Printable View
Polls dont mean squat and many are not accurate in the least but made to prove someones pre determined agenda. I doubt Cindy Sheehan hs any effect other than to further polarise things. Those who hate the war love her and those who are for it think shes a jerk. Shes not going to bring her son back to life and is making a mockery of his service to his country. Even the rest of her family is against her.
PS man is she UGLY. Reminds me of Joe Walsh but even more rundown ~D
Interesting that you mention how invalid some poles are. I read an interesting article where an agency was attempting to get a pole/survey like “4 out of 5 dentists agree” and ended up doing the 5 dentist pole/survey 13 times before getting the response they desired. Goes to show that you cant always trust what you read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I know this because I one of my jobs is working for SUNY in the political research department calling people with these polls and helping to change the questions ~;)Quote:
Interesting that you mention how invalid some poles are. I read an interesting article where an agency was attempting to get a pole/survey like “4 out of 5 dentists agree” and ended up doing the 5 dentist pole/survey 13 times before getting the response they desired. Goes to show that you cant always trust what you read.
I'm against the war and while I wouldn't go so far as to call her a jerk, I have to say I'm completely against the way she has 'handled' the loss of her son. I would have been ashamed of my own mother if she had behaved in such a manner if I had died in the line of duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
There's no us and them here Gawain or at least the line is not drawn between the anti-war camp and the pro-war camp.
Speaking of lessons learned.. well said, Ichi-san. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
(uses serious voice - notice complete lack of sarcasm)
Sorry to let you down Redleg, it was an easy crack at ol Pat. Really, you know I respect you and feel bad now.
I guess its like hating racists. It is wrong to hate, but I do despise them. And when a Christian minister advocates assassination well its pretty tempting to drop off the ol moral high ground for a sec and let fly.
But you have raised a very important moral issue. When one group rises up and demonizes, polarizes, hates, spreads discontent and basically works hard to divide a nation, is it better to quietly resist in a harmonious, but futile way or is it wrong to stand up and cry BS, even by doing so one increases the division and risks losing the high ground?
ichi :bow:
(in an equally serious voice of reason)Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
It is best to resist the demonization of the opposition and use the calm - cool logic approach that you did in the initial part of your post. It was brillant and strikes to the point in a logical manner that can not be defeated by emotional rhetroic of the idealogs of the oppostion. Your not going to convince them of the error of their ways - you can only attempt to have those who are not dead set in their idealog baised views. Your initial post got me thinking a little more about the errors of the adminstration - it doesn't get me off supporting removing Saddam from power - but it does make one think about how the administration went about polarizing the nation in their methods of rhetroic. Which I thought was a brilliant deducation on your part - and then you threw it away with the shot (well deserved at Pat - but it disracts from your main point.)
Now for those that are idealogs - well blast away - they often deserve the same treatment that they are giving (I know that is what I do to several others on this forum. I just normally don't see you do it - so it kind of surprised me. It makes me a hypocrit - but it seems I have intelligent conservation and discourse with some - and have to give others the same treatment they want to give out).
Try to stay away from moral high ground arguements and demonization techniques in the same message - the message of sinceraty (SP) gets lost in the demonization. But sometimes demonization of the opposition is necessary especially when they do not want to at least listen to the opposing viewpoint.
Now by all means blast away at Pat at any opporunity - he deserves it for his demonization of those he does not agree with.
You should write what you posted here in an letter to the editor and to congress - minus the shot at Pat of course. I really liked the message. Its that good.
Dont even keep beating this dead horse. It reminds you of Nam. Im telling you its nothing like Nam but thats the best thing the left can hope for. Its turned into their montra. Its ludicrous. There have always been anti war people and others who favor it. Why dont you blame Cindy Sheehan for dividing us? How is she so special? What makes here more important than all the other mothers who have lost their sons and daughters over there? She doesnt represent the majority of them or the american people. Shes a news hound. Shes milking her 15 minutes of fame for all its worth. I wonder when the book will come out?Quote:
Shame. I lived thru Vietnam and saw many of the same thnigs then. That war ripped our country apart and it seems to be happening all over again. They've divided us once again, and so many buy into it so easily.
Either would I but shes coming close ~DQuote:
I wouldn't go so far as to call her a jerk
two words for her.(OK MAYBE MORE THAN 2)
SHUT UP WOMAN!OTHERS HAVE LOST THEIR KIDS 2.AND THEY DONT ALL AGREE WITH YOU.YOU PUT NAMES OF DEAD SOLDEIRS ON A CROSS,AND MOCK THE CAUSE THEY DIED FOR.YOU SICKEN ME.
I think that the only thing significant about the Cindy Sheehan story is that it is easily digestible for 24 hour news stations. It's just a long overdue wakeup call for people to start thinking seriously about the Iraq War. I don't really care about her personally, but she was able to place herself next to a bored group of reporters who had to cover Bush's French-style 5 week August vacation. The story isn't about whether Cindy Sheehan has a 'right' to meet with the president. She's just a mother who lost her son who has been able to raise the issue of Iraq in the national press. Her villification by the jabbering gargoyles of the right-wing echo machine just goes to show how desperately they don't want the populace thinking about Iraq, it's costs, whether it's been worth it, whether it's been handled right, and whether there is any end in sight.
The truth is, nobody every holds the Bushies accountable for anything, and at least Cindy Sheehan has tried to hold the administration up to a little summer vacation-time accountability.
The reaction from the professional right just shows how addicted to petty character assassination they have become.
Like they needed her LOL. Shes nothing more than a tool of the left and the press.Quote:
She's just a mother who lost her son who has been able to raise the issue of Iraq in the national press.
And generally you make such intelligent posts.Quote:
The truth is, nobody every holds the Bushies accountable for anything,
Its been better than that of the proffessional left. Using some poor women who lost her son to advance their agenda.Quote:
The reaction from the professional right just shows how addicted to petty character assassination they have become.
I think what is most interesting is the change in the media's language.
They used to say that she was a "symbol of the anti-war movement". Now she is a symbol for the "peace movement".
Peace movement? I guess America bombed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, consequently starting a war for oil based on lies... what?! :furious3:
That is what the left does not see. These extremists won't stop until we are all dead.
Lets kill them first.
Do you really think the terrorist attacks in the US were planned by the US administration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I know some books pretended this kind of element to be true, but they appeared as total paranoid crap.
Do you have elements that should go this way?
I think you need to refresh my memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
What was the link betwen 9/11 and the Iraq war again? ~:confused:
Bush was at it again yesterday. In a speech before a VFW group defending the war in Iraq, he inserted the line, "terrorists like bin Laden" into a speech about Iraq. When pressed, the adminstration has admitted that there is no link between Iraq and 9/11; but that doesn't stop them from bringing up bin Laden and 9/11 every time they talk about the war in Iraq. It's psy-ops being used against their own citizens; and it stinks.
Not at all. This is what some wack jobs think. I was just pointing out how absurd I think that is. I agree, highly paranoid. I have heard that many Moderate Middle Eastern Muslim think the jews did it and the whole thing is a lie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
yes yes yes and yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
OK, that's what i understood, but it seemed strange in a post concerning the war in Irak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Absolutely, i have relatives that were in Syria in the days that followed the attacks of september 2001 and they reported this kind of reaction.Quote:
I agree, highly paranoid. I have heard that many Moderate Middle Eastern Muslim think the jews did it and the whole thing is a lie!
Other relatives that worked and still work inEgypt reported the same, this seems to be a commonly accepted fact in those countries even nowdays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Okay, let's come to an understanding together. I think there has been some confusion. Proponents of the War in Iraq are not saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
Let's get some facts straight:
(1) Osama bin Laden and Al qaeda are a nationless political/social movement with the stated goals of destroying the west, and specifically, the United States. They would love to use nuclear/chemical/biological weapons to do this. This is a known fact.
(2) Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th 2001. Fact.
(3) President George W. Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism". Not on Al Qaeda. Not on Bin Laden. Not on Afghanistan. On terrorism. This means that we are fighting individuals and groups who target innocent civilians as a means to achieve a political/theological/social aim. There are organizations and nations that may support terrorism
(4) We invaded Afghanistan as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because they harbored terrorists.
(5) We invaded Iraq as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because intelligence showed that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction and supported terrorists.
(6) The intelligence on Iraq was very wrong. Fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy anyway.
(7) The motive for staying in Iraq has now changed, regardless of the impetus. We have a moral obligation to restore security to Iraq. It is also in our nation's best interests to do so: The Iraq conflict is attacting terrorist wannabes like a roach motel. It is more effective to deal with them proactively through our military in Iraq, than reactionary through law enforcement and internal defense tactics (which we employ anyway). Additionally, a stable democratic Iraq may spur positive change in the region.
Nice summary but I wouldn’t call the intelligence “very” wrong. It was outdated and once we got there became was wrong. And yes, fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy so it was excusable (at least in my eye and the American publics ~:) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
By and large I agree with the points you make - including the one I specifically noted in the quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
However, considering point (6) it should be understandable that Mrs Sheehan is more than a little upset about the death of her son.
Even if you argue that her son volunteered for the service in the army one could also argue that when he did so his intentions were to defend his country and not to die in a war that was based on sloppy intelligence.
He still died defending his country.Quote:
However, considering point (6) it should be understandable that Mrs Sheehan is more than a little upset about the death of her son.
Even if you argue that her son volunteered for the service in the army one could also argue that when he did so his intentions were to defend his country and not to die in a war that was based on sloppy intelligence.
Against who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Against an enemy the US created by attacking the Iraq?
Oh thats right I forgot Saddam and Iraq were our freinds until we attacked them for no reason. LOL.Quote:
Against who?
Against an enemy the US created by attacking the Iraq?
So you invaded Iraq to "defend" the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
No we did it to defend Russia. ~;)Quote:
So you invaded Iraq to "defend" the US?
Cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You haven't answered my original question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I didnt think you really needed such and obvious answer. YES. Why do you think we invaded?Quote:
You haven't answered my original question:
Because of the perception of a threat that was based on faulty intelligence - see DA's points (5) & (6)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
To what question is "Yes" the answer, BTW?
I think the word partially should be used here. All of it wasnt wrong. I still believe that Iraq was a threat not only to us but to the rest of the world. Besides that it is now not even a question as to whether he was defending his country. If we dont stay and fight we will surely be in worse shape than if we had never invaded. Iraq was a real threat not just a percieved one. Again read the Dueffler report. What everyone ignores is that it says that it was even a bigger threat than we imagined.Quote:
Because of the perception of a threat that was based on faulty intelligence - see DA's points