Cindy Sheehan?
- Thread starter Jake
- Start date
To be honest I regret her loss and her right to speak her mind but she is the whore for the left. That is the bad thing determining who has suffered the most it has become very sad.
Why is she the wrong person? And why are her reasons wrong?
The Peace movement is a good thing and represents a view that contrary to Bush. So of course all pro-Bush will attack it. This started from grass roots and will only get bigger. Bush satisfaction level is at an all time low and likely will continue until he does something to either sidetrack us off the war topic, the war ends or his presidency ends. Then the next pres gets to dig us out of this problem. Likely all part of the master plan.
I happen to empathize with the fact that Sheehan believes that her son died for Bush, rather than defending our people. It amazes me that people are unable to put them selves in her place and understand this, rather they like say, hey... look who is "funding" her.
Meanwhile her bank account is overdrawn and to the best of my knowledge she is not making any extreme left money for this.... I think that the reason why Bush said we were going to war changed from before the war to after it? Oil is a huge part of this equation, whether Bush admits it or not. I share her opinion that the war was for the wrong reasons and that we now have the problem of how to get out sooner vs later. This war is going to cost us a lot. Lives, money and more. Bush will stay thereas long as possible-- think about why, and think about why he is not telling us.
Now before you start flaming me on being this or that, please keep in mind that regardless of who our president is I would be just as critical of any president that executed a war in this manner.
Cracks me up to see the comment on the propoganda issue of the left. LOL, as if the right does not have HUGE media propoganda machines. LOL. Gingrich and Robertson are two very good examples if you want main stream coverage. There are plenty of examples in main stream media for both sides. Movies, well I'd give you an example, but this argument isnot worth that time. Both sides have machines, no doubt about it. I ignore both of them, they are merely brain washing tools for the ignorant.
The Peace movement is a good thing and represents a view that contrary to Bush. So of course all pro-Bush will attack it. This started from grass roots and will only get bigger. Bush satisfaction level is at an all time low and likely will continue until he does something to either sidetrack us off the war topic, the war ends or his presidency ends. Then the next pres gets to dig us out of this problem. Likely all part of the master plan.
I happen to empathize with the fact that Sheehan believes that her son died for Bush, rather than defending our people. It amazes me that people are unable to put them selves in her place and understand this, rather they like say, hey... look who is "funding" her.
Meanwhile her bank account is overdrawn and to the best of my knowledge she is not making any extreme left money for this.... I think that the reason why Bush said we were going to war changed from before the war to after it? Oil is a huge part of this equation, whether Bush admits it or not. I share her opinion that the war was for the wrong reasons and that we now have the problem of how to get out sooner vs later. This war is going to cost us a lot. Lives, money and more. Bush will stay thereas long as possible-- think about why, and think about why he is not telling us.
Now before you start flaming me on being this or that, please keep in mind that regardless of who our president is I would be just as critical of any president that executed a war in this manner.
Cracks me up to see the comment on the propoganda issue of the left. LOL, as if the right does not have HUGE media propoganda machines. LOL. Gingrich and Robertson are two very good examples if you want main stream coverage. There are plenty of examples in main stream media for both sides. Movies, well I'd give you an example, but this argument isnot worth that time. Both sides have machines, no doubt about it. I ignore both of them, they are merely brain washing tools for the ignorant.
bri said:
I understand where you are coming from. As you know, I'm not "pro-Bush".
Here's the answer to your question, though: There are those who are:
1. Against the war in Iraq
2. Against the current conduct of the war in Iraq / our current policy in the theatre
3. Against war, period
I am in camp 2. Many who are in camp 1 have well though-out arguments.
However, the overwhelming number of those in the far-left camp, and the ones who get the media attn, fall into category #3, and this just isn't a rational position. It is increasingly apparent that Sheehan is allowing herself to be co-opted by camp #3. Her recent comments (including those about "freedom fighters" in Iraq) back this up. By aligning herself with the far-left, instead of standing independent of them, diminishes her credibility as a "mom" and reveals her as just another shrill leftist peacenik.
