Please read this article and share your thoughts on the matter.



http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-9-2005-74557.asp




I give this woman a lot of credit for what she is doing.  I feel that she has the right to be heard and that she has a lot of very valid points.




Erin :)

Sorry, I disagree.  Part of being a member of the military is free education, training, housing, making friends, travelling abroad... and all that is fine and good... but there is another part of the military... its called SERVING OUR COUNTRY.

Everyone's fine as long as they're getting the free stuff... our soldiers understand what they are getting into when they sign up... and if they don't, that's the recruiter's fault, not the presidents fault.  From what I understand, the son was out of the military already, and re-enlisted specifically to go to Iraq. 

I think the son believed in what he was fighting for, the mother is doing a great disrespect to her son's values.  I think it's really sad when any of our troops lose a life, and I can understand why the mother is grieving... but if she didn't understand when her son originally enlisted, and didn't understand when he re-enlisted, i don't think she will understand now.

I don't think it would hurt to talk to her, but it probably won't do any good.  I doubt he would give her the answers she wants to hear. She has already talked to him once and what he said didn't seem to help her in any way.  The others that met with him that day had opposite reactions.   I think this is a case of someone who is looking for answers that can't possibly be answered.  I couldn't even begin to imagine what she is going through, and I pray for peace for this lady.  

Sorry, I disagree.   Part of being a member of the military is free education, training, housing, making friends, travelling abroad... and all that is fine and good... but there is another part of the military... its called SERVING OUR COUNTRY.

Everyone's fine as long as they're getting the free stuff... our soldiers understand what they are getting into when they sign up... and if they don't, that's the recruiter's fault, not the presidents fault.   From what I understand, the son was out of the military already, and re-enlisted specifically to go to Iraq.   

I think the son believed in what he was fighting for, the mother is doing a great disrespect to her son's values.   I think it's really sad when any of our troops lose a life, and I can understand why the mother is grieving... but if she didn't understand when her son originally enlisted, and didn't understand when he re-enlisted, i don't think she will understand now.




I agree with you Andrea....but I also feel that it is time for the troops to come home.  There have been way too many lives lost...for what?  Nothing seems to be getting better or accomplished for that matter. I think she is just very passionate about the lives of the men and women who are still over there. My husband's brother-in-law is currently over there, and yes, he knew what he was getting himself into...but he has a baby that is being born next month...I just think it's time that they all come home. Let's start worrying about issues back here in the US...God knows there are enough of them.



Erin :)

I don't think it would hurt to talk to her, but it probably won't do any good.  I doubt he would give her the answers she wants to hear. She has already talked to him once and what he said didn't seem to help her in any way.  The others that met with him that day had opposite reactions.  I think this is a case of someone who is looking for answers that can't possibly be answered.  I couldn't even begin to imagine what she is going through, and I pray for peace for this lady. 



I do agree with you. Nothing said will bring her back her son but he SHOULD talk to her. That is all she is asking. By not talking to her, to me, it shows that he could care less. If he was (cough, cough) smart (cough, cough), he would have gone out there the first day, talked to her and she would have gone home-end of story. But, because he is trying to ignore her, she is not going away and the more and more media and protesters are building up. It just make him look very bad.




Cat

I do not think that Bush should talk to that woman. He has talked to her once and that is enough.  He can't stop and have a conversation with everyone who feels like telling him something.  This woman is not going to change anything by being there. 

As for the war in Iraq, I don't agree with why we went there in the first place, but we are there now and have made a big mess and as far as I'm concerned we owe it to the Iraqis to help them put that place back together.  I have recently separated from the military and feel like I have a close bond with those in the military.  My husband and a lot of my close friends are still in the Air Force. I have a brother-in-law in the Army over there and it scares the crap out of me.  Everytime I see that someone has died over there I cry.  I do hope that we can get out of there soon, but not without resolve.

I agree with you Andrea....but I also feel that it is time for the troops to come home.  There have been way too many lives lost...for what?  Nothing seems to be getting better or accomplished for that matter.


And nothing will be, George Bush has led us in to the Centurys Vietnam and done a fine job of ensuring American Men & Women will be dieing on foreign soil for years to come. Thanks George, Thanks a Lot Chief!

Why for Freedom of course  ::) Have you not been watching the 'News'? This isn't a war for freedom and if you look at the prices we're currently paying at the Pump this isn't a war for oil. This is a war for war's sake. So the Neo-Con's can look back, pat each other on the back and say "Boy, we sure showed them towel heads, a huck huck."


I do agree with you. Nothing said will bring her back her son but he SHOULD talk to her. That is all she is asking. By not talking to her, to me, it shows that he could care less. If he was (cough, cough) smart (cough, cough), he would have gone out there the first day, talked to her and she would have gone home-end of story. But, because he is trying to ignore her, she is not going away and the more and more media and protesters are building up. It just make him look very bad.


Bad advice from his people, i don't think they could have come up with anything better than 'Georgey Invites Bereaved Woman To Ranch'. It would have been Political Gold, instead he's managed to mess it up. Who woulda thought he could do that  ::)


As for the war in Iraq, I don't agree with why we went there in the first place, but we are there now and have made a big mess and as far as I'm concerned we owe it to the Iraqis to help them put that place back together. I have recently separated from the military and feel like I have a close bond with those in the military. My husband and a lot of my close friends are still in the Air Force. I have a brother-in-law in the Army over there and it scares the crap out of me. Everytime I see that someone has died over there I cry. I do hope that we can get out of there soon, but not without resolve.


We'll never put the place back together, eventually, somewhere along the line, somebody is going to have to admit it, we're losing men and women out there every day, come home.
I remember when my cousin came home with his friend. His friend has no legs now. What a fun life he's going to lead.

In my opinion, it's too late for Dubyah to do anything with this woman. He won't talk to her now because if he does the media (or at least the tiny non-partisan media) will crucify him.

When she was just a mom who wanted to talk to President Bush for a second time, I had no problem with her, but when she said "Israel must pull out of Palestine" or something like that I knew she had absolutely lost her ever-loving mind.

When she was just a mom who wanted to talk to President Bush for a second time, I had no problem with her, but when she said "Israel must pull out of Palestine" or something like that I knew she had absolutely lost her ever-loving mind.


well, remember... you KNOW there's an oprah deal coming soon... :)

well, remember... you KNOW there's an oprah deal coming soon... :)


Remind me not to watch that day, I'll want to kick the TV in. :P ::)

When she was just a mom who wanted to talk to President Bush for a second time, I had no problem with her, but when she said "Israel must pull out of Palestine" or something like that I knew she had absolutely lost her ever-loving mind.

KUDOS TO SHEEHAN!

I wish there were a thousand more war moms like her!  It's pathetic the way the media keeps trying to say the "far left" is "using" her.  I think a woman with such chutzpah is a great example for those of us on the Left.
If Dubya met with her and even bothered to find out the name, age, and sex of the son Sheehan lost in Iraq, that would be one thing.  The man didn't even know the basics, didn't care to find out, and was flippantly using these meetings for political grandstanding.
Alcoholica was right.  If he had invited her to his ranch, he could have really cashed in.  The administration, however, is too chickensh*t to face the public.  One pundit said, "well, if the President let Sheehan come to the ranch there'd be a thousand other parents down there the next day."  So?  Throw a little cash around and start the Presidential War Parents Support Group, or something.
The problem is these bozos don't believe the press or the public is entitled to hold them accountable for anything.  They fancy themselves the Imperial Vanguard.

I thought it was unwise for Sheehan to mention Israel initially, but then again, it doesn't matter what she says or does.  No matter what tack she takes, the media is going to trash her.  Just like with John Kerry.  If it wasn't the Swft Boat azzh()les it would have been some other bogus hate group the media courted to bust up his campaign.  The corporate media will use anything it can against Sheehan.  It's like the way they're decrying the presence of Michael Moore and Move On.  Who did they expect?  William Kristol and the Heritage Foundation down there?  Gimme a break!

If Sheehan's goal is to draw attention to the injustices and futility of the Iraq war, she's got a good thing going.  If her goal is to get Bush and his cronies to care, then she is a loony!  It's obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bush and his band of Merry Men are sociopaths and incapable of connecting with the real world.

  It's obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bush and his band of Merry Men are sociopaths and incapable of connecting with the real world.


This is an interesting statement. ;D  Sociopaths, I think not.  Incapable of connecting with the real world, probably.  I think it would be difficult for anyone who was "running" a country to connect with the "real world".  Perhaps they should just pretend to connect better.

This is an interesting statement. ;D  Sociopaths, I think not.  Incapable of connecting with the real world, probably.  I think it would be difficult for anyone who was "running" a country to connect with the "real world".  Perhaps they should just pretend to connect better.


Well that is what they are doing...pretending.  I don't think someone running the country would be
"incapable" with connecting with the real world.  They wouldn't have to go far, just take a walk off
of Pennsylvania Avenue into DC and see how real people live with real problem.  Of course it would
take someone with heart.

well, remember... you KNOW there's an oprah deal coming soon... :)


Followed by an interview on Dateline no doubt.

The women has lost her mind, I'm sorry.  Michael Moore?  Code pink?  Moveon.org?  She is NOTHING more than a puppet for the anti-war movement.  The Israel statement was what put her over in my mind, but I'm sure those leftists down there are filling her head with stuff and making her even less rational.  Hell her own husband wants nothing to do with her.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." -Cindy Sheehan in June 2004 referring to President Bush.

When she was just a mom who wanted to talk to President Bush for a second time, I had no problem with her, but when she said "Israel must pull out of Palestine" or something like that I knew she had absolutely lost her ever-loving mind.


I myself have major problems with people like that.  You have people that will go around saying "The US has no business poking it's nose in the affairs of other countries", then they go and scream at things that Israel does.  Can you say "Double Standard"?

Myself, I have a lot of sympathy for the people that are having to leave.  These are people who have lived there for decades.  Some of them even have family members burried there.  One gal I saw is trying to fight it.  She was born in the settlement, and her husband is burried there (he was killed in a terrorist attack).  Now she is being told she has to leave, and that her husband's body will be moved "sometime in the future".

Buf of course, Palestinians do not want Jews poisoning "their homeland".

This lady's story is sad, and I am sorry she lost her son.  But then again, he joined the military of his own free will.  And she has met with the president once.

I myself went to a "Going Away" party this weekend for my girlfriend's nephew.  He is the 3rd Nephew that is going over there.  He is 19, and he full well knew when he joined the National Guard that being called up was a possibility.  He is nervous, but that is what he signed up to do.

Her son will not come back.  Nothing the President or anybody else says will help her.  He joined knowing full well what might happen, and she needs to learn how to accept that.  But accepting the loss of a loved one is hard to do.  Believe me, I know all about that.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Marine's%20Family%20Speaks

She's not the only one speaking out after losing a son in the pointless Iraq war.

I'm sorry, but I totally agree with the mom. 

You know, people say that the people KNEW what they were getting into when they enlisted.  Fine. 

If the Bushes think its so good to be in this war, how come his kids arent enlisted?  How come the majority of our leaders dont have their children fighting over there?

Its us normal, middle class people, who joined the military to help pay for school/ect that are over there risking our asses for what?  I have no firgging clue. 

My sister was very close to joining the army...then when Bush got relected...she said Hell no..she wasnt going over there.

Bush is out of touch with the people...and I for one really really despise the man.

Its us normal, middle class people, who joined the military to help pay for school/ect that are over there risking our masses for what?  I have no firgging clue. 



So you're saying they joined because they wanted a free ride, but they shouldn't have to be called to duty??  Unbelievable.

No, thats NOT what Im saying.    It may have come across that way...but thats not what I meant.  I apologize for that.

I have NO problem with people enlisting because they want to.  Fine and dandy with me. 

I DO have a problem with all these young men and women being killed every week. 

I do have a problem with all of our elected officials saying how this war is so good, and they beleive in it, but yet I dont see their kids fighting over there. 


But hey, thats just me.  I support the soldiers...I know a few over there, I just dont support WHY they are there. 

I do have a problem with all of our elected officials saying how this war is so good, and they beleive in it, but yet I dont see their kids fighting over there. 



Maybe their children do not want to be in the military.  We cannot make this jugement if we do not know the reasons behind it. :-\\

So you're saying they joined because they wanted a free ride, but they shouldn't have to be called to duty??   Unbelievable.


Sure they exist.  I knew many of them when I was in.  We call them "Fair Weather Marines" (or Sailors, or Soldiers, or Airmen).  They join because they want a free ride, and to take advantage of the bonus programs that veterans get.

A good example if that "Doctor" that after completing his medical school, went public with his being Gay.  He did that because he wanted his Doctorate paid for by somebody else.  But surprise, he got sued for over $71k to repay the taxpayers.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/hens091503.htm

In the 1980's, a lot of people joined to take advantage of these programs.  But in 1990, the Gulf War came up.  Suddenly, a lot of them were finding excuses to avoid the other half of the responsibility.  I remember clearly one female Soldier who took sanctuary in a San Francisco church.  She said in an interview that she "joined to take advantage of the edication benefits, not to fight and possibly die in some war".

We now live in a Post 9/11 world.  The vast majority of people in the military now either joined or re-enlisted after 9/11.  For any of them to claim that they did not think there was a chance they might fight is insane.

I wonder if anybody who knew this lady's son could tell us his thoughts when he was over there.  I am sure that he did his job bravely and with honor.  Most people who serve together are closer then brothers.  This is the kind of thing that causes one to run out into enemy fire to bring back a wounded buddy, or to throw himself onto a grenade.  And now his mother is doing everything she can to make his death cheap.

Oh, I am sure she was proud when he joined.  And it is sad when anybody dies in the line of duty.  But joining the military has risks.

And as to why President Bush's daughters are not in the military, that is just asinine.  We do not have a draft, and the military is both a responsibilty and an honor.  But nobody has to join.  And women join in much lower percentages then men.  For being roughly 50% of the population, they only make up 14% of the personel in uniform.

And if you have a problem with these people being killed, why not complain to the ones killing them, the terrorists?  It is not like they are being marched into machineguns run by other US military members.  They are being attacked by terrorists and insurgents.  Instead of blaming the military or the President, why not blame the people who are actually doing the killing?

If you are robbed or assaulted, do you blame the police for not protecting you?  Or do you blame the criminal scum that did it in the first place?

And as to why President Bush's daughters are not in the military, that is just asinine.  We do not have a draft, and the military is both a responsibility and an honor.  But nobody has to join.  And women join in much lower percentages then men.  For being roughly 50% of the population, they only make up 14% of the personnel in uniform.



It is not so much the bush twins as the fact that not one person in Congress has a child serving in combat.  A generation ago that was unthinkable.  The question of duty to ones country ran across the spectrum.  Today there is a glaring definition in the line between who enter the military and those who don't.  The upper classes do not.  The middle and working do.  The upper classes have negated their responsibility.  At the same time the benefits paid to combat veterans are repeatedly threatened, even though they deserve a better shake, and because the very benefits they hoped to receive, such as education, are the ones that they need to better their lives,  It is unconscionable.

It is not so much the bush twins as the fact that not one person in Congress has a child serving in combat.  A generation ago that was unthinkable.


Lets see, in Congress we have 36 Senators and 101 Representatives who are veterans.  So 137 of them have first hand experience of being in the military.  And if John Kerry had been elected, would you be complaining because he has no children in the military?

And your information is wrong.  Unless he has already finished his tour of duty, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota has a son serving in Iraq right now.  But even if he has home, that is a misleading statement.  Because his son has been there.

http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d930340a.htm

Today there is a glaring definition in the line between who enter the military and those who don't.  The upper classes do not.  The middle and working do.   The upper classes have negated their responsibility. 


I don't believe that the middle and lower classes are joining the military because it is their responsibility.  I was in the military and it was common to ask someone why they joined the military.  I rarely, if ever, heard someone say they joined because it was their responsibility.  Sure a few said "to serve my country" (which is almost the same thing), but they usually added that to the end of their list of reasons.  I usually heard reasons like, to see the world/travel, to help me pay for school, because my dad did it, to stay out of trouble, I couldn't stand living with my parents, for a job, for the benefits, I wanted to work on/fly planes.........................................

I don't think it's fair to say the upper class is negating their responsibility because responsibility is not the reason the other classes are joining either.
The middle and lower class just don't have the same opportunities as the upper class.  We can't blame the upper class for that. :-\\

And if you have a problem with these people being killed, why not complain to the ones killing them, the terrorists?  It is not like they are being marched into machineguns run by other US military members.  They are being attacked by terrorists and insurgents.  Instead of blaming the military or the President, why not blame the people who are actually doing the killing?

If you are robbed or assaulted, do you blame the police for not protecting you?  Or do you blame the criminal scum that did it in the first place?


THANK YOU - God, I was starting to think I was the only one here who could see this concept.  Yes, if this lady is so concerned with people getting killed I'd be happy to buy her a plane ticket to Baghdad and she can camp out in front of an insurgent hideout and wait for the leader to come out and talk to her.

I think one of the points is this: none of us know what it's like to lose a relative in combat, UNLESS you've actually been through it. I can't imagine what is going through this woman (and many other parents) mind....If I was in her situation, and my son or daughter died in the war..I can't say that I wouldn't be doing the very same thing.  People are getting frustrated, there is too much blood being shed and nothing showing for it, why continue beating a dead horse. There are SO many issues surrounding us in OUR own country.....it feels like our country has been put on the "back burner" by our President. There have been too many men and women who have died and nothing has really been accomplished....why keep doing what they are doing? I admit, I don't know a great deal about issues concerning the war, politics, etc...but this whole thing just doesn't seem right.



