Saint Cindy demands US end occupation of New Orleans

[August]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

there's plenty of people making money off the war in iraq specifically, and the war on terror in general.

making money off the death of your own son vs making money off the death of other people's sons -- which is worse?

Who exactly is making money, directly, off the death of people sons?

[Torpedo Fodder]

Who exactly is making money, directly, off the death of people sons?

Sheehan certainly is: Remember that MoveOn.org are the ones funding her crusade, which she did not start until after they offered to finance her.

As for Sheehan being a headcase, consider that even before the "occupation of New Orleans" bit, she had opined that the war was fought on the behest of Israel, and that the US was waging a "nuclear war" in Iraq through the use of depleted uranium munitions.

[caspofungin]

1. she's misinformed, that's different from crazy.

2. re making money off the war -- not meaning it in any malicious sense, but there are plenty of businesses making a buck either by supplying the military, with equipment or services, or in the reconstruction arena. plus, the oil fields aren't exactly nationalized.

[Takeda Shingen]

Ms. Sheehan's rhetoric falls in the same category as that of John Horvath. That is, it remains so ridiculously off-base as to warrant no serious attention.

Regarding criticism of parents such as Ms. Sheehan: Personal loss does in no way guarantee the right to spout blatent falsities without fear of rebuttal. Sympathy always remains present for void in a life, but a foul is still a foul.

[caspofungin]

@takeda

you're right re Sheehan.

the right to spout blatent falsities without fear of rebuttal

-- there's a lot of politicians and media groups on *both* sides of the Iraq war debate that take that right for granted, though.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

there's a lot of politicians and media groups on *both* sides of the Iraq war debate that take that right for granted, though.

No doubt. What the US needs right now is a healthy dose of third-party politics. That, and to get Barbara Walters and Rush Limbaugh in a room together in hopes that they kill each other off. The world is not so black and white. (No racial overtone intended)

[Type941]

Originally Posted by August

Who exactly is making money, directly, off the death of people sons?

Eh.. Halliburton, Shell, etc, etc, all those getting the contracts in Iraq to rebuild and pump oil. helooo!

The whole administration has been making money on Iraq's oil every since the invasion. While certainly there are no conrete facts to prove this, I'd like you to prove the opposite. I see no way in which you can say that this administration and the companies that are related to it did not benefit from the war.

[mog]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

If you listen to GW, her son died to preserve her ability, her right, to speak freely. She's doing what she believes is right -- just because her opinion doen't coincide with your doesn't make her crazy -- or anti-semitic? where'd that come from?

No one is disputing her right to say what she is saying. It is simply being pointed out that most of what she is saying is demonstrably idiotic. She is clearly a very ignorant and naive woman being controlled by extreme left organisations who are trying to capitalise on her son's death.

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

Eh.. Halliburton, Shell, etc, etc, all those getting the contracts in Iraq to rebuild and pump oil. helooo!

The whole administration has been making money on Iraq's oil every since the invasion. While certainly there are no conrete facts to prove this, I'd like you to prove the opposite. I see no way in which you can say that this administration and the companies that are related to it did not benefit from the war.

Where i come from the burden of proof lies upon the accuser, not the accused. If you can't prove a postive then you have no right to arrogantly demand that anyone prove a negative.

Meanwhile you ignore a mother using her dead son to make money, espousing a "cause" he would neither believe in nor accept.

[Iceman]

I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.

:rotfl: I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me <.....LMAO :rotfl: ...and what else are soldiers supposed to do...they dig fox holes and make machine gun nests.

They are peacekeepers not garbage men...not oil clean up men....not grocery men....not housing construction...they are the strong arm.

Occupying...lol...we only occupy places that have oil for us to steal cause we are greedy Americans and that's what we do.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

If you listen to GW, her son died to preserve her ability, her right, to speak freely. She's doing what she believes is right -- just because her opinion doen't coincide with your doesn't make her crazy -- or anti-semitic? where'd that come from?

That's what I said: "crazy" and "antisemitic".
I am sorry for her son, but since she decided to step into the public arena, attack the President and U.S. policies, we are free to criticize her opinion and her behaviour.
I standfor all the bad things I've said about her

Originally Posted by Abraham

Disgusting, nuts, fake, crazy, lunatic, anti-semitic, certifiable for 100%... are words that come to my mind.
Poor woman...

