What? No celebration?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Iraq.

This news brought lots of attention in Iraq. I thought some of it might be interesting to the rest of you.

The reactions went from one extreme to the other, sympathy to elation. There were many who thought the "attention whore" headline was great, and one or two have posted it around the FOB. There were others who really were saddened by the extremes she chose to go to and the consequences thereof. They do, however, recognize it was a choice.

Many, myself included, are in the middle. We feel that she did fail her son, not by failing in what she attempted, but with the extremism and political bent of her actions. Also, with all the problems and confusion with dying servicemen of late, she really is entitled to some straight answers, especially as to why. "Why?" is the one question about this war that has never been honestly or objectively answered by either party.

She could have been less extreme, she could have been more objective, and she could have been more organized and presentable. Also, no one wins when they ally a personal cause with a political agenda. No one. What we have to recognize though, and it has been said here, is that the woman did something that took just as much courage as we have to muster here in Iraq everyday. It's not easy to disagree with someone, especially to the extent that she did.

This is all a bit strange because when she went on about her silliness, all of us booed, laughed, catcalled, etc. There was no shortage of hecklers or those who disagreed. No one really acknowledged that, agree or disagree with her what she did took courage, until after she was done. Not unlike post-humous military awards, it proves that hindsight is indeed 20/20.

Was she a fruit? Sure. Did she deserve the attention of our media so much? No. Did she do things right? Depends on who you ask. Bottom line is the woman had courage. Too bad it cost her so much, but that's the choice she made.

Afterthought: If everyone in America who felt the same way she did had the courage to be as vocal (and at least a little more mature) about their feelings, we wouldn't be here now. Too bad she had to go it alone.
 
Last edited:
This poor bereaved, pathetic, disoriented woman has been used and abused by masters of the art. Let's leave her alone now. The harm that was done in her name is now water over the dam.
 
Scary indeed. McCarthy perfected the art of guilt by accusation, but I see nothing around today that compares to those times.
Click to expand...

Wasn't he the one that was worried about communism being spread through hollywood, the media, and the educational system? Man was that idiot off the reservation! One look at today's media, hollywood productions, and educational system definitely shows that he was delusional!

What's guilt by accusation? Does that include being a racist if you're against invasion by Mexico? Maybe a murderer waiting to happen if you're a gun-owner? How about an extremist domestic terrorist if you're opposed to your government's tyranny and voicing your opinion?

Seriously, I think 99% of the politicians are liars, and 75% of those are traitors...... and I mean both sides. Sheehan is an idiot that got used by the ruling elite.
 
I'm almost ashamed that I feel sympathy for Cindy Sheehan right now. A few months ago I never would have thought it possible, but now that she is aware that she got used I can't help but feel bad for that poor,poor woman. CAPITAL "F" word for those that threw fuel on this woman's fire.
 
Re: McCarthy's witch hunts...

What's guilt by accusation? Does that include being a racist if you're against invasion by Mexico? Maybe a murderer waiting to happen if you're a gun-owner? How about an extremist domestic terrorist if you're opposed to your government's tyranny and voicing your opinion?
Click to expand...

In essence, McCarthy could have painted you as any of those negative connotations. His tactic was to get people before his Senate committee and ask them "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?" If you refused to answer, stating your political affiliation was none of his or the government's business, he'd keep asking that question, making it look like you were hiding your "commie" background. He had other tricks and tactics that would have made our founding fathers roll over in their graves at his abuses.

That said, McCarthy's biggest error was in his heavy-handed brow beating of public figures and in whipping up a "commie scare" in the 50's instead of focusing on people with access to secure information. In fact, he was correct in that there were people in government, hollywood and other industries who were "communists". In the 1920's and 30's, when unions were organizing, some communists offered "legal services" for protesters if you paid $3 for a card and signed a form (making you a party member). Others went to political meetings that promised to change the disparity between the rich & poor and won't you please sign up with us to show our strength?

But there were a number of notable, real communists in the government who really were working against the U.S. interests. Some did it for 'the cause' while others did it to gain favor and (in some cases) cash.

Wasn't he the one that was worried about communism being spread through hollywood, the media, and the educational system? Man was that idiot off the reservation! One look at today's media, hollywood productions, and educational system definitely shows that he was delusional!
Click to expand...

Yup. As we all know, our schools and media totally reflect all of the American values we live by. :rolleyes:
 
Steel Core

Steelcore speaks very very wisely....
Click to expand...

+1. A great big 1.

I may not agree with most of what the woman said, and I may not agree with what most of the anti-war crowd says, but they have a right to say it to their hearts content without fear of reprecussion or abuse. A perfect example of the 1st Amendment in action. The people who speak out against the government or it's policies are not necessarily criminals, traitors, or terrorists. In fact, most either have a legitmate complaint or are just kooks who like to shout to the heavens.

We (gun owners) are a perfect example of that. How are our pro-2A rallies, petitions, or public events any different? We are outspoken against laws and policies that we don't agree with. We could, by some, be lumped into the same crowd that some of us put Sheehan with now.

In a way, she really didn't fail her son. Just like she hasn't failed me or any other service member. We serve, endure, and sometimes die to protect her right to do what she did. She justified our service by exercising that right.

If we should be upset about anyone, we should be upset about all the people with beliefs and veiwpoints similar to our own who are willing to put thereselves in the spotlight the way she did.
 
Last edited:
Call it what you will...

but I can feel no anger or animosity toward this woman.

I have a son who went to war. Joined the Marine Corps, and spent 7 months in Fallujah, as Marine Artillery. Spent 2 months on checkposts, 2 months on fire missions, and 2 1/2 months on clearing buildings.

I remember when that helicopter crashed that killed 23 Marines and one Navy Corpsman. My son missed that helicopter by FIVE MINUTES.

I remember how I felt when I went to the airport to pick him up; how I saw him standing there from a mile away; how I spiked the brakes in the middle of traffic, jumped out and ran to him. I remember the tears, and the words that I could not form. He just said one thing: "Daddy." I melted totally, and gave thanks to Almighty God for sparing my only son, and bringing him home safe.

Then I think of Cindy Sheehan; how she must have felt when she saw the men in dress uniform at her door; the mind numbing pain that must have hit with a body blow.

I think of how she watched as her son--possibly the dearest thing in the world to her--was gently lowered into the cold earth, in a coffin. The crack of the rifles; seven rifles, three rounds. The folded Flag...

and the pain she must feel EVERY DAY as she sees that flag.

Whatever her politics, whatever her beliefs, all I know is this--her son did not come home.

And for that, I pray that God grants her relief from her pain, and the peace and love of His Presence. She'll hopefully, in the fullness of time, see her son again.

But for now, there's just a flag and some medals to remind her of her little boy.

Cindy Sheehan, may God bless and keep you.

From a parent of a US Serviceman.
 
Steel speaks "wisely", huh?

she claimed that the Iraq war was a scheme to benefit Israel. There's nothing anti-Semitic about saying so, especially since (1) many of those involved in the scheme were not Jewish (e.g., Bush and Cheney); (2) most Americans of Jewish background, myself included, did NOT support the Iraq war; and, most important of all, (3) it's almost certainly true, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole Iraq war was just a Jewish scheme, right?!? :rolleyes::barf:
Please cite any report -- and we're talking about a real U.S. government report, not some silly blog or commentary -- that demonstrates this so-called "scheme to benefit Israel." That's a bunch of hogwash.

I may not agree with most of what the woman said, and I may not agree with what most of the anti-war crowd says, but they have a right to say it to their hearts content without fear of reprecussion or abuse.
Click to expand...

Actually, the First Amendment protects an individual's right to express political beliefs. But not without scrutiny or response. Sheehan and anyone else has the right to express herself about politics without fear of government action. However, the First Amendment does not mean that Sheehan has a right to express herself politically, and that others can't respond to her expressions. If Sheehan (and this is a big "if") said that Iraq was just a big scheme to benefit Israel, then the First Amendment does not prohibit others from challenging such a silly, unfounded assertion.
 
Yeah, the whole Iraq war was just a Jewish scheme, right?!?
Please cite any report -- and we're talking about a real U.S. government report, not some silly blog or commentary -- that demonstrates this so-called "scheme to benefit Israel." That's a bunch of hogwash.
Click to expand...

How about the following...unless you consider a 2002 report by the Brittish government with a foreword by PM Tony Blair to be just a "silly blog or commentary".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraqdossier.pdf

Note #27;

27. According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 687. These missiles were either
hidden from the UN as complete systems, or re-assembled using illegally
retained engines and other components. We judge that the engineering expertise available would allow these missiles to be maintained effectively, although the fact that at least some require re-assembly makes it difficult to judge exactly how many could be available for use. They could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.​
 
are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.
Click to expand...
I guess it's an Arab scheme also

Among the corpses at Halabja, children were found dead where they had
been playing outside their homes. In places, streets were piled with corpses
Click to expand...
And a Kurd scheme


Out of that whole paper the one or two references to Israel, always mentioned in conjunction with one or more other groups, gives credibility to the war being a Jewish conspiracy?
 
Out of that whole paper the one or two references to Israel, always mentioned in conjunction with one or more other groups, gives credibility to the war being a Jewish conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Iraq was developing missles that could exceed the limits placed by the UN and eventually get striking range of Israel. If the US stepped in to protect its own interests as well as that of an ally, it would ceratinly benefit Israel. But as Steelcore said, recognizing that and being opposed to the use of US troops to protect Israel does not necessarily make one an anti-semite.
 
Absolutely not
Click to expand...
The why present as such

It certainly does not fit Fremmers request
But as Steelcore said, recognizing that and being opposed to the use of US troops to protect Israel does not necessarily make one an anti-Semite.
Click to expand...
What does it make one when then present flawed evidence as fact in attempt to paint the war as a Jewish scheme

Why is it that the term Jewish scheme just sounds so anti Semite or a better question, How could the term not have anti Semite connotations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top