Erin :)

Why?  Well, for one, it's not the JOB of the terrorists to listen to the people....Of the people, By the people, FOR the people.  It's not THEIR job to look out for the best interests of American citizens.  It's not THEIR job to ANSWER to the American people.  It IS the president's & Congress' job to do that.
Quote]




With THAT logic..why aren't we BLAMING the Saudi Arabian Government for breeding the terrorists AND paying them..

Put the blame on the 'evil-doers/terrorists' and ANYONE who supported their actions and ideals...that would be who again??? ???

enough have to complain I would think but then..what is enough....?

What could be done to get people out of their chairs to make changes? Most are tired or feel it won't matter.., I think that was a contest someone came upwith and there was no answer to it , so no one won...

BUT NOW the mom is getting KOOKY calling Bush the biggest terrorist in the world or something along those lines..and they said her marriage is splitting over the grief it has caused...CAN SOMEONE SAY RUNAWAY BRIDE??

I have a serious question to post now.

Do people honestly believe that if the entire US military packed up and left Iraq, would things be better over there?  And do you believe that if we never went over there in the first place, that things would be better over there?

I know that the news media gives a slightly slanted view of what is happening.  Yesterday, over 50 civilians were killed in 3 seperate car bomb attacks.  In one of these, the terrorsts purposefully detonated a second bomb after aid workers showed up to help those in the first attack.

Most of the people captured are not Iraqi cotizens.  They come from other nations in the area, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.  They want to turn Iraq into a "Paradise On Earth".

Now what is this Paradise?  For those who think saying the Pledge is a violation of "Church And State", you should love this.  It means Islamic law.  Women, put on the veils, and forget how to do everything but have babies.  If you are not Muslim, prepare for the pograms.  And all teaching in schools will be strictly out of the Koran.  And prepare for the hordes of bodies and maimed from the justice system, because they do not believe in prisons (other then for select political prisoners).  Most punishment is either death, or dismemberment.

Now once again, would things really be better if we left?  Or because our servicemembers are no longer dying, you could no longer care what happens over there?  I will tell you this boys and girls, in the minds of most people who have served over there, leaving is one of the last things on their mind.  I talk to people who have been over there almost daily, so I have a lot closer relationship to our "servicemen" then most of you will ever have.

This is the kind of thing that puzzles our Warriors.  They train for years, learning to do what they do.  It may be to be an Infantryman, to drive a truck, it may be to be a combat medic or a helicopter mechanic.  There is a large sense of pride when a situation comes up, and you are put into it because you are needed.  And contrary to what most people think, most of our military members want to stop killing.

"Bad people" do not stop being bad, just because you ask them to.  That is a simplistic view of the world, and it has never worked.  Ask Neville Chamberlin about it if you do not believe me.  Or for that matter, ask Saddam.  He invaded and attacked everybody who was within reach.  If he could not attack somebody else, he attacked his own people.  There is nothing that will stop these terrorists, other then destroying the network that sponsors them.

Yes, this is a war.  And yes, people are dying.  Yes, it totally sucks.  But what is the solution?  Do we pull out?  If we do that, we are condemning the people of Iraq to sink into a state that Afganistan was in 5-10 years ago.  I don't give a damn about oil, or money, or anything else.  And unlike some people, I refuse to weigh human lives against such things.  I do not care if it is Iraq, Afganistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, or Antarctica.  If "bad men" are doing "bad things", they need to be stopped.  And sadly, the UN has been impotant in doing it's job.

If you believe that the UN has been effective, ask the people of Afganistan and Somalia their opinion.

(getting off the soapbox, waiting for the attacks and blame, but no workable resolutions)

The anger I feel is because we are in a situation that was manufactured by the bush administration.  It is now
an accepted fact the USA is in this quagmire under false pretenses, and the situation for the Iraqi people has
become dire.  The prospects for life under the new regime may be just as intolerable as life under sadaam. It is a real possibility that the powers in Iraq will institute their version of Islamic law.  I believe you when you say that you don't care about oil, money, or anything else, the problem is that that is all this administration does care about.  Innocent men, women, and children are dying because of the ineptitude of this administration.  That is what should make you angry.

.

BUT NOW the mom is getting KOOKY calling Bush the biggest terrorist in the world or something along those lines..and they said her marriage is splitting over the grief it has caused...CAN SOMEONE SAY RUNAWAY BRIDE??


Cheap shot, her marriage broke up after the death of her son, not an unusual occurence at the death of a child, no matter what the age of the child

I have a serious question to post now.

Do people honestly believe that if the entire US military packed up and left Iraq, would things be better over there?  And do you believe that if we never went over there in the first place, that things would be better over there?


And do you seriousily believe that if we STAY there it will get better?  Hasn't been the case yet, and it won't be the case in the future, with Bush already drawing down troops.

As to most of the citizens being arrested being foreigners, that's a Fox News factoid, and is simply not the case.

Sure they exist.  I knew many of them when I was in.  We call them "Fair Weather Marines" (or Sailors, or Soldiers, or Airmen).  They join because they want a free ride, and to take advantage of the bonus programs that veterans get.


I'd love a page with stats that back up these alegations.  Just because it's popular opinion on the right-wing flame-bait sites, doesn't make it reality.  You'll never find one without more than maybe one or two "real life" examples, because it's simply what people "believe". You say it's a "large number" but I bet you can't find more than a dozen.  It's just like the "welfare mom" Regan used to talk about, that could never be located, because just like an honest politcian, she didn't exist.  In this case, there's a very small minority that's being demonized for political argument.

A large percentage of soliders overseas right now belong to the National Guard.  The purpose of the Guard is to defend our borders.  Most people who sigend up believed they would be protecting this country.  Instead they're being used like an army, made to invade other countries.  If I joined to protect our country at a time of war, and was instead sent overseas to help expand the country, I'd be pretty pissed too.  Doesn't bother Bush of course.  During the 70s if you joined the Guard, you didn't have to serve overseas.  Now that's no longer the rule, you think he would have still joined up?

What's also convient, is that if you served your time, and decided to get out now, you can't.  They declared a state of emergency, and they are forcing military personal to stay on board past the end of their contracts.

Top it off with the huge reduction in benefits and lack of funding due to the Bush administration, and I think it's pretty incredible that anyone, anywhere, would join for the benefits now or anytime in the past five years.

A large percentage of soliders overseas right now belong to the National Guard.  The purpose of the Guard is to defend our borders.  Most people who sigend up believed they would be protecting this country.  Instead they're being used like an army, made to invade other countries.  If I joined to protect our country at a time of war, and was instead sent overseas to help expand the country, I'd be pretty ticked too.   Doesn't bother Bush of course.  During the 70s if you joined the Guard, you didn't have to serve overseas.  Now that's no longer the rule, you think he would have still joined up?





I totally agree with this statement, couldn't have been said any better.  Like I was saying in a previous post, there is MUCH to be done and protected in our own country.







Erin :)

I find it hypocritical that the same people that supported and praised the parents of Terry Schiavo for trying to save her life are now calling this woman a kook for trying to hold your president accountable for all of the sons and daughters that are dying everyday at the hands of this war for profit.

And no it would not be good for the US military to pull out of Iraq right now. But who started all of this mess that's going on right now? I can't even count on my fingers the amount of people on this message board alone who said that the invasion of Iraq would cause exactly what is happening right now.

You can name all of the countries that are in the so called "coalition of the willing" and tell me that this invasion was necessary, and supported. But the reality is that when the people of these countries are asked whether or not they supported this war, most will tell you that they did not.

The same people that called John Kerry a flip flopper fail to see that their own government are flip flopping the reasons for this war. Tell me again. Did your government invade Iraq because it was an imminent threat to the world, or was it to save these people from a ruthless dictator? Be carefull how you answer because one of those answers will lead you to an illegal invasion ;)

Cheap shot, her marriage broke up after the death of her son, not an unusual occurence at the death of a child, no matter what the age of the child



Not kicking her because she's down but..
since we don't know what straw broke the camels back, yes, things can go bad after the death of a family member, the deah must not have been the main reason they broke up on face value,..something must have really set off this divorce bomb and after her nutty comments such as that. It would seem the guy may have just had enough with her..supporting her grief but then as she pulled at straws with inane talk, he must have had a B*** full of her wackiness and called it quits.

And do you seriousily believe that if we STAY there it will get better?  Hasn't been the case yet, and it won't be the case in the future, with Bush already drawing down troops.

As to most of the citizens being arrested being foreigners, that's a Fox News factoid, and is simply not the case.


OK, interesting claim.  Can you name a source?

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/08/the_ied_marketp.html

In fact, here is a source from an anti-war site which supports a pullout:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/081605.html

There are 3 groups making up the "insurgents".  The smallest number are those who are Iraqi, and want a more Islamic form of Government.  Sadr was the major player in this camp.  He has also been the only one willing to negotiate, and for the most part did not engage on terrorist style attacks.  He favored more traditional types of fighting.  Most consider him a rebel, but not a terrorist.

The next is the Suni Iraqi groups, mostly former members of the Ba'ath party.  That is the group that held power under Saddam.  They are the ones that use IED (Improvised Explosion Devices, IE roadside bombs).  Their main goal is to force out the US, in the hopes that they can regain power.  Suicide attacks by this group are almost non-existant, because suicide attacks are not part of the Iraqi culture.

The last are the true terrorists.  Al-Zar­qawi is the most well known of these.  Al-Zar­qawi and most of the people who work for him are foreigners.  Saudi Arabia is the country that most come from, but they come from all over the world.  Egypt, Sudan, UAE, Quatar, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Syria are the home countries of most of them.  This is a group that have been useing "suicide bombers" for decades.  They want to destabalize the entire region.  Their goal is to expell all non-Arabs from the entire region, then export radical Islam worldwide.

When you hear of a roadside bomb going off, that is more then likely done by Iraqi Insurgents.  When you hear of suicide bombers killing themselves and 52 civilians and rescue workers, that is done by the foreign insurgents.  And the numbers show that.  While more US Servicemembers are killed by IED devices, far more Iraqi citizens are killed by the foreign insurgents.

And you can't answer a question with another question.  Do you think things will get better if we leave?

Myself?  I do not think thigs will get much better if we stay.  This is a region that has been at war with itself and the world for thousands of years.  We can stay there for 500 years, and things will not get better.

However, if we leave I see things getting much much worse.  Al-Queda has been to busy fighting in Iraq to do much more then a few random attacks on us and our Allies.  England and Spain have had some attacks, but nothing on the scale of 9/11.  Imagine what will happen if they get a secure base in Iraq (or in Afganistan again).  I see Iraq being turned into another Afganistan.  Except this time, they will be in a crucial location in the world with an almost unlimited supply of oil.

I see things in a very long-term view.  I remember the fighting after the USSR pulled out of Afganistan.  I even remember the international outcry (as little as there was) when the "Afgan Government" destroyed ancient Hindu and Buddist shrines and monuments, because they were "False Gods".

I also talk fairly often with an Iraqi expatriate, who has family in Iraq today.  He fled in the late 1980's, because of Saddam's government.  He wonders why nobody else in the international community seems to care as much as the US does.

If anybody out there prays, please put some in for Mohammed.  He works with my girlfriend, and was injured in a construction accident on Tuesday.  He was on a 30' tower, and had a rope get tangled around his arm.  He was pulled off of the tower, and is in critical condition.  He has a skull fracture, broken back (in 3 places), and his arm is badly mangled (they should do surgery today to try and save it).  I walked to my girlfriend last night, and he is still unable to speak in English.  Even though he has lived here for almost 20 years, his ability to communicate in anything but Arabic seems to be gone.

I find it hypocritical that the same people that supported and praised the parents of Terry Schiavo for trying to save her life are now calling this woman a kook for trying to hold your president accountable for all of the sons and daughters that are dying everyday at the hands of this war for profit.


For one, I blamed Terry Schiavo's parents for refusing to let her go for that entire 3-ring circus.  And now that you mention it, the similarities are striking.

A parent loses their child, and is now looking for somebody else to blame.  Terry died a over a decade before, when her brain was starved of oxygen.  All that was left was a body that did not understand that it was already dead.  They blamed everybody for their pain, even her Husband.

And if this is a war for profit, why is gas so high?  If it is US corporations that are profiting, why are the Iraqi military and police forces still buying and useing Soviet made equipment?  If the Corporations who really run this war want to make some money, all they have to do is have their puppet George Bush order them to buy American weapons and equipment, right?

It is simple to make claims like that, it is harder to prove them.  And I do not care about words, I want to see proof before I believe something.

The anger I feel is because we are in a situation that was manufactured by the bush administration.  It is now
an accepted fact the USA is in this quagmire under false pretenses, and the situation for the Iraqi people has
become dire.  The prospects for life under the new regime may be just as intolerable as life under sadaam. It is a real possibility that the powers in Iraq will institute their version of Islamic law.  I believe you when you say that you don't care about oil, money, or anything else, the problem is that that is all this administration does care about.  Innocent men, women, and children are dying because of the ineptitude of this administration.  That is what should make you angry.




I couldn't have said it better myself. We really have the tiger by the tail. We can't hold on but we can't let go, either. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that "stay the course" is NOT the answer.




Cat

For one, I blamed Terry Schiavo's parents for refusing to let her go for that entire 3-ring circus.  And now that you mention it, the similarities are striking.

A parent loses their child, and is now looking for somebody else to blame.  Terry died a over a decade before, when her brain was starved of oxygen.  All that was left was a body that did not understand that it was already dead.  They blamed everybody for their pain, even her Husband.

And if this is a war for profit, why is gas so high?  If it is US corporations that are profiting, why are the Iraqi military and police forces still buying and useing Soviet made equipment?  If the Corporations who really run this war want to make some money, all they have to do is have their puppet George Bush order them to buy American weapons and equipment, right?

It is simple to make claims like that, it is harder to prove them.  And I do not care about words, I want to see proof before I believe something.


I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Schiavo case.

When I speak about war for profit i'm not speaking about only oil. I'm speaking about the american companies (Haliburton,KBR) that are making money hand over fist at the expense of young men and women who are dying because your administartion said it was necessary. They have been proven wrong. Now who is going to take the blame for this mess?

And if this is a war for profit, why is gas so high?  If it is US corporations that are profiting, why are the Iraqi military and police forces still buying and useing Soviet made equipment?  If the Corporations who really run this war want to make some money, all they have to do is have their puppet George Bush order them to buy American weapons and equipment, right?

It is simple to make claims like that, it is harder to prove them.  And I do not care about words, I want to see proof before I believe something.


msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/

/www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/08/14/ccoil14.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/08/14/ixcoms.html

We could have won this thing, you know.  Now we're not gonna.  Thanks to Cindy Sheehan and the liberal media bringin' down the morale of our troops, we're going to lose to a run-down, third rate country.  Just like Vietnam, it's the turncoats and the anti-American press.
Cindy Sheehan oughta be tried for treason!
:D

msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/


The second link did not work, so I am responding to the first report.  And actually, I was wondering when this would pop up.

You see, this once again relates to the comodoties market and OPEC.

Yes, we have a lot of oil in this country.  But it is not enough to fulfill our needs for "Light Sweet Crude", this is what is used to make gasoline.  A much higher percentage of our oil is of heavy grades, good mostly for lubricants and perto-chemicals.  Most of out oil imports are of the "Light Sweet" variety.

Now while we do have our own, it is not as much as we import.  This demands that our prices are set by the world market.  If the market is high, the profits of the oil that does come from domestic sources also rises.  When the import price falls, then the oil companies have to drop their own prices to match the common world price.  This is why a decade ago when OPEC flooded the market and gas was at 85 cents a gallon, a lot of oil companies were on the verge of bankrupcy.  Exxon (and other companies) was actually selling oil it pumped and refined at a loss.

The only way that a country can set it's own price on domestic sales is if it is a gross exporter, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.  Since they import no oil at all, the domestic price does not matter, they can sell it at cost.

And this is hardly a "US only" situation.  Oil companies world-wide are in the same situation.  Japan, Germany, Russia, England, and everyplace else where they have both a domestic and import market is in the same situation.  I heard a report on BP, which gets a lot of it's heavy oil from North Sea deposits, but imports most of it's light sweet from Kuwait.  Their imports have skyrocketed, but the profits from the North Sea fields also increased, even though their costs did not.

And once again, what can President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, or anybody else do about it?  Go complain to OPEC, since they are the major price setter in the world's oil market.  I am sure that if Bush & Blair went and asked them to lower the price, they would be told to "urinate on a braided strand of fiber" (or fibre in the case of Mr. Blair).

OPEC charges record prices for oil, the oil companies charge record prices to the American public, the oil companies recieve record profits by raising prices above and beyond the records prices charged them by OPEC.  The only ones losing here are the american public. When bush went to bed at night snuggling up to Prince Bandar ibn Sultan ibn Abdulaziz they both had a good laugh.  Now we have Prince Turki el-Faisal, we shall have to wait and see.

The way I see it, we are now in a Catch-22....if we stay, we are "occupying Iraq", but if we leave, we are "deserting them after creating chaos". I don't know WHAT the answer is.


You are so right.  It would be nice to know the answer so this could all be over.

OPEC charges record prices for oil, the oil companies charge record prices to the American public, the oil companies recieve record profits by raising prices above and beyond the records prices charged them by OPEC.  The only ones losing here are the american public.


You talk like these record profits are only be made by US companies.

The increase of the price of oil is International.  It affects every country in the world (other then those which export oil).  It is true that companies that have their own sources are making record profits, but it is hardly a "US Only" condition.

Now if oil was still in the $20 a barrel range and the gas price was what it is now, you better believe I would be screaming "price gouging".  But as I said before, most of our gasoline quality oil is imported.  Do you really expect anybody to sell the percentage of domestic produced at a price other then what the world price is?

Oil is a commodity, no different then soy beans, beef, corn, wheat, eggs, or Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice.  The brokers trade on "oil futures", trying to guess if the price will change, and trying to bet against that.  That is what determines the price of oil, not the President, or the oil companies.  OPEC is the cartel that sets the world benchmark, and nobody else.

And in fact, the prices is starting a downward trend again.  On the New York exchange, the closing price was $63.27 today, down 2 cents.  On the London exchange, it closed at $62.40, down 16 cents.

But the oil companies do not set these prices.  They have to follow along though, because that is what the world has already set them at.  Do you really expect them to sell oil for less then the world market?  All that will do is cause a run on US oil (until the supply is bought up) by speculators, and will not make a dent on the world market price.  That is because we are a gross importer of petrolium, not a gross exporter.

Check out some basic economy books, and find out how commodities are brokered.  You might be amazed.  In fact, the price of oil per barrel that is set now is really not the price for oil now.  It is oil futures, that will not be delivered for another month (or more).  The oil being bought now is being bought at prices set months ago.  That is why commodities are commonly called "futures".  And it is a gamble.  And remember, there are many times when oil prices fall, causing the situation I have described before, where the company does have to sell at a loss.  That actually happened in the early 1990's, when OPEC flooded the market with cheap oil.  Texaco and Exxon floundered on the verge of bankrupcy back then, because oil from the middle east was being sold for less then they could produce it.  And I doubt that you were complaining much about the high price of 79 or 80 cents a gallon.

Oil is a commodity, no different then soy beans, beef, corn, wheat, eggs, or Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice. 

NO BLOOD FOR FROZEN CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE!!!
:D

It's awfully glib to lump oil in with agricultural products.  Come on now!  You sound like a PR man for Exxon-Mobil.  Sorry, I gotta agree with Danoota here.  The people on the Bush-Saudi Christmas card list (or Ramadan card list) don't care how expensive gasoline is for the rest of suckers.  When D i ck Cheney goes to fill up his SUV, he smiles a crooked smile when he sees three bucks a gallon.  He's making money.  Those of us who have to go out and work for a buck, and don't get to invest in petroleum futures, are losing money.  And yet they've got you convinced that all is right with the world.  That's the free market and the free market is always right.

Back on topic--

What did I tell you?  Tonight Bill O'Reilly compared Cindy Sheehan to Jane Fonda.  He said she's involved with America's most radical elements.  The man is such a g*dd*mned liar  Well, actually, "most radical" is a subjective term, so it's not a lie, just propaganda.  Why is it only the left that's "radical."  Radical conservatives are called "Strict Constructionists," and praised by the media like prize-winning poodles at a Malibu dog show!

Back on topic--

What did I tell you?  Tonight Bill O'Reilly compared Cindy Sheehan to Jane Fonda.  He said she's involved with America's most radical elements.  The man is such a g*dd*mned liar  Well, actually, "most radical" is a subjective term, so it's not a lie, just propaganda.  Why is it only the left that's "radical."  Radical conservatives are called "Strict Constructionists," and praised by the media like prize-winning poodles at a Malibu dog show!


;D ;D  Well said, Max, well said.

NO BLOOD FOR FROZEN CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE!!!
:D

It's awfully glib to lump oil in with agricultural products.  Come on now!  You sound like a PR man for Exxon-Mobil.  Sorry, I gotta agree with Danoota here.  The people on the Bush-Saudi Christmas card list (or Ramadan card list) don't care how expensive gasoline is for the rest of suckers.


Well, if you do not believe me, check out the New York or Chicago Commodities market, and see what they sell.For the most part, you will find agricultural products.  But you also find minerals like Gold and Silver, and you also find oil.  I did not make up these rules, I did not determine what is considered a commodity.

I am also puzzled how Dick Cheny is making money from this.  You see, Halliburton is not an oil company.  They do not pump, nor do they refine, nor do they sell oil.  So how does an increase in oil prices make them money?  You might as well try and say that increase in gas prices will make Ford Motors more money.

And Saudi Arabia hardly controls OPEC.  In fact, one of the things causing the price to rise is the ongoing unrest in Venezuela.  Oh wait, let me guess, George is in leage with them too, right?  And don't forget Iran, we know that they do whatever George and DIck tell them to do.

And if you really think that anybody can tell OPEC what to do, you are sadly mistaken.  You see, I remember 1973.  We had a major oil embargo because OPEC wanted to "teach us a lesson".

I am also puzzled how Dick Cheny is making money from this. 




Dick Cheney is Halliburton.  Halliburton is making money in Iraq on non-competetive contracts.  The american MULTINATIONALS are enjoying windfall profits in the form of usurious prices on oil.  The fact that they are able to make make windfall profitsat the time that costs are so high must tell you something.

I have not really followed the politics of this story very much.

But I can see why her hubby is divorcing her.  Her voice and demeanor are soooooooooooo annoying.  She sounds like she needs to go to the 1960's and work on a commune.

(No I am not accusing her of being a commie... just an out of period flake)

I have not really followed the politics of this story very much.

But I can see why her hubby is divorcing her.  Her voice and demeanor are soooooooooooo annoying.  She sounds like she needs to go to the 1960's and work on a commune.

(No I am not accusing her of being a commie... just an out of period flake)


You don't know what hubby is like, so maybe the divorce it more of a godsend to her than to him.

It looks like she has David Duke on her side too.

http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350


8/14/2005
Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
Filed under: General— @ 4:32 am

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350

Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas...

It looks like she has David Duke on her side too.

http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350


8/14/2005
Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
Filed under: General— @ 4:32 am

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350

Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas...



point being?

point being?


No point from me. It speaks for itself.

No point from me. It speaks for itself.


Point being there's yet another specious argument from the intellectually bankrupt Right.  Say high to Rush down there in Dope City!

Sounds like Monsour Duke wants the fight to be on our home grounds...

Sure support Cindy but giving up is giving in at this point.

I guess we are waiting to give the country back to their people but where are the experts to tell Mr. Bush when it is time if all the going to war actions were caused by his surrounding talking heads.

What does he know about combat tactics anyway, he gives the orders. If someone is telling him WHOOPS, go after the hard head who stirred the pot. :\'(

huh?

Point being there's yet another specious argument from the intellectually bankrupt Right.  Say high to Rush down there in Dope City!


Rush? I personally haven't heard the man in over nine years. Is he still on the radio? The left seems to love to over-exaggerate his power. I guess it gives them someone to demonize and lets them feel like victims.

But I do wonder what Annie has to say on the subject!

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF
August 17, 2005

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn...

Rush? I personally haven't heard the man in over nine years. Is he still on the radio? The left seems to love to over-exaggerate his power. I guess it gives them someone to demonize and lets them feel like victims.

But I do wonder what Annie has to say on the subject!

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF
August 17, 2005

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn...




And I say, yet again, another specious argument from the intellectually bankrupt Right.
:P

Rush? I personally haven't heard the man in over nine years. Is he still on the radio? The left seems to love to over-exaggerate his power. I guess it gives them someone to demonize and lets them feel like victims.

But I do wonder what Annie has to say on the subject!

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF
August 17, 2005

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn...





What "Annie" has to say?  Who gives a rats a$$?  In response the the slams against Maureen Dowd I would ask what, in asking to speak with the president, is "Stalinist"?  What is "Stalinist" is Ms Coulter's continuing lie in associating 9/11 with Iraq.  But then, the longer and louder you shout a lie, the more believable it becomes.  Now THAT is an age-old propoganda tool.  Oh, and Coulter is also wrong in asserting that the president "makes foreign policy".  That is a responsibility shared by the president AND congress.  Let me add just one more thought:  its fairly easy to sacrifice other people's son and daughters.  When are we going to see the Bush girls enlist?

When are we going to see the Bush girls enlist?


And anyone to squeamish about sending out the girls, how about the little brown one?  All of the bushes
squirmed out of service. 

It looks like she has David Duke on her side too.

http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350


8/14/2005
Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
Filed under: General— @ 4:32 am

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350

Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas...



You seem to be equating Cindy Sheehan with David Duke because he seems to have taken her side.  Do you believe that everyone who agrees with her are ideological David Dukes?

And anyone to squeamish about sending out the girls, how about the little brown one?  All of the bushes
squirmed out of service. 


What about George Bush Sr.?

What about George Bush Sr.?

George the Elder was the one who was heard to say back in 1989, "I love all my grandchildren, even the little brown ones!"
But anyway, Daddy Bush probably would go!  He parachuted out of an airplane for his 80th birthday.  I don't think I'd have the stones to do that at any age!

Now that Cindy's gone home, the clods on the Right are finally getting around to pulling off their anti-Cindy campaign.  It took them that long?  They must be slippin'!

Now that Cindy's gone home, the clods on the Right are finally getting around to pulling off their anti-Cindy campaign.  It took them that long?  They must be slippin'!


Really??  I heard the parents of fallen soldiers who SUPPORT the war are on their way to pay these campers a visit... but I suppose there's something wrong with THEM doing this, right? ::)

Really??  I heard the parents of fallen soldiers who SUPPORT the war are on their way to pay these campers a visit... but I suppose there's something wrong with THEM doing this, right? ::)


They are billing themselves as supporters of the troops, the rhetoric being that the Sheehan faction
doesn't, which is far from the truth.

OK, interesting claim.  Can you name a source?

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/08/the_ied_marketp.html

In fact, here is a source from an anti-war site which supports a pullout:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/081605.html

There are 3 groups making up the "insurgents".  The smallest number are those who are Iraqi, and want a more Islamic form of Government.  Sadr was the major player in this camp.  He has also been the only one willing to negotiate, and for the most part did not engage on terrorist style attacks.  He favored more traditional types of fighting.  Most consider him a rebel, but not a terrorist.


too bad those are all editorals...  doesn't matter which side of the fence they are on

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

I didn't search too long for articles, but I also remember a US general basically stating the same thing.

This article is from last year (a year after the war ended the occupation began).  If there is a larger portion of foreign fighters now, after another year of occupation, it's due to the inability of the US to prevent them from flooding into Iraq.  If they can't control the borders, they'll never control the country.  Bush is already drawing down the troops, you do the math.  The sooner we withdraw, the fewer US troops die from being stuck inmbetween warring factions.

The new Iraqi government has already drawn up a constitution (almost finished, any day now!) that basically gives power to the religious leaders.  Much like Iran.  If we stay, we help build another Iran.  If we leave, well, Iran will probably see the weakened country they've fought before, and invade and over run it.  Either way, Bush helps Iran grow stronger.

Bush was told this was going to be the outcome long before he began making his false claims to support the invasion, but he ignored them.

And anyone to squeamish about sending out the girls, how about the little brown one?  All of the bushes
squirmed out of service. 


OK, you all are right, it is criminal.

I suggest we start the draft again.  Everybody between the age of 17 and 28 must join the military.  There is no exemption.  If they are handicapped, then they do a desk job.  If they can't meet the minimum test levels, then they get jobs counting Mess Kits in Alaska.  But no more draft-dodging, no more politician sons and daughters avoiding their service.

And maybe it will shut people up from bitching because sombody does not join the military.  Danoota, did you join the military?  Do you have any relatives that are in now?  If not, why not?

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not.  But it is to make a point.  The decision to join ot not to join is a personal one.  And to put it in perspective, less then 14% of the military is female.  It seems to me that women in general are "shirking their duty".  If they make up roughly 50% of the population, then they should also be 50% of the military, and also 50% of the war casualties.

The last time I looked, we have a 100% volunteer force.  A person only joins because they want to.  There is no draft, and everybody has the free choice to join or not.  And another relatively minor point: Last time I checked, the girls were still in college.  Even during WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, deferments were freely granted to people in college.  Just ask Bill Clinton about that.  So even if there was a draft, they would be exempt because of being in college (along with everybody else in college).

OK, you all are right, it is criminal.

I suggest we start the draft again.  Everybody between the age of 17 and 28 must join the military.  There is no exemption.  If they are handicapped, then they do a desk job.  If they can't meet the minimum test levels, then they get jobs counting Mess Kits in Alaska.  But no more draft-dodging, no more politician sons and daughters avoiding their service.

And maybe it will shut people up from bitching because sombody does not join the military.  Danoota, did you join the military?  Do you have any relatives that are in now?  If not, why not?

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not.  But it is to make a point.  The decision to join ot not to join is a personal one.  And to put it in perspective, less then 14% of the military is female.  It seems to me that women in general are "shirking their duty".  If they make up roughly 50% of the population, then they should also be 50% of the military, and also 50% of the war casualties.

The last time I looked, we have a 100% volunteer force.  A person only joins because they want to.  There is no draft, and everybody has the free choice to join or not.  And another relatively minor point: Last time I checked, the girls were still in college.  Even during WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, deferments were freely granted to people in college.  Just ask Bill Clinton about that.  So even if there was a draft, they would be exempt because of being in college (along with everybody else in college).


I don't believe in wars of aggression, and I don't believe in the draft.  I wouldn't join, I wouldn't want my son to join(although being autistic with luck they won't take him, but you never know). I do believe if you talk the talk you should walk the walk.  I walk the anti war walk, there are many out there , some  who I speak to on a daily basis who talk the war talk but have every reason in the world not to walk the walk. 
If you talk anti war and attend the rallys and focus your energy there you are doing your duty.  If you talk the war talk, then you should be willing to walk the war walk, and I don't see that happening. 

OK, you all are right, it is criminal.

I suggest we start the draft again.  Everybody between the age of 17 and 28 must join the military.  There is no exemption.  If they are handicapped, then they do a desk job.  If they can't meet the minimum test levels, then they get jobs counting Mess Kits in Alaska.  But no more draft-dodging, no more politician sons and daughters avoiding their service.

And maybe it will shut people up from bitching because sombody does not join the military.  Danoota, did you join the military?  Do you have any relatives that are in now?  If not, why not?

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not.  But it is to make a point.  The decision to join ot not to join is a personal one.  And to put it in perspective, less then 14% of the military is female.  It seems to me that women in general are "shirking their duty".  If they make up roughly 50% of the population, then they should also be 50% of the military, and also 50% of the war casualties.

The last time I looked, we have a 100% volunteer force.  A person only joins because they want to.  There is no draft, and everybody has the free choice to join or not.  And another relatively minor point: Last time I checked, the girls were still in college.  Even during WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, deferments were freely granted to people in college.  Just ask Bill Clinton about that.  So even if there was a draft, they would be exempt because of being in college (along with everybody else in college).


I absolutely agree with you (except for the sarcastic part in the beginning ;D) and want to point something out AGAIN.  I really don't think the Bush girls should be obligated to join the military because of the decisions their father has made.  Why should they enlist if they don't want to?  For those of you who said the Bush girls should enlist,  I'm not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make.  I'm thinking you might be saying that if Bush is willing to send other people's children to war, why doesn't he send his own. ???   Because he CAN'T MAKE them join!  Maybe what you all are trying to say is that Bush should encourage his daughters to join up.  That statement makes more sense.

I absolutely agree with you (except for the sarcastic part in the beginning ;D) and want to point something out AGAIN.  I really don't think the Bush girls should be obligated to join the military because of the decisions their father has made.  Why should they enlist if they don't want to?  For those of you who said the Bush girls should enlist,  I'm not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make.  I'm thinking you might be saying that if Bush is willing to send other people's children to war, why doesn't he send his own. ???  Because he CAN'T MAKE them join!  Maybe what you all are trying to say is that Bush should encourage his daughters to join up.  That statement makes more sense.


The question is more one of would bush, and congress, be as willing to go to war if it was their children
who were the ones on the front line.  I don't believe so.

The question is more one of would bush, and congress, be as willing to go to war if it was their children
who were the ones on the front line.  I don't believe so.


Sure, rephrase it now, but that's not the question that was being asked earlier in the thread. 

As for what you are saying here..........as willing, probably not, but I think they would go to war to anyway.  I think that is a normal thing for a parent to do though, Democrat or Republican.

. 

As for what you are saying here..........as willing, probably not, but I think they would go to war to anyway.

They haven't yet

The question is more one of would bush, and congress, be as willing to go to war if it was their children
who were the ones on the front line.  I don't believe so.

Royalty used to be expected to lead their subjects in battle.  Princes marching off and getting killed didn't seem to stop Britain, France, Spain, or Russia from beating the drums of war over the centuries.
This used to be true of American elites until the post-war era.  George HW Bush and JFK went into to combat.  Now...well...the culture's different.  As Jon Stewart said regarding the call for Jenna and Barbara to go to Iraq, "Uh, excuse me, we're trying to win this thing!"
;D ;D

They haven't yet



Oh wait, I forgot you have all the answers.  You know that there has never been a president, congressman or senator that has supported going to war while they had a child in the military. 

Oh wait, I forgot you have all the answers.  You know that there has never been a president, congressman or senator that has supported going to war while they had a child in the military. 


I can think of one.  FDR's son was in the US Marines.  He was part of "Edson's Raiders", an elite unit that did small-scale invasions of Japanese held islands in WWII.  James Roosevelt was commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion.

http://www.mclm.com/tohonor/jroosevelt.html

Then there was Franklin Jr II (the first Franklin Jr died in infancy).  He was a Naval Officer, and was decorated for bravery for actions in the Atlantic.

John Roosevelt was also in the Navy, and was awarded a Bronze Star for his work as part of a Carrier Task Force.

I myself did not know about James Roosevelt, until I was picked to play him for the "FDR Funeral Scene" in "War And Rememberence".

Abraham Lincoln had a son that was in the Union Army during the Civil War.  Robert Lincoln was a Captain, and was part of Ulysses S. Grant's staff.

I think that one big reason that so few Presidents had children that served during their term, is that so few had children that were old enough during their presidency.  A lot of others had daughters.  And of course, peace is much more common then war in our history.

I am proud of my military service.  And one thing I have never understood is the "Peace At Any Price" crowd.

I suggest we start the draft again.  Everybody between the age of 17 and 28 must join the military.  There is no exemption.  If they are handicapped, then they do a desk job. 
I'd break both my legs just so that I'd get a desk job. Hope they have internet access out there.  ::)

I'd break both my legs just so that I'd get a desk job. Hope they have internet access out there.  ::)


Actually, I have had desk jobs when I was in the service.  And believe me, there was little more boring and dull.

One of the great things about being in the Military is travel.  I got to spend over a year in Japan, and to see Panama also.  But I also spent almost 2 years riding a desk.  I sat in Japan when my Battalion went to Iwo Jima (the first Marines to make a landing on the island since WWII).  I also sat behind when they went to Korea.

A year later, I rode a desk when they took part in a NATO exercise in Norway.  Because of my injury in October 1990, I was shipped to a stateside training unit in California, instead of going with my unit to Saudi Arabia, then Kuwait.

I am sure for some people desk jobs are great.  But since I joined the Marines to be in the Infantry and to do things, there was little more frustrating then to see 3/4 of the Battalion go and do things, while I stayed behind, making sure that things were fixed, and repair parts were sent to them.

I can think of one.  FDR's son was in the US Marines.  He was part of "Edson's Raiders", an elite unit that did small-scale invasions of Japanese held islands in WWII.  James Roosevelt was commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion.

http://www.mclm.com/tohonor/jroosevelt.html

Then there was Franklin Jr II (the first Franklin Jr died in infancy).  He was a Naval Officer, and was decorated for bravery for actions in the Atlantic.

John Roosevelt was also in the Navy, and was awarded a Bronze Star for his work as part of a Carrier Task Force.

I myself did not know about James Roosevelt, until I was picked to play him for the "FDR Funeral Scene" in "War And Rememberence".

Abraham Lincoln had a son that was in the Union Army during the Civil War.  Robert Lincoln was a Captain, and was part of Ulysses S. Grant's staff.

I think that one big reason that so few Presidents had children that served during their term, is that so few had children that were old enough during their presidency.  A lot of others had daughters.  And of course, peace is much more common then war in our history.

I am proud of my military service.  And one thing I have never understood is the "Peace At Any Price" crowd.


Thanks Max and Mushroom, jacks seems to be just a bit...ummmmm,  cranky with me.  It is only in modern times that the children/relations of heads of state have been divorced from combat related military service.  I do know there are times when combat is necessary, as much as I abhor it, but slowly it has evolved into a job for the working classes as opposed to a duty for all.

Thanks Max and Mushroom, jacks seems to be just a bit...ummmmm,   cranky with me.  It is only in modern times that the children/relations of heads of state have been divorced from combat related military service.  I do know there are times when combat is necessary, as much as I abhor it, but slowly it has evolved into a job for the working classes as opposed to a duty for all.


Tell me then Danoota, other then Jimmy Carter, what President has had children that are old enough to have participated in any conflicts?

Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and George Bush all had daughters.  Jimmy Carter had a son who was a draft dodger, but that is another subject.  His daughter was comming of age when he was President, and naturally she never served in the military.

Before that we had JFK, and his children were obviously to young to serve during his presidency.

You yourself admit you have never served in the military.  So how do you know that only the poor people serve in it?  I have served with several people who were from the "Privlidged class".  During my time in the Marines, some of the people I worked with are:

1.  The sons of 2 famous actors
2.  The son of a Governor of a SW state
3.  The son-in-law of a US Congressman
4.  The younger brother of an NFL linebacker

I have worked with a lot of Marines who obviously came from "money".  One in specific was in Seal Beach, my first duty station.  His father owned a Mercedes dealership, and every year he got a new Mercedes.  Serving in the Marines was a family tradition though, going back something like 5 or 6 generations (he showed us a picture of a great-great-great grandfather, who fought in World War I).  I also know quite a few officers who obviously came from "money".

I joined the service because of a sense of duty, and a desire to serve.  My mother even had a book that she filled in with my desires when I was young.  I looked at it years ago, and when I was 10 (1975), I said my dream jobs would be either "A Geologist" or "A Soldier".

With me it is also a family tradition.  On my father's side, 1 uncle, my grandfather, and my grandfather's 3 brothers all served in the Army.  My faternal grandmother had 2 brothers who served in the Army.  My mother's brother served in the Marines, and my grandfather served in the Navy.

Depending on how you looked at it, I was either "well off" or "under-privlidged" myself.  I could have stayed with my mother and my step-father, who was an executive with a large corporation.  I even had the chance to move up in the company.  But my goal had been set years ago.  Instead I lived with my father, who was very definately "lower class".  I decided to join the Marines, because it was my choice.  And the involvement in Lebanon was going on at that time, so I understood the risks.

You seem to speak like you know what you are talking about, but do you?  Has any of your family served, or is in service now?  Last weekend I helped send off my GF's 19 year old nephew.  He is going through 3 months of training, before being sent to Iraq for a 1 year tour.  She has a nephew over there already, and a niece's husband is over there.  It is not very often that you find people with 3 family members all in Iraq.

As a small side note, I remember something I read around 1987-1988.  It was a newspaper article of a Marine Corporal, who had won a multi-million dollar lottery.  Less then a month after he won, he re-enlisted for 6 more years!  It is a true story.

Oh wait, I forgot you have all the answers.  You know that there has never been a president, congressman or senator that has supported going to war while they had a child in the military. 


Just so you know, this ^ response I made was pure sarcasm lest anyone think I seriously believed that second comment.

So I say thank you to Mushroom for making such great points. :)

Just so you know, this ^ response I made was pure sarcasm lest anyone think I seriously believed that second comment.

So I say thank you to Mushroom for making such great points. :)


Sorry, I also missed the sarcasm.

If there is one thing I believe in, it is honesty.  There is little I hate worse then people (of either political side) who stretch facts or make things up to try and support their own side.  And I will jump in on either "political side" if I see something obviously in error.  In this, I am truely bipartaisan.  :)

But have you ever noticed that those who claim to hate "war", sure seem to want to push "class warfare" down our throats?

You yourself admit you have never served in the military.  So how do you know that only the poor people serve in it?  I have served with several people who were from the "Privileged class".  During my time in the Marines, some of the people I worked with are:

I have worked with a lot of Marines who obviously came from "money".  One in specific was in Seal Beach, my first duty station.  His father owned a Mercedes dealership, and every year he got a new Mercedes.  Serving in the Marines was a family tradition though, going back something like 5 or 6 generations (he showed us a picture of a great-great-great grandfather, who fought in World War I).  I also know quite a few officers who obviously came from "money".


You seem to speak like you know what you are talking about, but do you?  Has any of your family served, or is in service now?  Last weekend I helped send off my GF's 19 year old nephew.  He is going through 3 months of training, before being sent to Iraq for a 1 year tour.  She has a nephew over there already, and a niece's husband is over there.  It is not very often that you find people with 3 family members all in Iraq.




I did not say that only poor people serve.  I do make a distinction between poor, working class, middle class, wealthy, and in all of those there are some who are privileged but that is another story.  I am 54 years old so I know young men who died in Viet Nam, families who lost men in World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf War,and some who came back damaged, physically and mentally. I have cousins who signed up, and friends, and children of friends.  I did not make a blanket statement that all who are more privileged abnegate the responsibility, what I do say is that recruitment is by and large directed to, and those signing up and being waved over to Iraq, are not in what would be called the upper reaches of society.  If you talk to recruiters they will tell you that they will have much more luck signing up young man from my city, a solid working class city, than they will in a Newton, Brookline, Boxford, or Weston were talk of the right college displaces talk of the right branch of the military. There is a disparity in the percentages of those signing up.
There was concern here in Massachusetts about military recruiters targeting high school students in cities like mine, but virtually ignoring towns like Newton, Weston, and Belmont.  In their defense they said that those towns were not as accepting of them at the high schools. 

