YEs no who
edit: crap this was supposed to be a poll. Mods?
Printable View
YEs no who
edit: crap this was supposed to be a poll. Mods?
At one point she had some validity as a grieving soldier's mother and deserved our compassion and attention.
However, she has long since sold her soul to the devil.. erm, michael moore, and has become a left wing whore - and should be treated as nothing but that.
It has recently come out that her son did indeed believe in what he was doing and the rest of the family did aswell. I can think of few things worse than using your own son's death to push political causes that he adomently opposed to suck up to the radical left. Her far ranging opinions about a myriad of issues besides the Iraq war only add to her lack of legitimacy. (Where does she get off thinking she can lecture about the Israel/Palestine conflict?)
The *woman* has become nothing more than the radical left's latest mouthpeice - not to be confused with moore putting his proverbial peice in her proverbial mouth ~;) - and should not be taken seriously.
I don't trust her, because the son knew that if he wasn't quite up to the task, he'd die.
This is why I love these threads. They open up a wonderful world of new facts and insights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
So, Zalmoxis, the mother is not to be trusted because the son wasn't up to.. well, up to what exactly? Staying alive? Is it a soldier's task to stay alive at all costs? Is a soldier's death under fire evidence of his failure as a soldier?
If so, then I wonder why we continue to honour and commemorate all those American failures who died in the liberation of my country in 1945. They clearly weren't up to the task of staying alive. What a bunch of losers, eh?
If this war actually had good motives, like taking down a threat to millions of lives (I don't know, maybe Jews?) or the country being invaded had a significant military force, then I'd sit quietly, but that is not the case now, is it?
I (would have) voted for 'who?'. I haven't heard about this story. Anyone care to give any impartial heads-up ?
A Cindy Sheehan's son went into Iraq, and was killed, though he knew the risks,, and now his mother (Cindy) wants to speak ask the President why he let her son die, even though she had already met with the President. So far, she's camped outside the President's ranch for quite some time, (I believe her husband even filed for divorce), and she won't leave until she has spoken with the President, even though she already did, and even though her son knew the risks of going to fight a war based on questionable reasons. I'm off to bed, doctor's appointment tommorrow.
Surely she knew that if her son went off to war there was a chance he was going to be killed? I mean that's the idea of a war. I doubt she'd have had any qualms about her son killing other people while he was over there.
Well, so much for the impartial heads-up. Heh. I'm sure it'll do for Al Khalifah, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
No idea who she is, so I cant say that I care.
Wasn't the most impartial account of events I'll agree, but I can read between the lines easily enough. Sounds like another case of soldiers' relatives having a very rosey picture of what it means to be a soldier as part of an occupying force in another country.
I know that's not exactly the whole picture of what is going on in this instance, at least in the Western view of things, but to many Iraqi people, this is how events will be seen.
I think it's a shame that she's managed to become a foil for both sides of the issue, villified on one hand and raised up as some kind of modern anti-war saint on the other. There are other, more eloquent and more reasoned, proponents on both sides who will not be heard while the media focuses on the circus of the day.
Interesting piece by Georgie Ann Geyer
Quote:
CINDY SHEEHAN STIRS UP A LONG OVERDUE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
WASHINGTON -- She is a plain, rangy woman with a strangely beseeching nasal voice. She dresses like the Californian she is, in T-shirts and cut-off jeans. She has already seen George W. Bush once, and yet she's insisting upon seeing him again. She is no glamour girl, and yet she has a throng of admirers who have been nursing inside themselves, for the last two years and more, the secrets that she implicitly reveals.
But none of those contradictory realities about 48-year-old Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother of the Iraq war, even begins to define the reasons for her sensational overnight appearance as the moral reminder of America's losses.
Part of the drama is the woman herself, a simple, quintessential mother -- a kind of Greek chorus of motherhood -- as she mourns the death of her 24-year-old son, Casey, killed 17 months ago in a burning Humvee in Sadr City.
