I sense her real complaint is that she blew her wad and now has to get a job.

Left by kma on May 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am

movement when 70% of Americans believed George Bush and his lies. Now, of course, 70% don’t, but as Sheehan points out the Democrats in Congress who were elected to stop the war have failed us all in their duty to do so. And even as she exits, the flying monkeys fling their poo at her. I hope Cindy Sheehan finds peace.

Left by Brains and Eggs on May 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

The thing is, I can sort of see where she is coming from.

I don’t like war, it doesn’t really make sense to me, but I do admire and respect those who put their lives on the line in the interest of their, or their allies, countries.

Being an ex Army man Robbie, I’d like to ask you a question.
And I hope this can be kept civil with it turning into yet another ‘America is Great - bollox to you euro-weenies’ playground name calling that others seem to enjoy;
Do you think the war in Iraq that your president has sent your young soldiers into, is what they should really be doing? If Sheenan’s point is that she feels her son should have been fighting a just war instead of a war that some believe to be full of alteria motives, then I have to say I support her.

I would feel more comfortable with an army fighting as our troops did back in 1945 when we could see a common enemy that was clearly a threat to our civilisation on society as we where free to enjoy.
Does Irag really have the same threat? Or is it simply a hyped up propaganda war to secure assets that only the countries in the middle east have?

I am torn on this, because on one hand I respect every single soldier willing to lay their lives down for their countries, but on the other hand I feel sorry that they are fighting a war that maybe not what it is purported to be.

Jonny

Left by Jon on May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm

are you suggesting that the american government is engaged in a conspiracy to control the oil production in iraq? what are the “alteria motives?” please enlighten us oh wise one!

Left by adam on May 31st, 2007 at 4:28 pm

I’m asking a simple question Adam.

Your snide comments aren’t really needed here.

Jonny

Left by Jon on May 31st, 2007 at 5:33 pm

i’m asking 2 simple questions. your evasive retreat suggests you can’t answer!

Left by adam on May 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I guess this means I’ll have to resign my song protesting Cindy and:

The Cindy Sheehan Show
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT (c) 2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/CIndySheehanShow.mp3

Left by Dr BLT on June 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am

In answer to your questions Adam, I do wonder why the USA and UK invaded Iraq at such a strange time.

We where told they had weapons of mass destruction, and this was the main reason for invading.
Fair enough I thought, I don’t want to wake up in my bed with my house converted to rumble because Sadam has an extra long distance scud.
Truth is, there are no WMD’s.

Then we where told what a bad man Sadam was anyway, and never mind the fact that no WMD’s where found, the allied assault was justified because Sadam was a bad man.
Fair enough, but can we invade Zimbabwe first? I hear Mugabe isn’t an angel either.

It just doesn’t make sense to me Adam.
If the allies wanted to sort out the problem that caused 9/11 we should have had an all out assault on Afganistan, not this half hearted invasion that I read about when the UK press can be bothered to print news of it. Why do are we so interested in Iraq?

If you want to believe that the fact major oil and construction contracts have been given to american companies is simply a byproduct of a just war, then fair enough, we are all entitled to our opinions.

To me, it smells a bit.

Jonny

Left by Anonymous on June 1st, 2007 at 8:08 am

jon,

i appreciate the responses truly. i retract an earlier statement that you don’t compose arguements. this was well written and appears genuine.

i want to address this w m d discussion. intelligence (both u s & foreign) suggested the existence of w m ds. the reason that the coalition relied so heavily on this intelligence is because un inspections of iraq were not being conducted as agreed to via the conclusion of gulf war 1. had sadam honored the terms of his surrender, the un would know exactly what weapons existed. he didn’t so they didn’t. the “truth” is that you nor i can definatively say if there were/are weapons. do you honestly think that the bathists couldn’t have just brought weapons into a neighboring territory? we only announced for a month that we were going to invade. we can say that we know for a fact that sadam has vehemently pursued access to nuclear weapons, has manufactured and murdered his fellow iraqis with chemical weapons, and had also stated that gulf war 1 was not over. he doesn’t sound like a “bad man”; he sounds like a dangerous fucking lunatic! trying to limit the potency of these facts is not in the best interest of america.

i know you reside in europe and for the sake of europeans i hope you can see the logic in what i’m about to say. i don’t want to scare anyone but the fact is that 9/11 spelled out some obvious truths for us and if you weren’t convinced then, the london subway bombings in 05 should have done the trick. first, radical islam can be dangerous to western interests and threats from it should not be underestimated just because their weaponry tend not to be very sophisticated. next, and there is some reasonable debate about it, but i agree with the current administration that a reactive approach to this threat is far too risky. a proactive approach is, in my opinion, the best way to keep the american public safe. up until 9/11 the former had mostly worked. additionally, we were shown the drastic measures which this enemy is willing to take to indiscriminately murder our civilians. it is our governments duty to take steps to prevent this. after all the job of a government is to protect it’s people.

i’ve heard the argument that you make about afganistan, and i know some folks agree with you. i too, wish the search for bin laden, had more victories, but i don’t think occupying a country to search for a man is a wise strategy. yes some taliban do still exist but they are far from reassembling a fighting force that could retake that country. the short military campaign was among the most efficient in history. while nation building wasn’t the top priority for americans, the coalition was able to empower and still supports the most representative form of government that this war-torn area has ever known. i believe there has been great successes in afganistan that can and should be touted. unfortunately, limiting poppy production is not one of them and this very complex social/geopolitcal issue is a huge source of discontent for me.

i want to preface by saying i agree “To me, it smells a bit” too. i was always taught that the appearance of impropriety is enough not to take a course of action. when certain u s financial interests are served by war, i believe it is the duty of politicians and public servants in general, to go above and beyond to end reasonable public skepticisms. i honestly wish our government would do more on this front but you did ask the $500,000 question.

“Why do are we so interested in Iraq?” i submit that it is the duty of anyone who has an interest in the war to try and answer this question. i think my answer lies in my impressions of the administration and it’s foreign policy. many have negative impressions and therefore don’t support efforts in iraq. while i find snags, i tend not to be so cynnical.

i believe that the bush administration genuinely feels that fighting this conflict is in the best interest of americans. i would have thought it impossible then, but since 9/11 there has not been a fatal islamic fundamentalist attack in america. that is a bush success. “taking the war to the terrorists” seems to be working in that respect. yes there have been far too many coalition troops killed; that said, from a standpoint of serviceperson casualties verse the duration of the conflict, this is one of the most efficient wars america has ever fought.

while having a hand in middle eastern oil may be unethical, it is beneficial to americans. for this reason the administration should go out of its way to ensure that the beneficiary of this natural resource is iraq. our large demand for oil makes it advantageous for america to have a middle eastern presence to help ensure regulation of supply. it should be noted that, though america is the worlds largest consumer of oil, it relies more on south american oil than on middle eastern oil. this is not the case in europe. to protect american economic stability via european economic stability, we can not allow radical regimes to hold the world hostage by witholding oil supplies. the president and his cabinet know all of this in much greater detail and are obliged to serve u s interests.

finally bush and his people know that us interests are met having a military presence in the middle east. between the ruling regimes of the saudis, the irananians, the iraqis, and the syrians it was important that the u s convey a message to these governments that america would defend its interests if attacked. for geopolitical reasons the u s publicly ignores the wahabbist movements in saudi arabia. the anti semetic and anti american movements in iran are so racist and unpopular that american presidents since carter have all been waiting for the iranian people to stand up for themselves. frankly, attacks against syria would have been difficult to justify in the international community pre-iraq. who does that leave? for reasons stated at the beginning of this post, the iraqi regime was begging to be ousted!

i know these answers aren’t very pc and that’s probably why the administration does a lot more word-smithing. we live in an imperfect world and wars are far too prevelant. unfortunately war is sometimes the quickest route to peace. people are flawed and so their actions will be too. it is important to remember the historical context. why is it so easy for radical islam to recruit and enlist support for violent acts against innocent civilians? what are the major differences in judaism, christianity, and islam that can help us trace the real origins of the conflict? what historical events have occured among these religions that may have fueled current anger? what can everyday civilians do to avoid further conflict, resentment, and danger? these are the types of questions that our societies should be openly asking, debating, and trying to resolve; unfortunately, these conversations are not always easy on the ears!

Left by adam on June 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Thanks for taking the time with that Adam.

In all honesty, theres not much there I object to.
Its a well written piece that shows there doesn’t have to be a right and wrong course of action here - simply two opinions that can sometimes overlap to agree.

Cheers.

Jonny

Left by Jon on June 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am