http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4161898.stm
Printable View
I dunno, who gives? She is supporting what she believes and thats fine with me.
Good for her.
I only ask because some of my friends are annoyed by her and I don't really understand what they're talking about.
Is that Cindy Sheehan? I adore her.
she's doing exactly the right thing.
Eh, she's free to say whatever she likes, but I think she's misguided entirely. If nothing else because, whether or not one supports the War itself, there's no way to argue we should pull out now with the job half-done. That would be, by far, the largest mistake to make at this point.
is there any reason to believe "the job" will ever get more than half done? what job exactly is half done?
Did some one kkick open a bathroom stall and take her picture? I am sorry but when a news site puts up a picture, they always seem to put the subject in the most... awkward positions lol. I mean it looks like she's giving birth to something.
I applaud her for taking a stance, but I would like to slap her at the same time. I will never get that picture out of my head - and i am sure i will lose sleep over it :( Thanks guys
Bipper
She bothers me, but I can't tell you why. I'm all for expression, and I agree with her point of view, but for crying out loud her son was in the military. It's not exactly the safest job in the world, and she acts like this was something unbelievable. I just don't get it yet.
I'm with foa here. I oppose the war, and I'm glad she does, but I don't like her or what she is doing. (Granted, I haven't been paying close attention to all of this) She strikes me as really whiny and I don't think that she is helping the anti war cause at all.
Although I am glad people are turning against the war, I still can't excuse them for supporting the war in the beginning. It's a little late to be switching sides now, damnit. Had these people opposed this from the begining, like everyone should have, then we might not be in this mess right now. I hope they remember this before the next war this country gets involved in.
That's pretty much how I feel about this. Her son volunteered to enter the military. Nobody, not even George W. Bush, forced him to.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
While I sympathize with her loss, I also think she is desecrating her son's memory by effectively using him as a ventiloquist dummy for her cause.
I think it's good that she's out there in Crawford, TX serving as a constant reminder that there is a real world in America even if W wants to live in his own fantasy land where only the poor have to sacrifice, vacations last months, and Iraq is going swimmingly.
I'm fairly firmly of the belief that at least making an attempt to fix Iraq up into somewhat reasonable shape is better than leaving now and letting the civil war commence.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
but:
a) we aren't really getting much accomplished
b) we obviously are trying to set up a permanent military presence
c) this administration hasn't done much of anything else right since the mission was "accomplished"
d) until we can withdraw our military and regroup, we can't truly defend ourselves across the globe
d) this whole debacle is ridiculously expensive
e) the presence of US military only steels the resolve of the insurgents
f) it's going to dissolve into civil war pretty much regardless
g) sometimes you need to know when to cut your losses and admit a mistake
A) Saddam's out. His sons are dead. The Kurds are free, the oil wells aren't on fire, the Marsh Arabs are able to at least try and move back to the land Saddam ruined, and Iraqis are quite free to loudly criticise the people in charge.
B) I'm still not convinced we are, but it wouldn't be unwise to do given the noises Iran is making.
C) The administration could have done things better, true, and certainly waiting until after the UN corruption was exposed to go to war. And even more certainly giving the troops the proper equipment. But just because it's not going perfectly doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
D) I'm entirely of the opinion that after Iraq is completed, one way or another, that a step back should be taken and things should be re-evaluated, but that's my policy for any nation after any conflict.
D2) Yep, it is. I'd sooner my tax money goes to freeing oppressed peoples than ineffective social programs.
E) It quite possibly does, and that's yet another reason to stay there. Imagine the bolstering they would recieve if the coalition left. They'd have won, to all intents and purposes.
F) :erm: It will inevitably and incontravertably go there if we leave. If we stay there is a chance it will not. It seems like a simple decision to me, at least given that we created the situation.
