Cindy Sheehan Enough Already ?

[CaptainS]

First off I want to say I can not even begin to feel the lost she has experienced with her son being killed in Iraq, and I pray for her son.

However I am sick and tired of hearing about this woman. She had her chance to speak to the president once. Now she DEMNADS to see Bush and blast him after she had said what a caring and genuinley concerned man he was. I just think the left (or those who do not represent my views) are manipulating her and this issue.

Do you think she is just a tool of or being manipulated by the left?

[Murph64]

I hope that because of the grief she's unaware of how she's being used by the left with great help from the media. But I'm an eternal optomist that gets stabbed in the back and his ***** kicked...So, in relaity, I think she knows exactly what's going on and is milking this for all she can.


Andy

[Fawlty]

Do you think she is just a tool of or being manipulated by the left?

No more than I think that your a tool, oh, or being manipulated by the right.

Her plight is extremely sad, as it is for many people who have lost loved ones and family as a direct result of this ill thought out invasion. :(

I'm sure that at first her grief consumed her to a point that she wasn't thinking beyond getting through the moment. As time passes, I imagine that she is looking for someone to blame for the massive loss she feels.

However, she is exercising her right to peaceful protest. That it is gaining momentum beyond what she herself ever imagined suprises her I believe, as much as anyone else, but I guess with over 50% of Americans now saying that invading Iraq was a mistake, I guess it's a sign of the times.

Though I'm sure your point in bringing this up on this board (that swings to the right far more than common sense would lead you to believe is likely), was to put her and those that support her down. Thus making you once again feel like the macho warrior you are because you support a war that is just and right and you don't have the time or patience to listen to the complaints and grief of a brokenhearted mother. Hell, silence every dissenter, let freedom ring provided that freedom agrees with your version of it!! ;)

[Bones42]

I honestly have no idea who Cindy Sheehan is and never heard of her, so I can't really comment.

[CaptainS]

Fawlty,

A little backround here as far as a macho warrior goes I was in Iraq for 10 months, friend of mine caught an RPG in the chest. Devestated the family community etc, just 21 yrs old. So I dont feel like a macho warrior.

I never said she shouldnt speak her mind or protest or question. I gave up a quarter of my life so people can do that. I feel however the left wing groups are taking advatage of her and her plight (moveon.org, True Majority,Democracy for America just to name a few) and using it for political gain and turining it into a media circus.

[CaptainS]

Oh, and people including the president shouldnt take vaca, huh. :rolleyes:

[Murph64]

Do you think she is just a tool of or being manipulated by the left?

No more than I think that your a tool, oh, or being manipulated by the right.

Her plight is extremely sad, as it is for many people who have lost loved ones and family as a direct result of this ill thought out invasion. :(

I'm sure that at first her grief consumed her to a point that she wasn't thinking beyond getting through the moment. As time passes, I imagine that she is looking for someone to blame for the massive loss she feels.

However, she is exercising her right to peaceful protest. That it is gaining momentum beyond what she herself ever imagined suprises her I believe, as much as anyone else, but I guess with over 50% of Americans now saying that invading Iraq was a mistake, I guess it's a sign of the times.

Though I'm sure your point in bringing this up on this board (that swings to the right far more than common sense would lead you to believe is likely), was to put her and those that support her down. Thus making you once again feel like the macho warrior you are because you support a war that is just and right and you don't have the time or patience to listen to the complaints and grief of a brokenhearted mother. Hell, silence every dissenter, let freedom ring provided that freedom agrees with your version of it!! ;)
Sounds like a double standard to me. You can **** and moan about something, but you can't **** and moan about those ****ing and moaning.


Andy

[bobsnyder]

I feel however the left wing groups are taking advatage of her and her plight (moveon.org, True Majority,Democracy for America just to name a few) and using it for political gain and turining it into a media circus.

No more or less than right-wing groups did Monica Lewinsky. Both sides do it, they're going to keep on doing it, and nobody...left or right...has any moral high ground when it comes to using other people's misfortune for political gain.

One finger pointing forward, three pointing back...it's that simple.

[Fawlty]

To CaptainS

My condolences to you and of course to your friends family. You certainly have more experience and personal investment in this situation than I do and I hope my remarks were not a slight to your service.

I don't mean to be pithy, but I'm one of those who believe you can support the troops without supporting the war, but again that may be something that you as a veteran may be more qualified to answer (as in how the war protests make you feel).

Is the left propoganda machine (I hesitate to using the term machine as that normally describes a well oiled piece of machinery capable of producing definite results) using Cindy's grief, undoubtedly.. just as the right's propoganda machine manipulates whatever situation it can to bolster it's position and put down the opinions of any opposition.

I support Cindy Sheehan and hope that her protest makes people continue to realize the price that people like you pay for conflict.. There are wars that are absolutely necessary, but unfortunately, I don't believe invading Iraq was one of them.

As for Pres. Bush taking a vacation... care to name any other Pres. who took a 5 week vacation during a 'WAR' :eek: :confused:

Thanks for your service CaptainS :D

[CaptainS]

As for Pres. Bush taking a vacation... care to name any other Pres. who took a 5 week vacation during a 'WAR'

FDR, to warm springs, I think that was more for rehab than vaca though :)

[Fawlty]

Posted by Smurf64

Sounds like a double standard to me. You can **** and moan about something, but you can't **** and moan about those ****ing and moaning.

Wouldn't it be a triple standard since I'm ****ing and Moaning about CaptainS ****ing and Moaning about Cindy Sheehan ****ing and Moaning???? :eek: :confused: :D

[nozzelvfd]

It is ashame that anyone in the military has to die.....but that is the chance her son took, and she took when he signed up for the military. (When anyone's family member signs up for that matter) Her son is a brave solider and died for my freedom, and everyone else's in this country. As far as I am concerned she is an embarrassment to what her son lived and died for.

[Rescue101]

Once again, we don't learn real well from history.There have been many losses in Iraq and Afgahanistan,too many. But they PALE in comparison to the losses we have had in almost every other war we've been involved in. One needs only to look back to the THOUSANDS of white crosses in the cemetaries in France to realize the sacrifices of our forefathers to give you the right to speak your opinion and protest.If that picture doesn't slam you back into reality,I don't know what will.This current conflict(war)goes MUCH deeper than just Iraq;in reality and in the total conceptual picture it's another World war,just being fought on more fronts in a more "masked"version. Every day I thank the men and women of the armed services who put themselves in harm's way so we can enjoy the freedoms earned at such a high cost to those involved in protecting those freedoms. There is no "clean" war,never has been;never will be. But in this one,the "enemy"is not just in Iraq,they are just as likely in YOUR backyard .T.C.

[doughesson]

I think that the people who want to get the US troops out of Iraq without waiting for the Iraqis to be able to hold up their own country are just going to cause more misery than help out.
They want to have a definite date of pulling out so the insurgents can have a time set for when they can really let go on attacks and maybe kill more Americans as they pull out.
Ask the Marines who were on the last helo out of Saigon how much fun that flight was.
I always wonder if the pull out now crowd thinks that the insurgents will stop their attacks and Iraq will be a peaceful happy place or do they understand that if we don't leave a stable Iraq,the insurgents could well take over the country and execute people for disagreeing with them and siding with the US.

[jaybird210]

As for Pres. Bush taking a vacation... care to name any other Pres. who took a 5 week vacation during a 'WAR' :eek: :confused:



Bush has left his ranch 3 times to sign legislation and do other business during this "vacation." Granted, these are as much political posturing as "work," but it isn't as though he has spent 5 weeks unavailble lounging beside the pool. No president is ever truly "on vacation" while in office, at least not in the same sense that you and I go on vacation.

[FyredUp]

I sympathize with Cindy Sheehan and the loss of her son. Does she have a right to her opinion and her style of non-violent protest? Of course, this is after all the United States where free speech is a right guaranteed us by the constitution.

I don't know how old her son was, but unless he was in his mid-30's he had to have enlisted after Iraq 1 and more than likely after 9-11. What did his family think he would be doing in the military during these turbulent times? The years of free education with no real use of the military for fighting are gone. If you enlist now you will be in combat or in support of combat somewhere in the world. Whether you believe in the conflict or not is irrelevant, you signed up, it is still voluntary, and you agreed to do your duty.

I wish the war was over too. I wish no more service men and women would have to die. But the task is at hand and to leave before it is finished is worse than never having started it in the first place. I do feel there needs to be a switch to a much, much, larger emphasis on training Iraqis to take over the military and police roles. Once they are trained completely we can begin withdrawing our troops. To leave now only bolsters the insurgents and leads to a massive civil war.

I suppose I will br branded a right winger, but really I am a conservative radical socialist anarchist. Try and figure that out!!

FyredUp

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

While I dont particularly agree with Ms. Sheehan, she has every right to express herself in a non-violent manner..... Just like her counter-protestors do. If her message offends you so much, here's an idea, don't pay attention to her.

[CaptainS]

If her message offends you so much, here's an idea, don't pay attention to her.

I would love to but she is everywhere, radio tv, newspaper AAAHHHHAHAHAHA

Also her message dosnt offend me.

[Fawlty]

But in this one,the "enemy"is not just in Iraq,they are just as likely in YOUR backyard .T.C.

Actually, prior to our lil' ol invasion, they weren't really in Iraq either.. not saying there were no terrorists in Iraq.. but certainly less than in other countries in that area (read: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc.) I agree, there are plenty of home grown terrorists, and I also believe we should go after terrorists using surgical military strikes.. but to invade a sovereign nation with little or no terrorist ties to the U.S. (prior to our invasion anyway) is just not reasonable or right. :(

Doughboy or whatever your name is.. I am absolutely not advocating bringing troops home early. We have invaded a country and wiped out it's ability to provide law and order to it's population. We now owe that country a duty to protect it's civilian populace until the country can sustain it's own judicial system. They may have lived under a tyranny before, but their (civilians) chances of being killed are far higher now then they were before we invaded. If we leave prematurely, then any good that can come out of this will be gone forever. On a side note, I read that the new constitution is favoring strict muslim rules that will take away the rights of 50% of the population to a level that far exceeds restrictions placed by S. hussein.

BTW.. I use the term 'WAR' as a very toungue in cheek expression.. yes people are dying (mostly civilians), but 'WAR's aren't normally this one sided.. I'll happily accept 'conflict' or just plain 'invasion and occupying forces'.

And just one other thing.. whatever happens in Iraq good or bad, is our doing!! Maybe not what we want or intended, but it is our fault.

[doughesson]

The name's Doug.I stayed up all night before I hit on combining my names.No offense took.

[QUOTE=Fawlty][HTML]
Doughboy or whatever your name is..

[gunnyv]

Most of the service members I know -and according to some media, her own family- think she is doing her son's memory a disservice. Overall, I'm saddened that she feels her son's sacrifice was in vain, and can't see past his death to understand what he lived for.

This letter from USA Today says it better than I can:

"Al Neuharth used the deaths of Marines killed by an IED in Iraq to illustrate his point that we troops are not well protected and therefore should be brought home.

I don't agree. And I'm one of the troops. I believe that it doesn't matter how these brave men were killed-Neuharth would use their deaths to dishonor their efforts.

I'm on my second tour, many of my soldiers on their third, and I see no such desire to leave our fallen comrades' efforts in vain. I have four children and a wonderful wife waiting for me at home. I did not enlist in March of 2002 so I could spend more time with them. I did it to come over here, or wherever I was sent, to take this fight to those who started it. Don't bring me home before I am done.

The truth is that those who were in the military before 9/11 have, for the most part, had the opportunity to get out if wartime service was not what they were looking for. By now, most of us have enlisted or re-enlisted in order to be over here. You want to support us? Support our decision to defend our country, or do it yourself.

Sgt Brian P. Fitzgerald
82nd Airborne
Gardez, Afghanistan"

Semper fi, Sgt Fitzgerald

[bobsnyder]

I always wonder if the pull out now crowd thinks that the insurgents will stop their attacks and Iraq will be a peaceful happy place or do they understand that if we don't leave a stable Iraq,the insurgents could well take over the country and execute people for disagreeing with them and siding with the US.

Something like that is going to happen eventually anyway, whether we pull out in 10 days or 10 years. At this point, the best we can do is try to manage the situation so that we leave behind at least a short period of relative serenity and stability before all hell eventually breaks loose. That's not to say that we should just leave...that would be both counterproductive and irresponsible now that we've gone this far...it's just to say that there really hasn't ever been any hope for anyone with respect to trying to impose long-run democratic stability in an inherently unstable region...whether it's us or somebody else. There was probably no real plan, either, but it doesn't really make any difference...the only way to avoid this festering mess was not to get into it in the first place.

Let's review: Iraq is entirely a creation of colonialism; a vestige left over from whern the Brits pulled out of the region decades ago. There is no such thing as a naturally-occurring nation of "Iraq" anywhere in world history. The situation there is essentially akin to the aftermath of somebody invading and colonizing North America, installing whatever political boundaries they choose, irrespective of whatever boundaries and cultures existed before, and then leaving the resulting "countries" under governments run by Japanese figureheads using rules based on the Napoleonic Code (or insert your favorite bizarre mismatch here). Can you say "cluster..."

Consequently: In all likelihood, there will not be a stable nation of "Iraq" in the long-run, either, no matter how much the U.S. wants there to be. At least, there won't be a stable nation that we find acceptable, unless, of course, we install and support a puppet regime there (and we all saw how well that worked out for us in Iran...and Iraq...remember, we helped build up Hussein when he was fighting the Iranians a few decades ago...just like we helped to supply and train Bin Laden in guerrilla warfare when he was a Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan a few decades ago...see a pattern here, anyone?!?). In the long-run, there are only two likely outcomes here...a civil war splitting the country into two or three autonomous regions (with who-knows-what kind of governments and allegiances), or the rise of another oppressive, totalitarian regime (probably an Islamist theocracy). If I were to bet, I'd take the second option, without the spread.

The whole American premise...that the various factions in Iraq somehow magically all really want to live in harmony under a western-style republic, if we only enable them to do so...only makes sense if we pretty much ignore history, religion, politics, economics, general patterns of human behavior, and pretty much everything else...oh, except "faith" and "righteousness"...we have them going for us. And along with 50 cents, I can get a small coffee.

The long and short of all this is that what we've left Dub-yuh get us and our military into is going to continue to cost us, and particularly our military, terribly...no matter what we do next. Almost as big a tragedy as what's happening to our troops is that we won't learn anything from this...just like we didn't learn the last time, or the time before that...and we'll be back at it in another two or three decades...killing and maiming more of our own on some other president's grand crusade.

At least we're consistent.

[CaptainS]

Nail on the head gunny.

[doughesson]

I think if we pulled out and Iraq went back to a dictatorship,which is what the insurgents are fighting to do,then all the deaths to date will have been in vain.
If 1900+ deaths seems high,yes it is.However on June 6 1944,6,000 men died on the Allied side to start the liberation of Europe and I don't remember hearing history talking about calls to stop because the cost was too great.
Who was it that made the statement about"paying any cost,bearing any burden"for Freedom or words to that effect?

[QUOTE=gunnyv]Most of the service members I know -and according to some media, her own family- think she is doing her son's memory a disservice. Overall, I'm saddened that she feels her son's sacrifice was in vain, and can't see past his death to understand what he lived for.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Random thoughts...

1. The concept of a group of people swinging "too far" to the political right being out of the realm of common sense is the musings of a man who has no idea how many Americans are sick and tired of the mockery that groups like moveon.org and people for the american way have made of this great country.

2. I have zero sympathy for Cindy Sheehan. She is ****ing on the grave of her brave son.

3. Her (soon-to-be ex) husband is the smartest man on earth.

4. It is amazing to see the press jump on this story and demand justice and truth when they won't even report that SHE ALREADY MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND STATED IN INTERVIEWS WHAT A FINE MAN HE WAS.

5. Who in the hell does she think she is? George W. Bush is not an insurance salesman. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and that nation is at war. Do you suppose that he might have something better to do than meet with er for a second time?

6. I would submit to you that her rhetoric and hate has earned her the distinction of being a security risk to the President.

7. Do you honestly believe that the President is actually on "vacation"? He is working his usual schedule, just in a different place. Might I also point out that the Congress is on vacation as well?

8. WHere are the usual lefty maggots?

[FireAndy]

Great comments George.

Fawlty: You don't think Saddam Hussein was a terrorist? How about the thousands of people he gassed? That isn't terrorism? Now, the war very well could be about oil, since we need to protect our interests and our country depends on oil for us to all get to work and make a living, but Saddam needed to be removed. He was a threat to everyone's way of life.

This woman (Cindy) makes me sick. Her son knew what he was getting into when he joined the service. They make it very clear when you join, why else would you learn to shoot weapons, practice combat maneuvers etc. This woman is upset because her child is dead, rightfully so. But grieve and honor his memory and not trample on it. It is because of brave soldiers like him that we have the right to voice our opinions.

