President Bush Visits Fallen Soldiers' Families
 

Long read but it's worth it:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/

Cue Bush haters in 3, 2, 1...

Their last album was shitty.

Smooth operator.

He's still married to Gwen Stefani, no?

I think this is a long needed change in the administration's PR strategy. I think that Bush's attempt to look resolute by not acknowledging the casualties was probably interpreted as indifference.

Whether or not these meetings have been going on all along, it's a good thing that they are publicly acknowledging it.

I also like that they are now easing off restrictions on showing flag-draped casket pictures. It is important for the American public to know that there is some cost attached to foreign policy decisions...

I'm really not sure why this was posted, other than to say, 'Bush doesn't have to give a reason for war, he meets with the families of the dead soldiers all the time.' This story talks about Ft Bragg, which was months ago, at least. This is an obvious rebuttal to Camp Casey, but Cindy Sheehan does not want to be comforted. She wants an answer to her question of why her son died, and for what.

My question is, what changed since the last time Cindy Sheehan met with the President after her son died?

She is going through the stages of grief. It's sad to see her being taken advantage of by political/media groups

Is she being taken advantage of, or is she using it to her benefit?

I sympathize with her grief though I can't fully understand, not having a comparable situation to compare to it. I also am no fan of the war and the President's actions in leading us in to it. But I'm also puzzled by her stance, and have somewhat of a hard time sympathizing with her quest to meet with the President again until I hear from her exactly what has changed since her last meeting with him. Until that point, I can't help but feel she's using the media circus around this to make a political statement that cheapens her son's sacrifice.

It's sad to see her becoming an attention whore over her son's death. She is clearly irrational, and needs professional help. I am not making a partisan statement here - just an observation.

She knows the answers to all of the questions.

She doesn't "like" the answers. She doesn't "agree" with the answers.

No answer would satisfy her.

People who haven't lost loved ones disagree with the answers as well. They dislike the logic and the thought and keep repeating a question of which they'll NEVER find an acceptable answer.

As for the article, it's the same old, same old. The people who support Bush will say it shows that he truly does care. These are visits he doesn't have to make and by all accounts he hasn't turned these into media moments. The anti Bush crowd will make the statements that say this is a false gesture or any number of other excuses.

I support the Iraq war. Have from the start. I don't support everything GW has done in office. The fact he's visited family after family isn't surprising to me though. I think he does genuinely care for other people.

:rolleyes:

This was posted because I thought it was nice that President Bush visited some of the families of fallen soldiers. Please take that at face value.

I believe she's said that she's never received an answer to the following question: For what "noble cause" did Casey Sheehan die?

This is, of course, a rhetorical question and in fact her protest is basically a rhetorical question writ large. Bush & Co., can (& do) trot out numerous answers to this question, but in general they fail to satisfy the now 50+% of the country that doesn't think the war was worth the sacrifice.


I disagree with this strongly. If my brother dies in Iraq, but because of his sacrifice and that of his fellow soldiers the U.S. eventually adopts a less-interventionist, less-aggressive, less-insane foreign policy, then his sacrifice will not be in vain. If my brother dies in Iraq, but nothing changes with regard to U.S. foreign policy and Iraq becomes a radical Shiite Islamic republic where women have less rights than they did under Saddam and terrorists are free to operate, then his sacrifice of his life, and my family's sacrifice will have been in vain.

I appreciated the original post and I agreed with your original intention. I didn't intend to respond, but I guess some people can't help themselves:




Bullshit.

I've provided well-sourced argument after argument about why invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do from a global standpoint, a realpolitick standpoint, a strategic standpoint, and a militaristic standpoint. No one here has successfully refuted these points, and Bush & Co certainly haven't either.

Lay off being a condescending prick for a second and realize that this is not a viewpoint based on emotion. I was against this war long before my brother was even close to being deployed. This is a viewpoint based on facts and an understanding of global security issues.


When do you enlist?

Agreed.

And every time someone posts an anti-Bush article, I have to put up with the "Cue Bush apologists in 3, 2, 1" bit. I finally had a chance to say it back. Sorry that offends you when I do it, but not when the left-wing crowd does it.

And my brother has done a couple of tours over there, so it's not like I don't have a stake in this, either.

Was this intentional comedy?


