NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:


Celebs to Join Cindy Sheehan in Hunger Strike (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060622a.html)


By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 22, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced Wednesday that she plans to begin an "open-ended hunger strike" on July 4 to urge the Bush administration to bring troops home from Iraq.

"We hope the fast will galvanize public attention, invigorate the peace movement, build pressure on elected officials, and get our troops back home," Sheehan said in a statement posted on the anti-war blogosphere.

The fast, organized by Code Pink and Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace, will begin on Independence Day in Washington, D.C. In her statement Sheehan said she would move the fast to Crawford, Texas, where the president owns a ranch and often vacations.

Sheehan gained national attention in August 2005 when she staged a protest outside the Crawford ranch to protest the war. She named the protest "Camp Casey" in memory of her son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

In her latest statement, Sheehan wrote that celebrities like singer Willie Nelson, actor Danny Glover and comedian Dick Gregory will show their support for her by joining in a one-day fast. She urged her supporters to do the same.

Sheehan is currently in Vienna, Austria, protesting President Bush's appearances there. He is in Europe to meet with leaders of the European Summit, seeking support for the United States' efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East.

In an interview posted on Code Pink's website, the group's co-founder Diane Wilson said the fast would show solidarity with Iraqis and U.S. troops. "Their bodies are on the line every day," Wilson said, referring to Iraqi civilians. "And so are the bodies of the U.S. soldiers. So shouldn't we be putting our bodies on the line?"

Wilson told her interviewer, fellow Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, that a hunger strike "can be a very powerful action." She mentioned three previous hunger strikes she organized, two of which lasted more than four weeks.

The "Troops Home Fast," Wilson said, means that she will abstain from food and drink, with the exception of water, as long as possible. "I don't know how long I can fast," she said, "but I'm making this an open-ended fast. I plan to take this as far as I've ever taken anything in my 58 years."

Wilson acknowledged that her fast might not get the attention of Bush, who after meeting with Sheehan once to offer his condolences for the loss of her son, has ignored her requests for another meeting. "Some fasts are successful," Wilson said in her interview, "others aren't. You never know."

Wow, a one day fast. How extreme of them.

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:


Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?

In her latest statement, Sheehan wrote that celebrities like singer Willie Nelson, actor Danny Glover and comedian Dick Gregory will show their support for her by joining in a one-day fast. She urged her supporters to do the same.



Glover was just involved in that fiasco in LA w/ the squatter farm. He did about as much there for "the cause". Guess he's really needing the attention.

If you're going to do a proper hungerstrike you need to have either the conviction to actually starve yourself to death to make a point or a chance that your opponent will accede to your demands. She doesn't have either.

Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?
Why of COURSE! Hadn't you heard? I've been chosen as "god" to keep all you mutha-frackkers in line! :D

See, Buddhists know how to protest. They find a nice public square, douse themselves with kerosene and light themselves on fire. Now THAT is commitment! :p

Glover was just involved in that fiasco in LA w/ the squatter farm. He did about as much there for "the cause". Guess he's really needing the attention.
That's what the Hollyweird crowd thrives on ... attention. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm a star!" Groan! :upyours:

See, Buddhists know how to protest. They find a nice public square, douse themselves with kerosene and light themselves on fire. Now THAT is commitment! :p
Yup! And if these frakkin' idiots would do that, I would happily donate the gasoline! Mwahahaha! :D

Did you read the article?

Because she's trying to be rather supportive of the troops, in case you missed it.

Or what exactly is it that you don't like about this?

That's what the Hollyweird crowd thrives on ... attention. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm a star!" Groan! :upyours:

Kinda like posting a foam-flecked forum post with a middle-finger smilie.

(Not to pick on you, Eut but only the shy don't crave attention.)

Did you read the article?

Because she's trying to be rather supportive of the troops, in case you missed it.

Or what exactly is it that you don't like about this?
Please elaborate in what way she is being supportive of the troops?

That's what the Hollyweird crowd thrives on ... attention.

Ummm .... that is kinda in their job description, you know.

Not sure what you have against actors, but remember: Ronald Reagan and his wife were actors. So was Charlie Heston. They, too, are media grabbing attention whores.

It's part of being an actor.

If you're not on camera, you're unemployed.

I take it you're not hypocritically going to the movies or watching TV now, are you?

Did you read the article?

Because she's trying to be rather supportive of the troops, in case you missed it.

Or what exactly is it that you don't like about this?

Eutrusca has rather bad memories of protesters during the Vietnam era who protested, blamed and even attacked returning soldiers rather than the government they served.

Sheehan has occasionally shown signs of stooping to such levels. Not to mention the fact that she's an attention whore. :p

Sheehan has occasionally shown signs of stooping to such levels. Not to mention the fact that she's an attention whore. :p

I've met her. She's a nice lady. Very approachable, even if you don't have a camera.

Yup! And if these frakkin' idiots would do that, I would happily donate the gasoline! Mwahahaha! :D

Hmmm... nothing unreasonable about YOU is there? :rolleyes:

While I do think that her calling it a 'hunger strike' is perhaps a bit silly, there is nothing wrong with a one day fast, and it is just another way of drawing attention to the cause, and I say fine, do it!

She has taken on the cause of making sure that people are faced with this war (in which we should not be) every day. She continues to make sure that we keep that in our thoughts, and reminds us that the way it ends is if WE end it. Iraq is never going to be able to say "Get out now" with any effect unless we are already packed up to go, and we SHOULD have packed up before we even went there.

Good for her, I say. Keep people thinking and talking about the fact that WAR IS BAD and THIS WAR IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN UNNECESSARY.

I'm honestly really bothered by the upsurge of eliminationist rhetoric from the pro-war camp. I guess it's considered okay to wish death on those who disagree with us, now? Sorry, but I think that's just pathetic, not to mention profoundly unAmerican.

Eutrusca has rather bad memories of protesters during the Vietnam era who protested, blamed and even attacked returning soldiers rather than the government they served.

Sheehan has occasionally shown signs of stooping to such levels. Not to mention the fact that she's an attention whore. :p

IMHO, it's ok for her to grieve for her son. But her actions have prompted some soldiers to deliberately make videos saying that they want to be in Iraq, and don't want their families to do what Sheehan is doing. Sort of a pre-emptive video that opponents of Sheehan (or any similar family member) can play to make the family members look like an ass.

Why of COURSE! Hadn't you heard? I've been chosen as "god" to keep all you mutha-frackkers in line! :D

Now I'm conflicted... I'm no longer sure if I can respond, since I have reason to doubt your existence...

Please elaborate in what way she is being supportive of the troops?

Sure, although I am referring to this article in particular.

In an interview posted on Code Pink's website, the group's co-founder Diane Wilson said the fast would show solidarity with Iraqis and U.S. troops. "Their bodies are on the line every day," Wilson said, referring to Iraqi civilians. "And so are the bodies of the U.S. soldiers. So shouldn't we be putting our bodies on the line?"

*thinks*

On second thought, it seems that people that Sheehan is with are somewhat supportive of the troops. However, no where is it to be seen that Sheehan is being insulting, so I find it hard to complain about this. It's not as if she is hunger-striking until each and every single US soldier is dead.

Sheehan has occasionally shown signs of stooping to such levels. Not to mention the fact that she's an attention whore. :p

A shame, but yes, she is an attention whore. That is a problem.

Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?
Zing!

I've met her. She's a nice lady. Very approachable, even if you don't have a camera.

I believed that for quite a long time. Longer than most here on the forums. Until the State of The Union Address when she received an invitation from a member of congress and showed up wearing that t-shirt. SHe could've shown class, but instead she was shown the door.

I wonder is she's getting encouraged into doing these things by others. When she started she was so down to earth and reserved. Seems like every time she's in the news she's up to wackier and wackier antics.

A shame, but yes, she is an attention whore. That is a problem.

Pfft. Ghandi was an attention whore. Muhammad Ali too. Benjamin Franklin was an attention whore, as was Thomas Edison. Socrates. Plato. Aristotle. Attention whores all. Alexander the Great and Napoelon. You don't conquer vast empires unless you want to get noticed.

Basically, anyone who has something to say or do is an attention whore. Those who aren't attention whores are not heard from.

It's a silly reason to criticize someone

I wonder is she's getting encouraged into doing these things by others. When she started she was so down to earth and reserved. Seems like every time she's in the news she's up to wackier and wackier antics.

Well you should well know that it's best to get people's attention by a tazer to the groin.

Well you should well know that it's best to get people's attention by a tazer to the groin.

They listen to every word you say with utmost care when your finger is on that trigger. :D

Pfft. Ghandi was an attention whore. Muhammad Ali too. Benjamin Franklin was an attention whore, as was Thomas Edison. Socrates. Plato. Aristotle. Attention whores all. Alexander the Great and Napoelon. You don't conquer vast empires unless you want to get noticed.

Basically, anyone who has something to say or do is an attention whore. Those who aren't attention whores are not heard from.

It's a silly reason to criticize someone

Nah, she's an attention whore. You see, Ghandi did something extraordinary and becamed noticed - He didn't seek it out.

Not so sure about Muhammed Ali, I don't much like religious figures :p

But Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison both "invented" something of importance that drew attention to them.

Socrates, we can hardly know if he was an attention whore or not, but he's been noticed for his philosophical works. Same with Plato and Aristotle.

Alexandar the Great was an attention whore, but he also accomplished things.

Napoleon started out as a very efficient and risk-taking officer that ended up winning many battles for the French. Thus, he got attention.

Cindy, on the other hand, seems to be...


I believed that for quite a long time. Longer than most here on the forums. Until the State of The Union Address when she received an invitation from a member of congress and showed up wearing that t-shirt. SHe could've shown class, but instead she was shown the door.

I wonder is she's getting encouraged into doing these things by others. When she started she was so down to earth and reserved. Seems like every time she's in the news she's up to wackier and wackier antics.

...and I think that's what seperates her as an attention whore from those people you mentioned. The others deserved it, but she's just getting it for being wacky more than for doing something special.

Not so sure about Muhammed Ali, I don't much like religious figures :p


ROFL!

ROFL!

:p what? I am just being honest. I don't know if he was an attention whore before he went on to conquer everything. The timing makes a big difference. Of that, I am serious.

But still, Jesus was an attention whore (I am the son of god)...
...and then he said some cool things (bla bla bla nice things)...
...which got him on a crucifix (aaaaargh!) :D

Thusly, I don't much like religious figures.

Meh, this will generate as much intrest as her book singing did.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/sheehan.asp

Ahh funny.

:p what? I am just being honest. I don't know if he was an attention whore before he went on to conquer everything. The timing makes a big difference. Of that, I am serious.

But still, Jesus was an attention whore (I am the son of god)...
...and then he said some cool things (bla bla bla nice things)...
...which got him on a crucifix (aaaaargh!) :D

He's laughing because Muhammed Ali is a boxer who converted to Islam.

You're thinking of Muhammed.

:p what? I am just being honest. I don't know if he was an attention whore before he went on to conquer everything. The timing makes a big difference. Of that, I am serious.

*whisper* Muhammed Ali was a boxer

I believed that for quite a long time. Longer than most here on the forums. Until the State of The Union Address when she received an invitation from a member of congress and showed up wearing that t-shirt. SHe could've shown class, but instead she was shown the door.

I wonder is she's getting encouraged into doing these things by others. When she started she was so down to earth and reserved. Seems like every time she's in the news she's up to wackier and wackier antics.


A grieving mother-I cant blame her-if my child died over there, it would likely shift my priorities and change my perspective on everything.

The unfortunate part is- In my opinion, she is being manipulated and guided by others with a selfish agenda to undermine and discredit. I think she had valid statements and feelings to express early on, bringing attention.

Now I think she is being used. And used poorly.

Pfft. Ghandi was an attention whore. Muhammad Ali too. Benjamin Franklin was an attention whore, as was Thomas Edison. Socrates. Plato. Aristotle. Attention whores all. Alexander the Great and Napoelon. You don't conquer vast empires unless you want to get noticed.

I'm also a bit confused as to why Cindy Sheehan is "an attention whore," but all the pro-war advocates are not.


Basically, anyone who has something to say or do is an attention whore. Those who aren't attention whores are not heard from.

Yeah, I don't see why being "an attention whore" is considered a bad thing in a public figure. If you simply hate all people who try to get public attention for their cause(s) then that's your business, I suppose, but it seems like an odd stance to hold.


It's a silly reason to criticize someone
Or, at least, a silly reason to criticize somebody who has chosen to support their particular cause through public protest and advocacy.

Example: I think Bill O'Reilly is much more addicted to getting attention than Cindy Sheehan, for purely egotistical reasons. I think he does things just to get attention (and not to advance any particular cause) on a regular basis. In that sense, I think he's "an attention whore." But I wouldn't waste time criticizing him for being that way, because his approach WORKS. It is a perfectly effective way for him to acheive his goals, while also getting to fluff his ego along the way. I may think he's a lying dink, but I'm not going to bitch him out for making a completely practical decision on how to best advance his agenda.

Did you read the article?

Because she's trying to be rather supportive of the troops, in case you missed it.

Or what exactly is it that you don't like about this?
"Support the troops" my ass! Perhaps she should place a gravestone on her son's grave, finally. At least that would be "supporting" her son! Frakking' bitch! :mad:

That's what the Hollyweird crowd thrives on ... attention. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm a star!" Groan! :upyours:

:rolleyes:

Wow and yet Cher campaigns to get the Marines to equip their men with proper head gear.

What a BITCH!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-15-cher_x.htm

http://www.operation-helmet.org/

"Support the troops" my ass! Perhaps she should place a gravestone on her son's grave, finally. At least that would be "supporting" her son! Frakking' bitch! :mad:

She's a bitch because she doesn't want more Americans to die in a pointless struggle?

Wow and yet Cher campaigns to get the Marines to equip their men with proper head gear.

What a BITCH!

Yeah! That attention whoring ****!

Meh, this will generate as much intrest as her book singing did.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/sheehan.asp

Ahh funny.

Ahm. Do you know how many people showed up for Max's first book signing?

She's a bitch because she doesn't want more Americans to die in a pointless struggle?

Well, yeah. Remember: It's a "with us or against us" mentality. If you don't want Americans to die, you're against them.

Well, yeah. Remember: It's a "with us or against us" mentality. If you don't want Americans to die, you're against them.

*sigh*

Every time I think I'm getting the hang of it... so - the 'patriotic' thing is to WANT our children to spill their blood under alien skies?

Ahm. Do you know how many people showed up for Max's first book signing?

No, but Cindy has had more publicity than Max before her book came out, so one would assume she would get a bigger audience than Max due to the pubilcity. Still funny.

Ok, I stand corrected: the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan did finally place a headsone on her son's grave: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehangrave.asp

Only took her TWO YEARS! :(

He's laughing because Muhammed Ali is a boxer who converted to Islam.

You're thinking of Muhammed.

*whisper* Muhammed Ali was a boxer

Omg, I'm going to go cry now :p

And yes, yes I was. Excuse me for not knowing a boxer? :p

Well, I just made an arse of myself.

But! to save myself: Muhammed Ali (yes, I have heard of him) wasn't in the spotlight until he was a famous boxer that actually managed to beat people.

:rolleyes:

Wow and yet Cher campaigns to get the Marines to equip their men with proper head gear.

What a BITCH!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-15-cher_x.htm

http://www.operation-helmet.org/

Now see, Cher is supporting the tropps. This is what supporting the troops look like people!

"Support the troops" my ass! Perhaps she should place a gravestone on her son's grave, finally. At least that would be "supporting" her son! Frakking' bitch! :mad:

So you're angry because she doesn't place a gravestone on her son's grave?

Tell me again, why are you opposed to this hunger strike?

Every time I think I'm getting the hang of it... so - the 'patriotic' thing is to WANT our children to spill their blood under alien skies?

It's a difficult thing to grasp sometimes. Don't worry, old white Christian Republicans will tell you whether or not you're patriotic. Now go spend some money.

*sigh*

Every time I think I'm getting the hang of it... so - the 'patriotic' thing is to WANT our children to spill their blood under alien skies?
No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.

Would this be a good time to have a 4th of July BBQ in front of her? Drive her nuts.

Would this be a good time to have a 4th of July BBQ in front of her? Drive her nuts.

LOL! I'll bring the beer! Let's all have a party right in front of them and bring lots of food!

She's a bitch because she doesn't want more Americans to die in a pointless struggle?
It's not pointless, we don't want anyone to die, and yes, she's still a bitch!

*sigh*

Every time I think I'm getting the hang of it... so - the 'patriotic' thing is to WANT our children to spill their blood under alien skies?
As long as those "alien skies" are over countries full of brown people who don't accept Jeebus.

Look, Grave, how complicated is this? "Supporting the troops" means advocating that they be sent, without effective gear and supplies, to fight a war that is conducted under false pretenses under the leadership of individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated their incompetance and corruption. If you don't support war, then you support LOSING. If you don't support us killing the Iraqis, then you support the Iraqis killing US. If you don't support fighting them over there, then you are clearly in favor of them coming to murder us in our beds over HERE.

Would this be a good time to have a 4th of July BBQ in front of her? Drive her nuts.

That won't drive her nuts.

Unless you were barbecuing baby.

Mmmm ... baby.

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.
I'm confused: who is arguing that military service should be prohibited?

I'm confused: who is arguing that military service should be prohibited?

I will ... if it's necessary. Might be a fun exercise.

That won't drive her nuts.

Unless you were barbecuing baby.

Mmmm ... baby.


It would if she hadn't eaten all day.

It would if she hadn't eaten all day.

I suspect a sandwich will be snuck in here and there.

The average American can't fast for more than 2 hours, let alone a whole day.

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.

How is Sheehan 'disallowing' anything? How is anyone asking for our boys to 'come home' disallowing anything?

How is being ordered into a theatre of war, a 'freedom'?

I cannot get inside of the mindset that considers pointless killing and sacrifice, to be a good thing.

I will ... if it's necessary. Might be a fun exercise.
Hell, why not. No matter how you choose to express your disapproval of the war, you're going to get accused of being an America-hating gutless coward who kicks puppies. Might as well have some fun while you're at it.

I hereby advocate the complete dismantling of all the Armed Forces. I further submit that the US should surrender to the French unconditionally, that every American citizen should be legally required to marry a box turtle, and that our new national past-time should be EUROPEAN FOOTBALL.

It's not pointless, we don't want anyone to die, and yes, she's still a bitch!

Not pointless? I beg to differ. And THAT is the right of every person in the nation... not just those who support this jihadi regime.

As long as those "alien skies" are over countries full of brown people who don't accept Jeebus.

Look, Grave, how complicated is this? "Supporting the troops" means advocating that they be sent, without effective gear and supplies, to fight a war that is conducted under false pretenses under the leadership of individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated their incompetance and corruption. If you don't support war, then you support LOSING. If you don't support us killing the Iraqis, then you support the Iraqis killing US. If you don't support fighting them over there, then you are clearly in favor of them coming to murder us in our beds over HERE.

Ah. I get it, now.

It's patriotic to die, or to kill... and to wish to die and to kill... so long as the 'other party' is one of those 'backwards minority-type' peoples...

Not pointless? I beg to differ. And THAT is the right of every person in the nation... not just those who support this jihadi regime.
That's pre-9/11 thinking, Grave. See, you're still stuck in this out-dated mindset wherein all Americans have the right--nay, the duty--to disent if they feel the government is acting inappropriately. What you forget is that 9/11 changed everything.

The terrorists attacked us because they hate freedom, and the only way we can beat them is to sacrifice the most fundamental freedoms upon which our country has been built. The only way we can prove that we will not be beaten by these evil totalitarian regimes is by hoping for the slow and agonizing deaths of all who disagree with our current military agenda.

Hell, why not. No matter how you choose to express your disapproval of the war, you're going to get accused of being an America-hating gutless coward who kicks puppies. Might as well have some fun while you're at it.

I hereby advocate the complete dismantling of all the Armed Forces. I further submit that the US should surrender to the French unconditionally, that every American citizen should be legally required to marry a box turtle, and that our new national past-time should be EUROPEAN FOOTBALL.
You Commie Pinko God-Hating America-Bashing Terrorist-Loving Liberal BITCH! Sign me up, sister! Yay Euro-ball! Do I get a hat? I'm off to the pet store to get married. :D

Ah. I get it, now.

It's patriotic to die, or to kill... and to wish to die and to kill... so long as the 'other party' is one of those 'backwards minority-type' peoples...
It's supremely un-patriotic of you to value the lives of your fellow Americans. Knock it off.

How is Sheehan 'disallowing' anything? How is anyone asking for our boys to 'come home' disallowing anything?

How is being ordered into a theatre of war, a 'freedom'?

I cannot get inside of the mindset that considers pointless killing and sacrifice, to be a good thing.
Apparently you can't "get inside" any mindset other than your own myopic one. You and I use to agree on quite a few things, but this is one place we definitely part company.

Hell, why not. No matter how you choose to express your disapproval of the war, you're going to get accused of being an America-hating gutless coward who kicks puppies. Might as well have some fun while you're at it.

I hereby advocate the complete dismantling of all the Armed Forces. I further submit that the US should surrender to the French unconditionally, that every American citizen should be legally required to marry a box turtle, and that our new national past-time should be EUROPEAN FOOTBALL.

Whew...good thing I'm joining the CANADIAN Armed Forces. Otherwise, I'd be out of a job, married to a small tortoise, and ruled by the French. :eek:

I second the motion for the new national past-time becoming European Football, however. And not just for America, neither. Bring it up north! :p

Note that nobody knew- or cared about this until Forrest so generously brought it to our attention as part of his ongoing series, "Dirty Hippies Called Me a Baby Killer and I Want Them All Dead Waaaaah".

And he calls Cindy Sheehan an attention whore. Heh.

Ah. I get it, now.

It's patriotic to die, or to kill... and to wish to die and to kill... so long as the 'other party' is one of those 'backwards minority-type' peoples...
No, you can want to kill other people too, but it's best if they're swarthy. And a Real Patriot(tm) shouldn't need a reason to want to die. They should love their country so much, they'd be willing to die just to make the prezzydent smile.

In fact, if Cindy Sheehan had not been an enemy of Amurika, she would have shot her son herself.

(Oh, Muravyets, that is inappropriate!!!)

We'ed of had Cindy shot by now...in the Democratic Republic of Evolution Psychology.

That's pre-9/11 thinking, Grave. See, you're still stuck in this out-dated mindset wherein all Americans have the right--nay, the duty--to disent if they feel the government is acting inappropriately. What you forget is that 9/11 changed everything.

The terrorists attacked us because they hate freedom, and the only way we can beat them is to sacrifice the most fundamental freedoms upon which our country has been built. The only way we can prove that we will not be beaten by these evil totalitarian regimes is by hoping for the slow and agonizing deaths of all who disagree with our current military agenda.
S'cuse me for awhile. My scarcsm detector just blew a diode. :p

Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?

Becausing Stabbing troops in the back to fulfill your own twisted political agenda is stupid.

a note, to all the Bonos, Alc Baldwins, Susan Sarandons, Green Days etc etc of the world..... Kindly shut yer frickin pie holes and entertain me bitch!!! I pay money to be entertained by ou, not listen to your personal beliefs. or rather, do as the one poster suggested, and be like a buddhist monk, go buy some kerosene and a lighter, so we don't hav to listen to you bitch about how our countries are only giving away less then 1% of thier GDP. BOO HOO play a song bono you irish bastard, go eat a frickin potato, oh wait... i forgot it's a hunger strike to support the troops for a whole day!!! whats next? not gonna go to the hair stylists and not wear any makeup for a week to protest the threatening of the endangered north atlantic tree octipus? Honestly, we don't care what you think... go home shut up,,, wanna make money playing music, great, sing away, otherwise we don't want to hear you media whore types and your self righteous babblings on the inhuman treatment of oatmeal. :headbang:

Apparently you can't "get inside" any mindset other than your own myopic one. You and I use to agree on quite a few things, but this is one place we definitely part company.

Please, answer the question.

LOL! I'll bring the beer! Let's all have a party right in front of them and bring lots of food!


I am underage.:(

Note that nobody knew- or cared about this until Forrest so generously brought it to our attention as part of his ongoing series, "Dirty Hippies Called Me a Baby Killer and I Want Them All Dead Waaaaah".

And he calls Cindy Sheehan an attention whore. Heh.
[ Invites the arrogant, ignorant Gauthier to go perform an impossible act upon his own body. ] :D

Apparently you can't "get inside" any mindset other than your own myopic one. You and I use to agree on quite a few things, but this is one place we definitely part company.

Mine is the myopic mindset? The perspective that prefers honest government, transparency and accountability, and the right to dissent? The one that would prefer to not feed innocents into a meatgrinder in order to serve no purpose but furthering the political and extra-curricular interests of a small group of rich men?

