MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
STING2 said:
Yet, had the United States not abandoned South Vietnam in the early 1970s, it would still be an independent country today with a standard of living and democratic government on par with South Korea.

of course it would have had to endure 30 years of military dictatorhips -in the name of freedom- ,but that and the sheer number of american soldiers it would've required to defend the south in the 1970s seem to be irrelevant to the cause. no, if the united states hadn't ignored ho chi minh's plea for help following ww1 the whole situation could have potentially been avoided.
 
Antiwar sentiment gets champion

Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch brings focus to a protest movement that's been largely unseen and ineffective.

By Brad Knickerbocker and Kris Axtman | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE., AND CRAWFORD, TEXAS - In her high-profile vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch, Cindy Sheehan has brought the face and the heart of the antiwar movement to the world.

The plain-spoken words and image of a mother carrying a wooden cross to commemorate the son she lost in Iraq have suddenly brought focus to what has been largely an unseen and ineffective protest movement in the US.

To be sure, this is still not Kent State in 1970. For a variety of political and practical reasons, today's antiwar movement may never approach the ardor of a generation ago. Moreover, many conservatives criticize Ms. Sheehan for being co-opted by the broader political left - itself a reflection of the crosscurrents of the time.

Yet the mother, hoisting her plaintive signs and vowing to stay in Crawford until she gets a one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush, has become a potent personal symbol of opposition to a war now stretching into its third year. More important, her crusade comes at a time when doubts about US engagement there are clearly growing.

"One keeps hearing that the number of queries coming into conscientious objector advisory groups are on the upswing," says retired US Army Colonel Dan Smith, a Vietnam veteran now working for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobbying group. "College campuses are stirring. Facts suggest a rising antiwar sentiment is in the making."

The depth of America's ambivalence is reflected in the polls. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll this month, echoing other surveys, shows that Americans by a 55-44 majority now believe the US "made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq." Some 56 percent say some or all US troops should be withdrawn now.

The hardening sentiment hasn't gone unnoticed in Washington. Many Democrats have become more vocal about the need for a definitive timetable for the withdrawal of troops, and they have been joined of late by some Republicans. The recent special congressional election in Ohio - where the Democrat was an Iraq war vet who nearly won in a heavily Republican district - has added to concerns about the war in some GOP circles.

Within the military, some senior commanders have talked about a timeframe for starting to bring home troops. But late last week, Bush tamped down any expectations of a quick withdrawal, saying it was too soon to say when the number of troops might be reduced.
This is no Vietnam era

Still, for all the concern about Iraq, the antiwar movement today isn't likely to reach the levels of Vietnam. For one thing, there are fundamental reasons why this war is distinctly different: the lack of military conscription, a relatively low level of American casualties (at least compared to Vietnam, where more than 30 times as many US soldiers were killed), and the absence of a self-conscious youth culture.

"What made the antiwar movement so powerful during the Vietnam War was its close connection to the movement of millions of baby-boomers through college," says national security analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "Away from home for the first time and insulated from military service by student deferments, many of these adolescents were acutely aware of their susceptibility to the draft once they completed college. Opposition to the war became part of a generational identity, particularly among middle-class students in universities."

Today, some of the not-so-silent minority worried about the war includes military veterans and their families. Jan Barry, a founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, says that when his group posted a statement of opposition to the Iraq war on a website shortly before the conflict started, it was signed by some 4,000 vets and family members, many of whom were retired. What surprised him, though, was the number of second and third generation military who signed up - including many World War II vets.

Activists say the grumbling about the war extends to some in the active-duty ranks. Even though there is no draft today, they note that the war has stretched on long enough, and has involved enough multiple deployments of many older National Guard and Reserve troops with family and work responsibilities back home, that misgivings are surfacing.

"We don't have a 'conscription draft,' as we say, but we have an economic draft [recruiters increasingly targeting poorer high school students], a backdoor draft with the National Guard and Reserves [who now make up more than 40 percent of US troops in Iraq], with the stop-loss program and the calling up of the Individual Ready Reserves," says Steve Morse of the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, which offers counseling on a "GI Hotline" at 13 locations around the country.
Where the soldiers stand

The group Iraq Veterans Against the War was launched a year ago. Yet like its Vietnam counterpart in the 1960s and 70s, it remains a minority voice.

In a survey of service members earlier this year, readers of Military Times publications agreed that the US should have gone to war in Iraq by a 60-21 percent margin. The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey last fall found that 64 percent of military personnel sampled (compared to 45 percent of the general population) said the situation in Iraq had been worth going to war over. Among those who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, that dropped to 55 percent.

In any case, GI's seem to take a realistically sober view of the war. The Military Times survey found that about half thought it would take 5-10 years for the US to achieve its goals in Iraq. A plurality (47 percent) thought the media should publish or broadcast news stories "that suggest the war is not going well," and 65 percent said "it should be OK to publish photographs of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base from Iraq."
'Camp Casey'

On the road outside Bush's ranch, the view is even more sober - and the anger more prevalent.

"I have a feeling that a lot of people have found their voice in her [Cindy Sheehan]," says Hadi Jawad, an activist in Dallas who helped found "Peace House" in Crawford near the Bush ranch. "She is articulating what is in their hearts."

About a dozen military families have arrived to lend a hand in the Sheehan protest. They come from Alabama, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas - and most have lost a loved one.

"We are here for all the soldiers who don't have a voice anymore," says Sergio Torres, whose son Army Sgt. Daniel Torres was killed in February when a roadside bomb hit his unarmored Humvee.

At what's called "Camp Casey," after her son who was killed, Sheehan is shepherded from interview to interview, sometimes using a protester's van to take media calls on a cell phone. Outside her tent, supporters have placed flowers and signs.

Since arriving Aug. 6, she has endured Texas thunderstorms, jalapeño heat, and unfriendly stares from some local people. "Last night I had fire ants crawling all over me," Sheehan says. "Physically it's very uncomfortable, but I think of all the soldiers in Iraq who, when it's too hot or too stormy, can't go into town for refuge. As bad as we have it here, it's nothing compared to how bad they have it over there."

The president's motorcade passed by for the first time on Friday, on its way to a Republican fundraiser down Prairie Chapel Road. But even if she doesn't get to meet with him, Sheehan says, "I've accomplished a lot by putting this war back on the front page where it should be."

At that moment, a counter-protester appeared with a sign that read, "Your son is a hero, not a victim!" Sheehan was whisked away before the two could meet.
 
Se7en said:


of course it would have had to endure 30 years of military dictatorhips -in the name of freedom- ,but that and the sheer number of american soldiers it would've required to defend the south in the 1970s seem to be irrelevant to the cause. no, if the united states hadn't ignored ho chi minh's plea for help following ww1 the whole situation could have potentially been avoided.

As evidenced by the peformance of the South Vietnamese Military in defeating the 1972 North Vietnames Offensive, it would have only required a small number of US troops and advisors as well as air support to keep any further North Vietnamese offensive at bay. Within 10 years, South Vietnam would be able to defend itself independent of any US military intervention.

While the political situation in the South would still have to develop, it would be far better than anything the North offered in the years following their brutal occupation of the South. Business trade, with the USA and others, and the end of North Vietnamese attacks, would spur both economic and political development there.
 
[Q]Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle
What's wrong with her Crawford protest.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT


Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

And, now, here's another:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.


Her knack for PR doesn't make her argument persuasive

The first statement comes from Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times column of Aug. 10. The second statement comes from Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year. It was sent to the editors of ABC's Nightline on March 15. In her article, Dowd was arguing that Sheehan's moral authority was absolute.

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

Sheehan has met the president before and has favored us with two accounts of the meeting, one fairly warm and the other distinctly cold. I have no means of knowing which mood reflected her real state of mind, but she now thinks she is owed another session with him, presumably in order to tell him what she asserted to the Nightline team. In pursuit of this, she has set up camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and announced that she will not leave until she gets some more face-time with our chief executive. This qualifies her to be described by Dowd as "a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R." Well, I think I have to concede that if Dowd says you have a knack for PR, you have acquired one even if you didn't have one before. (I am not entirely certain, for example, that the above letter to ABC News would count as a delicate illustration of the said "knack.")

The president has compromised by sending his national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, down that Crawford road to meet the PR-knackish Cindy. Not good enough, exclaims Dowd. Hadley was pro-war and has even been described as a neocon! Clearly, then, the Sheehan demand is liable to expand the more it is met. President Bush must either find a senior staff member who opposes the war and then send him or her down the track to see if that will do. Or else he must, like the Emperor Henry of old, stage his own Canossa and attend on her himself, abject apologies at the ready. After all, we mustn't forget that we are dealing—as was that emperor in his dispute with Pope Gregory—with "an absolute moral authority."

What dreary sentimental nonsense this all is, and how much space has been wasted on it. Most irritating is the snide idea that the president is "on vacation" and thus idly ignoring his suffering subjects, when the truth is that the members of the media—not known for their immunity to the charm of Martha's Vineyard or Cape Cod in the month of August—are themselves lazing away the season with a soft-centered nonstory that practically, as we like to say in the trade, "writes itself." Anyway, Sheehan now says that if need be she will "follow" the president "to Washington," so I don't think the holiday sneer has much life left in it.

There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders. Most presidents in time of war have made an exception in the case of the bereaved—Lincoln's letter to the mother of two dead Union soldiers (at the time, it was thought that she had lost five sons) is a famous instance—but the job there is one of comfort and reassurance, and this has already been discharged in the Sheehan case. If that stricken mother had been given an audience and had risen up to say that Lincoln had broken his past election pledges and sought a wider and more violent war with the Confederacy, his aides would have been quite right to show her the door and to tell her that she was out of order.

Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

[/Q]

He is missing the fact that Casey REENLISTED knowing he would be going to Iraq.
 
The simple fact is that Cindy Sheehan has every right to stage her nonviolent antiwar protest as given by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The President, out of a sense of moral leadership, should be willing to meet the mother of a young man who lost his life in service to his country. (even though she briefly met him before)

This would the best demonstration to the American people (who are losing their belief and support for his Iraq policies) that he is a compassionate conservative.

It would win him brownie points galore with the American public. So why hasn't he done this?

Because Mr. Bush would not be able to answer sufficiently the questions Ms. Sheehan has to ask him like:

1) where are the WMD's?

2) why did you lie to the American people about them?

3) what is your strategy to get the other young soldiers out of Iraq before their mothers become grieving parents like me?

Bush would choke on the answers to those questions because he knows that his Iraq policy is corrupted by Halliburton dreams of profit and the Bush family's personal vendata against Saddam Hussein.

THE GUILTY CAN NOT LOOK THE INNOCENT IN THE EYES.

They know that they have no words to counter the truth in the grieving mother's tears.

They run for cover, but there will soon be no place for them to run.

Because everyday more American people watch the callousness of this government and are not pleased by what they see.

Even Laura Bush has not chosen to meet with this woman - mother to mother - because she also can not counter the pain in Cindy Sheehan's eyes.

My heartfelt opinion as a mother and as a Christian.

Not an attempt to debate.
 
Her husband has filed for divorce, the media will have a field day w/ that one

I would assume there might be other issues/troubles in that marriage


"her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1)"
 
Last edited:
STING2, how much do you know about today's Vietnam? The country is thriving, compared to its neighbors. In fact, the economy is booming. It isn't an "Aisan Tiger" like China, but it is on a upward growth scale. It has business and political ties with us. Today, in places that were scenes of horror for American troops, tourists sit and drink martinis. The younger generation is happy and relatively prosperous. People under thirty know nothing of the war and could care less. They're too busy making money.

And regarding Mrs Sheehan..a couple days ago, I predicted in this thread that she would suddenly have personal and mental problems. See, I was right. But I didn't have to wait even a week! My God, I can't believe how right I am. I'm just waiting for the next phase of my prediction to kick in! Heck, if she was a spotless paragon of virtue, they'd probably plant drugs in her home or car or something, just to invent something to tarnish her with. It's all so predictable, and it's been done before.

But it will be fruitless. Like I said, today, it's one mother. ten yrs from now, it'll be thousands.....
 
someone ran over the white crosses there w/ a pickup truck :down: just lovely..
capt.sge.upc22.160805164641.photo00.photo.default-291x351.jpg


Dear Friend,

Casey Sheehan was born May 29, 1979, the first born child of Cindy and Pat Sheehan. It was a long labor. Fifty-one days after Casey was born, our first child, Wade was born, also after a long labor. They started school the same year, played the same games, watched the same television shows, loved the same country. On April 4, 1996, three weeks after going to Washington as a winner in a national contest about what America meant to him, Wade died in an automobile accident. On April 4, 2004, eight years later to the day, Casey, who loved his country enough to wear its uniform, died in Iraq. Cindy and Pat's hearts broke, as had ours.

We teach our children right from wrong. We teach them compassion and honor. We teach them the dignity of each life. And then, sometimes, the lessons we taught are turned on their heads. Cindy Sheehan is asking a very simple thing of her government, and she and her family, and most particularly Casey, have paid a very dear price for the right to ask this.

Cindy wants Casey's death to have meant as much as his life - lived fully - might have meant. I know this, as does every mother who has ever stood where we stand. And the President says he knows enough, doesn't need to hear from Casey's mother, doesn't need to assure her that Casey's is not one small death in a long and seemingly never-ending drip of deaths, that there is a plan here that will bring our sons and daughters home. He doesn't need to hear from her, he says. He claims he understands how some people feel about the deaths in Iraq.

The President is wrong.

Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the President hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful.

Cindy Sheehan can be that voice. She has earned the right to be that voice.

Please join me in supporting Cindy's right to be heard.

I grew up in a military family. My father and my grandfather were career Navy pilots. I saw what it meant to live a life every single day when the possibility of an honorable death is always there, at the dinner table, on the playground, at the base school. Will someone's father not come home tonight? And I didn't just feel the possibility, I saw the real thing, and, believe me, it stays with you, it changes you.

I also saw, then and more recently as I campaigned across this country and spent time with courageous military mothers and wives, how little attention is paid to the needs and the voices of military families. It has to change. The sacrifices that our military men and women make assure us that we have the strongest military in the world, but the sacrifices that their families make are too often ignored. The President's cavalier dismissal of Cindy Sheehan is emblematic of a greater problem. This is a mother who raised her son to love his country enough to serve. This is a mother who lived the impossible life of a mother of a soldier serving in Iraq, unable to sleep when he sleeps, unable to sleep when he is on duty, unable to watch the television, unable to stop watching the television.

And when the worst does happen, when the world comes crashing down and she puts the boy she bore, the boy she taught, the boy she loved in the ground, what does that government say to her? It says we'll do the talking; we don't need to hear from you. If we are decent and compassionate, if we know the lessons we taught our children, or if, selfishly, all we want is the long line of the brave to protect us in the future, we should listen to the mothers now.

Listen to Cindy.

Join me so Cindy knows we believe she has earned the right to be heard.

Elizabeth Edwards
 
Jamila, no one's doubting her right to protest. I'm not saying she's an idiot but as an example, I thought the HP book-burners were idiots but didn't doubt their right to do it.

I'm sure Bush's guys made an effort to find some dirt on her (the divorce), but I don't think they made it up. That just wouldn't work, he'd come out and say it was a lie. :shrug:

I feel bad for her, but she's met with the president once, that's what everyone else gets. Of course from a PR standpoint, Bush should really just meet with her again already.
 
Jamila said:
Because everyday more American people watch the callousness of this government and are not pleased by what they see.



speaking of callousness, check out this silver-foot-in-mouth quote from Bush:

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."
 
Well, Roosevelt (and Churchill) managed to fight the Second World War without being so obsessed with their exercise regimen.

And Bush described himself as 'the war President'

Go figure.
 
Teta040 said:
STING2, how much do you know about today's Vietnam? The country is thriving, compared to its neighbors. In fact, the economy is booming. It isn't an "Aisan Tiger" like China, but it is on a upward growth scale. It has business and political ties with us. Today, in places that were scenes of horror for American troops, tourists sit and drink martinis. The younger generation is happy and relatively prosperous. People under thirty know nothing of the war and could care less. They're too busy making money.

And regarding Mrs Sheehan..a couple days ago, I predicted in this thread that she would suddenly have personal and mental problems. See, I was right. But I didn't have to wait even a week! My God, I can't believe how right I am. I'm just waiting for the next phase of my prediction to kick in! Heck, if she was a spotless paragon of virtue, they'd probably plant drugs in her home or car or something, just to invent something to tarnish her with. It's all so predictable, and it's been done before.

But it will be fruitless. Like I said, today, it's one mother. ten yrs from now, it'll be thousands.....

I know the brutal communist take over of Vietnam cost millions of South Vietnamese their lives. As to the current situation in Vietnam, I think you should take a look at these raw facts from the United Nations Human Development Report.

Vietnam is currently ranked at #112 compared to other countries in standard of living and yes that is higher than Cambodia at #130. But notice that the Occupied Palestinian territories are at #102, well ahead of both Vietnam and Cambodia. If the Communist dictatorship is adopting the same reforms that China has by throwing out their old Communist systems and embracing American capitialism, certainly the standard of living will improve.

As of right now though, your better off in the Occupied Palestinian territories than Vietnam.
 
Irvine511 said:


"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

:lmao:

He's so out of touch.

When is he going to start subsidizing the rest of us to take weeks off in order to be able to go outside and exercise after we come home from job #3?

Get real.
 
financeguy said:
Well, Roosevelt (and Churchill) managed to fight the Second World War without being so obsessed with their exercise regimen.

And Bush described himself as 'the war President'

Go figure.
Whats wrong with keeping fit, a healthy body can improve mental vigour.
 
STING2 said:
If the Communist dictatorship is adopting the same reforms that China has by throwing out their old Communist systems and embracing American capitialism, certainly the standard of living will improve.

China has adopted American-style capitalism? Are you kidding? Tariffs in the region of 10 percent, restrictions on internal migration and trade between provinces, the contribution made by TVEs to economic growth, bailing out SOEs with state-owned banks, the virtual absence of a fully functioning legal system - China is not a capitalist country. Depending on your perspective, China may be converging with western models of capitalism or following a different path entirely, but the fact remains that describing the country today as capitalist is wrong.

And as for your claim about the standard of living improving - in many areas China's standard of living has declined since 1978. In the Maoist era you saw an increase in life expectancy from c. 40 years in 1949 up to c. 69 years in 1976 -- the improvement has stagnated (and by some accounts, actually been reversed) since 1978. Millions of people, particularly in rural areas, no longer have access to healthcare as governments in the reform era have abandoned the policy of providing low-cost healthcare to the masses. Millions of children (particularly girls) no longer receive an education because families cannot afford the school fees introduced in the reform era. Standard of living cannot be determined on the basis of GDP data (or any opulence indicators) alone -- you also need to consider whether a country's increased wealth has been put to good use in terms of improving the population's quality of life.
 
BAH!

Do you think America will ever view whats happening "outside" of their own fence as important as inside?

Do I care that a soldier, who went willingly to Iraq to invade a country, who was trained to withstand warfare, who (along with his family) have at least SOME expectation he could die as he was FIGHTING IN A WAR :huh: died "in the line of duty"
Well truth be told not really. I feel for his family, but when you sign up to be a soldier, you are accepting death as a part of your job and for that, your country is thankful.

What i feel sorry for is a country of innocent people who's lives have been SHATTERED beyond compare, in which nearly every inhabidant knows someone who has been killed because of this senseless war, in which the usa "smart bombs" still can land over a km from their target onto a residential part, or a school or something equally as naiive, not realisng that this day would be their last.

All this hoohaa over some woman who lost her soldier son in a war they shouldn't have gone too in the first place. He had a choice, he could have disagreed with it and not going and faced whatever consequences there are. The iraqi's didn't have one.

I wonder what its like, to be sleeping in bed and suddenly you're whole world goes quiet because you've been left deaf from the sounds of explosions raining down around you. Did they know they were going to be invaded, are they happy not having any water, electricity, safety, schools to go to, work to go to, but at least saddam isn't there torturing them anymoe! *rolls eyes*
Its this that keeps me up at night. While everyone fights semantics from their comftoable chairs around a plush boardroom, or from the cosy comfort of their computer room, innocent men women and children are dying at the hands of a clumsy, under trained hard ass militia of scary groups opposed to the invasion and the us army. Who both act exactly the same, giving the people or Iraq no where to turn.

pathetic.
 
Do you have the same ammount of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that were killed in Saddams reign of terror?

Compassion is a one way street and all it ends with is a pissing contest of which side can exploit as much grief for their aims.
 
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't guilty of horrendous atrocities, what im saying is that Americans have a very inward view and all this media coverage is on the Cindy woman ans all the republican media is dishing dirt and trying to burn her in flames, and i *think* there are more important issues that are NOt being addressed!

Ok and for all this Saddam stuff, he's been captured! For over a year! Why are innocent people still dying? Because the army thought that they'd swoop in and iraqi's would be on their knees in thanks rather the resiliant to an invading army. Jeez, get a clue.

Ok, i went and found some information. And although i do agree that Saddam was absolutely evil and im glad they have gotten rid of him, i feel the way they went about it was totally wrong and therefore need to accept blame in what is happeneing now, and instead of focussing on stupid little 'omg cindy's getting a divorce i wonder why *gasp*' as i said there is a lot more that i believe matters then this.
 
Last edited:
Well im sure that you will be able to find a shitload of sites that reinforce your view in its entirety, just like SBS and ABC news where it's all bombs and blood.

Some alternative starting points may be Arthur Chrenkoffs blog where he has done roundups of news articles that may get overlooked by more violent headlines ~ he's at www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com

You could also checkout Iraq the Model which although not a representative survey of all Iraqi's (pretty affluent and educated brothers) does give some interesting perspectives and also provide a launching point to other Iraqi blogs some with quite different views about the continued presence of the US. They are at iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

To get an idea of the scale of Saddams crimes the website massgraves.info documents the task of unearthing the victims of Saddam from mass graves (many victims of the international lethargy after the Gulf War that enabled Saddam to really supress the Shiite uprising ~ one damn fine reason that the Shiites have more faith in their own clerics than US promises that have in the past proven worthless).

You will find exactly what you are looking for. I am not saying that the country is peachy, there are significant problems in training the Iraqi army and this is slowing down reconstruction and making the political process a bit more difficult. But it is disengenous to totally ignore the progress that has been made since the wars end as well as the state of Iraq before the war. The infrastructure was not as functional pre-war ~ less electricity was being produced, resources were only allocated to major cities, there was even more death going on than there is post-war (but it was kept out of sight).

As far as your statement about "more than half" feeling that Saddams rule would be better, that is at odds with the consistent polling going back to the fall of Saddam, it has consistently been >80% better off (remember that Shiites and Kurds alone are an easy majority). The differences usually arise on if the country is going on the right track and if the security situation is better or worse before the war. And these can vary according to province ~ some of which (like the Kurdish North) are quite safe.
 
Hey, A_Wanderer: Do you feel compassion for the millions of innocent victims still living under dictators just as bad or even worse than Saddam's, but have not had the benefit of our enlightning troops?

The only reason we chose this particular country for "democratization" (read: colonization) was the oil reserves. Why else are we spending hundereds of billions of dollars we don't have? When has the USA ever volunteered to bankrupt its treasury in pursuit of an ideal? (The American Revolution, Lincoln bankrupting the Federal Treasury to keep the Union together doesn't count. WWII doesn't count either, since we didn't enter that war until we were attacked.)
 
Teta040 said:
Hey, A_Wanderer: Do you feel compassion for the millions of innocent victims still living under dictators just as bad or even worse than Saddam's, but have not had the benefit of our enlightning troops?

The only reason we chose this particular country for "democratization" (read: colonization) was the oil reserves. Why else are we spending hundereds of billions of dollars we don't have? When has the USA ever volunteered to bankrupt its treasury in pursuit of an ideal? (The American Revolution, Lincoln bankrupting the Federal Treasury to keep the Union together doesn't count. WWII doesn't count either, since we didn't enter that war until we were attacked.)

I like how you preface your comments by saying such and such an event where the United States did put everything on hold for an ideal doesn't count. That's almost like saying that if Saddam didn't murder those thousands of people, he wouldn't be a bad guy.
 
When I say "doesn't count" I am strictly giving acadmic examples. In the Revolution, we weren't a country yet, just a scattering of loosely held together provinces. We weren't "America" yet. And if you've ever done some serious reading about the Revolution and its aftermath, it was a long, tedious, messy business, with lots of warring factions and the Founding Fathers doubting the whole thing would ever work. We don't like to focus on 1783, it;s far easier to talk about the easy stuff in 1776. Revolutions are alwys exciting, but it's the aftermath that's more important,

No, I am talking about Realpolitik, which is the way nations conduct business. Barring extrordinary circumstances like civil wars or being attacked by foreign powers, the bulk of US policy is done in terms of self-interest. Like other countries. Even the US commitment to Israel would not be such if the State Dept didn't see some practical benfit from the relationship. They don't just see it Biblical terms. I am not naieve enough to believe that. And before you say anything, the "being attacked by foreign powers" argument doesn't work as regards Iraq and 9/11, b/c of course we were NOT attacked by Iraq on 9/11. We were attacked by upper-middle class anti-Royal Family Saudis who are using America to carry on a fued with the current ruling branch of the al-Saud family. Namely, al-Queda.

Has anybody started a "Constitution Watch" type thread in the War area? Shoukd I keep it in the War forum or should I do it here? I'm reading a lot on the American Revolution and its aftermath right now and would like to have a discussion on the birth of democracy vis a vis Iraq. Of course, we are not attempting to start a democracy in Iraq, but a colony; nor do we really want democracy in the ME...but that's for another thread....
 
They are different situations that lack the right convergence of interests and effects. I think that it is a fucking shame that a slave state like North Korea is allowed to exist in the world, but if there was a projection of US force in that situation it would get a lot (im talking millions) of people killed.

Just let me ask you this, if it is all about oil and colonisation why did the US waste money and lives with running an actual vote? why did they even bother staying around? Wouldn't it have been easier to keep the Iraqi army standing then stick Ahmend Chalabi as dictator in cheif life those in the anti-war movement insisted would happen.

I do not want to see US troops in Iraq for more than a few years, I doubt that Bush has an interest in spending a lot of US lives fighting a low level counter-insurgency campaign. It is just getting the Iraqi forces numbers up until they can protect a federal Iraq.

Also note; what were US interests being in Somalia? or going into the Balkans?
 
dazzlingamy...let's be honest. we're humans. who do I want to see killed? my son? or someone in another country who I don't know? that's what I thought. It may not be right and it may not be fair, but that's human nature. Americans, with families in America, coming home in bodybags are more likely to affect how Americans feel about the American government. Go ahead and flame me for that, I don't care.

I'm under the impression that Sheehan re-enlisted after the war began, so while I feel his mother's pain, her argument doesn't hold much water.

If you really see the Americans as cruel invaders, and the terrorists as humble freedom fighters, please explain to me why it's basically only Sunni Iraqis (and foreigners) who are fighting the government. Not seeing much violence from the Shi'a...and the Kurdish area of northern Iraq is totally peaceful and flourishing economically. Both Shi'a and Sunnis live in Bagdhad which bore the brunt of the casualties...why are so few Shi'a going out to avenge their sisters?

I think Iraq was a mess to get into and handled poorly by the Bush administration, but I don't doubt taking Saddam out was a compassionate thing. I love it how some people would like to convince themselves that there was some kind of peaceful status quo until we invaded.

edit: and when I said taking Saddam out was a compassionate thing, please don't believe I meant we did it out of compassion. I can think of very few examples where any country ever has gone into a war out of compassion. I don't think the war was particularly about oil (I may be wrong), more strategic interests, having an ally and a base in the region. However it's never a bad thing when a byproduct of the war happens to be freeing thousands of people from concentration camps, ousting a murderous dictator, etc.
 
Last edited:
VertigoGal said:


I'm under the impression that Sheehan re-enlisted after the war began, so while I feel his mother's pain, her argument doesn't hold much water.


She is claiming that he was lied to by his recruiters. That he wanted to be a chaplin's assistant, WHICH IS CONSIDERED A COMBAT POSITON. But instead was put into a maintenance unit, A NON_COMBAT UNIT.

He served his full four years, and REENLISTED, knowing he would be going to Iraq.

Being in a NON COMBAT UNIT he volunteered to go on a combat mission to help other soldiers that had got into trouble. While on the rescue mission to save lives, he was killed.

Based on my research...and readings of articles about the battle that day.
 
That's sort of odd. In any case, anyone who goes to Iraq in the army or as a contractor, etc, accepts the risk that they might be killed. I get the feeling her son might be saying something different from his mom if he were here, except he's not here.:huh:
 
Forgive my ignorance, but are there different kinds of impeachment? I ask because, Andrew Jackson got impeached and was kicked out of office. Richard Nixon would've been impeached but he resigned first in order to leave office under his own terms. Yet Clinton was impeached and wasn't kicked out of office. What's the difference?
 
I know you can be impeached but not kicked out...I think impeachment means that the Congress "charges" you with the crime, however you can still stay in office.

"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office."

from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
 
namkcuR said:
Forgive my ignorance, but are there different kinds of impeachment? I ask because, Andrew Jackson got impeached and was kicked out of office. Richard Nixon would've been impeached but he resigned first in order to leave office under his own terms. Yet Clinton was impeached and wasn't kicked out of office. What's the difference?

Andrew Jackson did not get kicked out of office, unless my brain is not working, he was impeached, but won as Clinton did during the trial phase.

No President has been removed because of the impeachment process year.

Nixon most likely would have been the first.
 
Back
Top Bottom