PDA

View Full Version : Sheehan: Peaceniks Put Personal Egos Above Peace


Mr. Kotter
05-28-2007, 10:20 PM
Duh.... :spock: Ya think?ROFL

Well, at least she woke up.....and packed up her irrelevant pup tent, and is going home. :rolleyes:


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/28/sheehan/index.html

<A target=_blank name=ContentArea>Anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan gives up her protest


CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who became an anti-war leader after her son was killed in Iraq, declared Monday she was walking away from the peace movement.

She said her son died "for nothing."

Sheehan achieved national attention when she camped outside President Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, throughout August 2005 to demand a meeting with the president over her son's death.

While Bush ignored her, the vigil made her one of the most prominent figures among opponents of the war.

But in a Web diary posted to the liberal online community Daily Kos on Monday, Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years.

She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life."

Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in an April 2004 battle in Baghdad. His death prompted his mother to found Gold Star Families for Peace.

But in Monday's 1,200-word letter, titled, "Good Riddance Attention Whore," Sheehan announced that her son "did indeed die for nothing."
"I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful," she wrote. "Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

"It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years, and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most."

Cindy Sheehan's sister, DeDe Miller, told CNN that the group would continue working for humanitarian causes, but drop its involvement in the anti-war movement. As for her sister's letter, Miller said, "She cried for quite a bit after writing it."

Sheehan warned that the United States was becoming "a fascist corporate wasteland," and that onetime allies among Bush's Democratic opposition turned on her when she began trying to hold them accountable for bringing the 4-year-old war to a close.

In the meantime, she said her antiwar activism had cost her her marriage, that she had put the survivor's benefits paid for her son's death and all her speaking and book fees into the cause and that she now owed extensive medical bills.

"I am going to take whatever I have left and go home," she wrote. "I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost.

"I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble."

ClevelandBronco
05-28-2007, 10:36 PM
"I'm pretty tired. I think I'll go home now."

http://www.thefinalsprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/forrest%20gump%20running%20beard.jpg

Slick32
05-28-2007, 10:56 PM
Not to insult anyone here, but this story is best suited for the back page of the lawn and garden section of the paper.

The lady, and I use the term very losely, is a few bricks shy of a full load, like 75% too few.

Boyceofsummer
05-28-2007, 11:04 PM
Not to insult anyone here, but this story is best suited for the back page of the lawn and garden section of the paper.

The lady, and I use the term very losely, is a few bricks shy of a full load, like 75% too few.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/124620.html

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/124356.html

Direckshun
05-28-2007, 11:13 PM
The antiwar movement didn't gain traction until Sheehan came along. For that, those of us against the war can be grateful.

But I don't know what the purpose of this thread is?

To laugh at antiwar protesters, or to laugh at Sheehan.

Prowar supporters are often promoting war because of their own personal interests, too. And even if Sheehan's political handlers were egocentric, Sheehan herself can still believe that taking their course of action, demented as it may be, is the best chance for her to achieve her goals.

Like the war or not, Sheehan grew a son who fought and died for our country. We should all be thankful to her, and should refuse from mocking her -- if anybody's allowed to speak their mind, it should be the mothers who borne and raise our soldiers.

It gets lost in the political shuffle, but Sheehan's crusade wasn't mere politics to begin with. What was she asking for to begin with? Accountability, and the end of a war and an administration that she feels abandoned it.

It was humanism, and humanity, in both its best forms and its worst. It was an exhaustion in hope for a country, one that could only have originated from a passionate belief in it.

I wish Sheehan the best, and want to assure her that, even though this war in Iraq was folly, that her son died for something. An ideal. Our never-ending commitment to good faith. And, let's hope, a stable Iraq someday.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-28-2007, 11:16 PM
The antiwar movement didn't gain traction until Sheehan came along. For that, those of us against the war can be grateful.

But I don't know what the purpose of this thread is?

To laugh at antiwar protesters, or to laugh at Sheehan.

Prowar supporters are often promoting war because of their own personal interests, too. And even if Sheehan's political handlers were egocentric, that doesn't mean Sheehan herself can't still believe that taking their course of action, demented as it may be, is the best chance for her to achieve her goals.

Like the war or not, Sheehan grew a son who fought and died for our country. We should all be thankful to her, and should refuse from mocking her -- if anybody's allowed to speak their mind, it should be the mothers who borne and raise our soldiers.

It gets lost in the political shuffle, but Sheehan's crusade wasn't mere politics to begin with. What was she asking for to begin with? Accountability, and the end of a war and an administration that she feels abandoned it.

It was humanism, and humanity, in both its best forms and its worst. It was an exhaustion in hope for a country, one that could only have originated in a passionate belief in it.

I wish Sheehan the best, and want to assure her that, even though this war in Iraq was folly, that her son died for something. An ideal. Our never-ending commitment to good faith. And, let's hope, a stable Iraq someday.

This thread was created for one purpose:

A Conservative Hawk circle jerk. I'm sure that many of the same jerkoffs in here laughing at Sheehan would be the first to accuse someone of not carrying their load vis a vis military service if they were criticizing the war and/or military.

It's not a small bit of irony.