Edit: I want to say that I appreciate the posting of the original article as I had not read it. I think it's impossible for Bush to meet with Sheehan again considering the political ramifications, but I agree with those who have said that they like the fact that he is at least displaying some kind of emotion about it now.

People who haven't lost loved ones disagree with the answers as well. They dislike the logic and the thought and keep repeating a question of which they'll NEVER find an acceptable answer.

Maybe, just maybe, just maybe one F'n time an anti war person won't be so damned sensitive.

There was nothing in my post saying you didn't have logical reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq. There was nothing in my post that said you didn't have solid ground to stand on. There was nothing in my post that was slanted for or against people on either side of the damned arguement.

It was a post saying that Bush can lay out his reasons and YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THEM. Do you get it? Not that you don't have reasons for refusing that logic. Not that you don't have the right to hold those beliefs. Not that you are idiots for holding them.

Only that you will never understand the logic or reasoning because you are on the opposite side.

On second thought, nevermind, your partison reading of my post is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make.

It doesn't offend me. If you want to perpetuate the partisan sniping, have at it.

I understand, but to be fair you're leaving out other possibilities - if your brother dies in Iraq, but eventually due to his and his fellow soldiers' sacrifices that country emerges as a relatively stable democracy/republic that serves as an example for the region, then will you say he died in vain? I'm not at all certain this experiment of the NeoCons will work, but I have to consider the possibility. I still think we didn't need to go in when we did with as little support from our traditional allies and the UN as we did, but I'm not convinced there isn't a worthwhile goal in the war, even as fucked-up as the process was for selling the country on it. I do blame Bush for the number of lost lives in the sense that had he done a better job of selling the war, the burden of sacrifice wouldn't fall so heavily on the USA but would be spread among more allies.

Regarding Cindy Sheehan, I'd have a lot more sympathy to her protest if she hadn't already had a meeting with the President. Obviously her question is rhetorical, and she probably won't get an answer she likes if Bush were to acquiese and consent to see her again. If she were to drop the pretense of needing to meet with Bush and simply pose the question to the country "For what cause did my son die, and is it worth it?" then she'd have a legit statement to make.

Not at all. Prick I may be, but I'm absolutely serious about the question.

People are dying and an entire region of the globe is being destabilized. I apologize if I can't be blase about this like you can.



I understand the logic behind Bush & Co's NeoCon strategy for Iraq. I just think it's misguided and based on faulty misconceptions and bad misjudgments.


It's this kind of thinking that gives us right-wing talk shows.


Yes, nevermind attempting to defend your position when you're clearly not up to the task.

Hey Kettle, you're black.

Yes, nevermind attempting to defend your position when you're clearly not up to the task.

What task exactly? To prove to you why the war is a good thing?

I'm not in that arguement. You cannot and will not be convinced of that. I'm giving you credit, you've read the same things I have and you've came to a different conclusion. Fine. We agree to disagree. I'm not going to try to swing your opinion. Nor did I ever attempt that in my post.

Your comment about how you understand the logic behind Bush & Co's NeoCon strategy says it all. You think the logic is faulty and the judgements are bad.

On an internet message board, in a post of 500 words or less, I have about as much chance of changing your mind as the Bears have a chance of winning this years Super Bowl.

Which is why I didn't try. The original post was not an attack on the right or the left. Yet you found a way to turn it into that and are now making insults about my intellect when I NEVER attempted to justify my position on the war to you.

This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't get involved in a political thread I suppose. It's going to turn into a flame war no matter what you do or how much you try to tiptoe through the minefield.

Not at all. But you have to understand that I think the chance of that happening is exceptionally small.


That's fine, but I disagree. I've explained my point of view at length in other threads and I'm not going to rehash my understanding of the situation here.


One, I believe that's exactly what she's doing. Two, posing rhetorical questions in a media-saavy manner is what war protests are all about.

Make sure to tar yourself with the same brush on your way out.

Well, to be more precise, people were dying there before, it's just that it's U.S. Soldiers dying as well as Iraqis. Also, I would argue that you don't know that the entire region of the globe is being destabilized. Only time will tell whether a democratic Iraq will be more stable for the region or less.

[rant]I hate the fact that only deaths from suicide bombers, IEDs, etc. make the news. Why don't journalists report the good as well as the bad? Because it doesn't sell. The ramifications from this are two-fold. First, the families of those over there are more anxious than they probably should be. Second, the media wears on the people's will to see this through (whether it was right or wrong that we should've gone to war is a moot issue; we need to see this through now for the good of the region).