I'm inclined to think that it would be 'buying the corporate propaganda' that would be myopic... but I'll happily oppose you on this one.

The lives of innocents are too valuable thing to waste in religious brinkmanship and territorial pissings.

It's kind of starting to look like Cindy Sheehan has become addicted to media exposure, and that every so often, she needs to get her fix. I say we put her in the newly remodeled wing of the George Clooney Clinic for Obsessive Compulsive Disorders where she can be studiously ignored for the rest of her natural life.

Becausing Stabbing troops in the back to fulfill your own twisted political agenda is stupid.
As you demonstrate with your moronic jokes every day.

S'cuse me for awhile. My scarcsm detector just blew a diode. :p

You're using one w/o an overload circuit and fuses? Around here? Do you go driving w/ the parking break on?

Remind me not to lend you anything.


:p

That's pre-9/11 thinking, Grave. See, you're still stuck in this out-dated mindset wherein all Americans have the right--nay, the duty--to disent if they feel the government is acting inappropriately. What you forget is that 9/11 changed everything.

The terrorists attacked us because they hate freedom, and the only way we can beat them is to sacrifice the most fundamental freedoms upon which our country has been built. The only way we can prove that we will not be beaten by these evil totalitarian regimes is by hoping for the slow and agonizing deaths of all who disagree with our current military agenda.

Terrorists hate us for any number of a huge list of reasons.

We're somewhat Christian !(OMG!11!!!), we support israel, we are powerful....

No, you can want to kill other people too, but it's best if they're swarthy. And a Real Patriot(tm) shouldn't need a reason to want to die. They should love their country so much, they'd be willing to die just to make the prezzydent smile.

In fact, if Cindy Sheehan had not been an enemy of Amurika, she would have shot her son herself.

(Oh, Muravyets, that is inappropriate!!!)

I have never wanted you more. :D

Please, answer the question.
When I get an unloaded, rational question, I will happily answer same. How unfortunate for you that most leftists are incapable of asking an unloaded, rational question.

Becausing Stabbing troops in the back to fulfill your own twisted political agenda is stupid.
I think the bone of contention is this claim that anti-war activists are "stabbing troops in the back" at all.

Personally, if my fellow citizens want to "stab me in the back" by advocating that I not be sent to die in a foreign country, I think I can handle that kind of "betrayal." If they're going to "stab me in the back" by insisting that my government provide me with supplies and gear that will save my life, I think I will be able to cope. If they want to "stab me in the back" by suggesting that perhaps my life should not be thrown away in military opperations that are being dangerously mishandled, well, that's the kind of "back-stabbing" that a gal could learn to love.

This is kind of like when your girlfriend "stabs you in the back" by buying you a new videogame, taking you out to dinner, and then having some mind-blowing crazy monkey sex with you. That bitch.

Becausing Stabbing troops in the back to fulfill your own twisted political agenda is stupid.

whereas blindly following the leader regardless isnt?

she lost a son, she is entitled to her say. its unlike you not to support the troops families?

or are you a hypocrite who only believes in free speech when you agree with whats being said?

a note, to all the Bonos, Alc Baldwins, Susan Sarandons, Green Days etc etc of the world..... Kindly shut yer frickin pie holes and entertain me bitch!!! I pay money to be entertained by ou, not listen to your personal beliefs. or rather, do as the one poster suggested, and be like a buddhist monk, go buy some kerosene and a lighter, so we don't hav to listen to you bitch about how our countries are only giving away less then 1% of thier GDP. BOO HOO play a song bono you irish bastard, go eat a frickin potato, oh wait... i forgot it's a hunger strike to support the troops for a whole day!!! whats next? not gonna go to the hair stylists and not wear any makeup for a week to protest the threatening of the endangered north atlantic tree octipus? Honestly, we don't care what you think... go home shut up,,, wanna make money playing music, great, sing away, otherwise we don't want to hear you media whore types and your self righteous babblings on the inhuman treatment of oatmeal. :headbang:

Crudely put, but I can't disagree with the message.

[ Invites the arrogant, ignorant Gauthier to go perform an impossible act upon his own body. ] :D

And I invite you to actually say what you really mean and use real swear words. Your PC crap sounds more leftist than everyone you bitch and moan about.

a note, to all the Bonos, Alc Baldwins, Susan Sarandons, Green Days etc etc of the world..... Kindly shut yer frickin pie holes and entertain me bitch!!! I pay money to be entertained by ou, not listen to your personal beliefs. or rather, do as the one poster suggested, and be like a buddhist monk, go buy some kerosene and a lighter, so we don't hav to listen to you bitch about how our countries are only giving away less then 1% of thier GDP. BOO HOO play a song bono you irish bastard, go eat a frickin potato, oh wait... i forgot it's a hunger strike to support the troops for a whole day!!! whats next? not gonna go to the hair stylists and not wear any makeup for a week to protest the threatening of the endangered north atlantic tree octipus? Honestly, we don't care what you think... go home shut up,,, wanna make money playing music, great, sing away, otherwise we don't want to hear you media whore types and your self righteous babblings on the inhuman treatment of oatmeal. :headbang:

Allow me to be the first to point out that this rant contains of spelling mistakes, stereotypes, grammatical errors, vulgarities, what are hopefully typos and a reference to a tree dwelling octopus (although I rather think that was sarcasm). Anyways, I would also like to point out that apparentally people do care about Bono's message, considering it got him named a Person of the Year by times, and there hasn't been a devestating boycott of his music.

Becausing Stabbing troops in the back to fulfill your own twisted political agenda is stupid.

Agreed. And yet, we elected him for a second term.

Terrorists hate us for any number of a huge list of reasons.

We're somewhat Christian !(OMG!11!!!), we support israel, we are powerful....

you are occupying their land?

Terrorists hate us for any number of a huge list of reasons.

We're somewhat Christian !(OMG!11!!!), we support israel, we are powerful....
....they met you once... :p


Picking on you is like tipping cows -- stupid, unchallenging, but fuck it -- it's amusing.

While I do think that her calling it a 'hunger strike' is perhaps a bit silly, there is nothing wrong with a one day fast, and it is just another way of drawing attention to the cause, and I say fine, do it!


She said she was going on an open-ended hunger strike; it's her celebrity compatriots who are only fasting for a day.

Terrorists hate us for any number of a huge list of reasons.

We're somewhat Christian !(OMG!11!!!), we support israel, we are powerful....
I'm totally on board with the whole "terrorists don't like us" thing. When people try to blow us up, I get the message pretty quickly.

What I'm not on board with is the idea that we are somehow winning against the terrorists by doing their work for them.

It seems to me that a one day hunger strick is stupid but the cause is a just one.Perhaps she is an attention whore but none of the less she is stricking for the wars end which i pray will come soon.

When I get an unloaded, rational question, I will happily answer same. How unfortunate for you that most leftists are incapable of asking an unloaded, rational question.
Also unfortunately for him, you are incapable of giving an unloaded, rational answer.

As you demonstrate with your moronic jokes every day.

She pisses on the dead and screws the living. Not to mention she is a hippie-does the mil forget who it was that spit on them when they returned from Vietnam?

Nope...

Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?

Duh.

It's kind of starting to look like Cincy Sheehan has become addicted to media exposure, and that every so often, she needs to get her fix. I say we put her in the newly remodeled wing of the George Clooney Clinic for Obsessive Compulsive Disorders where she can be studiously ignored for the rest of her natural life.
Or just let that demented lil twit, Tom Crews, convert her to scientology. That should fit her twisted mindset to a "T."

When I get an unloaded, rational question, I will happily answer same. How unfortunate for you that most leftists are incapable of asking an unloaded, rational question.

Let's review, shall we? You said...

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.

Were you implying that Cindy Sheeshan meant to deny that? Whether yes or no, Grave_n_idle asked

How is being ordered into a theatre of war, a 'freedom'?

You have neglected to reply. I don't see any reason that you could construe this question as either loaded or irrational. Is there any other reason that you wouldn't answer the question?

I have never wanted you more. :D
Great minds think alike. :cool:

Also unfortunately for him, you are incapable of giving an unloaded, rational answer.
You've turned into a real butt-wipe, you know that? :(

She pisses on the dead and screws the living.




that doesnt go unchallenged. how is she doing this exactly?

is she not entitled to a say after losing her son in this farce of a war.

You've turned into a real butt-wipe, you know that? :(
Thank you for proving my point. :)

I'm totally on board with the whole "terrorists don't like us" thing. When people try to blow us up, I get the message pretty quickly.

What I'm not on board with is the idea that we are somehow winning against the terrorists by doing their work for them.

We're bombing ourselves?

I missed that one.

You've turned into a real butt-wipe, you know that? :(

You don't fare well on dissent, my friend...

You have neglected to reply. I don't see any reason that you could construe this question as either loaded or irrational. Is there any other reason that you wouldn't answer the question?
No, I wouldn't consider the right to defend your country a "freedom." I consider it a responsibility. Remember those, or has the far left rendered you so mind-numb that you're incapable of recognizing responsibility as being a virtue?

Because she's trying to be rather supportive of the troops, in case you missed it.

The "Troops as Murdering Slime" doesn't play anymore, and she knows it. Thus cloaking her weepy "bring the boys home before anymore get murdered in this big bad war" mantra in some type of acceptable ideological clothing.

I keep wondering what part of "Volunteer Army" she missed when her son signed up.

You don't fare well on dissent, my friend...
( shrug ) So sue me.

We're bombing ourselves?

I missed that one.
The goal of terrorists is not simply to bomb people. They have a REASON why they are bombing people (hint: the reason is hidden somewhere in the name "TERRORist").

No, I wouldn't consider the right to defend your country a "freedom." I consider it a responsibility. Remember those, or has the far left rendered you so mind-numb that you're incapable of recognizing responsibility as being a virtue?

So - it's a right/left divide?

Democrats want an end to war, and Republicans want Americans in bodybags?

You honestly think it that simplistic?

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:

HAHA! Eut, since you'll prolly beat her into hell by a couple of decades, use your spare time down there to think of some really zany practical jokes you can pull on her. LOL HAHAHAHA.

Eutrusca has rather bad memories of protesters during the Vietnam era who protested, blamed and even attacked returning soldiers rather than the government they served.

Sheehan has occasionally shown signs of stooping to such levels. Not to mention the fact that she's an attention whore. :p

And now he tortures us all with his 60's flashbacks?

She pisses on the dead and screws the living. Not to mention she is a hippie-does the mil forget who it was that spit on them when they returned from Vietnam?

Nope...
Did you buy the family-sized bag of crap from the BS store today? Your post means absolutely nothing.

( shrug ) So sue me.

Why would I? It's not ME that you are hurting with your indiscriminate vitriol.

No, I wouldn't consider the right to defend your country a "freedom." I consider it a responsibility. Remember those, or has the far left rendered you so mind-numb that you're incapable of recognizing responsibility as being a virtue?

Hold on a moment. I distinctly recall you saying...

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11214476&postcount=47)

He responded to that statement. Surely he can't be held responsible for you suddenly changing your position?

The "Troops as Murdering Slime" doesn't play anymore, and she knows it. Thus cloaking her weepy "bring the boys home before anymore get murdered in this big bad war" mantra in some type of acceptable ideological clothing.

Because what kind of crazy fucker would give a shit about saving the lives of soldiers?


I keep wondering what part of "Volunteer Army" she missed when her son signed up.
I don't think she missed any of that, nor did most other anti-war protesters. They simply feel that we, as a country, owe our soldiers a great deal of respect, and we owe it to them to never spend their lives needlessly. They are agreeing to put their lives on the line for us, and in return they ask only that we treat this sacrifice with all the seriousness it deserves.

Some people believe that the current war is not worth spending these lives. Others feel the cause is worth it, but the war is being grossly mishandled in ways that are needlessly throwing away the lives of our own servicewomen and servicemen. Neither of these is about denegrating the soldiers; rather, it is about honoring the responsibility that we have to them.

It worked for Gandhi...

So - it's a right/left divide?

Democrats want an end to war, and Republicans want Americans in bodybags?

You honestly think it that simplistic?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone is a Republican or Democrat, whether the issue is simplistic or complex. Saying that "Republicans want Americans in bodybags" is a pefect example of loading a question by framing the terms to fit your own bias. Yes, it is pretty much a "left/right divide." The left has always sought to undermine America's will to win, for whatever their reasons might be. Perhaps there are some who call themselves leftists but who are strong on defense issues, but I don't know of any.

Hold on a moment. I distinctly recall you saying...

He responded to that statement. Surely he can't be held responsible for you suddenly changing your position?
How are those two statements in any way contradictory? My position hasn't changed one iota.

It worked for Gandhi...
Gandhi wasn't fighting people who don't give a shit how many people they truture and murder. Nor was he fighting people who didn't give a shit about their own lives. HUGE difference.

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:

Amen. And the support that the big names is lending is incredible. Missing three whole meals! Wow! But they are about symbolism, not substance. At least Crazy Cindy is committed. Or should be.

How are those two statements in any way contradictory? My position hasn't changed one iota.

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.

Implying that defending everyone's freedom is in itself a freedom.

No, I wouldn't consider the right to defend your country a "freedom."

So we need to allow them enough freedom to do something that's not a freedom to begin with. Do you see how that could maybe, possibly come across as a wee bit contradictory?

HAHA! Eut, since you'll prolly beat her into hell by a couple of decades, use your spare time down there to think of some really zany practical jokes you can pull on her. LOL HAHAHAHA.
I've already spent my time in hell, so it's highly unlikely I'll go there. :p

Anybody who whores out there dead son deserves WORSE than Hell.


Because... what... everyone who disagrees with you deserves to die...?

Gandhi wasn't fighting people who don't give a shit how many people they truture and murder. Nor was he fighting people who didn't give a shit about their own lives. HUGE difference.

Okay, I'm going to be really nice here, and simply point out that he was talking about Cindy's way of protesting the war, not that that's how the US should be fighting the war.

eh ill wait for ramadan.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone is a Republican or Democrat, whether the issue is simplistic or complex. Saying that "Republicans want Americans in bodybags" is a pefect example of loading a question by framing the terms to fit your own bias. Yes, it is pretty much a "left/right divide." The left has always sought to undermine America's will to win, for whatever their reasons might be. Perhaps there are some who call themselves leftists but who are strong on defense issues, but I don't know of any.

now who is being loaded?

its not about winning or losing, its a about a cabal of neo-cons lying about the nature of the threat to go to war. and then not giving troops the equipment to wage it. and on and on withh the litany of errors that this farce of a war has decended into.

the iraq war has nothing to do with the defence of the US and thats the point being made by the anti-war protestors. its goebbelesque to then label all dissenters un-patriotic, as well as a cop out.

And now he tortures us all with his 60's flashbacks?
Yes, he gets this way every now and then. When I first joined this forum, one of my first little hissy spats with anyone was when I made fun of his war stories about how he had to shovel mud out of a foxhole in Vietnam, hip deep in VC piss, barefoot, in the snow, uphill, with the wind in his face, both ways, and with nothing for lunch, and a school master who would switch his hide if he used a swear word while scratching the alphabet into a clay tablet with nothing but the tip of his sharpened nose because real Americans couldn't afford sticks in those days, and why all of that means people aren't allowed to criticize the war in Iraq today. I think he's cute.

Anybody who whores out there dead son deserves WORSE than Hell.

How about the political leadership that whores the dead heros for political gain?

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:
Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Seems like she has other plans?

How are those two statements in any way contradictory? My position hasn't changed one iota.

Have to admit it hasn't changed one bit at all from "All War Protestors are Dirty Spitting Hippies Who Must Die."

And you constantly miss the double irony when you bitch about what an attention whore she is while bringing up every news article about her every chance you get. Not only do you keep reminding people she exists, you're trying to grab the spotlight just as much you allege she's doing if not more.

:rolleyes:

Sadly for far too many yes. It has become that.


So - it's a right/left divide?

Democrats want an end to war, and Republicans want Americans in bodybags?

You honestly think it that simplistic?

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone is a Republican or Democrat, whether the issue is simplistic or complex. Saying that "Republicans want Americans in bodybags" is a pefect example of loading a question by framing the terms to fit your own bias. Yes, it is pretty much a "left/right divide." The left has always sought to undermine America's will to win, for whatever their reasons might be. Perhaps there are some who call themselves leftists but who are strong on defense issues, but I don't know of any.

I was actually almost violently simplistic on both issues... but you only find fault in the description of the Republican agenda.

Didn't you, historically, claim to be a centrist?

You appear to have decided on what you are willing to believe, and you don't seem interested in letting mere 'facts' influence the process... you appear to have decided that Democrats are unpatriotic, and that only the fascist right has any interest in patriotism.

I can't see it in such black-and-white... but, strangely, I don't think of that as a failing...

I've already spent my time in hell, so it's highly unlikely I'll go there. :p
They're keeping your old room for you, though, just like it was, just in case.

Anybody who whores out there dead son deserves WORSE than Hell.

Yes... because protesting that your children died for a lie, MUST be the greatest sin.... :rolleyes:

now who is being loaded?

its not about winning or losing, its a about a cabal of neo-cons lying about the nature of the threat to go to war. and then not giving troops the equipment to wage it. and on and on withh the litany of errors that this farce of a war has decended into.

the iraq war has nothing to do with the defence of the US and thats the point being made by the anti-war protestors. its goebbelesque to then label all dissenters un-patriotic, as well as a cop out.
Godwin.

I didn't label anyone except the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan, and perhaps those demented leftists who constitute a fifth column that consistently opposes every attempt by America to defend herself.

Great minds think alike. :cool:

Fools seldom differ.:p

*ducks*

Yes... because protesting that your children died for a lie, MUST be the greatest sin.... :rolleyes:
No, the greatest sin is to dishonor your own son's choices by railing against the very thing he was trying to defend.

Yes, he gets this way every now and then. When I first joined this forum, one of my first little hissy spats with anyone was when I made fun of his war stories about how he had to shovel mud out of a foxhole in Vietnam, hip deep in VC piss, barefoot, in the snow, uphill, with the wind in his face, both ways, and with nothing for lunch, and a school master who would switch his hide if he used a swear word while scratching the alphabet into a clay tablet with nothing but the tip of his sharpened nose because real Americans couldn't afford sticks in those days, and why all of that means people aren't allowed to criticize the war in Iraq today. I think he's cute.

Much as it annoys me to defend him. (Eut :p)

I can understand where he is coming from. We the people can be very cheap and nasty at times and what the vets of that time went though has still got many of them screwed up today.

I have a buddy that did two tours. Probably the thing that hurt him most was a childhood friend calling him a babykiller.

Eut may be a tad crazy but his intent (I believe) is that the guys of today don't get threated the same way the guys of his era did.

Now can we go back to bashing the US goverment? Pretty please! :D

Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Seems like she has other plans?
She's definitely NO peacemaker, she's just a whore, pure and simple.

No, the greatest sin is to dishonor your own son's choices by railing against the very thing he was trying to defend.

So disagreeing with your dead offspring outranks mass genocide?

an equal but opposite Hell


How about the political leadership that whores the dead heros for political gain?

IMHO, it's ok for her to grieve for her son. But her actions have prompted some soldiers to deliberately make videos saying that they want to be in Iraq, and don't want their families to do what Sheehan is doing. Sort of a pre-emptive video that opponents of Sheehan (or any similar family member) can play to make the family members look like an ass.
It appears that most of the troops would agree with her, at least the part about coming home?

Zogby: 72% of US Troops Surveyed Say Leave Iraq in 2006 (http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060228212828287/print)

Wow, a one day fast. How extreme of them.

Well said.:)

Much as it annoys me to defend him. (Eut :p)

I can understand where he is coming from. We the people can be very cheap and nasty at times and what the vets of that time went though has still got many of them screwed up today.

I have a buddy that did two tours. Probably the thing that hurt him most was a childhood friend calling him a babykiller.

Eut may be a tad crazy but his intent (I believe) is that the guys of today don't get threated the same way the guys of his era did.

Now can we go back to bashing the US goverment? Pretty please! :D
Well, the guys of today are NOT getting threatened the same way the guys of his era did, so I see no reason at all to suspend the right of free speech or to blame anyone for exercising it.

As for can we go back to bashing the US government -- pretty please? Ask Eut. He's the one labeling all critics of the government and its policies as "unpatriotic" and worse.

No, the greatest sin is to dishonor your own son's choices by railing against the very thing he was trying to defend.
I think it's a bit off to assume that her son completely supported this particular military action. I don't know what he might have thought about the war, and neither do you, but I'm willing to guess his mum might know at least a little more about it than either of us.

I've got a friend who is currently serving his second tour in Iraq, but who believes this entire war is a lousy idea and is being conducted in a piss-poor manner. Yet he still serves to the utmost of his ability, because that is what he swore to do.

Implying that defending everyone's freedom is in itself a freedom.

So we need to allow them enough freedom to do something that's not a freedom to begin with. Do you see how that could maybe, possibly come across as a wee bit contradictory?
What part of the "freedom to choose" to defend the freedom of others DON'T you understand? Have you heard the news that the American military is all volunteer?

Godwin.


Actually no.

"the iraq war has nothing to do with the defence of the US and thats the point being made by the anti-war protestors. its goebbelesque to then label all dissenters un-patriotic, as well as a cop out."

Goebbels would have labeled you un-patriotic to speak out against the war.

Godwin.

I didn't label anyone except the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan, and perhaps those demented leftists who constitute a fifth column that consistently opposes every attempt by America to defend herself.

stop doging the question, how is this war in iraq a defensive one?

she is protesting about exactly that jingoistic borderline facist nonsense mentality.

her son died for nothing and 2500 others too. she is entitled to protest this farce of a war and entitled for more respect from the 101st keyboard

I think it's a bit off to assume that her son completely supported this particular military action. I don't know what he might have thought about the war, and neither do you, but I'm willing to guess his mum might know at least a little more about it than either of us.

I've got a friend who is currently serving his second tour in Iraq, but who believes this entire war is a lousy idea and is being conducted in a piss-poor manner. Yet he still serves to the utmost of his ability, because that is what he swore to do.
They call that "accepting your responsibility" and "exercising your feedom to choose."

Genocide:rolleyes: people bandy that word about too loosely. It will loose it's horror. What genocide? Darphor Rwanda Bosnia (where we still have troops 8 years later) So disagreeing with your dead offspring outranks mass genocide?

Fools seldom differ.:p

*ducks*
I have a long memory. :)

Godwin.

I didn't label anyone except the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan, and perhaps those demented leftists who constitute a fifth column that consistently opposes every attempt by America to defend herself.

So... 'peace protest' equates to 'demented leftist', 'fifth column' and opposition to America defending herself?

Firstly - I'm amused at the use of the phrase 'fifth column', after you claimed 'Godwin' on the argument of another... you then use a phrase coined by a Nationalist revolutionary who brought bloody civil war to Spain, and popularised as a description of the German citizens of other nations that acted as insurgents for the Third Reich.

Ah - the irony.

Secondly - It is almost scary how partisan you are. Left = evil, seems to be the thrust of your entire argument.

Thirdly - 'peace protest' is not about left or right. It is about stopping war. You can try to conspire an agenda for it if you wish.

stop doging the question, how is this war in iraq a defensive one?

she is protesting about exactly that jingoistic borderline facist nonsense mentality.

her son died for nothing and 2500 others too. she is entitled to protest this farce of a war and entitled for more respect from the 101st keyboard
Just as I am entitled to protest HER!

So... 'peace protest' equates to 'demented leftist', 'fifth column' and opposition to America defending herself?

Firstly - I'm amused at the use of the phrase 'fifth column', after you claimed 'Godwin' on the argument of another... you then use a phrase coined by a Nationalist revolutionary who brought bloody civil war to Spain, and popularised as a description of the German citizens of other nations that acted as insurgents for the Third Reich.

Ah - the irony.

Secondly - It is almost scary how partisan you are. Left = evil, seems to be the thrust of your entire argument.

Thirdly - 'peace protest' is not about left or right. It is about stopping war. You can try to conspire an agenda for it if you wish.
Ok.

No, the greatest sin is to dishonor your own son's choices by railing against the very thing he was trying to defend.

If you honestly think that the GREATEST sin, I feel sympathy.

I'd also say you'd failed (perhaps, deliberately?) to understand the Sheehan platform.

She's definitely NO peacemaker, she's just a whore, pure and simple.
Oh, yes, unloaded and rational. No unfounded, over-emotional, personal attacks here.

If you have evidence concerning Ms. Sheehan's sexual history and any way to show its relevance to her stance on the war, kindly present it.

Otherwise, I volunteer to take offense on her behalf for that slander.

Genocide:rolleyes: people bandy that word about too loosely. It will loose it's horror. What genocide? Darphor Rwanda Bosnia (where we still have troops 8 years later)

We don't have troops in Daphor or Rwanda.

Much as it annoys me to defend him. (Eut :p)

I can understand where he is coming from. We the people can be very cheap and nasty at times and what the vets of that time went though has still got many of them screwed up today.

I have a buddy that did two tours. Probably the thing that hurt him most was a childhood friend calling him a babykiller.

Eut may be a tad crazy but his intent (I believe) is that the guys of today don't get threated the same way the guys of his era did.
Thanks ... I think.

I wouldn't say "cheap and nasty," though. More like "fickle and capricious."

They call that "accepting your responsibility" and "exercising your feedom to choose."
As long as they make the choice you want them to make. If they make a different choice, they are "whores"?

Oh, yes, unloaded and rational. No unfounded, over-emotional, personal attacks here.

If you have evidence concerning Ms. Sheehan's sexual history and any way to show its relevance to her stance on the war, kindly present it.

Otherwise, I volunteer to take offense on her behalf for that slander.
( shrug ) Knock yourself out.

As long as they make the choice you want them to make. If they make a different choice, they are "whores"?
Totally specious. The dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is too old to join the military, although she still has the freedom of choice to try.

Way to lead by example Eut!

We don't have troops in Daphor or Rwanda.
Yes. We do.

Way to lead by example Eut!
When it was my privilege to lead by example, I did so, and quite well thank you. Now, it's my turn to speak my mind, and I couldn't give a shit less whether anyone wants to follow.

Godwin.

I didn't label anyone except the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan, and perhaps those demented leftists who constitute a fifth column that consistently opposes every attempt by America to defend herself.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

godwin my hole. he explicitly argued that labelling people who question the war unpatriotic is a legitimate tactic. one which you are using

Yes. We do.

Rawanda? No.

Dahpur. What's there now?

When it was my privilege to lead by example, I did so, and quite well thank you. Now, it's my turn to speak my mind, and I couldn't give a shit less whether anyone wants to follow.
And we'd gladly let you slander and libel everyone you want if you would just do it in the appropriate freedom zone over there...

I'll tell you how. The sad truth is this is the "not in my yard" war. It was a war to focus the attention of Jihadist away from the shores of the US and bleed them white in terms of men and money in a place that risks the fewest US citizens. There is no way this could have been sold to the US public so the "wmd's" were made the outward cause. The war is slowly achieving it's goals fortunately/unfortunately it was at the expense of the Iraqi people vs. the expense of US civilians. As an American I say good choice, but I can see why the world is pissed.



stop doging the question, how is this war in iraq a defensive one?

she is protesting about exactly that jingoistic borderline facist nonsense mentality.

her son died for nothing and 2500 others too. she is entitled to protest this farce of a war and entitled for more respect from the 101st keyboard

No, the greatest sin is to dishonor your own son's choices by railing against the very thing he was trying to defend.

Defend what? America is the agressor...

Totally specious. The dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is too old to join the military, although she still has the freedom of choice to try.
But unless you are only attacking Cindy Sheehan personally, then your denunciations should also apply to anyone who chooses not to enlist because they are pacifists. You should also apply them to any soldier who returns from Iraq saying it was a mistake, and to the retired generals who say that the strategy was wrong, etc., as they are also not supporting the war. Thus, anyone who chooses not to join the military and/or not to support the war is not exercising their freedom in the way you would like them to.

So what is it? Are you just venting a personal grudge against this one individual -- in which case, how sad for you that you let one person bother you so much -- or are you, in fact, condemning "the left" (whatever that means) for not supporting the war, and using "exercising their freedom" as some kind of code for "supporting the war"?

I have a long memory. :)

Cookie ?

http://www.cookiesinheaven.com/images/cookies/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg

When it was my privilege to lead by example, I did so, and quite well thank you. Now, it's my turn to speak my mind, and I couldn't give a shit less whether anyone wants to follow.
Wow, that's something you share in common with Cindy Sheehan. It's a small world, after all.

Eut, two simple questions. I just want to know what you honestly think.

1. Where is the US Military defending our country at the moment? If its Iraq or Afghanistan, how can you call those examples of defending our country?

2. Why do you keep posting about cindy sheehan, don't you think by ignoring her, we can eventually stop caring about her as a whole? You do seem to post threads about her on here more than most people, giving her the attention she wants.

Cookie ?

http://www.cookiesinheaven.com/images/cookies/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg
Oh, all right. Peace. *eats cookie*

You're lucky it was chocolate chip.

found the goebbles quote.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always
a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

thats you eut. in a nutshell

I'll tell you how. The sad truth is this is the "not in my yard" war. It was a war to focus the attention of Jihadist away from the shores of the US and bleed them white in terms of men and money in a place that risks the fewest US citizens. There is no way this could have been sold to the US public so the "wmd's" were made the outward cause. The war is slowly achieving it's goals fortunately/unfortunately it was at the expense of the Iraqi people vs. the expense of US civilians. As an American I say good choice, but I can see why the world is pissed.

Except the majority of people we are killing are iraqi's, recruited by the jihadi's as you call them, because the US invaded Iraq. In afghanistan, we actually went after their leadership, and a good portion of their existing membership. Which is why most people aren't against what happened in afghanistan. But in Iraq, recruitment is defidentally growing faster than we can kill them, to the point where the gross numbers are going to rise, especially after we pull out of iraq, and civil war erupts in iraq, whether thats in 6 months or 6 years.

found the goebbles quote.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always
a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

thats you eut. in a nutshell

Just a nitpick. It's usually good to reference your source. ;)

They call that "accepting your responsibility" and "exercising your feedom to choose."
Absolutely. Just as it is when my buddy has encouraged those of us back state-side to support the anti-war efforts. Both of his parents went to join Cindy Sheehan when she was protesting down in Texas, and he fully supported them in doing it.

So why do you wish death upon people who are accepting their responsibility and exercising their freedom to choose?

When it was my privilege to lead by example, I did so, and quite well thank you. Now, it's my turn to speak my mind, and I couldn't give a shit less whether anyone wants to follow.
That's perfectly fine, and nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to do that.

What some of us are trying to figure out is why you, a normally sane and reasonable individual, are expressing joy at the thought of people starving to death because they happen to oppose the current military action in Iraq.

If you were just some random nutter, I wouldn't even have bothered to post in this thread. But I've talked with you around here before, and I find this completely unhinged behavior totally inconsistent with much of your past behavior. I also don't understand why you would wish death on your fellow soldiers, or why you would wish death on their loved ones.

Perhaps we should had them there isntead of Iraq....but a different subject.
What genocide are you talking about?
We don't have troops in Daphor or Rwanda.

I disagree, but time will tell.


Except the majority of people we are killing are iraqi's, recruited by the jihadi's as you call them, because the US invaded Iraq. In afghanistan, we actually went after their leadership, and a good portion of their existing membership. Which is why most people aren't against what happened in afghanistan. But in Iraq, recruitment is defidentally growing faster than we can kill them, to the point where the gross numbers are going to rise, especially after we pull out of iraq, and civil war erupts in iraq, whether thats in 6 months or 6 years.

But I've talked with you around here before, and I find this completely unhinged behavior totally inconsistent with much of your past behavior.

Are you sure it was Eut you were talking to?

This thread seems nothing out of the ordinary for him.

Just a nitpick. It's usually good to reference your source. ;)

(C) Joseph Goebbels. :rolleyes:

Are you sure it was Eut you were talking to?

This thread seems nothing out of the ordinary for him.
To be fair, I tend to not be heavily involved in threads about military matters or the Iraq War.

I have butted heads with Eut plenty of times, but this is totally over the top. Arguing is one thing; gleefully envisioning the horrible death of people who disagree with you is another.

That's perfectly fine, and nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to do that.

What some of us are trying to figure out is why you, a normally sane and reasonable individual, are expressing joy at the thought of people starving to death because they happen to oppose the current military action in Iraq.

If you were just some random nutter, I wouldn't even have bothered to post in this thread. But I've talked with you around here before, and I find this completely unhinged behavior totally inconsistent with much of your past behavior. I also don't understand why you would wish death on your fellow soldiers, or why you would wish death on their loved ones.

Actually, "random nutter" describes him perfectly. You must be talking about his twin Acsurtue, who went out with Jane Fonda and smoked dope instead of defending his property from the Vietcong.

That's Herman Goering not Joseph Goebbels


found the goebbles quote.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always
a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

thats you eut. in a nutshell

Genocide:rolleyes: people bandy that word about too loosely. It will loose it's horror. What genocide? Darphor Rwanda Bosnia (where we still have troops 8 years later)

I didn't say anybody was commiting genocide in this context. But he said 'greatest sin' which means that it is worse than all other sins. Which means that it is worse than the Holocaust, worse thab Rwanda, worse than child rape, worse than anything, in other words. With which I'm disagreeing.

(C) Joseph Goebbels. :rolleyes:


I was trying to be nice to you but that is NOT a Gobbels quote.

Hermann Goering said it.


http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

That's Herman Goering not Joseph Goebbels

Opps. You get the credit for pointing it out first! ;)

If you're going to do a proper hungerstrike you need to have either the conviction to actually starve yourself to death to make a point or a chance that your opponent will accede to your demands. She doesn't have either.

You also need an enemy that cares about human life. That's the big obstacle.

I'll tell you how. The sad truth is this is the "not in my yard" war. It was a war to focus the attention of Jihadist away from the shores of the US and bleed them white in terms of men and money in a place that risks the fewest US citizens. There is no way this could have been sold to the US public so the "wmd's" were made the outward cause. The war is slowly achieving it's goals fortunately/unfortunately it was at the expense of the Iraqi people vs. the expense of US civilians. As an American I say good choice, but I can see why the world is pissed.

The thing is - though... the 'war' is not only NOT "achieving it's goals", it is actually making the situation worse... by polarising international opinion against the US, by making a hollow mockery of all the things the US claims to stand for, and by catalysing terrorism.

It is NOT making world terrorism any weaker - indeed, it is escelating that particular problem. It is not making Al Qaeda any weaker... again, it is actually drawing people towards it. And, it is not fixing the 'problems' in the Middle East and beyond - indeed, it is highlighting exactly the sorts of behaviours that bin Ladin and his followers have been claiming - the ruthless imperialism and militaristic culture of interference.

And - not only is the current war sending the US to hell in a handbasket, but it is doing so under false assertions. To support such a blatant abuse of trust, and of power, is unconscionable.

I disagree there have been no more attacks on US soil. That in and of itself is a victory. Second I will grant you that there have been many mistakes (abu Grahib) but I've had either a freind or family member in country for the last 2 years and have been getting pretty regular info from them. From what I gather the media paints a distorted picture most of the vilolence is Iraqi on Iraqi and AQ has made few freinds because of it, mind you the Iraqi's have no great love of Americans either ,some of the more educated Iraqis see what happened/is happening in Iraq as a more controled implosion as happened in Yugoslavia when Tito died. They figure this would have happened sooner or later (with the death of Saddam) but the American presence is (to a degree) reducing the level of violence.

Iraqis resent the presence of foreign Arab/Muslim fighters because they are prolonging the occupation.

The greatest danger is civil war between Suni's and Shia (sp) if we prevent that then that will be another small victory.

We (the US) need to give more carrots to the average Abdul Iraqi better jobs power etc ..get their oil flowing (they pay more per gallon than we do in the US)

Lastly there is a differnt mindet between the Jihadi and the American any violence not answered with violence is weakness like 2 wolves viing for contol of a pack ....we dare not back down.





















The thing is - though... the 'war' is not only NOT "achieving it's goals", it is actually making the situation worse... by polarising international opinion against the US, by making a hollow mockery of all the things the US claims to stand for, and by catalysing terrorism.

It is NOT making world terrorism any weaker - indeed, it is escelating that particular problem. It is not making Al Qaeda any weaker... again, it is actually drawing people towards it. And, it is not fixing the 'problems' in the Middle East and beyond - indeed, it is highlighting exactly the sorts of behaviours that bin Ladin and his followers have been claiming - the ruthless imperialism and militaristic culture of interference.

And - not only is the current war sending the US to hell in a handbasket, but it is doing so under false assertions. To support such a blatant abuse of trust, and of power, is unconscionable.

That's what the Hollyweird crowd thrives on ... attention. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm a star!" Groan! :upyours:

Unlike (for instance) people who start a thread with a c&p news article and a one line inflamatory comment.....


No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.:

How is she preventing anyone from doing anything? Can she pass laws? And who is covered by "everyone"? Certainly Americas actions in Iraq make no difference to my freedom.


Not to mention she is a hippie.:

O the horror! That must explain the Eut. persons hostility too....its making his mental hippy scar itch...


that consistently opposes every attempt by America to defend herself..:

Iraq was not a threat to America, either conventionally or unconventionally. Neither was vietnam.


She's definitely NO peacemaker, she's just a whore, pure and simple..:

Yes...thats good....get it all out....

I disagree there have been no more attacks on US soil. <snip>
Yet.

There have been several terror-related arrests in NYC recently. And I know from NYC's long history with bombers that only a small fraction of threats and arrests make it into the news (more than 20 years ago, the NYPD handled, on average, more than 200 bomb-related incidents every single week; I got that from an officer on the bomb squad whom I knew). And I just spotted in passing -- haven't read it yet -- an AP headline that arrests were just made in a plot on the Sears Tower in Chicago. So the cells are already in the US and already becoming active again.

So much for "fighting them there instead of here." Seems we're fighting them in both places. Only, for some reason, I care about HERE so much more.

Lastly there is a differnt mindet between the Jihadi and the American any violence not answered with violence is weakness like 2 wolves viing for contol of a pack ....we dare not back down.
Funny, I don't see any difference in the mindset at all. Their mouthpieces say the exact same kinds of things.


EDIT: I cannot begin to tell you how angry and disgusted it makes me to be able to cite actual terrorist activity in my own country as proof that Bush's policies are failures.

Ok, I stand corrected: the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan did finally place a headsone on her son's grave: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehangrave.asp

Only took her TWO YEARS! :(
My father's ashes remained in a cardboard box in the back of a closet for two years 'til we could figure out a nice way to inter them.

People grieve in their own way, and in their own time - not according to how you think they ought to, or when you think they ought to. What entitles you to denigrate another for not grieving as you see fit, anyway?

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad: (CNSNews.com) - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced Wednesday that she plans to begin an "open-ended hunger strike" on July 4 to urge the Bush administration to bring troops home from Iraq.

"We hope the fast will galvanize public attention, invigorate the peace movement, build pressure on elected officials, and get our troops back home," Sheehan said in a statement posted on the anti-war blogosphere.
What a frakin' bitch, eh?

Wanting the troops home asap, to stop them getting killed in Iraq.

I can see why you hate her so much.

Imagine actually caring about the US troops over there. pfff.

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:


Celebs to Join Cindy Sheehan in Hunger Strike (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060622a.html)


By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 22, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced Wednesday that she plans to begin an "open-ended hunger strike" on July 4 to urge the Bush administration to bring troops home from Iraq.

"We hope the fast will galvanize public attention, invigorate the peace movement, build pressure on elected officials, and get our troops back home," Sheehan said in a statement posted on the anti-war blogosphere.

The fast, organized by Code Pink and Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace, will begin on Independence Day in Washington, D.C. In her statement Sheehan said she would move the fast to Crawford, Texas, where the president owns a ranch and often vacations.

Sheehan gained national attention in August 2005 when she staged a protest outside the Crawford ranch to protest the war. She named the protest "Camp Casey" in memory of her son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

In her latest statement, Sheehan wrote that celebrities like singer Willie Nelson, actor Danny Glover and comedian Dick Gregory will show their support for her by joining in a one-day fast. She urged her supporters to do the same.

Sheehan is currently in Vienna, Austria, protesting President Bush's appearances there. He is in Europe to meet with leaders of the European Summit, seeking support for the United States' efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East.

In an interview posted on Code Pink's website, the group's co-founder Diane Wilson said the fast would show solidarity with Iraqis and U.S. troops. "Their bodies are on the line every day," Wilson said, referring to Iraqi civilians. "And so are the bodies of the U.S. soldiers. So shouldn't we be putting our bodies on the line?"

Wilson told her interviewer, fellow Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, that a hunger strike "can be a very powerful action." She mentioned three previous hunger strikes she organized, two of which lasted more than four weeks.

The "Troops Home Fast," Wilson said, means that she will abstain from food and drink, with the exception of water, as long as possible. "I don't know how long I can fast," she said, "but I'm making this an open-ended fast. I plan to take this as far as I've ever taken anything in my 58 years."

Wilson acknowledged that her fast might not get the attention of Bush, who after meeting with Sheehan once to offer his condolences for the loss of her son, has ignored her requests for another meeting. "Some fasts are successful," Wilson said in her interview, "others aren't. You never know."


I am entertained that she pisses conservatives off so much. I find it amusing that when we have widows of 9-11 and mothers who lost sons in Iraq that they are looked upon as being connected to American heroes...until they start criticizing Republican plans. Then they're bitches.

Eutrusca, you are a graphic illustration of why we need to smash the Republican majority this election.

I am entertained that she pisses conservatives off so much. I find it amusing that when we have widows of 9-11 and mothers who lost sons in Iraq that they are looked upon as being connected to American heroes...until they start criticizing Republican plans. Then they're bitches.

Eutrusca, you are a graphic illustration of why we need to smash the Republican majority this election.

Good luck, not only that but you're going to need the force on your side too.

Eutrusca-One can only hope :)

The conservatives despise Sheehan that much because she uses her son's death in a way inconsistent with respecting a fallen marine. Not only that, she advocates capitulation and national humiliation.

:upyours:

Oh, I'd just like to take a moment to point out to whoever it was who compared me to Eutrusca last Sunday and called us 'two peas in a pod' -

I don't wish anyone dead. Not even in real life. Now, that aroma is coffee. Woken up yet?

She passed protesting and crossed over to media whore. There are those who defame discent, she Michael Moore and Anne Coulter should be barred from the media for life.


Yes... because protesting that your children died for a lie, MUST be the greatest sin.... :rolleyes:

The AQ in Iraq aren't Iraqis they are forgiegners come to stir up trouble.


Except the majority of people we are killing are iraqi's, recruited by the jihadi's as you call them, because the US invaded Iraq. In afghanistan, we actually went after their leadership, and a good portion of their existing membership. Which is why most people aren't against what happened in afghanistan. But in Iraq, recruitment is defidentally growing faster than we can kill them, to the point where the gross numbers are going to rise, especially after we pull out of iraq, and civil war erupts in iraq, whether thats in 6 months or 6 years.

Those that back the Jihadis are wasting assets in Iraq that they can't replace. This a what happen to the USSR in fast foward. AQ and the Jihadis are trying to prove they still have the ability to strike they have become impatient and careless. (The opposite of 9/11 that took years to set up). The "stick" is working ...now we need a better "carrot"


Yet.

There have been several terror-related arrests in NYC recently. And I know from NYC's long history with bombers that only a small fraction of threats and arrests make it into the news (more than 20 years ago, the NYPD handled, on average, more than 200 bomb-related incidents every single week; I got that from an officer on the bomb squad whom I knew). And I just spotted in passing -- haven't read it yet -- an AP headline that arrests were just made in a plot on the Sears Tower in Chicago. So the cells are already in the US and already becoming active again.

So much for "fighting them there instead of here." Seems we're fighting them in both places. Only, for some reason, I care about HERE so much more.


Funny, I don't see any difference in the mindset at all. Their mouthpieces say the exact same kinds of things.


EDIT: I cannot begin to tell you how angry and disgusted it makes me to be able to cite actual terrorist activity in my own country as proof that Bush's policies are failures.

The AQ in Iraq aren't Iraqis they are forgiegners come to stir up trouble.

There are Iraqi's who are AQ. AQ would never pass up a chance to recruit a disposable bomber.

There are Iraqi's who are AQ. AQ would never pass up a chance to recruit a disposable bomber.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

Those that back the Jihadis are wasting assets in Iraq that they can't replace. This a what happen to the USSR in fast foward. AQ and the Jihadis are trying to prove they still have the ability to strike they have become impatient and careless. (The opposite of 9/11 that took years to set up). The "stick" is working ...now we need a better "carrot"
Well, apparently, the carrot of the month was the Sears Tower. If they are wasting resources in Iraq, they must have plenty of resources, because they are well entrenched right here with us.

Or perhaps, your whole idea of who and what we are up against is totally wrong. You seem to be confusing the jihadis with the mujahadeen, who were a more or less organized fighting force. The so-called "jihadis" in Iraq are nothing but the scumbags who happen to be in Iraq. They have nothing whatever to do with the scumbags who are in the US. They do not share resources. There is not one leader pulling all the strings. There is not a central cache of explosives that every cell in the world has to submit chits to get their ration from, so if they waste them in Iraq, it means they won't have them here.

You are aware, are you not -- or perhaps you're not -- that even before 9/11, Islamist terrorist cells were carrying out plots in the US, and sometimes being thwarted -- they came within half a day of blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge in the late 1990s -- and sometimes not -- WTC 1993 ring a bell? Are you under some impression that all terrorist attacks are going to be like 9/11, and if they're not it's because the terrorists are losing? Friend, you are mistaken.

And I enjoy the way you just brush off actual terror plots in the US right now as if it means nothing. When they blow up the highway you're trying to drive on, are you going to crow about how Bush is scoring victories right and left?

FYI re the Sears Tower thing:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_re_us/terrorism_investigation

It's an AP report. 7 Muslim men, all American citizens, arrested in Miami on charges of a plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. Apparently, they were living in a Miami warehouse where they were running a paramilitary group.

Notable quote from article:

The official told The Associated Press the alleged plotters were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt news conferences planned for Friday in Washington and Miami.

emphasis mine.

My father's ashes remained in a cardboard box in the back of a closet for two years 'til we could figure out a nice way to inter them.

People grieve in their own way, and in their own time - not according to how you think they ought to, or when you think they ought to. What entitles you to denigrate another for not grieving as you see fit, anyway?
Yeah, that's something that really pisses me off.

How dare anybody try to tell a family how they can and cannot grieve? Who the fuck do these people think they are? It is none of your damn business how they choose to deal with the loss of their loved one, and you're a total scumbag for acting as though you have any right to say one word on the subject! You have no idea how they are feeling. You have no idea how they felt for their loved one, or what that loved one may have wanted.

It is revolting to me that anybody would sink to the level of criticizing how a family chooses to deal with the loss of a child. It's even more revolting that some people are so full of themselves that they would presume to tell a mother what her own son would have wanted. You never even MET her son, jackass, so shut the hell up.

I disagree there have been no more attacks on US soil. That in and of itself is a victory. Second I will grant you that there have been many mistakes (abu Grahib) but I've had either a freind or family member in country for the last 2 years and have been getting pretty regular info from them. From what I gather the media paints a distorted picture most of the vilolence is Iraqi on Iraqi and AQ has made few freinds because of it, mind you the Iraqi's have no great love of Americans either ,some of the more educated Iraqis see what happened/is happening in Iraq as a more controled implosion as happened in Yugoslavia when Tito died. They figure this would have happened sooner or later (with the death of Saddam) but the American presence is (to a degree) reducing the level of violence.

Iraqis resent the presence of foreign Arab/Muslim fighters because they are prolonging the occupation.

The greatest danger is civil war between Suni's and Shia (sp) if we prevent that then that will be another small victory.

We (the US) need to give more carrots to the average Abdul Iraqi better jobs power etc ..get their oil flowing (they pay more per gallon than we do in the US)

Lastly there is a differnt mindet between the Jihadi and the American any violence not answered with violence is weakness like 2 wolves viing for contol of a pack ....we dare not back down.

I see you assume I get all my information through the American media...

There are good things happening in Iraq, because we are there - but they are SO heavily outweighed by the bad. It doesn't matter that we have brought some semblence of equality to education, when we haven't dealt with the underlying problems... and no one can study, because they only have electricity one hour in four, 3 nights a week.

There IS a civil war in Iraq... it's just 'low grade', and we are not preventing it... we're just adding to the body count... and losing our own soldiers doing so.

As to the idea that Iraq would have had civil war anyway... I'm neither sure that this is even true (I think 'the party' would have continued relatively succesfully), nor that it is much of a consolation. I certainly don't agree we are reducing the violence... we are just giving it an external outlet... and catalysing an 'indiscriminate' approach.

Finally: "Lastly there is a differnt mindet between the Jihadi and the American any violence not answered with violence is weakness like 2 wolves viing for contol of a pack ....we dare not back down..."

I couldn't disagree more.

She passed protesting and crossed over to media whore. There are those who defame discent, she Michael Moore and Anne Coulter should be barred from the media for life.

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

Meditate on that...

Those that back the Jihadis are wasting assets in Iraq that they can't replace. This a what happen to the USSR in fast foward. AQ and the Jihadis are trying to prove they still have the ability to strike they have become impatient and careless. (The opposite of 9/11 that took years to set up). The "stick" is working ...now we need a better "carrot"

You might want to meditate on what you say here, think about Al Queda and Taliban... think about the USSR... then try researching the history of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I think you'll find, my friend... you have it all backwards.

Oh - and as a thought experiment... maybe try calculating how much you think 'the insurgency' spends on it's war, and compare it to how much you think the US spends...?

:D Maybe we'll get lucky and the b***h will starve to death!

Nice, Christian attitude there, jackass. Once again, your single-minded blather about a war that ended thirty years ago rears its ugly head. You didn't get ticker-tape. Wah. Get over it and get on with life. And before you regale me with the whole sorry mess all over again, please don't bother.

Oh, I'd just like to take a moment to point out to whoever it was who compared me to Eutrusca last Sunday and called us 'two peas in a pod' -
HA! You should BE so lucky! :p

Might I add that nobody cares about Cindy Sheehan any more? I hadn't heard of this until you posted it Eut, and I do not thank you for posting it. I thought I was rid of her, and that her 15 minutes of fame had gone away and left. Boooooooooo. Eutrusca, you're being bad for freedom. Booooooooooo.

(now go drink some ever classic Coca-Cola or Pepsi to regain your status as "Great American")

(Yes, Pepsi is a drink for great Americans too. It originated in the Carolinas anyways.

Really, Eut, get over it. Not everyone who says something negative about the military deserves to die. You're beginning to seem a little one-dimensional there.

At least she doesn't care soldiers baby killers, nor does she block convoys. You have to respect that. She just bugs the president and the stupid Media. Both who deserve it.

You miss the point the $$ behind thing like the group in TO or Chicago or where ever the cells are comes from donations in the Middle East from Rich Saudi's to poor Palestinians to Americans and Europeans who think they are giving to Muslim "charities". These funds used to go to groups like Hamas and AQ etc for "work" in Isreal and the US ...The war in Iraq is draining these funds and recruits. (Yes arguably they may be making more recruits also but not at the rate they are being captured or killed)

The funds being sent to them in the US are their undoing I see every terrorist arrested as a success not a failure.

The "carrot" would be the hastening of the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan to undercut the recruiting of new terrorists.

Oh and where am I "crowing" I agree with the war in Iraq and that's where my agreement with Bush ends. The period of insurgency was handled poorly and everything after the 4th week of the war seems to have perplexed the administration. The basic concept of a war in Iraq not a bad idea to divert Jihadi assets and attention how it was sold and excuted were poor. I also think that it's shamefull that done next to nothing to rebuild Iraq.


Well, apparently, the carrot of the month was the Sears Tower. If they are wasting resources in Iraq, they must have plenty of resources, because they are well entrenched right here with us.

Or perhaps, your whole idea of who and what we are up against is totally wrong. You seem to be confusing the jihadis with the mujahadeen, who were a more or less organized fighting force. The so-called "jihadis" in Iraq are nothing but the scumbags who happen to be in Iraq. They have nothing whatever to do with the scumbags who are in the US. They do not share resources. There is not one leader pulling all the strings. There is not a central cache of explosives that every cell in the world has to submit chits to get their ration from, so if they waste them in Iraq, it means they won't have them here.

You are aware, are you not -- or perhaps you're not -- that even before 9/11, Islamist terrorist cells were carrying out plots in the US, and sometimes being thwarted -- they came within half a day of blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge in the late 1990s -- and sometimes not -- WTC 1993 ring a bell? Are you under some impression that all terrorist attacks are going to be like 9/11, and if they're not it's because the terrorists are losing? Friend, you are mistaken.

And I enjoy the way you just brush off actual terror plots in the US right now as if it means nothing. When they blow up the highway you're trying to drive on, are you going to crow about how Bush is scoring victories right and left?

I'm speaking specificly to AQ being foreigners. Every pissed off Iraqi is technichly an insurgent whether they chose to just be vocal or take action. There are distinct groups Iraq with different motives, from wanting the US to wanting revenge on the Sunnis so "insurgent" is a very broad brush.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

Good work Eutrusca!

Really, Eut, get over it. Not everyone who says something negative about the military deserves to die. You're beginning to seem a little one-dimensional there.
Eut misses the feeling of cold steal in his hands and a VC in his sights.;)

Eut misses the feeling of cold steal in his hands and a VC in his sights.;)
He can steal shoot stuff. There are plenty of animals in NC. If he gets really bored then he can become a bounty hunter.

I don't assume anything.

Electricty schools etc are the "carrots" I'm talking about and alot more needs to be done. If a man has a good job to support his family and his kids are in school there is a lot less reason for him to want to kill somebody.

I totally don't agree about backing down I think that is what embolded the terroists after Beruit, Kenya etc ...no real responce. I would like to hear why you believe otherwise.

If the US didn't invade and Saddam died what would you see happening?


I see you assume I get all my information through the American media...

There are good things happening in Iraq, because we are there - but they are SO heavily outweighed by the bad. It doesn't matter that we have brought some semblence of equality to education, when we haven't dealt with the underlying problems... and no one can study, because they only have electricity one hour in four, 3 nights a week.

There IS a civil war in Iraq... it's just 'low grade', and we are not preventing it... we're just adding to the body count... and losing our own soldiers doing so.

As to the idea that Iraq would have had civil war anyway... I'm neither sure that this is even true (I think 'the party' would have continued relatively succesfully), nor that it is much of a consolation. I certainly don't agree we are reducing the violence... we are just giving it an external outlet... and catalysing an 'indiscriminate' approach.

Finally: "Lastly there is a differnt mindet between the Jihadi and the American any violence not answered with violence is weakness like 2 wolves viing for contol of a pack ....we dare not back down..."

I couldn't disagree more.

If she blocked convoys instead of whoring her dead son I'd have some respect for her.


At least she doesn't care soldiers baby killers, nor does she block convoys. You have to respect that. She just bugs the president and the stupid Media. Both who deserve it.

I don't assume anything.

Electricty schools etc are the "carrots" I'm talking about and alot more needs to be done. If a man has a good job to support his family and his kids are in school there is a lot less reason for him to want to kill somebody.


But that is nowhere near happening. We have created a situation where that cannot happen, even... since every gesture of that kind is received with suspicion, and every activity we encourage is taken as a possible target for resistance.

About the ONLY thing we can do, to make the situation improve - is to pull out completely, and let Iraq deal with it's own sovereign problems... just as we'd DEMAND, if someone else was doing to us, what we are doing to them.

If you want to talk about extreme gestures... personally, I think we should open an immigration amnesty on Iraqi children... to at least get the real 'inocents' out of the picture. But the US isn't going to do that... because dollars are more important than lives.


I totally don't agree about backing down I think that is what embolded the terroists after Beruit, Kenya etc ...no real responce. I would like to hear why you believe otherwise.


I suggest you read around the history, my friend. Again - I suggest looking at the history of Taliban and Al Qaeda. I'm not talking about 'appeasement'... I am talking about the fact that people WILL fight you, if you screw around IN THEIR BACKYARD... and they willNOT stop, while you are still there.

Again - try to imagine an imperialistic military force trying to impose a new government on your own nation...


If the US didn't invade and Saddam died what would you see happening?

Almost not worth discussing... because any alternatives have been lost. Again - my PERSONAL opinion, would be that Saddam's regime would have gone on without him, probably losing some influence... and maybe the more bloodthirsty edge... with the loss of their charismatic leader.

Eut misses the feeling of cold steal in his hands and a VC in his sights.;)

If he misses it that badly he could just take a walk to the nearest Asian market with a loaded gun.

The US is in a position no matter what they do in Iraq we're in trouble. I beleive if we pull out now it would only get worse.

I see Iraq as Yugoslavia after Tito, only we "killed" their Tito and started the whole crapfest.

I agree with the giving all Iraqi children refugee status excellent idea.(hell we should give ALL children refugee status I think we really need more LEGAL immigration but that's another thread.)

I'm not buying your US imperialism arguement (yes it was a contributing factor) but when it started with the Marines in Beruit they were peacekeepers. Why were Kenyan embassys bombed ??? I think it goes more to the Whabist/Muslim Brother/PanIslamic thinking. Why would the Taliban have veiwed the US as enemies when we helped them against the Soviets if not for Islamic rather than anti imperialism feelings??





But that is nowhere near happening. We have created a situation where that cannot happen, even... since every gesture of that kind is received with suspicion, and every activity we encourage is taken as a possible target for resistance.

About the ONLY thing we can do, to make the situation improve - is to pull out completely, and let Iraq deal with it's own sovereign problems... just as we'd DEMAND, if someone else was doing to us, what we are doing to them.

If you want to talk about extreme gestures... personally, I think we should open an immigration amnesty on Iraqi children... to at least get the real 'inocents' out of the picture. But the US isn't going to do that... because dollars are more important than lives.



I suggest you read around the history, my friend. Again - I suggest looking at the history of Taliban and Al Qaeda. I'm not talking about 'appeasement'... I am talking about the fact that people WILL fight you, if you screw around IN THEIR BACKYARD... and they willNOT stop, while you are still there.

Again - try to imagine an imperialistic military force trying to impose a new government on your own nation...



Almost not worth discussing... because any alternatives have been lost. Again - my PERSONAL opinion, would be that Saddam's regime would have gone on without him, probably losing some influence... and maybe the more bloodthirsty edge... with the loss of their charismatic leader.

Has anyone else noticed Eutrusca saying "Frak" a lot? Someone's been watching a little too much Battlestar Galactica, and that's pretty harsh coming from someone who owns every single episode on DVD.

Has anyone else noticed Eutrusca saying "Frak" a lot? Someone's been watching a little too much Battlestar Galactica, and that's pretty harsh coming from someone who owns every single episode on DVD.

No, Eutrusca is an old-timer, it's what people said before the word "fuck" was invented.

No, Eutrusca is an old-timer, it's what people said before the word "fuck" was invented.
I turn to Wikipedia:

Frak - new spelling for "frack" used in the new Battlestar Galactica. (Same meaning as "fuck"). Same usage as the original series, but greatly expanded, and it also seems to carry the same "social weight" as fuck, as characters sometimes apologise for their language after using it. This expletive also appears in the roleplaying game Cyberpunk 2020. In an early-1980s game on the BBC Micro called Frak! a caveman called 'Trogg' would utter this word in a speech bubble when "killed". Presumably same meaning as "fuck". Hacked versions of the game substituted "fuck".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_expletives#F

I'm sure you're being absolutely and 100% serious

I turn to Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_expletives#F

Historians think Eutrusca probably picked it up from the French troops at the battle of Waterloo. The traditional expression among troops, upon receiving a bayonet in the eye, was: "Fraqée".

No, Eutrusca is an old-timer, it's what people said before the word "fuck" was invented.


I suspect its more linked to his Hippy-phobia.

I suspect its more linked to his Hippy-phobia.

Ah, yes. The Hippies did "fuck".

You know they are doing it to get attention, so why are you helping them publicize their little stunt? I think what they are doing is shameful, but they have every right to do it.

COMMENTARY: May they all waste away to nothing and spend the rest of time rotting in a hell of their own devising. :mad:

Such bitter and angry feelings on your part wont hurt them, but they will hurt you plenty. Let it go.

No, the patriotic thing to do is to allow our children enough freedom to defend everyone's freedom when they choose to do so.
The Iraq War is a government programme, so what has choice got to do with it?

You miss the point the $$ behind thing like the group in TO or Chicago or where ever the cells are comes from donations in the Middle East from Rich Saudi's to poor Palestinians to Americans and Europeans who think they are giving to Muslim "charities". These funds used to go to groups like Hamas and AQ etc for "work" in Isreal and the US ...The war in Iraq is draining these funds and recruits. (Yes arguably they may be making more recruits also but not at the rate they are being captured or killed)

The funds being sent to them in the US are their undoing I see every terrorist arrested as a success not a failure.

The "carrot" would be the hastening of the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan to undercut the recruiting of new terrorists.

Oh and where am I "crowing" I agree with the war in Iraq and that's where my agreement with Bush ends. The period of insurgency was handled poorly and everything after the 4th week of the war seems to have perplexed the administration. The basic concept of a war in Iraq not a bad idea to divert Jihadi assets and attention how it was sold and excuted were poor. I also think that it's shamefull that done next to nothing to rebuild Iraq.
Except for the fact that it turns out the initial report was wrong. They were not Muslims after all. They were some crazy cult, and they were Haitians and Americans, apparently. They had nothing to do with any other terrorist network, nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with Arabs or the Middle East, nothing -- but nothing -- to do with Iraq.

But they were here, and they were nuts, and they were armed, and they were -- allegedly; all are innocent until proven guilty -- planning to blow up buildings including the Sears Tower. Wow, guess who else blew up a major building in the US but had absolutely nothing to do with jihadis? Timothy McVeigh. Yep, my favorite exception to the Eek-a-Muslim rule that the Bush admin seems to basing it's so-called "war on terror" on.

Terrorism is not based out of the Middle East. The threat of terrorism will not be solved by waging war in the Middle East. You talk about somebody wasting resources? I say it is Bush wasting our resources that we should be worried about. The Iraq war is a bullshit boondoggle, and the money and personnel it is eating up leaves us vulnerable at home.

You see every terrorist arrested as a victory. I see every terrorist group of more than two people that has existed for more than a week as a chink in our armor. And if the arrests are victories, they are not victories for Bush. All they do is highlight how wrong he is about terrorism and how much more we could be doing to secure the country if he was not tripping us up with his idiotic and wasteful policies.

There are mixed reports some say they were AQ sympathizers other that they just wanted to kill "White Devils"
There will ALWAYS be domestic terrorists ..from the Whiskey Rebllion to Puerto Rican sepratists, White and or Black and or Brown Racists to the likes of McVeigh. There is nothing absofrigginlutly nothing that ANY president can EVER do to stop that. Name any president that DIDN'T have domestic terror on their watch.


Except for the fact that it turns out the initial report was wrong. They were not Muslims after all. They were some crazy cult, and they were Haitians and Americans, apparently. They had nothing to do with any other terrorist network, nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with Arabs or the Middle East, nothing -- but nothing -- to do with Iraq.

But they were here, and they were nuts, and they were armed, and they were -- allegedly; all are innocent until proven guilty -- planning to blow up buildings including the Sears Tower. Wow, guess who else blew up a major building in the US but had absolutely nothing to do with jihadis? Timothy McVeigh. Yep, my favorite exception to the Eek-a-Muslim rule that the Bush admin seems to basing it's so-called "war on terror" on.

Terrorism is not based out of the Middle East. The threat of terrorism will not be solved by waging war in the Middle East. You talk about somebody wasting resources? I say it is Bush wasting our resources that we should be worried about. The Iraq war is a bullshit boondoggle, and the money and personnel it is eating up leaves us vulnerable at home.

You see every terrorist arrested as a victory. I see every terrorist group of more than two people that has existed for more than a week as a chink in our armor. And if the arrests are victories, they are not victories for Bush. All they do is highlight how wrong he is about terrorism and how much more we could be doing to secure the country if he was not tripping us up with his idiotic and wasteful policies.

There are mixed reports some say they were AQ sympathizers other that they just wanted to kill "White Devils"
There will ALWAYS be domestic terrorists ..from the Whiskey Rebllion to Puerto Rican sepratists, White and or Black and or Brown Racists to the likes of McVeigh. There is nothing absofrigginlutly nothing that ANY president can EVER do to stop that. Name any president that DIDN'T have domestic terror on their watch.
Well, that's exactly my point. Terrorism is a tactic, not a group. To address it now as if it's just a radical Islamist issue that you can isolate in some other geographic location is to put all your resources into only one threat, even though terrorism can come from anyone, anywhere. So then what do Bush and his ilk (since, thankfully, he won't be in charge forever) plan to do after they've crushed the jihadis and a new threat pops up right here at home? Scramble all over their own asses trying to come up with something new? Do they plan to have to reinvent the wheel every single time some crazy asswipe cult decides to set off a ricin bomb in a city subway? Because what they are doing in Iraq is not only not working in Iraq, it can't even be tried in the US -- unless their plan would be to declare war on their own country.

Though now that I think of it, following neocon reasoning, if American terrorists started blowing up bombs inside America, the neocons would probably respond by attacking Peru.

The point is, we need tactics against terrorist, not tactics against jihadis. And since terrorism can come from anywhere, we would be best served to concentrate our tactics against it here, at home, protecting our own citizens, no matter where the threat may come from.


And yeah, that Seas of David story gets nuttier by the moment. I suspect that, by the end of next week, they'll turn out to be some madman's personal cult in its beginning stages. On the other hand, let's not shrug that off. It was some madman's personal cult that set off the ricin bomb in the Tokyo subway.

I see your point but disagree there is a distinctly different threat from foreign groups. A foreign group whether you agree or not is war by proxy. With AQ there is no "state" but an idea backing them. Yes the lone nutjob is dangerous but foreign "sponsored" terrorism has toppled governments. (think CIA in Central America) I see you point and respect it but totally disagree. The formost reason I diagree is domestic terrorism is the price of doing business in an open society. It is like a cancer in an anotherwise healthy body until it shows itself we can't treat it. We can try to keep healthy but that is no guarenty.




Well, that's exactly my point. Terrorism is a tactic, not a group. To address it now as if it's just a radical Islamist issue that you can isolate in some other geographic location is to put all your resources into only one threat, even though terrorism can come from anyone, anywhere. So then what do Bush and his ilk (since, thankfully, he won't be in charge forever) plan to do after they've crushed the jihadis and a new threat pops up right here at home? Scramble all over their own asses trying to come up with something new? Do they plan to have to reinvent the wheel every single time some crazy asswipe cult decides to set off a ricin bomb in a city subway? Because what they are doing in Iraq is not only not working in Iraq, it can't even be tried in the US -- unless their plan would be to declare war on their own country.

Though now that I think of it, following neocon reasoning, if American terrorists started blowing up bombs inside America, the neocons would probably respond by attacking Peru.

The point is, we need tactics against terrorist, not tactics against jihadis. And since terrorism can come from anywhere, we would be best served to concentrate our tactics against it here, at home, protecting our own citizens, no matter where the threat may come from.


And yeah, that Seas of David story gets nuttier by the moment. I suspect that, by the end of next week, they'll turn out to be some madman's personal cult in its beginning stages. On the other hand, let's not shrug that off. It was some madman's personal cult that set off the ricin bomb in the Tokyo subway.

As a former service member who served in Iraq I would just like to show my appreciation for her and those who choose this...no matter how ineffectual it is.

I think she is disingenous if it were anybody else fine. ...Where did you serve I have freinds and family that were/are in country? As a former service member who served in Iraq I would just like to show my appreciation for her and those who choose this...no matter how ineffectual it is.

Ummm .... that is kinda in their job description, you know.

Not sure what you have against actors, but remember: Ronald Reagan and his wife were actors. So was Charlie Heston. They, too, are media grabbing attention whores.

It's part of being an actor.

If you're not on camera, you're unemployed.

I take it you're not hypocritically going to the movies or watching TV now, are you?


very lucid point

I see your point but disagree there is a distinctly different threat from foreign groups. A foreign group whether you agree or not is war by proxy. With AQ there is no "state" but an idea backing them. Yes the lone nutjob is dangerous but foreign "sponsored" terrorism has toppled governments. (think CIA in Central America) I see you point and respect it but totally disagree. The formost reason I diagree is domestic terrorism is the price of doing business in an open society. It is like a cancer in an anotherwise healthy body until it shows itself we can't treat it. We can try to keep healthy but that is no guarenty.
"domestic terrorism is the price of doing business in an open society"? Wow. And people cop an attitude like I'm saying just ignore terrorism because I oppose Bush's Iraq policy.

I'll be clear: From day one, I have been one of those people who say that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. It is a crime, not an act of war, and it should be treated as such -- exactly as we treat extremely violent, rich and well organized international drug and arms networks. Yes there is a limited role for the military in that, and yes there is a huge role for international politics in that, but the bulk of the work goes to law enforcement, pure and simple. All of the arrests so far, all of the cells and networks broken up so far, all of the money and material siezed so far, have been done by law enforcement. It works because it fits the problem. War does not work because it does not fit the problem.

Even with the best law enforcement possible, will we ever be free of terrorism? No, because there is no single source of it and no single cause of it. Are we ever going to be safe? No. There is no such thing as safety. Safety is a cootie-wootie, a child's fantasy. But even so, I see no reason to take no action at all. And above all, I see no reason why I should feel good about a government that expends all of my taxpayer resources blowing things up indiscriminately in some other country, while terrorists, criminals and nutjobs are running around loose right here at home -- where I live.

Oh, and by the way, I think it is bitterly hilarious that you cite the CIA in South America as an example of foreign state-sponsored terrorism. That is not the kind of argument that will get your opponents to agree that the US government can be trusted to do the right thing.

The AQ in Iraq aren't Iraqis they are forgiegners come to stir up trouble.

And if AQ was the only problem in iraq, that would be relevant. However, the iraqi insurgency is both larger and more of an issue, and was my point.

A one day strike? That's all? How lame.

A one day strike? That's all? How lame.

An open strike. The glammerati will be volunteering a day IN that open strike... :rolleyes:

Come on - it wasn't THAT long an article..

An open strike. The glammerati will be volunteering a day IN that open strike... :rolleyes:

Come on - it wasn't THAT long an article..

Oh let her do so. Its her right. Still lame for what she wants won't happen but it is her right to do so.

Oh let her do so. Its her right. Still lame for what she wants won't happen but it is her right to do so.

I don't see how it can be lame. We all have a right to free speech, and most of us are wasting it. Whether or not you agree with her politics, at least she's out there trying to get things done.

If you can't respect the (wo)man, at least respect the office.

I don't see how it can be lame. We all have a right to free speech, and most of us are wasting it. Whether or not you agree with her politics, at least she's out there trying to get things done.

If you can't respect the (wo)man, at least respect the office.

And what is her office? I'm sorry. I didn't realize she was in the cabinet or in the Administration or in Congress for that matter.

Its lame because it is a one day thing. If she really wanted to get her point out there, it would be more than a single day.

And what is her office? I'm sorry. I didn't realize she was in the cabinet or in the Administration or in Congress for that matter.

Its lame because it is a one day thing. If she really wanted to get her point out there, it would be more than a single day.

Wow - you STILL didn't read it, did you?


First line, of all things:

"Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan announced Wednesday that she plans to begin an "open-ended hunger strike" on July 4 to urge the Bush administration to bring troops home from Iraq."


It is the 'famous faces', that will be volunteering a 24-hour presence:

"In her latest statement, Sheehan wrote that celebrities like singer Willie Nelson, actor Danny Glover and comedian Dick Gregory will show their support for her by joining in a one-day fast. She urged her supporters to do the same".


As to 'what her 'office' is... I'm being somewhat metaphorical, since she is not a 'public servant'... thus, her 'office' is a 'spokesperson'... indeed, she is representing TWO groups, specifically: Code Pink and Gold Star Families for Peace.

*snip*

Oh I read the article. I just don't care if she does decide to starve herself.

As to the two groups she represents, I don't care for they are the minority. THey do not have power nor a voice for their names are only out there when she speaks.

As to Willie Nelson, he sucks as a singer except for 2 of his songs that I like and Danny Glover hasn't had a decent film since Angels in the Outfield.

Oh I read the article. I just don't care if she does decide to starve herself.


If that is true... why did you (twice) comment on her doing a 'one-say-strike'... when the first line of the article makes it clear this is not the case?


As to the two groups she represents, I don't care for they are the minority. THey do not have power nor a voice for their names are only out there when she speaks.


The two groups she represents are not big groups... but something like two-thirds of the US public poll as wishing the troops out of Iraq. Thus - you and anyone else who seems to be pushing FOR this 'war', are the minority.


As to Willie Nelson, he sucks as a singer except for 2 of his songs that I like and Danny Glover hasn't had a decent film since Angels in the Outfield.

So - we are going to base our importance attached to the issue... on the careers of the famous people involved? I'm no Nelson fan, and I can't stand Glover as an actor... but this is about them as HUMAN BEINGS with recognisable faces... not as the roles they play or the songs they sing.

And yet, everytime on the Congressional floor, the vote keeps coming up negative on withdrawing the troops. Seems like Congress has the right idea about not leaving till the job is done or until IRAQ TELLS US TO LEAVE. The Iraqi government has not done so.

So Sheehan is just wasting her time with this hunger strike for it isn't going to do any good whatsoever.