listen. i realize your son had the most unfortunate event. it truly is a shame that this world has to be like it is.

however, when he joined the army, he took upon the burden that he would have to go into combat blindly, taking the orders without question. i did. my brother has just started. the US army, unfortunetly is a police force that wears a bullseye on its back.

please do not disgrace the fact that your son died in service to the USA. he knew full well what he was into, and nowaydays, you have plenty of time(4 months) to back out before you are punished as deserter. you should give up your false quest against our leadership because you had the circumstance you do. my family, as well as thousands of others have had to cope with the fact that we might die in combat. we respect your son and hold him in higher esteem than any other US citizen. you cannot detract from what your son, my brother, myself and thousands of others have gave thier lives for. for shame on you. for shame. it was HIS choice, HIS decision. HIS actions. if anything realisze that you hate what YOUR SON did. not the higherarchy of the military chose. he could have ran. he could have deserted. he could have never joined.

its unfortunate that the media today has lead us to belive that it all falls on the hands of G. Bush, B. clinton, R.reagan. it doesnt. its on the few of us who have the guts to go out and risk it all for something greater. no matter what you think of it.

[b]"All wars are extensions of politics."[/b]

I don't necessarily agree with what she is doing, but I do think her reaction is understandable considering not only the fact that she is now a mother with a dead son, but that he was killed in a war that was started because of less than honest/urgent reasons. I've stated my position on the war before (in ranting fashion), so I won't get into it here.

If her son was fighting in a war that was being waged against someone who actually was attacking us or preparing to, I would tell her to shut the fuck up. However, in this situation, the president has certainly gotten some slack, so I think she should at least be able to do this.

I do agree with you 100% about dying in combat being an unfortunate "occupational hazard" that should be expected, that those who have served and are serving are among the most noble there are, and that Cindy Sheehan certainly isn't doing justice for them. However, I don't think the president should have a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, because he ultimately made the decision to send 150,000 of America's finest to Iraq.

[b]"All wars are extensions of politics."[/b]

[/3AM Coherence]

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

they tell you right off the bat in training.

you have 4 months to decide. (1 year if in an academy)

it is the military. you must deal with the fact that weapons are used.

maybe she should be att the UN door begging for them to put pressure on the nations and peoples who do these things.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless]they tell you right off the bat in training.

you have 4 months to decide. (1 year if in an academy)

it is the military. you must deal with the fact that weapons are used.

maybe she should be att the UN door begging for them to put pressure on the nations and peoples who do these things.[/quote]

:roll:

Is this the same UN who you are constantly making jokes about? The same UN that you have called pussies, and irrelevant?

It is the right of every American to dissent and protest. Period. Dont like it? Get out.

If Casey Sheehan had died in Afghanistan I would say that you are right about this issue. However, since he died in AN ILLEGAL WAR of aggression, I would say that she has every right to be pissed.

Military command structure assumes that you are being told the truth by your commanders.

When you are sent into war ON A LIE, it changes things a bit.

Sightless, I hope that your brother stays safe.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

the sad thing is that we all know its a lie, we do, either he was lied to or he and the cabinet created the war, but we did give saddam and his entire military over 6 months to load the materials up (btw, we have found base materials and supplies that would be used to create biological weapons, we did.) and ship the stuff off to iran, pakistan, saudi, etc. its not like we went in overnight. all those years saddam hid things from hands blix and fought against the inspectors. hmmmm, what was he hiding??? how did he kill 300k people? too many questions that will not be answered.

but that is a different issue. we sign up for the military to OBEY orders, no matter where they come from on the chain of command, whether from your direct CO or the pres himself. you volunteer to do what they want.

we did the same thing thing, albeit on a lessor scale, in bosnia.we sent in our military to stop a man who was killing people, stockpiling weapons and other choice crimes.

lets not bring in issues other than the fact that her problem should be with her son, not the gov't. he volunteered, he stayed. he knew full well what could have happened.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

Thru my lessons on the UN of this i've made somewhat of a swing on the war: hate how Bush got to do it, but Saddam had to have is arse kicked anyway. On the one hand Bush is responsible for a war started over lies, on the other hand the kid could've indeed opted out, but he didn't.