Part of the increasingly successful political theater lies in the fact that she picked exactly the right staging. By placing her protest (against the war) and her demand (to bring the troops home immediately) outside the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch on these August dog days, she has underlined the plausible image of a lazy, out-of-touch commander in chief riding his bike while Baghdad burns.
But the biggest reason behind Cindy Sheehan's lightning effect on the country is that she has been saying -- with her actions, gestures and intonations, if not exactly in words -- what has been left deliberately unsaid in America until now:
That the war in Iraq is useless, and that all those Americans who died or were wounded there died and suffered in vain. That Iraq is not and never was a war that America needed to fight, but that it was an adventure on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest. And that it still could end horribly. This is frankly unbearable to most Americans, even now.
It should come as no surprise that many other American mothers of boys and girls who have perished on the seething plains of Mesopotamia have not exactly been enamored of Cindy Sheehan's strange vigil. We can bear it to know that our loved ones were sacrificed for some worthy and lasting cause. But to die for nothing is too much. That may be the destiny of other, less lucky and less blessed peoples of the world, but not us Americans.
That, at least, is what we have thought throughout our history. This generation has forgetton -- until now, as Iraq begins to look more and more like a worse Indo-China -- that in our own lifetimes we already have lost 50,000 Americans in Vietnam -- for nothing.
The curious question is why it should have taken so long for a Cindy Sheehan to arise. The war, after all, has been grotesquely misanalyzed, mishandled and misfought from the beginning.
Moreover, it is clear from their actions and rhetoric that there has been little concern for the American soldier in Iraq on the part of the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense, not to speak of the now-disappearing neocons who looked upon Iraq as not a necessity, but as some great experiment in transforming the Middle East.
The reason I think it took so long for a Cindy Sheehan to arise, and for an anti-war movement to capture at least some of the headlines, lies in a dangerous series of disconnects in American society today. Our military is a volunteer force; this provides for top-level talent, but it inevitably means that the vast majority of Americans feel little direct connection with it. At worst, they forget about it, or even look upon its members as paid professional warriors who are not their concern.
It is my contention that a professionalized volunteer force like this, without the traditional indirect controls of citizens who share broadly in the defense of the country, allows the adventurers far greater latitude for their experiments.
Along with these trends, one sees revealed on many levels a disturbing deinstitutionalization going on in America that further feeds into the myriad ways Americans have managed to ignore this war.
It's obvious in the approximately 20,000 "private security forces" (21st-century mercenaries?) in Iraq, in the dozens of cities across the United States that have, on their own, adopted Kyoto treaty-style environmental controls, and in cities and towns which, in increasing numbers, are moving on their own to deal with the problems of illegal immigration.
From all this suddenly steps the figure of simplicity and clarity. No matter that she's plain Jane (and perhaps that's for the best). No matter that her family is against her actions and that her husband filed for divorce last week. No matter that a lot of movements have gratuitously signed on to her and that 1,500 vigils were recently held in one night in her name -- without her knowing who most of the people were.
The fact is, in a country increasingly dying for clarity about what its self-isolated president is really thinking, Cindy Sheehan has arisen as a kind of tribal truth-teller who reads the stones. The stones and sand particles of Iraq are finally beginning to reveal that this war has been waged for nothing.
The important thing about her, to me, is that she is an American exercising her right to free speech. She believes in what she is doing, and instead of sitting in front of a TV or computer she's doing what she feels is important.
But look how's she's been vilified in the conservative press, even Panzer stooped to calling her a whore and making a dumb joke about having a piece of micheal moore in her mouth.
The trend in this country is that if you wave a flag and nod your head then you are a good patriotic American. If you disagree with Bush and try to stand up for your beliefs then you are a radical whore.
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. Buy into the Us and Them, With Us or Against Us, left and right, right and wrong. In my humble opinion simple minds easily distracted from the real problems and set to bickering with their neighbors while the real problems go unchecked.
Maybe we should send Pat Robertson to assassinate her, get it all over with.
ichi :bow:
And you lost your moral high ground in the last comment. Ah so sad - your point was actually good until that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Who needs a moral highground. He's dead right.
No, she is a loon!
Sure, I can see it now as she is camped outside Bushes ranch… Why did you force my son to kill! why, WHY!! :bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Whatever you think of her personally, she has indeed energized the antiwar movement. Fewer and fewer people are afraid to criticize Bush or the war every day. On Iraq, it seems, the worm has turned.
A poll that came out yesterday showed bush's approval rating at 36%, his disapproval at 58%. (Can't find the link to it yet, but it was reported on CNN). In terms of American politics, this puts Bush in the toilet. I think LBJ's ratings at the height of Vietnam were something like 36%.
Sheehan just came along at the right time.
Do we have to discuss this issue in such a crude way? "Rat's ass", Michael Moore's "piece", "loon", "obnoxious" etc. I know virtually nothing about Cindy Sheehan but understand that we're talking about a mother who has lost her son before his time. Would posters talk this way in front of her? You should at least respect her grief or at least not gratuitously insult her. Whatever people think about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War or appropriate methods of protesting it, it can be said in a more civilised manner than some are doing here.
And I agreed with him until the last comment - complaining about villainization and doing it yourself is well - hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Here is a site that has compiled all of Bush's ratings on How well he is doing his jobQuote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
And here is a site with the recent poll - not sure if it is completely valid though
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/...ush_popularity
Let us know if you find the link to the report that you are thinking of.
Hi Redleg,
I've found that a better site is this one:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh.htm
It includes all the major polls. Note that it divides them up into two main categories: favorability and job approval. Favorability tends to be a bit higher than job approval-- favorability is just your general impression of the man, whereas job approval is your estimate of how well he is doing his job.
I am sorry I could not yet get that poll number with the 36% figure. I have been desperately searching for it for the last 24 hours, since CNN reported it. I believe it was an Associated Press Poll, but I'm not sure; their website has nothing on it. I'll post it here as soon as I can find it. I hope you can trust me that I'm not BSing on this-- I don't have all the details, but CNN most definitely reported this yesterday.
~:cheers:
She's a flash point in my opinion. Is she right? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is she doing things perfectly? Not really. Has she awakened people and gotten things moving? Yes. Ever see Network ? "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" that's what she is.
I'm sorry she lost her boy to this war, but I think America needs to stay untill the job is done, and once they have a leader in place and elections going then I think we should pull out.
Her boy died for a reason, and he had a choice to go to war, he gambled and lost, but lets not let this war be a total failure. I think that the president should just give her a half-hour humoring session then get on with his job. Although I am not a huge advocate of George Bush, I am not totaly disappointed in what he has done so far.
Anyways in short, yeah she lost her boy, so she should get to see the pres for a half-hour. What more do you want nobody likes loosing people in a war! :duel:
Are you thinking about the Handling of the War or his overall Approval Rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I have seen a poll and several stories of his approval rating for the War with Iraq being below 40%.
If anything shes making the left look bad.Quote:
Has she awakened people and gotten things moving? Yes. Ever see Network ? "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" that's what she is.
It could be said that she makes the Left look bad, but take a look around this topic. She's managed to make the right look pretty ugly as well.
I thought about this too, but it makes me think that if she gets a ½ hour than everyone that looses someone will want a ½ hour with the P. I think maybe he should give a few minutes of “take it easy” speech, answer some questions and then get back to running the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by |OCS|Virus
If it were me, I would scold her for making such a ruckus about a decision that her SON made. Then maybe send her on a humanitarian mission to Iraq to see what her son was fighting and died for. No joke, I think people would be more appreciative of the sacrifice being made if they could see the difference we are making there. Out of sight, out of mind. It is easy to protest something that you don’t really see the details/effects of. It is George W’s last term; he should start doing some off the wall, unconventional stuff.
This is captain smiley :army: ; he will be your guide today as you tour the Iraq countryside. On your left you will notice people who have recently received their freedom and over here on the right are blown up cars and behind them more people that are now free. ~D
I don't see how it is a "wrong way." It is her way. Doesn't matter if I agree with her, she is protesting and what she is doing is a legitimate protest. She's not burning flags. She's not blowing up buildings. She's not threatening folks by firing off weapons...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What she is doing VERY WELL is helping to dispell that myth of Dubya as a "compassionate conservative." His apparatus go after her with fangs bared might be successful in painting the image they want of her, but it is counterproductive in the long term.
I may have confused things but I don't believe I did. On CNN they said that the drop was 6% from the last poll, and if you look at the AP poll on his approval rating, that was at 42% in the last poll. I'll get back here with a clarification as soon as I can find the data--pollingreport.com will definitely post the latest polls soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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
Boy I can't wait to here the coming rhetoric about the Dueffler Report. It should be interesting. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
As I said, the second part is certainly true. As for the first part, for Mrs. Sheehan and perhaps even for her son that actually might be a relevant question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.
This is hardly worse than what the broad public seems to have imagined based on the faulty intelligence.
I suggest you re read it then. It clearly states that the situtation was worse than we had thought. How much enriched uranium again was sent back to the US from there?Quote:
BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.
Please tell me (ideally not with referneces to secondary sources but with direct references to the Duelfer report) as I did not find any statements on this in the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Some statements from the report:
Quote:
ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.
Quote:
Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program.
Quote:
Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991.
Quote:
It does not appear that Iraq took steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development.
Quote:
ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.
Quotes are from this section of the Duelfer reportQuote:
In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered 16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
So what I found in the section that deals with the nuclear weapons program is that there was some remaining yellowcake and that there was evidence for Iraq's intention to revive the nuclear weapons program as soon as circumstances would allow for it.
While this is certainly a violation of the UN resolutions, it is certainly not "worse that we imagined" as the US administration obviously fueled the public imagination to believe that there actually were WMDs that were a direct threat to the US and its allies.
I did not find any mentioning of enriched uranium that has been found. But I am sure you will show me the relevant sections of the report, Gawain (I certainly cannot eliminate the possibility that I overlooked such statements in the report)
For those that don't know what's involved in the above argument, allow me to explain.
Uranium comes out of mines in ore form. Nearly all of this uranium is U-238 which is the stable isotope and useless for weapons. It has to be enriched to increase the percentage of the more unstable U-235 isotope (from 3-5% for nuclear power and up to 90% U-235 for nuclear weapons) But uranium oxide can't be enriched in ore form. Initially the product of the mine is fairly low in uranium oxide content, typically less than 10% of the total that is mined is actually uranium oxide. It has to be milled to remove the coarser non-uranium contents of the mine product. The result mostly uranium oxide (but still essentially unusable) powder is then washed in sulphuric acid which leeches out the uranium. The result of that washing process is dried and filtered to produce the yellowish uranium oxide powder, called yellowcake. That's just the first step in the process. The yellowcake is then combined with flourine in a long process to create uranium hexaflouride. This can then be easily heated into a gas. The uranium hexaflouride gas is processed in a gas centrifuge. Because the U-238 is heavier, much of it can be centrifuged out, leaving more of the needed U-235. This is uranium enrichment. It can also be done with gas diffusion, which is much more expensive and time-consuming but slightly more efficient in end product. The process is long and takes many steps. The end result is nuclear weapons grade, or enriched, uranium.
Now, if you'll look at the Dueffler report, then you'll notice it clearly states that "Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991."
Without the gas centrifuges, or the much more costly and time and resource intensive gas diffusion processors, you can't do much with yellowcake except play patty cake. You can't even use it for nuclear power which still requires some enrichment.
Iraq could have been knee deep in yellowcake and it would have gotten them precisely nowhere in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, since they had no gas centrifuge capability after 1991. ~D
Bill Nye couldent have done a better job ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
And in addition to that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelfer report
That arguement however does leave out the use of yellowcake uranium in the "dirty" bomb mode. The mere presence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq could be considered a violation of the United Nations Resolutions and a violation of the ceasefire agreements unless the documentation is shown that it was for a nuclear power plant for energy purposes.
What the Dueffler Report points out is that Iraq attempted to hide data and to provide an illusion. Some of that data - does indeed point a critical finger at the failure of the Weapons Inspection Program - and again in that same report some criticial failures of the United States Intelligence Service and the Adminstration are also seen. The Dueffler Report is a decent source material to look at - it provides some insight to way the Inspectors had such a hard time proving or disproving the complaince of the inspection programs by the Iraq Government.
Read the report - you will draw you own conclusion - but you should be able to see the dangerous game of duplicity that the Saddam Regime played concerning the Requirments of the United Nations Resolutions over the last 12 years.
If you don't think Yellowcake Uranium wont kill you - your sadly mistaken - the openpit miners of Uranium from the 1940's and 1950's suffered a high rate of cancer based upon the radiation and breathing of Uranium laden dust. (I know this one from experience since my Grandfather - for a time was one of this open pit miners.)
As I said in my previous post, the mere presence of yellowcake was a violation of the resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties
The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.
This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.
Yes indeed you did - However I felt it necessary to point out that fact again. That is probably the damning part of the Deuffler Report that Gaiwan was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Was it the destruction being done sloppily or was it initially an attempt to hid the stocks from the inspectors - and then over the years just left to waste and left unaccounted for.Quote:
However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties
The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.
If it was a sloppily accounting system for the destruction of the material - then that is even more damning to the United States reasons for going to War again with Iraq.
However if it was initially hidden (for whatever reason by the Saddam Regime) then its a clear violation with intent to decieve by that Regime - even with the conditions of the materials when found being that the weapons were no longer usable. The Dueffler Report seems to say (at least last time I read it - the conclusion I drew from it) that there was an intentional deception by the Saddam Regime to confuse others on the status of their weapons programs. Again this is a clear violation of the United Nations Resolutions and the initial Ceasefire Agreement which halted Operation Desert Storm.
Agreed this part of the discussion is off topic from the orginial premise of the thread. To state SPC Casey Sheehan died to defend the United States is over the top. SPC Casey Sheehan died going to the rescue of his fellow soldiers - when it comes down to it - soldiers never die for their country - they normally at worst die in the service of their country and at best die in attempting to help others. Which from all accounts SPC Casey Sheehan did not die for his country - he died preforming a mission to help his fellow soldiers out of a bad spot - a mission it seems he volunteered for on top of his volunteering for service.Quote:
This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.
And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
BTW, that's what I like about the discussions here - they actually make me take the time and read up the relevant stuff in the primary sources ~:cheers:
On the issue of using yellowcake for dirty bombs:
Yellowcake is unenriched uranium oxide containing roughly .7% U-235 and 99.3% of U-238, the stable isotope (I say roughly because there is a third isotope, U-234, which accounts for a miniscule .005%). Depleted uranium, such as the type used in harmless things like - U.S. military armor piercing ordnance in Iraq - has roughly 1/3 as much U-235 compared to yellowcake, or about .2% of the more radioactive isotope. Both are still radioactive, with yellowcake being relatively slightly more so. The combination of radioactivity and the non-radioactive poisonous nature of uranium as a whole might make it suitable for a dirty bomb. Depleted uranium doesn't mean that it isn't radioactive, it just means that it has less U-235 in it than can be useful in nuclear power generation. It's sources include spent fuel rods, but it also comes from the process of enriching uranium via gas diffusion. The two results of the gas diffusion process are depleted uranium and enriched uranium. ~D
Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.
And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D
Yep the amount of damage done is slow - but still deadly in the long run. It took 15- 20 years for the cancer to be noticable in both my Grandparents. Most of it because the technology had to improve to detect the cancers in both - since it attacked their livers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
True - but then doing that would not have been a direct violation of the Ceasefire in which the Iraqi Regime fired. And shows the current obligation of the United States to remain in Iraq - to at least clean up our mess if nothing else.Quote:
Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.
Uranium is a possible dirty bomb making material - any radioactive material is a dirty bomb making material - be it yellowcake - or depleted Uranium shells on the battlefield. I know why the United States uses depleted Uranium in certain muntions - doesn't mean I agree completely with it.Quote:
And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D
Where do you think the logic of waging a nuclear war in Iraq and Afganstan comes from. Its not about nuclear weapons like some on the far right think - its about the use of depleted uranium rounds. The far right making light of that statments shows how polarized the nation has become. Cindy made a statement agaisnt the use of depleted Uranium rounds - but because she did it in an over the top way - the far-right took it to mean something else then what the real intent of the statement was. She demonized - the far right demonizes to reduce and counter the impact of her statements.
Arguing with passion about something is a good thing - but in her statement about waging nuclear war - she showed a lack of knowledge and a polarization of her own politics on a very valid concern - which distracts from her point of we should stop using depleted Uranium in our muntions because of the future hazardous that the muntions present.
I think I may be able to answer this. I am, after all, in the military. And I reenlisted knowing that we were going to war in Iraq and that I would end up going. I even volunteered to go, but was told I had to stay put because too many people wanted to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
A service member's duty is NOT to decide who the enemy is.
A service member's duty is only this:
"I _________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
As a U.S. Marine, I am the enforcement arm of American policy. My leaders, who are elected by the people through the constitutional process, know better than I how best to achieve the strategic aims of national security. Whether that be in Iraq, or elsewhere, but not somewhere else, is not up to me.
If my leaders decide that invading one country while ignoring a different country is what bests serves our national security, than so be it.
I do not pretend to have the facts, knowledge, and resources to make this type of decision. My responsibility, my duty, is to follow orders, and bear faith that my nation has elected the best individuals to decide military policy, whether I voted for the individual or not.
This, office ken, is what the young man died for. He defended his country as best as he was able by following the policy and strategy of those elected to lead.
I will elaborate if you wish.
I agree with you 100% on the above. And since the whole atmosphere surrounding Sheehan has become a circus of polarizing viewpoints and third parties seeking to use her for their own ends, we lose an opportunity for constructive debate in this country on the use of depleted uranium and its effects not just on civilians in targetted areas but also on service members who use it or come into contact with it in excess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If we keep agreeing like this, we're going to give Clegane a stroke.
I cant think of much worse than a mother using her son's death to promote a political agenda he was adomently against. Dont horrible people deserve to be treated horribly?Quote:
And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.
PJ, is it at least possible that she is actually upset that her son is dead?
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?
*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing, the flag to be lowered, and smartly releases salute which has been held so hard as to cause his arm to quiver through the whole of the above speech*Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
There, now that the flag-waving is over, let me do some elaborating for you, my friend. You have forgotten one very important thing: While it may be the duty of young men and women in the military to do the lawful bidding of their legitimate political masters, there are two sides to that covenant. The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...
Is that your opinion of what their dying in Iraq for? It seems to me that Div just has more faith in our government than you do. What do you expect a Marine to say?Quote:
The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...
More likely the Marine Corps Hymn ~;)Quote:
*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing,
Obviously, I must elaborate since your elaboration was not elaborate enough. It is clear that I left out important information, and that is my error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
(1)My duty as a Marine is to follow orders and all the above that I wrote. *flag waving in breeze, because of #2*
(2)My duty as a citizen is to be informed, participate in government, and urge others to do the same. In this way, I try not to allow myself to be thrown away. *flag still waving in breeze, because of #1*
Your only duty, as a citizen and former soldier, is number two. Please continue to do as you are and you will ensure I do not perish for nothing. In turn, I will ruthlessly follow orders, so that you that you may be able to continue as you are. Deal?
Edit:
OR-DERRRR....
ARMS!