The sad part is that now all the left wing hollywood whores are in the mix, and this gives them a louder voice. This also means we get to hear more crap spewed from the mouths of people who thing we should hear what they have to say. Ed Begley Jr? When was the last time you did anything worth wild? Richard Dreyfuss? C'mon, phone home brother.

War is hell I guess. God bless those serving in it.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Thats the beauty of this country, everyone has an opinion. And we all know what opinions are like.. I just saw an interesting thing on the news regarding recently released de-classified Penatgon papers. There was a big concern over the stability of a post war Iraq and the lack of a plan/exit strategy. The American public, including myself expects that our government has all their ducks in a row when sending our troops to war. A war that I support but the day I am branded a "liberal" because I dont buy into everything the Administration is handing out, is a very sad day indeed.

[Spectre08]

I think somebody should go light this woman on fire, then when the fire department shows up they should refuse to put her out because it might be dangerous and they didn't sign up knowing that they would have to put her out. I mean, they have to think about the firefighter's parents. I'm sure she'll understand.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Briilliant.

[doughesson]

That ain't right,man.
Disagree with her but don't wish her any harm.There's enough of that going around as it is.


I think somebody should go light this woman on fire, then when the fire department shows up they should refuse to put her out because it might be dangerous and they didn't sign up knowing that they would have to put her out. I mean, they have to think about the firefighter's parents. I'm sure she'll understand.

[Spectre08]

That ain't right,man.
Disagree with her but don't wish her any harm.There's enough of that going around as it is.
I know it's not right, and I would never actually advocate anything like this. I'm just saying...

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I think somebody should go light this woman on fire, then when the fire department shows up they should refuse to put her out because it might be dangerous and they didn't sign up knowing that they would have to put her out. I mean, they have to think about the firefighter's parents. I'm sure she'll understand.

There's something wrong with you. This is where intelligent discourse is put into the toilet by an ignoramous. Light her on fire? Good thought.

[BFDNJFF]

I think somebody should go light this woman on fire, then when the fire department shows up they should refuse to put her out because it might be dangerous and they didn't sign up knowing that they would have to put her out. I mean, they have to think about the firefighter's parents. I'm sure she'll understand.


yes there are places you can get help from. :eek:

[Spectre08]

I see that satirical analogies are lost on some of you people.

So I'll break it down for ya...

Cindy = Iraq
Person lighting on fire = Saddam
Fire = all the torture and evil that he is guilty off
Firefighters = U.S. Military

[CaptainS]

Specter, everyone spaces once in while, just apologize and let it go.

[Spectre08]

Specter, everyone spaces once in while, just apologize and let it go.
I won't apologize. I have nothing to be sorry for. It's not my fault you people don't understand the difference between a joke to make a point and a serious threat against somebodies life.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

This is interesting, as I am involved in a similar discussion on another thread.

Violence is not a joke. Violence is not appropriate. You are backpedaling.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Ok Spec,
I will cut you a TINY amount of slack. You need to understand one thing. Analogy or not, we in the fire service take great umbrage to things like fire setting. Many of us have seen what happens when one human lights another on fire. Next time pick a different analogy.

Mike
CFI

[chrnea]

OK first
Spec, your analogy, although I understood what you were implying, was wrong. We do not even talk that way around here. you should apologize for using poor taste. 'nuff said

OK, on to the topic.
I sincerely greive with Mrs. Sheenan over the loss of her son. Just as I greive with the 1900 other parents, wives, children and relatives of the other losses in this war. My problem with her little vigil and her desire to talk to President Bush is that it is nothing more than a publicity stunt. It always has been and that all it ever will be. Someone please explain to me why President Bush should meet with her. He did once and what we are all forgetting is that she was grateful for his time and his sympathy. Now all of a sudden, she has this change of heart. She believes that this is all because of the Jews. (yup, she has said that it is because of our policy in support of Israel that terrorism exists, and she has garnered the support of David Duke!) She is spouting off about how President Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world. Her comments are right out of Michael Moores script. Why should he meet with her. She wants it to be a one way conversation with her berating him on his foreign policy, and she does not want meaningful dialoge so it would be a waste of his time to do so. President Bush has time and time again showed the respect that he has for our armed services. That he mourns over the loss of every one. He has expressed his deepest sorrow to Mrs Sheenan about the loss of her son, who had signed up for a second tour in Iraq. (which tells me right there that he would not approve of his mothers actions).
On a side note, to those that believe that President Bush lied. He used the same intelligence that President Clinton did along with many democrats who wrote a letter to President Clinton asking him to take care of Iraq, once and for all. The Intelligence was wrong. Saddam Hussein did a great job in making everyone think that he did have the weapons. It is believed that he did so because he thought that while we thought he had them we wouldn't do anything about it. This does not prove that he did not want them or was trying to get them. The whole nigerian report that was "proved false" was done so not by an independent investigation but was done so by Joe Wilson who went down to nigeria just to prove that there was no such connection. He was there, met with a couple of people and declared the report false although he never met with anyone in the intelligence reports.
Many countries believed, including the UN Security council that he had the weapons, they just wanted more time to find them. Saddaam Hussein was give ultimatum after ultimatum which he scoffed at and tried his best to appear as though he had the weapons. he had 12 years to hide them in a country as big as his. (heck we can't even find an 18yo girl in aruba) Sadaam was a threat to this country, he supported terrorist operations. Maybe not directly Al-Queda but he supported terrorists. He gave them money, and according to this Abel Danger report we have confirmed that Muhhamed Atta met with the Iraqi minister of finance prior to 9-11. (Those that say he didn't because his cell phone was used here in the US, well have you never let anyone use your cell phone) (His wouldn't work there anyway.)
And beyond all that, Even without the WMD, the fact that this man and his Army were raping and pillaging and starving and murdering his own people should be cause enough to stir up the anger in our hearts to stop it. 120,00+ people lost their lives in th tsunami in Indian Ocean. We all cried about the tragedy of it all. Do you realize that Sadaam laughed at that number because he killed over 300,000 of his own. The people there had no say. If they rose up he squashed them. We stopped the Genocide in Serbia and Bosnia and Iraq. We need to do more. We need to stop the genocide in Rawanda and in Africa. But our national security cames first.
I do think that this was was about oil. Indirectly of course. Not because President Bush wanted it for his "cronies", but because the world requires a steady and uninterrupted supply of it. An unstable Middle east is an unstable world. Iraq was one of the major destabilizing forces in the area. Terrorist trained there. opur troops have uncovered location after location where terrorist trained and set up camp.
We need to stay in the fight, help the people of Iraq get back on their feet. Our soldiers have helped rebuild schools and hospitals that Sadaam let fall apart as he was building his gold lined palaces. Th epeople of Iraq are better off and will be better off in the future. This is not an easy process. We never had an exit stategy for Germany after WWII. No one ever said we will be done there on such and such a date. We pledged to get Europe back on it feet and we did it took decades. Why would anyone think that we could do it a two years in Iraq.
Back to Cindy Sheenan, my heart cries out to you for your loss. Your Son died a hero to this country and he will be remembered as such. You have your right to protest this war. By all means please do, I can understand it if you were just protesting the war, but your not. you have a history of cussing out the leaders of this country and you are spouting off anti-semitic drivel. Protest in peace but please get the facts straight. Don't accuse a man of being an uncaring b-terd and a terrorist without getting your ducks in a row. I know that you really believe the BS that youve been hearing from Michael Moore and Howard Dean and the Hollywood crowd. But do some research on your own before you let the accusations fly.
Mourn your son, and don't try to make his sacrifice in vain.

[Ladder8]

Sheesh,

Kids these days....... :rolleyes: :(

[Spectre08]

Very well. I will edit my remarks to be "less offensive"

I think somebody should go light this woman's house on fire, then when the fire department shows up they should refuse to put it out because it might be dangerous and they didn't sign up knowing that they would have to put out her house in particular. I mean, they have to think about the firefighter's parents. I'm sure she'll understand.


there you go, now nobody gets hurt

[DianeC]

Mother Supports Bush
Son Killed in Baghdad on Jan. 7, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/18/DI2005081801401.html

[scfire86]

5. Who in the hell does she think she is? George W. Bush is not an insurance salesman. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and that nation is at war. Do you suppose that he might have something better to do than meet with er for a second time?


Since he is a public servant, that would make her his boss.

[Spectre08]

Since he is a public servant, that would make her his boss.
He's as personally accountable to her as Bill Gates is to a person who owns a single share of Microsoft stock.

[scfire86]

He's as personally accountable to her as Bill Gates is to a person who owns a single share of Microsoft stock.

Not a bad analogy I guess. But Gates' decisions haven't cost anyone their lives nor has he spent almost $200B on an effort that wasn't going to cost the taxpayers a dime. Technically I guess that is true. It has cost much more than a dime.

We're already starting to see what I consider part of the upside down logic of this administration and its apologists. The war isn't going as well as expected and liberals are being blamed.

Cracks me up since it was pushed by a GOP President with the help of a GOP majority Congress.

Yes I know there are dems who voted for this, but it is the GOP who controls the agenda.

[captstanm1]

I think she has done more to smear her own name as well as her son. He died a hero saving american lives (indirectly). I lost a 3rd cousing in Iraq last week and his parents are sad that he is gone, but they are proud that he died serving his country and they will forever miss him and remember him as he left them on the way to serve his country.

God bless all our service men and women and may he watch over them all so that no more die....but if and when they do, may he comfort their families.

[fdmhbozz]

Who the hell is Cindy Sheehan, and why does anyone care about her?

[Spectre08]

He died a hero saving american lives (indirectly).


actually he dies saving american lives quite directly. He died while on a RESCUE MISSION that he VOLUNTEERED for.

[turnout733]

I would rather deal with the mother complaining in Crawford all day than the
mother complaining in Aruba for 10 minutes.

I think Mrs. Sheenan is excercising the very rights that everyone "thinks" her son died for. He did not die for his country, Bush, the flag or any of this other crap that makes folks "feel" good. He died to save his buddies. Now thats a Fu#$ing American Hero!!!

Anyone who does not believe she has that right has no right believing in the war, the sacrifices the soldiers have made or any of the other "stuff" i could write.

Go ahead, be patriotic, fly your flag, put the yellow ribbon on your SUV and then say, "She has no right to protest."

Geez....

[Spectre08]

I don't think anybody is saying she shouldn't have the right to protest. She very much has every right to protest.

What we're saying is that we also have every right to yell at her and call her nasty names for trashing her sons good name and draging him around like a banner for her own political agenda. If she has a right to protest Bush, then we have a right to protest her.

[RyanEMVFD]

News is that she is leaving the site (yeah for me) and going back home for her sick mother. Hopefully the news media will leave and we can get back to other things.

The news here got complaints from alot of people since all they were reporting on was her, so they had to do the other side for a bit. Since she is local news, there hasn't been much else to report other then the crime rate and all.

[turnout733]

You said she should be set on fire.....

You have recently joined the military. The militarys job is supposed to be to protect the constitution and freedoms of America. I served 8 active duty years, so i can say that.

I think it is supporting the troops by saying they should be brought home when they should not have been there in the first place. Everyone has their right to comment and protest.

But to say that one of them who protests should be set on fire for it, well, that kind of sounds like something they would say in North Korea, China or the sorts.

Soectre, take a moment and reflect on why you joined the Air Force. Set her on Fire? Thats shameful.

[Spectre08]

You said she should be set on fire.....

You have recently joined the military. The militarys job is supposed to be to protect the constitution and freedoms of America. I served 8 active duty years, so i can say that.

I think it is supporting the troops by saying they should be brought home when they should not have been there in the first place. Everyone has their right to comment and protest.

But to say that one of them who protests should be set on fire for it, well, that kind of sounds like something they would say in North Korea, China or the sorts.

Soectre, take a moment and reflect on why you joined the Air Force. Set her on Fire? Thats shameful.

for the LAST TIME. I did not say to set her on fire. I was not advocating such an action. I was making a point. Were somebody to set this bitch on fire, she should understand if the firefighters decide not to put her out because of the danger to themselves.

It was an ANALOGY. But some of you don't seem to understand what an ANALOGY is.

[LaFireEducator]

"The war hasn't gone as well as expected" ....

The more I hear this comment, the more it baffles me. How many wars have gone "as well as expected" ? Think about most of the conflicts we have been in ... Korea, Vietnam, World War I were all meatgrinders that saw little or no progress at times. Even WWII had moments where todays liberals may have said "it's too costly .. lets pull out" (Guadacanal, Siapan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, "Hedgerow Country", etc...). the reality is that we lost as many boys in 2 hours on the beaches of Tairwai (spelling may be off) that we have lost in this entire conflict. It just seems to me that society today has such an expectation of immediatte success and data-base neatness that anything beyond that seems to demand an answer to the question "well why didn't you foresee that?".

Stay the course.

[Spectre08]

I think all anybody has to do to see just how successful this campaign is is to look at it in comparison to Vietnam, Korea, or any SINGLE battle in WWII.

The unheard of LOW numbers of American casualties is just amazing. 3 years and barely 1000 men lost. That's astonishing. When we went into this confict I would have guessed 10 times that many loses in the initial engagement.

[turnout733]

There is a distinct difference as to why we were in WWI and why we are still in iraq, those reasons cannot even be slightly compared. If it could be, there would not be such a public outcry. Americans are by nature patriotic. You did not witness the public distaste like this in WWII.

Spectre...Good luck in your enlistment. If you end up in Iraq, don't ever complain, don't ever wonder why they won't bring you home. Supporting the troops means the public should shut up and go along for whatever ride the present administration takes you on, right? The military does not end wars, the public does. Remember, the folks who support you enough to say bring you home will and should be set on fire.

Hmmm...Vietnam is coming to mind more and more each day...

[Spectre08]

How on earth does Vietnam even come to mind? What about the 2 are similar?

There is no formal enemy left in Iraq, the "insurgents" couldn't mount an effective offensive if they all attacked the same place at the same time. They are underequiped, undermanned, spread out over the entire country, have no formal intelligence or recon capabilities, and not enough numbers to even consider pushing the UNITED STATES MILITARY out of a single base, let alone the entire country.

We're losing on average less than 10 men a week in combat, tell me what other war have we had that kind of kill/loss ratio? More police officers are probably killed in this country every week than that. I guess we should pull out of America too.

We toppled a corrupt despot who was a danger to the entire region, a region that is economically VITAL to the rest of the world. I'd like Bush to say we went in just for oil, I think that would have been a BETTER justification than going in for WMDs. Our country SHOULD be fighting to secure and control oil reserves as large as those in Iraq, not to would be just plain stupid in the long run.

And I don't think anybody who says "bring our troops home" is supporting the troops AT ALL. If you support the troops your support them doing their job, you don't tell them to quit. You don't support policemen by telling them not to patrol high crime areas, you don't support firefighters by telling them not to respond to fires.

Our soldiers signed up KNOWING they might have to go to war. And we've been at war long enough the quite a few people signed up after we started, so they knew EXACTLY what their chances of going to Iraq were. If they didn't wanna go, they shouldn't have enlisted, simple as that. There are other ways to pay for college than carrying an M16.

I'd be more than excited to go to Iraq. I think what we're doing there is noble and a moral obligation, and anything I can do to help is worthy of my life if necessary. And I'm confidant that if I fell in Iraq, no matter what I was doing, that my parents wouldn't be out dragging my name and my career around like a flag to use for political gain. They'd be like the hundreds of other parents who look at this bitch in Crawford and shake their heads.

I'm an adult, I signed my name on the dotted line. I know what I'm signing up for.

And yes, I'll go along for whatever ride this President, or the next President decide to send me on. Why? BECUASE IT'S MY JOB. Do you refuse to go fight fires in neighborhoods you don't like? Or neighborhoods you don't think are worth saving becasue the people look, talk, or act differently than you? I would hope not, or you don't belong in this business.

I look at the military the same way. We know how to do it, and we're damn good at it. We have a moral obligation to do what we can to help other people where we can.

I don't get out and protest when Clintoon went into Somalia, Kosovo, or any of the other dozens of places he sent our troops to die. And many of them were FAR more futile and hard fought than anything our troops are seeing in Iraq.

[Spectre08]

Oh, and there is a public outcry in this country because the generation of people protesting, 20 - 50 have never seen a REAL war. They've never seen what has to be done. They've grown up with movies and video games, instant gratification. They expected us to roll into Iraq, set up a government, and be out in 6 months. Slam, bam, thank you ma'am.

These same bunch of panty waist ingrates would be out in the streets RIOTING if they'd been around during WWII. People back then supported the war because they UNDERSTOOD IT. They UNDERSTOOD what was at risk. Our country wasn't directly at risk any time during the war. Hawaii wasn't even a state yet, they attacked a base of ours on foreign soil. There is no way any army could have gotten even CLOSE the U.S. The people of america are in greater danger NOW than they were at any time during any other war.