There is something called 'being capable of making your own decisions'. The kid made his decision, period. Cindy, go home, mourn over your son but don't act as if he was not capable of thinking for himself. That is an insult to your son, to say the least.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

Thanks for supporting the troops guys. :roll:

Im sure that women rape victims shouldnt dress so sexy?

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=Yao]Thru my lessons on the UN of this i've made somewhat of a swing on the war: hate how Bush got to do it, but Saddam had to have is arse kicked anyway. On the one hand Bush is responsible for a war started over lies, on the other hand the kid could've indeed opted out, but he didn't.

There is something called 'being capable of making your own decisions'. The kid made his decision, period. Cindy, go home, mourn over your son but don't act as if he was not capable of thinking for himself. That is an insult to your son, to say the least.[/quote]

eaxactly my thoughts that i couldnt find the words for.

oh and PS, the UN doesnt work. examples..

1. isreal/gaza and the fence they say is illegal but they never bothtered to stop building.(kinda created the situation for themselves, along with US hand putting it in motion.)
2. africa ( this didnt happen overnight)
3. n. korea/Iran (i guess the nuclear proliferation treay only applies to those who want to abide and when they want to abide)
4. S. american drug trade.
5. letting the G8 groups completely dominate the economies of the world, and having the thrid world being the providers of cheap, mistreated labor without giving the most basic rights of cpmpetitive pay or benifits.
6. OIL FOR FOOD> or should have been oil for pocket cash for the elite of iraq, saudi arabia
7. complete human rights violations in the middle east.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=eye-p]Thanks for supporting the troops guys. :roll:

Im sure that women rape victims shouldnt dress so sexy?[/quote]

Man, I hope I'm misunderstanding you here but...

Did you just compare men and women who made their own choice to fight and die for our country to... rape victims?

If I did, please correct me and I'll be happy to admit my mistake - otherwise you are an even bigger hypocrite than I ever imagined

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless][quote=Yao]Thru my lessons on the UN of this i've made somewhat of a swing on the war: hate how Bush got to do it, but Saddam had to have is arse kicked anyway. On the one hand Bush is responsible for a war started over lies, on the other hand the kid could've indeed opted out, but he didn't.

There is something called 'being capable of making your own decisions'. The kid made his decision, period. Cindy, go home, mourn over your son but don't act as if he was not capable of thinking for himself. That is an insult to your son, to say the least.[/quote]

eaxactly my thoughts that i couldnt find the words for.

oh and PS, the UN doesnt work. examples..

1. isreal/gaza and the fence they say is illegal but they never bothtered to stop building.(kinda created the situation for themselves, along with US hand putting it in motion.)
2. africa ( this didnt happen overnight)
3. n. korea/Iran (i guess the nuclear proliferation treay only applies to those who want to abide and when they want to abide)
4. S. american drug trade.
5. letting the G8 groups completely dominate the economies of the world, and having the thrid world being the providers of cheap, mistreated labor without giving the most basic rights of cpmpetitive pay or benifits.
6. OIL FOR FOOD> or should have been oil for pocket cash for the elite of iraq, saudi arabia
7. complete human rights violations in the middle east.[/quote]

LMAO, I know how you think about the UN, and you know how I think of them. Have a thick book now: UN Security Council: from the cold war to the 21st century (David M Malone). It contains chapters by different writers on a lot of cases, as well as general subjects. Very interesting, and it gives you a look behind the screens of the politics. It also shows you how the UN has been successfull, as well as it brings it's faults to light. It questions the effectivity, but on the other hand shows you what the difficulties are in such a large political body.

Recommended read for UN-haters that need an unbiased view of it. ;-)

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

i know they mean good, but only hear about they send in peacekeepers to solve conflicts and more often than not those same peacekeepers end up on the receiving end of an assault and the US and other SC members end up sending in troops to save the peacekeepers.

/end rant /take yao to PM /end bitching

cya there.!!

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

:CrackUp:

That why you need to read the book, hahahahhah!!!

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=BSully828][quote=eye-p]Thanks for supporting the troops guys. :roll:

Im sure that women rape victims shouldnt dress so sexy?[/quote]

Man, I hope I'm misunderstanding you here but...

