Cindy Sheehan

[water boy]

:::Cindy Sheehan:::

 

 

 

 

 

She was a mother of a soldier that was stationed in Iraq, until her son/soldier Casey Sheehan, died. And then, she decided to camp herself outside The President's cabin, in Texas, with her supporters.

She has gained publicity since then, from CNN to Your local news channel.

 

 

She has stirred a mixed opinions about the situation:

 

Some say that she has a right to grieve in any way she wants, so if she wants to protest, let it be;

 

Some say that there are other mothers who have lost their son, but they never complained about it.

 

What are your opinions about her? Do you think she is right? Do you think it is Ok to protest, just because her son died?

 

 

My opinion: I think Cindy sheehan should go home with her supporters. When you go into the army, you're going in knowing that you have a fair chance of dying, especially in enemy territory. Then her Mother complaining, because of her son's death, to the president, is wrong. Should a car accident's mother go to The President, complaining about how the goverment should enforce better traffic control and stricter rules? Should anyone sue and blame the president for the death of anyone? There are millions of people who had their loved ones die. Cindy Sheehan is not an excepiton. She shouldn't get any special treatment.

 

And as I said, when you go into the army, you should know that you have a fair chance of dying. That is as if you carry a loaded handgun into a police station and not expecting to be arrested.

 

 

 

 

What are your opinions about her?

 

[just another thug]

She has a right to be there. That's why she is still there. If she wants to protest the war, then that's fine. I'm not to sure that she needs all the media, but that is what she wanted.

[Hugef1]

I think she has every right to protest considering the war was illegal and shouldn't have happened.

[jheath]

She has the right, and she should feel free to exercise it. Here's why:

 

Point 1: We *all* have (or at least should have) a right to peacefully protest *any* policy

 

I am deeply disturbed by the implications of water boy's question. I am disturbed by the growing attitude I see nowadays of "because of the terrorists, we should just put faith in our leaders, and do whatever the government tells us." More and more people believe that questioning the President is heresy, and protesting is outright treason. The irony of that attitude is that democracy is all about questioning the leaders. Concepts like "public accountability" and "elections" are meaningless if people dare not criticise and oppose.

 

Being free to question and peacefully protest isn't an expendable perk of democracy; it is the fundamental basis of that system. The attitude of "don't protest, just obey" is better suited to a monarchy, where power is derived from a Divine Right of kings. For all Bush's talk about our freedoms coming from God, the Divine Right is the diametric opposite of "government for, by, and of the people." Our forefathers understood this; we increasingly do not.

 

Many love to talk about how much they love their rights and freedoms, but how well can they understand the meaning of those words when in their next breath they declare that those of the other polical camp should hold their silence? Plurality and opposition are what makes a democracy work.

 

Point 2: The fact that others died does not diminish her right to protest

 

water boy implies that "just because her son died" isn't a good enough reason for Ms. Sheehan to protest, since it is somehow diminished by the fact that others have died. Actually, the exact opposite holds true. The fact that thousands of Americans have been maimed and killed through a series of decisions by the government makes it all the more important to examine and question those decisions. Without the detractors and the protestors, that process of examination simply won't take place. I'll leave my own opinion about the invasion of Iraq out of this; my point is that it is important for citizens to hold their government to account for its actions, especially when the security of the nation and the lives of servicemen are involved.

 

 

[Captain Chronic]

 

 

 

 

Have any of you heard about Debbi Dunham? Gloria Salazar? Sandy Watson, or any of the overwhelming majority of parents who lost their children, yet support the president and our efforts in Iraq?

 

I'll answer for you . . . No, you haven't -- and you won't. The media elites have what they want and that is why in just the past two weeks more than 22,000 features on Cindy Sheehan have been rammed down our gullets in the press and on radio and TV (Lord knows what is on the Internet). 22,000!

 

Sheehan and her propagandist allies better walk softly should they cross paths with a MCM (Marine Corps Mom) or MOM (Mother Of a Marine). They feel her pain but would never dishonor the memories, beliefs, and sacrifices of their fallen children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrassKnuckles]

Wait, Captain. How again is Cindy Sheehan dishonoring the memories, beliefs, and sacrifices of their fallen children? By asking why?

[Eviscero]

She already met with Bush once. She didn't put up a fuss that time. Now that the liberal elite have recognized this opportunity for a spectacle they turned her into a big fat tool and steered her to make a big stink for everyone to sympathize with. It's a crying shame too because it's a terrible thing to lose your son, but it's even worse to have it taken advantage of. Supremely shameful is to go along with it.

 

 

If you look at the things she says, she looks like a big dumb idiot. Cindy Sheehan, former mother of military soldier turned political activist and foreign policy adviser? Yeah, okay.. I guess since she lost a family member (again horrible thing) she's qualified to make world rattling decisions? Or not.

 

 

“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,†Sheehan declares.

 

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny…you give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we’ll put this war on trial.â€

 

“And now I’m going to use another ‘I’ word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.â€

 

 

 

Yeah Cindy. We'll take America out of Iraq and see what a nice place it becomes. Don't mind the prematurely trained police forces and half written constitution. Don't mind the chaos and immense terror and hell that would arise without the American presence there which is the only stabilizer. Dumbass. And don't worry the f*ck about Israel and "Palestine". I'm sure she's a master of middle eastern civil studies and all, but I think she should really keep her grieving mouth shut about such things right about now.

 

And that's brilliant. "My son volunteered for the army, died knowing full well we were going to war and there was a significant chance of death; but I still don't think I should have to contribute to this country's finances anymore." That's great Cindy. We'll just eliminate taxes for anyone who lost a relative..friend...neightbor..acquaintance... f*ck, let's just eliminate taxes because we can all read the news and see someone has died. Better yet, let's eliminate taxes AND the army. Then nobody would die, right?

 

And on impeachment, you ignorant mouthpiece, you have to commit an American crime to be impeached. Go back to California with your liberal propaganda and nonsense and grieve like a normal human being without making a mockery of your son's death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dublo 7]

She has a right to be there. That's why she is still there. If she wants to protest the war, then that's fine. I'm not to sure that she needs all the media, but that is what she wanted.

I agree. Its her business if she wants to protest.

[Lethal.Ambition]

What she is failing to understand is that if it were not for many brave soldiers who have lost their lives in wars, she wouldn't even be able to do what she is doing now - protesting about the government and it's actions.

 

My two cents. Whatever they're worth.

[Eviscero]

Enough of this "She has the right to protest whatever she wants" bullsh*t. You have the right to say 2 + 2 = 5 but that doesn't mean you should..

[Otter]

You have the right to insult someone's opinion and equate it to something as idiotic as 2+2=5, but it doesn't mean you should.

 

However, seeing as how there's no way in hell Bush will stop this war, she can always come live up here in Canada if she doesn't want to play by his rules.

 

I'm sick of this story myself; but not because I find no value in her opinion. I'm sick of this story because it's old news already; and because the story has become a lightning rod for polarized opinions to attack each other.

 

And Cindy needs to understand that joining the army means joining the army. It's not a bloody day-camp where the director is responsible for everything that happens to your child...

 

HE enlisted. Despite this stupid war, he died of his own accord.

 

[tehhunter]

Enough of this "She has the right to protest whatever she wants" bullsh*t. You have the right to say 2 + 2 = 5 but that doesn't mean you should..

Actually, you should consider the fact that her son is now dead because of the actions of the administration. No doubt a soldier takes a risk when signing up for the military. However, QED (and I'll gleefully demonstrate again), her son died for a war without a reason. At first it was dangerous weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was going to use against us. Then, it was the mass murder of the Kurds, though 20-something years late for a pre-emptive strike. Now, it is to free the Iraqi's from their tyrannical opression of Saddam. The point of all this is that you can't simply change the focus of a war at a whim because you suddenly realize, "Oh, the entire reason we came here in the first place is moop"; it just doesn't work like that.

 

Now, if this was a war with a reason, a la World War II, there could be a reason why her son died: halting the fascist regime of Hitler and his manical dreams of worldwide aryan supremecy or avenging Pearl Harbor. But, simply 'freeing' the Iraqis (and I use that loosely, as I'll explain later) is a meaningless reason. Why? We will never free the the Iraqis from themselves. They don't attack us because 'they hate freedom'. The attack us because of our wacked-out foriegn policies and how we abandoned them in their struggle against the Soviets during the 80's.

 

Iraq can never be freed by us. That last part is italicized because, like us as a fledgling country, they need to set their own government up on their terms with their deadlines, and their own rules, all provided by their revolution. Do you really think we would have supported the French before the war if they came over and booted out Britain? No! We, as the Iraqis think, would have thought the French were trying to take us over and further disrupt the already corrupt system.

 

But now I pose my favorite question to many of you who have a problem with liberals, noam chomsky, clinton, etc:

 

What would you do if China decided that the United States was a tyrannical state that hated freedom?

 

Tough question, huh? There are several options of which we would choose:

A) Resistance is Futile - Borg style. \\Why fight? There's no use.

B) Quietly oppose. \\You disagree but won't do anything about it

C) Speak Against Openly. \\You disagree and try to sway others to too.

D) Form Guerilla Units \\Just like we did in the Revolutionary War.

 

My guess is that many would go with A,B. Fewer would go with C, D.

 

But after all that I'll get back to the point. There's no reason to be in Iraq. Cindy doesn't want more of the boy's coming back in bodybags, and yet Fox News has already dubbed her a domestic terrorist for having a dissenting opinions. Sorry buds, but the entire facility of the government is based on balances and checks of every other division to withhold a dictator/tyrant from gaining power.

 

Dissenting opinions are what make this country great. Just because you disagree doesn't make it right. As some frenchmen said,

 

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

 

 

[Otter]

Whoa, where's the "domestic terrorist" source? I've not seen any negative coverage of the "event" from Fox's camp.

 

Anyhow,

 

Why wasn't there an option for "nuke the living hell out of them"? As opposed to this war as I am, I can not see ANY parallel between it and China invading the US.

[BrassKnuckles]

What she is failing to understand is that if it were not for many brave soldiers who have lost their lives in wars, she wouldn't even be able to do what she is doing now - protesting about the government and it's actions.

 

My two cents. Whatever they're worth.

Oh, I'm sure she understands that. What you are failing to understand is that revolutionary war minutemen are not the same thing as the marines in Iraq. The former secured our rights and liberties, the latter is dying for no American cause at all.

[ISuck]

A big ball of hypocrisy rolls the new left movement...

 

First, why is everybody so concerned with constitutional rights now? The left, along with other members of this forum, have shown disregard and contempt with the constitution, why use it as your defense now? Be consistent, even if its as stupidly consistent as hating the Constitution.

 

Second, why is the new left jeering on someone who has openly said she refused to pay taxes? They constantly vote for higher taxes and higher spending that creates higher taxes and demonize, criminalize, and imprison anybody who dares not give the federal government "their money", but if that person is in aggreeance on the Iraq War with them, then it's all "fight the power".

 

Last, my position:

Cindy Sheehan does have the right to do what she is doing(or was doing, I don't know if she's still there. She especially has the right to do this on private property(I read that she moved the encampment to a neighbor's property who gave her permission). I, personally, hate Cindy Sheehan for much of the same reasons Eviscero has stated, in addition to the fact that she's a supporter of labor parties and then defiantly says she won't pay taxes(idiot). I'm not going to stop her though, my best solution to this would be to ignore her.

 

[BrassKnuckles]

Listen carefully, ISuck. The "new left" movement, or basic liberalism, is much more varied than simply government, government, government. I believe your wacko movement espouses the theme of no government, no government, no government, but that gives you no justification to speculate about other belief systems.

 

Quite frankly, I'm offended by the assumption that the left hates the Constitution. I understand that you're fairly intelligent--so why are you resorting to Bernard Goldberg/Sean Hannity tactics and their "hating America" bullsh*t? Perhaps you're stuck in a corner? I don't know. But the left loves the American Constitution, and I treasure it. We are the first proponents of free speech, free worship, and the other very valuable personal freedoms. If you're referring to the Second Amendment (and I know you are), then once again, I and other leftists are in full favor of it. Oddly, however, we are also realistic in our views, whereas the libertarian right is nothing short of irrational.

 

I never knew Cindy Sheehan refused to pay her taxes. That I don't condone, and I never remember saying that I did.

[Otter]

 

I'd hope that other members of this forum heed my advice and avoid wasting time debating something with you [isuck], when it is obviously nothing more than a sick game.

 

Don't let yourself get riled, Brassy.

[ISuck]

 

Listen carefully, ISuck. The "new left" movement, or basic liberalism, is much more varied than simply government, government, government. I believe your wacko movement espouses the theme of no government, no government, no government, but that gives you no justification to speculate about other belief systems.

 

Quite frankly, I'm offended by the assumption that the left hates the Constitution. I understand that you're fairly intelligent--so why are you resorting to Bernard Goldberg/Sean Hannity tactics and their "hating America" bullsh*t? Perhaps you're stuck in a corner? I don't know. But the left loves the American Constitution, and I treasure it. We are the first proponents of free speech, free worship, and the other very valuable personal freedoms. If you're referring to the Second Amendment (and I know you are), then once again, I and other leftists are in full favor of it. Oddly, however, we are also realistic in our views, whereas the libertarian right is nothing short of irrational.

 

I never knew Cindy Sheehan refused to pay her taxes. That I don't condone, and I never remember saying that I did.

The new left and the neo-conservative movement have a key feature in common, they become their opposite when the other is in power.

 

8 years ago, the new left hailed Clinton and his unconstitutional ideas to nationalize healthcare and restrict gun property, just 3 years ago the new left voted to give unconstitutional power to President Bush to wage war. They don't care about the Constitution, unless it serves as a talking point for their distorted views. Same with Republicans, apparently they are for "small government", that is until they get in power and then they just grow grow grow the government. Now you make the claim that the libertarian view is not rational, I'll let that go because I don't want to go too off topic, but again, you've just showed us that you don't agree with the Constitution and find it as irrational because the libertarian view of the second amendment is strict adherence to it.