Check out this Maureen Dowd commentary.  She cuts to the quick.



http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/NEWS/508250312/1039/OPINION03

I did not say that only poor people serve.  I do make a distinction between poor, working class, middle class, wealthy, and in all of those there are some who are privileged but that is another story.  I am 54 years old so I know young men who died in Viet Nam, families who lost men in World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf War,and some who came back damaged, physically and mentally. I have cousins who signed up, and friends, and children of friends.  I did not make a blanket statement that all who are more privileged abnegate the responsibility, what I do say is that recruitment is by and large directed to, and those signing up and being waved over to Iraq, are not in what would be called the upper reaches of society.  If you talk to recruiters they will tell you that they will have much more luck signing up young man from my city, a solid working class city, than they will in a Newton, Brookline, Boxford, or Weston were talk of the right college displaces talk of the right branch of the military. There is a disparity in the percentages of those signing up.
There was concern here in Massachusetts about military recruiters targeting high school students in cities like mine, but virtually ignoring towns like Newton, Weston, and Belmont.  In their defense they said that those towns were not as accepting of them at the high schools. 

I can't speak for mush or jacks, but I'm certainly not cranky. 
:)
You are absolutely correct.  People from poorer backgrounds are more likely to join the armed forces.  The military does give young people opportunities for technical training, job experience, and in many cases a raise in self-discipline and esteem.  I have said before, I was interested in the military when I was in my late teens, but my poor health at the time precluded me from joining.
Class is a forbidden topic in American discourse (unless it has the word "middle" in front of it) because the entrenched inequality is staggering.  A disproportionate number of impoverished people in America are Black and Hispanic. The ranks of the military reflect this.

Class is a forbidden topic in American discourse (unless it has the word "middle" in front of it) because the entrenched inequality is staggering.  A disproportionate number of impoverished people in America are Black and Hispanic. The ranks of the military reflect this.


Actually, it is something forbidden in the military.

In the military, there are only 2 classes, and one of those has 2 subclasses:

Officers
Enlisted
    NCO
    Staff NCO

For the most part, everybody goes through the same training.  Although suprisingly, Officers have a much more strict and harsh training then the Enlisted do (at least for Marines).  While Officers and Staff NCOs tend to have better living quarters, we normally eat in the same messes, work in the same areas, and do the same things.

And nothing stops anybody from moving up in this system.  All enlisted have the opportunity to move up in rank.  And everybody is eligable to apply for Comissioning programs.

I know that a lot of people join who live in poor areas.  This is because to a lot of them, it is a way to get "out of the ghetto".  A lot then stay in, because in the military, you are promoted for ability, race has absolutely no part at all.  It is the ultimate in "equal opportunity employers".

In the Comissioned Ranks, you will see a higher percentage of people with "money".  But since they are a minority, they do not really count.  The backbone of all the armed forces is the enlisted ranks.

One reason I guess I reject "class warfare", is that I reject classes.  To me, everybody is the same.  And most people have the drive or ambition to move up in life.  Show me somebody that does not want to be a part of the "upper class", and I will show you somebody who is either a fool, an idiot, or a liar.

The only difference is that in the military, we get more stripes to show we are upper class.  Poor sorry civilians do material things, like buy SUVs and houses.

.

One reason I guess I reject "class warfare", is that I reject classes.  To me, everybody is the same.  And most people have the drive or ambition to move up in life.  Show me somebody that does not want to be a part of the "upper class", and I will show you somebody who is either a fool, an idiot, or a liar.



Would that there were more like you, but there are certain truths outside the house.  Tiger Wood insists that the is not black, to do so would reject his Korean heritage, that is admirable.  The reality is that when he came on the scene Fuzzy Zoeller wondered aloud about serving fried chicken at the banquet.  All the talk was not of the first Korean to win the Masters, it was of the first African American.  There isn't anything wrong with wanting to move into the upper classes.  It is foolish to forget how you got there, and where you were before. and denigrate others who don't make it.(I know that you don't, but many, many do).

One reason I guess I reject "class warfare", is that I reject classes.  To me, everybody is the same.  And most people have the drive or ambition to move up in life.  Show me somebody that does not want to be a part of the "upper class", and I will show you somebody who is either a fool, an idiot, or a liar.




Well, I'm neither a fool, an idiot, nor a liar and I can say that I don't want to be a member of what we in this country call the "upper class".  Thats why I didn't apply to any of the "elite" colleges and chose to go to a state university (Rutgers) and to teach at state colleges where teaching was uppermost.  I certainly have no desire to be poor, but filthy rich?  No, you can keep it.

Let me suggest, Mush, with due respect, that there is a contradiction in passage I quoted even though you did use qwuotation markes.  If you reject the idea of classes, than there could be no upper class.  I would love to see a classless society, where each individual attained his or her status on the basis of merit, but that is not, and has never been the case in this country.  Would that it were so. 

Would that there were more like you, but there are certain truths outside the house.  Tiger Wood insists that the is not black, to do so would reject his Korean heritage, that is admirable.  The reality is that when he came on the scene Fuzzy Zoeller wondered aloud about serving fried chicken at the banquet.  All the talk was not of the first Korean to win the Masters, it was of the first African American.  There isn't anything wrong with wanting to move into the upper classes.  It is foolish to forget how you got there, and where you were before. and denigrate others who don't make it.(I know that you don't, but many, many do).


Tiger is Thai, not Korean.

I think it is even harder for someone like Tiger to advance in his career when there are people within his own race (black) that will call him a sellout and an "Uncle Tom". Now i'm not saying that all blacks feel that way. But there seems to be that problem when an african american becomes successful.

Actually, it is something forbidden in the military.

In the military, there are only 2 classes, and one of those has 2 subclasses:

Officers
Enlisted
    NCO
    Staff NCO

For the most part, everybody goes through the same training.  Although suprisingly, Officers have a much more strict and harsh training then the Enlisted do (at least for Marines).  While Officers and Staff NCOs tend to have better living quarters, we normally eat in the same messes, work in the same areas, and do the same things.

And nothing stops anybody from moving up in this system.  All enlisted have the opportunity to move up in rank.  And everybody is eligable to apply for Comissioning programs.

I know that a lot of people join who live in poor areas.  This is because to a lot of them, it is a way to get "out of the ghetto".  A lot then stay in, because in the military, you are promoted for ability, race has absolutely no part at all.  It is the ultimate in "equal opportunity employers".

In the Comissioned Ranks, you will see a higher percentage of people with "money".  But since they are a minority, they do not really count.  The backbone of all the armed forces is the enlisted ranks.

One reason I guess I reject "class warfare", is that I reject classes.  To me, everybody is the same.  And most people have the drive or ambition to move up in life.  Show me somebody that does not want to be a part of the "upper class", and I will show you somebody who is either a fool, an idiot, or a liar.

The only difference is that in the military, we get more stripes to show we are upper class.  Poor sorry civilians do material things, like buy SUVs and houses.

Noooo!!!
I was refering to the socio-economic make-up of the armed forces.  Sheeesh!
You can reject "class" all you want, just rest assured Bush and the Bush xmas card list don't reject it.  There are certain traits common to all people.  That has nothing to do with "class."  The biggest lie Bod Dole told (edging out "America has the best healthcare delivery system in the world") was "America is a classless society."
Oh yeah, then you won't mind if I come over to your country club for a beer and a hot dog!
:P
Would I like to have a billion dollars.  I wouldn't turn it down.  Would it turn me evil?  I don't know.  I can tell you anyway, I wouldn't be hanging out on the links with all those azzh()les on Jupiter Island.
There's a difference between "income" and "class."  Those of you making 200K a year and living the sweet life mustn't lose sight of the fact that you are still rabble to the political power brokers, I mean the real REAL upper class.  If necessary they'll bulldoze you under with Joe Sixpack and Jane Punchclock and think nothing of it.
If you deny there's class warfare and that it's being waged upon YOU, then you've just bought yourself a token for P.T. Barnum's GOP Circus!
:D

Danoota wrote:
Would that there were more like you, but there are certain truths outside the house.  Tiger Wood insists that the is not black, to do so would reject his Korean heritage, that is admirable.  The reality is that when he came on the scene Fuzzy Zoeller wondered aloud about serving fried chicken at the banquet.  All the talk was not of the first Korean to win the Masters, it was of the first African American.  There isn't anything wrong with wanting to move into the upper classes.  It is foolish to forget how you got there, and where you were before. and denigrate others who don't make it.(I know that you don't, but many, many do).
I know what you mean, I do.  Tiger Woods never bugged me, he's just another rich athlete.  Plus my old Gramps was a huge Tiger Woods fan!  The reason Bill Cosby makes me see red is the way he's such an awful public scold, and cozies up to right-wingers who have been nothing but a pox on people of color.  As far as I know, Tiger never got up there dripping in designer finery and ridiculed poor people.  I had not heard Tiger didn't want to be identified as Black.  I've met many people who have mixed Black, Asian, and Latino heritages who refer to themselves as "multi-racial."  What's the big deal?

Limblifter wrote
I think it is even harder for someone like Tiger to advance in his career when there are people within his own race (black) that will call him a sellout and an "Uncle Tom". Now i'm not saying that all blacks feel that way. But there seems to be that problem when an african american becomes successful.
Tiger's not an Uncle Tom, he's an Uncle Tiger!  Clarence Thomas, now THERE'S an Uncle Tom for ya!
:P