• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cindy Sheehan Go Home!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
vergiss said:
And this isn't.

Seriously mate, give your period key a well-earned rest.
Matter of opinion, I for one feel the ultimate outcome will lead to a more secure America.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Get this very point through your head, argexpat. Politicians no matter what side they are on dont win wars. Soldiers do.
We won almost every battle in Nam but we lost the war. Politicians and politics are just as important as the soldiers. Winning battles doesn't necessarily convince the population that everything is alright and it's going to get better. You need politicians to manage the civilian side of things and keep the population on your side. It's not enough to just win battles, you must also win their hearts and minds.
 
scottyz said:
We won almost every battle in Nam but we lost the war. Politicians and politics are just as important as the soldiers. Winning battles doesn't necessarily convince the population that everything is alright and it's going to get better. You need politicians to manage the civilian side of things and keep the population on your side. It's not enough to just win battles, you must also win their hearts and minds.
You've basically made the other guy's argument by saying indirectly that the soldiers did their job and politics screwed them, one reason politics screwed them is because just like Iraq, the media focused on the bad for whatever reason, be it ratings, sensationalism, bias, or appeasement of the anti-war movement.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You've basically made the other guy's argument by saying indirectly that the soldiers did their job and politics screwed them, one reason politics screwed them is because just like Iraq, the media focused on the bad for whatever reason, be it ratings, sensationalism, bias, or appeasement of the anti-war movement.
I thought his argument was that soldiers alone won wars. They win battles but winning wars is more complicated. South Koreas politicians screwed themselves and the U.S. didn't do a great job keeping the civilian population happy. Eventually the natives get sick of living in a war torn country. What good could the media focus on? War isn't happy fun time.
 
scottyz said:
I thought his argument was that soldiers alone won wars. They win battles but winning wars is more complicated. South Koreas politicians screwed themselves and the U.S. didn't do a great job keeping the civilian population happy. Eventually the natives get sick of living in a war torn country. What good could the media focus on? War isn't happy fun time.
Fair enough, but consider this, you can't win a war if you don't win battles, thus, the soldiers are mainly responsible for winning any given war, politicians don't really win wars, but they sure as hell can lose them. Actually, there is an exception, HST won WWII by dropping the bombs, his decision sped up the process of the Japanese surrender and saved countless American lives.
 
Missouri Mule said:
This is one of the great lies of the left. We won the war decisively. The Viet Cong were utterly destroyed. What happened was that the Democratic/Liberal/leftist cabal in Washington decided to cut the legs out from under the fledgling South Vietnam government. Thanks to Uncle Walt (Walter Cronkite) we "cut and run" and the result was that the North Vietnamese overran the south. This was entirely due to the lilly livered and gutless Democratic congress.
Yes and 2million Vietnamese where slaughtered after our pull out.
 
"Eventually the natives get sick of living in a war torn country. What good could the media focus on? War isn't happy fun time."

Of course, people get sick of living in a war torn country, but Iraq is no where near war torn and it has only been over a couple years. Keep in mind that there are millions and millions of Iraqis. When you see in the news that an Islamic militant car bombed a civilian crowd and killed 20, you are dismissing that their are literally millions and millions of others that have had a great day. The same goes for an interview with a Sunni Arab, who misses the glory days of spitting on Shi'ites and Kurds while under Saddam's protection. There are millions and millions of others that do not share this sentiment. Where are their interviews? The success stories for Iraq far outweigh any tragedy.

1) There is electricity, pipe lines, water, sewage, power plants, constitutions, schools, bridges, roads and other such infrastructure being built daily.

2) There military is growing and is being trained. (Without nationalistic pride, we can only get to a certain point.) They are being equipped almost as well, but not quite as well, as the Israelis. Keep in mind that this is a Muslim state being treated just as good as our allies in Israel.

3) The Kurds - the greatest success story of the Middle East - has gone far and beyond our expectations for what we would like to see the Middle East become. If only a tragedy or two would fall on their northern lands, maybe our media wouold tell there story too. With their success, and even after we put a knife in their backs last year to appease a Sunni Mullah for the sake of a whole Iraq, they have decided to still be our friends and a part of the Iraqi government, because quite frankly, Iraq needs their wisdom.

Without going into exhaustive detail. There is plenty to talk about in Iraq, but people are not interested in this. They want to see blood, carnage, and failure, and the media is more than happy to sell their papers based on that.
 
argexpat said:
Who are these "liberals" you speak of? Are they like "the jews" and "the negros"?


Since you asked, the liberals I speak of are of our diplomatic "left" community - the politicians that so many liberal sheep follow behind feeding off of their scraps, and of Europe's selfish representatives.

The global Left never cared about the Iraqi people until they became American “victims.” As Saddam Hussein slaughtered more Muslims through campaigns of oppression and wars of aggression than any tyrant since Tamerlane, the Left remained silent. But now that Saddam himself might face the death penalty, Leftists everywhere are wringing their hands at the thought of an impartial court or such injustice.

Where were they when the screams of torture victims pierced the prison walls under Saddam? Where were the celebrity journalists when Iraq’s mass graves were being opened over the past fifteen months? Where are the reports of the fierce joy of the Kurds, free at last, free at last?

Where was the Left as the Sudanese government conducted a campaign of genocide against the wretched of the earth in Darfur Province? Oh, yes, there were a few crocodile tears—but where were the demands for intervention?

Where are the campus demonstrations against that great liberator, Robert Mugabe, who destroyed Zimbabwe, terrorized its people—and is using scarce reserves of food as a weapon while his citizens slowly starve?

Where is the American Left’s sense of justice in the face of European anti-semitism? Of course, the spreading hate-crimes against Jews, synagogues and cemeteries are all Israel’s fault…that’s been explained to us.

Then where are the protests against the corruption and repression used as tools of control by the Palestinian Authority? The self-respecting Leftist whispers, “It’s their culture…” As are suicide bombers, no doubt.

Why doesn’t the Left complain about the hate speech spewed in mosques and madrassahs around the world? Are calls to exterminate Jews and butcher Christians just “part of their culture,” too?

When will we see mass demonstrations demanding rights for women in the Islamic world?

Where is the Left’s passionate sense of humanity when Islamic extremists behead the innocent—and videotape the event, to the glee of the Muslim world? Of course, those decapitations are really America’s fault…we’ve driven them to it, you see.

The truth is that our Left is so intellectually decrepit, so infected by dishonesty, so morally feeble that it has only breath enough to condemn American actions. No matter how many injustices are committed by oppressive and tyrannic men—it doesn’t count unless you can blame America. The American Left is the worst of the lot. They are out of ideas, out of morals and out of simple decency. All they can do is to shout, lie and pretend to care about those American citizens (our troops, inner-city minorities, and the average working man and woman) and American “victims” - for whom they don’t give a tiny shred of a damn.

If I'm bigotted to anything it is not to a race or of a country. It is towards the global left and the Sunni terror that they unwittingly protect. Are we clear?
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Where is the ignorance, did we occupy all of Vietnam? We lost the war because a vast majority of hard working tax paying Americans were sick of sending their sons off to fight in a war for nothing. You dont want to answer my post, because you know I am right.

Ignorance? Ignorance is either the lack of knowing or to ignore. Don't ignore a Democrat President who's own Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamarra, told his boss "we can win this war if we do this" and then when they had mishandled the war for years, turned his back on that very President and told Congress he couldn't agree with what was going on. What was going on? What he had done was what was going on and he turned his back on his own troups. I was one.

That left those famous words "Therefore, I will not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party to be your President (approx)."

We, the troups on the ground, were willing to do what was necessary in Vietnam. The media still portrays the Tet Offensive as a victory for the North Vietnamese but those were my years and we kicked their butts. That was one of the best times for us because the enemy came out to fight and found us waiting. If Lyndon Johnson would have listened to his military advisors instead of a mush like McNamarra, Vietnam would have been different. As to Victory or Defeat? If that was what McNamarra wanted, he wasn't the right man to decide. Nixon was elected to get us out and so we have the outcome we had.

If you go along with Cindy Sheehan or the likes of Joe Biden who want to tell the world and the terrorists the day we will pull out then Casey Sheehan will suffer the dishonor all soldiers would suffer. We should stay until the Iraqis can insure their own security which would be the purpose of our going in the first place. That would honor our commitment to those who now have democracy and those who gave everything they had to provide it.

I've listened to Cindy; looked at her as she talks. She has nothing to do with the memory of her son except her unconditional love and personal grief at his death. I doubt neither. I give her that with no strings attached. I've dealt with death all my life and a mother losing her son is as strong as it gets. Others have lost sons in Iraq and in this for war/against war media event the majority oppose Cindy; the mothers and fathers of lost soldiers oppose her in the highest percentage. The rest of us are just opinionated.

It's time for the media to allow Cindy to go home or do as the New York Times does with information favorable to the other side; put her on page 18.
:duel :cool:
 
Gordon Travels writes
We, the troups on the ground, were willing to do what was necessary in Vietnam. The media still portrays the Tet Offensive as a victory for the North Vietnamese but those were my years and we kicked their butts. That was one of the best times for us because the enemy came out to fight and found us waiting. If Lyndon Johnson would have listened to his military advisors instead of a mush like McNamarra, Vietnam would have been different. As to Victory or Defeat? If that was what McNamarra wanted, he wasn't the right man to decide. Nixon was elected to get us out and so we have the outcome we had.

One of my heroes, Thomas Sowell, once wrote of a high ranking Viet Cong officer who, years after the fact, admitted that we had them badly beaten with the Tet offensive and they were ready to throw in the towel. What kept them fighting on were the television images of burning American flags and draft cards and angry protesters uttering expletive deletives against the president and the military. The outcome was certain--the Viet Cong would have been destroyed--had we not pulled our punches and eventually just quit, leaving many thousands of our South Vietnamese allies to a fate worse than mere death.

Criticism of the president, government, and even military policy is valid, honorable, and 100% American and I engage in it as often as anybody. But when we have boots on the ground in harms way in a combat zone, we should not think for a minute that anti-war, anti-administration, anti-military rhetoric does not give aid and comfort to the enemy and does not put that military personnel at higher risk. Those who support the troops will not engage in it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Gordon Travels writes


One of my heroes, Thomas Sowell, once wrote of a high ranking Viet Cong officer who, years after the fact, admitted that we had them badly beaten with the Tet offensive and they were ready to throw in the towel. What kept them fighting on were the television images of burning American flags and draft cards and angry protesters uttering expletive deletives against the president and the military. The outcome was certain--the Viet Cong would have been destroyed--had we not pulled our punches and eventually just quit, leaving many thousands of our South Vietnamese allies to a fate worse than mere death.

Criticism of the president, government, and even military policy is valid, honorable, and 100% American and I engage in it as often as anybody. But when we have boots on the ground in harms way in a combat zone, we should not think for a minute that anti-war, anti-administration, anti-military rhetoric does not give aid and comfort to the enemy and does not put that military personnel at higher risk. Those who support the troops will not engage in it.


Excellent post. But as always this wisdom (and factual recounting of the history) will go in one ear and out the other ear of the left. They are evidently incapable of understanding anything except their own propaganda. I've tried to understand their thinking and the only thing that makes sense is that they still haven't gotten over the fact that their side lost the Cold War.
 
gordontravels said:
What this report or most of the media don't tell you is that Cindy Sheehan has already met with President Bush privately and when she was interviewed after that meeting she praised the President, said he was a compassionate man and had no war protest on her lips. What is different now?

What's different now? Her son is dead.

BTW, all that font stuff is way over the top, it doesn't make you more noticeable.
 
HTColeman said:
What's different now? Her son is dead.

BTW, all that font stuff is way over the top, it doesn't make you more noticeable.

The difference is in the effect this kind of thing has on the public psyche and the morale of our troops who need to know that the American public is behind them 100%. Sheehan has allowed herself to become a pawn of the radical anti-war Left and is being funded and goaded into being their poster girl. It dishonors her son because it attempts to discredit his purpose and mission and in effect declares him a fool for doing it. And it increases the risk for every other mother's son who is still there.

Somebody on this thread said it best. Paraphrased it was something to the effect that our guys over there won't quit and the enemy knows it. But the enemy knows they win if they can just make the American citizens over here quit. Inexcusable tactics such as the Left is using with Ms. Sheehan is aimed for that very end.

I won't condone it. I think no American with his/her head in the right place will condone it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The difference is in the effect this kind of thing has on the public psyche and the morale of our troops who need to know that the American public is behind them 100%. Sheehan has allowed herself to become a pawn of the radical anti-war Left and is being funded and goaded into being their poster girl. It dishonors her son because it attempts to discredit his purpose and mission and in effect declares him a fool for doing it. And it increases the risk for every other mother's son who is still there.

As her son was just killed, I don't think she is worried about the rest of Americas reaction, and she isn't the first to react this way. A father on the Dallas News (I don't remember what station) looked at the camera and asked Bush what did his son die for? I don't blame them for their reaction as they have every reason to react this way.

Somebody on this thread said it best. Paraphrased it was something to the effect that our guys over there won't quit and the enemy knows it. But the enemy knows they win if they can just make the American citizens over here quit. Inexcusable tactics such as the Left is using with Ms. Sheehan is aimed for that very end.

Oh yes, the big bad Left is scheming with the terrorists to destroy America. Sheehan isn't thinking for herself, there is no way because true Americans don't think that way...wrong! People who consider themselves "left" are just as much American as you, America is not conservative, they are not your enemy.

I won't condone it. I think no American with his/her head in the right place will condone it.

I am American, I am sane, I condone it. You have no right to define "American".
 
HTColeman, you built so many strawmen into that post, I don't even know where to start. I have to get to work now, but I'll get back to it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
HTColeman, you built so many strawmen into that post, I don't even know where to start. I have to get to work now, but I'll get back to it.

*Stab* the pain! *Stab* AAAH! *Stab* You got me, you really got me!

In all seriousness, that is not an argument, just an attack that doesn't really work.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Somebody on this thread said it best. Paraphrased it was something to the effect that our guys over there won't quit and the enemy knows it. But the enemy knows they win if they can just make the American citizens over here quit. Inexcusable tactics such as the Left is using with Ms. Sheehan is aimed for that very end.

I won't condone it. I think no American with his/her head in the right place will condone it.

Reag my signature....
 
AlbqOwl said:
Gordon Travels writes


One of my heroes, Thomas Sowell, once wrote of a high ranking Viet Cong officer who, years after the fact, admitted that we had them badly beaten with the Tet offensive and they were ready to throw in the towel. What kept them fighting on were the television images of burning American flags and draft cards and angry protesters uttering expletive deletives against the president and the military. The outcome was certain--the Viet Cong would have been destroyed--had we not pulled our punches and eventually just quit, leaving many thousands of our South Vietnamese allies to a fate worse than mere death.

Criticism of the president, government, and even military policy is valid, honorable, and 100% American and I engage in it as often as anybody. But when we have boots on the ground in harms way in a combat zone, we should not think for a minute that anti-war, anti-administration, anti-military rhetoric does not give aid and comfort to the enemy and does not put that military personnel at higher risk. Those who support the troops will not engage in it.

Well I'll repeat something I always say. We fight for the right of people here to protest just as we fight for freedom of other people. We always have. I think it shows the other side the difference. If someone wants to protest the war then they should.

Cindy Sheehan is asking for something she has already had, a meeting with the President. Since that meeting she is nothing but a mouth for the left and if I were the President I would go on with what he is doing and the way he's doing it.

Go home Cindy, you've been used enough.
:duel :cool: lil weird
 
HTColeman said:
What's different now? Her son is dead.

BTW, all that font stuff is way over the top, it doesn't make you more noticeable.

Sorry but her son was dead before she met with the President. Her turn to the left came after that meeting, a meeting the President requested.

As for the font stuff. Sorry again but your opinion, although important, doesn't have anything to do with Cindy. If you don't like my presentation then use the lack of noticing me to skip my posts. It won't kill me. Will it?
:duel :cool: lil weird
 
gordontravels said:
Sorry but her son was dead before she met with the President. Her turn to the left came after that meeting, a meeting the President requested.

Didn't realize, but her "turn to left" (you make it sound like she converted to the darkside) is her option and her opinion

As for the font stuff. Sorry again but your opinion, although important, doesn't have anything to do with Cindy. If you don't like my presentation then use the lack of noticing me to skip my posts. It won't kill me. Will it? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]:duel :cool: lil weird

However, as you started the thread, skipping your posts would kind of defeat the purpose of a debate. But keep your font, it was just a suggestion, I'm sure you keep the font just to irk people.
 
gordontravels said:
Well I'll repeat something I always say. We fight for the right of people here to protest just as we fight for freedom of other people. We always have. I think it shows the other side the difference. If someone wants to protest the war then they should.

Cindy Sheehan is asking for something she has already had, a meeting with the President. Since that meeting she is nothing but a mouth for the left and if I were the President I would go on with what he is doing and the way he's doing it.

Go home Cindy, you've been used enough.
:duel :cool: lil weird

You contradict yourself in the same post, you say that everyone should be able to protest a war, but you say that Cindy should go home because she is protesting the war.
 
HTColeman said:
You contradict yourself in the same post, you say that everyone should be able to protest a war, but you say that Cindy should go home because she is protesting the war.

He is saying that it is LEGAL(her protesting abilities), but it not MORAL(her thoughts are agenda driven and not purely dealing with the loss of her son).

Just because you're ALLOWED to protest does not stop one's opinion that the protest in particular is asinine...
 
I don't agree with any of you:

I don't think there is any "darkside" infered to being on the left. There's two sides and sometimes more to every issue. Free country? Freedom of expression? I never have any problem with that.

The font thing is not intended to be anything but the way I post. Please, don't get over it or let it stop you from agreeing or disagreeing with the debate. That would certainly irk me.

No contradiction here except your understanding and misunderstanding. Your understanding that I say anyone should be able to protest a war is absolutely right. Free country? Freedom of speech and expression? However, your reading my words to say that she should go home and not protest the war isn't what I said. Hate to contradict you but I said, "Go home Cindy, you've been used enough." The rest is up to her.

And cnredd? I said nothing about anyone's morals and wouldn't use anything of the sort as far as the right of someone to protest anything from the War in Iraq to animal cruelty. I'm sure some part of Cindy's protest is completely believed by her but, I think she should go home. She has been used enough. Read my tips (fingers).
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
I don't agree with any of you:

No contradiction here except your understanding and misunderstanding. Your understanding that I say anyone should be able to protest a war is absolutely right. Free country? Freedom of speech and expression? However, your reading my words to say that she should go home and not protest the war isn't what I said. Hate to contradict you but I said, "Go home Cindy, you've been used enough." The rest is up to her.
:duel :cool:

I don't want to pursue the font debate b/c it accomplishes nothing, I'm sure we can agree there. So I skipped on to this part.

If I don't understand, could you make it clearer? Are you saying she should go home and protest the war? What do you mean by "Go home Cindy" if you don't think she should quit her protests?
 
HTColeman wrote
*Stab* the pain! *Stab* AAAH! *Stab* You got me, you really got me!

In all seriousness, that is not an argument, just an attack that doesn't really work.

It was not intended as an attack, and if you took it that way I apologize. It was intended to indicate I felt your comments to be rebuttable for reasons not the least of which were the strawmen analogies that you used. I still have real life duties elsewhere, but I'll get back to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom