# The Calling; why we join



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2005)

By now, many of you will have read about (yet) another attempt to embarrass President Bush and discredit the GWOT by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier who was killed in Iraq and the various hangers on who feed off the pain of this distressed woman. While I sympathize with her loss (who could not feel for the loss of a child, even an adult child?), it turns out the soldier was a willing and even eager volunteer.

The motivations of this young man should serve as an example to those who seek to join the Armed Forces, and a motivator for those of us who serve now:



> *Son of Liberty*
> A son's calling and a mother's heartache.
> 
> By Anne Morse
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Aug 2005)

There is this notion that "you have to be crazy" to want to make a difference ... I seem to recall the discussion in a previous thread ... this single line kind of sums-up the whole thing: "Mrs Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished and it was his decision."



> *Hold your tears*
> Mark Steyn
> 
> New Hampshire
> ...


* http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_pfv.php?id=6501*


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Aug 2005)

Two very excellent posts! Should be required reading for the anti-military left wing types out there. It just shows exactly how the left views those of us who serve, as infantile no-minds who can't possibly know what we are doing or why we are doing it. Her son is probably spinning in his grave at the antics of his mother. :threat:


----------



## S McKee (18 Aug 2005)

One has to wonder if this woman is even aware that her conduct dishonors her son's memory and sacrifice. I feel more anger towards the people who would exploit an individual who is clearly a few french fries short of a happy meal.


----------



## Springroll (18 Aug 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Her son is probably spinning in his grave at the antics of his mother. :threat:



I know I would be if that was my mother...geez!!

I am sorry for her loss, but maybe she hasn't clicked in that her son was an adult and that serving his country was what *HE* wanted to do.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> One has to wonder if this woman is even aware that her conduct dishonors her son's memory and sacrifice.



How is the son's action dishonoured?  I'm not following.  You really think less of the son because his mother may be, to you, a loon?  That;s how I'm reading you, in any event.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

So how, exactly does any of this diminish Ms.Sheehan's right to oppose the Iraq war?  Does she not have a right to an explanation as to why her son was sent to his death in an unjust, useless war?

If this is how the bigoted right wing American media treats the parents of dead soldiers, well, Ms.Sheehan may just be the spark that sets off the fire, just like what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Aug 2005)

Quote,
_How is the son's action dishonoured?  I'm not following.  You really think less of the son because his mother may be, to you, a loon?  That;s how I'm reading you, in any event._
I think what he means is that instead of remembering the man and his actions , history will remember the mans mother and her actions.....


----------



## mdh (18 Aug 2005)

Here's Christopher Hitchens' take on Sheehan - he may be bigoted, but he's not right wing (except in supporting the Iraq war as a just cause - unless that makes you a bigot by definition  ).

mdh




> Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle
> What's wrong with her Crawford protest.
> By Christopher Hitchens
> Posted Monday, Aug. 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Aug 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _How is the son's action dishonoured?   I'm not following.   You really think less of the son because his mother may be, to you, a loon?   That;s how I'm reading you, in any event._
> I think what he means is that instead of remembering the man and his actions , history will remember the mans mother and her actions.....



Ah, that makes sense.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Aug 2005)

I find it interesting that the entire rest of the Sheehan family have gone on record as saying that they disagree with Cindy, that her son disagreed with Cindy, and that they consider her to be an attention-seeking loon. They're terribly embarassed by her antics and consider it a shameful way to treat the memory of her son.

I'll poke around and try to fnid the articles they wrote.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

<a href=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8972147>Well why don't we get it straight from the horse's mouth?</a>



> MATTHEWS:  The reason I ask that because a lot of Americans believe going to Afghanistan made since because we were doing what the president said he would do that very day.  A couple days after 9/11.  He said I'm going to get the people that attacked these buildings.  And he went over and got them.  And that was where America was so united.  Whereas Iraq has caused a deep division.  Let me give you a statement that seems to show some division in your family.  One of your relatives has given this statement to a conservative radio commentary for distribution.
> 
> "The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving.  We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan.  She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation.  The rest of the Sheehan Family supports our troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.  Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."
> 
> ...



I guess all those mothers who participate in MADD are just attention seeking loons, right?


----------



## paracowboy (18 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I guess all those mothers who participate in MADD are just attention seeking loons, right?


y'know, I had a big thing all typed out, but it would just turn into a "fascist!" - "commie!" bit of silliness. We are never going to find common ground on any subject dealing with Iraq, President Bush, the Liberal Party, or pretty much anything to with politics in general. So I'm gonna drop it. I ain't gonna convince you, you ain't gonna convince me.

You're a commie, pinko, fellow-traveller, but I luv ya anyway.


----------



## S McKee (18 Aug 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _How is the son's action dishonoured?   I'm not following.   You really think less of the son because his mother may be, to you, a loon?   That;s how I'm reading you, in any event._
> I think what he means is that instead of remembering the man and his actions , history will remember the mans mother and her actions.....



Thank-you Mr Monkhouse. J


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> <a href=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8972147>Well why don't we get it straight from the horse's mouth?</a>
> 
> I guess all those mothers who participate in MADD are just attention seeking loons, right?



Or else bored housewives...

Actually I think that is a valid comparison.   And I think MADD, at least, has laudable goals and an effective way of making their point and achieving their goals. (No, I don't think they are loons or simply bored.  One of my friends belongs to MADD).   Mothers against the war are probably less able to organize constructively, or achieve their goals.   The Russian example in Afghanistan is an interesting one to bring up - was prosecution of their war there really terminated due to public opinion back home?   One might make a case that US involvement in Vietnam was remarkably lessened as a result of public opinion - despite the fact that militarily, things were going not terribly after the VC destroyed themselves in 1968.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> y'know, I had a big thing all typed out, but it would just turn into a "fascist!" - "commie!" bit of silliness. We are never going to find common ground on any subject dealing with Iraq, President Bush, the Liberal Party, or pretty much anything to with politics in general. So I'm gonna drop it. I ain't gonna convince you, you ain't gonna convince me.
> 
> You're a commie, pinko, fellow-traveller, but I luv ya anyway. Wink



Well, I did make an honest attempt, you know, with facts, and all that, and I never called any of you guys a fascist or a commie.

Isn't it silly how us liberals are always trying to do some good in the world.....

Ah well, IOKIYAC. (It's OK if you are a conservative)


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Aug 2005)

Bored Housewives...

hmmm wonder where I have seen that recently, 

Sometimes ones grief is expressed in very awkward ways, a hard loss for a mother for sure.   But, to to use an event to promote ones self interest, as stated by her family, now that would be wrong.

dileas

tess


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Aug 2005)

At the risk of adding fuel to what seems to be a dying fire  >, a little more from "the horse's mouth" (the letter she wrote to Nightline, after appearing on the show):


> Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.


 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=104788

It is a disgrace that she is using her son's death, which occurred by all accounts in the course of his volunteering for dangerous cause that he believed in, to create a media circus to advance her _own _ conflicting agenda: specifically, what she paranoically _knows _are "lies and ... a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" (Bush must have told her a lot the first time he met with her).  In her opinion, it would seem that we are not to mourn _his _death, but to sympathize with _her _agenda because of _her _loss.

More succinctly:


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

So what are you trying to say? That her son's death wasn't a loss to her? That because her son went to his death voluntarily*, she has no right to protest the war? Obviously, Cindy Sheehan planeed her son's death all along, just to promote her own "agenda" of opposing the war in Iraq, right? Sheehan... sounds French to me.. : "Disgrace", indeed.

I don't share her view that the US must withdraw from Iraq (her "agenda"), and I'll agree that she's somewhat a by-product of a slow news cycle, what's another dead American soldier and grieving mother in the big scheme of things anyway? But the impunity with which the right wing hate-machine can insult and belittle a grieving mother is sickening, and so are the lot of you for toeing this line lockstep.


* Spc. Sheehan enlisted in 2000, but renewed his enlistment in the wake of the war. Let's see, what would John Galt do? If he didn't personally support the war, then the only reasonable, in-line-with-self-interest thing to do is to get out and leave his buddies to go to war themselves right? What an idiot he was eh?


----------



## Zarathustra (18 Aug 2005)

I did not follow the Cindy Sheehan affair very closely but it seems to me that when the followers ask "What are we dying for again ?", the leaders should be able to come up with an answer. From my Canadian perspective the war on Iraq went from war on terror, to war against weapons of mass destruction, to war for the liberation of Iraq. Now that some Iraqis don't seem too happy with the liberation, some followers are asking questions. One can easily get the impression that some lies were told here and there.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> One can easily get the impression that some lies were told here and there.


----------



## mdh (18 Aug 2005)

> So what are you trying to say? That her son's death wasn't a loss to her? That because her son went to his death voluntarily*, she has no right to protest the war? Obviously, Cindy Sheehan planeed her son's death all along, just to promote her own "agenda" of opposing the war in Iraq, right? Sheehan... sounds French to me..   "Disgrace", indeed.



Aren't you avoiding the main point here? - No one is suggesting that Sheehan's loss is not real or tragic - but she has chosen to use her son's death to arrogate supreme moral authority to her anti-war stance. Which is something different altogether. As Hitchens noted above - she has effectively decided to ventriloquize the dead. And I will quote him one more time for emphasis:



> Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.



This seems to be a strong argument against Sheehan - and it's not only a right wing one.

mdh
neocon-PNAC oiler of the right-wing hate machine


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

What do you mean "Ventriloquize"? She has admitted publicly that Spc. Sheehan was in support of the war, no one is debating that. Ms. Sheehan has not attempted to misrepresent her son's views, if she did, well, she just lost a son, and now she's getting divorced, cut her some fsucking slack, eh? His (Spc. Sheehan's) views don't matter much now anyway because he'd DEAD! Was this your main point?  Her son's death was _her_ loss, so I'd say she's got a little more moral authority on the subject than you or I or Bush.


----------



## mdh (18 Aug 2005)

No I won't cut her any slack as long as she continues to make a spectacle of herself and her "cause" surrounded by the usual Hollywood types trying to exploit a good PR event. 

And you're wrong about her "loss" - it was actually PFC Sheehan who suffered the bigger loss - it was his life - not hers. 

And if you want to separate out her actual argument about the Iraq war - fine - then if you really believe that the Iraq war is the result of a Jewish cabal in league with the Bush family, I guess that's an anti-war argument of sorts - but that's not why Ms. Sheehan is in the media spotlight. 

As for her ultimate moral authority - sorry it doesn't fly - any more than it did on the Michael Moore documentary when he tried a similar stunt. No one possesses supreme moral authority - not even a "little more" as you put it - to make political statements or public arguments. 

If Ms. Sheehan does have that supreme authority then the war in Iraq is therefore - by definition - immoral - and we who support the war are immoral. By that reasoning the US must withdraw or continue fighting an immoral and unjust war - because Ms. Sheehan's unassailable moral authority demands it.

I just can't accept that logic.

mdh


----------



## paracowboy (18 Aug 2005)

Okay, I can't stay out of it, it's just bothering me too much. I sympathize with anyone who loses a child. I know how hard that is, and I never really got the chance to know mine. She knew hers for two decades.

What offends me is her complete dishonesty. She has left out of all her interviews is that she is one of the founders of the groups she is claims is supporting her, Gold Star Families For Peace. She created the Gold Star Mothers for Peace, knowing most Americans would associate it with the Gold Star Mothers, a completely different, and much more beneficial, organization. She claims that she wants a meeting with President Bush and that he is ignoring her, but he has met her already, and presented her with the condolences of the nation, her son died for.

Cindy Sheehan was anti-war and anti-President Bush years before Casey Sheehan died. However, she has made comments that she was not anti-war until her son's death. Does that mean she supported the war prior to that, in which case she did not have a problem as long as others were doing the dying? Either way, she's a liar. She has not been truthful since the start of this and if it were not for the work of some bloggers we would not have known about her previous meeting with the president or the fact that she is a founding member of the GSFP.

She campaigned against President Bush during both elections and joined moveon.org during the second election. It's her belief and she's stated it in her "Open letter to President Bush" that he stole both elections, and the Supreme Court helped him steal the second. But, again, she has come out in several MSM sources saying she WAS NOT an anti-Bush activist until AFTER the death of her son. This is the same woman that met with the President prior to her son's death and stated that he was a "warm, caring person" who she felt "was genuinely concerned about the welfare of our troops." Again, which is it?

I cringe every time I see Cindy Sheehan on TV, knowing that her son Casey would probably be in complete opposition to his name being invoked and his service and sacrifice being used in a crass political stunt. Mrs. Sheehan, if she had any respect for the fallen at all, would do better to devote this time and energy to reach out to others who have lost their children, including those who do not share her views. I am surprised that this woman has not used the death of Cpl Jostes to further her agenda as well. After all he died right by her son in the same fight. Unless, she does not care about the dead, just her agenda. 

Cindy Sheehan was present at the rally in Sacramento for the Peavys, the couple who hung in effigy a U.S. soldier from their rental property in Sacramento, the Peavys live in Berkeley. Cindy praised the Peavys for their courage. That was after her son had died in Iraq.
Her son, Casey Sheehan, was an Honours Student, an Eagle Scout, and had three years of community college before his first enlistment. He enlisted as a mechanic, and re-enlisted with the Army in August 2003. From what I understand, he volunteered for a QRF to relieve a convoy under attack, the QRF was ambushed en route and he was killed. It would seem Casey Sheehan had a very different set of values and sense of honour than his mother. I wonder what their relationship was like. I wonder how much his life was guided by rejecting her influence.


In her defence, I think grief can be selfish, and for a time needs to be. But, I think we owe it to a lost loved one, to move on, to live what life we have left with our lost loved one living on through our memories. I'm grateful for her son's service. I grieve for her loss.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> No I won't cut her any slack as long as she continues to make a spectacle of herself and her "cause" surrounded by the usual Hollywood types trying to exploit a good PR event.



She isn't making a spectacle of herself, it's a spectacle because it just so happens that a huge number of people also share her views, hence all the support. I don't understand why you pubbies cannot reconcille yourselves to the fact that most people around the world, and now in the US, opposed the war. It must be some crazy Arab/Saddam conspiracy, huh.



> And you're wrong about her "loss" - it was actually PFC Sheehan who suffered the bigger loss - it was his life - not hers."



Go back and read my post again. Did she suffer a loss or did she not? 



> As for her ultimate moral authority blah blah blah


I never claimed that she or anyone else had _ultimate_ moral authority over the war, I said that she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU. Is she "using" her son's death? Sheesh, that's the ONLY REASON WHY SHE'S THERE! What is YOUR moral authority for telling her she has no right to do it?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Aug 2005)

The wishes of her dead son.........?


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> She has left out of all her interviews is that she is one of the founders of the groups she is claims is supporting her, Gold Star Families For Peace.



Did it ever occur to you that she might not be the only member of the organization?



> She claims that she wants a meeting with President Bush and that he is ignoring her, but he has met her already, and presented her with the condolences of the nation, her son died for.
> ...
> She has not been truthful since the start of this and if it were not for the work of some bloggers we would not have known about her previous meeting with the president or the fact that she is a founding member of the GSFP.



What is your cite for this? It sounds completely ludicrous. She's DENYING that Bush ever met with her? Didn't Bush have anyone else (like, um,  a TV crew) around when he met her? How exactly do you deny such a thing?



> Cindy Sheehan was anti-war and anti-President Bush years before Casey Sheehan died. However, she has made comments that she was not anti-war until her son's death.



Again, cite please?



> This is the same woman that met with the President prior to her son's death and stated that he was a "warm, caring person" who she felt "was genuinely concerned about the welfare of our troops.



Bush may very well be all of these things, I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. How does this make Cindy Sheehan a liar?



> I cringe every time I see Cindy Sheehan on TV, knowing that her son Casey would probably be in complete opposition to his name being invoked and his service and sacrifice being used in a crass political stunt.



It's completely beyond me as to how you reached this conclusion. People who drink and drive and get themselves killed generally do so voluntarily, so it's impossible for their mothers to campaign against drunk driving, yes? After all, if they REALLY cared about their children's wishes, they would support their children's decisions all the way, right?




> Her son, Casey Sheehan, was an Honours Student, an Eagle Scout, and had three years of community college before his first enlistment. He enlisted as a mechanic, and re-enlisted with the Army in August 2003. From what I understand, he volunteered for a QRF to relieve a convoy under attack, the QRF was ambushed en route and he was killed. It would seem Casey Sheehan had a very different set of values and sense of honour than his mother. I wonder what their relationship was like. I wonder how much his life was guided by rejecting her influence.



So he disagreed with his mom. Well, he put his money where his mouth is, good for him. that's more than what I can say for most of the pro-war crowd.








EDIT: Even if she did change her mind about the war, changing one's mind doesn't make one a liar. Also the death of a loved one sometimes compells people to change their minds! Crazy, huh?


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> The wishes of her dead son.........?



And those would be what? Obviously her dead son's wished for her are more important and binding than her wishes for her dead son?


----------



## mdh (18 Aug 2005)

> I never claimed that she or anyone else had ultimate moral authority over the war, I said that she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU. Is she "using" her son's death? Sheesh, that's the ONLY REASON WHY SHE'S THERE! What is YOUR moral authority for telling her she has no right to do it?



Britney,

I don't want this to turn into a dog-pile so I'll just offer up one more point - when you say 





> she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU.


 isn't that effectively saying that she has more moral authority than me on the issue of Iraq? 

After all what is the "matter of the death her son" - surely it's the war - and by extension it means that she has a morally superior position to mine since I haven't suffered such a loss. 

But if I had lost a son - would it mean that my pro-war views were now on an elevated moral plane - that "in the matter of the death of my son" - my pro-war views trumped your political position on the the war? I would hope not. 

But isn't that the end result of your argument? And isn't the naked politics of this anything less than concerted attempt to discredit the Bush Administration - and to embarrass Bush himself? 

I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case.



OK, so when Bush <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_020205.html>uses the death of a soldier and the support of his family</a> during his 2005 State of the Union Address, the family of that soldier is just using their son's death to blatantly advance their pro-war agenda, correct? Or maybe us liberals are just nice enough not to $hit on a grieving parent because we disagree with their politics?

Pile-on? Where? So far paracowboy's the only one who has made a point that I can't refute right away (about her changing her mind about Bush), a point for you if it's true, I suppose. It's a pretty lame pile-on if that's all you guys have.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Aug 2005)

So, you guys like that new Tacvest?

PS: What's all this bruh-ha-ha over "The Calling"?  The only reason I joined was MCLMM....


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> The only reason I joined was MCLMM....



I would start posting over at LF, but their "profile" demands are just too onerous.


----------



## scm77 (18 Aug 2005)

From another parent who lost a child in Iraq...

*She Does Not Speak for Me*

*BY RONALD R. GRIFFIN*
_Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT_

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

Although we all walk the same sad road of sorrow and agony, we walk it as individuals with all the refreshing uniqueness of our own thoughts shaped in large measure by the life and death of our own fallen hero. Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.

Ann and Dale Hampton lost their only child, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, on Jan. 2, 2004, while she was flying her Kiowa helicopter. She was a member of the 82nd Airborne and the company commander. She had already served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Ann Hampton wrote, "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for."

Marine Capt. Benjamin Sammis was Stacey Sammis's husband. Ben died on April 4, 2003, while flying his Super Cobra helicopter. Listen to Stacey and she will tell you that she is just beginning to understand the enormousness of the character of soldiers who knowingly put their lives at risk to defend our country. She will tell you that one of her deepest regrets is that the world did not have the honor of experiencing for a much longer time this outstanding Marine she so deeply loved.

Speak to Joan Curtin, whose son, Cpl. Michael Curtin, was an infantryman with the 2-7th 3rd ID, and her words are passionately ambivalent. She says she has no room for bitterness. She has a life to lead and a family to nurture. She spoke of that part of her that never heals, for that is where Michael resides. She can go on, always knowing there will be that pain.

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.

My wife, Robin, has a different take on Mrs. Sheehan. She told me, "I don't care what she says or does. She is no more important than any other mother."

By all accounts Spc. Casey Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan's son, was a soldier by choice and by the strength of his character. I did not have the honor of knowing him, but I have read that he attended community college for three years and then chose to join the Army. In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area. Mrs. Sheehan frequently speaks of her son in religious terms, even saying that she thought that some day Casey would be a priest. Like so many of the individuals who have given their lives in service to our country, Casey was a very special young man. How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life? How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son?

Mrs. Sheehan has become the poster child for all the negativity surrounding the war in Iraq. In a way it heartens me to have all this attention paid to her, because that means others in her position now have the chance to be heard. Give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow.

To many loved ones, there are few if any "what ifs." They, like their fallen heroes before them, live in the world as it is and not what it was or could have been. Think of the sacrifices that have brought us to this day. We as a country made a collective decision. We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete.

Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

_Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.
_
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122
--------------------------


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What is your cite for this? It sounds completely ludicrous. She's DENYING that Bush ever met with her? Didn't Bush have anyone else (like, um,  a TV crew) around when he met her? How exactly do you deny such a thing?


 She was definitely implying that Bush "owed" her a meeting: I don't know if she ever flat-out denyed _ever _meeting, but the supposed point of her protest was to get Bush to meet with her to explain why he "was murdered": it was not discovered until recently that he has already met with her.  Surely none of us is so naiive as to believe that she wants "an explanantion": she is simply using her son's death as a platform. 



> It's completely beyond me as to how you reached this conclusion. People who drink and drive and get themselves killed generally do so voluntarily, so it's impossible for their mothers to campaign against drunk driving, yes? After all, if they REALLY cared about their children's wishes, they would support their children's decisions all the way, right?


 How is this analgous to drunk driving?  Certainly I don't know, but all of his relatives suggest that he would have felt that he died honourably (unlike getting hammered and wrapping his car around a telephone pole).




> So he disagreed with his mom. Well, he put his money where his mouth is, good for him. that's more than what I can say for most of the pro-war crowd.


 What she is doing is a disgrace to his memory.  She has a "right" to protest the war, and even to invoke her son's name (or anyone else's) if she so chooses: it doesn't make it right, nor does it justify the spectacle.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So what are you trying to say? That her son's death wasn't a loss to her? That because her son went to his death voluntarily*, she has no right to protest the war? Obviously, Cindy Sheehan planeed her son's death all along, just to promote her own "agenda" of opposing the war in Iraq, right? Sheehan... sounds French to me.. : "Disgrace", indeed.
> 
> I don't share her view that the US must withdraw from Iraq (her "agenda"), and I'll agree that she's somewhat a by-product of a slow news cycle, what's another dead American soldier and grieving mother in the big scheme of things anyway? But the impunity with which the right wing hate-machine can insult and belittle a grieving mother is sickening, and so are the lot of you for toeing this line lockstep.
> 
> ...



Others have already responded better than I can to the first part of this, but I will add that most of the criticism I've seen relates to the attention given to her, which you attribute to a "slow news cycle" but I find rather difficult to believe (350 bombs in Bangladesh, Iraniain Nuclear Threats, etc., etc.)).

As for the latter part, without going off on too much of a philosophical tanget, the Objectivist understanding of "selfiless acts" is that all acts are ultimately undertaken for purely selfish reasons, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not: in this case, Casey Sheehan felt that his heterogeneous valuation of the reasons for re-enlisting outweighed the reasons not too.  Respect and honour are both ultimately selfish: if it was important to him to re-enlist because his buddies would do the same, he is doing what makes _him_ feel better.  More generally, even in the case of certain death, it is "worth" more to the individual to do what s/he believes is "right" at that moment than it is to live with the guilt or dishonour (or whatever) of not undertaking action (the Bushido code is the extreme example).  The_ individual chooses_ death before dishonour (or not).



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, so when Bush <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_020205.html>uses the death of a soldier and the support of his family</a> during his 2005 State of the Union Address, the family of that soldier is just using their son's death to blatantly advance their pro-war agenda, correct? Or maybe us liberals are just nice enough not to $hit on a grieving parent because we disagree with their politics?


Gee, and I thought "you liberals" were only giving her all this attention because it advances your anti-war agenda ... I can't wait for the wall-to-wall news coverage of the parents of soldiers who died and yet they still support the war.  Do you not think that some of these other parents _might _be a _little _bit offended by Ms. Sheehan's efforts to disgrace the sacrifice of their families (for the Zionist neocon agenda)?  Can't wait for the CNN coverage of that one [EDIT: and scm77 just slipped-in there with the prvs. ... smooth, buddy] ...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Aug 2005)

http://www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=59189

Maybe Ms Sheehan's *moral authority* and Ms Healy's *moral authority* can have a lightsaber dual over this one.

My only thoughts on all this stuff is that it all sucks - these soldiers who died over in the Sandbox are better than all this partisan shit....


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Aug 2005)

> She was definitely implying that Bush "owed" her a meeting: I don't know if she ever flat-out denyed ever meeting, but the supposed point of her protest was to get Bush to meet with her to explain why he "was murdered": it was not discovered until recently that he has already met with her.  Surely none of us is so naiive as to believe that she wants "an explanantion": she is simply using her son's death as a platform.



This I can agree with. Bush, being the president, did not owe her a meeting. He did as much as  could be reasonably be expected of him, giving her 2 meetings and being considerate of her wishes. I applaud his frankness in this regard. 




> How is this analgous to drunk driving?  Certainly I don't know, but all of his relatives suggest that he would have felt that he died honourably (unlike getting hammered and wrapping his car around a telephone pole).






> What she is doing is a disgrace to his memory.  She has a "right" to protest the war, and even to invoke her son's name (or anyone else's) if she so chooses: it doesn't make it right, nor does it justify the spectacle.



Because there is an underlying implication in all the above articles that because her son's views disagreed with hers, Sheehan has no right to her opinion "out of respect for her son's memory". This is BS. The bottom line is that she  lost a son, to a war she opposed. How is further opposition to the war a "disgrace"? Nobody has disputed her son's courage and character, least of all his own mother.



> Gee, and I thought "you liberals" were only giving her all this attention because it advances your anti-war agenda ...



Well, since it wasn't the anti-war lobby that sent her son to Iraq, I don't see any issue with her taking up with us. 



> I can't wait for the wall-to-wall news coverage of the parents of soldiers who died and yet they still support the war.  Do you not think that some of these other parents might be a little bit offended by Ms. Sheehan's efforts to disgrace the sacrifice of their families (for the Zionist neocon agenda)?  Can't wait for the CNN coverage of that one [EDIT: and scm77 just slipped-in there with the prvs. ... smooth, buddy] ...





Umm, you realize scm77 just provided evidence contrary to your assertion, right? Do you need me to find more? Why, the families of the VOLUNTEER US military are actually supportive of the war? Whodathunkit?


----------



## P-Free (18 Aug 2005)

This Sheehan lady is USING her son's memory and sacrifice for HER personal gain. She was FOR the war until her son was KILLED. Now isn't that a little bit SELFISH of her? It's like saying, "Oh, let those other boys go off and die" and then when "those other boys" turns into her son she changes her tune to "war bad, bush terrorist, Israel evil". 

Her son volunteered to join, and then volunteer to go on the mission. It SOUNDS like she just wanted the REWARDS without having to PAY for them. 

Maybe she should have convinced her son to become a ballarena.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2005)

Maybe the mods can do a split; I wanted to illustrate through the actions and ultimate sacrifice of one young man who's name has been thrust into the spotlight some of the reasons we, as soldiers, choose to serve.

The opening article was overtly religious, saying Casey felt there was a higher calling. I am not particularly religious myself; being there for my family and friends is first and formost, luckily for you I have "adopted" their friends and relatives in ever expanding circles; yes Britney, I don't like a lot of what you say in your posts, but I am here for you too.

Heinlein says something similar in "Starship Troopers", suggesting the mark of a moral man is one who will step into the line of fire to defend more than just himself and his immediate family.  Casey Sheehan felt that, he chose to re enlist, and in the end, he chose to come out with the QRF to try to save his fellow soldiers, who he may or may not have known, but who he obviously felt needed his help. *He joins the ranks of soldiers in every war and conflict who choose to go and fight, and choose to take action in a desperate and dangerous situation, when the safer course would be to hang back and do nothing* (he was a mechanic, and not really obligated to go into the fight).

Ultimately,that is the message his mother and her various media handlers and hangers on choose to ignore.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Aug 2005)

Sorry for the hijack, then. In my defence, I didn't start the debate, I was objecting to the snide remarks some of the internet tough guys  here felt they needed to make about Ms. Sheehan's protest, egged on no doubt by the right wing media. 

In the spirit of the OP, here's one of the reasons why the chickenhawks get my blood boiling.

<a href=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E17FA395F0C738EDDAF0894DD404482&n=Top%252fOpinion%252fEditorials%2520and%2520Op%252dEd%252fOp%252dEd%252fColumnists%252fBob%2520Herbert>Original article, have to pay</a>

<a href=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062005G.shtml>Free version</a>


> Someone Else's Child
> By Bob Herbert
> The New York Times
> 
> ...



Now, I realize that this is only one example, but I'm more and more inclined to believe that woman isn't alone. 

For the record, I don't share Cindy Sheehan's view that America should withdraw from Iraq,  simply based on the principle of "you break it, you bought it". Like it or not, Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, who are a threat to all of us in the West, not just Americans. To cut and run  now would be to an act of utter cowardice, proof to the world that the US is a paper tiger and a nation of cowards, "security moms" like the woman quoted above, Osama Bin Laden would have defeated BOTH superpowers of the 20th centuy. 

There, I now support the war in Iraq, but do the American people?

So, does America and its leader(s) have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course for another 10 years and 10,000 casualties? I hope they do, for the sake of all of us. If America truly is "home of the brave", then they'll see this through.  Being a parent of one of those 10,000 is going to suck, though, and you can be sure they'll remember who got them into this mess.


----------



## Jascar (19 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Now, I realize that this is only one example, but I'm more and more inclined to believe that woman isn't alone.



Britney,

The article you posted above does not show that Americans are against the war in Iraq or that they agree with Mrs. Sheehan. It shows that people are against getting killed, or their children getting killed, in Iraq. The quotes in the article:

"It's the war," he said. "Going over and never coming back. Before the war you'd just go to different places and help people. Now you go over there and you fight."
- He doesn't say the Iraq war was a bad idea, just that he'd rather serve in the military without the risk of death.

"I'd like to see him around awhile. It was different before the war. It's the fear of not coming home. Our other son just graduated Saturday and he was planning to go into the Air Force. They told him college was included and made him all kinds of promises. They almost made him sign papers before we had decided. We thought about it and researched it and decided against it."
- Again, nothing in here against the war, just against dying in it.

"I would not want my children to go. If there wasn't a war it would be different. I support the war and I think we need to be there. But it's not going well. It's becoming like Vietnam. It's a very bad situation. But we can't leave."
- She supports the war.......as long as her children stay out of it.

Nothing in here supporting Mrs. Sheehan's points that the war was unjust and wrong.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Aug 2005)

> Nothing in here supporting Mrs. Sheehan's points that the war was unjust and wrong.



That wasn't the point, the point was that there are people, like the woman I quoted, who are "for the war", but against having their own children go fight it, which apparently to you makes perfect sense. If you had actually read my post, you would know that. Idea for next time, eh? :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2005)

Let's face it. Most people in the States, and I hope in Canada, join the military out of a sense of pride and patriotism. They join because they think their country needs their contribution. They join knowing that they may be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice.

Some join for the benefits. They know they'll get an education, whatever. They also know they're playing the odds. If they get called, they have the choice. They can fulfill their commitment, or make the run for the border.

The shame they incur reflects on their family and friends should they decide the later. It may be the largest consideration for a lot of them. It may be the deciding factor that makes them stay or leave.

The whole point being, it's THEIR choice. Not the mother's, the father's or kin's. I'll be damned before I let my kin, or other's, use my demise as an excuse for their personal agenda. 

Rest assured, when I pass, the eulogy they read will be the one I wrote, not theirs.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Aug 2005)

> Let's face it. Most people in the States, and I hope in Canada, join the military out of a sense of pride and patriotism. They join because they think their country needs their contribution. They join knowing that they may be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice.
> 
> Some join for the benefits. They know they'll get an education, whatever. They also know they're playing the odds. If they get called, they have the choice. They can fulfill their commitment, or make the run for the border.
> 
> ...



All true, and Ms. Sheehan has abided by all your advice, since she did not interfer with her son's enlistment in the army or his wishes to go to Iraq, nor has she attempted to misrepresent her son's intentions after his death. The neo-con bile hydrants, on the other hand, continues to insist that this poor woman is "using her son's death to further her anti-war agenda", whatever the hell that means, and actually have the nerve to call her a "disgrace", "media whore" and make accusations as to her sanity. Hmm, they don't agree with your politics, so they must be insane.... sound familiar?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> there are people, like the woman I quoted, who are "for the war", but against having their own children go fight it,



That pisses me off the most - it was actually the only stunt by Michael Moore that I actually liked; watching him ambush the representatives who sent other peoples children to fight....


----------



## Springroll (19 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That pisses me off the most - it was actually the only stunt by Michael Moore that I actually liked; watching him ambush the representatives who sent other peoples children to fight....



That was my favorite part, too!


----------



## MTAB (19 Aug 2005)

Ms Spears stated: _I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case._

Ms Spears if I have mis-understood your comment I apologize in advance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165862,00.html

The other side of the coin.  Take it for what it is worth.  I have a real problem with her actions.  Here is a post I put up on another website.  It was directed to an individual that tried to play the emotion card and refused to even read the other side of the story, so if you read this understand it is NOT directed towards anyone on THIS site.....

qoute: _2 sides to every story, always, but there is one definate side to this story, that woman lost her child._

My reply:  Yes she did and that is very tragic. But what you are missing, through your tears, is the under current of what appears to be going on. Now Sir, try to pay close attention:

No one is disputing this woman her right to say whatever she wants in regards to this issue...No one! But lets re-cap the sequence of events
1. She is quoted saying one thing, she changes her mind, then is qouted saying something that contradicts her first statement, which is fine, she has the right to do whatever she wants (read both talking points)

2. She is given an opportunity to go on national TV to have her chance to address her issue; she agrees but then pulls out at the last minute stating that O'Reilly lied, which all he did was put forth what she originally stated and that she now contradicts herself.

Then we find out she is aligned with Michael Moore.

Now this poor woman is grieving, her heart is broken over her loss. Mr. Moore knocks on her door and offers help. This is a man that routinly lines his pockets by exploiting the pain and suffering of other people. He will make millions off this poor woman loss and THAT Sir, is where we need to shake our fist! The lies, deceit, and cover-up issue will be debated for centuries and each individual will make their own choice; but when a person sucks the blood off of a grieving woman for his own personal gain HE also needs to be exposed for the parasite that he is. He has turned this whole issue round for his personal benefit, and selfish gain.

After his whole Fahrenhiet 9/11 farce was de-bunked, after many people that were part of that show stepped forward and said he never put their entire interviews in his movie, he was on the run, his credibility was shot so now he is looking for another target to make more money.

So this guy targets this woman that is suffering the worse loss imaginable. He throws down the "emotion card" as a smoke screen to blind folks so they will miss his laughing all the way to the bank.

The bottom line Sir, is that this poor woman is being exploited, she is being used for the selfish gain of others. He is not championing her cause to help her, he is doing it to help himself.

And you still didn't answered my question: When I made a dig about stone throwers you threw down the emotion card. Why? I find it hard to believe that people take such offense, especially on a site like this, to a little ribbing; or maybe it's just that you need to vacate the kitchen.

V/R
MTAB
Post Script:  My comments are not directed towards anyone on this site, my feeling about the issue is the same though


----------



## MTAB (19 Aug 2005)

In response to the main topic:  Why I joined

Simple really, I feel I owe my country a debt of gratitude for giving my family, when they came here in the 1916, the opportunity to prosper.  My family served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GW1, OEF, and soon OIF (maybe), would have done WWI but my granddad wasn't a citizen yet.  

For me I could think of no better way to show loyality and respect to my country.  What better way to give back then serve?  There are many other ways to give back, I just chose this one.  just my opinion

V/R
MTAB


----------



## patrick666 (19 Aug 2005)

MTAB, good post...

My grandparents are from Holland and my Grandfather escaped from the Nazis after 2 of his brother's were starved to death... he took my Grandmother to Canada and started a family of 14 children! They've been together for 60 years and still love each other as much as the day they met... if it wasn't for the opportunities and freedoms that he came here for then who knows about me?

This... is a GREAT country full of GREAT people.. I only wish I could share it... I will do my part, however small, in this world like the men of the past to make someone's life a little easier... A lot of people tell me that it is a useless endevor but even 1 person counts... 

Much respect and admiration to those who currently serve at home and abroad..  

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy (19 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, since it wasn't the anti-war lobby that sent her son to Iraq, I don't see any issue with her taking up with us.




Are you impling that you are a Anit-War Lobbyist ?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Aug 2005)

1SG, welcome to the site, I apprieciate your time and correspondence.



> Ms Spears stated: I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case.



I didn't, that was *mdh*, I believe. 



> qoute: 2 sides to every story, always, but there is one definate side to this story, that woman lost her child.



Nor did I say this anywhere in my posts, I don't know who you are quoting here. I'm not sure how I can respond.



With all due respect the to rest of your post, I'm not sure how you can ridicule Micheal Moore, while at the same time, quote Bill O'Reilly, with a straight face. 

You are setting up a "straw man" and making an ad hominem attack at the same time. I'm aligned with Micheal Moore too, in that I opposed the Iraq Invasion. Does that automatically make me a liar? Am I then beneith contempt? Am I only posting for my own financial gain? You seem to be making these accusations with respect to Cindy Sheehan, and I don't understand how any of this is relevent to my points. If you believe in all of these things, and can accept that _Bill O'reilley_, the biggest right wing liar running a talk show on a right wing news network that lies in a premeditated all the time, has any authority to accuse the grieving mother of a dead soldier of being a liar,   then I'm afraid we've not enough common ground for any meaningful discussion. 

I am continuously tickled by how supporters of the Bush administration actually have the gall to accuse their opponents of "opposing the war for their own personal gain". What are we suppose to be personally gaining by opposing the war? Am I or Cindy Sheehan suppose to be recieving a cheque in the mail from Chirac or Putin or the Palestinian Authority? 
It is stupedous how the right wing media flails around, grasping at "personal gain" straws to pin on the anti-war crowd. Apparently it is impossible for us to be opposed to the invasion based simply on reasoning and morality, just like how the _10 million_ people around the world who gathered in spontaneous anti-war demonstrations are all agents of Al-Qaeda.   I've got a pretty good idea why Cindy Sheehan is protesting the war, and it's not because she's the CEO of Haliburton or personally connected to the Oil industry. Do we really even want to GO there?



> Are you impling that you are a Anit-War Lobbyist ?



I'm _telling you straight out_ that I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Kudos on the attention to detail, though.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Because there is an underlying implication in all the above articles that because her son's views disagreed with hers, Sheehan has no right to her opinion "out of respect for her son's memory". This is BS.  The bottom line is that she  lost a son, to a war she opposed. How is further opposition to the war a "disgrace"? Nobody has disputed her son's courage and character, least of all his own mother.


I think you are imagining THAT "underlying implication": no-one (ar at least very few) are denying her right to an opinion ... I, as far as I can tell most of the people here, and most of what I read, does not suggest that she should not have an opinion, nor be stopped from voicing it (indeed I'd wager that most of us support these rights); what we disagree with is the morality of using a soldier's death to further her own selfish agenda and that of her supporters (i.e., anti-Semites like David Duke and Crawford Peace House).  It cheapens and dishonours his death as well as that of others that have died in a cause that they believe in.  The only implication is from her supporters (including the mainstream press) who suggest that she has some sort of moral authority.



> Well, since it wasn't the anti-war lobby that sent her son to Iraq, I don't see any issue with her taking up with us.


Actually my point (which admitedly got a little muddled) was that the "bigoted right-wing media" wouldn't give a rat's *** about this kook-of-the-week if the "bigoted left-wing media" hadn't decided to make her, um, "request" their cause celebre for the month.  Much of the opposition is in reaction to the attention given to her (and her implied moral authority), not to her right to grieve or oppose the war. 




> Umm, you realize scm77 just provided evidence contrary to your assertion, right? Do you need me to find more? Why, the families of the VOLUNTEER US military are actually supportive of the war? Whodathunkit?


What?  One article in the "bigoted right-wing media" hardly compares to the massive coverage given to this woman.  Moreover, this was written _only _in the context of Ms. Sheehan's overexposure (I've seen one or two other articles: one on CNN(!!), but they too were written in the context of this circus and amounted to little more than a rather pathetic attempt to claim "balance").


Ms. Spears, you're apparently far less vacuous than your namesake , so you might have some interest in this article from an anti-war columnist in a pinko newspaper that suggests that that some of us outside the "reality-based community" might not be completely divorced from reality on this one:





> *Mother's war protest veers onto wrong path*
> 
> By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
> ...


 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/236483_robert13.html


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The neo-con bile hydrants, on the other hand, continues to insist that this poor woman is "using her son's death to further her anti-war agenda", whatever the hell that means, and actually have the nerve to call her a "disgrace", "media whore" and make accusations as to her sanity. Hmm, they don't agree with your politics, so they must be insane.... sound familiar?



Since you don't know what it means, I'll explain it to you.   It's quite obvious that this woman would have received absolutely no attention if it weren't for the fact that her son died.   The ONLY reason she now gets to share her views on national telvision is because left leaning media can make her out to be a typical greiving mother, and thereby imply that most parents of those killed in Iraq hold similar views.   So, yes, she is USING her son's death in order to voice her views.   Her, I even went and got you a definition of the word:



> use        P     Pronunciation Key   (yz)
> v. used, us ·ing, us ·es
> v. tr.
> To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ.
> ...



To apply for a purpose....to avail onself of....to _seek or achieve an end by means of_

I don't know how much more clear I can make it.   Her _end_ is an end to the war in Iraq, the emberrasement of Pres. Bush, and the general furthering of her political agenda.   Her _means_ are the media, other anti-Bush individuals, and the death of her son.   Clear as mud?




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> That pisses me off the most - it was actually the only stunt by Michael Moore that I actually liked; watching him ambush the representatives who sent other peoples children to fight....



They're not sending "other people's children to fight", they're sending SOLDIERS to fight.  You know, the MEN and WOMEN who VOLUNTEERED to put on a uniform, pick up a weapon, and go out and get shot at.  

To use another analogy, is it wrong for you to call the fire-department if you're opposed to your son being a firefighter?  After all, you're putting "other childrens lives" in danger!  Better tell your kid to grab a fire-extinguisher and run in there.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

Read the analogy again - I was aiming at the people who were "RaRa" for sending soldiers into Iraq, but wouldn't want their kids going there.  "Anyone's Son will do...except mine" is pretty lame.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Aug 2005)

Has any parent ever wanted their child to go into battle?  You could say the same thing about WW2.  People understood that the war had to be fought, but if you had asked the parents whether they wanted their child there, what do you suppose most of their answers would have been?  Most parents would prefer not to have their children placed at risk.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Has any parent ever wanted their child to go into battle?   You could say the same thing about WW2.   People understood that the war had to be fought, but if you had asked the parents whether they wanted their child there, what do you suppose most of their answers would have been?   Most parents would prefer not to have their children placed at risk.



Sure, nobody wants to see their kids fight, but there is a difference between acknowledging that they must and simply letting somebody else do the dirty work.  I'm not saying that kids of war supporters should be enlisted, I'm saying that if their kid goes, they have no right to raise an issue about it.  We are seeing that with many of the parents of deceased soldiers who, showing lots of class, state that they were willing to accept the sacrifice for what they felt is a just cause.   

As a citizen in a democratic country, if you are going to hop on the war wagon, you should at least be willing to accept that with that political stance can come the responsibility that you or your offspring have a share in backing up the words with action.

Are you trying to tell me that "anybody's son will do...just not mine" is not hypocritical?  I'll state clearly, if one is willing to beat the war drum, but is opposed to their kid going over to fight, then they are a coward and a hypocrite.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Aug 2005)

Alright, maybe we're talking about two different things here, so I'll make three examples.

Example one, the son gets conscripted, they have a teary goodbye, wish him good luck, and he goes off to war.

Example two, son gets conscripted, and they immediately throw him in a car and send him off to Canada.  Or, they pull some political strings and get him un-conscripted or assigned to service out-of-theater.

Example three, son gets conscripted and shipped off to war, and the family suddenly goes from supporting the war to opposing it.

Ok, so I can understand you being pissed about the second and third examples.  I also think those would be the ultimate in hipcrisy.  As long as you don't think example one falls into the same category then I think we're on the same page.


----------



## patrick666 (19 Aug 2005)

This is a new age. During WW2 they did not have the internet nor did they have the advanced communcation technology as we do now, thus relying on mail from their kin, scattered media reports and word of mouth. Nowadays, you hear about 6 who died today, the 12 who died yesterday, and 24 who are in the hospital with amputated limbs - who's next, will they be mine? Will I know them? Parents are subjected to the knowledge of true combat and all of it's gorey details which in my mind should be kept on the battlefield. I understand that we have a "right to know" but how much do we really need to know? All of these things are going through their minds as more and more of the world's sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, friends and enemies are being shot down and blown up. If they are opposed to war but are unwilling to accept it, they should lock themselves away with a Nancy Drew book and eat candyfloss until their teeth fall out because it is everywhere. 

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

We're assuming, in this model, that "parent" is a war supporter, right?



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Alright, maybe we're talking about two different things here, so I'll make three examples.
> 
> Example one, the son gets conscripted, they have a teary goodbye, wish him good luck, and he goes off to war.
> 
> ...



Yes, we are on the same page.   Having fears about the safety of your loved ones ("I just want him home") and simply refusing to pay the bill for your policies ("Someone elses kid can go to Fallujah, but yay Bush!") are two separate things.

- Example 1 is to be expected (either that or the Spartan "with your shield or on it")
- Example 3 is actually probably pretty common; it is part of that human trait to not recognize the costs of things until you have to pay them yourself (kinda like Health Care in Canada)
- Example 2 is what I was gunning at; moral cowardice at its best.  I think this was akin to the loop-holes that wealthy Americans would use to allow their kids to skip out on Vietnam (cough-National Guard-cough) while still cheering on the War and letting the poor black kid from Detroit walk point in the Jungle (of course, it is wrong to buy into the myth that Vietnam was fought by the poor; but they didn't have the opportunity to exercise moral dodginess).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That pisses me off the most - it was actually the only stunt by Michael Moore that I actually liked; watching him ambush the representatives who sent other peoples children to fight....



I don't really have a horse in this one (although Moore's "point" was a non-sequitur), but I seem to recall a "debunking" which showed that he was flat-out lying about the number of offspring in the services of congresspeople and that their number was higher than the raw statistical average of Americans (i.e., they had more of their "children" serving than one would expect from a random sample of the population).


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I don't really have a horse in this one (although Moore's "point" was a non-sequitur), but I seem to recall a "debunking" which showed that he was flat-out lying about the number of offspring in the services of congresspeople and that their number was higher than the raw statistical average of Americans (i.e., they had more of their "children" serving than one would expect from a random sample of the population).



Probably, I wouldn't put it past him - I just like the idea he brought up.   I wonder how the Members of Congress (or within the DoD) would be acting IF their kid, instead of sitting in the Ivy League, was braving IED's everyday in Iraq.   I guarantee you that we wouldn't be seeing those soldiers welding on locally bought sheet metal to protect their Humvees (and, true to soldier form, laughing about how it will prevent the shrapnel from going right throught them and instead just let it lodge in their body).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I guarantee you that we wouldn't be seeing those soldiers welding on locally bought sheet metal to protect their Humvees (and, true to soldier form, laughing about how it will prevent the shrapnel from going right throught them and instead just let it lodge in their body).



Can't argue with that ...


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Aug 2005)

> I think you are imagining THAT "underlying implication": no-one (ar at least very few) are denying her right to an opinion ... I, as far as I can tell most of the people here, and most of what I read, does not suggest that she should not have an opinion, nor be stopped from voicing it (indeed I'd wager that most of us support these rights); what we disagree with is the morality of using a soldier's death to further her own selfish agenda and that of her supporters (i.e., anti-Semites like David Duke and Crawford Peace House).  It cheapens and dishonours his death as well as that of others that have died in a cause that they believe in.  The only implication is from her supporters (including the mainstream press) who suggest that she has some sort of moral authority.



OK, so here is our main disagreement. You think that Ms. Sheehan is "using her son's death to further her own agenda". 

This is a meaningless meme that the right wing media spun out of whole cloth. What is she suppose to do, protest the war but maintain a strict silence about her son's death in the very same war? Talk about them as if the two events were completely unrelated?  If you are seriously suggesting this, then our correspondence must conclude here. Here, we'll pretend for a minute that you, sitting on your ass here in Canada,  have the moral authority to dictate what she can and cannot do, and also interpret the significance of Spc.Sheehan's life and death -for the sake of argument, since every single one of you already assumes this anyway.  Why don't you tell me how she's supposed to go about protesting the war without "dishonouring her son's death"?

Second, what is this "selfish agenda" you keep prattling on about? What exactly is so selfish about wanting to end the Iraq War? Her son is already dead, so I don't see what personal profit she, or me, or Micheal Moore, is suppose to derive from ending the war. If there is one, please tell me about it because I want my cut too!

There's a selfish agenda in the Iraq war, but it's not the agenda of the anti-war crowd, you can be sure of that!



> Probably, I wouldn't put it past him - I just like the idea he brought up.  I wonder how the Members of Congress (or within the DoD) would be acting IF their kid, instead of sitting in the Ivy League, was braving IED's everyday in Iraq.  I guarantee you that we wouldn't be seeing those soldiers welding on locally bought sheet metal to protect their Humvees (and, true to soldier form, laughing about how it will prevent the shrapnel from going right throught them and instead just let it lodge in their body).



Don't get hung up over the parent child rubbish. Asking "Would you want your child to be fighting in Iraq?" is exactly the same thing as asking "Would you yourself want to be fighting in Iraq?". Both questions are asking if the pollee thinks Iraq is worth his personal sacrifice.  Of course, unless you are actually asking it in Iraq, the second question is meaningless.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, so here is our main disagreement. You think that Ms. Sheehan is "using her son's death to further her own agenda".
> 
> This is a meaningless meme that the right wing media spun out of whole cloth. What is she suppose to do, protest the war but maintain a strict silence about her son's death in the very same war?



  

So you go from pretending it's not happening, to justifying what she's doing?  Need a hand getting back into your rocker?

Her son's death and her political beleifs ARE unrelated.  He died because he put his life on the line for something he beleived in.  Her beleifs have nothing to do with personal responsibility and sacrifice, and everything to do with blaming the government for anything you perceive as a problem.  You're tellling me that she can't be expected to say "I wan't an explanation from Mr Bush as to why he lied about the reasons for the war"?  That she has to, instead, scream "I want to know why you murdered my boy!"?  Well, sure, ok, 'm willing to agree that she seems to be from the shallow end of the gene pool, and as such cannot be expected to understand how her actions are dishonouring her sons memory.  I expect better from you though.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Aug 2005)

I see a Mother asking why my son died because of your lies,thats the way I see it and nothing else. 
She had no intention making it a political topic,others are using her for there own political means and now she has become a political topic and is being vilified just because she wants to meet Dubyya face to face and ask him some questions.

Yup so much for the Land of the Free.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I see a Mother asking why my son died because of your lies,thats the way I see it and nothing else.



So what she's saying is "my son was an idiot, but I'M smart enough to know you're lying!  I want to know why you tricked my poor little retard into going to such a horrible horrible place!"  

What a load of horse-manure.  Not only is she using his death to further a cause which he would have been absolutely opposed to, but at the same time she's also mocking his judgement and intelligence.  Bravo.  All concerned mothers should take notes from her.



			
				Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> She had no intention making it a political topic,



Bullshit.  She wouldn't be camping outside the presidents ranch if she didn't want to make it a political topic.



			
				Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> others are using her for there own political means and now she has become a political topic and is being vilified just because she wants to meet Dubyya face to face and ask him some questions.



You mean meet him a SECOND TIME.  To ask him a whackload of loaded questions which were probably formed by a commitee funded by Michael Moore 

She could have asked all the questions she wanted the first time she met him.  Her behaviour now is nothing more than a publicity stunt.



			
				Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Yup so much for the Land of the Free.



So much for common sense.....


----------



## MTAB (20 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> 1SG, welcome to the site, I apprieciate your time and correspondence:
> 
> Thank you very much
> 
> ...


----------



## MTAB (20 Aug 2005)

48Highlander,

Bravo!


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Aug 2005)

> I just do not applaud folks that are disengenious (ref: Mrs. Sheehan), nor people that try to use the "emotion card" as if to say "I suffered a loss so no one has the right to challenge my opinion"



Then we are in agreement, since I don't believe the last part either, but how can you expect her to continure her protest without making reference to her loss? Regardless of whether it makes her case stronger or not, berating her for doing so is just assinine.Her viewpoints are not very well thought out, heck I disagree with a lot of them, but as usual, instead reasonable debate, the right wing media resorts to outrageous character assasination.



> Will they bemoan the President for it? No.  Will they view it as me freely choosing to expend my life in what I thought was a worthy cause?  You bet your sweet a** they will!



Why are these two mutually exclusive? Just because I gave my life for a cause doesn't make the cause immune to attack.


----------



## Andyboy (20 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Why don't you tell me how she's supposed to go about protesting the war without "dishonouring her son's death"?



If I might interject here for a minute, you have highlighted the problem. In my opinion she can't do both. By doing one she is doing the other. As such I find it very hard to understand why she would choose to do so and can olnly chalk it up to people influencing her decisions that don't have her or her son's best interests at heart. 

I won't speculate on her personal motives but I do think she is being used by anti-war/anti-Bush organizations to further their cause. The fact that they have exploited this obviously troubled woman in the way they have makes me slightly ill but is the naure of the beast I guess. One more casualty of war I suppose and I imagine she isn't the first and won't be the last.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Aug 2005)

> The fact that they have exploited this obviously troubled woman in the way they have



I think this isthe key dissonance that we (and that includes me) are experiencing. When other anti-war voice their support and give assistance to Ms.Sheehan, you call it "exploitation". I suppose you *could* call it that, if you can also call MADD using mothers who have lost children to drunk driving to further their cause to be "exploitation". 

Micheal Moore is against the war, Cindy Sheehan is against the war, I WAS against the war, are all our relationships exploitational in nature? This is why I brought up the MADD example, as well as when Bush used the dead soldier's family in his SOTU address. It only seems exploitational to you because you see the anti-war movement as fundamentally evil, and that no reasonable person could possibly be in it for any reason other than personal profit. Thus, you only see "exploitation" when I see a fratenal alliance for an honorable cause.

Since I don't hold this view about the pro-war crowd, and I believe that most soldiers who are fighting do it because they believe in the war and not for personal gain, I have no issue with Bush's "exploitation" of the dead soldier's memory.  I suppose until you can hold the same attitude towards me and the anti-war crowd, then there's no convincing anyone here.




O'Reilly is still a dirty lying bigot, though.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> It only seems exploitational to you because you see the anti-war movement as fundamentally evil, and that no reasonable person could possibly be in it for any reason other than personal profit.



Oh, and now you're a mind-reader too eh?


----------



## Andyboy (20 Aug 2005)

Brit,

I have gone out of my way to be civil to you even though you have not answered in kind. I would appreciate it if you would do me the favor of not attributing thoughts and feelings to me which you would not attribute to yourself. It is a concept known as respect. I respect your right to, as well as your ability to form, a rational opinion and as such I assume there is a logical, rational reason why you feel the way you do. In other words I give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you are intelligent enough to make an informed decision and to formulate an intelligent opinion, therefore I don't feel the need to be insulting to you when disagreeing with you. These are conepts which most of the posters here seem to understand but which seems to be foreign to you, which is disappointing because I am interested in discussing and learning, not mud slinging. 

As to the matter at hand, Mrs Sheehan has lost a son, a husband (in divorce) and now has a parent in a coma. I think we might agree that she is most probably in a mentally weakened state, could we not? As such she is possibly susceptable to being influenced by people some of whom may be using her for what they want rather than what is best for her, or the memory of her son. If you seriously beleive that the entirety of the anti-war movement is in it for purely altruisitc means then you have something to learn about human nature. I doubt you do believe it, though, I think you are just being argumentative and defensive of the position you've placed yourself in mostly through your inability to debate a point without vitriol, insult and rhetoric. 

And just so we're clear, I fully support the duty of citizens to protest the actions of their government, I think it is one of the foundations of our way of life. What I am saddened by is the thought that a fallen comrade might well become remembered as "Famous War Protestor Cindy Sheehan's Son" rather than being remembered for the sacrifice he made for a cause he believed in.

Have a nice day,

Andrew


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Aug 2005)

> I have gone out of my way to be civil to you even though you have not answered in kind. I would appreciate it if you would do me the favor of not attributing thoughts and feelings to me which you would not attribute to yourself. It is a concept known as respect. I respect your right to, as well as your ability to form, a rational opinion and as such I assume there is a logical, rational reason why you feel the way you do. In other words I give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you are intelligent enough to make an informed decision and to formulate an intelligent opinion, therefore I don't feel the need to be insulting to you when disagreeing with you. These are conepts which most of the posters here seem to understand but which seems to be foreign to you, which is disappointing because I am interested in discussing and learning, not mud slinging.



Little thin skinned are we? Yes, I'm the one "sliinging mud" here, while posters here who have never met Ms. Sheehan and most likely never lost any loved ones to war call her a "disgrace". Now I'm the last one who would complain about a double standard, and I won't, but I urge you go back to the begining of the thread for some examples of real mudslinging. If I thought someone wasn't being civil enough, then I just ignore them. I haven't read any of 48thhighlander's posts for months, and I get along just fine, although it seems he's got a lot of feelings for me.  



> As to the matter at hand, Mrs Sheehan has lost a son, a husband (in divorce) and now has a parent in a coma. I think we might agree that she is most probably in a mentally weakened state, could we not?



Just like most of Stalin's opponents were, according to their trials. But for the sake of argument, Sure.





> As such she is possibly susceptable to being influenced by people some of whom may be using her for what they want rather than what is best for her, or the memory of her son.



So what IS  best for her? A muzzel? "Get thee to a nunnery"? 




> If you seriously beleive that the entirety of the anti-war movement is in it for purely altruisitc means then you have something to learn about human nature.



I have extended my offer a number of times in this thread, and up to now there has been no takers (unless 48thhighlander has, but judging from previous experience, I doubt his explanation would be very interesting). WHAT, exactly, does Cindy Sheehan personally have to gain from the end of the Iraq War? WHAT do I have to gain for spending all this time arguing the issue?  Micheal Moore has profited greatly from the Iraq War, and Bush'es hamfisted, incompetent response, through his movie Farenheit 9/11, which I'm sure you are aware of, so I don't imagine he's too upset about the invasion. After all, everything he says  in the movie are lies, right? What would he make movies of if Iraq haden't been invaded? Kosovo?  The only benefit I can think of is safety from future terrorist attacks. I suppose that's selfish, but you and Bush benefit equally from that as I do.

Until one of you proves otherwise, "Selfish motives" is a red herring you continue to swing ineffectually at the anti-war movement. It's starting to smell a bit.



> I think you are just being argumentative and defensive of the position you've placed yourself in mostly through your inability to debate a point without vitriol, insult and rhetoric.



I do get a bit smug sometimes when I'm right.



> What I am saddened by is the thought that a fallen comrade might well become remembered as "Famous War Protestor Cindy Sheehan's Son" rather than being remembered for the sacrifice he made for a cause he believed in.



I respectfully disagree(not that I ever disrespecfully disagree, but I better exaggerate the drill movement, just to be sure).  10 years from now, when GW2 is looked upon fondly as a masterstroke of American foreign policy, and the entire Middle East, particularly the democratic, secular Iraqi state, as well as knowledgable Americans, will look back on this incident and scoff at how silly and wrong headed the Anti-War movement was, just like how silly the isolationists of WW2 look today. All will remember the sacrifice of Spc. Sheehan, in spite of the misguided attitude of his mother. After all, the fruits of his sacrifice will be apparent for all to see, just like those of WW2 veterans are today. 

How could it possibly be otherwise?  


Note: Perhaps this thread should be split.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2005)

Perhaps you could all simply do with a rest from it for awhile. :


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Aug 2005)

recceguy:

Give the media a few more days to beat this thing to death.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2005)

So long as it doesn't happen here. Leave the journalists to do what they do best.


----------



## Andyboy (21 Aug 2005)

Oh well. Not the reply I was hoping for but certainly the reply I was expecting. Thanks Brit, for showing me and the rest of the board your true colours. As I thought you're nothing more than a Troll. Disappointing, but as I said, not surprising. I guess the search goes on for reasoned, logical, and intelligent discussion from your side of the debate. 

I will follow your advice though and ignore you from this point forward. Too bad this forum doesn't have the ignore feature.

Regards,

Andrew


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2005)

Guess some people can't take the hint. Temp lock now in place.


----------