Logical
05-28-2007, 11:18 PM
Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years. My guess is that the financial impact is the real reason, you cannot go on forever unless you are fatcat.

Logical
05-28-2007, 11:19 PM
This thread was created for one purpose:

A Conservative Hawk circle jerk. I'm sure that many of the same jerkoffs in here laughing at Sheehan would be the first to accuse someone of not carrying their load vis a vis military service if they were criticizing the war and/or military.

It's not a small bit of irony.

Actually it is that but more that Rob likes to shit stir as much as anyone else.

ClevelandBronco
05-28-2007, 11:23 PM
The antiwar movement didn't gain traction until Sheehan came along. For that, those of us against the war can be grateful.

But I don't know what the purpose of this thread is?

To laugh at antiwar protesters, or to laugh at Sheehan.

Laughing at Sheehan herself works for me, but the better joke is that this impudent ball of fluff, tears and fury that the Democrats paraded shamelessly has decided to turn her back on the party that embraced her.

Rightly so. The party of the center left will keep this war going despite their rhetoric. They're not crazy.

Sheehan, on the other hand, is crazy and always has been.

Direckshun
05-28-2007, 11:27 PM
Laughing at Sheehan herself works for me, but the better joke is that this impudent ball of fluff, tears and fury that the Democrats paraded shamelessly has decided to turn her back on the party that embraced her.

Rightly so. The party of the center left will keep this war going despite their rhetoric. They're not crazy.

Sheehan, on the other hand, is crazy and always has been.
This action reflects on the frustrations that the antiwar movement has with the DNP.

If you think it's crazy to oppose this war, then that reflects on you.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Sheehan, on the other hand, is crazy and always has been.

If you had a child that served in an unneccessary and ridiculous war and got split in half by a pipe bomb filled with nails, semtex and human shit, I'm sure that you would still toe the military line or only sympathize with those who do.

Logical
05-28-2007, 11:31 PM
Laughing at Sheehan herself works for me, but the better joke is that this impudent ball of fluff, tears and fury that the Democrats paraded shamelessly has decided to turn her back on the party that embraced her.

Rightly so. The party of the center left will keep this war going despite their rhetoric. They're not crazy.

Sheehan, on the other hand, is crazy and always has been.

Not to be confrontational but why would that make them not crazy?

Boyceofsummer
05-29-2007, 12:07 AM
Laughing at Sheehan herself works for me, but the better joke is that this impudent ball of fluff, tears and fury that the Democrats paraded shamelessly has decided to turn her back on the party that embraced her.

Rightly so. The party of the center left will keep this war going despite their rhetoric. They're not crazy.

Sheehan, on the other hand, is crazy and always has been.

As Bill Maher stated so eloquently Friday................BLOW ME!

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 12:11 AM
If you had a child that served in an unneccessary and ridiculous war and got split in half by a pipe bomb filled with nails, semtex and human shit, I'm sure that you would still toe the military line or only sympathize with those who do.

I would have honored my son yesterday and I would continue to honor him every year after on Memorial Day. I would take my younger relatives and my friends' kids to my son's grave and I would tell them about his life and his death. I'd also tell them about my uncles and my father who joined up during the Second War. (My father lied about his age and enrolled when he was 16. Birth certificates weren't very important in 1944.)

I'd tell them about my stepfather, who joined our family after my father died at the age of 42. My stepfather was a Marine in Korea during that action. He still wakes up sometimes during the night believing that he's being attacked, although the frequency of his sleepi-related problems have lessened over the decades.

My father didn't kill anyone; he was stationed at the Pentagon during his war. My stepfather has bayonet wounds to his legs, and he had to kill the men who inflicted those wounds. He won't discuss his service with me, but he has taken my son aside to share his experiences with him.

Hamas, I understand that you think that this a ridiculous war. I'm convinced that this war is anything but ridicuous.

If my son decided to fight, and if he died, I'd honor him, his comrades in arms, his ideas, his commanders and his memory.

Hamas, my son is already considering whether he owes this kind of commitment to the U.S. He just turned 12 and he's my only son.

I think you're underestimating him. To a lesser extent, I think you're underestimating my family and our country.

Logical
05-29-2007, 12:25 AM
I would have honored my son yesterday and I would continue to honor him every year after on Memorial Day. I would take my younger relatives and my friends' kids to my son's grave and I would tell them about his life and his death. I'd also tell them about my uncles and my father who joined up during the Second War. (My father lied about his age and enrolled when he was 16. Birth certificates weren't very important in 1944.)

I'd tell them about my stepfather, who joined our family after my father died at the age of 42. My stepfather was a Marine in Korea during that action. He still wakes up sometimes during the night believing that he's being attacked, although the frequency of his sleepi-related problems have lessened over the decades.

My father didn't kill anyone; he was stationed at the Pentagon during his war. My stepfather has bayonet wounds to his legs, and he had to kill the men who inflicted those wounds. He won't discuss his service with me, but he has taken my son aside to share his experiences with him.

Hamas, I understand that you think that this a ridiculous war. I'm convinced that this war is anything but ridicuous.

