Cindy Sheehan

[snailheave]

Originally Posted by kimC
her son would probably be imbarrased by her behavior... I'm sure he was proud to serve... just my 2 cents.
and terri would be embarrassed if she knew her parents were trying to be protected farmers!

 

[darth tang]

If the help of France was so important to our own struggle (and the Civil War, and the War of 1812, and WWI....) then why was it so meaningless now?
France was not involved with the Civil War or the war of 1812 as far as allying with us. The european countries didn't want to get invovled with either side of our civil war as they viewed it as a government putting down an uprising or rebellion and thus wasn't their problem or business. The War of 1812, Britain and France were already at war. The catalist for us warring with Britain was they had essentially placed a trade embargo on us and were preventing our ships from trading with any outside country. So we declared war on Britain in order to get the embargo released (incidentally britain released it two days before our declaration but we hadn't heard and by the time we did, war had started).
Like I stated history needs to be taught better.

 

[sleeper]

Hey, man. Don't backhandedly make it sound like I don't know my stuff with this "history needs to be taught better" garbage.
This Master's Degree holding Capitol Hill journalist knows that France helped us in the war of 1812 (whatever their motivations), and that they blockaded most of the South's major seaports during the Civil War. Look it up.
And Weapon, I say this as respectfully as I can, but the countries you list had less than no bearing on the outcome of Viet Nam. Conservatives aren't allowed to be indignant when someone says that one country is more important than another for the purposes of war -- it's the conservative worldview. And for the purposes of war, every country whose aid we enlisted, both in Viet Nam and now, was meaningless -- with the single exception of England. And you'll notice they didn't exactly send their whole armed forces, what with 80% of their public being opposed to the war.
Finally, in reponse to Tang's suggetsion that we offered and the other major military powers declined, that's simply not the case. What we did was say "we invading. We're doing it our way. You can invade with us or you can suffer the wrath of us sending our multibillion dollar business elsewhere. ANd we're also doing it on our timetable with doctored evidence." Of course that made France, Russia, and yes, England, uneasy.
Wouldn't it make you?
That said, I really like you guys and appreciate your advice on fish. But to think for one second that we did almost any part of this war right is tantamount to a joke. You guys have said it yourselves -- only you blame it on liberals and "bleeding hearts and such." In a hundred years, though, when historians look back, they'll see a White House, Congress, Judiciary and Bureaucracy dominated not by bleeding hearts but just the opposite.
Last thing: Cindy Sheehan, before this went down, was a registered Republican.

 

[darth tang]

This Master's Degree holding Capitol Hill journalist knows that France helped us in the war of 1812 (whatever their motivations), and that they blockaded most of the South's major seaports during the Civil War. Look it up.
Actually France was protecting their own investments and colonies in the south. Which they were doing before against Britain before we started the war of 1812.
I am still trying to find out how the helped in the civil war.
I am not meaning to come across as mean spirited in this debate. History is just one of my biggest things as it affects so much of what happens a people tend to forget it. I apologize for my backhanded comment.
I have not placed blame on "bleeding hearts" and "liberals" once in this debate. I personally feel they as group are such a minority they truly have such little effect on things, especially this. I am talking true "liberals" and "bleeding-hearts" not the average democratic party member.

 

[darth tang]

What we did was say "we invading. We're doing it our way. You can invade with us or you can suffer the wrath of us sending our multibillion dollar business elsewhere. ANd we're also doing it on our timetable with doctored evidence
."
First and foremost, every person and country that looked at the evidence presented agreed to the same conclusions. France, Germany, And Russia however wanted to place more sanctions and do more inspections. Leaving the Evil Dictator in place. It is no secret Hussein wanted if he didn't have already WMD's and was actively looking to acquire them behind everyone's back. They wanted a nuke so bad they even had a nickname for it calling it a "beachball".
Secondly, we allowed the French military commander and U.N. leaders dictate how we should use our troops and what actions the last 10 years. Look at the history of those military campaigns and honestly tell me if they were more successful than how Iraq has gone. Kosovo and Somalia standout. Both, even after the U.N. joined military intervention, these areas suffer the same problems.
Third, if we are providing the BULK of the military power, should we do the BULK of the decisions regarding how our military is used and when?
Fourth, Hussein was told he could avoid all of this if he would allow our inspectors the access they needed and be cooperative. You know, the same things we do to citizens under house arrest. Hussein essentially was under house arrest to place it in simple terms.
Fifth, Hussein had them in the past, used them in the past, and made no effort to help his case that he didn't have them. It is like going to trial, If you don't have a defense in place and/or give a defense, the jury will see you as guilty, even if the evidence is circumstantial. The Jury found him guilty, but unlike a court room where the judge hands out the sentence, all the countries didn't agree on the sentence.

 

[lennon]

Originally Posted by fishzen
There is a big difference between been attacked and been the attacker.
Iraq however was attacked by us, our government invented the story about the WMD, and after none of them were found now they do not talk about them anymore, then they explore the 9/11 conection, and none was found, it is all of a sudden a fight for Iraq’s people freedom. I certainly hope we are not getting into the business of liberating all the oppressed countries in the world, because if that is the case the next war is going to be probably in North Korea, or maybe Cuba, perhaps we are going to send marines to every little country in Africa where there is a leader that do not treat their people the way we think people ought to be treated.
Don’t get me wrong I appreciate the courage to put one’s life in the line, and I pray that they all make it out of there safe, no matter how long it takes.

I totally agree with you there. People mistake Iraq with 9/11. If we really take the time to really research who was responsible..Iraq was not on the top list. There are alternative reasons for this and $$'s was alot of it. IMO
Yes, Sadam was a terrible creature and he is better gone..BUT at what expense. And if anyone was to be attacked..Iraq was not on the top of that list.
Being someone who had a friend lose his life in Iraq..I completely understand about having to stay and finish what we started. It didnt have to be that way and those poor soldiers. BUT lets not confuse that if you do not agree with the war..that you are against the troops. Everyone is praying for them everyday.
Not to mention all these family's that are suffering every day. Many of these men and woman finished their duty but are now being forced to go back. How long is this going to last. IMO we created more terrorism here by doing what we did. We went into this without support from all and just a few supported the US in doing this. Why do you suppose that was??
Anyway, the movie that was made about this whole things..although many have things to say about it...ALOT of the info is true and makes you question many things.
But I wish all the best and pray for all our troops.
RIP Kevin

 

[darth tang]

Iraq needed to be dealt with in this fashion, but I feel now wasn't the time, honestly. But in all honesty it was the only time it could have been "sold" to the public.
Remember in the beginning of Iraq the support for going in was at 75% and some points higher. Then partisan politics came into play and the support started to wane.
Just a perspective to keep in mind.
To quote a line from Gladiator, "The mob is fickle.".
And we are.

 

[mudplayerx]

The idea to invade Iraq was brilliant. It had nothing to do with 9-11 or weapons of mass destruction, or even Saddam.
It is no small coincidence that Israel has the very best intelligence in the entire world on middle eastern activity. They are the only democracy in their geographic location. Once things calm down in Iraq and serious intelligence cells are erected, the USA will too have one of the most impressive info on the middle east, perhaps even rivaling that of Israel.
I am a firm believer that the only reason we are not fighting fundamentalists in the streets of Britain or the USA is because they are instead flocking to Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan. The kind of war we are fighting, believe it or not, is the kind that helps the economy of an industrial nation. The terrorists, on the other hand, are using weapons from the cold-war era; constantly depleting their ranks and firepower.
This war will be over eventually. Maybe 5 years from now....maybe 15 years from now. If we steel our resolve this can lead to something terrific. Just think if we establish democracy in Iraq. Democracy is contagious and it wouldn't be lnog before civil unrest spread in the arab world. Just look at Japan after we defeated them. They have one of the most successful economies in the world...and we both benefit from one another.
ps- I see Vietnam mispelled "Viet Nam" quite often. It is all one word Also, when people say we "had help" in Vietnam... we may have, but I don't consider 1 foreign soldier's help per 100 american soldiers even remotely fair to be able to state that "we had help." Also we didn't lose ONE battle in Vietnam...NOT ONE. It was politics that made us withdraw.

