How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Cindy Sheehan Saga   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Cindy Sheehan Saga

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 08-20-2005 09:33 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

The president opened the door by already talking to her.

If she is not allowed to ask for clarification, then George is allowed to use people as propaganda and they will be jailed for, well, being people.

Ron, I still don't get it. I don't see how your first position (Stick to the ideas) and this new one mesh.

You're allowed to change your mind of course.

(Oh wait, am I being condescending again?)

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


26 posted 08-20-2005 09:42 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

http://slate.msn.com/id/2124788/?nav=tap3
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


27 posted 08-20-2005 10:14 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hey, I can quote Hitchins again:

quote:
This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not. That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest.


Now, look at how things are shaping up in Iraq even with out presence there -- look at the, as yet unratified constitution, and tell me that what will happen if we leave.

A civil war?

An Iran/Iraq alliance?

A theocracy?

A new dictatorship?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 08-20-2005 11:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

already a civil war

already Iran/faction alliances, 13,000 Iranian infiltrators poured over the borders as soon as we moved in... which is problematic considering we're rattling sabres at Iran at present -- a threat on which this President has no credibility because we're already pinned down in Iraq.. but it begs the question...

a Theocratic government where women have less rights than they had under Saddam Hussein already seems to be the order.

a new dictatorship would be very difficult to pull off -- you left out the fifth scenario -- a fractured and factional Iraq.

Whether or not the government is a theocracy is hardly the issue now -- it's stability and the ability to control terrorist training.  Can't let it turn into Taliban Afghanistan.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


29 posted 08-21-2005 12:08 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Exactly.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2299
quote:
President George W. Bush said on Saturday U.S. troops in Iraq were fighting to protect Americans at home from more attacks like those of September 11, 2001, starting a five-day focus on his case for the war amid growing public discontent.

[ˇ¦]

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail," he said.

Meanwhile, back in Realitysvilleˇ¦..


As disturbing as those reports were, what Kulick had to say about the conduct of the war was even more troubling. He told his family that the Iraqi police "were corrupt and inept and there was no way they could ever train them to the degree where they could keep order." And when his unit went out after insurgents, far too many innocent iraqis were killed in the crossfire. And, Kulick reported home, "the more hate that created." When the Americans left an area, the insurgents came back the next day.


Eventually, when Kulick saw Iraqi citizens kneeling in the street in prayer, his interpreter would tell him they were praying for the Americans to leave. "They would rather live with evil they knew rather than live with us," Kulick said in his emails. "We were killing them as much as the insurgents were."


Bush:  "Now we must finish the task that our troops have given their lives for and honour their sacrifice by completing their mission," he said.

What was their mission again?  That part was missing from the speech, as usual.  Maybe Cindy Sheehan can ask him after he tells her what the "noble cause" was that Casey Sheehan and John Kulick died for.


The Cunning Realist, commenting on a Belgravia Dispatch post (both well worth reading for thoughtful analysis from a conservative perspective) on the shameful Rumsfeld and Myers performance at a recent press conference, writes:

This just floors me. Does it remind anyone else of invading Iraq ostensibly to disarm the country, then not securing the major weapons caches?

As Greg writes, "These guys should be going to bed every night with such figures [Iraqi troop strengths and capabilities] firmly implanted in their head." That they have to "get back to us" several years into an occupation leads to a completely logical and appropriate question: Just what the hell is going on?

And here's a more depressing question: If thousands of our troops have been killed and permanently maimed in order to allow Iraqis time to train and ultimately defend themselves, but our most senior civilian and military leaders have to "get back to us" about how much progress has been made in that regard, what does that say about the importance of our troops' sacrifice to those leaders?

No "noble cause" rhetoric can drown out those questions


Good questions, no?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 08-21-2005 12:36 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I think those are great political questions Brad... but they don't do much for us in the area of ops.

The really important question is, regardless of original intent, past mistakes, missed opportunities, what is -- given the facts on the ground right now in Iraq -- the correct course of action for the people of the United States and whatever is left of the coalition?

It may be so that Micheal Moore is right -- cut and run -- but his foreign policy experience is equal to Rush Limbaugh's, I'm inclined more to listen the groundswell of consensus that is emerging among the leadership of the country -- Republicans and Democrats -- politics aside.  But that includes re-ordering the Gantt chart with clearer, achievable objectives.

Oh.. there's that clarification word ...

Look for a major push from the culture war crowd to attempt to push this issue out of the conciousness of the American people.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 08-21-2005 12:38 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

oh, and... I'll bet you 5 bucks the button they push is going to be illegal immigration.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


32 posted 08-21-2005 02:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
There is a relevancy in this, let me have the moment to explain it further.

Fine, Noah. If you want to talk about the Left and the Right, the Liberals and Conservatives, the Angry and the merely Irritated, and all the thousand and one other meaningless labels that make you feel comfortable, you should certainly feel free to do so. I honestly don't think those are on a grieving mother's agenda, though.

Some, I suspect, think the war is a tad more important to discuss than more finger-pointing politics.

quote:
I don't think that threatening to protest amounts to extortion.  I call that freedom of expression. And negotiation.

There's nothing wrong with protesting, LR. Unless you insist on doing it outside my front door and refuse to leave me alone until I meet your demands. Sheehan has a right to a voice. Others, even elected officials, have a right to ignore her voice if they choose.

In a very, very small way, I've been the target of similar attacks. People think that sending me an email puts me under some obligation to respond, and one or two have gotten down right irate I don't see it that way. With three to five thousand emails arriving every day, I answer what I can when I can and pretty much ignore anything that doesn't absolutely require an answer. While most people are very understanding, a few in the past have decided to email me the same question a dozen times a day, every day, with threats to continue until I answer them. It's very frustrating when someone thinks they should have the power to place others under some obligation to them.

In my opinion, there are many many things Sheehan has a right to demand. Someone else's time isn't one of them.

quote:
Ron, I still don't get it. I don't see how your first position (Stick to the ideas) and this new one mesh.

They're entirely separate issues, Brad, so your confusion is well warranted.

People who try to discredit Sheehan's concerns with utter irrelevancies discredit only themselves and not her concerns. If they can't "stick to the ideas," as you put it, I for one have to assume they have no arguments to counter what Sheehan is claiming.

On the other hand, I am in no way trying to discredit Sheehan's concerns. I think they're valid and need to be raised. I just don't think she's the one to do it, and I certainly don't think she's doing it in the right way.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


33 posted 08-21-2005 03:14 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

The pro-war culture won't need a push, Local Rebel, all they need is a distraction. And when the Roberts hearings begin in less than two weeks, which everyone will understandably want to tune into, that'll work just fine in the effort to make the Sheehan saga a short-lived effort.

Distractions and changing of the story have been precisely the two tactics which this administration have kept using time and time and time again since invading Iraq two years and a half ago in the desperate effort to defend their failing, dishonest war effort. Now Bush is so desperate he's going to be comparing this war to World War II several times in the next two weeks in speeches, just as he once again blatantly exploited 9/11 in his radio address this weekend.

Part of me believes because I've grown to know exactly how stubborn Bush is, I was never surprised that he never agreed to the meeting with her. Yet I also believe it was exactly that attitude that's only going to legitimize the voice of Cindy Sheehan, and I believe its truly thanks to Bush that she has become not only a symbol of the anti-war movement but a household name as well, as well as the voice of political accountability.

It seems rather clear to me now that Bush cares about this war more than he cares about our troops and families.

I truly believe deep in my heart everyone has this place deep in themselves that deep down admits something is wrong with the picture, and with a little act of faith they can make the decision to believe in what's sound. That war is itself terror, real people are killed in war each day, each moment, and is not the answer to offering the freedoms to others we have cherished for generations that all the corners of the world so deservedly need, that war only generates more tension and repression which only cancels freedom's calling out.

I pray and remain hopeful it's not too late that this administration can listen before they make a catastrophic, irreversible mistake and in the eyes of the world, the true colors of freedom will not obfuscate from this misguided mission.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


34 posted 08-21-2005 05:28 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't really buy the analogy, Ron, but whatever. It just feels trivial to me.