If my son decided to fight, and if he died, I'd honor him, his comrades in arms, his ideas, his commanders and his memory.

Hamas, my son is already considering whether he owes this kind of commitment to the U.S. He just turned 12 and he's my only son.

I think you're underestimating him. To a lesser extent, I think you're underestimating my family and our country.
Did I miss it, where did Hamas reference you or your family. Perhaps you took his post about Sheehan too personally.:shrug:

Seems like he was being rhetorical.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 12:40 AM
Not to be confrontational but why would that make them not crazy?

Radical Islam has already shared their intentions with us: All nations will bow to Muhammed and Sharia law, or they will have to be destroyed or absorbed over time. (By the way, they haven't attached a specific deadline to their plan even though some of our own people think it's a good idea to impose a deadline on our efforts.)

I am convinced that these folks wish to destroy us. I'd rather live with the implications of killing them in great numbers than living with the consequence of us being killed in great numbers.

I think the mainstream of the Democratic party will continue this war. The war is real. I think that majority of both parties already understand that.

HolmeZz
05-29-2007, 12:45 AM
I'd rather live with the implications of killing them in great numbers than living with the consequence of us being killed in great numbers.

And how does that make you any different than them?

Logical
05-29-2007, 12:45 AM
Radical Islam has already shared their intentions with us: All nations will bow to Muhammed and Sharia law, or they will have to be destroyed or absorbed over time. (By the way, they haven't attached a specific deadline to their plan even though some of our own people think it's a good idea to impose a deadline on our efforts.)

I am convinced that these folks wish to destroy us. I'd rather live with the implications of killing them in great numbers than living with the consequence of us being killed in great numbers.

I think the mainstream of the Democratic party will continue this war. The war is real. I think that majority of both parties already understand that.

Do you honestly confuse the Iraq occupation with the War on Terror? I draw a distinction.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 01:18 AM
And how does that make you any different than them?

If all you're trying to say is that I'm flawed, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'll still advocate killing them before killing us.

It looks like you don't draw a distinction between us and them. That's an uninformed mindset, IMO.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 01:20 AM
Did I miss it, where did Hamas reference you or your family. Perhaps you took his post about Sheehan too personally.:shrug:

Seems like he was being rhetorical.

I forgot this, then Logical:

Shut the hell up. I wasn't talking to you.

Logical
05-29-2007, 01:21 AM
I forgot this, then Logical:

Shut the hell up. I wasn't talking to you.ROFL

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 01:22 AM
Do you honestly confuse the Iraq occupation with the War on Terror? I draw a distinction.

I expect that you'd draw a simple distinction.

Logical
05-29-2007, 01:23 AM
I expect that you'd draw a simple distinction.

Well that is me, always going for the simple way of perceiving things. I don't do nuance.;)

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 01:36 AM
Did I miss it, where did Hamas reference you or your family. Perhaps you took his post about Sheehan too personally.:shrug:

Seems like he was being rhetorical.

If you had a child that served in an unneccessary and ridiculous war and got split in half by a pipe bomb filled with nails, semtex and human shit, I'm sure that you would still toe the military line or only sympathize with those who do.


Yeah. Hamas only talked about "if."

I talked about what actually happened, and the next thing that could happen.

You and Hamas are big on theory and abstracts. I'm just telling you that this an issue that my family will be dealing with in reality while you clowns continue to throw around hypotheticals.

Logical
05-29-2007, 01:43 AM
Yeah. Hamas only talked about "if."

I talked about what actually happened, and the next thing that could happen.

You and Hamas are big on theory and abstracts. I'm just telling you that this an issue that my family will be dealing with in reality while you clowns continue to throw around hypotheticals.

I know you are possibly correct in the bigger picture of the GWoTerror but I certainly hope not on the occupation of Iraq. Bless you and your family and may your son be spared saving people from themselves in Iraq.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 01:46 AM
I know you are possibly correct in the bigger picture of the GWoTerror but I certainly hope not on the occupation of Iraq. Bless you and your family and may your son be spared saving people from themselves in Iraq.

You are a good man, Logical. Thank you for your prayers, wishes, hopes, whatever that would spare my son. I'll take anything we can get in that regard.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 01:53 AM
I'll still advocate killing them before killing us.


Over the course of history, how well have these military objectives worked?

You cannot beat an enemy that would rather die than subjugate himself with brute force. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it hasn't worked in Gaza, and it's not working in Iraq.

The world doesn't revolve on absolutes. I'm not saying that the US should drop all arms in regards to terrorism, but to believe that you can keep swinging a sledgehammer to kill a swarm of locusts is a hopelessly flawed mindset.

Aside from complete genocide/extermination of the populace, how are you going to stop terrorism, since your method has proven that it will continually create more terrorists in the places of the ones killed?

Logical
05-29-2007, 01:58 AM
Over the course of history, how well have these military objectives worked?

You cannot beat an enemy that would rather die than subjugate himself with brute force. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it hasn't worked in Gaza, and it's not working in Iraq.

The world doesn't revolve on absolutes. I'm not saying that the US should drop all arms in regards to terrorism, but to believe that you can keep swinging a sledgehammer to kill a swarm of locusts is a hopelessly flawed mindset.

Aside from complete genocide/extermination of the populace, how are you going to stop terrorism, since your method has proven that it will continually create more terrorists in the places of the ones killed?I am not completely convinced your point is wrong, but what is your solution. Clearly they do view us, at least a large portion of them do, as infidels that must be overcome. How would you resolve this problem?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 02:15 AM
I am not completely convinced your point is wrong, but what is your solution. Clearly they do view us, at least a large portion of them do, as infidels that must be overcome. How would you resolve this problem?

Military force when necessary, and an actual attempt at outreach towards the Muslim community. Being a guiding force with our power rather than a bully that plays regional favorites in order keep the power quotient the way we want it.

It amazes me how many stupid American citizens think the rest of the world is stupid, as though the populace of Iran or Chile isn't going to know that we are behind the installation of Pehlavi or Pinochet, and then we act surprised when they despise us for propping up these despots.

If the United States actually thought about the best interests of other countries instead of merely the best short term interests of its own foreign policy, the terrorist attacks which were committed against it would be view far more harshly by the Muslim, Islamist, and developing world alike.

Furthermore, they view us as obstacles because they consistently are fighting for their very survival; and that act is inimical to an ability to think deeply about a situation--therefore, the simplest approach--buy into reductive interpretations of religion--trumpets a more complicated one.----Economic Aid in that regard could largely undermine terrorism.

Slick32
05-29-2007, 05:46 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/124620.html

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/124356.html

What's your point? Everyone knows that men and women are going to die in war. Everyone should also know that there is a worldwide problem and Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are just the tip of the iceberg.

Sheehan was just a tool. It was a shame that she lost her son, but there are many people that have lost loved ones in the war, further there are many people that have lost their loved ones in other disasters as well. How is her pain any different than anyone else that has lost someone?

I am having trouble with anyone making her a martyr because she couldn't get in the fact of the President a second time. She had her day and didn't have her act together. She missed her opportunity. If you or me were to try to see the President for any given reason on any given day we would be told to take a hike.

What gives her story less credibility is the inclusion of Jessie Jackson, supporter of lost causes.

chagrin
05-29-2007, 06:40 AM
Radical Islam has already shared their intentions with us: All nations will bow to Muhammed and Sharia law, or they will have to be destroyed or absorbed over time. (By the way, they haven't attached a specific deadline to their plan even though some of our own people think it's a good idea to impose a deadline on our efforts.)

I am convinced that these folks wish to destroy us. I'd rather live with the implications of killing them in great numbers than living with the consequence of us being killed in great numbers.

I think the mainstream of the Democratic party will continue this war. The war is real. I think that majority of both parties already understand that.


How dare you confuse the issue with facts, these people hate that.

Thank you for posting some good common sense dude. :clap:

Direckshun
05-29-2007, 07:20 AM
Radical Islam has already shared their intentions with us: All nations will bow to Muhammed and Sharia law, or they will have to be destroyed or absorbed over time. (By the way, they haven't attached a specific deadline to their plan even though some of our own people think it's a good idea to impose a deadline on our efforts.)

I am convinced that these folks wish to destroy us. I'd rather live with the implications of killing them in great numbers than living with the consequence of us being killed in great numbers.

I think the mainstream of the Democratic party will continue this war. The war is real. I think that majority of both parties already understand that.
1. We're clearly unable to kill off much more than a fraction of the radical Islamicists in Iraq.
2. We lost the propagandha war to them in Iraq a long time ago, according to the Pentagon, as if we needed the Pentagon to tell us.
3. The only real way we could fight off radical Islam in Iraq anymore is by setting up a solid government, and its questionable whether the troops have influence on that anymore, and if they do, whether it's positive.

But nevermind. I'd have to be bat-shit crazy to believe the war should be discontinued, right?

Cochise
05-29-2007, 08:30 AM
Hopefully this means we don't have to hear more from the only person who's a worse public speaker than Hillary Clinton.

the Talking Can
05-29-2007, 09:16 AM
Hopefully this means we don't have to hear more from the only person who's a worse public speaker than Hillary Clinton.

George Bush?

Cochise
05-29-2007, 09:20 AM
George Bush?

Also bad, but at least he doesn't have one of these menopausal screeches that can bend steel.

HolmeZz
05-29-2007, 09:30 AM
If all you're trying to say is that I'm flawed, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'll still advocate killing them before killing us.

It looks like you don't draw a distinction between us and them. That's an uninformed mindset, IMO.

I know who 'us' is and I know who 'them' are. Unfortunately your motives are similar. Just take as many lives as possible, innocent or not. Let God sort it out.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 10:35 AM
Post 29, any takers?