 

[weaponusmc]

To say that the Montanards and Koreans didnt contribute much is very harsh. Montanards and Koreans played a very large part in two very differant ways. The Montanards gave all they had, durring and after the conflict. They are the original inhabitants of Viet Nam and hate what we now call Vietnamese. And the Koreans added something even though they were in small numbers, Great amounts of fear. A two man sniper team (Carlos Hathcock) for instance caused more trouble for them, and the same with the ROK Marines who didnt play by the same rules we did.
And not to totaly disagree with you, yes the french set vast blockades on the south.

 

[darth tang]

But to think for one second that we did almost any part of this war right is tantamount to a joke. You guys have said it yourselves
I have never said we are fighting this war wrong. Tell me, how would it be fought better, giving you the benefit of hindsight.

 

[hot883]

Originally Posted by WeaponUSMC
We didnt fight Viet Nam alone, We did have help from the Koreans, Aussies, Loatians, Cambodians, Montanards. And North Viet Nam had help from China and Russia. Its really no surprise to me that most of America pipes in without full knowledge of what actually happens or happened. But I do strongly suggest that people should know the facts befor they do. Military history isnt taught right in the school system due to bleeding hearts and such. The military isnt allowed to train there troops right in boot camp due to MOA (mothers of America) and fear of that little phone call to your Gov rep. Its no wonder to me that we cannot fight a war right. Many things in this country need to change when dealing with the military to let us do our job right and it starts off with proper education in the school systems, then let our drill instructors train our recruits the proper way (yes sometimes pain and cursing are involved) and finaly keep politics and the puplic eye out of war........Bill
The road to the battlefield is littered with the dead bodies of first and second lieutenants who didnt listen to there NCO's
Gotta be Enlisted. Ha! I served 20 years retiring in Hawaii from the marine Corps University. Thanks for your service Wpns and glad you are back. God Bless, Barry

 

[sleeper]

Doesn't keeping the public eye out of war encourage the military to be at war? I'd sure love it if my bosses couldn't double-check my work (and yes, the American public is, ultimately, the military's "boss")
As for running the war better, we could easily have made it a coalition project. When we turned away the tyrant in '91, the U.N. was actually involved. George the first showed that even a warmongering oil baron concervative can at least do it right, keeping down casualties and getting the world behind you Second, we could have avoided issuing orders from the top of the Pentagon to torture innocent Arabs simply because they might have known some terrorists. Third, a "war against terror" is useless and nonsensical. That's like a "war against submarines," or the "war against cancer." You declare war against proper armies, not concepts. "Arresting Osama bin Laden" might have been a smart way to start.
Finally, Kosovo and Somalia were unmitigated successes from a foreign policy perspective. I don't know what Kool-Aid people are drinking that makes them think they weren't but we lost almost no soldiers in either of those conflicts and both places are way better off now. That's not to give Clinton credit, mostly it's the armed forces, the overall military and civilian leadership (which does include Slick Willie I'm afraid), and the cooperation of the UN.
But screw this. War is evil. Let's raise some fish.

 

[darth tang]

You make some good points I will conceed, even if I do not agree with them. Here is where your statement falkls apart though.
As for running the war better, we could easily have made it a coalition project. When we turned away the tyrant in '91, the U.N. was actually involved. George the first showed that even a warmongering oil baron concervative can at least do it right, keeping down casualties and getting the world behind you
Desert Storm was ONLY to remove Saddam from Kuwait. That is all the U.N. sanctioned and agreed to. The coalition pushed Sadaams troops all the way back to baghdad to send a message that an invasion of a country by Iraq would not be tolerated. If we would have tried to overthrow Sadaam then, The U.N. coalition would have disbanded. This was actually discussed. George Bush (41) actually stated to Oust Sadaam would result in U.S. troops staying in Iraq for years to come and would become a hotspot for Guerrilla style attacks. It would be costly and in lives and money to the United States. The American people wouldn't stand for it. He wanted to finish it, but he realized the mentallity of the American "mob" and knew the U.N. wouldn't sanction that.
If you remember the casualties were actually really low for the invasion portion (much like they were in Desert Storm). Also in Desert Storm, Sadaams troops were surrendering in droves unlike this time where they actually fought back.
It is the aftermath that has caused U.S. lives in larger numbers. If the president you said got it right continued, we would be in the same exact spot.
I agree, screw war, raise fish!

 

[mudplayerx]

The UN showed no interest in involving themselves in this war. Also, how can you say Somamlia was a success? We went in there to get the warlord and we didn't get him. We sent in inadequate troops because we wanted to downplay the issue. The result was numerous needless casualties.
Also, I think calling any of the arabs in the american detention camps "innocent." These are individuals that fought against US troops during the invasion. In the very least, they were looting, raping, pillaging in the aftermath.

 

[ophiura]

Somalia was a success? Somalia, and "black hawk down" was a message to Al Qaeda - that we would run.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/020916fa_fact2
In 1993, bin Laden dispatched Mohamed Atef to Somalia to look for ways of attacking the American military forces that were participating in an international famine-relief effort. Bin Laden gloried in the fact that his men had trained the Somali militiamen who shot down two American helicopters in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, in October of that year, prompting President Clinton to withdraw all American soldiers from the country. "Based on the reports we received from our brothers in Somalia," bin Laden said, "we learned that they saw the weakness, frailty, and cowardice of U.S. troops. Only eighteen U.S. troops were killed. Nonetheless, they fled in the heart of darkness."
Very good review:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hom...nse/BG1526.cfm
Fish are great. I love keeping fish tanks. But there are more important things in the world. A life for kids and grandkids for one. And sometimes wars are needed (to have hopes that our kids can raise fish).
The mighty peacekeeping force of the UN turned and ran as well.

 

[beth]

That 911 documentary is on now and I really have a hard time watching it. It really makes me sick that our enemies are glad to see us still so focused and fearful of 911. Its hard to understand why bin Ladin is still alive.

 

[darth tang]

Finally, Kosovo and Somalia were unmitigated successes from a foreign policy perspective. I don't know what Kool-Aid people are drinking that makes them think they weren't but we lost almost no soldiers in either of those conflicts and both places are way better off now.
Basing success off of casualty ratios gives a false sense of security. Using that logic, Vietnam was a success as we lost far less troops than the enemy. Almost 80% less.
I believe it was Kosovo where a certain general ordered his troops to attack our allies. I can't remember if that was Kosovo though. I think so. Then this guy tried to run for the democratic presidential nominee.

 

[rpick]

i only read about half of the replies and had to put my thoughs on here.
so much going on that i wanted to get political but thought this was not the forum to do this but now that this is on, here i go.
i am a progressive.
to those who wrap themselves around the american flag and proclaim real patriotism, i say this:
patriots do not stifle debate
patriots do not stifle dissent
patriots do not stifle freedom
but a patriot must stand against those who would
we knew they had no plan except to invade, and tried to do it on the cheap.
concerning wmd's:
they say we were all wrong. not true. we progressives knew that containment worked. there were no stockpiles of wmds. if there were and they knew where they were, why did they not make an effort to get to where they said they were asap? instead, the first thing they were ordered to protect was the oil ministry building (by the way, that was the only ministry building not bombed)? why were they not ordered to guard the nuclear power plants instead of letting them be looted?
concerning ties to 9/11:
everything they said was debunked.
osama and saddam were not buddies. in fact osama considered him an infidel.
concerning the niger yellowcake:
proven false and a covert cia agent was exposed for revenge.
that takes care of all of their justifications to invade iraq. oh yeah, the argument that they got rid of a brutal dictator, no one would deny that is true, but that only came out after all the other reasons were proven false.
stay in there to finish the job?
we created this mess. it is a terrorist magnet now by our own doing. al qeada has the best recruitment tool and that is bush. we cannot finish it. we lost the war when we became a nation of occupiers and torturers. we have no respect in iraq or in the arab world.
pull out now?
no one except the far fringe of the anti war groups are calling for withdrawl all at once. that's not possible.
a steady reduction in troops until we are no longer there is what we ask.
Cindy Sheehan did meet with the president with other parents, but all she wanted to know is why did her son die? bush is not respectful to those who disagree with him . he brushed her off and was disrespectful to her. he could not answer her then and he cannot answer her now because the reasons for going there were proven wrong.
a government who tries to cut the medical benefits of iraq war vets and close down the hospitals does not support our troops.
cindy sheehan is a true patriot. she saw injustice and spoke out against it.
dissent. isn't that what our nation was built on?
to the moderator,
i apoligize if this is considered inappropriate. please do not ban me from the forum.

 

[reefraff]

Cindy sheehan is scum. She got her meeting just like ever other parent who lost a child. She originally said she had a plesant meeting with Bush although she still had problems with the war she felt he honestly felt her pain but then changed her story. This same POS attended a rally for support of the attorney convicted of passing information from the terrorist convicted of the first World tade center attack to his followers where she said "America is not worth dying for". I watched the video of the event myself. That is all I need to know about Ms Sheehan. She has been corrupted ny the Mooreons.
As for your claim "we all knew Iraq had no WMD", who is "we"?. Why did the United Nations (Including Germany, France, Russia) all vote in favor of resolutions placing santions on Iraq for their continued refusal to allow inspectors to varify they were eliminating the WMD and programs? Those resolutions extended right up to a few months before the war.
Lets see if you all knowing progressives know your history. Who said this in 1992, HINT: it is someone who was in position to have absolute facts better than about anyone but a president.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

 

[socal57che]

Every single person I have talked to on the subject of Iraq is convinced that their opinion is correct and true regardless of where they stand. I don't know every aspect of why, but 14 U.N. resolutions did not work. I don't care if Saddam smoked grass with the Queen of England, somebody had to enforce the U.N.'s resolutions...If not us,who?...if not now, when? As for the U.N. in general I am all for removing ourselves from their self-rightious kiddie club and bulldozing the building in NY to make room for a free parking garage. Thank God for the volunteers that agree to do what is neccessesary to keep me and my family from being on the receiving end of another 9/11. Aggression is necessary and if we hide from the bad people in the world they will seek us out. By "we" I mean all free peoples of the world, not just Republicans and Democrats, not just Jews and Christians, all Muslims, Bhuddists, Native Americans, French, German, Eskimo...Everyone is a target of those who hate with no regard for life. If we must teach these few radical people that the world is fed up with their tyranny then SO BE IT! When the fight comes to your door, will you fight? Will you stand up and say "enough is enough" and fight for your freedom and the freedom of your kids and their kids? 9/11 brought the fight to your door. What you say and do right now affects how your children will live. If you cite religious reasons for not supporting the fight please read the Old Testament. The people of the world need to fight for what is worth fighting for, no matter what race or religion. My ancestors are originally from what is now Germany. I am not German-American, I am American. My wife's boss was exiled from Iran in the late 70's. If asked he will tell you he is from Persia, but he is an American, not Iranian, not Iranian-American...American and very proud to say so. America in general is very willing to accept anyone that is not a threat to what makes us great. Muslims, Christians, Jews...whatever. I am proud to know that my country will welcome the peoples of the world that are not even welcome in their own "homeland." I will support ANY president that is willing to stand up for what I believe in....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would also like to say "Thank You" to all who have and are VOLUNTEERING their lives in my interest.
This is how I feel and nothing anybody says can change my mind. If anyone would like to run to some other country where Mr. Bush has no authority on what is done for the welfare of his people I will help you pack.
Thank you for listening and have a nice day.
ps "politically correct" is an oxymoron that has no business in a sane person's volcabulary