I don't honestly think it's in the US's (or anyone's now that Iraq's been invaded/conquered) best interest to pull out.
This is just so much as theatre, but I think Gilligan's been abusing his power and been derelict in his duty as President.
If the states voted to impeach, I'd have to say thanks on behalf of the rest of the world.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Sheehan fails to recognize she has embarrassed herself and her son to the nth degree. I thought she gave up protesting a few weeks back after losing support among Democrats, now she's going to run for political office?
Protesting is fine and dandy, but using your deceased son to get political attention is deplorable.
I don't buy that argument. Simply because I hear politicians exploit ALL the soldiers every day.
---
John, that's a crock and you know it.
Sheehan's son was sent to Iraq and there was not one iota of reason behind those orders except that the President had a vendetta to settle and profit by.
If you want the explanation, post again, I'll lay it out good and simple. BTW, impeaching Bush would be the very best thing that's happened during his presidency. Unlike poking an intern and lying about it, he's actually breached laws and cost lives.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I was referring to the way Sheehan has used her son to become the face of independent Iraq war protesting. If she wasn't holding up a picture of her son every time she protested, no one would care, she might get a local article, but she'd be just another protestor. If she had a legitimate gripe like her son's death was a result of negligence, then I'd see where she was coming from, but griping about the Iraq War just because your son was killed during it just isn't the right thing to do. Putting a memorial in his hometown or just taking time to remember all the good times they had together, those would be productive and honor his memory. Claiming her griping is for her son is deplorable, it does nothing but put her in the spotlight and cast her as a hysterical mother.
I admit invading Iraq may not have been the best idea but, at the time, it was not such a bad idea. I'm relatively certain no one wanted Saddam in power especially with his attitude towards those who opposed his policies. And I know I'm going to get bombarded for saying this but I could easily see him having a relatively large stockpile of weapons. Whether they were of mass destruction, we'll never know, but Saddam having a large stockpile of weapons will never be good for anyone except Saddam. What I'm saying is Saddam being in power was not helping anyone. Sooner or later, he was bound to try something like extending the Iraq borders. It's obvious there was a vendetta but it killed two birds with one, Saddam was taken care of, both for President Bush and the free world. And you can't just pull out of a country after ousting its leader, there would be anarchy much worse than there is now.
But I would like to hear exactly why Bush should be impeached, just a bit of curiosity I guess.
For impeachment: He's been overstepping Presidential authority on several occasions, I'd rattle off a list, but First and foremost: sanctioning of torture of prisoners and extraordinary rendition in relation to gaining confessions from suspected "unlawful combatants", as well as the use of Signing Statements that basically stated in pretty unequivocal language that the Executive branch would NOT follow the letter or spirit of the law passed even though it is bound by US Titles to follow the rule of law as passed by Congress and Senate. Basically, signing statements have never been accorded the power of ruling out the portions the president doesn't want to follow, they're basically a memorandum of thanks or request for clarification on the language at most. If you couple that with the disproportionate tax decreases, breaking of federal balanced budgeting laws (how you go from a $5 trillion surplus to a 4 trillion defecit... and not at least hold the line on taxes is just beyond me) in the absence of a declaration of war (also bare in mind, the US hasn't been to war since Korea)... there's more. To put it simply: every president since the articles of impeachment were introduced has been accused of conduct worthy of impeachment, but in the case of the GW Bush administration, there has been thousands of lives lost, and abuses of power. Clinton was impeached by a partisan congress, but Bush has Republicans getting ready to have him skewered... this is the kind of thing you saw with Nixon.
Sheehan has her Son's picture, because it's proving the point. It's like every Republican between 2001-2005 using the words "Nine-Eleven" at every single possible instance in order to re-victimize people that are too short sighted or hard of remembering that 2001/09/11 could have been prevented had Dubya read and followed his daily intel briefings. Sheehan is using her son's image to show that the cost of the Iraqi war isn't just dollars and cents, but American's lives, and there's no real positive outcome the way things are going now. She's turned him into a symbol, and a lot of people use that kind of motivation to effect change, and when you couple that with channelling her grief into pushing for change, then you have the makings of a formidable woman. She's not hysterical (as in freaking out or breaking down in front of cameras everytime one pops up), but she's pretty well rooted and passionate about her cause. Her son was killed in a war of aggression that she doesn't support... thats what you need to focus on.
As for invading Iraq, it's really simple: No WMD found, No links to international terrorism, No reason to invade. The
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) basically stated that the US-led coalition in 1992, had done its job and had destroyed the overwhelming majority (I think the order of 98-99
of Iraq's Chem/Bio/Nuclear weaponry. Iraq was clamped down so tightly (remember, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the south had US presence, Jordan and Syria in the west were co-operating with the UN in exchange for increased oil revenues through Iran, Iran has a standing vendetta against Iraq and has nuclear capability, and Turkey in the north is a NATO ally) it wouldn't have been possible for the standing Iraqi army to make a move without several nations' militaries (that were ostensibly far better armed and prepared) going on alert to repel borders. Saddam's WMD threats were basically bluster, the reason for keeping up the ruse was because Iran had been rattling sabres at Iraq for about 10 years since the end of the war between the two, and the only way to keep them at bay was the illusion of grand stockpiles: basically Saddam considered Iran to be the more immediate threat. The deal with the weapons inspectors was to keep the UN tap-dancing and stave off compliance for as long as possible.
The problem is that Iraq posed no threat to the USA whatsoever (at least, no more threat than a dozen other Banana Republics around the world).
