President Bush Visits Fallen Soldiers' Families

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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".

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.

[capsicum]

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.

[yabanci]

please post under your real screen name. Thanks.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by capsicum

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.

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.

Originally Posted by capsicum

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?

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?

[capsicum]

[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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by capsicum

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.

[Loren]

omg i LIIIIKE you tooo MrBigglesworth :o :o
as for Cindy, umm I know Id rather hear about her than the family who lives near me who had their 17 yr old killed over there and are constantly having parties, and trying to get as much as they can from the news media and local businesses..God-forbid someone try to get answers from our president..

[st.cronin]

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.

[capsicum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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....

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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?

[Loren]

capsicum, I think the US govt started into this war because they figured it WOULD make them look good, and because we want everyone to be like us(oh and dont forget the oil )...but yeah it didnt quite work out like that, and all we're doing over there now is simply making a bigger and bigger mess,while more citizens of Iraq die and while more of our citizens die. They insist it was to make the world safer, and because of weapons & terrorism, yet those have been unfounded soo WHY shouldnt we all ask what they're REAL reason was, it obviously wasnt to make things BETTER, because they're NOT doing it soo the answer you give doesnt fit
whoever said the statement about women in Iraq, umm Saddam was pretty liberal as far as women were concerned, although HEY now that he's gone female circumcision has started back up really nicely:O..yayyy...mmmm good times ahead..
maybe we're just not THAT nice Jesse...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by capsicum

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....

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.

[Loren]

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...

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[TroyF]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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.

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).

[duckman]

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

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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).

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.


....

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

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.

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.

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.

[Raiders Army]

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.

[capsicum]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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).

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?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.