American Right Wing beats up on grieving war mother

[Prometheus]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

ok i thought it was stated here that she was agint it from teh start... out of respect for her son she never spoke out....... now she is being true to herself and is doing what she can to show shes agnist it..... a spade is a spade is a spade.... no matter how you look at it... she is now going to what was in her personal thought s on the subject...

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

ok i thought it was stated here that she was agint it from teh start... out of respect for her son she never spoke out....... now she is being true to herself and is doing what she can to show shes agnist it..... a spade is a spade is a spade.... no matter how you look at it... she is now going to what was in her personal thought s on the subject...

She is not speaking for all families affected by the war, that is a big problem people have with her. Not all families who lost someone close to them feel the same way she does. And she talks about her son like he was an innocent victim. Yes it is sad and unfortunate, but when you join the millitary you know there is always a chance of going to war and being in dangerous situations, especially if you request a job such as infantry or other positions in the millitary that put you on the front line.

[pilferk]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)? When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

Not exactly an accurate historical portrait.

The Japanese DID invade US soil...Hawaii.? As such, their goverment committed an act of war.? And they WERE a threat to us, made obvious by Pearl Harbor's aftermath.

I also know the use of the Bomb was an agonizing decision that was made, ultimately, by Truman.? It came down to approximate casualty estimates, and the "cost" of not using the bomb was deemed to far outweigh the "cost" of using the bomb.? A callous way to evaluate the situation? Perhaps.? But the explanation I've always heard used by Truman is that he couldn't justify NOT using the bomb..couldn't fathom the loss of hundreds of thousands of his troops by NOT using the bomb when he had it.? In addition, he had intel saying that Germany and Japan were both working on similar weapons, and they would NOT hesitate to use them vs the US.? So, he was left with a tough decision...one I'm very glad I wouldn't have to make.

On one hand, killing tens of thousands of "innocent" people, but potentially ending a war and saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers AND taking the country you're responsible for out of danger OR not using the bomb, thereby saving those tens of thousands, but putting hundreds of thousands more at risk, and risking the safety of the people of your country.? No matter which decision Truman makes, the results are not pretty.

So, it's not quite as cut and dry as you portray it....

 i guess i totally missed that part where they actualy invaded "Hawaii" i do recall the attack on the state.... though if the Japs had to have invaded it would have put the west coast of teh US under long range bomber threat from japan...... not to mention that a huge aamount of the US fleet was left crippled and destroyed. Such a move would have forced ship construction to be limited to the US and Canadian east coast leaving he westren coast a virtural fortress of air and naval guns to prevent a full invasion of main land NA. that would ahve resulted in a rather lower amount of resources going toward the european theater until such time as the US was able to drive Japan from hawaii and regan control ove r the eastren Pacific. Meaning a protracted war in Europe and most likely the bomb being used there before hand.

Attacked, then, our soverign soil.  However, if you wish to play "games of semantics", I can apply the same sorts of interpretation to  your posts.

I think it was obvious what I meant.

[D]

GNFRL dude, I wish everyone could see that point

thats exactly right!!!!!

I agree with u 100 percent.

My problem is the way she goes about it, like her son was kidnapped, drugged, thrown into a van, put in a plane and dropped off in an Iraqi hotzone with no weapon or training.


He requested infantry at that.

Her son was a soldier doing his job and unfortunately got killed, he isnt the first or last

get counseling, deal with it, move forward with your life.

[journey]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That was her baby, and now he's gone forever. And I guess this is her way of healing. Whether or not people agree with it, it's her battle.

[Prometheus]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

ok i thought it was stated here that she was agint it from teh start... out of respect for her son she never spoke out....... now she is being true to herself and is doing what she can to show shes agnist it..... a spade is a spade is a spade.... no matter how you look at it... she is now going to what was in her personal thought s on the subject...

She is not speaking for all families affected by the war, that is a big problem people have with her. Not all families who lost someone close to them feel the same way she does. And she talks about her son like he was an innocent victim. Yes it is sad and unfortunate, but when you join the millitary you know there is always a chance of going to war and being in dangerous situations, especially if you request a job such as infantry or other positions in the millitary that put you on the front line.

lol....... but its HER point of view..... is it not?......... christ here ye all going wanting to suspend her right to her own point of view on this.... protest away...

[Prometheus]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)  When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

Not exactly an accurate historical portrait.

The Japanese DID invade US soil...Hawaii.  As such, their goverment committed an act of war.  And they WERE a threat to us, made obvious by Pearl Harbor's aftermath.

I also know the use of the Bomb was an agonizing decision that was made, ultimately, by Truman.  It came down to approximate casualty estimates, and the "cost" of not using the bomb was deemed to far outweigh the "cost" of using the bomb.  A callous way to evaluate the situation? Perhaps.  But the explanation I've always heard used by Truman is that he couldn't justify NOT using the bomb..couldn't fathom the loss of hundreds of thousands of his troops by NOT using the bomb when he had it.  In addition, he had intel saying that Germany and Japan were both working on similar weapons, and they would NOT hesitate to use them vs the US.  So, he was left with a tough decision...one I'm very glad I wouldn't have to make.

On one hand, killing tens of thousands of "innocent" people, but potentially ending a war and saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers AND taking the country you're responsible for out of danger OR not using the bomb, thereby saving those tens of thousands, but putting hundreds of thousands more at risk, and risking the safety of the people of your country.  No matter which decision Truman makes, the results are not pretty.

So, it's not quite as cut and dry as you portray it....

 i guess i totally missed that part where they actualy invaded "Hawaii" i do recall the attack on the state.... though if the Japs had to have invaded it would have put the west coast of teh US under long range bomber threat from japan...... not to mention that a huge aamount of the US fleet was left crippled and destroyed. Such a move would have forced ship construction to be limited to the US and Canadian east coast leaving he westren coast a virtural fortress of air and naval guns to prevent a full invasion of main land NA. that would ahve resulted in a rather lower amount of resources going toward the european theater until such time as the US was able to drive Japan from hawaii and regan control ove r the eastren Pacific. Meaning a protracted war in Europe and most likely the bomb being used there before hand.

Attacked, then, our soverign soil.  However, if you wish to play "games of semantics", I can apply the same sorts of interpretation to  your posts.

I think it was obvious what I meant.

there is one thing on this board assume nothing...... and that advice is free..... and take that as you may

[SLCPUNK]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That was her baby, and now he's gone forever. And I guess this is her way of healing. Whether or not people agree with it, it's her battle.

Darn skippy.

And once again, people miss the point: Her son was an exceptional kid, and did very well for himself. She is against the fact that he was sent to Iraq on false information and died in vain.

You raise a child for 20 yrs and then watch him get sent off to die for NOTHING and see how you act.

Anybody who says "he knew what he was signing up for" is missing the point entirely as the right wing, pro war group, wants you to.

These are some quotes from her latest letter to Bush and I think they make things VERY CLEAR. Enough to set aside the spin that has been placed on this poor woman.
"
I want one answer: What is the "noble cause" MY son died for. There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing. "

"A Democratic Constitution? Is anyone else insulted that he thinks we are stupid and think that the Constitution they will form in Iraq will be democratic and ensure equal rights to all citizens? Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one. Up to 62% of Americans think our troops should be coming home soon. That is a majority, so why don't we force our employee, the president, to do what we want him to do? "

"I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for. I am still waiting for one member of the press corps to ask him that. I am still waiting for that answer. First, we were told WMD: false. Then we were told Saddam=Osama: false. Then we were told Saddam was a bad man to his own people and we had to get rid of him: he's gone. Then we were told the Iraqi people had to have elections: they did. Now we are spreading "freedom and democracy" but we are building 14 permanent bases, some the size of Sacramento, Ca. To me that indicates that we are spreading the cancer of imperialism and usurping THEIR natural resources. "

[SLCPUNK]

GNFRL dude, I wish everyone could see that point

That is a great point, if that is what we were talking about.....

[sandman]

her son wasn't drafted.

he signed up for it....twice.

i feel bad for this woman and what's she's going through but she is disrespecting her son and what he believed in.

[SLCPUNK]

her son wasn't drafted.

he signed up for it....twice.

i feel bad for this woman and what's she's going through but she is disrespecting her son and what he believed in.

Why do you cling to something that is not the point?

Answer: Because the real point you can not argue against.

Also, how in the hell do you know that she is dishonoring her son?

1. She knows her son more then we'll ever know him.

2. It would be a dishonor not to question the true reason for this war. His death is in vain now, is that not dishonor enough? If anybody dishonored her son (and all the troops), it was the President.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

If her son signd on for another tour of duty during Iraq, do you think he thought what we were doing was wrong?

Again, Cindy Sheehan is selfish in all this. She is disrespecting her son.  I think she is a crackpot.

[pilferk]

If her son signd on for another tour of duty during Iraq, do you think he thought what we were doing was wrong?

Again, Cindy Sheehan is selfish in all this. She is disrespecting her son.? I think she is a crackpot.

Allow me to point out that someone who holds a differing opinion than you is not "a crackpot"...no matter how much you'd like to portray them as such.

She's a grieving mother.  She wants to know for what "cause" her son died.  It's not such a radical request, after all.  It's a simple question, and one that still hasn't been adequately answered by this administration. 

What I wonder is why the right wing is so "scared" of that question, and has gone on such a rampage to portray her in a negative light because she's asking it?  It sure looks, more and more, like the reason they're doing it is because there IS no answer to her question....or at least not a good one.   And since they can't provide an answer, they have to discredit the person asking the question.  A sad statement, really....

[pilferk]

there is one thing on this board assume nothing...... and that advice is free..... and take that as you may

Actually, proper sentence structure and grammer would be:

There is one rule on this board:? Assume nothing.

That advice is free.

You can take it as you will.

Aren't semantic games fun?

How about we talk about the points of discussion and leave the "English Teacher" mentality at home.? If it's obvious what the person's point is, I think we can all further the discussion much more without resorting to arguing word usage, spelling, and sentence structure.? It adds nothing to the conversations at hand.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Her son died for a cause. To provide security to the new democratic government of Iraq so they can have time to progress to a point where they won`t need us there anymore. To leave now would be disasterous. Terrorists would take over the country and use Iraq as a base of operations to really fuck with us. The whole WMD thing was a result of a breakdown of our intellegence and in hindsight we screwed up on that one, I`ll give ya that.

[Prometheus]

there is one thing on this board assume nothing...... and that advice is free..... and take that as you may

Actually, proper sentence structure and grammer would be:

There is one rule on this board:  Assume nothing.

That advice is free.

You can take it as you will.

Aren't semantic games fun?

How about we talk about the points of discussion and leave the "English Teacher" mentality at home.  If it's obvious what the person's point is, I think we can all further the discussion much more without resorting to arguing word usage, spelling, and sentence structure.  It adds nothing to the conversations at hand.

 yop cause your going to have a great time tring to keep up with me on this one... glad you got alot of work to do.....hahahaa oh and as for english.... you should really think about what i meant in saying not to assume..... its not that i didnt understand... it was that if it can be so easily seen... then chances are some will beleive that Hawaii was actualyinvaded.. not attacked...... and for all intents and purposes ya can attempt to allow the lower knowledged person that are here what is fact... not assumeing that you can follow that....

[pilferk]

Her son died for a cause. To provide security to the new democratic government of Iraq so they can have time to progress to a point where they won`t need us there anymore. To leave now would be disasterous. Terrorists would take over the country and use Iraq as a base of operations to really fuck with us. The whole WMD thing was a result of a breakdown of our intellegence and in hindsight we screwed up on that one, I`ll give ya that.

Then why not meet with her and explain just that rather than assasinate her character?  Could it be that the answer you just gave, all things considered, isn't considered a compelling reason (by most of the country) to risk American lives?   Since, quite frankly, the way another country runs itself isnt, unto itself, a real good reason to invade their soverignty.

What you just said, above, is proof that American lives were risked needlessly.  And that's precisely her point.  Lives are being risked to clean up a mess that the current Administration created, top to bottom.  And, for her money, it's not a real good reason.  I'd venture, given Bush's approval rating and the current countries feelings about the war, many people agree.

Man, does the song Civil War seem to be playing in anyone else's head?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Bush has admitted we had bad intelligence. When the CIA, France & Russia, England and the UN believed Saddam had WMD`s,  and Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors, what do you do? Leave them be? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Bush has already met with Sheehan last year. She is an opportunist, her bank account looks a lot better now due to all the left wing political groups contributing to her, and did you notice it really isn`t all about her son?

We leave Iraq now, Islamic extremists take over creating a terrorist state. Expect 9/11 to happen again. Do we want that? Hell no!

[journey]

Bush has admitted we had bad intelligence. When the CIA, France & Russia, England and the UN believed Saddam had WMD`s,? and Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors, what do you do? Leave them be? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Bush has already met with Sheehan last year. She is an opportunist, her bank account looks a lot better now due to all the left wing political groups contributing to her, and did you notice it really isn`t all about her son?

We leave Iraq now, Islamic extremists take over creating a terrorist state. Expect 9/11 to happen again. Do we want that? Hell no!

Who was in office during the 9/11 attacks: Bush.

Who started a war based on bad intelligence: Bush.

That should tell people something. Yet he is blindly defended. I don't get it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Bush has admitted we had bad intelligence. When the CIA, France & Russia, England and the UN believed Saddam had WMD`s,? and Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors, what do you do? Leave them be? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Bush has already met with Sheehan last year. She is an opportunist, her bank account looks a lot better now due to all the left wing political groups contributing to her, and did you notice it really isn`t all about her son?

We leave Iraq now, Islamic extremists take over creating a terrorist state. Expect 9/11 to happen again. Do we want that? Hell no!

Who was in office during the 9/11 attacks: Bush.

Who started a war based on bad intelligence: Bush.

That should tell people something. Yet he is blindly defended. I don't get it.

Give Slick Willie some credit. Under Clinton`s watch, he had a chance to get Bin Laden, but diddn`t.? It was also found in 2000 that Atta ( the main 9/11 hijacker) was labeled a security threat. Clinton did nothing. The whole Sheehan thing (getting back to the topic) has attracted all the left wing groups who are using her, and she is allowing it. Shes making out pretty good from the money they are giving her. Talk about selling out!