Did you just compare men and women who made their own choice to fight and die for our country to... rape victims?

If I did, please correct me and I'll be happy to admit my mistake - otherwise you are an even bigger hypocrite than I ever imagined[/quote]

What dont you get? Pretty simple.

If you join the armed forces to protect the country, great.

If you joined the armed forces to protect the country, but instead you are forced to fight the oil wars, not great.

These troops, all of them, have every reason to be pissed at the politicians who started this godforsaken war- on a pack of lies.

Just because they joined, does not mean that they can be used for illegal wars.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

:roll:

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

your complete inability to look things up that you dont like is apparent.

the US military's 4 main branches, under the constitution of the US are not allowed to operate on domestic soil in any capacity outside of training. the army, navy, marines and airforce only operate outside of the US. we have the national guard to operate on this soil. :roll: the onlytime you will ever see the ARMY or marines operate here is under one of two circumstances.

1. martial law, which hasnt existed since the 1800's.
2. for things like the RNC and DNC where it isnt feasible to have the NG troops travel and setup across the country when there is a division of another branch based closer. (its a logistics thing that they try to make easier.) the folks you see in Penn Station and in DC, are, for the most part NG units unless there is a need for a specific force, like hazmat or intel.

you join the military to fight abraod. :BangHead:

you know your shit when it comes to your own opinion, and you sure know how to google search stats, but you need to do more research on the shit you disagree with. and im on your side more often than not. anyone can take mike moore or tucker carlson or bill oreilly or anne coultier for the truth, but it doesnt mean they are right.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

I don't listen to anyone named "Tucker."

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

oh i wasnt talking to the jenks man.. 8)

you seem to share my cynacism and broad contempt for anyone in office.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless]your complete inability to look things up that you dont like is apparent.

the US military's 4 main branches, under the constitution of the US are not allowed to operate on domestic soil in any capacity outside of training. the army, navy, marines and airforce only operate outside of the US. we have the national guard to operate on this soil. :roll: the onlytime you will ever see the ARMY or marines operate here is under one of two circumstances.

1. martial law, which hasnt existed since the 1800's.
2. for things like the RNC and DNC where it isnt feasible to have the NG troops travel and setup across the country when there is a division of another branch based closer. (its a logistics thing that they try to make easier.) the folks you see in Penn Station and in DC, are, for the most part NG units unless there is a need for a specific force, like hazmat or intel.

you join the military to fight abraod. :BangHead:

you know your shit when it comes to your own opinion, and you sure know how to google search stats, but you need to do more research on the shit you disagree with. and im on your side more often than not. anyone can take mike moore or tucker carlson or bill oreilly or anne coultier for the truth, but it doesnt mean they are right.[/quote]

Not exactly.

1. I was not suggesting that the military protects us by fighting on US soil. My post didnt suggest that either. The military protects this country BY fighting abroad. Got it? The military should not be a subsidiary of big oil.

2. In your misreading my post, I assume you are referring to The Posse Comitatus act of 1878, which you should know has been suspended by The Patriot Act. The US military has no legal barrier to acting within US borders. In fact, I regularly see military guarding the Coronado bridge in San Diego.

3. Since you mentioned the NG, have you not noticed that the NG is more than 50% of the US force in Iraq? Who is then supposed to protect the US mainland?

Nice try. :roll:

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=eye-p]

Nice try. :roll:[/quote]

fuck you.

im glad you looked up a law. way to go. however, you still seem to apply only ideas that make your point rather than looking bigger.

the national guard is in Iraq for the reason we are in the midst of an invasion which is stretching our groups thin.(because ppl like you dont have any balls to do something beyond your own personal gain and motivation). the main 4 branches still wont operate here. i know this because right now my brother James is in fort bragg getting ready to go there, my cousin keiran is a US ARMY attorney operating in the pentagon, and i am former 525th (forensic accounting/fort bragg/99-01/mos#2002ACC). the Military you see at coronado bridge is most likely the NG or a division of the marines that is on shore duty. the P.C. Act was put on hold in order allow 4 divisions of the ARMY to operate in DC and NYC. they arent acting on an offensive, they are here and in DC to back up the NG units that are stretched too thin.