 

Cindy Sheehan has said she refuses to pay here taxes. I don't know if she has or hasn't, or if she will or won't. You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

 

 

I'd hope that other members of this forum heed my advice and avoid wasting time debating something with you [isuck], when it is obviously nothing more than a sick game.

 

Don't let yourself get riled, Brassy.

 

Boycott the power Brassy

Edited August 31, 2005 by ISuck

[SWEETSAPRIK]

You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

Is that a typo, or do you not know what condone means?

[ISuck]

You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

Is that a typo, or do you not know what condone means?

Now Im confused. He said he did not condone Cindy Sheehan not paying her taxes. That means he stands with Sheehan on her decision to not pay taxes. Correct?

 

Too many negatives....

[ilikensrs]

Now Im confused. He said he did not condone Cindy Sheehan not paying her taxes. That means he stands with Sheehan on her decision to not pay taxes. Correct?

 

Too many negatives....

Incorrect.. It means that he does not support the idea of people not paying their taxes; he believes that taxes must be paid.

[Otter]

You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

Is that a typo, or do you not know what condone means?

Now Im confused. He said he did not condone Cindy Sheehan not paying her taxes. That means he stands with Sheehan on her decision to not pay taxes. Correct?

 

Too many negatives....

No, it's the english language. Learn how to use it.

[Wheelman]

Let's keep this on topic about Cinfy Sheehan / the Iraq war / etc - not another minutely-related rant about the constitution and the second amendment.

[ISuck]

You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

Is that a typo, or do you not know what condone means?

Now Im confused. He said he did not condone Cindy Sheehan not paying her taxes. That means he stands with Sheehan on her decision to not pay taxes. Correct?

 

Too many negatives....

No, it's the english language. Learn how to use it.

 

I'd hope that other members of this forum heed my advice and avoid wasting time debating something with you [isuck], when it is obviously nothing more than a sick game.

 

 

[Otter]

You say you don't condone not paying taxes, meaning you are in favor of her not paying her taxes, which again demostrates my point of the left's hypocrisy in this situation.

Is that a typo, or do you not know what condone means?

Now Im confused. He said he did not condone Cindy Sheehan not paying her taxes. That means he stands with Sheehan on her decision to not pay taxes. Correct?

 

Too many negatives....

No, it's the english language. Learn how to use it.

 

I'd hope that other members of this forum heed my advice and avoid wasting time debating something with you [isuck], when it is obviously nothing more than a sick game.

?

 

In other news, Cindy has taken to the streets!

 

You stop that war, girl!

 

http://www.wpri.com/Global/story.asp?S=3787700

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Now, it's been a long time since I ventured into D&D. So excuse me if I am slightly rusty and/or stupid.

 

About this mother, I fully support what she is doing. Perhaps not paying your taxes is a crappy move, but her protest is far more valid then any of you could ever imagine.

 

See, let me tell you a story.

During the Vietnam war, you would often see motto's on helmets, unit signs and vehicles. On one marine tank it read "Mother's Worry".

Even though it was over 30 years ago, it still fits for this war. See, some mother is sitting at home frightened, wether her boy is coming home at all. She lives from day to day, wondering when it'll be when someone comes to tell her her kid died.

When I was at the age I was able to join the army, and for some time, I had wanted to. I was even tested and fully accepted for active duty. But I didn't go, I figured it would never be worth it. But at that time, I also NEVER imagined I could've left a mother behind. That boy probably didn't either, but now his mother IS left behind. And if this is her way of mourning a kid that died, then leave her be.

 

Until your mother is in that position, and you can see that nothing could console her from the hurt and anger that comes in losing your child so senseless, you can't even begin to debate the issue.

[Forelli_Boy]

Parents should respect the choices of children, despite the pain it brings to lose them to the clutches of death. If they made an irrational choice, it's partially their fault for failing to guide them toward a better path.

 

That's all I'm going to say, the interpretation is up to you.

[Eviscero]

Cindy says she will take credit for the downfall of George Bush's political career and for saving the Iraqi people from his unjust and "illegal" war. Whatever the f*ck that means. She likes being on TV more than she likes honoring her son. She's made a joke of him.

[tehhunter]

Cindy says she will take credit for the downfall of George Bush's political career and for saving the Iraqi people from his unjust and "illegal" war. Whatever the f*ck that means. She likes being on TV more than she likes honoring her son. She's made a joke of him.

Seriously, what kind of a parent raises a eagle-class boyscout/marine. I'm surprised she didn't try to take credit for that.. uh... yeah.

[Trueno_Drifter86]

 

She has every right to be there I mean I would be pretty pissed off if some one I loved got killed in the war wouldn't anybody?