Printable View
We have a similar person in the People's Republic - Rose Gentle. Her son had been in the Royal Highland Fusiliers for a year or so and was sent to Iraq and thence killed. She started saying her son had been under-trained, even after basic army training, infantry training, and several months erstwhile. She has since started to support the Scottish Socialist Party (the most bizarre bunch of odd balls, loonies, and naive crooks)...
It's about politics.
Ms. Sheehan, either as a result of the loss of her son or perhaps prior to that time, became a supporter of the hyper-liberal agenda. She is agressively pursuing photo-ops and situations wherein she can showcase that agenda.
Canada, having recently elected a conservative party government (by a narrowish margin) is a target for potential change. If public sentiment can be swayed more toward the socialist/leftist agenda by any means -- including an assertion that Canada is morally culpable for Iraq (less than popular in Canada) by "enabling" the Bush administration through its participation in Afghanistan -- the current government might be forced from power and a more staunchly leftist government put it.
If this new government feels it needs to make a "statement" to support its new-found voters, it could then initiate a withdrawal of Canadian support and worsen the logistics for the Bush administration.
If this change could be effected quickly enough to have the Canadians throw out the conservatives immediately prior to the US elections in November -- and perhaps turn out more leftist voters in the USA -- Sheehan would be doubly pleased.
Moreover, what have the leftist agenda types or Cindy risked by making the effort? Her reputation as a political leader? :inquisitive: :laugh4: Chance of a backlash and sudden growth of Canadian support for the Iraq conflict.:no:
So, in short, they are risking virtually nothing and have a significant potential "prize" for her efforts. So its not likely to work, what have they lost? Seems pretty shrewd to me.
The traitorous witch (this label chosen as a substitute for moderator-sensitive language and not intended as a slur on practitioners of the ancient craft)!
If that is her plan, it's the most poorly planned political action since the USSR's hardline communist coup in 1991.
The only realistic alterantive to the conservative are the liberals. And they have no leader. Won't until summer. Then the new leader needs to get his face known. Plus no party wants to piss off the electorate with a thrid election in 5 years.
Add to that most people still think Afghanistan was the right action to take and there is no great call for us to pull our troops out. Not like the reaction to Haiti.
I never knew that he reenlisted. Even if so, the naive can be misled even when the thruth stares them in the face. He may have been aware of the reality of the every day war in Iraq, but did he grasp the big picture of the war? Did he understand why the war is fought, under which pretence? Does the US army in Iraq allow for a climate in which the rationale for the war is easily debated? Soldiers have a job to do and a war to win, they get and seek more exposure to morale boosting propaganda than to New York Times columnists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
He should however also be considered a person capable of making his own moral decisions. I've stated before that she should show restraint in claiming to speak on his behalf. It depends too much on assumptions about him, and in the end on one's appreciation of the war in Iraq.
Briefly: the validity of her protest hasn't changed, it is as valid or not as it was on day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But yes, unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there. To put it mildly.
The grief of a mother over a lost child is sacred and above criticism. Her political conclusions are not. Unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike for the South
Love ya too, pumpkin. :knuddel:Quote:
Originally Posted by SftS
You nor anyone else can second guess what the man knew or did not know. We can only judge his actions. He re-enlisted, he returned to Iraq, he volunteered for a mission to go help others, (a mission beyond his normal duty assignment by the way.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And you have hit where she has gone astray.Quote:
He should however also be considered a person capable of making his own moral decisions. I've stated before that she should show restraint in claiming to speak on his behalf. It depends too much on assumptions about him, and in the end on one's appreciation of the war in Iraq.
You have misread the comment. Try again without assuming that I meantthat her protest is not valid. One can have a valid point, but lack creditability. Mrs Sheehan has lost all creditablity in her protest.Quote:
Briefly: the validity of her protest hasn't changed, it is as valid or not as it was on day one.
But yes, unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there. To put it mildly.
No I didn't misread it, I don't need to try it again and the only thing I assumed is that by 'she initially had a valid protest' you meant that 'she initially had a valid protest'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Oddly enough, the conclusion that one can have a valid point, but lack creditability was the point of my post.
It often works better for understanding to be concise with your meaning versus attempting to word smith......:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Since my initial post had that very same point - it seems you were arguing just to argue...LOL:dizzy2:
You are the sole judge of your intention, so I'll gladly take your word for it. However, 'but' indicates an opposition, an 'initially...but' construction a change over time. Small wonder then that your post is understood to mean a change in the validity of her protest by her losing credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So please do spare me your condescending tone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
You first, my dear friend.
If you found the tone condescending - then review how the perception of your own post could be taken....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
First,my opion is that they Hid WMDs,if you people ever thought of it..
Second,He voulnteer for the Army.
God sake, if you don't want to defend the US,don't join the Army.
but then again,if there was no WMD,tell me if we should have let Saddam in power then?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:
It did? Oops, that was not my intention. :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Meh, 'nuff of this. Let us have a beer instead Redleg. :yes:
~:cheers:
These are important arguments, and I gave my opinion on them elsewhere in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Chances are that those WMD's would have been found by now.Quote:
First,my opion is that they Hid WMDs,if you people ever thought of it..
but then again,if there was no WMD,tell me if we should have let Saddam in power then?
As to the second point, would you believe that I really struggle with that? I have never made up my mind about it. I'm still swaying back and forth.
It is possible that Iraq hid WMD's or shipped them to a "friendly" locale in Syria or even Iran, but no evidence has been released to indicate this. A modest number of WMD's have been found during the occupation, but there is no indication of an ongoing program at the time of the invasion. Interestingly, there are some indications that many of the higher-echelon leaders in Saddam's Iraq were convinced that they had such weapons and that it is possible that Saddam himself was being told what he wanted to hear and thus had an inflated opinion of his ability to re-start such programs and the like. The most likely verdict is that the Bush administration was sincere in its decision to invade under the perceived threat of WMD's, but that the intelligence work confirming the existence of such weapons was not of the highest quality -- too much was accepted as true because it fit our fears (a classic problem in decision-making).Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
Sheehan served honorably, dying during a service episode that was beyond normal duty expectations. His mother's loss is not reparable, but is, sadly, a product of conflict. The decision to employ violence always carries a cost.
Saddam was a pig. Removing him was an appropriate act. Kicking over the apple cart without better information as to the consequences was not an example of excellent planning. Power abhors a vacuum and violence and mayhem the usual byproducts of the atmosphere re-establishing itself.
If your ever in Dallas - drop by. A frosty mug will be available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I don't know if that is the case, if they were moved out of the country they probably would have not. And in all honesty, even if Bush believed they were, there is little he could do about it. His credibility is shot due to the fact that we havn't found them so it is somewhat of a vicous cycle, if tommorow he announces he thinks they are Syria he would have little support at home or abroad to do anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I don't think we will ever know whether he truly had them and hid/moved them, didn't have them and was just bluffing, didn't have them but was actively running programs to develope them, or had zero intentions of ever having anything to do with them again. Well, atleast we won't for a long while.
I think Bush will be judged on Iraq by history based off of how well he is able to reverse his military blunders of the first year of the war and how Iraq turns out over whether we ever find WMDs or not. If 20 years from now Iraq is doing well it will be viewed as a positive thing (look at the difference between modern N and S Korea, the state of S korea itself proves it was a good thing we prevailed in the Korean war, regardless of the debates and politicing of the time). If not, he will be looked back on very unpleasently.
This is exactly the dilemma I struggle with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
If Saddam could be toppled and *poof!* democracy and the rule of law established, I would have signed up for the US army myself.
In real life, I expected 'something more or less along the lines of what happened' to happen. The cost in human lives of the war, of the power vacuum and of the ensuing instability could have been expected to have been greater than they would have been under Saddam.
Even so, that still doesn't mean he shouldn't have been removed. If I can draw a somewhat tacky analogy: suppose a guy takes command of my house and rules it like a tyrant. The police is sure that if they don't intervene, he will kill one of my familiy. And they are sure that if they will intervene, two of my family members will die, without the quality of life for my family improving.
I might yet urge them to barge in anyway and shoot the bastard.
Not if they were hidden outside of Iraq. It would not be the first time Iraq got rid of its most valuable military assets before a war.Quote:
Chances are that those WMD's would have been found by now.
Like when they tried to fly their remaining air force into Iran :laugh4: .Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager