crteation) free from shakles? You need to do some reaserch on the government the US installed in South Viet Nam. Monks were burning themselves in protest of the execution of political prisioners. Plus, the guy the US put in charge (and canceled the free elections that were agreed apon) was from NY for fuck's sake!

...stop being a traitor to your son's memory and our war effort...

Son's memory: She is honoring her son's memory in what way she sees fit.

War effort: You can't be a traitor to something you never swore aliegence to.

The problem with Cindy Sheehan is that she seems to think that the President of the United States, the most influential leader in the free world, should take time off to meet with every hack with a political agenda who wants to talk with him.

No, only the ones with a whole bunch of money.

I think that anyone who has family that died in Iraq, who Sheehan and her asociates are using thier names to promote thier cause, should sue them all for all that those nutjobs are worth.

If that's the case, should anyone who lost family in the World Trade center and Pentagon attacks sue Bush and his administration for useing their deaths in promoting their cause?

Actually what ended the war in Vietnam wasn't the hippies, in fact it had a lot more to do with The Pentagon Papers. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)


Nixon in his memiors confessed that the anti-war movement is the reason he didn't increase the bombing campagin, and one of the reasons he decided to pull out. He new that public support would fall even more after the Pentagon Papers were released illegaly (thank God to the ones who did that)

the hippies didn't help. at any rate, we might have won if they'd been behind America. (and my posts in here are half in jest anyway... i don't really care about sheehan... only to the extent that she might be hurting the effort to build and maintain iraqis' newfound freedom)

Yes, we lost because of hippies, not because the Viet Cong had the public support, and were damn good at gurilla warfare ::rolls eyes::

It's not Bush making the decisions, we all know that. It's the men of the Republican Party and the oil companies. This is just a useless war, and this woman is proving that.

It's not useless, it's making people alot of money, namely Bush's family, his administration, and family friends, campagin contributers, and business buddies

the "war for oil" argument is shot... totally invalid. try another catch-phrase to try to give some basis for your irrational hatred for President Bush.

Prove it.

nothing... she just wants her moment in the sun to show her true hippie colors and WHINE, WHINE, WHINE some more.

here, i'll help her:

whaa

whaa

whaa

"I'm a socialist stuck in a free-enterprise country"

whaa

whaa

whaa

"i'm a dove who can't stomach war, even when it's for a good cause, like helping a country become free from wide-spread oppression at the hands of a dictator"

whaa whaa whaa

hehe

She is a greiveing mother, sir, show some respect. You don't have to agree with her, but this kind of attack does no good for anyone.

nothing... she just wants her moment in the sun to show her true hippie colors and WHINE, WHINE, WHINE some more.

here, i'll help her:

whaa

whaa

whaa

"I'm a socialist stuck in a free-enterprise country"

whaa

whaa

whaa

"i'm a dove who can't stomach war, even when it's for a good cause, like helping a country become free from wide-spread oppression at the hands of a dictator"

whaa whaa whaa

hehe

I dunno, conservatives, I found, whine as much as the liberals do. It's a whinefest and all is welcome... and at the same time, none is welcome, but folks come in anyways.

Besides, when Clinton took troops to Bosnia, you conservatives made the same whines as the liberals do today... so quit your own belly aching about those... 'hippies'

I dunno, conservatives, I found, whine as much as the liberals do. It's a whinefest and all is welcome... and at the same time, none is welcome, but folks come in anyways.

Besides, when Clinton took troops to Bosnia, you conservatives made the same whines as the liberals do today... so quit your own belly aching about those... 'hippies'

funny..i dont recall conservative pitching camp outside of clintons house demanding we pull our troops back... infact i remember people being quite supportive as we were fighting a dictator... <,< perhaps you have a selective memory

Scroll back three years and if they said we went to war for that reason, maybe I'd agree with you. To think that this administration honestly cares about the freedom of people half a world away while atrocities happen daily south of our border, is to not be thinking clearly.

one could validly believe that a democratic Iraq could help against the war on terror... if we can convince them that radicals/terrorists are a blight on the world, maybe they can help the policing effort. Who knows?

Maybe other middle eastern countries can learn from Iraq, especially if freedom helps iraq to become successful economically, in education, public services, rights, etc.

the difference is.. no body south of our boarder ever used wmd.. especially on their own people. >.>

And if you followed Bush's speeches, freeing the iraqi people was always a key part of it. Hell the mission itself was called Iraqi Freedom >.>
It's funny. People talk about how Sheehan already had her chance to talk to Bush. In Gulf War I, we had our chance to oust Saddam. Maybe the same argument could be implied?
A dictator is a dictator and an atrocity is an atrocity. If we're after dictators, wouldn't it make sense to start with our neighboring continent?

I dunno, conservatives, I found, whine as much as the liberals do. It's a whinefest and all is welcome... and at the same time, none is welcome, but folks come in anyways.

Besides, when Clinton took troops to Bosnia, you conservatives made the same whines as the liberals do today... so quit your own belly aching about those... 'hippies'

i thought we went to Kosovo (sp?) too late... those people needed help long before it was given to them. Maybe some conservatives were against it, but I wasn't one of them.

as for whining, hehe, nothing's more fun than whining about whiners.

funny..i dont recall conservative pitching camp outside of clintons house demanding we pull our troops back... infact i remember people being quite supportive as we were fighting a dictator... <,< perhaps you have a selective memory
The people were supportive... the conservatives were not... besides... the occupation never lasted long enough nor deadly enough to warrant that... I'm talking the politicians and the rank and file Republicans. They whined like no tomarrow... politics is all about double standards as long as it matches the party line at the moment. Didn't you know that?

She is a greiveing mother, sir, show some respect. You don't have to agree with her, but this kind of attack does no good for anyone.

Mean while she may relate Bush to hitler, the war itself and our intentions to those of Nazi germany and genocide... and degrade the sacrifice of all other fallen heros who belive in dying for the freedom of another touting it as a lie and foolish.

Let us not forget someones child died for her rights. I dont argue her right to speak.. but to demand respect for her... when she gives none herself.. is highly suspect!

It seems to me she is using her dead son as a political tool... and nothing less! (evident by her comments relating to Israel which has no impact on her sons death)

The people were supportive... the conservatives were not... besides... the occupation never lasted long enough nor deadly enough to warrant that... I'm talking the politicians and the rank and file Republicans. They whined like no tomarrow... politics is all about double standards as long as it matches the party line at the moment. Didn't you know that?

you do realize we still have troops in Bosnia right ? That it was conservatives in Congress which authorized the use of funds for those military activites... you cannot compare these two circumstances.

i thought we went to Kosovo (sp?) too late... those people needed help long before it was given to them. Maybe some conservatives were against it, but I wasn't one of them.

as for whining, hehe, nothing's more fun than whining about whiners.

True... but as I said... it flip flops depending on who is in power. Hence the example I used. Nothing the opposing group does is good enough for one group and vice versa. I personally opposed the war against Iraq from the get go... because we had bigger fish to fry, terrorism.

...or to the fact that the hippies sabotaged the US effort to keep South Vietnam free from the shackles of communism. Some of us weren't too happy about that, and aren't too happy with these new-age hippies trying to wreck US intentions again. It'd be nice if they'd get on our team.
Look at it this way, last time we backed the French faction. This time we're doing the opposite. It's a step up at least.

True... but as I said... it flip flops depending on who is in power. Hence the example I used. Nothing the opposing group does is good enough for one group and vice versa. I personally opposed the war against Iraq from the get go... because we had bigger fish to fry, terrorism.

probably we've had some deep-cover special forces/CIA going after terrorist groups... over the last four years. I would imagine it'd be tough to sneak up on Usama with a brigade of troops (then again, i wasn't educated at West Point. hehe)

you do realize we still have troops in Bosnia right ? That it was conservatives in Congress which authorized the use of funds for those military activites... you cannot compare these two circumstances.
So? so did the Dems in this war, the make up of the congress may be different, but it was both parties authorizing the Iraqi action too... I think the comparison is valid. As for Bosnia... we still have troops in Germany too... so what's your point?

one could validly believe that a democratic Iraq could help against the war on terror... if we can convince them that radicals/terrorists are a blight on the world, maybe they can help the policing effort. Who knows?

Maybe other middle eastern countries can learn from Iraq, especially if freedom helps iraq to become successful economically, in education, public services, rights, etc.


Acully, we are just finally doing to Iraq what we've already done to much of the Mid East. Economic imperialism.

A bit back, I had the opertunity to speak to the US ambassidor to Quatar (a Greek man). He was also the former ambassidor to Saudi Arabia, Labanon, Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East. This is Washington's Middle East guy. He said the reason much of the Mid East is so messed is is because, though they have massive reserves of a valuble natural recourse, oil, they are very poor, because it is westerners (many times Americans) who come in, who invest, and who reap the rewards. So, westerners get rich, a few members of the government get rich, and the country remains poor. This is what is going on in Iraq. This is why the US gave contracts in Iraq to US corperations, instead of able Iraqi ones, which would have done much more to rebuild and stablise Iraq, if that were truly our goal. We don't need direct control, we just need to make their economy dependent on us, just need to embed ourselves so deep in their economy, like a tape worm, and Iraq becomes another cash cow.

probably we've had some deep-cover special forces/CIA going after terrorist groups... over the last four years. I would imagine it'd be tough to sneak up on Usama with a brigade of troops (then again, i wasn't educated at West Point. hehe)
Well... let's put it this way... we're trying to sneak up on Al Queda in Afghanistan the same way we're trying to sneak up on Iraqi combatants... with a brigade of troops... I really wonder if we're really getting anywhere when it comes to terrorism... especially since we took down a government that is unfriendly towards Al Queda... regardless of its homicidal tendencies.

one could validly believe that a democratic Iraq could help against the war on terror... if we can convince them that radicals/terrorists are a blight on the world, maybe they can help the policing effort. Who knows?

Maybe other middle eastern countries can learn from Iraq, especially if freedom helps iraq to become successful economically, in education, public services, rights, etc.Research the states in the area that actually do have elected politicians, and you'll find that in each and every case radical Islamic political groups receive the least support from the voters. Loosely from the words of Fareed Zakaria who is a Newsweek journalist and expert in Middle Eastern nations, people living in these countries simply don't support radical fundamentalists. It's the government powers in Saudi Arabia and Iran that do, using billions of dollars in oil revenue to do so.

Please stop with the "war on terror." Under Bush, Al-Qaeda and other groups have shown on more than one occasion (Spain, London) that going into Iraq while doing nothing to Saudi Arabia (which, guess what, the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and they have a horrific civil rights record) other than having Bush invite their royals over for friendly visits to Washington while they continue to discuss their longterm family financial business ordeals.

Iraq's current structure? Downright pitiful and obliterated compared to what it was before the invasion. Oh, and all the multi billion dollar US contracts to rebuild the country, now 2 years after "mission accomplished" was declared? Seems that whatever money has been left over after the appaling corruption is just sitting around doing nothing while these Iraqi politicians sit in their green zones, disconnected from reality, being rushed into writing a constitution that doesn't even guarantee any womens rights.

Claiming that this war is for liberation of the people with the current state of the nation ravaged and no progress being made has about as much justification as any Iraqi ties to 9/11 or gigantic stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

funny..i dont recall conservative pitching camp outside of clintons house demanding we pull our troops back... infact i remember people being quite supportive as we were fighting a dictator... <,< perhaps you have a selective memory

Could you repeat that part about selective memory, please? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9525284&postcount=1)

Iraq's current structure? Downright pitiful and obliterated compared to what it was before the invasion.

Sorta like Europe in the late 1940s, right? :D

http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000872.html

Funny, how few things change! ;)