Remember,,,in my first post to this thread I defended her & supported her. However, as the days went on & I inquired further, I was forced once again to change my mind. I want to support those who are against our current policy in Iraq. I just can't find any. All I see is Republicans & Leftists.
K
KEJ
Guest
SCSL, there are PLENTY of people, like myself, who are not patently anti-war, but are against THIS war. I've said it over and over here, as have others, this was the WRONG war. I had no problem with our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda had training camps there, Bin Landa is behind Al Qaeda, they attacked us on 9/11, that was the RIGHT place to be. Iraq was NOT the right place to be. Saddam was NOT behind the 9/11 attacks. Part of the problem is that the Bush administation engaged in a persistant mis-information campaign, which goes on to this day, and many Americans bought it. Many STILL believe Saddam was the architect of the 9/11 attacks! Why? Because they were led to believe it, among other things that were untrue, and despite the truth coming out, they've never changed their minds.
I brought up the Downing Street Memos on this board and all I got by way of reply was, "I haven't read it and therefore can't comment on it". Considering all the commenting on
this board, informed and otherwise, I thought that was an amazing departure. Not another comment was made about the Downing Street Memos, it was completely ignored. Well, that's part of the problem, those who blindly support this war don't WANT to hear any new information coming to light if it doesn't fit their beliefs. They will not read anything that's counter to their beliefs. It's like those who had a lot to say about the film "Farhenheit 9/11", and yet hadn't SEEN it. They said they didn't need to see it to comment on it! That's some magical thinking! If the film was so untrue, where are the lawsuits?
I know several staunch Replublicans, HUGE Bush supporters, who have recently begun to say they made a mistake in voting for him a second time. Their feelings are largely based on this wrong-headed war. It takes a LOT for some people to admit they made a mistake, and my hat is off to these people. This administration cannot do the same; in their view they've made NO mistakes. Bush was asked once in an interview if he'd made mistakes, and he said he couldn't think of any. AMAZING! I don't know about you, but in my world I make mistakes all the time, despite my best efforts. I even <GASP!> apologize sometimes. I even change course when I need to. I don't mean to ramble, but a HUGE part of the problem is this president's inabilty to correct when the ship goes the wrong way. Afghanistan has merit, Iraq does not. The level of arrogance is staggering.
This business of getting lost in talking about the "far right" and "far left" is not productive. Let's look at what is going on, what's right and what's not right to protect ourselves and generally just do the right thing. I can lock arms and walk with anyone like-minded, I don't care their party affiliation. I have my own feelings about what is right and what is not, that doesn't change. My gut doesn't have a party affiliation. I can also say I'm wrong and try to make things right if I've screwed up. That's something lacking in our current leadership.
KJ
I brought up the Downing Street Memos on this board and all I got by way of reply was, "I haven't read it and therefore can't comment on it". Considering all the commenting on
this board, informed and otherwise, I thought that was an amazing departure. Not another comment was made about the Downing Street Memos, it was completely ignored. Well, that's part of the problem, those who blindly support this war don't WANT to hear any new information coming to light if it doesn't fit their beliefs. They will not read anything that's counter to their beliefs. It's like those who had a lot to say about the film "Farhenheit 9/11", and yet hadn't SEEN it. They said they didn't need to see it to comment on it! That's some magical thinking! If the film was so untrue, where are the lawsuits?
I know several staunch Replublicans, HUGE Bush supporters, who have recently begun to say they made a mistake in voting for him a second time. Their feelings are largely based on this wrong-headed war. It takes a LOT for some people to admit they made a mistake, and my hat is off to these people. This administration cannot do the same; in their view they've made NO mistakes. Bush was asked once in an interview if he'd made mistakes, and he said he couldn't think of any. AMAZING! I don't know about you, but in my world I make mistakes all the time, despite my best efforts. I even <GASP!> apologize sometimes. I even change course when I need to. I don't mean to ramble, but a HUGE part of the problem is this president's inabilty to correct when the ship goes the wrong way. Afghanistan has merit, Iraq does not. The level of arrogance is staggering.
This business of getting lost in talking about the "far right" and "far left" is not productive. Let's look at what is going on, what's right and what's not right to protect ourselves and generally just do the right thing. I can lock arms and walk with anyone like-minded, I don't care their party affiliation. I have my own feelings about what is right and what is not, that doesn't change. My gut doesn't have a party affiliation. I can also say I'm wrong and try to make things right if I've screwed up. That's something lacking in our current leadership.
KJ
I think that Sheehan likely does not care all that much about whether she has people that are considered extreme left people amongst her. If they share the opinion that this war is the wrong war that is fine and if some of the people are anti-war, but still share here opinion, that is fine too,l its the common ground of this war is not the right war that unites them. Her credibility is only diminished if you are categorically pro-war or anti-left to use those categorizing terms. It is quite certain that her son was killed in the war. If one cannot relate to her problems of having a son die for democracy rather than in defense of the homeland ("the lie"), then so be it.
So, what is the matter with being anti-war? Is that bad? If you have a category such as anti-war, then there must be pro-war. So if there are those 2 categories. I guess I will have to consider my self not anti-war, but anti-pro-war. LOL. I could argue that there are well thought out reasons for all 3 of your categories SCSL, not just 1 and 2. There are also certain religions that are anti-war (not that that inherently means it is well thought out though).
One thing that just tweaks me the wrong way is that our administration had/has no problem funding this war and what is the trade off? Decreased national security, decreased funding to education, increasing deficit, the list goes on. There are so many things taking a hit from this war, its amazing to me. For example, have you dealt with TSA lately? WHAT A FUCKING JOKE. If they think that a terrorist is going to attack an aircraft with a lighter and can of hairspray someone has been hitting the crack pipe. An organized terrorist group would have no problem doing a damn line dance across our mexican borders. The list goes on and on and on and our administration frankly cared/cares more about this war.
So what was so important to the government to risk all of these things when they know that the 9/11 attacks were not specifically related to Iraq, and further to forget about any other WMD searches and go straight to war? I believe that we could have avoided this war, but that our administration did not desire to avoid it.
So, what is the matter with being anti-war? Is that bad? If you have a category such as anti-war, then there must be pro-war. So if there are those 2 categories. I guess I will have to consider my self not anti-war, but anti-pro-war. LOL. I could argue that there are well thought out reasons for all 3 of your categories SCSL, not just 1 and 2. There are also certain religions that are anti-war (not that that inherently means it is well thought out though).
One thing that just tweaks me the wrong way is that our administration had/has no problem funding this war and what is the trade off? Decreased national security, decreased funding to education, increasing deficit, the list goes on. There are so many things taking a hit from this war, its amazing to me. For example, have you dealt with TSA lately? WHAT A FUCKING JOKE. If they think that a terrorist is going to attack an aircraft with a lighter and can of hairspray someone has been hitting the crack pipe. An organized terrorist group would have no problem doing a damn line dance across our mexican borders. The list goes on and on and on and our administration frankly cared/cares more about this war.
So what was so important to the government to risk all of these things when they know that the 9/11 attacks were not specifically related to Iraq, and further to forget about any other WMD searches and go straight to war? I believe that we could have avoided this war, but that our administration did not desire to avoid it.
KJ, yours is a well thought out post. And I am not questioning the legitimacy of your motives or of your position on the war. Allow me to clarify my position:
As those who have spent some time in Eastern Europe of the Far East can attest, the threat of Islamicism (itself a form of primitive, 'tribal' collectivism) pales in significance to the threat of international Socialism,,in all it guises. This threat rapidly disappeared from the public 'radar screen' in the early 90's.
Among the guises of international Socialism is, and has always been, the American hard left. This is the hard left that was described as "useful idiots" by Lenin. This is the hard left that apologized for Stalin. This is the hard left that tore our culture apart in the 1960's. This is the hard left that has infiltrated our judiciary. This is the hard left of Hollywood. This is the hard left of Moveon.org. This is the hard left of Michael Moore and George Soros, and the hard left of college campuses across our nation. This is the hard left of Handgun Control, Inc. This is the hard left of PETA, of ELF, of Green Peace, of,,,of,,,of,,,of. This is a hard left that will use any means necessary (typically covert, rather than overt---who would buy socialism?) to subtely attack, spin, and deconstruct the very foundations of this unique nation. In fact, that many reading this will question my use of the word "unique" is a trophy on the mantle of the hard-left and it's decades long mission to distance the American mind from the founding documents and historical evolution of our republic.
All that being said, it is my position (and I am not alone) that neo/pseudo-socialists must be rooted out of our culture, of our body politic, and exposed for who & what they are. Therefore, given my rather outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq, I refuse to align myself with those socialists and their broader America-hating agenda. By definition, their points cannot be correct on the war in Iraq as every movement, every speech, every demonstration, is a carefully orchestrated attack on our foundation and part of a broader agenda. This agenda cannot be described in rational terms, or even in political terms. It is an agenda of philosophy, fueled by psychology. It is not even an agenda that began with Kant, Nietzche, Marx, etc. It's far older than that. Far older than the "guild socialism" of Marxist thought or the deconstructionist philosophies of the "new German" school.
But I digress. My battle will always be with these individuals, with their organizations, with their representatives. No Iraq, no quagmire, no flavor-of-the-day, will ever distract me from this battle. And I will go to my grave the enemy of collectivists everywhere.
Hence, my explanation of Mrs. Sheehan as the "wrong person", being right, for the "wrong reasons". But she's not the first. And she won't be the last. And this fight will continue. But it won't be about Iraq, or even about terrorism. And while my battle will always be with the hard left, I will always reach out to those who feel they are "in the middle" and can't see the left for what it really is:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-Sen Hillary Clinton, D-NY, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, about the need to repeal President Bush's tax cuts.
-SCSL/out
As those who have spent some time in Eastern Europe of the Far East can attest, the threat of Islamicism (itself a form of primitive, 'tribal' collectivism) pales in significance to the threat of international Socialism,,in all it guises. This threat rapidly disappeared from the public 'radar screen' in the early 90's.
Among the guises of international Socialism is, and has always been, the American hard left. This is the hard left that was described as "useful idiots" by Lenin. This is the hard left that apologized for Stalin. This is the hard left that tore our culture apart in the 1960's. This is the hard left that has infiltrated our judiciary. This is the hard left of Hollywood. This is the hard left of Moveon.org. This is the hard left of Michael Moore and George Soros, and the hard left of college campuses across our nation. This is the hard left of Handgun Control, Inc. This is the hard left of PETA, of ELF, of Green Peace, of,,,of,,,of,,,of. This is a hard left that will use any means necessary (typically covert, rather than overt---who would buy socialism?) to subtely attack, spin, and deconstruct the very foundations of this unique nation. In fact, that many reading this will question my use of the word "unique" is a trophy on the mantle of the hard-left and it's decades long mission to distance the American mind from the founding documents and historical evolution of our republic.
All that being said, it is my position (and I am not alone) that neo/pseudo-socialists must be rooted out of our culture, of our body politic, and exposed for who & what they are. Therefore, given my rather outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq, I refuse to align myself with those socialists and their broader America-hating agenda. By definition, their points cannot be correct on the war in Iraq as every movement, every speech, every demonstration, is a carefully orchestrated attack on our foundation and part of a broader agenda. This agenda cannot be described in rational terms, or even in political terms. It is an agenda of philosophy, fueled by psychology. It is not even an agenda that began with Kant, Nietzche, Marx, etc. It's far older than that. Far older than the "guild socialism" of Marxist thought or the deconstructionist philosophies of the "new German" school.
But I digress. My battle will always be with these individuals, with their organizations, with their representatives. No Iraq, no quagmire, no flavor-of-the-day, will ever distract me from this battle. And I will go to my grave the enemy of collectivists everywhere.
Hence, my explanation of Mrs. Sheehan as the "wrong person", being right, for the "wrong reasons". But she's not the first. And she won't be the last. And this fight will continue. But it won't be about Iraq, or even about terrorism. And while my battle will always be with the hard left, I will always reach out to those who feel they are "in the middle" and can't see the left for what it really is:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-Sen Hillary Clinton, D-NY, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, about the need to repeal President Bush's tax cuts.
-SCSL/out
SCSL said:
Man SCSL. I never thought that you would be one to use a quote completely out of context, but go read the background of Ms Clintons quote, please.
So from the above quote about, I guess you are for conformism, communism or dictatorship then? LOL.
OK, I'll shuddup for a while-- Cheers SCSL.
K
KEJ
Guest
SCSL said:You are still my favorite "liberal"
And my friend.
(Now I'm really gonna hear it from Karen!)
Naw, I'll just send you straight to either "Boulder Dash" or "Sinkers and Floaters" where you belong.
KJ
So about the propoganda issue and the left. IMO, the right is so superior at the propoganda that people, even supporters fail to even see it happen. Bushes team has convinced the US people that W was a clean man of credible background and that he was just one of the guys. Man are both farther from the truth or what? It ends up that he gets a ton of conservative, christian and "right" votes, even though his actions are exactly the opposite of their beliefs.
We favor a president that dodges military service, an admitted alcoholic, cocaine user, pot smoker, the list just goes on and on. Ever wonder why he has not hit the real problem area for terrorism? Osama is free in some palace somewhere, livin' the high life, definitely could be with all the his other buds in a very safe Saudi Arabia. Bush will not attack Saudi-- ask yourself why
Any other president of such questionable background, especially if democrat would have been taken out long ago, meanwhile Bush gets away with almost anything and when people try to look into these things and ask questions of the Bush administration they are called anti-american or satanic.
Now that is propoganda at its best.
We favor a president that dodges military service, an admitted alcoholic, cocaine user, pot smoker, the list just goes on and on. Ever wonder why he has not hit the real problem area for terrorism? Osama is free in some palace somewhere, livin' the high life, definitely could be with all the his other buds in a very safe Saudi Arabia. Bush will not attack Saudi-- ask yourself why
Any other president of such questionable background, especially if democrat would have been taken out long ago, meanwhile Bush gets away with almost anything and when people try to look into these things and ask questions of the Bush administration they are called anti-american or satanic.
Now that is propoganda at its best.
bri said:
So do you think that the folks that were running against him would have been any better or didn't have just as messed up pasts? That's the thing I don't like about our elections.. Not enough people to choose from.. I'd like to see 50 people on the ballot. When it comes down to just 3 or 4 it is no longer about who you want it's about who you see as the lesser evil.. In my case it was Bush for my own personal selfish gun toting reasons...
What really scares me is who the hell is going to be up in the running for the next one.. Hillary?? Man, I freaking hope not...
If you are talking merely about credentials and past as far as voting, I'd say Bushes past was by far worse, just everyone looked over it because it could not be discussed, he is a clean man now. What is scarey to me is who will actually get the next vote, not whether Hillary runs or not. Besides, it is very likely that Hillary might be a doomed candidate anyway. But hell, we'd have the best first lady that we have ever had, LOL.
I believe that the US is in for a good round of conservative run control, this presidency is just start, IMO. This will evolve into a neoconservative run goverment that is pro-war and buys into the idea of empire building, we can see this already with the Bush administration. Since many americans have bought into the neoconservative beliefs, it may be a very long time until we really see what the negative impacts of such a government are and it will take us time to admit any errors along the way. Sure I like the right to bare arms too, but its far from the most important thing to me when deciding a candidate, I will not patently ignore a persons past, merely becuase he supports my particular point of view on a single topic.