FishingRod
05-29-2007, 11:26 AM
Post 29, any takers?
Sure why not

Well one could certainly argue the opposite side of the coin, that we tend to too often intermingle our desire to try and be the good guy, the liberators with our own self interest. We (it could be argued) are not mean and ruthless enough to impose our will on other people. If the United State just wanted to whip the Iraqi army and remove SH from power they could have been out of there very quickly.
Personally I'm truly toying with the notion of being far more isolationist. Fence up the borders, keep the bad guys out and let the rest of the world solve their own problems. One could certainly argue that this worked poorly before WWI and WWII but we were not the biggest kid on the block back then either.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:30 AM
Sure why not

Well one could certainly argue the opposite side of the coin, that we tend to too often intermingle our desire to try and be the good guy, the liberators with our own self interest. We (it could be argued) are not mean and ruthless enough to impose our will on other people. If the United State just wanted to whip the Iraqi army and remove SH from power they could have been out of there very quickly.
Personally I'm truly toying with the notion of being far more isolationist. Fence up the borders, keep the bad guys out and let the rest of the world solve their own problems. One could certainly argue that this worked poorly before WWI and WWII but we were not the biggest kid on the block back then either.

Like in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, among others??? :)

FishingRod
05-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Like in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, among others??? :)

The kinder gentler approach worked pretty well in Japan and in Germany. Eventually China will try to reclaim Taiwan by force. Someone will nuke or use massive biological weapons on Israel unleashing the full might of their military. Who do we help who don't we? Do we really still need Armed forces in Germany, Great Briton, Japan and south Korea? Perhaps we could redirect the monies spent in safeguarding the Middle East oil supplies and invest them in perfection fusion power, Solar etc,. Wouldn't bother me to let them fight it out over the smelly oil soaked sand.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 12:14 PM
FWIW, HJ...I, for one, have appreciated your more restrained and civil "return" to the board...:)This thread was created for one purpose:

A Conservative Hawk circle jerk...You mean, as opposed to the Liberal Peacenik circle jerks that have been more prominent of late? :shrug:

:p

On a more serious note, the real point of this thread was to emphasize the personal egos that are involved for those in the Peacenik activities....hell, if Sheehan recognizes it, it's been made visible for all to see.

To me....it's sheer arrogance, contempt, and condescension for our troops that motivates anyone to say that the "troops have died for nothing." We have a volunteer force in this country; anyone who doesn't understand what their possible sacrifice is about...need not apply. It's insulting and patronizing to suggest the brave men and women who have fought don't understand that simple concept.Military force when necessary, and an actual attempt at outreach towards the Muslim community. Being a guiding force with our power rather than a bully that plays regional favorites in order keep the power quotient the way we want it.

It amazes me how many stupid American citizens think the rest of the world is stupid, as though the populace of Iran or Chile isn't going to know that we are behind the installation of Pehlavi or Pinochet, and then we act surprised when they despise us for propping up these despots.

If the United States actually thought about the best interests of other countries instead of merely the best short term interests of its own foreign policy, the terrorist attacks which were committed against it would be view far more harshly by the Muslim, Islamist, and developing world alike.

Furthermore, they view us as obstacles because they consistently are fighting for their very survival; and that act is inimical to an ability to think deeply about a situation--therefore, the simplest approach--buy into reductive interpretations of religion--trumpets a more complicated one.----Economic Aid in that regard could largely undermine terrorism.I don't disagree, philosophically, with your approach. No one likes war. No one. Some of us simply believe that there are times when war is justified. Of course, there is widespread disagreement over when it it justified. That's the only REAL difference among 80-90% of Americans.

Despite the rhetoric of the peaceniks, there are very few "gung-ho, kill all radical Muslim" type hawks running around....LEAST of which, are the very people in uniform who are most likely to make such sacrifices. However, that said your view of foreign policy is both myopic and naive, IMHO.

First, tell me the difference between "guiding force" and "bully"....insofar as the wackos behind the "Israel must be erased from the face of the planet" and the "United States is the great Satan" crowd would be concerned? I'll tell you the difference: there isn't one. If you think they'd accept ANY "guiding force"....you are simply not paying attention. As for foreign aid, I'd be willing to consider it....but given their lack of support for the U.S. in the region, I understand why we've not been more generous.

Secondly, foreign policy is easy to conduct with the benefit hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. The argument we "should have known" or that "we were warned" of the consequences of a particular action, are absolute malarkey. There are ALWAYS counter-veiling views within the diplomatic and intelligence communities as to what we should, or should not do, as a nation. Presidential administrations do the best they can (and I believe most have, generally)....at that particular moment in time. It's in large part a guessing game--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The middle east, and Iraq in particular, are no exception. The process of vetting intelligence has always been a subjective and imprecise process.

In hindsight, have we made mistakes? Sure. However, would your approach have proven to be any better? Not a chance, IMO. Carter tried your approach to foreign policy, and we see how that worked. Ironically, even some of HIS decisions would have been bad in your view. Heh. Foreign policy of any nation, is first and foremost about self-interest: even Nixon understood that, with his realpolitik approach Beyond that, the U.S. has significant support and sympathy from others (including the more moderate Arab world) for our position and efforts....if not the particular actions we have taken over the past, say, 50 yrs. Bottom-line, is you can't please everyone all the time.

So, going back in time, taking your approach....should we have backed Pehlavi in Iran or Pinochet in Chile? Of course not--knowing what we know now, that's an easy decision. But we didn't KNOW, then, what we now know...did we? Foreign policy, is never as simple as black and white, or good versus evil. You know that. You know that there are always shades of grey. The problem is, over-simplification of the process and the particulars by critics (especially those who have the benefit of hindsight)...only divert us from doing what we need to do, to solve today's problems.

In choosing the Shah and Pinochet, we chose to side with the lesser of two evils, in our mind....at that point in time. It's a messy process, that unfortunately yields as many losers as winners. Are you seriously suggesting we should have instead backed Allende in Chile, Khomeni in Iran, or the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? I hope not--because I think you know better. And, no....there were no serious "third" options in either of those cases.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 12:33 PM
. However, that said your view of foreign policy is both myopic and naive, IMHO.

First, tell me the difference between "guiding force" and "bully"....insofar as the wackos behind the "Israel must be erased from the face of the planet" and the "United States is the great Satan" crowd would be concerned? I'll tell you the difference: there isn't one. If you think they'd accept ANY "guiding force"....you are simply not paying attention. As for foreign aid, I'd be willing to consider it....but given their lack of support for the U.S. in the region, I understand why we've not been more generous.

I think you're misinterpreting who I'm advocating helping. You aren't going to convince Al Qaeda operatives to tolerate the United States, but if the US did more to provide for support among the poor and disadvantaged in Muslim countries, you would subvert future terrorists from becoming terrorists.


Secondly, foreign policy is easy to conduct with the benefit hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. The argument we "should have known" or that "we were warned" of the consequences of a particular action, are absolute malarkey. There are ALWAYS counter-veiling views within the diplomatic and intelligence communities as to what we should, or should not do, as a nation. Presidential administrations do the best they can (and I believe most have, generally)....at that particular moment in time. It's in large part a guessing game--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The middle east, and Iraq, in particular are no exception. The process of vetting intelligence has always been a subjective and imprecise process.

I'm also not denying that it's easy to cherry pick foreign policy


In hindsight, have we made mistakes? Sure. However, would your approach have proven to be any better? Not a chance, IMO. Carter tried your approach to foreign policy, and we see how that worked. Ironically, even some of HIS decisions would have been bad in your view. Heh. Foreign policy of any nation, is first and foremost about self-interest: even Nixon understood that, with his realpolitik approach Beyond that, the U.S. has significant support and sympathy from others (including the more moderate Arab world) for our position and efforts....if not the particular actions we have taken over the past, say, 50 yrs. Bottom-line, is you can't please everyone all the time.

So, going back in time, taking your approach....should we have backed Pehlavi in Iran or Pinochet in Chile? Of course not--knowing what we know now, that's an easy decision. But we didn't KNOW, then, what we now know...did we? Foreign policy, is never as simple as black and white, or good versus evil. You know that. You know that there are always shades of grey. The problem is, over-simplification of the process and the particulars by critics (especially those who have the benefit of hindsight)...only divert us from doing what we need to do, to solve today's problems.

In choosing the Shah and Pinochet, we chose to side with the lesser of two evils, in our mind....at that point in time. It's a messy process, that unfortunately yields as many losers as winners. Are you seriously suggesting we should have instead backed Allende in Chile, Khomeni in Iran, or the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? I hope not--because I think you know better. And, no....there were no serious "third" options in either of those cases.


It's not about choosing the Shah, it's about not installing him as a puppet after he was already deposed for excesses of power. The same thing goes with Pinochet, who we installed because we feared the socialist policies of Allende, and then tacitly supported his assassination.

Furthermore, I don't think that supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was a completely off-base move--the problem came in the follow up, wherein we completely abandoned the area once we accomplished our short term objectives, and allowed the lowest common denominator to assume the power vacuum because that country had been destroyed and we (despite aiding in the war) completely ignored the reconstruction.

Far too often we've allowed ourselves to be guided by Machiavellian foreign policy (supporting Saddam against Iraq, giving him the wink to invade Kuwait, arming Iran to fund the Contras), and we are reaping the consequences of that policy.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 12:51 PM
I think you're misinterpreting who I'm advocating helping. You aren't going to convince Al Qaeda operatives to tolerate the United States, but if the US did more to provide for support among the poor and disadvantaged in Muslim countries, you would subvert future terrorists from becoming terrorists.Support among the poor and disadvantaged in Muslim countries? How do we decide they deserve a priority over, say African or SE Asian nations in similar circumstances? Foreign policy is about priorities; decisions about priorities are never easy...but often necessary, with unforseen and unknowable "consequences"--except in hindsight. ...It's not about choosing the Shah, it's about not installing him as a puppet after he was already deposed for excesses of power. The same thing goes with Pinochet, who we installed because we feared the socialist policies of Allende, and then tacitly supported his assassination. So, allowing Khomeni to take power without any opposition would have been preferrable? :spock:

In the Pinochet case, it was simply a choice between the lesser of two evils in my mind. There was no good choice. And we still screwed it up, yes. The people of Chile continue to pay the price for that "victory" though, don't they? ...Furthermore, I don't think that supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was a completely off-base move--the problem came in the follow up, wherein we completely abandoned the area once we accomplished our short term objectives, and allowed the lowest common denominator to assume the power vacuum because that country had been destroyed and we (despite aiding in the war) completely ignored the reconstruction.Once again, priorities; we can't be all things to all peoples at all times. Should we have been more involved in helping during their struggles? Perhaps. Or would that, too, have been seen as meddling....and would have precipitated the Taliban backlash sooner than happened? Far too often we've allowed ourselves to be guided by Machiavellian foreign policy (supporting Saddam against Iraq, giving him the wink to invade Kuwait, arming Iran to fund the Contras), and we are reaping the consequences of that policy. We are not a land or people of unlimited resources. Prioritizing resources and activities is a contant struggle. A wink to invade Kuwait? I don't consider it as such, no matter the (what I consider to be) revisionist history that is applied. Funding the Contras....seems to have, in the end, worked out okay though. As for sowing the seeds of Iranian hatred through that process.....that ship had sailed. We were, what, 4-6 yrs from the Hostage Crisis....certainly, no lucid Iranian would have expected anything less.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 02:29 PM
Support among the poor and disadvantaged in Muslim countries? How do we decide they deserve a priority over, say African or SE Asian nations in similar circumstances? Foreign policy is about priorities; decisions about priorities are never easy...but often necessary, with unforseen and unknowable "consequences"--except in hindsight. So, allowing Khomeni to take power without any opposition would have been preferrable? :spock:

In the Pinochet case, it was simply a choice between the lesser of two evils in my mind. There was no good choice. And we still screwed it up, yes. The people of Chile continue to pay the price for that "victory" though, don't they? Once again, priorities; we can't be all things to all peoples at all times. Should we have been more involved in helping during their struggles? Perhaps. Or would that, too, have been seen as meddling....and would have precipitated the Taliban backlash sooner than happened? We are not a land or people of unlimited resources. Prioritizing resources and activities is a contant struggle. A wink to invade Kuwait? I don't consider it as such, no matter the (what I consider to be) revisionist history that is applied. Funding the Contras....seems to have, in the end, worked out okay though. As for sowing the seeds of Iranian hatred through that process.....that ship had sailed. We were, what, 4-6 yrs from the Hostage Crisis....certainly, no lucid Iranian would have expected anything less.

Re--the Revolution
You do realize that the Shah was originally deposed in 1953, and that US re-installed him after this? Khomeini wasn't even politically active against the Shah until the 1960's. I'm talking about a wholly different time frame, and perhaps if we had let him originally GTFO and STFO, you wouldn't have had an Islamacist revolution in its stead to the degree that the '79 Revolution was.


Re: Aid to the ME--
I never said that the ME should take precedence over other countries. If you are a Muslim, how would you feel if the largest single source of US aid in the entire world is Israel? What have they done to deserve so much more than other countries? These decisions are the ones I take umbrage to.

Re: Allende and the Contras--
You seem to be adhering to a Cold War mindset that all things socialist are bad. If the governments are democratically elected, as the Sandanistas and Allende were, what right does the US have to install a puppet dictator simply because he agrees with their ideals of a market economy.

That is precisely the line of thinking that reinforces the idea of the United States as a hypocrite and a bully.


It's not that the Contra process was sowing the seeds of Iranian hatred, it's that it displayed the Machiavellian desire of the US to let other nations destroy themselves for its own short term gain. That doesn't do a good job of fostering diplomacy.

And if you are going to funnel a couple of billion into Afghanistan to let the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets, don't you at least bear some responsibility to help that same society, since you decided to get your paws into it? We helped break that society, we should bear some of the responsibility in helping to rebuild it, and had we done so, and I say again--you wouldn't have had the lowest common denominator assume power.

Iowanian
05-29-2007, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry this woman lost her son.

I think her marraige probably ended because of that stress, combined with the fact that she's batshit crazy.

Its unfortunate that she hasn't been concerned about her surviving children's well being more over the past 2 years of Shennanigans.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 03:57 PM
Re--the Revolution
You do realize that the Shah was originally deposed in 1953, and that US re-installed him after this? Khomeini wasn't even politically active against the Shah until the 1960's. I'm talking about a wholly different time frame, and perhaps if we had let him originally GTFO and STFO, you wouldn't have had an Islamacist revolution in its stead to the degree that the '79 Revolution was.Of course I realize that Shah's regime goes back into the 1950s--a period when the Eisenhower Doctrine worked at keeping communists out of Greece, Turkey, and other parts of the Mediterranean....and, yes, from encroaching on the oil fields of the ME. In the end, it worked though. Is Iran an unfortunate "consequence?" Yes, to some degree; but until Khomeni came along, keeping communists out of the region was definitely our foremost priority--and in the Cold War, an appropriate one. It's too bad we stayed wed to the Shah as long as we did, it is true; but the Iranian people's embrace of Khomeni (and the role of radical Islam in ME politics,) appears in retrospect to have been...unfortunately...inevitable. Re: Aid to the ME--
I never said that the ME should take precedence over other countries. If you are a Muslim, how would you feel if the largest single source of US aid in the entire world is Israel? What have they done to deserve so much more than other countries? These decisions are the ones I take umbrage to.As our staunch, most-steadfast, and important ally in the region during the Cold War, I do believe it was warranted. Once again, it becomes a question of priorities. When Israel's very existence was threatened by hostile neighbors at every border, we DID the right thing then. Your argument is more compelling today....I'll concede. However, given the Arab attitudes and actions toward the U.S.....I'm not sure why they'd expect anything out of us. Re: Allende and the Contras--
You seem to be adhering to a Cold War mindset that all things socialist are bad. If the governments are democratically elected, as the Sandanistas and Allende were, what right does the US have to install a puppet dictator simply because he agrees with their ideals of a market economy.

That is precisely the line of thinking that reinforces the idea of the United States as a hypocrite and a bully.So the brutal tactics and suppression by Allende and his ilk, along with suspect and corrupted elections don't matter? Who the puppet dictator was....depends on which side of the fence you sit.... It's not that the Contra process was sowing the seeds of Iranian hatred, it's that it displayed the Machiavellian desire of the US to let other nations destroy themselves for its own short term gain. That doesn't do a good job of fostering diplomacy."The enemy of my enemy is my friend...." makes for strange bedfellows in politics. It's less a Machiavellian desire....than a Darwinian maxim in diplomacy. After the hostage situation, we owed Iran nothing....as long as they remained under Khomeni. Other than covert activity and financing, which in retrospect....would, of course, have been seen as meddling and simply additional justification for their current psychosis. And if you are going to funnel a couple of billion into Afghanistan to let the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets, don't you at least bear some responsibility to help that same society, since you decided to get your paws into it? We helped break that society, we should bear some of the responsibility in helping to rebuild it, and had we done so, and I say again--you wouldn't have had the lowest common denominator assume power. We DID invest some money; but I guess it wasn't enough, eh? It was a modest investment on both ends, I'll concede....but to place any significant "blame" on the U.S. for Afghanistan's struggle....is simply beyond the pale to me. Were we in a position to help....perhaps. But no more so than in hundreds of other places where we have had to say "sorry, but no."

Did we....have we....underestimated the contribution this has all had toward building resentment toward the U.S.? Yeah, probably. Did we....have we.....underestimated the psychotic and irrational and murderous impulses it would "inspire"? Maybe. However, the idea they would some how "hate us" less....than they (the ones who truly hate us) already do if we'd just been nicer to them? That is simply ludicrous in my mind.

To believe they'd hate us less, if we'd have been more charitable or somehow "fair" in our dealings....ignores the irrational and dogmatic hatred that is being taught every day to their children.

They have the financial means, if they (as a region) choose to deal with THEIR own problems. And only they have the means to educate their fringe and their fanatics away from this dangerous direction in their culture. Sure, we can....and, now, should try to assist in the ways we can. But this whole thing....of Islamic Extremism and hatred of America....will ONLY be solved from within.

If they think their lives suck now, wait until the rest of the world catches up with America....as the object of their hatred and scorn, and responds the same way we have.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 04:24 PM
Although we share different viewpoints, I've actually enjoyed this discussion with you. In many cases, we will have to disagree, but nevertheless, rep for your well-thought out and earnest replies :thumb:

Logical
05-29-2007, 05:59 PM
I'm sorry this woman lost her son.

I think her marraige probably ended because of that stress, combined with the fact that she's batshit crazy.

Its unfortunate that she hasn't been concerned about her surviving children's well being more over the past 2 years of Shennanigans.

Just curious how old are her other children? I tried to google it but came up empty.

PunkinDrublic
05-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Of course I expect this kind of post from a neocon keyboard commando who I sincerely doubt has ever had to sacrifice anything for his beliefs in his life.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 06:24 PM
Of course I expect this kind of post from a neocon keyboard commando who I sincerely doubt has ever had to sacrifice anything for his beliefs in his life.Seven years involvement in HS/College ROTC programs, during the national hangover from Vietnam. 1979-1986

Active duty U.S. Army Armor Officer, 4/68 Armor Batallion 1986-1990. Six years Army Reserve, 1990-1996.

Currently, I'm a teacher.

And you? :hmmm:

PunkinDrublic
05-29-2007, 06:38 PM
Seven years involvement in HS/College ROTC program, during the national hangover from Vietnam. 1979-1986

Active duty U.S. Army Armor Officer, 4/68 Armor Batallion 1986-990. Six years Army Reserve, 1990-1996.

Currently, I'm a teacher.

And you? :rolleyes:

I feel sorry for your students.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 06:40 PM
I feel sorry for your students.I noticed you cowered in not answering my question...

And you? Have you ever served? In any meaningful capacity? :hmmm:

FWIW, I'm conservative--but no Neo-Con...unless you don't know what the term means.

Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.

What can you do?
What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you do? (lose?)

Adept Havelock
05-29-2007, 07:04 PM
FWIW, I'm conservative--but no Neo-Con...unless you don't know what the term means.
[/i]

Didn't know you were a Tanker. Cool. Ever square off against a small-town sheriff and James Cromwell with your own Sherman Tank? :p

Could it be Punkin is confusing you with a (Thomas Dolby) N.E.O.-Con?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uIqtHKoSm68"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uIqtHKoSm68" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>