Yes, I think somebody who claims

Originally Posted by Cindy Sheehan

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

is crazy, and saying - I don't have the quote but heard it repeatedly - that the U.S. is fighting the Iraq war for Israel smells like Nazi propaganda (The Allies were fighting WW II for International Jewry, remember?) and Islamo-fascism (The Israeli's organised 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Beslan and what not).

[Skybird]

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power."

With the exception of NO beeing an occupied zone I find her demands both reasonable and most honourful. Obviously she has learned the lesson about the event's under Bush's rulership. and NO: just wild guessing, but after having lost a son a mother may be excused from reacting a bit allergic to the sight of troops in towns inside her own country. It could be a simple human flaw, a psychological misstep,, the message of it simply is : pull out troops of NO and occupied Iraq. I also wouldn't read too much into this detail. And even if she said and meant it, her basic attitude still finds my respect and acceptance. Bush has messed up much more severe things and has radioed plenty of more idiotic word games millions of Americnas have taken as the third testament, and he is rightfully attacked by her for that. She reminds her nation that things were not as perfect as most residents prefer to see in recent years, that'S why she is hated so much.

BTW, she also finds plenty of support in American's opinion. This kind of audience just has not such a big lobby in this forum here.

As one reader in the comments section of her blog wrote: "I agree! We must pull our troops out of New Orleans as soon as possible and address the root causes of poverty. We must ask ourselves, why do they hate us?". - But America keeps on thinking it is below it's honour to ask the latter question, and cleans any critizism off the table by simply labelling such critizism as greed and envy on the american way of life. Continuing to walk in complete ignorrance and blindness, as recently seen during the UN summit where it enforced more than 750 changes to the original resolution and made sure that nothing, really nothing was left of the original idea to strengthen the UN; and at the same time and location trying to play the emotional card again by endlessly talking about war on terror and ignorring that it'S own behavior has motivated more men than ever before to join the leagues of terror, it hits and strucks at everyone it does not like and then wonders "Why do they hate us so much? Why do they look down on us?". That's why it is triggering "unexpected" (I say: to-be-expected) hostile reactions time and again. Cindy S. is reminding her countrymen of the flaws in their own system and indirectly tells them that their inner deficits as well as their international behavior may have something to do with the lacking respect for the US.

[August]

Wow Skybird agrees with Cindy Sheehan, now there's a suprise...

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Skybird

... just wild guessing, but after having lost a son a mother may be excused from reacting a bit allergic to the sight of troops in towns inside her own country. It could be a simple human flaw, a psychological misstep, it even could be a misquote, the message of it simply is : pull out troops of NO and occupied Iraq.

Don't try to excuse her, it's her own quote on her own site and she leaves it there. And why is she allegric to US troops in towns in her own country? Her son himself was a professional soldier! If Bush wouls recall US troops from Iraq she might even see more US troops in her own country...

Originally Posted by Skybird

I find her demands both reasonable and most honourful.

I don't have to get into exploiting your own sons death for political reasons, buas far as her argument is concerned; everybody (except hardcore AAs) agrees that the immediate withdrawl of US troops out of Iraq would bemost shameful towards the Iraqi's and the U.S. coalition partners and would reflect extremely negative upon the position of the U.S. in international politics. Running away from a battlefield during a fight is also contrary to the American mentality.
Am I glad we have a different line of reasoning and a different sense of honour...

[Type941]

[quote="August"]

Originally Posted by Type941

Where i come from the burden of proof lies upon the accuser, not the accused. If you can't prove a postive then you have no right to arrogantly demand that anyone prove a negative.

What a load of crap. Are you serious?

Ok, let's say I saw Michael Moore's 'documentary' (MMoore imho is a dispeakable guy who wants nothing good for America and is dangerous because all he wants is a war with Saudies, imho) - and the hidden camera on the dinner of the powerful businees people looked convinving enough when from Bill Gates to others lesser known they kept gloating about how rich they will be. To me that looked awful.

So prove me now all of the never took place. You can't that's the thing, and all you'll keep doing is coming up with stuff like :
" If you can't prove a postive then you have no right to arrogantly demand that anyone prove a negative.". Who said this?? WHo said you can't demand to prove a negative. Guy, give me a break. This isn't some moot court competition.