To put this in perspective, as of August 16, 2005, there were 1,850 soldiers and civilians (like DoD civilians) killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. While any soldier death is a tragedy, it is still a small percentage of the total soldiers that have been there. There are currently about 160,000 soldiers in Iraq. We can conceivably estimate that the total number of soldiers who have been in Iraq (counting multiple deployments, though) is around 480,000 soldiers. That means that we can estimate that 0.385% of the soldiers who go there get killed.

What about the wounded? There were 14,021 wounded as of August 16, 2005. Some were RTD, some weren't. The ones who were able to return to duty within 72 hours were RTD. The non-RTD soldiers numbered 6,759. That is an additional 1.4% to the 0.385% of soldier who were killed.

Believe me, I'm not trying to downplay the sacrifice of the soldiers who lost limbs or were killed. I'm also not trying to say that it's okay to lose soldiers. But what I am saying is that the media is putting the war in the "so many soldiers are dying" light.

It's interesting because I talked about the media with my wife this weekend. She told me that it was on TV all the time once the war began, then tapered off after a few weeks. I didn't know, because I was over there. Anyhow, it seems as if the only things that make the news are when soldiers die or there is something negative. To the contrary, I believe that there are a good many good things going on over there...some people refuse to believe it.[/rant]

If you say this now, why then did you write this:



Hey now, I think we all have great faith in Jeff Blake.


Oh? Why post this, then:


I took this to mean that you felt anti-war folks are guided by their emotions and have no understanding of logic. Was this not your intent?

I certainly agree with your well-spoken comments about the media.

However, while it's certainly valid to call for more coverage of the good that's being done in Iraq, I still think this needs to be put into context. And here's the context: the security situation isn't improving; the political process is now little more than a series of Sunni-Shiite showdowns; the Iraqi security forces are nowhere near being ready to provide security for the country.

These are big issues, and they show no sign of being resolved soon, if at all.

I took this to mean that you felt anti-war folks are guided by their emotions and have no understanding of logic. Was this not your intent?

The intent of the first line was simple. You will not find an acceptable answer. There isn't one that exists. You have made up your mind. You have your reasons. There is no more logical debate possible. It's very simple, I'm not turning you. There are wordsmiths much more brilliant than you and I who have written both for and against the war. I believe the guys who are for it, you believe the guys against it.

How hard is this to figure out?

As for the second comment you question, the anti war person comment, take it however you want to. As usual, you missed the post. Reread the quote: The ORIGINAL post was not an attack on the right or the left.

I was wrong though. I grouped people and I shouldn't have. There are a certain faction of the left who take everything as an insult. You've proven to be one of them in this thread.

No. I've examined the arguments and the facts and decided (quite a while ago) that invading Iraq was not the best option. I made this decision on my own.



Your original post characterized Cindy Sheehan in a negative manner, and then continued on to tar those who share her position with the same brush. If this was not your intent, then perhaps you should have worded it differently.


:rolleyes:

When you're unable to successfully explain or defend what you've written, it's best to attack your critic instead?

I'm completely baffled by your posts flere.

My original post did NOT characterize Cindy Sheehan in a negative manner. It simply said she knows the answers to her questions, she just doesn't agree with them. Are you really going to disagree with that? Is she or is she not asking a question that she'll never find an acceptable answer for?

That isn't putting her in a negative light, it's stating the obvious. Furthermore, I didn't go on to paint anyone in a negative light after that. I said the article would be characterized by Bush supporters one way and his critics in another. That's all.

Perhaps I wouldn't have to "defend" what I wrote if you had read the thing with a non partison eye to begin with. I stand by every word I wrote above and would not change anything I typed in that first post. You appear to be the only one who took it as an attack on the left.

And yes, I examined the war from my own standpoint as well. I read countless books and studied it intently. That study started after Kuwait and continued through there. I guess with you I have to word everything perfectly because you can't figure it out if I don't do otherwise. I'll try this one last time:

You have well thought our arguements that support your beliefs. You have researched and studied all the factors and feel you have made the correct decision. You have probably read articles and editorials from people who can turn a phrase far better than I could who were for the war. They haven't altered your opinion in the least. I don't think that opinion will be altered by me writing a five paragraph post on a front office football board. To even attempt such an endeavor would be not only a waste of my time, but a waste of yours.

I've done the same research and reached a different conclusion. I won't be convinced by your arguement. Were we to have one, the odds are about 99.9999% that we'd both walk away thinking we won the debate when neither of us would have done a thing to convince the other one of a single issue.

As it is, this is an asinine debate. If you took what I wrote to be offensive to the left, I don't really have anything more to say than what I've wrote above. I think you are stretching to find something to whine about. Have fun.

Let me be straight with you Troy, this is the initial problem:


Usually when someone uses quotes like that they do so to indicate an ulterior motive on the part of the person to whom they are referring. This is because the use of quotation remarks is usually a written analogue to the use of "air quotes" when one is speaking. And the use of "air quotes" when one is speaking about the view of another is to deride and discredit the other speaker. See The Daily Show, The O'Reilly Factor, et. al.

If you were not aware of, or did not intend this usage, then I retract any comments I've made accusing you of painting Cindy Sheehan in a negative light. Simple as that.

Having said that, your further replies make me doubt the depth of your impartiality on this subject. You may say that you'll agree to disagree, but then you follow that up wtih personal attacks. It's not an easy thing to reconcile.

So, for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your portrayal of Cindy Sheehan and retract my comments that had you painting her in a negative light. However, I'm not so sure you're willing to live and let live with the anti-war crowd. My impression is that you feel there's something inherently wrong with us. Alternatively, it may be just that you dislike me in particular. That's OK, I can live with that.

People who support the war also feel that their viewpoint is based on facts and an understanding of global security issues. You don't think we have proven our point, and likewise we don't think you have proven yours. It's not personal, it's just that we disagree on something which is very polarizing...there isn't any middle ground on this issue.

I was FULLY aware of what I was doing. I was stating fact. She knows the answer as to why went into war. She doesn't like that answer. She doesn't agree with it.

It's that simple. Tell me I'm wrong on any of that. Please, make a case to me that Cindy is truly clueless about the answers she's seeking. Her problem isn't that she's seeking an answer, it's that she doesn't like or agree with the one given. That's fine, it's her right. But to paint this as some mother who is just looking for an answer is wrong.

Do I feel there is something inherently wrong with you? No. I completely, 100% disagree with your viewpoint. Period. I think you are wrong. Just as you think I am. Olliegirl said it pretty well above.

I wonder what your reaction would have been to my comments if I hadn't clarified my position. Just take out the last line of my original post and tell me if you still think it was an attack on the left. Tell me if you could have determined my side or if I even had a side.

I don't deny this.


I think it's becoming personal. Much like with Vietnam, more and more Americans know someone directly affected by the war, which could be anything from a death to a self-employed Guardsman who lost his livelihood when he got deployed for 18 months.

That's not to say there isn't common ground. My personal feeling about someone vary greatly between a person who continues to support Bush without question and feels invading Iraq was the best thing ever, all the way to someone who supported the war initially and may still support our presence today but in the meantime has become disillusioned with the way it has been executed and by the actions of the Bush Administration.

Needless to say, there are posters who run the gamut on FOFC.

You can answer this yourself, especially as in my last reply to you I pointed out that my initial problem lay in your first few lines, not your last.

Will she care to tell the rest of the population then? Because I don't know why we went into Iraq. I have my theories, but I don't know. Do you know? I bet if I ask you and ten other people, I will get 11 answers. It's obvious that WMD's were used to sell the war. But for what reason did it need to be sold?

It's sad state of affairs in this country when passive protesting is irrational, warranting of professional help, and subject to being called an 'attention whore'.

What changed? Nothing. The change is a fabrication by the Conservative slime machine:
hxxp://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

I assume now that you no longer "feel she's using the media circus around this to make a political statement that cheapens her son's sacrifice".

flere-imsaho

You wax very poetically about your brothers great sacrifice. My family also has an immediate family member in Iraq at the moment "A brother, A son ". His stance and the stance of this family is that its a job worth doing. Not once in all of your postings have you mentioned the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people of Iraq murdered before this war started. Not to mention all the people tortured daily. Nor have you mentioned the Torture chambers and meat grinders found in the prision systems. Would you still believe it is a wasted effort if you had a loved one incarcerated in one of those prisions under the former ruler? For nothing more then a traffic violation? Or how about if you had a loved one that was khurdish and the government was trying to exterminate them from existance? Do the women, children and grandparents of other countries mean so little to you simply because they cannot claim our AMAZING country as their homeland? If not us...then who else? I did not need WMD's to justify this war. Simple compassion for humane lives is all. I think 11 years of warnings and comprimises was way to much. If I have any disagreement at all its with not having done this when the first Bush was in office. He should have stood his ground. I am proud of the men and women overseas serving their countries...not just the americans but ALL of the soldiers and workers over there. I stand in AWE of them and all the hard work they do. I am sure you love your brother....try loving someone elses.

Now c'mon, they were just fraternity pranks! A couple of bad apples in Saddam's old regime!

But seriously, we may have gotten rid of Saddam, but it is looking increasingly likely that we will leave a civil war in our wake, along with the tens of thousands already dead. Not really a good trade.

On the whole, I feel very sorry for Cindy Sheehan, but I think once you get a public relations firm involved, you're no longer "passively protesting".

Vacaville is less than 20 miles from where I live, and Sheehan has been covered on many occasions both on TV and in the local newspapers here since her son was killed. I think it's safe to say that I knew of her and her position on the war long before most of you ever heard of her. Whatever you may think of what she is doing, she has consistently been against the war all along. Any suggestion that her position has changed is a lie.

MrBigglesworth,

Well Duh
Thats why we shouldnt pull out prematurely. . besides premature withdrawl is ALWAYS a bad idea...just ask your wife...

A job worth doing is worth seeing finished. No there will never be a complete end to terrorism, I realise this. But turning the other cheek while atrocites are committed is not an answer.
Just ask the Jews that were tortured by Hitler in those death camps, do you think any of them wish America had stayed un-involved?

Try doing a search. I've already answered all of your points.

Passive as opposed to the violent and/or obstructionist tactics of groups such as Operation Rescue.

A strong argument can be made that the White House is currently the most powerful public relations firm. I'm not denying that Bush didn't have any of the meetings that were in the article. I'm a bit curious as to the way it was written. There was no timeframe mentioned as to when these meetings occurred, and it is, to me at least, a bit questionable as to why the WH is drawing attention to them now while there is someone camped out at the door of the western White House. It is almost as if the article was released to discredit Cindy Sheehan a bit.

If anyone has earned the right to express their opinions on the war, for or against, I would think a parent that lost a child in the conflict ranks pretty high up there. Agree with them or disagree, they've paid a pretty high price for that opinion.

flere-imsaho
Read all that drivel again? Im not a masochist, just a realist and a Proud American. Im proud of our countrys ability to act when needed, of our President who is able to stand up and take action, despite facing the crtisicms of people that lack the stress and emotions of being in his position day in and day out, or have the benefit of 20--2o hindsight vision in order to fuel their arguments or justify their lack of compassion. George W. Bush is not by any means a "perfect" man or even a perfect president but I believe he is compassionate and is doing his best, which is all we can ask of any president. Sincerly.

please post under your real screen name. Thanks.

To further your analogy, we have been pumping in Iraq for over 2 years now, and it is getting raw and dry. Eventually there comes a time when you realize that nothing else is going to happen and you just have to fake it and move on. Things are not getting better in Iraq, there are no more corners left to turn.

All else being equal, I'm sure that everyone would prefer Iraq being just like the US rather than how it was under Saddam. But that is a fantasy. The current draft of the constitution has half the population being more repressed than they were under Saddam. Daily killings are higher than they were under Saddam. Entire cities have been leveled. I'm not so sure that we are able to leave it better than we got it.

What is the plan to bring together 3 distinct ethnic groups in a state with arbitrarily created political lines?

[quote=MrBigglesworth] The current draft of the constitution has half the population being more repressed than they were under Saddam. Daily killings are higher than they were under Saddam. Entire cities have been leveled. I'm not so sure that we are able to leave it better than we got it.



The daily killings are higher? visit many mass graves in Iraq before the onset of this war to count up the number of casulties?

And yet again you are obviously forgeting the entire cities of khurdish people that were bombarded by chemical warfare while under saddams rule...


To "qoute Spock, "The good of the few does not outweigh the good of the many"

All people are precious.

Entire cities? I think you are referring to Halabja. Estimates to the number of people killed there are anywhere from a couple hundred to 5,000. A terrible tragedy, and a horrible thing. But let's put that into perspective. The war in Iraq has killed approximately twenty to thirty thousand Iraqi civilians. It's estimated that the sanctions against Iraq have killed 1.4 million people. And it is now looking like there will be a civil war that will kill countless others.

In terms of foreign policy/Iraq I've been very much pro-Bush, but I think Cindy Sheehan's protest is incredibly potent and effective, because it attacks the administration at their weakest point: They have never made much of a serious effort to explain why war in Iraq is a good thing for the US. I would like to see Bush and his team try; I think the reasons are compelling, and I think if laid out properly, Americans will find them compelling as well.

Im sorry I really dont understand why people ask the question "why is the war in Iraq a good thing for the U.S.?" Does it have to be a "good thing for the U.S...if its the right thing to do?" Is turning the other cheek and ignoring acts of genocide, ok if its not Benneficial to the U.S. ? Do families and people have no meaning or worth outside of the United States If they dont in someway benefit this country?? As americans we are basically a melting pot of people from all nations, and our birth here is nothing more the a lucky stroke of fate....

So when are we going to Sudan, Nigeria, the Congo, and the other twenty hellhole spots in the world? I mean, if that's the whole point is to stop the bad guys, right?

Well let me ask you a question, what sacrifices have you made for the people of Iraq? I'm sure that with your opinions you wouldn't give a second thought to putting your life on the line to 'help' the Iraqi's, but would you put someone else's life in the line for it? Can you look Gennaro Pellegrini, Jr. , a 31 year old cop and newlywed in Philadelphia who enlisted almost 6 years ago in the National Guard to protect the countr, in the eye and ask him to die for the people of Iraq? Because he did. He died last week after 8 months in Iraq, dead of a war he didn't believe in. And it appears that the best we can hope for is to turn a secular dictatorship into a fundamental theocracy.

And there is a limit to what can be done. As Jesse_Ewiak alluded to, at some point you run out of National Guard.

Aug 16, 11:36 PM EDT
Parents of Fallen Marine Make Plea to Bush

By JOE MILICIA
Associated Press Writer
CLEVELAND (AP) -- The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.
"We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out," Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, said Tuesday.
Schroeder, 23, died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion, one of 16 Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.
The soldier's father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.
"Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," Paul Schroeder said in front of the couple's home. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated."
Palmer accused the president of refusing to make changes in a war gone bad. "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out - he can't just let it continue," she said.
White House spokesman Allen Abney declined comment other than to refer to remarks Bush made last week.
At a news conference Thursday, the president said: "Pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis. Our mission in Iraq, as I said earlier, is to fight the terrorists, is to train the Iraqis."
The Ohio couple have long opposed the war and tried to dissuade their son from joining the Marines, but have made their views public only since his death. On Tuesday they urged Americans to voice their opposition to the war.
"We want to point out that 30 people have died since our son. Are people listening?" Palmer asked.
More than 1,800 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in the war.
On Monday, dozens of people, including several holding large American flags, lined the streets leading to the funeral for Schroeder, known to friends and family as "Augie" based on his middle name, August.
"Yesterday, it was Augie's day and we didn't want to intrude upon his day with politics," Palmer said. "We have to move on and keep his spirit alive by helping to protect his buddies who are still out there."
The couple applauded Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has camped out in protest near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, for bringing the war to the public's attention.
"We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war," Palmer said.
On posterboards, Schroeder displayed photos of his son - being cradled the day he was born; a blond boy eating corn on the cob; and the last photo the couple received of him, smiling in uniform, holding a Pepsi can and a rifle.
Their son went to Iraq filled with optimism about the mission but gradually became disillusioned with the war's progress, his parents said.
"He said the longer it went on the less and less worth it seemed," Palmer said. "They're not doing the job right now. It's not the fault of the troops. It's the fault of the plan."
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Not sure if this was already posted somewhere, either way, it's kinda nice to see more parents speaking up, sad, but nice...they're definetly the one's who's opinions should be, not just heard but listened to...

I want to make sure I have this 100% straight. Are you trying to assert that because I'm not in the war, I cannot actively support it?

I'm really curious about this one. Does this apply to just this war or all of them? If I supported actions in Bosnia, did I also have to be active? I'm an active reader and there are a ton of causes I care about. From Tibet to the Sudan. I care about our homeless problem, alcoholism and education on Indian reservations. I even care about some of the animals across the world that are being hunted to extinction.

Am I not allowed to hold an opinion on any of it without putting my life on the line for them? What about reasons? If my medical history won't let me enlist, is it then OK for me to hold an opinion? What if I'm an 85 year old women?

And what if I cared deeply about the Iraqi people who were being raped, tortured, slaughtered and thrown into mass graves before this started? Since I didn't head on over before the war started or donate items I knew would go to Husseins cronies and not the people who mattered, did I not care about them?

And while I'm on compassion, since I support this war does it mean I have no feelings for people like the officer above? That I don't care about their families? The fact that I can read about him dying and still support the war because I think it's the right thing to do, does that make me heartless?

Is that really the case you are going to make? Because if it is, you'll be one of the few to ever hit my ignore list.

Not sure if this was already posted somewhere, either way, it's kinda nice to see more parents speaking up, sad, but nice...they're definetly the one's who's opinions should be, not just heard but listened to...

Loren,

I'd like to see more parents speak up as well. I'm curious as to how many support the war vs. not support it. My guess is a bigger majority support it, but that's just a guess.

I found it interesting that these parents were against in from the start. (as appears to be the case with Cindy in Texas) I'd like to know how many parents flipped. Meaning they supported the war until they lost a child in it. If you were against the war from the start, there is little doubt that losing a child will only reinforce that viewpoint.

It's sad that these troops have died. I hope we build a strong Iraq and these people didn't die in vain.

Have you ever heard of a 'strawman'? It is when someone makes up an argument that someone didn't make, or a wild version of the argument, then proceeds to attack that rather than the actual argument (i.e., setting up the strawman to be easily knocked down).

I'm curious what sacrifices MrBigglesworth has made since he support our troops so much. :rolleyes:

No, you asked the question in your post. I'll quote it:



Well let me ask you a question, what sacrifices have you made for the people of Iraq? I'm sure that with your opinions you wouldn't give a second thought to putting your life on the line to 'help' the Iraqi's, but would you put someone else's life in the line for it?

What is the implication of that statement? Don't start telling me I'm starting a strawamn argument when you are the one asking inappropriate questions to people.

Don't reply. On ignore you go.

So you're not going to answer the question? I ask merely for information.

Do you comprehend that someone else can look at the same facts, the same circumstances, and arrive at a wholly different assessment than you have? Because that is what Troy is talking about. You've looked at the facts, and come to a conclusion. So has he. There is nothing that either of you can say to each other that would make the other reconsider. That is what he was discussing when he said you couldn't understand the logic behind them. He wasn't being critical of your mental accumen. He was addressing the fact that those in Sheehan's camp are essentially convinced that the "dots don't connect". The same could be said for your assertion below.


You certainly haven't convinced me, and you probably wouldn't accept anyone's attempts to refute your assertions.

Note: Damn I thought I hit send on this message yesterday. Well better late than never.

I'd like to defuse this situation as much as possible, since it looks as if this thread is getting a little out of control (but, I sort of knew it probably would happen when I posted the original message). Here's a few things to think about:

1. I think that 99% of the members of this board have not been to Iraq.
2. Even the ones that have probably haven't seen all of what is going on over there.
3. Some of the "informed" ones have relatives or friends over there, but things can be exaggerated or misinterpreted.
4. Our only "reliable" source of information is the media. I've already stated what I believe about the media, which is the fact that bad news sells.
5. We can't judge the effects of our actions in Iraq until decades from now. To do so prematurely is entirely myopic.
6. Sacrifices don't need to be made on the frontlines. Help can be sent through care packages, emails, and other forms of support to soldiers. Obviously some sacrifices are bigger than others.

Just some stuff to think about as we sit here in the United States, half a world away from combat.

Mr Bigglesworth,

Are you by chance voluntering for the position as this discussions "strawman?" You see another definition of a strawman is someone who throws out a lame ass exuse to try and draw attension away from the fact that he has absolutely nothing constructive to add to the current discussion...no witty comebacks? Or were you rushing in order to make an argument for arguings sake, and didnt give yourself enough time to form an intelligent answer? Not to easily knock you down or anything but what part of your post was on topic with the current thread?

I'm not trying to be insulting here. . . which question? The one I quoted?

I think I've responded to that one already. I don't have to fight to hold an opinion on the war. I could go into detail as to why I can't personaly go into war if you'd like, but I don't really think it matters.

You can hold an opinion without putting your life on the line to do it. You can have compassion without getting actively involved. To think otherwise is idiotic.