G) Yep, you do. But doing that here, whether it was a mistake to go in or not, would be a mistake.
a) we accomplished all that some time ago
b) I am absolutely convinced we are making permanent military bases. That's absolutely the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. The current US administration has every intention of a long and protracted presence in the Middle East to try and reform the region. It might work. Maybe. But that's absolutely the plan.It's the neocon dream. Getting fat off the defense contracts is just gravy that makes it easier to get big business to go along.
c) It wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, but "altruistic" hamhandedness is not a very good foreign policy. Things are not going well right now, and they aren't magically going to get better. Pulling out doesn't fix the situation, but continuing to screw things up makes it worse.
d) when is Iraq going to be completed? Ten years? Better hope nothing else comes up during that time that might require US military action.
d) I'd rather the government not waste tax money or foreign or domestic boondoggles, but fat chance of that happening. The domestic spending is going to be there regardless, it's how Congressmen get reëlected.
e) we need to stop thinking in terms of who "wins" and like we're in a nutsack competition with terrorist insurgents. It's asymmetric warfare and we're not equipped to effectively combat it. The insurgency is aimed at combatting an occupying force. Remove the occupying force and they lose their target to combat.
f) the only reason there won't be a civil war if we stay is because it will be a war between Iraqi factions and US troops. So you are supporting us fighting one side of a civil war by proxy.
g) so at what point will "cutting our losses" be palatable enough? How many American lives do we have to waste? How many tax dollars do we have to waste?
Even if you refuse to belive it, we aren't there to "fix" Iraq. We just can't afford to lose control. Do you really think that the US is ever going to leave that place? It's all about natural resources, it's the 4th largest oil producer in the world. W've already been in Afganistan militarily for over 20 years because they want to build a pipeline to transport natural gasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
So all that BS about helping Iraq all come together you can just ignore. US just can't get out of anyone's business.
It's not about natural resources. It's about militarism and the overarching goal to destroy the Middle East and rebuild it in a more desirable image. This isn't colonialism, it's nation building, and it's turning out to be a lot harder than the neocons figured it would be. How surprising.
Iraq won't supply us any more oil while under our control that it would have under Iraqi control. The oil resources are stretched thin regardless. The growth industry here is nation building, not fossil fuels. Contractors like Halliburton can make a lot more money building infrastructure on taxpayer dollars than they can pumping oil on consumer dollars.
A better image, for America unforutnetly -____-; Not necessarily better for Iraq..although i must say i am not sure with the US troops there and all the fighting..what Iraq needs the most.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) from this story:
Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.
"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
About oil... I have read it has more do deal with the manufacturing process more then the actual supply. Afterall the refinaries can only refine so much. Can't remember it all.. but I do recall an article stating that RIGHT NOW refineries were the limiting factor.
So I doubt it was for oil. The power in the ME.. blah...blah...blah is much more likely.
I'm all for anti-war protests, but that woman just rubs me the wrong way. The fact that her son was a volunteer for the army and that she didn't care until AFTER he died makes me question her reason for championing the cause. If she'd protested BEFORE he'd been killed, then I wouldn't mind what she's doing at all, but I've not heard anything of that. If I'm wrong, you are all free to correct me.
And as far as the permanent military presence, I have it on very good authority (i.e. a friend of mine who served and actually saw the bases being constructed) that we are making many fully-equipped military bases in Iraq, which implies a level of permanancy.
A) Conceded. What's your point? All that will be in vain if some other power-hungry loon ends up in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
B) Proabably true, all told, but I'm just not convinced it's a bad thing. At least, not while one is taking an interventionist policy.
C) But we're working towards a definite goal, or rather series of goals, some of which have already been achieved, and some of which are still in the works. Agreed that 'altruism' is a bad foreign policy, but there were reasons for going in beyond that (Untrue as they may have been, only the British government seems to have actively lied, whilst the others just got it wrong.), even if freeing the Iraqis from Saddam was a good reason as well.
D) Conceded.
D2) Conceded in principle, but as I've said, we're there and we have to finish it.
E) Well, of course eveyone wants the coalition to be out of Iraq ASAP. If I had the power I'd bring the troops home to their respective nations today, if the job was finished.
F) We caused the situation. No way around that argument. In my eyes, we now have a duty to do our best to prevent the situation going further downhill. If that means we're at war, we're at war.
G) It's not about that. Putting aside that I'm not going to magically change my mind when it reaches two thousand deaths or five thousand deaths or whatever, it's about finishing what we started. From a tax perspective - and you already know from other threads, I'm sure, my views on taxation - I still can't advocate pulling out because I believe we have to do our damndest to finish this as best we can. I'd like it a hell of a lot more if taxes went to sustain only a military which defended the nation from direct and overt aggressors, but that's not the situation we're in right now.
Well, the Bush administration knowingly ignored/altered/influenced the intelligence to make the case for war. That may not technically be lying, but it is deliberate mendacity, which is basically the same thing. They lied to get the war they wanted, jumped headlong into a tough situation against long odds, then proceeded to screw up half the stuff they did. The best solution would be to depose the incompetent and deceitful administration and replace them with leadership that could make the best fo a bad situation, but we the people decided not to do that. Now we're standing on top of a land mine afraid to step off for fear it will blow off our legs, all while gunmen take potshots at us in our immobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
I think she needs to stop caring
Think this. If they did not have oil, would we be there? No. It is about the oil. Other than that, why the hell would we try and take control of it in the first place? It's not really the greatest place to live in or visit.
They have sand too...
Bipper
They have a nice capital. It just happens to be ruled by a lot of idiots.
Oh lord, don't tell me some peopel still hold to the oil argument? If we wanted oil, we'd have made peace with Saddam and brushed his atrocities under the rug. That'd have been a far more guaranteed, cheaper, faster, safer way of getting Iraq's oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudius
eest: In truth, I've not fully looked into what Bush and his administration did with regards to their intelligence, but I was assuming seeing as I saw no proof of lying in the anti-American British press, that there was none. Apologies, point withdrawn. On another note, voting another person in would have been far, far better, but Badnarok never stood much chance.
hah, libertarian candidate.
don't blame me, I voted for Dean in the primary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudius
Well I was going to quote a post I made awhile ago.. but well can't find it. So...
There are military/political stragetic reasons for going to Iraq. It could easily have been a military target.
What do I think of that lady?
Crackpot...
Made peace with him? We put him in there :) We had already lost peace with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
What else are we in there for then? To break up the civil war? To end the war on terror? Nah those were all excuses just to get in there. Why do you think the troops don't know what the hell is going on? They know what's going on in the war, but they don't the purpose. Maybe it's because the purpose in not good enough to sacrifice all those lives.
Tell me what the "core" of the military/political reasons. What else does Iraq have to offer? Fine fabrics? Maybe, huh...
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudius
---Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Ah, fair enough. He was better than Kerry IMO, but it looks like you guys prefer a wall of chin to a person with charisma.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
But she isn't doing that. She's doing this protest (or was, until today. She went back to LA today because her mother is in the hospital), but how on earth is she surviving? How can she be an example of the real world when most people who are losing their sons and daughters can't go sit out in front of the president's ranch for a month?Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
I think she's an example of arrogance. She claims that she is doing this so no one else's son or daughter or husband or wife or father/mother/cousin/sister/brother etc dies, but if that's true, why wasn't she doing it before?
I agree with everything else you say about the war, don't get me wrong on that point. And I agree with what you say about Bush living in lala land. I just don't think there's anything that merits any attention whatsoever to her; let alone such a huge response.
Also, I think it's high time Americans stopped looking for someone to rally behind and started thinking, and more importantly feeling for themselves, but I know that's unrealistic and I've been reading way too much of A Prayer for Owen Meany and listening to too much damn hippie music.
I think we all got in this mess from too much feeling and not enough thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudius
Well it ain't exaclty tailored to the question but read through and connect it-
Also as another note: Even if we took all of Iraq's oil... we wouldn't get much better prices or more gas out on the market. There are things called refineries.. and they are a large limiting factor in this game. We only have so many. And from my reading it is hard and expensive to get new ones up. Enviromental regulations apparently come down really hard on refineries. It is true that crude oil prices play apart but when you don't have the production ability it don't really matter how much you get. I have also read that many refineries are still using antiquated equipment(not sure why but meh) which prolly don't add to well to the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
I agree.. I think we need to look at domestic soruces.. tap it, pump it, fill it, burn it..
I wonder why we gave up the oil struggle in the first place?
Bipper
She just wanted to go talk to the President, and then when he wouldn't see her she decided to stay put. Our whole society of obsession decided to make a huge deal out of it. Basically she was just exercising her right to free speech through nonviolent protest. That should be applauded, not derided.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
Hey, what's wrong with that? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
Oh, and this woman seems kind of insincere. As others have pointed out, why didn't she start protesting beforehand? I don't like Bush and can't wait until he's out, but this doesn't really deserve much consideration.
Just because she's exercising a right doesn't make it noble or admirable. Would you applaud a Klan rally? Or a GOP convention?Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
Doc makes a good point. eest's comment logically amounts to "she's doing something not illegal, and therefore should be applauded for it."
If you don't see the difference between protesting a continued war and holding a Klan rally then you have some serious issues. I know both you guys do, and you're just using rhetoric to try to shoot down my argument.
All of you make it sound like protest is any easy act taken up by opportunists. What does Cindy Sheehan have to gain out of this? Why do you think she or anyone would take up such a protest under false pretenses? It takes a lot more balls to actually go out and protest, especially as one person, than it does to write crap on the internet.
Her protest has become larger than one woman's loss of her son. It's tapped deep into the growing anxiety of both the war and the inept execution of it by our leaders.
So, because her actions have potential results which you consider good - despite her questionable reasons - it is good?Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
No, I'm not using "rhetoric" to shoot down your argument; I'm using logic. Just because peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean that if someone does it, they should be applauded for it. Protesting a war because you think the war is wrong is good. Protesting the war solely because you lost someone in it is murky - I'm sure her son would not want her to do that.
So really, I'm not saying she's a bad person or anything. I'm just saying I don't know enough to proclaim that she's good, and that her statements lead me to question her reasons for protesting.
So you're saying that her newfound opposition to the war based (as far as we know) on the fact that her son died in it is questionable and meaningless?
No, not meaningless. Merely makes me want to question her reasons - not just dismiss or accept them entirely at face-value.
EDIT: Basically, I'd want to find out all of the facts about her before making a decision about her - for or against.
fair enough, although it seems pretty plausible to me that someone who first supported the war might start questioning the real value of the continued fight after losing a son. Obviously you can't be too shocked when your son dies fighting a war, but you'd at least like the war to have been worth it. WWII for example was pretty clearly worth it. Iraq, not so much, especially since the entire debacle is almost certainly headed for failure regardless of what we do at this point.
I think a lot of people at first supported the war for various patriotic and moral reasons, but as the costs (human and monetary) continue to rise and the apparent accomplishment continues to diminish many of these people are reëvaluating their stances.
This is, more than likely, going to happen regardless. The only difference will be that the 'power hungry loon' will be sucking America's dick. If we pull out, that won't happen. Oh dear.Quote:
A) Conceded. What's your point? All that will be in vain if some other power-hungry loon ends up in charge.
If Iraq didn't have oil we would not be there. That is the truth. However, it isn't about the oil. It's about establishing a permanent military presence in what will become an extremely contested region. This war, and the wars to come, are about preserving our role as the sole world superpower, not about cheap gas.Quote:
Think this. If they did not have oil, would we be there? No. It is about the oil.
See above.Quote:
What else are we in there for then?
The reason that any goverment gives to justify thier war is, and always will be, complete bs. Morality does not exist in war, and therefore any moral justification for war is a smokescreen.Quote:
To break up the civil war? To end the war on terror? Nah those were all excuses just to get in there.
As far as I know, the president did see her, and she didn't get what she wanted, so she continued to camp out. This just makes her seem whiney, and she should quit, because it's making the anti war mindset look whiney.Quote:
She just wanted to go talk to the President, and then when he wouldn't see her she decided to stay put.
What are her questionable reasons?Quote:
So, because her actions have potential results which you consider good - despite her questionable reasons - it is good?
iraq and afghanistan both share a border with what other country? iran. there wasn't a good country to launch a ground assualt from before. now we have two angles of attack and a few air bases.
I don't know her reasons - that's why they're questionable. :pQuote:
What are her questionable reasons?
great points there cloud - Never seen it from that angle before. An Iran invasion... :mad:
I still think that she is doing th right thing. As for people dissaproving of her for blemishing her son's dignity- I can't even think of a good word to use. I think that is a a very narrow minded, and easy thing to say. Its like if your brother(or someone very close) went over we would all prolly support them. When someone close to you is ripped out of this world; it will always hit you and will quite possibly change you and/or your opinions on a certain subject. I do not know this ladies whole story, but I do not think she is wrong in any form of the word.
Even when you watch a movie and, as some end, the self-sacraficial protagonists lays his life down for the greater good - yes you see it as noble from a subjective third person view of things. Place youself in as the protaginists friend, or love and then rethink your stance. Self sacraficial is the ultimate selfish and selfless act.
Bipper
Selfish and selfless?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
That aside, I see where you are coming from. And it comes down to the individual in question. If an individual is in a position where they can risk their lives for the safety of others, or they can ensure their own safety but put others at more risk, who is to choose what? I wouldn't fault someone who chose themselves over others. I'd laud someone who put others before themselves. The point is, it's their choice to make; this guy made that choice through joining the army. I applaud and respect what he did, and what all the members of the coalitions armed forces are doing. I'm sorry for all those that have died, and I hope their families can find peace with it. But putting myself in her shoes doesn't lead me to any other conclusions - it was his choice to make. The emotions I'd feel, sure, they'd demand a reason, because that's what Humans do when faced with grief. That doesn't actually change the facts of the situation though, and frankly I'd probably blame the people who murdered my son because of their abhorrent philosophies.
Aye, Self sacrifice is an oxymoronic action.Quote:
Selfish and selfless?
I also question her venting at Bush, as it was her son's choice and cause. This, however is her choice and cause. If it was the people whom directly killed her son she was mad at then yeah, grab a gun and swim on over to Iraq. She evidenly lost faith in the war and the way things were run after her son's death. I don't blame her as the media and many people hold this belief. (not saying its wrong in any way) This is more than likeley what angered her over the fact that her sone was killed by the opposing army.
Bipper
I think it's pathetic that this only becomes an issue because someone's CHYYYYYUUUULD died. It exemplifies the breederism of this country that the only relationship that matters is the bond of a parent to a child, and the thousands of others who have died in our meaningless un-war "military/police actions" are simply less important because their friends and lovers can't possibly miss them as much as this woman misses her son.
But, hey, this makes a better story than some poor guy whose best friend never came home from Iraq, or a woman whose fiance was killed. It makes a better story than the Iraqi families who have lost many members to our idiotic "regime change".
I hope that Sheehan goes home and that a caravan of shattered Iraqi families camps out on Bush's lawn, instead, perhaps accompanied by the minorities from this country who are lied to and strong-armed into the military right out of high school. Those people loved their kids every bit as much as she loved hers, but not everyone can afford to take that much time off work or travel that extensively to protest the everyday injustices they experience at the hands of our greedy imperialist mockery of a democratic republic government.
And because after reading some threads in this forum I completely expect to hear wailing that I'm being an "OMG antiAmerican@!111!one1!!", please remember that holding an opinion that is contrary to mainstream does not automatically make one a foaming-at-the-mouth-tinfoil-hat-wearing-flag-burning conspiracy theorist holed up in a liberal shantytown with armed pot-smoking feminist communist guerillas. I have family members and friends in the military and have done a bit more homework in looking at our foreign policy than just watching a Michael Moore movie.
I'm cool with that, as long as you don't automatically think of me as a rabid-bible-thumping-convict-killing-book-burning war monger holed up in a conservative mansion with armed homophobic fascist storm-troopers :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Asorie
Can't we all just get along?
Nah. Besides which, I'm for the death penalty in many cases, which doesn't endear me to the other far-lefters, let me tell you. And you simply don't have enough power to be part of the truly evil segment of the right, as much as I completely disagree with you on the "war".
Yes! But that would possibly invade upon Bush's super-rich silver spoon dream world bubble. It would be too reality-based.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asorie