[Spectre08]

And another thing. My grandfather is a 20 yet of Air Force Intelligence. He was IN vietnam for 2 tours and earned 2 bronze stars, a purple heart, and several other medals for meritorious service there.

He doesn't like bush, he didn't agree with the war when we went in, he still doesn't. But one thing he REALLY hates is when he hears people comparing this to Vietnam. He in no way supports pulling out our troops until the job we started is DONE. He saw first hand what happens when you quit something half way through before you're done. He would have prefered that we never went in, but as much a mistake as he thinks it was to go in he realizes that to pull out now would be 10000 times worse.

[Plattsfire2]

Oh, and there is a public outcry in this country because the generation of people protesting, 20 - 50 have never seen a REAL war. They've never seen what has to be done. They've grown up with movies and video games, instant gratification. They expected us to roll into Iraq, set up a government, and be out in 6 months. Slam, bam, thank you ma'am.

These same bunch of panty waist ingrates would be out in the streets RIOTING if they'd been around during WWII. People back then supported the war because they UNDERSTOOD IT. They UNDERSTOOD what was at risk. Our country wasn't directly at risk any time during the war. Hawaii wasn't even a state yet, they attacked a base of ours on foreign soil. There is no way any army could have gotten even CLOSE the U.S. The people of america are in greater danger NOW than they were at any time during any other war.


Uhh... ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Oh wait, we weren't technically at war then, so I guess your statement is correct. :rolleyes:


And I guess you weren't around then, so you couldn't have known.


You're going to learn a LOT in basic training. Lets see you argue with your TI like this.

[hwoods]

1. I have no clue who this woman is, and I wish no ill will toward her. Whatever the problem is, the horse is dead, it's time to move on.

2. Major problem with the middle East, WE have no B***S for what is really needed, which is to level the entire area into one big sand flat without a single living thing on it, then start fresh.

3. We also ....... Tones, I'll be back. Damn AFA's. Now, where was I? Oh, OK..

3. There is a critical and immediate need to dismantle the State Department. These idiot cookie pushers seem to enjoy apoligizing for stupid stuff. I don't care if I offend someone, or that I offend someone's entire nation. Get over it, or get lost.

4. Change the title and duties of the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Offense. Let the Term "Pre-Emptive Strike" Define our direction for many years to come.

[scfire86]

2. Major problem with the middle East, WE have no B***S for what is really needed, which is to level the entire area into one big sand flat without a single living thing on it, then start fresh.


Other than mass murder, what would that get us?

And you don't really believe that would solve any problems, do you?

[CaptainGonzo]

Cindy Sheehan certainly has the right to protest.
Cindy Sheehan still hasn't finished her grieving process.
Cindy Sheehan is being used by both sides.

[turnout733]

Gonzo...That minimalist response is right on the money.

I just think that woman has more of a right to speak out that even Bush does. He has sacrificed nothing. He could not even complete his National Gaurd obligation.

Of course he won't talk to her. There is nothing it would accomplish anyway, he already did talk to her. But she has the right more than any of us to say what she wants. Her son is in the ground because of this war.

Spectre....I'm just happy you are joining the Air Force and ur staying away from my ex-service. Good luck to you.

Excited to go to iraq huh?...Yeah...Right...

[Rescue101]

Harve,I was thinking more along the lines of GLASS but you'd have to make an arrangement.Pull out the troops,let the insurgents think they won and rush back in,then neutralise the situation.I also believe if one digs up enough desert all the "stuff" that was "never"there will be discovered. Suddam had oodles of time to bury his secrets,they were there during GB1 and Clinton;they didn't just evaporate. And to those who can't equate the current war to Vietnam,Korea,WW2,WW1. In at least Vietnam and Korea many decisions were based on bad information:IE Iraq.So called military intelligence was, at best, less than optimum.And pencil pushers, as Harve so well points out,tied the hands of the troops in the field. Operation Rolling Thunder comes to mind.It's difficult to defeat an enemy that has put the equivalent of cities undergroung all over the north side and tied them together with tunnels.The Middle East hasn't been "stable" since Cain and Able,for some reason we think we've got an instant cure for it now? Uh huh,NOT! Are we in greater danger now than ever before? I believe we are,for forces now even within,are trying to tear the country apart.And I'm not talking about "towelheads",I'm talking about Berkley liberals,mamas kids who have no concept what a product or food is or where it comes from.We invest billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries that would like to kill us;.........WHY? Those billions would cure quite a few problems right here. And I was watching a documentary the other night in which some french kids(a a few germans)were expressing their disgust of the US.If it hadn't been for the allies the French would be speaking German at best or not be a culture(or even on earth)on the less than best. Those who don't study history are doomed to make the same errors.Much truth in the statement,whether or not you happen to "buy in" to it. T.C.

[turnout733]

Maybe i did "go off" a little much in this thread. It just ****es me when we talk about the validity of this war and then turn around and belittle Americans practicing the freedoms the war is "supposed" to defend.

Sure, lets all be quiet and support our president. No one complain about the war...lets not complain or wonder why we are there...lets stop counting bodies and comparing Iraq to Vietnam.....The soldiers volunteered and knew what they were getting into.....Lets stay in Iraq until the job is done, whatever job that may be....Be sure and visit the disabled vets at your nearest VA hospital cause hey, we support our troops. Its all in the name of peace, right?

[ChiefReason]

In the beginning, the issue was that Cindy Sheehan wanted ANOTHER meeting with President Bush to talk about the loss of her son and the Iraqi war.
In the beginning, it wasn't about Cindy Sheehan, her politics or others who supported her or didn't support her.
In the beginning, it was Cindy Sheehan on the road to the Texas White House, asking for a few minutes of the President's time.
But now?
It has turned into another Teri Schaivo-esque circus, media over-kill on a story that is no longer about a grieving mother, but about a CAUSE!
Turn the channel and you'll see Beth Holloway Twitty.
Take your pick.
CR

[scfire86]

Now that conservative pundits are attacking her personally you know she's on the right track.

[LaFireEducator]

What does she expect to gain from another meeting with Bush? Does she expect her charm, whit and perswasive tone to magically make Bush declare that he was wrong and order an immediatte pullout? What makes her think thst she is entitled to a meeting at all .... he son died doing his job ... a job he volunteered for knowing that soldiers die in combat. I guess the fact that somehow she feels she is entitled to a conversation with the most powerful leader in the world irks me ... Bush owes her nothing and I wish she would realize that.

Yes she has the right to protest. That is what the boys are dying for. But no, she does not have a right to meet with Bush.

[Spectre08]

What does she expect to gain from another meeting with Bush? Does she expect her charm, whit and perswasive tone to magically make Bush declare that he was wrong and order an immediatte pullout? What makes her think thst she is entitled to a meeting at all .... he son died doing his job ... a job he volunteered for knowing that soldiers die in combat. I guess the fact that somehow she feels she is entitled to a conversation with the most powerful leader in the world irks me ... Bush owes her nothing and I wish she would realize that.

Yes she has the right to protest. That is what the boys are dying for. But no, she does not have a right to meet with Bush.
she's not just asking for A meeting with Bush. She's asking for ANOTHER meeting with Bush. And she's already said that she's going to yell at him and blame him for every problem in the entire world.

She probably thinks her divorce and her mother's stroke are his fault too.

[ChiefReason]

Well, this morning, they showed a news clip of her telling high school students that this country isn't worth dying for.
If I was a veteran of the military...hell, I'm not and that even incenses me!
She needs to go home, grieve for her loss-obviously, she is going through that anger part-join an organization that supports the troops still in harm's way and quit acting like she's the only one who has ever lost a son to a war.
In my opinion, her behavior is hurting the ones still there.
CR

[RspctFrmCalgary]

There was even a protest here in Victoria the other night :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

5. Who in the hell does she think she is? George W. Bush is not an insurance salesman. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and that nation is at war. Do you suppose that he might have something better to do than meet with er for a second time?


Like clear brush on his faux ranch?

[kentbwj]

[QUOTE=hwoods]1. I have no clue who this woman is, and I wish no ill will toward her. Whatever the problem is, the horse is dead, it's time to move on.
------
It's not a horse who's dead, it's her son, and if that were my child, I'd be right where she is. More power to her!

[ChiefReason]

It's not a horse who's dead, it's her son, and if that were my child, I'd be right where she is. More power to her!
First of all, Harve wasn't trivializing the death of Cindy Sheehan's son by comparing him to a dead horse. He was merely paraphrasing an old saying.
Secondly, apparently, if you were to be "right where she is", it would be on the lecture circuit, telling young kids that this country isn't worth it; that defending the rights of other cultures; that going to war to defend the right for her to speak out against that war isn't worth it.
She has now crossed the line of sensibility and entered the world of hyprocrisy.
And now, she believes that she speaks for all those who believe that we shouldn't be in Iraq or anywhere for that matter, if it means having troops there for a military action.
She can talk all she wants. I'm not listening. My nephew goes to Iraq in a couple of weeks. I love him and will do anything I can to support him. And I hope and pray that he comes back alive. But if he doesn't, I will support my family and my country.
And Cindy Sheehan won't factor in to it.
CR

[kentbwj]

I'd be right where she is, meaning protesting in Crawford, Texas. I don't personally know what Mrs. Sheehan has actually said and what is hype made up by the right wing. It's very possible that I wouldn't agree with her on a lot of issues, as I tend to be conservative in many ways. However, when it comes to the war in Iraq, I'm finding that I have to join up with a variety of types of people to make my voice heard. I don't have to agree with them on other issues; I just have to share their belief that we need to get the hell out of Iraq and should never have been there in the first place.

[ChiefReason]

I just have to share their belief that we need to get the hell out of Iraq and should never have been there in the first place.
Excellent discussion point.
In your opinion, why shouldn't we have been there in the first place and if we pull out now, do you suppose those who fought might get that same empty feeling that we had when we pulled out of Korea and most recently Vietnam?
Remember Somalia? Remember how ****ed off the troops were when they got yanked by Clinton before they could exact justice on the criminals who killed our men?
Is that what it has come down to? Nothing worth the price anymore?
Since this is a political thread in a fire service medium, let me pose this question.
If someone needed YOUR help and it might pose serious risk to your life, would you help? It's someone that you don't know. It might even be someone of a different ethnicity; perhaps non-English speaking. Would you help if you weighed the risks, knowing that it might cost you your life. What would you do?
In Iraq; they needed help. The United States chose to help. The military men and women weighed the risks when they joined and knew that it may cost them their lives and THEY CHOSE TO SERVE.
I know that fighting fires and rescuing victims isn't the same as getting shot at, but DEAD DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
How would the fire service like it if when they pulled up to a burning structure, they were met by protestors telling them that what they were doing was wrong, that we were making bad decisions and that too many firefighters had died already.
This isn't such a stretch when you think about all of the second guessing and arm chair quarter backing that goes on in this society.
You may not like the decision that puts people into harm's way, but its even worse to put the question into the minds of those that are still getting shot at that a country doesn't support them. And right now, in my opinion, I put Cindy Sheehan right up there with...dare I say it...Jane Fonda.
CR

[Spectre08]

oh, wait a minute. I wouldn't go that far. Cindy Sheehan is just another pathetic protester getting too much media coverage. Jane Fonda was a traitor, plain and simple.

[ChiefReason]

Jane Fonda was a traitor, plain and simple.
I knew that my comparison would be misconstrued.
Jane Fonda spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and met with the North Vietnamese. But she was never tried or convicted of treason(traitorous acts). But many thought that her anti-war antics were giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The only difference between her and Cindy Sheehan is that Cindy Sheehan has not been to Iraq. She's been to Crawford, TX.
Semantics. It's all it is.
CR

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

No Art, like it or not it is called freedom of speech.

[Spectre08]

No Art, like it or not it is called freedom of speech.


you have to be careful about dragging that out though. Not ALL speach is protected. Speach that purposfully attempts to undermind the moral of our troops during war time or give aid and comfort to our enemy is called TREASON. and is most certainly NOT protected by freedom of speach. I do not believe that what Cindy has done crosses that line YET, but what Hanoi Jane did WAS treasonous and the only think that kept her from being prosecuted was that the government was already leary of the war and had lost confidance in their own actions. That, and more likely, the fact that she was a celebrity.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Thanks for the civics lesson future USAF recruit. I was referring to Sheehan. Not Fonda. Fonda should have done time.

[turnout733]

ChiefReason: You never served by your own admission. There is a difference between serving in the military and serving in a fire department. In a fire department you CAN change your mind related to politics in the city, if you don't like the policies of the new chief, hey you can step off. You can walk away after your shift and never call or come back.

Military peolpe can't do that. They put you in jail. When bad politics hit them only one entity can save them...the voters, the screaming protesters are the only people who can bring them home and out of a bad political agenda.

You compare her to jane Fonda? What? You have never been in her position or any of us Vets position. You may be "chief" where u are but u are now talking about a subject you don't know squat about. I look at some peoples posts and i don't think they undestand their own country or its history or why the constitution is written like it is.

Hey, in America the PEOPLE are the voice of the country, not the president. Dang, go back to school or at least read your kids history books some. Drop the maxim..

[Spectre08]

In a fire department you CAN change your mind related to politics in the city, if you don't like the policies of the new chief, hey you can step off. You can walk away after your shift and never call or come back.

Military peolpe can't do that.

Not true. If you don't like the policies it's VERY easy to get out. Go up to your commanding officer and tell him you're gay, or smoke a joint, confess to it, and take a **** test.

BAM. Next day you're on a plane back home.

[turnout733]

Ok, yep...you are right Spectre. The Air Force does teach that as an accepted practice. You have much knowledge of Air force customs having not even reported for duty. Your recruiter should be very proud to have inducted you into his service.

Kudos to ya!

[kentbwj]

[QUOTE=ChiefReason]Excellent discussion point.
In your opinion, why shouldn't we have been there in the first place and if we pull out now, do you suppose those who fought might get that same empty feeling that we had when we pulled out of Korea and most recently Vietnam?
Remember Somalia? Remember how ****ed off the troops were when they got yanked by Clinton before they could exact justice on the criminals who killed our men?
Is that what it has come down to? Nothing worth the price anymore?
Since this is a political thread in a fire service medium, let me pose this question.
If someone needed YOUR help and it might pose serious risk to your life, would you help? It's someone that you don't know. It might even be someone of a different ethnicity; perhaps non-English speaking. Would you help if you weighed the risks, knowing that it might cost you your life. What would you do?
In Iraq; they needed help. The United States chose to help. The military men and women weighed the risks when they joined and knew that it may cost them their lives and THEY CHOSE TO SERVE.
I know that fighting fires and rescuing victims isn't the same as getting shot at, but DEAD DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
How would the fire service like it if when they pulled up to a burning structure, they were met by protestors telling them that what they were doing was wrong, that we were making bad decisions and that too many firefighters had died already.
This isn't such a stretch when you think about all of the second guessing and arm chair quarter backing that goes on in this society.
You may not like the decision that puts people into harm's way, but its even worse to put the question into the minds of those that are still getting shot at that a country doesn't support them. And right now, in my opinion, I put Cindy Sheehan right up there with...dare I say it...Jane Fonda.

-----------------------------
I had no problem with going into Afghanistan to destroy terror camps. I do have a problem with a president who lied in order to commit U.S. troops to Iraq and to con other countries into sending their troops. As for the Iraqis needing help, there are plenty of people around the world who "need help." It's a sad fact. However, it's not worth sending our sons and daughters to die in a part of the world that will never be stable. Never. Our focus should be on fighting terrorism. There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, so why did we go there? So Bush could finish the job that his Daddy didn't? So that Bush's friends could make lots of money? Who knows?

As for Cindy Sheehan, she has every right to protest a war that took the life of her son. I'm tired of hearing about Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda was a traitor (even though she was never convicted), who smiled and posed with the enemy. Never mind that the war was wrong-she was supporting the troops who were killing American soldiers. For that reason, I find her behavior inexcusable. That being said, the reason her name comes up in this context is to silence the dissent against the Iraq war. It's the same reason that we keep hearing, "...if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops." That's BS. I guess if wanting to keep the troops alive shows a lack of support, I'm guilty.

[Spectre08]

Ok, yep...you are right Spectre. The Air Force does teach that as an accepted practice. You have much knowledge of Air force customs having not even reported for duty. Your recruiter should be very proud to have inducted you into his service.

Kudos to ya!

are you serious? They teach this at the MEPS station now. Except they say it like this...


"if the u.s. government catches you being gay, or finds out you were smoking weed we will issue you a dishonorable discharge and you will be gone the next day."

[turnout733]

I'm sure they left out the other things that will get you gone like beatin off at formation, showing up for physical training naked, loudly arguing with your invisible friend at the chow hall and running around the barracks yelling, "I'm clam chowder, i'm not chicken soup!"

I think you're off to a great start in the United States Air Force, a real credit to the service. Go get em tiger!

[ChiefReason]

ChiefReason: You never served by your own admission. There is a difference between serving in the military and serving in a fire department. In a fire department you CAN change your mind related to politics in the city, if you don't like the policies of the new chief, hey you can step off. You can walk away after your shift and never call or come back.
Not serving in the military isn't much of an admission. It wasn't my decision.
Like all 18 year olds at the time, I went to Chicago and took my physical. My lottery number was 98. Unfortunately, I was classified 4-F because of a series of knee operations and a near-fatal bacterial infection. So, I don't apologize and I KNOW that, had I been classified 1-A, I would have gone. End of story.
Rather cheap of you to take a shot at my "rank". Another ****er and moaner with a chubby for white hats. What a surprise.
Since I didn't serve in the military, I don't have a right to discuss it. Is that it?
Well, I guess the same can be said about the fact that you are not a "chief", so I guess you don't know squat about that!
But you are wrong about the differences between the military and fire departments. Orders are given and orders are followed. And besides; I wasn't talking in general. I was speaking to the moment of truth when you have to decide AT THAT MOMENT what you will do. Attempt a rescue(fire) or attempt a rescue(military). You tell me the difference. Either way, you could die, so there is no difference.
Stick to the discussion and keep your weak insults to yourself.
It happens that I majored in history while in college and I know damn well that I have read volumes on the wars. So don't think that being a vet somehow makes you smarter than me.
Trowel out your crap. My skin is thick. You can't even begin to hurt my feelings.
Your rationale is weak.
But I respect your passion.
Mikey: I understand the freedom of speech. Imagine where we would be without it!
Now; I must go pull out a history book. I'm arguing with a real expert. Must re-load.
CR

[turnout733]

Yes, I do have a chubby....pretty much all the time...

Yes, I'm ****ing and moaning about writings in this thread...

Yes, I AM a white hat....

Yes, I am a VET....8 active, 3 reserve....

Yes, I have degrees too....AS Business, BS Public Administration

No, I still don't hear the Fire and Military service comparison...There is none...

No, I still don't agree with you.......

Thanks for respecting my passion.......I respect yours....

I will agree to disagree...thats what this thread is about....freedom

[fdmhbozz]

Has anyone answered yet who this lady is, and why we are all supposed to care about what she has to say?

[ChiefReason]

kentbwj wrote:
I had no problem with going into Afghanistan to destroy terror camps. I do have a problem with a president who lied in order to commit U.S. troops to Iraq and to con other countries into sending their troops. As for the Iraqis needing help, there are plenty of people around the world who "need help." It's a sad fact. However, it's not worth sending our sons and daughters to die in a part of the world that will never be stable. Never. Our focus should be on fighting terrorism. There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, so why did we go there? So Bush could finish the job that his Daddy didn't? So that Bush's friends could make lots of money? Who knows?

As for Cindy Sheehan, she has every right to protest a war that took the life of her son. I'm tired of hearing about Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda was a traitor (even though she was never convicted), who smiled and posed with the enemy. Never mind that the war was wrong-she was supporting the troops who were killing American soldiers. For that reason, I find her behavior inexcusable. That being said, the reason her name comes up in this context is to silence the dissent against the Iraq war. It's the same reason that we keep hearing, "...if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops." That's BS. I guess if wanting to keep the troops alive shows a lack of support, I'm guilty.
Yeah; the Jane Fonda analogy was cheap.
Bush lied to commit our troops? I need to see that document.
Saddam not connected to terrorism? He IS one of the world's worst terrorists.
Yeah; he didn't fly a plane into the WTC, but the numbers that he has killed makes 9/11 pale by comparison.
I'm glad you brought up Afghanistan, because it doesn't seem to share the same media attention as Cindy Sheehan of late.
A region that will NEVER be stable? Just how do we know that? Democracy in that part of the world is new. It might catch on. I wouldn't write that one off just yet.
And it isn't just Bush's friends making all of the money. There's plenty of rich Democrats to go around. Even though Kerry, a Democrat, had to marry a rich Republican to get it.
I don't think you're wrong for wanting to keep the troops alive. I do too. No one wants to see a soldier die. And if there was a way to take action and not have that happen, that would be fantastic.
The death of Cindy Sheehan's son is now getting lost in the message. His death in Iraq is tragic, but so are the others.
You wouldn't know that to listen to Cindy Sheehan.
CR

[Spectre08]

I'm sure they left out the other things that will get you gone like beatin off at formation, showing up for physical training naked, loudly arguing with your invisible friend at the chow hall and running around the barracks yelling, "I'm clam chowder, i'm not chicken soup!"

I think you're off to a great start in the United States Air Force, a real credit to the service. Go get em tiger!

hahaha

I do'nt know if that would get you kicked out. But it sounds like a good basis for a nickname

[turnout733]

This is a hot topic and especially with me on this on, emotions will run high. I don't know how many times it takes to get through folks heads, but the public has always ruled and should always rule politics. If not, maybe we would still be in Vietnam, the public got those soldiers out. Only the public can get them out of this one. Bush will not quit no matter how many bodies pile up, and for what?

The Iraqis already are trying to enforce the strictest form of Islam for their new government. In the end, all we would have done is throw out saddam and create a new but poorer version of Saudi Arabia. Ask the women in Saudi how free they feel? Our Soldiers died for that?

Afgahanistan, no one is complaining, its a fair and just mission. Iraq, i can't say that and not too many other people are either. Supporting our troops also means making sure the politics back home ensure they are not misused, as they are presently. Let the folks protest. Thats America. We are not supposed to blindly support anyone, not even the president.

[turnout733]

Had an EMS run many, many years ago. A dementia patient actually doing that. Pacing up and down the street yelling, "I'm not clam chowder, I'm chicken soup!" I never forgot that.

[kentbwj]

[QUOTE=ChiefReason]
Saddam not connected to terrorism? He IS one of the world's worst terrorists.

--------------------
I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist. I said he wasn't connected to 9/11. We need to be fighting the people who attacked our country, not engaging in nation building around the world.

[Spectre08]

[QUOTE=ChiefReason]
Saddam not connected to terrorism? He IS one of the world's worst terrorists.

--------------------
I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist. I said he wasn't connected to 9/11. We need to be fighting the people who attacked our country, not engaging in nation building around the world.

the people who attacked our country are all either dead or sitting in caves completly incapable of doing anything, basicly just sitting around waiting for an elite team of CIA hitmen to come in the middle of the night and slit his throat while he sleeps...assuming they haven't already done so

[RspctFrmCalgary]

the people who attacked our country are all either dead or sitting in caves completly incapable of doing anything, basicly just sitting around waiting for an elite team of CIA hitmen to come in the middle of the night and slit his throat while he sleeps...assuming they haven't already done so

So how do you explain the loss of the 4 US soldiers in Afghanistan today then? :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/21/afghan.conflict/index.html

[scfire86]

I put Cindy Sheehan right up there with...dare I say it...Jane Fonda.
CR

An interesting dialogue. I disagree. When Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, there were many prominent republicans questioning the motives and policies. Yet no one was comparing them to Jane Fonda.

It's taken me a long time to figure out the blind hatred conservatives have for Jane Fonda. She had the courage of her convictions to go to Vietnam. While their hero Bush ran the other way.

[chrnea]

How many time does it have to be explained that bush did not intentionally mislead anyone. He had intelligence that was faulty. It happens. There has yet to be a war that did not have some faulty intelligence involved in it.
If you do not believe that SH had terror connections, then you need to go and stick your head back in the sand and tell yourself "there's no place like home, there's no place like home. He was giving money to Hamas, PLO and other terrorist organizations. He provided safe harbor in his country to terrorists.
Did he have ties to 9/11? maybe not. There has not been any definative proof either way. but he did have connections to Terrorists. He had a training camp set up in soutern baghdad, for crying out loud. A mock up of a fuselage set up in an area far away from any police training facility. This war on terror is much bigger than OBL. It is about showing terrorist that we will not just sit here and let them attack our country.
If you are so chicken livered to think that if we just be nice to them and let them have the disputed lands in Israel back and leave them alone then they will leave us alone, you are a foolish person who does not understand the world we live in. These people hate us just because we are not muslim. Caving in to the terrorist, will only strengthen their resolve. These people only understand violence. They only understand hate. It is taught to them from birth and they live and breathe it until they strap a bomb to themselves and blow up women and children in a bus stop. If we pull out, then they will become more bold. They will see it as we are weak and cowards because we did not fight and they will become more bold in their attacks. President Bush never said that WMD was the only reason for the Iraq war. It was the one that the Media reported on the most because it was the most awful to think about. In his State of the Union Address he talked about the other issues as well as the WMD.
I am personally pleased with thte low body count. Not that I am glad we have dead soldiers but I too thought it would be much worse.
This War is not in quagmire. The only place you hear about it being so is from people that don't support the effort. If you talk to troops and get an overall impression from them, morale is actually pretty good. In fact Matt Lauer from the Today show was interviewing some and guess what he found out.

"Now, don't get me wrong, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth about how well it's going to over here, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible, how could it possibly be going well here with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks that you're facing, so what would you say to those people who were doubtful that morale can be that high here?"

answer: Well, sir, I tell you if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well.

LAUER: What don't you think is being correctly portrayed?

answer: Sir, I know it's hard to get out and get on the ground and report the news, and I understand that, and I appreciate that fact, but for those of us who actually have a chance to go out and go on patrols and meet the Iraqi army and Iraqi police and go on patrols with them, we are very satisfied with the way things are going here, and we are confident that if we're allowed to finish the job we started, we'll be very proud of it, and our country will be proud of us for doing it.

Talk to the troops and not the reporters and this is what you get. straight from the horses mouth.

by the way, yes I am tired of Cindy. But she has her right to express Michael Moore's...er...I mean her ideas in however she sees fit. Let her speak. The more she talks the more she shows that she is using her sons death as her springboard to advance her political beliefs. Which is her right. Let her alone and she will fade like all the others. The turnouts to her round the country support vigils prove that she is not in the mainstream view of Americans. If there was as much support for her as you are led to believe then there would have been thousands upon thousands of supporters in each location. Not just a hundred or so.
By the way, turnout, prior service by no means is a qualifier for whether or not someone can talk about the military. President Clinton dodged the draft altogether and he was a liberal hero. President Bush used the National Guard to avoid going. So did thousands of others. And you can cut the crap about not fulfilling his gaurd obligations, that memo was proven to be more than wrong, but a poorly concocted story. All of President Bushes records indicate that he did fulfill his obligation. You can't just bail out on your obligations in the guard, anymore than you can for active duty. If you do you go to jail. Plain and simple. President Bush released his Guard record and it proves that the line about him not finishing is BS.
I am not saying that people need to agree with President Bush, but don't be soo blind as to not see the forest because of the trees. If President Bush had declared war on just those responsible for killing over 300 of our brothers, then this war in Iraq would be unjustified. But he declared war on terror, Afganistan first, (thats were OBL and Al Quedia were and they were threat #1), The second threat from Terrorism was Iraq. the next will be Syria or Iran. These people will learn that the United States does not tolerate attackes on its people or its allies.

[turnout733]

For arguments sake, ok, what if it was not intentional, it was bad intel. So, why did he not apologize and withdraw?

The cops get bad info form an informant, they get a warrant, they raid your house and arrest you. Here, in America, when they discover the mistake, they apologize, let you go and pay for the kicked in door..

Geez....

[Spectre08]

For arguments sake, ok, what if it was not intentional, it was bad intel. So, why did he not apologize and withdraw?

The cops get bad info form an informant, they get a warrant, they raid your house and arrest you. Here, in America, when they discover the mistake, they apologize, let you go and pay for the kicked in door..

Geez....

because we'd already commited ourselves and withdrawing at any point before we're done would lead to more damage than we caused by going in.

[Spectre08]

oh, and the cop analogy, it would be more like this.

You're a known drug dealer and child sex slave trafficer. The cops have a mountain of evidence stacked against you but can't move in because you're being protected by the Mayor. One day they get intel that you're about to murder 100 of your child sex slaves in your basement so they give the mayor the finger and break down the door. No sex slaves there, you've already killed them and burried them under 10 feet of concrete, but as long as the cops have already ****ed of the mayor they go ahead and arrest you anyway on all the other evidence of your other crimes.

Now, because they didn't find the children would you still advocate that the cops should let this man back out on the street, shake his hand, and pay him for the door they kicked down?

[chrnea]

You didn't read enough of my comments! I also talked about how it was always more than WMD!! When will people realize that. It was about the war on terror. the WMD intel was just the reason for going so quickly. We had intel that showed he was trying to hide the stuff. We had to move. let me speel it out.....

THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON HE GAVE FOR GOING IN!!!!!!!
it was always more than WMD. He even said so in State of the Union Address when he called for the war. We were going after him. It was inevitable. The WMD issue just accelerated it. He never said that the WMD was the only reason to go to war. SH and his regime posed a clear and present danger to our national security, Be it from WMD or from support of terrorism.
What you have to understand turnout, is that the war on terror is not a conventional war. we are dealing with cowards who put on civilian clothes and kill thousands. these are not soldiers. they are Islamo-fascists that want to convert the world to Islam, Kill all the Jews and kill all who do not convert. they will not be swayed by gestures of peace. They do not want us to understand them. they want us dead. And in a society where violeve is so blatantly condoned, the more successful they are the more will join them and the more bold they will become. You have to know who your enemy is. What the people calling this a quagmire don't understand is who we are dealing with. They are not some bully on the playground that if you ignore them they go away. They only get more bold and more people die.
Now as a former military man, I would expect you to understand this concept of knowing your enemy. This is who we are fighting. This is not an easy war. The Military never for a minute thought that as soon as we took care of SH army that it would be over. We knew that when the END OF MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS came, that it would not be the end of the war and that everyone would come home safe. In fact we knew that we would probably lose more lives in the stabilization process than in the toppleing of SH. These people are terrorist. They can not fight in a man to man way. They resort to terrorism. These people are killing their own. They are blowing up schools and buses and mosques. They have at their own hands killed more civilians than did all the bombs we dropped on their military targets. We are not the bad guys here. We are attempting to provide stabilization to the area and introducing democracy. The peacniks like to say give peace a chance. WEll, that didn't work too well from the end of Desert Storm to the Iraqi Freedom.
He only killed thousand upon thousands of his people that asked for a change.
When will you all get thiese simple concepts. I'm not calling you stupid butI think that your hatred of President Bush is blinding you to the truth of whats at stake here.

[turnout733]

I think the cop analogy you described is acceptable and probably does take place in places like China, North Korea, Cuba and the like. We live in America. I'm from dallas too, I never attended schooling that taught anything like the things you say. Either you have been watching the wrong Tv shows, looking at the wrong internet sites, or, if you learned your values at home, God help those who live and work around your family. God help the U.S. Air force.

I'm the fool for arguing military politics with "some" people who have no knowledge, training or experience in it.

[turnout733]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech May 1.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.



It seems Bush has a way of blaming everything on someone else.

[chrnea]

I am going to give Spectre the Benefit of the doubt on this one. SInce the mayor has nothing to do with the signing of warrants and that the cops obtained the proper searcha and seizure documents. And when they arrived and found the other evidence a judge would issue another warrant for the siezure of said items. That would happen in this country and does happen. That would make the ananlogy correct.

[turnout733]

Yes, they arrest you. but, they have to get an indictment and a conviction. if not, they have to let you go. Thats how its done here. In China, North Korea and the like, no worry, the cops say you did it, you did it.

It does not matter what i "advocate", what does the law say? in this country, no convistion, yes, you have to shake his hand, let him go and depending on your sate, pay for his door. in China, North Korea and the like, nope, they would not let him go. Am i the only one who has read and understands the "U.S." Constitution? I know its boring, but it comes in handy to know trivial things like your home country's legal/ethical structure.

[chrnea]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech May 1.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.



It seems Bush has a way of blaming everything on someone else.

You make it seem like the President is omniscient an all powerful. Therefore it could not have been a misktake made by someone other than him. Obviously since you have no knowledge of how advance teams work in these situations than you are unqualified to discuss them and make judgements about them.
(your own word can come back to haunt you)

The President in his address from the Carrier never made mention that the entire War was over. That Mission was accomplished by the way. That was why we brought the carrier home. They accomplished their mission. On every ship that I have seen come home from a deployment, there were banners and flags and signs that all said Mission Accomplished. In fact there was one, on My Carrier when we returned home from the gulf as well. But the mission of the No-fly zones weren't over. In fact we needed more carriers there when we left that when we began. But our mission was accomplished. But since you apparently weren't in the Navy, I would not expect you to be able to argue this, since you have no experience in returning to port. And if you were in the Navy then Shame on you for not knowing your tradition.

