ivan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 my problem is not with the grief in the loss of a child, but in her refusal to honor her adult son's decision. It seems like another case of a tragedy requiring someone to blame. my little brother's in iraq for his 2nd trip right now - if he gets greased there, i don't want my anti-war arguments being dismissed by the same stupid fucks who go after sheenan as being unimportant because they're just the emotional words of a family member - logic speaks for itself - stop looking at motive! also i'm not certain to what extent she has refused to accept her son's decision as i haven't really heard much of what she has to say - i assume the death of her son was just the catalyst spurring her to act on opinions she already held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 i'll call you an asshole right back at you, Vanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 why must it always be a semantics argument? "wrong" is a personal label, as are all words. ultimately, whether this is a just or unjust war will depend upon the people who look at it (how will it be taught in history classes, 200 years from now i wonder? will it be in the same category as sand-creek and wounded knee, i wonder?) - it's simplest i suppose to defer to the majority though in choosing a label - on dec 8, 1941, there was an incredibly small minority opposed to war w/ japan - in march of 2003, america as a whole was much more uncertain. there were huge protests immediately. 4 years later, a very large chunk of america, likely a majority, would label this war as unjust. again, wtf is there this cyncism as to motive? who gives a shit why sheehan or the democrats are opposed to the war? the point is, do they have a point? is this in fact a just war? at any rate, while i'm a jaded asshole, i'm not so far gone that i think a grieving mother and a large # of democrats are opposed to the war simply so they can get their faces in the papers. they are geniulely opposed to it - deal w/ their arguments then, not their motives. Very true, who going to write those history books. Hell in Iran the history books say WWII killing of the jews never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 i'll call you an asshole right back at you, Vanya wouldn't be an interweb argument w/o some name calling, eh, moi druk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 my problem is not with the grief in the loss of a child, but in her refusal to honor her adult son's decision. It seems like another case of a tragedy requiring someone to blame. After walking away to start cooking some lunch, I realized I hadn't worded my statement to correctly reflect my opinion. I don't have a "problem" with, what appears to me to be, her refusal to accept and honor her adult son's decision to go to war. I decided in my own mind and heart, when it was that each of my four children reached the age of personal autonomy and accountability, and for each of my offspring, they were of a different age. I readily accept that this issue is different for every parent, and that it is not for me to decide whether they're right or wrong. It appears, to me, by exhibiting behavior that may have caused her son to believe his mother did not respect his decisions as an adult (and if so, would quite possibly have brought him pain and shame), that Ms. Sheehan was more interested in promoting her politics publicly (or, possibly used as a tool exploitively) than in plumbing the horrible, excruciating depths of her heart torn apart privately...a choice I'd hate to be given. I'm speaking of appearances. I'm not proposing to know much of anything in this regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 most people who go to war are not told the truth about our motives/reasons. they are misled about 'the manhattan renovation project' for example and told they should give their lives for 'our freedom' .that single act of self-terrorism has been one of the most profitable scheme in history, garnering us support for our invasions etc. those kids died/are dying/will die for profit only.......to make it a religious/patriotic issue is trickery.wars are always profit/pride driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Viewing the world through an everlasting fog of venal paranoia and shallow, narcissistic, pop-spiritualism and attempting to pass it off as enlightenment is clearly the ideal state in which to pass through life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 No matter what any of us believe this last month in Iraq was the third most deadly month for our troops. 125 US citizends killed over there. I don't have a problem with having a strong military, but this, "war," is getting a little hard to take, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Viewing the world through an everlasting fog of venal paranoia and shallow, narcissistic, pop-spiritualism and attempting to pass it off as enlightenment is clearly the ideal state in which to pass through life. to discard truth; call it paranoia to discard light; call it illusion. to discard peace; call it absence of war. to discard others; call yourself knowledgeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavote Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Things are just getting started in Venezuela. They've just started the long-march on "The Road to Serfdom." Destinations: Repression, Poverty, and Collapse. There is no escape from this. I'm not so sure about that. After all, they already had/have that under the European oligarchy. It may be different given the massive oil wealth they have...if they spend it and invest it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavote Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 ...stupid, clueless cunt... C'mon, show some class. Class? Like using a child's death for a political campaign of personal destruction, engaging in a seditious game of anti-Americanism, meeting with despicable dictators who are actively trying to undermine us? That kind of class? Mr. Chavez is really the anti-oligarch in Venezuela. The fact that the elites in Venezuela neglected and exploited the poor to the point where they represent 80 to 85% of the population allowed Chavez to be democratically elected. This is not a bad thing, to be democratically elected. Unless the US Gov decides they did not like the results. Remember Iraqi elections.... Those elites, who thought democracy was only for them, failed to recognize the sleeping giant in the impoverished masses had a vote too. I suppose they thought they did a good enough job keeping the masses uneducated and starving that they did not fear their vote. After 500+ years of fucking over the poor, they deserve that asswipe Chavez. I was recently privy to be detained by the Venezuelan National Guard for being in the wrong place while on our way to dinner. This detention, was horrible. Auto weapons in our faces. Threats of death. Accusations of being "paramilitaries" come to Venezuela to assassinate Chavez were used as a pretext to rob us of our money. And rob us they did. We spent the night at Military Intelligence where the professional Army realized we were innocent and the target of Chavez thugs in the National Guard. We were released the next morning, but not before we got to see the political prisoners from the Army being held there. Scary shit. Chavez may do some good for a lot of the poor in Venezuela. I doubt he is more than a zit on the ass of the US Gov. He is not inclined to be inclusive with the upper classes. This is wrong. He is determined to force feed them some of their own medicine and it is a bitter thing for the wealthy and privileged who for so long been in power, political and economic. Those assholes deserve Chavez. I do know that his arrogance has emboldened the National Guard thugs to harass the middle class and visitors to Venezuela. This is a very, very dangerous situation. It's not Venezuela, socialism or even Chavez we should fear, we should fear his thugs who act on Chavez's threats. They are the equals of the right wing thugs that came before them. The right wing and Chavez deserve one another. Be good to your fellow human being and share your food with him in brotherhood. If not, he will remember you did not help him and when the tables are turned, he will not help you. He may, in fact, come to kill you. Hmm I wonder if its part of the the democratic process to take over media and private business?? Certainly not. However, Chavez shut down RCTV because he claims they supported the short coup against him. Moreover, he did not "shut down" or take over the TV station. He refused to renew their license. CCompletley legal. Chavez uses legal democratic methods to achieve his goals. Chavez is an asswipe because he empowers thugs to run around like the Nazi SS fucking with people. Unfortunately, this bolivarian revolution will come undone because his thugs do not aspire to ideals higher than shaking down tourist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavote Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 This country is so fucked. If you'd written "world", you may have had a point, as this world can be Heaven and/or Hell depending on your personal momentary experience. This "country", however, is one of the best, if not the best in this world - once you travel a bit more and sample Asia, Africa, and South America, the poverty and oppression of most of the people in this world will give you pause (hopefully) in your mouth before making such statements. In many cultures, with your oft voiced condition of ADD and erratic behavior as a young child, you may have been abandoned to the streets and a life of petty theft and sucking cock for survival. Count your blessings and thank your lucky stars you've been pampered in this country and culture. Thank You. It does need to be repeated that we live in a great country. Although we are not without our problems, I would rather be pooor here than anywhere else. Besides, what other country has such beautiful and easily accessible climbing? The vast array of junk food or opportunity for all? And because we have people from all over, our food tastes better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 It's too bad it had to be a power-drunk asshole like Chavez. Wasn't he supposed to give the country back to its people by now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 ...stupid, clueless cunt... C'mon, show some class. Class? Like using a child's death for a political campaign of personal destruction, engaging in a seditious game of anti-Americanism, meeting with despicable dictators who are actively trying to undermine us? That kind of class? Well, at least she's actively doing something for her cause, which is more than can be said for certain armchair chickenhawks on this forum. BTW, when does your basic training start, KKK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 (edited) Picture says it all. I dont have a tv....who are these people? Jimmy Carter debuting his new John Denver hairpiece. His date's got a hell of a set of blow job lips, but her Down's Syndrome hairdo fails miserably. Edited June 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 ...people see no reason to complain as long as it doesn't affect them. People would respond different if it were being fought over here, or there was a chance of them being drafted. Thank goodness we can just ignore it! So because it is being waged somewhere else justifies ambivalence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 those kids died/are dying/will die for profit only.......to make it a religious/patriotic issue is trickery.wars are always profit/pride driven. I am a 20 year old in the navy. I am glad that as a kid I work directly with our country's nuclear weapons. It is nice to know I trust my life to the other boys I serve with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Humor him, he's an old fuck whose sense of self-worth is dependant upon his patronization of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 ...stupid, clueless cunt... C'mon, show some class. Class? Like using a child's death for a political campaign of personal destruction, engaging in a seditious game of anti-Americanism, meeting with despicable dictators who are actively trying to undermine us? That kind of class? i'll call you an asshole not for questioning her politics, but her honesty - do you seriously think she's using her dead son as an excuse for pursuing her political goals? disagree w/ her all you want - but she does have a geniune complaint. i can't say that her chilling w/ chavez is classy, but refusing to accept her son's death in a wrongful war is. He signed up for it. He is an adult and swore an oath that he was ready to die for his country if necessary. It is a shame that it in fact was necessary, but he felt the risk of death was not as great a pull as was the need to fight for his country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 You wouldn't argue that this was was "in fact necessary," would you Scott? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 There's is not to question why. There's is but to do and die. I cannot (nor can anyone) know the answer to that. All soldiers can do is offer themselves up to fight for their nation. They are to assume that every link of their command is basing their decisions on sound judgment because to doubt that judgment would result in indecision and likely failure when it matters most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Saying that soldiers have no choice in where and who they fight in no way invalidates Cindy Sheehan's complaints. In fact, if anything, it makes them more valid. It shows that with a whim the commander in chief can send her kid and many other kids off to peril, and there's NOTHING they can do about it (save go to jail). It shows that the commanders should be very careful with how they wield our forces. Cindy Sheehan is trying to influence them from making more bad decisions that get more of our kids killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Clearly, you can't have an army if the soldiers take it upon themselves to decide whether the foreign policy behind any given war effort is valid, but on the other hand there are limits to the extent a soldier can justify "doing wrong" based on "orders." In the Nuremburg trials, for example, it was decided that Nazi soldiers could not justify their commission of war crimes as simply following Adoph Hitler's command. That principal is widely acknowledged to this day, even by our own government who has fought to keep us out of the World Court precisely because they don't want American soldiers or civil leaders tried for war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 There's is not to question why. There's is but to do and die. I cannot (nor can anyone) know the answer to that. All soldiers can do is offer themselves up to fight for their nation. They are to assume that every link of their command is basing their decisions on sound judgment because to doubt that judgment would result in indecision and likely failure when it matters most. you didn't answer matt's question, scott, which is one i'd repeat - true, it is not the job of a soldier to question a decision of the commander in chief, but IT IS the monstrous responsibilty of citizens to do just that - citizens like the parents of soldiers - and soldiers too when it's election day. the question of wether this war was necessary can must definetly be answered - if not by you, then perhaps because your sensory organs are not in proper working order - those of us w/ eyes and ears in good repair know damn-well the invasion of iraq, a nation w/ no wmd, a nation neatly contained at an expense 1/1000 of the war currently being fought, and a nation not a cesspool of anarchy and terrorism, was not necessary. i bet you donuts to dollars more innocent iraqis are or will be dead as result of our war then would have died if that scum-fucker saddam had been left to wither away under u.n. sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Saying that soldiers have no choice in where and who they fight in no way invalidates Cindy Sheehan's complaints. In fact, if anything, it makes them more valid. It shows that with a whim the commander in chief can send her kid and many other kids off to peril, and there's NOTHING they can do about it (save go to jail). It shows that the commanders should be very careful with how they wield our forces. Cindy Sheehan is trying to influence them from making more bad decisions that get more of our kids killed. Her son, as an adult, made a decision to go to Iraq. There is no infantryman in this army that doesn't know that they will go there several times in their enlistment no matter how short it is. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but what I am saying is that he made a choice as an adult to offer up his security, to defend others'. His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.