you also seem to be forgetting that the Baath party killed over 300k people in under 25 years. continued to create purified unranium cake while blix and crew were sent on wild goose chases. we have indeed found bacteria, there still seems to be a stockpile of missles, explosives and other choice weapons.

you keep crying about big oil companies. i understand you belive that the oil is the single and only reason any conflict occurs in the middle east. i cant change the fact that you are narrow minded.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

and another thing.

oil=open market. most US companies were booted from the area in the 80's Europe pays higher prices on oil per person than the US does.

maybe there are OTHER FACTORS OUTSIDE OF OIL COMPANIES.

im still saying its wrong, but christ you are closed minded and oblivious to things.

like trying to boost the european markets which are getting killed by the high cost of operating thier industrial centres. this might help thier currency valutaion in comparison to the north american and asain markets.

stabilizing the region for the gigantic mistakes we all made with isreal. dont think for a minute that if the ""muslim"" nations seemed to unite, they wouldnt head right in and take back the land.

i could go into these, but i got shit to do.

none of them are good enough for me, but nonetheless they are indeed factors that in one way or another were eventually going to peek their heads up. what was going to happen when the N. american companies began dirlling in northern canada and developed a trade structure with the south american producers and the euro markets fell behind? they would jump right in there.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless][quote=eye-p]

Nice try. :roll:[/quote]

fuck you.

im glad you looked up a law. way to go. however, you still seem to apply only ideas that make your point rather than looking bigger.

the national guard is in Iraq for the reason we are in the midst of an invasion which is stretching our groups thin.(because ppl like you dont have any balls to do something beyond your own personal gain and motivation). the main 4 branches still wont operate here. i know this because right now my brother James is in fort bragg getting ready to go there, my cousin keiran is a US ARMY attorney operating in the pentagon, and i am former 525th (forensic accounting/fort bragg/99-01/mos#2002ACC). the Military you see at coronado bridge is most likely the NG or a division of the marines that is on shore duty. the P.C. Act was put on hold in order allow 4 divisions of the ARMY to operate in DC and NYC. they arent acting on an offensive, they are here and in DC to back up the NG units that are stretched too thin.

you also seem to be forgetting that the Baath party killed over 300k people in under 25 years. continued to create purified unranium cake while blix and crew were sent on wild goose chases. we have indeed found bacteria, there still seems to be a stockpile of missles, explosives and other choice weapons.

you keep crying about big oil companies. i understand you belive that the oil is the single and only reason any conflict occurs in the middle east. i cant change the fact that you are narrow minded.[/quote]

So you are wrong, and I call you on it= Fuck You? Good job sparky.

1. The Coronado bridge is protected by Marines on loan to DHS. I know this because I live here. Oh, and my next door neighbor is attached to that unit. They are active duty. This is a clear violation of P. C..

2. The Baath party did not kill 300,000 people in 25 years. While they did kill over 10,000 with chemical weapons that WE sold them, and a whole bunch more in the Iran/Iraq war, they did not wholesale slaughter 300,000.

3. Uranium cake? Are you totally stupid? NO WMD. Period. The yellow cake episode has been debunked. In fact, the Bush administration apologized for including this in the 2003 SOTU speech. Did you miss this important point? If you did, you can look at the Rovegate scandal that is happening right now. Joe Wilson calling bullshit on this is the reason they outed his wife.

4. We found bacteria? Are you kidding? Bacteria? Bullshit. Bush said nukes. Condi said nukes. Cheney said nukes.

5. Other weapons? Stockpiles of weapons? Of course he had weapons! Should the Iraqi army have shot spitballs at their enemies? I cant believe that you honestly believe this.

For the record, UN and US inspectors have found exactly 16 banned Al-Saamud missles. They were not operable, but they were still banned under UN sanctions.

Checkmate.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless]and another thing.

oil=open market. most US companies were booted from the area in the 80's Europe pays higher prices on oil per person than the US does.

maybe there are OTHER FACTORS OUTSIDE OF OIL COMPANIES.

im still saying its wrong, but christ you are closed minded and oblivious to things.

like trying to boost the european markets which are getting killed by the high cost of operating thier industrial centres. this might help thier currency valutaion in comparison to the north american and asain markets.

stabilizing the region for the gigantic mistakes we all made with isreal. dont think for a minute that if the ""muslim"" nations seemed to unite, they wouldnt head right in and take back the land.

i could go into these, but i got shit to do.

none of them are good enough for me, but nonetheless they are indeed factors that in one way or another were eventually going to peek their heads up. what was going to happen when the N. american companies began dirlling in northern canada and developed a trade structure with the south american producers and the euro markets fell behind? they would jump right in there.[/quote]

1. European's pay more for oil due to their govt's taxing structure.

2. US companies were not booted from the area in the 80's. This is a fabrication on your part.

3. So you rationalize attacking Iraq to stabilize the Euro and Asian markets? I dont. I dont think the US wanting to help their currency valuation had anything to do with it, an I suspect you dont either. This is a war for resources and you know it.

4. Stabilizing the region to help Israel played a big part in this.

You can keep making excuses for your "team" as long as you want. History will prove me right, not you.

The sooner you figure out that the people you keep defending are looting the country and killing for oil, the sooner our country will be able to fix what ails it.

Hows that fork feel? :lol:

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

1. i understand that. but taxes arent flat fees, they are rates imposed on a base price, which is still high.

2. actaully, they were. US and Euro drilling companies were replaced by local, gov't run run drilling companies. ex. BP still owns the equipment, but they dont get the oil.

3. your putting words in my mouth, i was saying that there are other factors.

4. i dont know what you mean here.

and fuck off yet again, im done arguning with you, you say the same shit over and over. send me our address so i can send some kleenex soaked in oil.

history, has and still is proving you wrong. you are arguing against facts that exist and are not changing. we want them to change, but they arent, you seem to be denying this.

i still dont know why you think im on a team. i hate all govt in the last 2 decades. its all corrupt.

now go live in your fantasy world where everyone gets along. either that or move to a different country as you seem to hate how half of this retarded nation of ours has voted him again.

you bring nothing here. you just say ""war about oil"" every time someon has a thought about the war not related to oil.

i can see you now, your prbably 19, a philosophy major, sitting in your dorm planning your next protest at the local Mobil station.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

Chill out you two...no need to get personal. You can simply agree to disagree ;-)

A few points:

1. believe it or not, but in my country in the price of ?1.35 a [b]litre[/b] ?0.90 or more is taxes. It's all about the taxes here mates...liberal socialist politics they call it. Should keep health services affordable, but our country manages to even fuck that up. (I'm almost ready to actually kill the goddamn son of a bitch that invented our soon-to-be-implemented new system.)

2. Despite the fact that I've learnt enough on the Iraqi case to advocate a regime change right now, the WMD's and Nukes we were told about were never found: what was found were small remainders and stocks that under no circumstance would justify the war solely.

Neither do I believe the war is on resources alone: they may be part of the agenda, but there's more to it. What that is, is yet to be found out by the common man.

3. History is still taking place: neither of you two have been proven right or wrong right now. Sit back, relax and enjoy the play that is called 'The history of planet Earth unfolding, or: how we humans managed to ravage this perfectly nice little planet we had'.

:mrgreen:

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[img]http://www.firestream.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10193/ethug.jpg[/img]

Now go get your shinebox!

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=Yao]Chill out you two...no need to get personal. You can simply agree to disagree ;-)

A few points:

1. believe it or not, but in my country in the price of ?1.35 a [b]litre[/b] ?0.90 or more is taxes. It's all about the taxes here mates...liberal socialist politics they call it. Should keep health services affordable, but our country manages to even fuck that up. (I'm almost ready to actually kill the goddamn son of a bitch that invented our soon-to-be-implemented new system.)

2. Despite the fact that I've learnt enough on the Iraqi case to advocate a regime change right now, the WMD's and Nukes we were told about were never found: what was found were small remainders and stocks that under no circumstance would justify the war solely.

Neither do I believe the war is on resources alone: they may be part of the agenda, but there's more to it. What that is, is yet to be found out by the common man.