[chrnea]

Yes, they arrest you. but, they have to get an indictment and a conviction. if not, they have to let you go. Thats how its done here. In China, North Korea and the like, no worry, the cops say you did it, you did it.

It does not matter what i "advocate", what does the law say? in this country, no convistion, yes, you have to shake his hand, let him go and depending on your sate, pay for his door. in China, North Korea and the like, nope, they would not let him go. Am i the only one who has read and understands the "U.S." Constitution? I know its boring, but it comes in handy to know trivial things like your home country's legal/ethical structure.

Slow down Bro,
he never talked about executing the guy. he was only talking about the arrest. We have not yet seen the trials of SH. Just wait until his own country tries him for the crimes. We aren't ever to the trial yet. But he has been indicted.
Lets stop over analyzing an analogy and trying to use it to puff yourself up about your knowledge. I will discuss toe to toe the Constitution of the US with you if you so desire, but to read too much into a analogy come. Lets debate actual facts and not stories. Thats why I don't use them they are too prone to error. Lets have it with facts.

[turnout733]

What mission was accomplished?

Theres this little pesty thing I was taught in the Navy...take responsibility. My point is, did he make any mistakes? they all seem to point elsewhere. "He told me this so thats why I did it." She informed me of that, so thats why i said it." "I didn't have anything to do with that sign!"

Come on, please, who is in charge. Laughable!

Ok, shame on me...but not on him huh?

[DennisTheMenace]

For those that say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are ignorent of history. Saddam is THE root cause of 9/11.
In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatend Saudi Arabia. Because of treaties. alliances, and the effect such an invasion would have on the worlds petrolium based economy we were obligated, along with 100+ other nations to stop Saddam and then to kick him out of Kuwait. We accomplished that however Saddam proved himself to be a continueing threat to the region by continueing to show an agressive posture and refusing to follow basic rules of the surrender. This forced the United States to garrison large numbers of U.S. Troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Now anyone that is remotely aware of anything about Osama bin Ladin, will know that the US Troops being on Saudi soil is/was his number one motivator and grivance behind his attacks on the U.S. at the Kobar Towers, the U.S. Embassys in Africa, the USS Cole, and of course the attacks of 9/11. So right there you can see, it does not matter if Saddam and Osama hated each other or not, their actions are/were completely linked, by greed on one side and hatered on the other.

Now as for the WMD issue, it was NEVER W's only reason given for going into Iraq, he did not need it, he did need to get Saddam out of the picture. WMD was ONLY used as a way to intice others to join the fight to show the possible potential for evil that Saddam was believed to have in his posession.

Agree with the motivation or not, we are there and that nation is a mess, it would be totally IMMORAL for us to pull out at this time and leave the place out of control.

[turnout733]

I will apply it:

Timmy asks, "is it ok to tell a lie?"
You answer, "If it will accomplish your goal, yes, its ok to lie Timmy."

I have a whole new outlook on life:

Blame all my shortcomings on other people, plausible denial is great!
Telling lies to officials is now "officially" ok.
Even if you "F" up and it affects someone else, no need to apologize and fix it, just drive on.

Life will be much easier now.

adios

[chrnea]

Mission Accomplished= end of major combat operations
Not too dificcult

Take Responsibility
In case you were too busy to hear it, he did on national TV admit that the WMD thing was a mistake, but he will not admit admit it was a mistake to go to war. Because it wasn't.

If this banner thing is the best you have then you need to find something else. your arguement is pretty pathetic. The CIC has nothing...nothing at all to do with banners and signs.... he has people to do it for him. And he even said that the "NAVY" put it up not his team. SO my original statement stands. On every ship I have seen return home from Deployment there are signs and banners that say Mission Accomplished. It is even announced on the 1MC when the ship is docked. So don't give me this line of crap about taking responsibility. You all are soo eager to hear him admit a mistake that you look for any little thing to say "look, see he should admit this was a mistake.

Heads of state do not ever admit they were wrong. This is politics 101 Someone else steps up and takes it for them if there is something to admit to. The fact the Don Rumsfeld has not resigned and Collin Powell only did so when he said he would. (he only commited to 1 term) There is no one to blame. Nothing is wrong except for bad intel that was believed for at least 3 years before President Bush was ELECTED. This war is not a mistake, It was the right thing to do. It has to do with politics. Politically it actually looks bad for a HOS to admit they were wrong. It implies weakness and unwillingness to stick to your guns. President Bush believes what he is doing and will not admit he was wrong because he wasn't.

Sure everyone makes mistake and I am not pointing to his as a diety. His head is in the right place. (On his shoulders between his (large) ears. :D)
He has the nations future interest at heart.

[chrnea]

I will apply it:

Timmy asks, "is it ok to tell a lie?"
You answer, "If it will accomplish your goal, yes, its ok to lie Timmy."

I have a whole new outlook on life:

Blame all my shortcomings on other people, plausible denial is great!
Telling lies to officials is now "officially" ok.
Even if you "F" up and it affects someone else, no need to apologize and fix it, just drive on.

Life will be much easier now.

adios

Get off the Lie bit. I have already proven to you that it was not a lie.
A lie is intentional. Believing that there was WMD in Iraq and saying that there was does not a lie make. He had intel that proved it. Bad intel yes but he had intel to justify the decision.
Quit trying to relate International politics to little kids. It dooesn't work.

You say we need to apologize and fix it.
Lets see, WE let SH go. restore him to power and get the heck out of dodge.

OK 2 yrs later. 1/2 million people in Iraq are dead and the mid east remains the SH** Pit that it was.
Is this what you are proposing? What do you think that our troops are doing over there. YOu are mighty ignorant to think that we just busted in the door and are going to walk away.
WE are setting up a democracy, We have rebuilt hospitals and fire stations and schools and preschools and buisnesses ....etc...etc...
We have proven that we were not going after the people of Iraq but we after the best interests of the IRaqi People. Yeah we did kill a few of their civilians. We are sorry but unfortunaltely we can't bring them back but we are rebuilding their society. We are fixing the stuff the SH let go to hell while he built his 30+ golden palaces with the bribe money from the French and from the Oil for Food Program.

PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT LIE. He was wrong about one issue, Bad intel. But He never Lied!!!!!!!!

If you want to talk about the deleterious effect of lying, lets discuss the effect that President Clintons lie had on the young people of this country. When Oral Sex became "not sex". And Lying under oath even when you have sworn to uphold and defend the Constituion of THe United States.
Get off your "high horse" and get rooted in reality. Yes the WMD was wrong but it was not a lie. He believed it was accurate. He was wrong.
And don't give me anymore of the BS about not fixing it. We are fixing it. We are rebuilding their society and giving them a reliable electrical and water system. something they did not have before.
If you are going to bring up petty little points at least you could do us the honor of thinking them through first.

[CaptainS]

Funny thing, I couldnt even find my own thread today.

Just for my own curiosty, how many people here have gone to Iraq or afghanistan and feel good about what you have done.

I say yes to both.

[chrnea]

excellent question!

[scfire86]

President Clinton dodged the draft altogether and he was a liberal hero.


Clinton utilized the same deferments as Cheney and Gingrich. Does that make those two draft dodgers also? Is that why they are considered conservative heros?

[Rescue101]

And for the folks that think we should leave "Hanoi Jane" out of this;LET'S REMEMBER! Let's remember that the passage of time allowed this TRAITOROUS BIACCH to be nominated for "Woman of the year". Not on my watch. Bringing her actions to the forefront from time to time will keep her in the memory of those forgetful souls who have a problem remembering things. Saddam tied to 9/11? Choose your path,mild or extra spicy but he certainly had strong ties to the players.No WMD? It was there,verified by UN (many countries)inspectors who had to play the "shell game" during GB1 and Clinton. Do you HONESTLY believe that S**t just "disappeared" overnight? Now maybe it's in SA not IRAQ but it's in that sandbox somewhere.And sooner or later it WILL get "found". Choose your own level of belief,I choose to believe in our troops and what THEY tell me.They believe (the ones I've personally talked to) that we are being a positive for the people of Iraq and that the majority of Iraqies(sp?) are thankful we are there. I despise the media for their approach to any "news" story,all most all bad/gory/unbecoming and no "good news" even though there are plenty of good stories that could be presented. If I got off a LC/LZ and found a news camera in my face,someone would either be shot or going to prison.There's ABSOLUTELY no excuse for those breaches. T.C.

[DennisTheMenace]

I will apply it:

Timmy asks, "is it ok to tell a lie?"
You answer, "If it will accomplish your goal, yes, its ok to lie Timmy."

I have a whole new outlook on life:

Blame all my shortcomings on other people, plausible denial is great!
Telling lies to officials is now "officially" ok.
Even if you "F" up and it affects someone else, no need to apologize and fix it, just drive on.

Life will be much easier now.

adiosNo one lied, and no one has shown anyone to have lied. Intellegence was wrong, it is not an exact science. And the WMD was not the only justification to go into Iraq.

There is no need to apologize when you are sticking around to fix the problem as we are doing in Iraq.

[scfire86]

I'm sure liberals will get blamed if Iraq ends up being an extremist theocracy.

That is when I'll know all the conservative justifications for going to war were bogus from the start.

[scfire86]

No one lied, and no one has shown anyone to have lied. Intellegence was wrong, it is not an exact science. And the WMD was not the only justification to go into Iraq.

There is no need to apologize when you are sticking around to fix the problem as we are doing in Iraq.

Remembering back to those halcyon days of 2002. We were told there were vast stockpiles. Powell's speech to the UN pointed them out.

The investigation into this intel breakdown has uncovered some documentation revealing the source of stockpiled WMD's was faulty yet ignored. If there is a nexus, it is that numerous breakdowns occurred, and there was an almost single minded determination to invade Iraq. When in reality, Hussein had been pretty much de-balled after almost 12 years of sanctions. But if someone wants to believe there are WMD's in the sandbox, by all means knock yourself out. Especially now that even the US (aka Bush) has declared an end to looking for them.

[DennisTheMenace]

Remembering back to those halcyon days of 2002. We were told there were vast stockpiles. Powell's speech to the UN pointed them out.

The investigation into this intel breakdown has uncovered some documentation revealing the source of stockpiled WMD's was faulty yet ignored. If there is a nexus, it is that numerous breakdowns occurred, and there was an almost single minded determination to invade Iraq. When in reality, Hussein had been pretty much de-balled after almost 12 years of sanctions. But if someone wants to believe there are WMD's in the sandbox, by all means knock yourself out. Especially now that even the US (aka Bush) has declared an end to looking for them.At most you can say an Iraqi lied. No American's lied.

[chrnea]

Clinton utilized the same deferments as Cheney and Gingrich. Does that make those two draft dodgers also? Is that why they are considered conservative heros?

Ok I maybe wrong about how he got out of it.
Why is President Bush such a coward if he used the NG to not have to go?
And don't try to say that he skipped out because his record proves otherwise and all accusations have been proven false each and every time they tried!

He wasn't "deballed" after Desrt Storm. He used his military to slaughter 10's of thousands of his people that tried to get him out of power.

If he did not have them why did he try so hard to look like he had them. If he had given the inspectors full access with no limitations and unconditionally accepted the terms of surrender from Desert Storm. Then this would not have been necessary.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it is a duck.

(He acted as though he had weapons, he talked like he had them, and looked like he had them. Then it was safe to assume that he did have them.)

Do you know how much information comes through the intelligence agencies.
How much info and counter info flows through there. The intel weinies have to sort through the info to determine credibility and figure out what to send upstairs. Second guessing on that will only reveall contraindication after contraindication. I am sure that if you look through all the science journals that you will find evidence that the sky is red and not blue. The overwhelming evidence pointed to WMD's. That was why the decision was made. You can sit there and second guess it but thats all you are doing. Yes a mistake was made. The President did admit to that, but it wasn't the only reason for going. Quit harping on the one failure and look at the overall result. Iraq is free, it will be a free democracy and they are better today than they were 2.5 yrs ago.

[DennisTheMenace]

It all comes down to the fact that Saddam was the root cause of 9/11. Does not matter if he had anything directly to do with it. He had to go.

[turnout733]

OMG........

[Plattsfire2]

Funny thing, I couldnt even find my own thread today.

Just for my own curiosty, how many people here have gone to Iraq or afghanistan and feel good about what you have done.

I say yes to both.


I have Cap. And I feel great about both. There are VERY few people on these boards who know what life was like in either of these countries before American occupation. Life IS better for the Iraqi's and Afghani's. I don't care how hard the media tries to convince us otherwise.

[CaptainS]

Platts,

Where were you at? Thanks for your service.

[Plattsfire2]

Not true. If you don't like the policies it's VERY easy to get out. Go up to your commanding officer and tell him you're gay, or smoke a joint, confess to it, and take a **** test.

BAM. Next day you're on a plane back home.

Spectre, I am excited for you about joining the AF. But please PLEASE keep statements like this to yourself at least until you're out of basic. You have no idea what you're talking about, and quite frankly it is embarassing to those of us who have actually served in the AF already.
If you smoke pot or fail a drug test, you go straight to confinement. Period. Confinement is military jail. Confinement is where you go when you're awaiting trial to go to prison. And confinement is hard labor.
And basic trainees go to confinement as well. They do not just put you on a plane back home. There is a special squadron in basic called the "319th," and this is where the problem airman go. Do any of thee above, and you'll be in it.
And it doesn't stop there. After serving your time in confinement, you'll recieve a dishonorable discharge, as well as a criminal record. You'll be lucky to work in fast food with that kind of past. :rolleyes:

[CaptainS]

To everyone, thanks for keeping this civil.

[Plattsfire2]

Platts,

Where were you at? Thanks for your service.

Al Jaber AB, Kuwait in '99.

Eskan Villiage, Saudi in '00.

Thumrait AB, Oman in '02

and Kirkuk AB, Iraq in '03.

Where you around any of those?

[ChiefReason]

Al Jaber AB, Kuwait in '99.

Eskan Villiage, Saudi in '00.

Thumrait AB, Oman in '02

and Kirkuk AB, Iraq in '03.

Where you around any of those?
No; but I saved a bundle on my insurance. :)
Thanks for your service to your country.
I couldn't and got scorched for it.
Oh well. Hey; my dad was in both theaters of WW II.
I was so very proud of him.
CR

[SSTONER]

But in this one,the "enemy"is not just in Iraq,they are just as likely in YOUR backyard .T.C.

Actually, prior to our lil' ol invasion, they weren't really in Iraq either.. not saying there were no terrorists in Iraq.. but certainly less than in other countries in that area (read: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc.) I agree, there are plenty of home grown terrorists, and I also believe we should go after terrorists using surgical military strikes.. but to invade a sovereign nation with little or no terrorist ties to the U.S. (prior to our invasion anyway) is just not reasonable or right. :(

Doughboy or whatever your name is.. I am absolutely not advocating bringing troops home early. We have invaded a country and wiped out it's ability to provide law and order to it's population. We now owe that country a duty to protect it's civilian populace until the country can sustain it's own judicial system. They may have lived under a tyranny before, but their (civilians) chances of being killed are far higher now then they were before we invaded. If we leave prematurely, then any good that can come out of this will be gone forever. On a side note, I read that the new constitution is favoring strict muslim rules that will take away the rights of 50% of the population to a level that far exceeds restrictions placed by S. hussein.

BTW.. I use the term 'WAR' as a very toungue in cheek expression.. yes people are dying (mostly civilians), but 'WAR's aren't normally this one sided.. I'll happily accept 'conflict' or just plain 'invasion and occupying forces'.

And just one other thing.. whatever happens in Iraq good or bad, is our doing!! Maybe not what we want or intended, but it is our fault.

I think you better back up this statement -

-On a side note, I read that the new constitution is favoring strict muslim rules that will take away the rights of 50% of the population to a level that far exceeds restrictions placed by S. hussein. -

Sadam had far more dire results! Like DEATH They were being killed for reasons far less than they are now. before they were dying at the whim of someone on the same order as Hitler - lead out to mass graves and shot!

Now they are dying for thier freedom - I would rather die for freedom than just because some lunatic has decided my fate.

Yes, Iraq is going to be a muslim state(the final constitution is not complete or approved that I know of), however I doubt the mass graves will continue as the did under Sadam.

The best defense against terroists(sp) is to spread Democracy - we just happened to start in Iraq in this moment in time.

[Plattsfire2]

No; but I saved a bundle on my insurance. :)
Thanks for your service to your country.
I couldn't and got scorched for it.
Oh well. Hey; my dad was in both theaters of WW II.
I was so very proud of him.
CR

Heck, no sweat. Well, maybe a little. :D

I still have never met anyone with whom I served who regret a day of it or who wouldn't do it again if called.


What really bothers me are the people who speak against the cause, pretending to have a clue because "CNN told me so." While I agree there are some very educated people who are against the war, they have learned it all from the comfort of an air conditioned office or living room in America. They ought to try walking a mile in a 10 year old Iraqi's shoes. Or lack thereof.

[turnout733]

CNN told me so, I plead "I was given faulty intelligence information from CNN" as the cause of my bad information.

Talk to them, don't blame me.

[Plattsfire2]

CNN told me so, I plead "I was given faulty intelligence information from CNN" as the cause of my bad information.

Talk to them, don't blame me.


I hope you're being sarcastic.

[turnout733]

This thread is just as divided as most of America on the issue of Iraq. No one, I mean no credible person I have heard disagrees with the actions in Afghanistan, but Iraq is the stickler. We won't get to the bottom of anything here. I don't think I can change anyones mind who set that the Iraq war is the right thing to do and the mission will succeed just as no one here can change my mind that its not the right thing and convince me that the advertised mission is the actual one.

We can speculate for the next 5 years on whats really going on, for nothing. The truth will come out one way or the other in the coming years. Its obvious Bush, right or wrong, will not leave Iraq, so, we will see the results, good or bad in the coming years.

Lets all agree to disagree, let free speech rule and hope for the best for those on the ground actually in the middle of it all.

[ChiefReason]

This thread is just as divided as most of America on the issue of Iraq. No one, I mean no credible person I have heard disagrees with the actions in Afghanistan, but Iraq is the stickler. We won't get to the bottom of anything here. I don't think I can change anyones mind who set that the Iraq war is the right thing to do and the mission will succeed just as no one here can change my mind that its not the right thing and convince me that the advertised mission is the actual one.

We can speculate for the next 5 years on whats really going on, for nothing. The truth will come out one way or the other in the coming years. Its obvious Bush, right or wrong, will not leave Iraq, so, we will see the results, good or bad in the coming years.

Lets all agree to disagree, let free speech rule and hope for the best for those on the ground actually in the middle of it all.
Turnout; on that we can agree. And like you, my thoughts are with the ones who are there and who will be going there.
CR

[Plattsfire2]

For the most part, I agree. The only thing I know is what I saw with my own two eyes, and that was two years ago. I cannot comment on the politics and where the Bush administration really stands. Do I agree we should be in Iraq? Well, I don't know. Honestly. I can tell you I know for sure that it is a better place now than three years ago. But that is as far as I can take it.

[turnout733]

To ChiefReason: I also do apologize to you for my comments about you not serving in the military. Passions were high, i was ****ed, but i was wrong. I knew it right after i said it, but my hot head and stubborn "A" would not let me take it back. I'm sure you would have honorably served if you could.

To everyone: This is a touchy subject for me, seriously. Everytime i see a new name of a dead serviceman, i really do think in my mind, "Is what we are doing in Iraq worth this kid going into the ground, never being seen again, never walking, talking or loving again?" Afghanistan passes this test, Iraq does not.

My father works for the VA, has for over 20 years. I have spent countless years, months, days and hours or my life working with vets, dragged into it as a child, appreciated it as an adult. Its been a while since I've volunteered and i'm dreading it. I'm planning on it, not looking forward to seeing the war injuries.

Wanna support your troops? Ok, but they need more than words, ribbons and flag flying. Volunteer, face what you say is "worth it" Ask them face to face "their" opinions. Lets put up and kick in or lets all shut up, me included.

For those who have and do, you know who you are, kudos.

[scfire86]

Ok I maybe wrong about how he got out of it.
Why is President Bush such a coward if he used the NG to not have to go?


If you read here (http://forums.firehouse.com/showpost.php?p=563149&postcount=18) I retract all the things I said about Bush's service during the campaign.

Please don't use the duck analogy.

His WMD program was gutted. A portion of his military was left in place. Or maybe you know the location of the WMD's. Bush would love to know.

[CaptainS]

Platts,

I was just south of Balad in a little town called al dujal. Sat right on HWY1 Feb 04 Dec 31 2004

[Spectre08]

Or maybe you know the location of the WMD's. Bush would love to know.


One of my best friends is a haz-mat specialists in the US Army over in Iraq right now. Pretty much weekly his team is called in to clean up underground bunkers and other facilities filled with huge stockpiles of all the necessary ingredients to make some of the nastiest chemical weapons around. Yes, they are chemicals that have other uses, but when you go into a locked facility underground and there are huge plastic drums of them stacked all nice and orderly, well, you get the idea.

The government can't call these WMDs because they arn't yet, they're about 10 minutes from being chemical weapons, but they arn't yet.

And I would also like for you to tell me what happened to Saddam's WMDs if you're so sure he doesn't have them and that the president was lying to us all along.

We know he had them, he used them on the Kurds, he used them during Desert Storm, he used them against the Saudis, he said he had them, we know he had them, we didn't see him use all of them, he never said he destroyed all of them, the inspectors never found any evidence that he destroyed all of them....so where did they go? Did the magic fairy come around and make them disapear?

[chrnea]

Please don't use the duck analogy.

His WMD program was gutted. A portion of his military was left in place. Or maybe you know the location of the WMD's. Bush would love to know.

Why shouldn't I use the Duck Analogy, It's true. He spent so much time jerking the Weapons inspectors around. They would show up at a chemical facility, unannounced, as was stated in the terms of surrender and in the UN weapons inspection agreement, which he signed, and they would deny them access. Then a week later he would say, OK now you can look. Equipment and trucks that inspectors saw through the gates were gone and the place that when they first arrived was busy, was all but deserted. Mighty suspicious to me. If he really did not have them or the capability to make them, then why in the world would he act so suspicious.
Also can you explain to me how 25 barrels of Chemical weapons with Iraqi information on it ended up in Jordan? He had more than enough time to get the weapons to other terrorist regimes, ie..Syria. I am not saying that they for sure went over to other countries but who really knows. He had several tons of Anthrax that were never accounted for. he says he destroyed it, but could not prove it. He did not destroy it under UN guidelines,with a weapons inspector present.
He was either very stupid or very clever. I think he is a highly intelligent guy and he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted people to believe he had the weapons, his actions prove this. Maybe he did destroy them, but he was so scared that Iran would then come after him if he really didn't have them and it was known. But regardless he did everything in his power to appear that he have WMD. This is an non-arguable fact.
So my Duck analogy stands. Sure the duck may have actually been a chicken in disguise but he wanted everyone to believe he was a duck.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

How do define "worth it"?

Was it worth it to liberate Eurpoe?
Was it worth it to defat an Emperor hellbent on world domination?
Was it worth it to drive the North oreans out of the South?
Was it worth it to liberate Kuwait?

We may not realize for years how important what our troops are doing today actually is. A perfect war would have no casualties. But, at least in this war, the people going into it realized that one of the hazards of war is death. From what I have heard and read, the overwhleming majority of our troops feel that what they are doing is important and they feel it is "worth it".

Ask the question in another genre:

Was it worth it to save that house?
Was it worth it to save that vehicle?
Was it worth to respond to that false alarm?

FF die too many times. But very few people in the fire serice would answer "no" to the above questions. Yet, death is a risk you take every single time you respond. We often do not realize until the FF dies how mipotrant or unimportant his actions were. But. I submit to you, it is "worth it".

[scfire86]

How do define "worth it"?

Was it worth it to liberate Eurpoe?
Was it worth it to defat an Emperor hellbent on world domination?
Was it worth it to drive the North oreans out of the South?
Was it worth it to liberate Kuwait?



Germany and Japan declared war and one of them attacked us.

Which Emperor? There are so many I lose track.

Under treaty to the UN. Should we start following their lead?

Asked by the Kuwaiti government with alliances by other nations to remove an aggressor nation.

If you want to use Kuwait as an example, Hussein would be within his rights to ask the UN for help in removing an invading nation. Which would be who exactly?

[chrnea]

Germany and Japan declared war and one of them attacked us.

Which Emperor? There are so many I lose track.

Under treaty to the UN. Should we start following their lead?

Asked by the Kuwaiti government with alliances by other nations to remove an aggressor nation.

If you want to use Kuwait as an example, Hussein would be within his rights to ask the UN for help in removing an invading nation. Which would be who exactly?

As I have previously stated, you really cant compare the start of this war to any other. This is a war on terror, not on any one nation. All terrorists are responsible for the attack on us on 9-11. there are those of you who say that SH was not in on the planning. He was not responsible. And I will agree with that. But this is not just about 9-11. It is a war on Terrorism worldwide. If we only dealt with OBL and Al-queda then our attack on Iraq would not be justified. But this goes much deeper than just one group. If we wre to only deal with OBL and his cronies than one more would rise up in its place. But if we attack their major funding, and the ties with SH and other terror groups has been proven, then we cut them off and neutralize them.
What does it take to convince you guys, that WMD was not the only reason. Go back and read President Bush's speeches and it is very plain.
And as far as the UN is concerned, we made our case before them. We showed them the evidence that we had (although faulty) and we showed them that he was a threat. We were justified. Also our reasons for invading Kuwait was much different. We are not after their oil! And its idiotic to say otherwise. If we were, we would not be building schools and the such. We are going to pull out someday. Not tomorrow but sometime. We may even have a base or two there if we are asked to stay such as we did in Germany after rebuilding their country. SH invaded Kuwait to grab oil and for the port access. It was all about money to him. There is proof of this. There is no proof that President Bush is doing this for the oil. We are not even asking them to repay us for rebuilding and freeing them from a brutal dictator. So your example is flawed. Besides you don't see our troops raping and pilaging the country. We were justified in the reasoning.
Knowing know what we know, I am not sure that I would support as quick of a decision to go to war, but this is now and not then. We would eventually have had to go. No question about it. If we started to ease sanctions, like the UN wanted to do, then the free flow of money to the terrorist camps would have started as well.
All SH would have had to do was to allow full access to the inspection teams and this might have been avoided. but no, he would kick them out and then a couple months later allow them back in. He was in violation of treaties and UN resolutions that he signed. He was warned to comply 17 different time with the threat of action, and the US did not unilaterally. we actually had a larger coalition that in Desert Storm. More than 40 countries were supporting the actions we were taking based upon our and their own intelligence. Ok so we did not have the surrender monkeys and the germans with us, but it has been proven the Chiraq was getting bribes from SH and they were shipping SH weapons. Our aircraft were shot at with french made SAM's. He was in bed with SH and the German gov't i suspect was too. Russia didn't support us either but they still think the cold war in on. They don't realize that they lost it.
I believe that we as the Sole Superpower have a resposibility to help the oppressed people in this world. That is what the UN was supposed to do. but when they put the biggest human rights violators on the Human Rights commitee then they have neutered themselves. The UN is a worthless organization that has worn out their welcome in the US. They make all these resolutions threatning dire consequences, yet they are spineless to follow through. They just pass another resolution with even more harsh language.
Our case was made, we believed our intelligence, we made a deciscion to go to war.

Scfire, I have to ask you did you supporet the war when it started. Did you believe that the threat was real? If so, then you are as guilty as President Bush. He believed what he said. He did not make up the intelligence just to get "revenege for Daddy". This intelligence had been gathered for years before he was elected into office. President Clinton believed it, but he was too worried about his legacy to take a politically risky move. President Bush does what he believes to be right, regardless of the political fallout.
If you were not supportive of the war from the very get go, then I salute you for standing by your convictions. But Monday morning quarterbacking is all hindsight and as we all know hindsight is 20/20.

[RoughRider]

An interesting dialogue. I disagree. When Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, there were many prominent republicans questioning the motives and policies. Yet no one was comparing them to Jane Fonda.

It's taken me a long time to figure out the blind hatred conservatives have for Jane Fonda. She had the courage of her convictions to go to Vietnam. While their hero Bush ran the other way.


In a recent thread you said you would never criticize someone’s military service. :rolleyes: Flip flop?

[DennisTheMenace]

“I’m A Soldier In The Army Of The Lord”

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army



I got my war clothes on in the army of the Lord

I got my war clothes on in the army

I got my war clothes on in the army of the Lord

I got my war clothes on in the army



I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army





I believe I’ll die in the army of the Lord

I believe I’ll die in the army

I believe I’ll die in the army of the Lord

I believe I’ll die in the army



I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army



I got my breastplate on in the army of the Lord

Got my breastplate on in the army

I got my breastplate on in the army of the Lord

I got my breastplate on in the army



I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army



I’m gonna fight until I die in the army of the Lord

I’m gonna fight until I die in the army of the Lord

I’m gonna fight until I die in the army of the Lord

gonna fight until I die in the army of the Lord





I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army



Ain’t gonna be no turning back in the army of the Lord

Ain’t gonna be no turning back in the army

Ain’t gonna be no turning back in the army of the Lord of the Lord

Gonna be no turning back in the army of the Lord



I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

I’m a soldier in the army of the Lord

I’m a soldier in the army

[scfire86]

In a recent thread you said you would never criticize someone’s military service. :rolleyes: Flip flop?

I said I wouldn't dispute the official record that he served honorably.

[RoughRider]

I feel Cindy Sheehan has a right to grieve. The death of her son has changed her position on the Presidents efforts (As posted earlier). I also feel left wing kooks and American media are using her for political purposes.

Can anyone name one elected Democrat that went to Crawford in support of Sheehan??

Does she have any support for her position away from the move on crowd?

What a shame she is being used this way.

[Spectre08]

I feel Cindy Sheehan has a right to grieve. The death of her son has changed her position on the Presidents efforts (As posted earlier). I also feel left wing kooks and American media are using her for political purposes.

Can anyone name one elected Democrat that went to Crawford in support of Sheehan??

Does she have any support for her position away from the move on crowd?

What a shame she is being used this way.

damn it, i can't find the article, but there have been I believe 2 democrat senators who've gone down there to kick it with this bitch

and she's not grieving. she's protesting and using her son as a poster.

[turnout733]

Bush is the lord now?

[turnout733]

Or, is our Army the Army of "The" Lord?

So if thats true, the Lord put Bush in charge of "The" Army of the Lord?

Bush is God's general, the Sword of God?

Our Missions are the missions of God?

I'm not being sarcastic, just want to understand your post.

[Dave1983]

I think Mrs. Sheenan is excercising the very rights that everyone "thinks" her son died for. He did not die for his country, Bush, the flag or any of this other crap that makes folks "feel" good. He died to save his buddies. Now thats a Fu#$ing American Hero!!!


That may just be the most intelligent thing Ive ever ever read in these forums. :) :)


As for the subject, I wont bother as alot of you know where I stand and dont agree with it. If you recall, Im the one that said I support the troops but not the war in another thread and got blasted. Still dont understand why thats such a hard concept for some to grasp. :rolleyes: ;)

[Dave1983]

Bush is the lord now?

I guess it depends on who you ask. Then again, wasnt the lord murdered by the FBI/ATF in Waco?:eek: :rolleyes: :D ;)

[DennisTheMenace]

Or, is our Army the Army of "The" Lord?

So if thats true, the Lord put Bush in charge of "The" Army of the Lord?

Bush is God's general, the Sword of God?

Our Missions are the missions of God?

I'm not being sarcastic, just want to understand your post.If you were a true warrior you would understand that guys fight for a calling far above the level of the guy in the big white mansion at 1600 Penn. Ave, NW.

Yes are guys on the ground are fighting a mission of good vs. evil. They are fighting people that feel fine with killing innocents and keeping people tied to the rules of the 11th century. For the United States to abandon Iraq now would be to leave the country in the hands and at the mercy of those with evil intent.

It is a misson of God from an ethical standpoint, not a Christian vs Muslem war, but a good vs. evil war.

[turnout733]

I apologize for my lack of military knowledge and not being a "real" warrior", because we all know Bush is. Yes, thats where the real warriors have always been, the Air National Guard. I spent 11 years in the military, reserve and active and was never told I was serving God through my service. I am a Christain, but i never saw God mentioned in any commercial, poster, manual or in any school. Maybe the publications people forgot that part, so its not all my fault.

This changes everything. If i interpret the Bible correctly, God has never lost a war. We can't lose!! Hmmm..I wonder why we have not advertised to the Iraqi Government that this is a holy war. Muslims respect Holy Wars and would probably cooperate more if we just told them that we are on a mission from God. Its probably just a mistaken omission to leave that part out, nothing intentional i'm sure.

I was wrong to doubt. How dare I doubt God's chosen one. Now I know, thanks Dennis.

[turnout733]

I believe I asked you to ask the troops at the VA hospital if they believe their sacrifice was "worth it". It does not matter if you or i think its worth it, we didn't leave our flesh behind for this cause, they did. Presently we are all "armchair" quarterbacks. So, when you go to the VA hospital closest to your home to volunteer, because hey, I can see you support our troops, ask them. If they say, "yes" or "no", we know.

But, as Dennis says, we are on a mission from God, so i have a hard time NOT believing its worth it, how could it be wrong if its from god? If they say "No. it was not worth it", remind them they are fighting in Gods war, that will straighten em out.