Cindy is not Rosa Parks, nor should she be, she's a normal(?!) woman stating the truth about the war. She's not a heroine, not an historical figure, nor should she be.

If it falls apart in a few weeks, it falls apart, I don't think it's that important.

We need more people like Cindy who state the bleeding obvious, we need more people to listen to people like Cindy who state the bleeding obvious.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


35 posted 08-21-2005 12:28 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Distractions and changing of the story have been precisely the two tactics which this administration have kept using time and time and time again since invading Iraq two years and a half ago in the desperate effort to defend their failing, dishonest war effort. Now Bush is so desperate he's going to be comparing this war to World War II several times in the next two weeks in speeches, just as he once again blatantly exploited 9/11 in his radio address this weekend.




That's called politics Noah.  The analysis you're failing to make is why is Sheehan so frightening to the political right?  And why IS she, now, a historical figure and not just a woman expressing her opinion?

It isn't merely the fact that her protest is coincidental to the most dramatic shift in public opinion about the war in Iraq -- it's that she takes away from the Cons the ability to make people feel sympathy for the troops - she garners all the sympathy in an anti-war direction.  They can't call her a traitor like they do anybody else who speaks out against the administration.

This comes on the heels of Hackett's strong showing in a heavily Republican district in Ohio calling the President a chicken hawk.

All of this is problematic for YOUR party though Noah.  The leading contender for the Presidential nomination in 08, Hillary -- voted to relinquish her Constitutional authority to declare war and put it in the hands of this President -- as did the vast majority of other Democrats -- it's the whole for it before I was against it problem all over again...

But I think there are some legitimate points that can be made.  And it's really interesting to look at -- I should probably post it -- who all the chicken hawks are and the difference in opinion those who actually served in wars like Chuck Hagel and John McCain have with them.

But the Roberts issue is a non-issue  -- it's going to get some traction -- but unless there's a photo of him having sex with Osama Bin Laden somewhere it's just not a big story.  He's a conservative, nominated by a conservative President.  It's not a story Noah.

Giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants -- that's a story.

quote:

There's nothing wrong with protesting, LR. Unless you insist on doing it outside my front door and refuse to leave me alone until I meet your demands. Sheehan has a right to a voice. Others, even elected officials, have a right to ignore her voice if they choose.

It's very frustrating when someone thinks they should have the power to place others under some obligation to them.

In my opinion, there are many many things Sheehan has a right to demand. Someone else's time isn't one of them.



It would be nice if the world was always convenient.  
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


36 posted 08-21-2005 03:14 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

The Democratic Party is currently not my party, Local Rebel. They have done nothing but failed to unite together and be the party to represent the other 49% who came out to vote last November.

Many of the Democrats who are tentative favorites to run in 2008 may think Bush is handling the war in the wrong way, but beyond that, they are no making any effort to change the pace of the direction Iraq is headed.

I have said before why I believe the so-called specific "Angry Right" in my mind is afraid of Cindy Sheehan, and it is very simple and has been mentioned already not just by myself but by Brad as well; she doesn't sprout out of the elite, she's just a grieving American mother who's been through the experience of loss herself and understands where it wells from. They're also afraid of her because, due to that, I believe she is successfully shifting the viewpoint of this war from the minds of Bush to a split-screen effect, contrasting how Bush feels and how one military mother feels. This sort of split-screen attitude has been long overdue and because she has risen up to represent that other half of the screen, THAT'S why she is developing into a household name.

I hope the Democrats together understand what Sheehan is saying. I know some have, just like Chuck Hagel and George Allen have in the GOP. But with the way Hilary Clinton continues to display herself as hawkish, along with just about every other Democrat considering a run for '08, they look weak and if the election were held today, I believe I wouldn't vote for Hilary.

I have much more in common with the current Democratic party than the current Republican party, but I'm an independent right now, and at this snail-pace the Democratic Party is going in getting out of the woods and finally getting the big picture, I don't believe I'll be converted into an official Democrat by 2008.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


37 posted 08-24-2005 03:39 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

There's a new point I'd like to bring up that's not necessarily about
Sheehan individually, but anti-war protesters in general, and that's a
response to two statements made yesterday, the first from Bush in
saying that anti-war protesters like myself don't represent the views of
most U.S military families and are advocating a cause that are making the
U.S weaker, and the second from MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell suggesting that
those who oppose the war are "anti-war extremists".

First and foremost, I'm just saddened that Bush could say those like
myself are weakening the U.S because we either condemn the innocent killing
of thousands in foreign policy or because we believe there are better solutions to cleansing the world of darkness rather than with war and are trying to generate that sort of dialogue.

Naturally, war is, itself, terror. People die in war just as people die in all these unfortunate car bombings. People live through fear and trauma in war.

Having said that, I do not consider Bush a terrorist by any means. I simply believe he is just terribly ignorant and/or misguided about how foreign policy works. Historically intervention has time and time again generated tension and instability, which is what is escalating right now in the region. Furthermore, I believe Bush lacks the experience, the wisdom of life on the field. I've come to believe that being mindful, flexible and ethical are the three essential qualities that should frame a mission. Unfortunately, when failing to be mindful, ethical and flexible gets in the way in foreign policy, it can have most devastating consequences, send the wrong message to other cultures. I don't believe, in my opinion at least, that it should free him from punishment and accountability for this most wrongful crime, but I don't consider him a terrorist by any means. However, I also fear in many eyes of the world that Bush is being perceived as a great threat to the world, communties which don't endorse terror, which I fear of that and we can't allow this great nation to grow further isolated from the international community.

My response to Bush is, simply, I'm really trying to help him. I'm disobeying his reckless foreign policy but am helping him by trying to open his ears to what can really happen consequentially, to try and stop him from making a colossal mistake that is irreversible, without him ever even knowing it. I believe if anything, dissent makes the nation much stronger, for it completes the resolve of democracy.

*****

And secondly, in response to O'Donnell, to call those who oppose this war "extremist" is outrageous.

If that were true, a slight majority of the nation would be extremist for believing it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq. A slight majority of the nation would be extremist for believing this war was not worth it. A majority would be extremist for disapproving of the way Bush is handling the war right now.

The general attitude of the war favors those who either oppose or disapprove it collectively.

Having said that, I also certainly would never call everyone who supports the war currently "extremist", as I believe most out there like Bush are just strongly misguided. I believe deep down in my heart that there's a place where someone knows and feels something is wrong and they have the power to do the right thing, which many have already found the faith to do and I absolutely believe more will do and that it is not too late in doing so.

OK, that's all, just thought it important to note that out.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


38 posted 08-24-2005 04:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

"all these unfortunate car bombings."


That's golden. . .
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


39 posted 08-24-2005 06:41 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I don't understand, Huan Yi, I believe you may have either thought too deeply into that specific part or misinterpreted it.

I don't deny there are those who live with just deep hatred in their hearts and engage in these terrible acts of martyrdom, so their mission is just to inflict fear and malice on the innocent.

When I said what I said there, I meant "unfortunate" in that cultures still have to live through this chaos on and on, with some of it being due to children and future generations being influenced by radical ideals and misinterpretations, as well as amends struggling to be made through the times.

It is so scary to see all these radical militants making their way through the borders and joining the radical forces. It is so scary to see militias from all the groups in Iraq intimidating one another with militias. I fear indeed the people there, about 60% of whom are children 14 years or younger, are going to continue to grow up in-between the crossfire of civil dispute in the years ahead.

And indeed, it is most unfortunate that this will all but certainly happen from the growing instability of the region.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


40 posted 08-26-2005 06:04 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

There seem to be three positions on what to do:

Cindy: Leave now

Bush: Don't talk about it.

Mickey Kaus (from Slate): Phased withdrawal

I'm not sure I see a difference in scenarios (at least in terms of the future of Iraq) between the first and third options.

Can someone explain to me the plus points of a phased withdrawal?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Cindy Sheehan Saga   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors