The Calling; why we join

[Jascar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

President Bush could end the shenanigans of the military mom turned antiwar poster child who is camped outside his Texas vacation ranch.

All he has to do is meet with the grieving woman.

If the president spoke with Cindy Sheehan for a few minutes behind ranch doors, he could field her questions about why her soldier son made the ultimate sacrifice.

He could show the world he does have a heart, contrary to public perception. A brief tête-à-tête also would douse the blaze of media that threatens to make the cowpoke town the site of a whoopee-ti-yi-yo showdown.

Mom versus the Prez.

Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.

She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess.

That Sheehan would allow her private grief to be plied for a public stunt seems unfathomable even if her underlying message about unnecessary blood being shed by American soldiers hits the mark.

Sheehan already got face time with the president, right here in Western Washington last year -- a fact that folks tend to ignore as Sheehan morphs into the celebrity du jour.

It was in June 2004. Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis. A reporter for a newspaper in Vacaville, Calif., Sheehan's hometown, interviewed her about the occasion.

The mom said at the time that Bush seemed sincere about desiring freedom for the Iraqis and appeared to feel the pain of lost American lives. Sheehan said meeting Bush and hearing his condolences made her family feel better.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness," Sheehan told the newspaper.

Tellingly, when the Sheehan family met with Bush they opted not to share concerns about the war, according to news accounts.

Now Sheehan is sounding a different tune.

She believes Bush lied about the war. She says the war is wrong. She wants to return the presidential "gift" to sender.

"If I can shorten the war by one minute and save one life, that would just give me so much comfort in my grief," Sheehan was quoted as saying this week.

I agree with Sheehan's statement in principle. I do not agree with her form of political protest, which she has the right to do. Her effort just seems like a misguided spectacle.

Sheehan admits that she just wants to lay a question on Bush: Why did you kill my son?

Her accusatory tone suggests that she wants to flog the president with blame and vitriol and not have a meaningful, respectful dialogue.

At the very least, she gets her name all over the news as the mom who tried to stick it to Bush.

If Sheehan wants sober war policy answers, I have a one-word suggestion for her: Google.

She can read up on Bush's shifting justifications for the Iraq debacle. She won't get solid answers, but she will read a lot about a Bush administration that misrepresents facts and lies as a matter of habit.

She also will come across accounts of our "heartless" president crying with families of dead soldiers.

Sheehan's Texas tantrum wittingly or unwittingly abets left-leaning forces that are happy to use her to get at the president. If the anemic antiwar movement needs a mourning mom to lead the charge against this unjust war, then the movement is in dire straits.

Protest marches and demonstrations, which powered public sentiment against the war in Vietnam, have been reduced to this -- a mom with a mic.

Pathetic.

My thoughts drift to grieving parents of slain troops who have not even had a chance to meet with Bush.

There are hundreds of soldiers' families -- several in the Seattle area -- in as much grief as Sheehan is over the death of her son, Casey, last year in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

They haven't found the need to shack up near the president's vacation pad to shame him into a confrontation under the guise of seeking sincere dialogue.

Some of these families believe the war is wrong, too.

They just choose to deal with their feelings in a way that doesn't cheapen the memory of their loved ones or turn a grave matter into a media circus standoff that generates more heat than light.

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

 

[48Highlander]

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 avail oneself of; practice: use caution.
To conduct oneself toward; treat or handle: "the peace offering of a man who once used you unkindly" (Laurence Sterne).
To seek or achieve an end by means of; exploit: used their highly placed friends to gain access to the president; felt he was being used by seekers of favor.
To take or consume; partake of: She rarely used alcohol.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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).