[SSTONER]

I believe I asked you to ask the troops at the VA hospital if they believe their sacrifice was "worth it". It does not matter if you or i think its worth it, we didn't leave our flesh behind for this cause, they did. Presently we are all "armchair" quarterbacks. So, when you go to the VA hospital closest to your home to volunteer, because hey, I can see you support our troops, ask them. If they say, "yes" or "no", we know.

But, as Dennis says, we are on a mission from God, so i have a hard time NOT believing its worth it, how could it be wrong if its from god? If they say "No. it was not worth it", remind them they are fighting in Gods war, that will straighten em out.

A few weeks ago the newpaper in Phoenix did a story about a local Marine that came home after losing both legs and an arm I believe from a IED.

When they asked him if he regreted going to Iraq he said "No". If I remeber correctly he also said that the majority of troops believe in the mission over in Iraq.

I will try and post a link to the story - I will have to do this from home as the firewall here at work is very restricted.

[chrnea]

Turnout,
I have just one question to ask. When we all had the intelligence presented to us, were you for the effort? What was your mindset at the time? Did you honestly believe that this war was only about WMD? I know that I was not 100 percent sure of the intelligence, no intelligence is perfect, and yes sometimes it can be 100% wrong. But I never believed that this was just about WMD. He certainly had the capability to make them. That has been proven. But he did not have the stockpiles that we were made to believe by his actions.
If you were against this war from the beginning, then I can understand your frustration! I don't agree with your position but I can see where you are coming from. But if you only think that we were wrong because there turned out to be no stockpiles, then you only heard what you wanted to hear, or what the media wanted tyou to hear. The President was very clear that it was never all about WMD. He said so time and time again. Yes it had a big part in it but it was never the only reason. If SH would have complied with the UN then this never would have happened.
This War was justified in the beginning. some 75% of the country believed it to be. The military was sure of the intelligence. We had way more intelligence that said he had it than we had that said he didn't. It was wrong, but we are trying to rectify the situation and rebuild Iraq and give them freedom that they have never experienced. Pulling out or setting a pull out date will do no one any good. President Clinton said when he sent our troops to Bosnia, that they would be home by Christmas of that year, Well we still have troops in bosnia. A rapid pull out right now would do more harm than going in now. It would create a bloody civil war, and completely destabilize the area. We need to bring our troops home but not before we leave the area better than when we went in.

[turnout733]

I was against the invasion of Iraq, but for the invasion of afgahnistan. I believed from the beginning that he wanted Into iraq no matter what was said or found.

Once he invaded, i thought, ok, get Saddam and get out. Somehow we woke up one morning and Bam, we are freeing the Iraqi people and will stay until, well, we've already been down that road...

Whats next? How much will you blindly accept before crying foul? I called BS a long time ago......Say what you all want, thats my position. Whatever is going on, it better be good cause the soldiers are paying a premium for it....

Bush is fortunate to have folks with so much blind faith in him...good for him.

Answer this...Considering the "mission", how much is enough?

[chrnea]

I am glad that you are one of the people that stuck to their guns.
President Bush has no more blind followers than President Clinton did. President Clinton Lied! President Bush was wrong. There is a distict difference.

If you cant see and understand the overall objective here of rooting out terrorism, then I really do pity you. not in a bad way, not condescending but the fact that you cant see the forest for the trees. If all we did waws go after Afghanistan, we would not be safe. WE are safer today than we were two years ago. We have not had any serious terrorist attacks since 9-11. Are we safe enough, Heck No!
I do not blindly follow President Bush, I strongly disagree with him about our borders, illegal immigrants and his prescrition benefit. ALot of conservatives do disagree with him and he is getting enormous pressure to change his policies. But he doesn't, at the risk of political capital, he stands up for what he believes. He is not trying to shore up his "legacy", he wants to do what is right. But peoples hatred of him for whatever reason blinds them to his motives. I think that in part President Clinton did what he believed was right, policy wise. But his morals, and his honesty was blatantly wrong, before this countries eyes and before the world. The Dems wanted everyone to believe that he was impeached for his affair with Monica, But he wasn't, it was the fact that he spat upon the very Constitution that he swore to defend in order to protect his image.
President Bush is very different, He is not concerned with his political image like that. He wants what is best for this country, he greives over every soldier that is lost. Read the accounts of him visiting troops in the VA hospital. The ones that don't make the mainstream news. They ones where that describe how he tears up, not in front of the camera but in front of the soldiers when they desribe not their own injuries but the deaths of their buddies. This man knows and understands the cost of war. He reminds himself of that daily. President Bush is not a diety, but he is on the side of good. He wants to make the world safe for his children and for generations to come. He realizes that unless we stay on the offensive to destroy those that would attack our military and civilians in cowardly acts, we have to get them first. Never again will we merely take a bombing planner and just try him in our courts. We will take the fight to those that sent him. We are at war not with one country but with all of the islamo-fascists that would kill innocent women and children just because they differ in faith from them. this is what we are fighting for, this is what justifies our efforts. Our future security. We keep the Bad guys on the defensive and they have to keep using the resources that they have to stay alive. That way they can't attack our country and topple more towers or sit still long enough to get nukes and WMD. We are getting their resources, SH had abnks that held terrorist money, those banks now have seized the money and are using it to build schools.
Ask the Troops, you will find a very small percentage that are not proud of what they are doing. Soldiers morale over there is climbing, they see the success that is happening before them, they are frustrated that the reports by the reporters don't say this. Yes, they want to come home, but they want to see the job done. these nearly 2000 men and women have paid the ultimate price, but the majority of their families are proud of what they gave their lives for.
The Mission is to root out terrorism wherever it may be and our military will sacrifice whatever it takes to ensure their countries freedom and security. That was why I spent my 8 years in the Navy, that was why I went in. That was why my shipmates went in, not because of the college tuition, or the perks but because we loved our country. Just like President Bush loves this country. I only wish that your misguided hatred of him wansn't blinding you to these facts.

[Dave1983]

Why do people insist on playing the "Clinton card" when the subject is Bush? Clinton lied about an afair. All he did was get caugth doing the exact thing other presidents have (Kennedy comes to mind). It caused distrust, and brought shame to the office of president. Nothing more.

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

[chrnea]

Why do people insist on playing the "Clinton card" when the subject is Bush? Clinton lied about an afair. All he did was get caugth doing the exact thing other presidents have (Kennedy comes to mind). It caused distrust, and brought shame to the office of president. Nothing more.

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

no its not apples and oranges. you all can't seem to understand the difference between having faulty intelligence and acting on it believing it to be true and telling a bold face lie. You are so intent on saying that President Bush lied, that you ignore the whole story, all the details. I am not trying to play the "Clinton Card" but I am trying to educate you on the difference between a lie and acting on bad info. But you all are so convinced that President Bush is an evil man hell bent on world domination and revenge, that you can't see what he has been trying to do. He is not perfect! He is not a diety and has been trying his best to restore dignity and honor to the Office as leader of the free world. But you refuse to see this. You refuse to accept the 2000 election. (We won't even begin to debate that on this thread.) you refuse to accept the 2004 elections. You all are so bent on the evil man Bush that you would undermine the safety and security of our country just to defeat him.
Get over the WMD issue. The Intel was wrong. It happens. It was believed that SH was athreat, and indeed he was. I am not going to rehash all the info I have already stated in previous postings. ButI am amazed that out of everything that I have stated none of the facts that I have presented ever receive comment. Particullarly the WMD intel. If you want to debate, lets debate with facts and not allegations of lying. I have proven that it was bad intel and all you can say to me is that "he made it up!", "He just wants oil", "he is just trying to get revenge for Daddy". And to that I have told you that the intel that he used was believed by President Clinton and many Democrat leaders in congress. In fact a group of them sent President Clinton a letter in 1998 saying that they felt that the President needed to take care of this threat immediately and remove him from power. The Information was there and it became that much more real on 9-11.
Terrorosm must be dealt with, whereever it may be and however long it may take. Our service members know this and they are willing to fight and die for this. They want us and our families to never feel the horror and fright of another 9-11.
Lets get grounded in reality folks! They want us dead and they will do anything to make us dead. They are not just a group of windbags who can not reach us. The fight must go to them before they establish anyfoothold in this country.

[Dave1983]

Man, he's got you hook, line & sinker. ;)

If it makes you feel better to think the way you then by all means continue. I will continue to belive otherwise. Sorry. :)

Before you ask, no, I dont have any "proof", but here is what I think.

The invasion of Iraq was done as part of a deal with the Saudis, useing the veil of WMD's, the war on terror and the mood of the country following the tragic events of 9/11.

Go ahead, fire away. But before you do, please understand that you are not going to change my mind. This is what I belive and will continue to belive, untill I read otherwise on the front page of my local fish wrap. ;)

[chrnea]

Man, he's got you hook, line & sinker. ;)

If it makes you feel better to think the way you then by all means continue. I will continue to belive otherwise. Sorry. :)

Before you ask, no, I dont have any "proof", but here is what I think.

The invasion of Iraq was done as part of a deal with the Saudis, useing the veil of WMD's, the war on terror and the mood of the country following the tragic events of 9/11.

Go ahead, fire away. But before you do, please understand that you are not going to change my mind. This is what I belive and will continue to belive, untill I read otherwise on the front page of my local fish wrap. ;)

For what gain? Oil? The Saudi's already have so much oil under their land that in order to keep prices stable they cut back on production, if you think that theya re wealthy no, they could have 5x the money if they flooded the oil market place.
I have never thought that I would change your mind. If you aren't open to the truth then nothing will change. Although it must be pretty hard to sit there and think that everything is a conspiracy. How can you sleep at night. don't you know that President Bush has personally ordered your ISP to track all of your movemnts. If you aren't careful they are going to come get you and send you to Club Gitmo! :confused: :o

[chrnea]

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).


let me give you some info about our casualty rate!

Between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

So explain to me how this casualty rate is sooo high that it can't be worth it. And before you try to say that the accidental death rate still exists, the rate of acciedental deaths in the states has dropped dramatically in the last several years due to the higher state of readiness.

Just some food for thought! :rolleyes:

[Dave1983]

For what gain? Oil? The Saudi's already have so much oil under their land that in order to keep prices stable they cut back on production, if you think that theya re wealthy no, they could have 5x the money if they flooded the oil market place.
I have never thought that I would change your mind. If you aren't open to the truth then nothing will change. Although it must be pretty hard to sit there and think that everything is a conspiracy. How can you sleep at night. don't you know that President Bush has personally ordered your ISP to track all of your movemnts. If you aren't careful they are going to come get you and send you to Club Gitmo! :confused: :o

Gain? Probably to eliminate the threat of Sadam. You do recall what he did to Kuwait dont you? It probably has little to do with oil.

Im plenty open to the truth. I just dont belive what you and others (and Bush) are saying, is.

I belive you think it is and I salute your sticking with it. :)

[ChiefReason]

Well, I haven't caught up with all of the details, but now there are other mothers who have lost sons in Iraq that have started a
YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY SHEEHAN!
counter protest group.
Ah; the sweet smell of the 60s.
And W said that he believes in Cindy's right to protest. He just disagrees with what she is saying.
Personally; I think that they ought to clear the road into Crawford...for National Security!
CR

[chrnea]

I love it when people can agree to disagree! It warms my soul to know that the freedom for such dialoge will soon be in the hands of at least one country in the Middle east. And as we have found out in the former Iron Curtain countries, that as soon as one country gets it and the others around get to see it, then they all want it. It's infectious. Kind of like a good belly laugh!
You may think that the motives were wrong (with which I disagree with you) but the end result is going to be good. It may not be a carbon copy of America, but it will be freedom for people who lived in fear of a madman coming to their door and raping their wives and daughters.
LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!!!

[Ohiovolffemtp]

Several years ago, I heard George W. Bush give a speach where he thanked all the solders, sailors, marines, and airmen for being on the front line against terrorism so our doctors, police, firefighters, and EMS personnel didn't have to be. My reaction now is the same as my reaction then: this guy really understands.

The premise is simple, there are countries who through direct or indirect means, such as training, funding, allowing operations, providing aid, etc. support people who will attack the US and/or our friends. They may even do this directly. I believe both former regimes in Afganistan and Irag fit this category. So, I support Bush's use of our military to try to deal with that.

That said, I do think the WMD case was greatly overstated. I also think we have greatly underestimated the amount of work needed to rebuild those countries and their governments into something stable and not hostile.

We as a country are far too prone to look for quick answers and easy victories. Because of the amount of disorder and inter-group hatred there, as well as in places like the Balkans, we need to change our expectations and stay in it for the long haul.

Every life we loose is precious, but we are spending them in a valid cause: protecting our country and improving in some way the lives of those in Iraq and Afganistan.

[turnout733]

Why are we all still explaining away why we are in iraq...i thought it was a mission from God?

If its a Holy mission, we can't fail, no one can be blamed if we leave before the missions done, right?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Why do people insist on playing the "Clinton card" when the subject is Bush? Clinton lied about an afair. All he did was get caugth doing the exact thing other presidents have (Kennedy comes to mind). It caused distrust, and brought shame to the office of president. Nothing more.

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

You keep believing that. You keep believing that Clinton had no role in the national security collapse that was a precursor to 9/11. You keep believing that the national security mess began on 1/21/2001.

Come back here the day after they conclude the congressional hearings into the Able Danger project and tell me what you think then.

[CaptainGonzo]

I saw on the news this morning that our pal, Reverend Al Sharpton is going to Crawford to "lend his support"".

Add another ring to the media circus... :rolleyes:

[SSTONER]

You keep believing that. You keep believing that Clinton had no role in the national security collapse that was a precursor to 9/11. You keep believing that the national security mess began on 1/21/2001.

Come back here the day after they conclude the congressional hearings into the Able Danger project and tell me what you think then.


YES! Able Danger - So why did Clinton turn a deaf ear to the Army Inteligence company that told Clintonabout one of the terrorists that JUST HAPPENED to be on one of the airliners that hit the Pentagon(or the towers...cant remember which now) one year prior to 9/11!

I ll tell you why - because they were too worried about be politically correct and didnt want to offend anyone!

Iraq had WMD - they had already used them and all the makings to make more. They had Urnanium, although, not enriched, its still good enough for me along with the hundreds of women, men and children that Iraqs military slaughtered with poison gas dropped my Iraqs air force.

[Dave1983]

You keep believing that. You keep believing that Clinton had no role in the national security collapse that was a precursor to 9/11. You keep believing that the national security mess began on 1/21/2001.

Come back here the day after they conclude the congressional hearings into the Able Danger project and tell me what you think then.


George, Im not talking about Clintons roll in national security. I was responding to the comments of another poster. He, like others, always brings up the Lewinski incident and the fact that Clinton lied about it whenever someone questions Bush and the WMD not being found in Iraq. Its like they are trying to justify (in their own minds) what Bush has done.

And just so you know, Im not a Clinton fan, just as I am not a Bush fan. The last president I supported (and voted for) was "the Gipper". ;)

[Rescue101]

Sharpie's going to Texas? I expect Jessie's packing.Maybe time for a little low level training,SEAL style. T.C.

[turnout733]

As time goes by, I see why most of you think we should stay in iraq, especially with what i've read on this thread:

1. The troops would be upset if they were pulled out before the mission is complete, I just wish I know what "complete" means. Its already been complete once before. Saddam is in jail!
2. The majority of troops, even the ones who lost their legs say its worth it.
3. Most of you say the cost of the war in Iraq is worth it.
4. Its a battle of good and evil, fought by Gods Army, so we can't lose or have no need to pull out with God having your back. So, if we pull out early, does that mean God lost or it was not Gods Army.....Hmmm...

I'll just continue to watch and see. Nothing i can do about it anyway. Time will tell.

I think Bush needs a "Monica". He would be a whole lot less uptight and our troops could get some rest.

[chrnea]

Maybe if we simply stick our heads in the dirt, maybe the terrorist will just go away!
Turnout, you are so right, no price is worth safety and security of our future generations. s here is what I propose:

1.Lets disband the military, so noone will feel threatened by us.
2.Lets all convert to Islam, so they won't have to kill us
3.Lets put our women in burques so they won't be able to tempt us
4.Lets all go and kiss the terrorist butts and tell them we are so horrible for fighting them.
5. Let SH go because we were wrong about WMD.
I could go on but I have made my sarcastic point!

[CaptainS]

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- A fallen soldier's mother said Thursday that the anti-war vigil she started nearly three weeks ago near President Bush's ranch won't end when she and other protesters pack up their camp next week.

Cindy Sheehan said the day after she leaves Aug. 31, she will embark on a bus tour ending up in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 24. Then the group will start a 24-hour vigil in the nation's capital.

"I am not alone," she said at a news conference Thursday. "There's the people standing behind me here, but there's thousands of military families ... who want the same answers to the same questions."

Sheehan began her vigil Aug. 6 on the road leading to Bush's ranch, vowing to stay through his monthlong vacation unless he met with her. She left last week to visit her 74-year-old mother in Los Angeles after the woman suffered a stroke. Sheehan said her mother has started physical therapy for paralysis on her right side.


Sheehan returned on Wednesday to "Camp Casey," named after her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed last year in Iraq.

On Thursday, Sheehan placed her son's combat boots by a cross bearing his name at the protest site. The boots had been part of the "Eyes Wide Open" exhibit, created by the American Friends Service Committee, a branch of the pacifist Quaker church. The traveling exhibit of rows of black military boots is a reminder of the U.S. troops lost in Iraq.

Sheehan said she realizes that Bush has no intentions of meeting with the protesters, but that her vigil has accomplished other things.

"I absolutely think it's worthwhile because we've galvanized the peace movement," she said. "We've started people talking about the war again."


Sheehan's protest in Crawford has encouraged anti-war activists to join her and prompted peace vigils nationwide. She also continues to draw harsh criticism.

More Bush supporters arrived and pitched tents at the newly dubbed "Camp Reality," located in a ditch across the street from the war protesters' site along the main road leading to the president's ranch.

"People have said, `Enough is enough - enough Bush bashing,'" said Gregg Garvey of Keystone Heights, Fla., whose 23-year-old son Justin died in Iraq in 2003. "This (protest) does not represent all of America."

Conservative activists and military families also were en route to Crawford from California on a tour called "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" The caravan coordinated by Move America Forward plans to hold a pro-Bush rally in town Saturday.

Bush has said he recognizes Sheehan's right to protest and understands her anguish, although she does not represent the views of many families he has met with.

Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to become a vocal opponent of the war.










I heard an interview she did with PBS the other day, do you know how many gold star mothers are down there with her? 6. Know how many other moms with kids in Iraq are with her? another 6. Now my math sucks, but 6+6=12. Wow with numbers like that she totally represents what servicemembers families ideals and thoughts are :rolleyes:

[turnout733]

We entered Iraq to get Terrorists? I must have been watching another channel when that was broadcast. I would have sworn it was to knock over Saddam and search for WMD.

No, we should not do all of those things you said. We are on a mission from God, right? I don't think he would like his authority underminded.

Lets see..

Day one: Go in and search for WMD, and oh yeah, get Saddam.

Frago: Oh, uh, now we are going to set up a Democratic government there.

Frago: Uh, well, now we have a terrorist problem there, we're staying a little longer.

If its a terrorst issue, why have we not invaded Saudi, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Horn of Africa. Come on, are u guys that dense? You realy believe all of that crap, really?

Sarcasm aside, you really believe all of the whys? Most of the hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis. Come on.

[chrnea]

Did you hear what she said to Chris Matthew's on Hardball?
Atleast most of you who I disagree with in this thread can see that Afghanistan was absolutely Justified. But she doesn't!

Matthews said, "Can I ask you a tough question -- a very tough question? If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling," huh? Huh?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing, where we're fighting terrorism -- or terrorists, we're saying -- but they're not contained in a country. You know, this is an ideology and not an in an enemy, and we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America .

Next question, Matthews says, "But Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban and Al-Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11."

SHEEHAN: Then we should have gone after Al-Qaeda, and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

This women is not a greiving mother anymore, She is a peacenik activist and and is doing her sons sacrifice and memory a great disservice!

[RoughRider]

Why do people insist on playing the "Clinton card" when the subject is Bush? Clinton lied about an afair. All he did was get caugth doing the exact thing other presidents have (Kennedy comes to mind). It caused distrust, and brought shame to the office of president. Nothing more.

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

Wasn't he disbarred, and impeached by the Senete by two thirds majority vote? Yes, he lied about an affair. But he lied under oath to a Grand Jury.

Take a look.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

[chrnea]

We entered Iraq to get Terrorists? I must have been watching another channel when that was broadcast. I would have sworn it was to knock over Saddam and search for WMD.

No, we should not do all of those things you said. We are on a mission from God, right? I don't think he would like his authority underminded.

Lets see..

Day one: Go in and search for WMD, and oh yeah, get Saddam.

Frago: Oh, uh, now we are going to set up a Democratic government there.

Frago: Uh, well, now we have a terrorist problem there, we're staying a little longer.

If its a terrorst issue, why have we not invaded Saudi, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Horn of Africa. Come on, are u guys that dense? You realy believe all of that crap, really?

Sarcasm aside, you really believe all of the whys? Most of the hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis. Come on.

I know that I could present the mountain of evidence that exists that shows that the Iraqi regime was filtering millions of dollars to the terrorist organizations, but you wouldn't believe it. So why bother.
You were obviously to dense to hear all the reasons for going in when President laid them out the first time. I have restated them here for you and yet you still refuse to listen.
You pretend to have such a high horse about this subject. You bash thosed that believe that this is a war about good and evil and that believe that it is a rightoeus war. Since you obviously can't seem to quit using that in your half hearted replies. I have explained to you time and time again it was the fact that it was always about more than WMD and that SH had to go.
Sarcasm aside, you really believe all of the whys? Most of the hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis. Come on.

The why did we go to Afghanistan, OBL is a Saudi.
Come on, thats about the lamest reply I have heard yet. Why did we go after Germany in WW2. Hitler was born in Austria!!

If its a terrorst issue, why have we not invaded Saudi, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Horn of Africa. Come on, are u guys that dense? You realy believe all of that crap, really?

Well we didn't have to go into Libya to get him to turn over all his WMD stuff did we? And who says that once Iraq is atable that there won't be more to follow. No one is sayiing that once Iraq is free that it will be done. This will be an ongoing fight.

[chrnea]

Wasn't he disbarred, and impeached by the Senete by two thirds majority vote? Yes, he lied about an affair. But he lied under oath to a Grand Jury.

Take a look.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
for those that are going to start ranting about this guys mistake and not knowing the Constitution, I am sure he means that he was impeached by the House and disbarred from ABA.

[ChiefReason]

Bush, Bush, Bush...
You know; it literally took an act of Congress to get us into Iraq.
Bush didn't do it alone.
The people that WE elected to represent OUR interests voted to send troops.
You can talk about the character of Clinton and Bush all you want, but the fact of the matter is that we are there because of the collective efforts of the public, their representatives, their military and their President and Commander-in-Chief.
"I didn't vote for him" doesn't matter.
"I don't like him" doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is that our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, cousins and friends that are still serving ANYWHERE in this hostile world clearly understands that we love and support them.
Do that however you see fit. If that is saying that you agree/disagree that we should be in Iraq, fine.
If you believe that an anti-Bush message shows that support, then fine.
If you think that visiting with the soldiers that are already home, way to go.
If you think that going to Crawford, TX shows our soldiers that you support them, that is your right.
With all of that said, if I were a soldier, I think that I would feel that I'm getting mixed signals.
Personally, I am going to ask my nephew who is GOING TO IRAQ what I can do for him to show my support.
At this point, I believe that he is in the best position to know and then I will do everything I can until he tells me otherwise.
Out.
CR

[RoughRider]

Thats correct, my apologies. Fat finger syndrome.

[turnout733]

This will be a long fight. I do not prescribe to "group think", I think for myself. I don't own a horse, high or low.

Bash? I'm bashing but you are not? Hmmm...

We look out the same window and see two different things. We listen to the same speech, you hear truth, I hear BS.

Once again, time will tell all.

[Spectre08]

Personally, I am going to ask my nephew who is GOING TO IRAQ what I can do for him to show my support.

I asked my buddy, who's in Iraq right now cleaning up the chemical weapons that the media says don't exist, that very question. And he said to throw **** out the window of my car when I see protesters.

What's funny is that before he went he didn't say that, he was all on the "they have a right to protest, I don't agree with them, but they have a right...bla bla bla" trip. Then when he came back on R&R after 6 months he was downright hostile toward the most vocal anti-Iraq crowd. He's back in Iraq now, and he loves his job.

[Dave1983]

Wasn't he disbarred, and impeached by the Senete by two thirds majority vote? Yes, he lied about an affair. But he lied under oath to a Grand Jury.

Take a look.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm


Again, this has what to do with Bush & Iraq? I know all you "W" huggers want to bring Slick Willie up everytime someone gose after your boy, but please, stay on subject. ;)

Chief, as always, you make great points. Bush didnt do it alone. But do you really think the Republican controlled congress, along with a large portion of our citizens, still reeling from 9/11, wouldnt support his decision (which I think he took advantage of)? And when did the armed forces ever go againts the wishes of a sitting president?

I just have a hard time buying the story behind the Iraq invasion. If this is about the war on terror, then why are we still in bed with the Saudis? Osama is a Saudi, most of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis, many of the insergents attacking our troops in Iraq are Saudis so why are we still kissing the Saudis a**es? If your talking an effect on terror, maybe we invaded the wrong country.

[CaptainS]

This is my own warpped vision.

I have heard that our war is for imperialistic gain and oil. Well you know what maybe we should become an imperialist nation.

Lets tripple the size of our armed forces and march right through the middle east. Take all the oil, gain control of the Suez set up a toll booth, we can set up a summer recreation resort in UAE for all of the oil refinery workers ( now that we have control over the oil wells we can create more jobs). We can also start a new national past time of tackle camel racing with a track in each of our new territories. Unlike Puerto Rico these guys will want to become states right away, so we can have at least 60 states.

I would bet the people would register as conservitaves or extreme far right. The democrats would be in serious trouble then.

And think of all that sand, we can make vynil replacement windows real cheap (again more jobs, wich equals more money that we can fund our pork barrel projects with).

And think we would half of the world by the balls.

For the enviromental wackos out there, this means no more drilling in Alaska. :eek: Arent you happy know?

Seriously how many countries or territories have laid claim to during our imperialist time? The Phillipeans, Cuba, Panama, and a bunch of worthless Islands (for the most part) in the pacific. Dont go there about the continental US and stealing the land from the spanish, french and indians that was "destiny"

;)

[RoughRider]

Why do people insist on playing the "Clinton card" when the subject is Bush? Clinton lied about an afair. All he did was get caugth doing the exact thing other presidents have (Kennedy comes to mind). It caused distrust, and brought shame to the office of president. Nothing more.

Bush lied (er, had bad information) and its cost almost 2000 US lives (so far).

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

Dave,

I don't agree with all of Bush's policies. I certainly respect your position regarding The War on Terrorism. I don’t agree but respect it. I was specifically addressing your statements about Clinton’s actions. The man lied under oath to a Grand Jury. A sitting President lied under oath. The man swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The ABA felt that his crime was egregious enough to disbar him for his crime.

I'm sorry my post was not clear on that point. I over served myself with a bottle of Pinot Grigio last night and thought I could think and write clearly this morning. Obviously, I was wrong.

BTW~ I could care less that he was getting BJ under his desk. I only wish he Kennedy's taste.
:D

[Spectre08]

This is my own warpped vision.

I have heard that our war is for imperialistic gain and oil. Well you know what maybe we should become an imperialist nation.

Lets tripple the size of our armed forces and march right through the middle east. Take all the oil, gain control of the Suez set up a toll booth, we can set up a summer recreation resort in UAE for all of the oil refinery workers ( now that we have control over the oil wells we can create more jobs). We can also start a new national past time of tackle camel racing with a track in each of our new territories. Unlike Puerto Rico these guys will want to become states right away, so we can have at least 60 states.

I would bet the people would register as conservitaves or extreme far right. The democrats would be in serious trouble then.

And think of all that sand, we can make vynil replacement windows real cheap (again more jobs, wich equals more money that we can fund our pork barrel projects with).

And think we would half of the world by the balls.

For the enviromental wackos out there, this means no more drilling in Alaska. :eek: Arent you happy know?

Seriously how many countries or territories have laid claim to during our imperialist time? The Phillipeans, Cuba, Panama, and a bunch of worthless Islands (for the most part) in the pacific. Dont go there about the continental US and stealing the land from the spanish, french and indians that was "destiny"

;)

In my international policy class in college I wrote an entire report on why the U.S. should increase the size of it's military and use it to seize control of Venesuela, Saudi Arabia, and any other country who won't kneel before us and provide us with what we want when we want it.

I got an A on that paper, and the teacher was an extreme leftist anti-war freak. :cool:

[Dave1983]

Dave,

I don't agree with all of Bush's policies. I certainly respect your position regarding The War on Terrorism. I don’t agree but respect it. I was specifically addressing your statements about Clinton’s actions. The man lied under oath to a Grand Jury. A sitting President lied under oath. The man swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The ABA felt that his crime was egregious enough to disbar him for his crime.

I'm sorry my post was not clear on that point. I over served myself with a bottle of Pinot Grigio last night and thought I could think and write clearly this morning. Obviously, I was wrong.

BTW~ I could care less that he was getting BJ under his desk. I only wish he Kennedy's taste.
:D

I got your point, I just dont see what it has to do with the subject matter of Bush and the war in Iraq. Nothing more, nothing less.

Like I said, I really dont care what Clinton did as I dont support him anymore then I support Bush.

But its all good. :)

And your right, Monica was butt ugly. If thats the best a president can do what chance do we low lifes have? :eek: :D

[Spectre08]

And your right, Monica was butt ugly. If thats the best a president can do what chance do we low lifes have?

****, you think Monica was ugly, you should see the women who accused him of sexual harassment and having had sex with while he was gov. of Arkansas. Scary stuff man.

[chrnea]

I just want to say that although I strongly disagree with some in this thread, I highly respect your opinion, I just want it to be clear that I have not and never will intentionally bashed anyone in this forum. (I will bash Liberal politicians from time to time, but they chose to run for office..therefore they are free game) These debates are invigorating and stimulating. And just for those that "think I am a mindless Bush Fan," The discussion on this topic has caused me to rethink the war, but after much deliberation my stance has become stronger, And I hope that if nothing else thatI have caused you to at least reevaluate yours. Not that I necessarily want you to change your mind. I would much rather debate a staunch liberal than a wishy washy moderate who flip flops at the drop of a hat. Much more exciting.
I can basically sum up what I think we all agree on, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I think that we all agree that we are in this now, for what ever reason, and we have to see Iraq through to the end. The end being defined as a free government established in Iraq and an official request for us to leave. And from what I hear, that will come fairly soon after the constitution is in place and the military and police have been trained. Whenever that may be.
I have enjoyed this debate becuase it has been kept civil. I wish all discussions on this forum would stay that way but alas, they don't
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!

[RyanEMVFD]

Well, I haven't caught up with all of the details, but now there are other mothers who have lost sons in Iraq that have started a
YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY SHEEHAN!
counter protest group.
Ah; the sweet smell of the 60s.
And W said that he believes in Cindy's right to protest. He just disagrees with what she is saying.
Personally; I think that they ought to clear the road into Crawford...for National Security!
CR


It's too hot out there to do that. Let them sweat it out. :)

[scfire86]

Wasn't he disbarred, and impeached by the Senete by two thirds majority vote? Yes, he lied about an affair. But he lied under oath to a Grand Jury.


He was impeached by the House. Then found 'not guilty' during his trial in the Senate. Impeach literally means to 'bring charges'. Similar to being indicted. Then the charged individual goes to court with the understanding that the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. You might remember in our country that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. After both sides have made their case to the judge and/or jury a verdict is rendered. In this case, the verdict was 'not guilty' because a 2/3's vote required for conviction was not present. In fact, if I remember correctly, a majority voted for acquittal. Which means the accused is free to go.

People are indicted all the time and acquitted. As was Clinton.

Now what does all that have to do with Bush and war in Iraq? CR hit the nail on the head. We are in Iraq because the people we elected have determined it necessary we be there. I may not like it. I can voice my opinion to my local representative (which I've done). But at the end of the day we are there because we as a society have determined it the correct thing to do.

And as I have pointed out on several occasions, like Tom Delay, I can support the troops and not support the policies of the person(s) who sent them there. And I do both.

[ChiefReason]

Well, they packed up their crosses and took their show on the road.
Hey; I got a great idea. Since they're going to travel, why not go to New Orleans and do something constructive. They need the help.
We don't.
CR

[doughesson]

People in this country have the God Given and soldier secured Right to protest when they disagree with the government.
I am sure that some of my comments are on file from when Clinton ran roughshod over the Second Amendment but I won't retract a word I said or posted online.
Now back to the subject-if we pulled all troops out of Iraq,this very instant,the insurgents will do their best to finish off the new government and if they succeed,they will go very hard on the people that sided with the Coalition troops.They will execute as many people as they can to show the survivors who is boss now.
If that happens,Casey Sheehan and all the other troops that have died shooting rifles,driving tanks,launching aircraft off flight decks,will have died for NOTHING!
Cindy Sheehan and others might want to watch what they wish for because they might just get it.But will they want it then?

[chrnea]

She should take all the money that she is being given to go up and protest the Blue Angels in MD and take her caravan of concern to New Orleans.

[CaptainMikey]

The funny thing is that alot of the left wingers are finnaly telling her to shut up and go away.