So to go on about Sheehan. In this particular anti-war case, I agree with her. Because it is the wrong war, with the wrong people at the wrong time. Funny, we could have cared less about Hussien when he WAS gassing people, WTF is up with that?? I believe that Hussien was not the reason we went to Iraq. I do not believe that WMD was the reason we went to Iraq. I believe the right place to go would have been have been the place where the terrorists were located and this was not Iraq. I also feel a bit strange about the whole thing since we were the primary funders of Osama and Hussien. We loved them then and now they are our enemies. We are the reason these people are now powerful. Like it or not its the truth.
I believe that the US is in for a good round of conservative run control, this presidency is just start, IMO. This will evolve into a neoconservative run goverment that is pro-war and buys into the idea of empire building, we can see this already with the Bush administration. Since many americans have bought into the neoconservative beliefs, it may be a very long time until we really see what the negative impacts of such a government are and it will take us time to admit any errors along the way. Sure I like the right to bare arms too, but its far from the most important thing to me when deciding a candidate, I will not patently ignore a persons past, merely becuase he supports my particular point of view on a single topic.
So to go on about Sheehan. In this particular anti-war case, I agree with her. Because it is the wrong war, with the wrong people at the wrong time. Funny, we could have cared less about Hussien when he WAS gassing people, WTF is up with that?? I believe that Hussien was not the reason we went to Iraq. I do not believe that WMD was the reason we went to Iraq. I believe the right place to go would have been have been the place where the terrorists were located and this was not Iraq. I also feel a bit strange about the whole thing since we were the primary funders of Osama and Hussien. We loved them then and now they are our enemies. We are the reason these people are now powerful. Like it or not its the truth.
Last edited:
bri said:
I agree with this part.. It was all fun and games when we were funding these guys to mess with Russia but, now that we cut them loose and they are messing with us it's not too fun anymore. We made our own monsters is what we did.. Now we need to put them down. I'm still a little pissed that we haven't gotten Osama or his other people yet.. Just goes to show you how well we train people I guess. I'm sure he's using all sorts of tactics that we trained him to do to keep out of our reach...
One day he'll mess up and we'll get him..... At least I hope so..
anyway, I don't really have anything new to say about the war that I haven't already said on the other threads from the past..
bri said:
What? You don't think he's in Iraq? I mean that's why we're there, that and all the WMD's...
Saddam wouldn't let terrorists hang out in his country he was the head chopper there, he was tyrannical capitalist with no room for Islamic fundamentalist...
montanablur said:
HAHAHA...You've been hyptmotized.
Look into to my eyes... when I snap my fingers, you will wake up, you will know the truth....
No I do definitely do not believe that Osama is in Iraq. I believe the reason Osama has not been caught is because we have chosen not to hunt him down and chosen not to go to war with the country he has taken shelter in. Either that or he is a damn good hider, unfortunately I think the chances of this are remote and the chances that we are not even looking for him are high.
You have been brainwashed if you really believe Hussein, WMD and Osama are the reason we are in Iraq. I would almost guarantee Osama is not in Iraq. Further, we have not found any WMD AND Hussiens horrible rein of terrorism was either in a lull or over. Not saying Hussien is a great guy, but we funded his rein as well as gave him the makings for the weapons. Bush bluntly ended the search for WMD, and resorted to war.
The reason we are in Iraq is simple, airbases. I do not believe that our presence in Iraq will end quickly and I do not believe that our government is being honest when they tell us that our goal is to leave. Our goal is to have a presence in the middle east-- forever, or for at least the forseeable future. We are no where near pulling out, we are sending more each day.
"Snap"
Last edited:
bri said:
Bri, my friend, this thread was FUNNY!
OK so we agree on just about everything on the trail and just about nothing on the BBS
But for the first time I agree with you 100%. Forward bases is a HUGE reason why we are in Iraq. (I would also argue the same for our Yugoslav adventure). Where we may differ is in our take on this. I say good strategy. But as I have also said before, poor tactics. We are attempting to execute the strategic policy of the Cold War era in the era of political correctness,,, so we'll get our airbases, but we'll have Mosques next door. We'll sign agreements regarding the times that aircraft can take off & land so as not to interfere with mid-day prayers.