3. History is still taking place: neither of you two have been proven right or wrong right now. Sit back, relax and enjoy the play that is called 'The history of planet Earth unfolding, or: how we humans managed to ravage this perfectly nice little planet we had'.

:mrgreen:[/quote]

Point taken Yao.

I wasnt the one getting personal. I was just being honest.

He started it! :P

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

fuck you eye-p, you really are an ashhole. still in the end, you think that the oil companies are the sole reason?

i give it to you though, you actually got me to argue against myself...... touche.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

:CrackUp:

Anyway..Sightless, do you remember me saying once that I would never ever be in favour of this war? I still am not entirely, but I'm not entirely against it anymore either....for me that is quite a swing. But it took those UN Security Council classes form last year to make that happen...fuck you should read what I've read about it man, there's so much more to it.

Finished all the chapters on Iraq yesterday, and at this moment I would probably have favoured the regime change, simply because whatever the UNSC did, it it wasn't an attack on himself, Saddam would always find a way to use it to further repress his people. Even the sanctions (heaviest weapon without violence) were a tool for him to keep more control of his people than ever.

Right now I think it's really unbelieveable that most European countries were against the war, but then again: with better argumentation they might have been in favour. Maybe the emphasis should've been on Saddam's non-co?perative behaviour in the first place, and his gaining of the sanctions. Europeans hate to be made to look like a fool, and that's exactly what he did.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

im not in favor either, actually i want out and i say give em back hussein if the world hates the US that much. but im saying that there are other reasons other than the oil companies subliminally cont5rolling us.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

Tho there is IMO no denying their influence: it is, to say the least, pretty suspicious that an administration has already occupied itself with handing out jobs and lucrative contracts even before the war has started. Not to mention that the contracts benefited the companies in which those administration members had an interest the most.

Then again, there is also just a group inside your govt that is simply very assertive in dealing with (future) problems. I've always advocated a little less war mongering from the US neo-con side, and a little more balls from the side of Europe.

What I'm beginning to think is that the NATO and the UN have too many different opinions inside them: I mean, fucking Russia and China are in them! To me, that means that a real consensus on any problem is going to be really hard to concieve. The thought behind it might have been to lessen the tensions from that side by taking them aboard, but that has IMO rendered the UNSC virtually useless: too many economical and political interests involved in one organisation. I think Veto right should be abolished, and a 2/3 majority should do. That is democratic. Veto's are used as weapons, and they slow the process down too much. Archa?c bullshit to secure the interets of the P-5, nothing else.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=Yao] Maybe the emphasis should've been on Saddam's non-co?perative behaviour in the first place[/quote]

I'd be curious to see how things would be different now if we had done this. I don't mean to suggest that the war itself would necessarily be fought any differently, but public sentiment might be different -- although there are still some Bush apologists out there that think he spins gold when he talks, most of the country is starting to realize that he just spins, period. The constantly changing rationale for the war is wearing thin with moderates who had been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.

In contrast, if we had gone in there primarily on the legimate basis that Saddam was a fucking monster, that he was constantly thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, and that regime change was in order, the message would not have needed to change along the way; although things aren't great there now, Bush could stick with the message that, "this will take time but it is important and we have to stay the course." I doubt Bush would be in the political quandry in which he currently finds himself -- people might be unhappy with the status of the war, but he'd likely still enjoy the image of an honest, straight-forward and trustworthy guy (which, let's face it, is Bush's strongest quality as a leader).

Of course, it appears that Bush and Blair recognized that "Saddam is a bad guy" would be a tough sell before the UNSC (see Downing Street Memos). It probably would have taken longer before we could convince the world that his unwillingness to cooperate was worthy of regime change -- perhaps, in that time, though, we could have caught Osama bin Laden. :roll:

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

if the US gov't would isolate itself more, rather than having something to do with every single gov't in the world, people wouldnt be pissed at us and maybe they'd admire the fact that you can educate yourself, open a business and become wealthy if you try hard enough. but no, we dip the proverbial dick into every little hole we can find.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

LMAO

despite that Sightless, sometimes the US has indeed done what the rest of the world was unwilling to do. So Bush may be an arse, the US as a whole still deserves more credit than it is given now.

Toasty: I kinda get the feeling that is was more important to be more honest to the other UNSC members...and they should have out more presure on them. The man who taught the classes on the UNSC last year has been chairman of the Iraq Sanctions Committee in 1999 and 2000...it is because of his sharp and unbiased but critical observations that at this moment I know for myself why the UNSC will never be as effective as it can theoretically be, which is a damn shame really.

A broader consensus among the governments involved could very well have lead to a broader support among the common people. Not 100%, but still a significant part I suspect.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=thesightless]listen. i realize your son had the most unfortunate event. it truly is a shame that this world has to be like it is.

however, when he joined the army, he took upon the burden that he would have to go into combat blindly, taking the orders without question. i did. my brother has just started. the US army, unfortunetly is a police force that wears a bullseye on its back.

please do not disgrace the fact that your son died in service to the USA. he knew full well what he was into, and nowaydays, you have plenty of time(4 months) to back out before you are punished as deserter. you should give up your false quest against our leadership because you had the circumstance you do. my family, as well as thousands of others have had to cope with the fact that we might die in combat. we respect your son and hold him in higher esteem than any other US citizen. you cannot detract from what your son, my brother, myself and thousands of others have gave thier lives for. for shame on you. for shame. it was HIS choice, HIS decision. HIS actions. if anything realisze that you hate what YOUR SON did. not the higherarchy of the military chose. he could have ran. he could have deserted. he could have never joined.

its unfortunate that the media today has lead us to belive that it all falls on the hands of G. Bush, B. clinton, R.reagan. it doesnt. its on the few of us who have the guts to go out and risk it all for something greater. no matter what you think of it.[/quote]

her acts have started to border on obsession...and the media of course is eating it all up.

Now she's temporarily left because of a stroke to her mom. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/crawford.protest/[/url]

Her husband's basically ready to divorce her, and her kids have begged her to come home....and she's willing to effectively tear apart her family for this protest/sit?

Ehhh once she leaves anyway, the media will discard her because it's yesterday's news... :?

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

When this first all started, I was basically of the mindset that, "Hey, if you want to camp out in Crawford for 5 weeks to make your point, well, that's your right -- feel free." I actually liked the message as I understood it to originally be -- she wanted to discuss the war with the president, and was going to sit outside of his house until he did so. No violence, no fiery rhetoric, just sitting there and quietly waiting for a guy who was obviously never going to come out to speak with her. Simple, easy to understand.

Both sides should be ashamed for the circus that has since ensued.

The left should be ashamed for coopting her simple message to make a grieving mother the spokesperson for the democratic party, having her speak about anything and everything because she's evidently the only person on the left anyone will pay any attention to. She was quoted giving her take on the withdrawal from Gaza for fuck's sake! She's a mom, but the way the message has changed has diluted the simple message she started with to the point that it is hard to know what the message really is anymore.

The right should be ashamed for the smear campaign they've lodged against her. She shouldn't have been surprised, of course, for if anyone dare speak out against the right in this country, the Republican attack machine is unleashed. "If you can't deal with the message, slaughter the messenger," seems to be the M.O. for the right these days. Is there anyone beyond attack?

I think I've officially worn myself out giving a shit about what goes on in the political arena. :roll: Both sides are so incredibly fucked up and unworthy of our respect.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=toasty]

I think I've officially worn myself out giving a shit about what goes on in the political arena. :roll: Both sides are so incredibly fucked up and unworthy of our respect.[/quote]

AMEN. [img]http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/cbt/brad/hallelujah.JPG[/img]

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

She is a sad case of being used by the media for their purposes, but even worse is the same group protesting in front of Walter Reed Military Hospital where soldiers are recovering.

link and a video: [url]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html[/url]

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

[quote=eye-p][quote=thesightless][quote=eye-p]

Nice try. :roll:[/quote]

fuck you.

im glad you looked up a law. way to go. however, you still seem to apply only ideas that make your point rather than looking bigger.

the national guard is in Iraq for the reason we are in the midst of an invasion which is stretching our groups thin.(because ppl like you dont have any balls to do something beyond your own personal gain and motivation). the main 4 branches still wont operate here. i know this because right now my brother James is in fort bragg getting ready to go there, my cousin keiran is a US ARMY attorney operating in the pentagon, and i am former 525th (forensic accounting/fort bragg/99-01/mos#2002ACC). the Military you see at coronado bridge is most likely the NG or a division of the marines that is on shore duty. the P.C. Act was put on hold in order allow 4 divisions of the ARMY to operate in DC and NYC. they arent acting on an offensive, they are here and in DC to back up the NG units that are stretched too thin.

you also seem to be forgetting that the Baath party killed over 300k people in under 25 years. continued to create purified unranium cake while blix and crew were sent on wild goose chases. we have indeed found bacteria, there still seems to be a stockpile of missles, explosives and other choice weapons.

you keep crying about big oil companies. i understand you belive that the oil is the single and only reason any conflict occurs in the middle east. i cant change the fact that you are narrow minded.[/quote]

So you are wrong, and I call you on it= Fuck You? Good job sparky.

1. The Coronado bridge is protected by Marines on loan to DHS. I know this because I live here. Oh, and my next door neighbor is attached to that unit. They are active duty. This is a clear violation of P. C..

2. The Baath party did not kill 300,000 people in 25 years. While they did kill over 10,000 with chemical weapons that WE sold them, and a whole bunch more in the Iran/Iraq war, they did not wholesale slaughter 300,000.

3. Uranium cake? Are you totally stupid? NO WMD. Period. The yellow cake episode has been debunked. In fact, the Bush administration apologized for including this in the 2003 SOTU speech. Did you miss this important point? If you did, you can look at the Rovegate scandal that is happening right now. Joe Wilson calling bullshit on this is the reason they outed his wife.

4. We found bacteria? Are you kidding? Bacteria? Bullshit. Bush said nukes. Condi said nukes. Cheney said nukes.

5. Other weapons? Stockpiles of weapons? Of course he had weapons! Should the Iraqi army have shot spitballs at their enemies? I cant believe that you honestly believe this.

For the record, UN and US inspectors have found exactly 16 banned Al-Saamud missles. They were not operable, but they were still banned under UN sanctions.

Checkmate.[/quote]

Well, eye-p, I really don't want to get overly involved in this discussion, but I'll make a couple points I think worth mentioning.

You know it is easy to say anything, and make it sound true, even though it isn't true. And we all know, if you spew a lie long enough, everyone will believe it to be true.

1. The troops found an underground bunker which they believed was an experimental station for nukes.

2. The troops found certain shells which contained some other chemicals, maybe a small amount, risen, or something. But it was enough to kill 500,000 people if dispersed the correct way on a populated area.

3. Saddam admitted to having chemical weapons and documented the stuff, the problem was he never showed how it was destroyed, hence we went to war. Not to mention, it would be pretty easy to hide the stuff, if your really honest. I hid pot from my mom growing up, and she was always looking for it. :)

4. 300,000 were killed, how can you get off saying it wasn't so. How can you misrepresent the truth like that. And it happened against the Kurds, right after Bush 1 stopped the Gulf war and allowed Saddam to keep Iraq intact. Saddam asked to be returned his helicopters, and he then used the copters to slaughter the Kurds which were building a good offensive against Saddam. And yes chemicals were used. Its documented. A fact!

5. Then lastly logically, where were all the bombs he had to have just for normal defensive measures. I know some were found, but not much if I remember correctly.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

Saw her on Bill Maher last night and she's really turned into a political force with her catchphrases and talking points. The liberal Bill Maher crowd loved her.

At first I didn't care for her story, but now the movement she's helped develop has become interesting. I wonder if our kids or grandkids will read about her in history class.

Re: a message to cindy sheehan

i have said this on another thread but i realy do believe the only way we will get dictators and rogue regimes to act responsibly is by going through the list assasinating or taking power from them by occupation .. alot of our soldiers lives will be lost doing this and we will create more terrorists by taking these actions howeva you have to play the long game , inaction will make the world a far worse place to live in 20 years time . and i'm pretty sure if u started wiping out heads of state who cause trouble and persecute their own ppl you would only need to take down a few before the others changed their ways