The make-believe WMD's, and the equally dubious "intel" supporting their supposed existence was found to be a sham by German and British sources, but Dubya knows best I suppose... he knows when to ignore pertinent intelligence (September 11, 2001), and when to act on known false intelligence (Iraq Invasion). The big thing about the intel from Iraq was that there really wasn't much coming from Iraq... After Desert Storm/Desert Shield was completed, the Balkans had broken down to factionary fighting, and the world basically let Iraq shift to the back-burner with minor incidents.... Most intel was sketchy and at best sporadic.
Either way, my thought is that pulling out is going to be a bad strategic move. A failed state like Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorist and fundamentalist groups, and that's not going to help anything. I think that the best way to handle Iraq is with international co-operation, or at the very least doubling the US presence (and short-cycling the deployments to keep fresh bodies in the mix) and leaning on the local government to actually start making a constitution and creating a set of laws that all will be governed by.... and getting a standing military, effective police, government organizations up and running. That's the best way to honour the dead, Americans and Iraqis... Make the country a livable place.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I've always considered Sheehan's whining to be the stupid wailing of a woman who understands nothing about manhood. We're all going to die anyway, what does it matter if it's sooner than later? To die in war is a hell of a lot more noble than to slowly croak as a drooling incontent mess in our old age.
We've regressed a long way from the old Spartan mothers adage of: "Win the war or die my son."
I bet if her son had died saving the rainforest she'd be the biggest Conservative on the planet right now. Holding vigils in front of Greenpeace. Having photo ops with Bush.
Disgusting.
Her son died for nothing... Well, a pack of lies and innuendo, and one guy's ideals of imperialism.
If you're not outraged, you haven't been paying attention.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I say let her run. Once she gets past the one and only issue she really cares about I think the democratic process will eat her alive. Also wouldn't that make it 2008? Isn't there suppose to be a change in command then?
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Her son died for nothing... Well, a pack of lies and innuendo, and one guy's ideals of imperialism.
If you're not outraged, you haven't been paying attention.
Being a soldier means you never question the war, just like being a cop means you never question the law. It's not your place to do these things. The public can complain all they want, it's all irrelevant to a soldier. His job is to a) stay alive, b) accomplish the mission. Dying in a stupid war, or dying in a worthwhile war doesn't matter. You're still dead. There's no difference.
Not to mention that U.N. sactions designed to starve Iraq killed over 1.5 million people in Iraq (500,000 of which were children according to UNICEF) That's a lot more than are dying or have died right now in the war. So even if it's for bad reasons more people survive every day, and probably live better, than before.
Also, here's another sad fact: Everyone dies for nothing, everyone. The only exception is if you die while saving TWO lives. Save one life and that's just trading yours for someone else. Extremely noble, but if you look at it in purely mercenary terms the same amount of people died as if you'd done nothing. Or put it another way, someone's crying that night no matter what you did. Save two people and there's one more person on Earth that night making someone happy.
So no, I'm not outraged. The war has saved the lives of nearly 100,000 people a year.
Bullsh*t. You can question the Law, or War all you like, you do it quietly though... until your contract is up. Point of fact, I know a few police officers that actually disagree with the war on drugs because it's being carried out wrong... Same thing that I KNOW there's at least a few military that don't agree with the Iraq "operation" in principle or in part.
and if you had the choice would you not want to die in the pursuit of something worthwhile? I know that if it came down to it, and I had to, I'd rather die for the right reasons.
And saving the lives of 100,000 people, by killing just as many... I don't follow your logic.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Her son died for nothing... Well, a pack of lies and innuendo, and one guy's ideals of imperialism.
If you're not outraged, you haven't been paying attention.
Hmmm...from what i heard...he volunteered for a rescue mission, died allowing others to escape and live. Sounds like a F-in hero to me.
That whiney bitch mother of his crying about her loss, thinking only of herself and not the others who lived because of his sacrifice, has degraded his memory. I think its hialrious how the Libs used her as a public face, then ditched her when they had what they wanted...silly twit actually seems to have believed their BS. GUESS WHAT....politicians are all the same, doesnt matter what label they ride under.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
I meant in the overall scheme of the war. A war without a founded basis is another name for a powergrab.
The fact that she's still making news is note worthy.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Knoxfire wrote:
Being a soldier means you never question the war, just like being a cop means you never question the law. It's not your place to do these things. The public can complain all they want, it's all irrelevant to a soldier. His job is to a) stay alive, b) accomplish the mission. Dying in a stupid war, or dying in a worthwhile war doesn't matter. You're still dead. There's no difference.
Not to mention that U.N. sactions designed to starve Iraq killed over 1.5 million people in Iraq (500,000 of which were children according to UNICEF) That's a lot more than are dying or have died right now in the war. So even if it's for bad reasons more people survive every day, and probably live better, than before.
Also, here's another sad fact: Everyone dies for nothing, everyone. The only exception is if you die while saving TWO lives. Save one life and that's just trading yours for someone else. Extremely noble, but if you look at it in purely mercenary terms the same amount of people died as if you'd done nothing. Or put it another way, someone's crying that night no matter what you did. Save two people and there's one more person on Earth that night making someone happy.
So no, I'm not outraged. The war has saved the lives of nearly 100,000 people a year.
I agree with Knox here. We can't have soldiers questioning the war, at least not the point of not doing their jobs. Our military is strong because they are men of duty, not politics.
---
It happened in Vietnam (Conciencious objectors, and deserters) and that was about as messed up as it could get in the era. Now with Iraq, you have a lot of people that see it for what it is, and just get along/go along with it to make the cash and grab the extras, and hope they don't get shot at, and you have people that truly think (despite all evidence to the contrary and next to none in agreement) it's their duty, and then there's others that are there because they're honoring a contract don't want to let their squadmates down.
Either way, if they don't agree with it, they're not obliged to say anything.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
