Cindy Sheehan: My son in Heaven and the Angels

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/CindySheehanfaint.jpg[/img]
[u]Casey in heaven "calls Bush 1diot"
Cindy quotes slain son in afterlife, says 'tens of thousands of angels' back her
August 25, 2005
By Joe Kovacs
WorldNetDaily.com [/u]


Is Cindy Sheehan now "channeling" her slain son, Casey, from heaven?

The anti-war activist is suggesting he's calling President Bush "an 1diot," and she claims to have "tens of thousands of angels" supporting her cause to bring home immediately American troops serving in Iraq.

"When I get up [to heaven], he's gonna say, 'Good job, mom,'" the California woman said in a speech last night upon her return to Crawford, Texas. "He's not going to say, 'Why'd you make me spin in my grave?' you know. And I can just hear him saying, 'George Bush, you are really an 1diot. You didn't know what you were doing when you killed me. You didn't know what you were getting into.'"

She publicly thanked her son and others who died in the Iraq War, and claimed to have the backing of Casey and his fellow fallen soldiers in the afterlife.

"I know that they are in heaven," Sheehan said, "and I know that that's why this movement is growing because we have tens of thousands of angels behind us that are supporting us, that are saying, 'Well, you know we died and that was really crappy, but we hope that our deaths are going to make the world a better place,' and it's up to us to make sure that it does."

Sheehan has referred to her son as an angel, stating in an Aug. 5 speech, Casey "became an angel while I was sleeping."

As WorldNetDaily exclusively reported this week, Cindy called the enemies of the U.S. who killed her son "freedom fighters," and she echoed that sentiment yesterday with an apparent justification of his death.

"Casey was killed by insurgents. He wasn't killed by terrorists," she said. "He was killed by Shiite militia who wanted him out of the country, when Casey was told he was going to be welcomed with chocolate and flowers as a liberator. Well, the people of Iraq saw it differently. They saw him as an occupier."

Cindy also reflected on the days immediately after Casey's birth, noting, "I looked in his eyes and it looked like he could tell what I was thinking. That's very disarming when you have like a week-old baby looking at you, and you know he knows what you're thinking. And I knew he was going to be a great man. I just had no idea how great he was going to be or how much it was going to hurt me."

Sheehan is apparently aware that some have been critical of her motives for continuing to demand a second meeting with President Bush, but she said she's not bothered by it.

Cindy Sheehan

"I don't care about them talking about me being a crackpot or a media whore, or a tool of the left," she said. "I'm like, if I truly was a media whore do you think I would like maybe get myself fixed up a little bit before I went on? That doesn't bother me at all, but what bothers me so much is when they say I am dishonoring my son's memory by what I'm doing, that my son would be ashamed of me or what they really like to say is that I'm pissing, or sh---ing, or spitting on his grave."

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Ok a few things.....

1. If Angels in Heaven really do hate Bush.... damn that is a new low

2. The quickest way for me to join the Bush people on the other side of the street and start throwing shit at her... is for her to bring Heaven and Angels into this .... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] [/b]

[Beaker]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 28 2005, 09:18 AM']Is Cindy Sheehan now "channeling" her slain son, Casey, from heaven?[/quote]

Nope, she's just a grieving mom who has lost her sense of reality.

[quote]You didn't know what you were doing [b]when you killed me[/b]. You didn't know what you were getting into.'"[/quote]

No Cindy hon, the Iraqis shot your boy.

[quote]Cindy called the enemies of the U.S. who killed her son "freedom fighters," and she echoed that sentiment yesterday with an apparent justification of his death.[/quote]

I dont think they want freedom. I think they want things their way.

[quote]And I knew he was going to be a great man.[/quote]

Too bad his mom is a whack job.

[quote]"I'm like, if I truly was a media whore do you think I would like maybe get myself fixed up a little bit before I went on? [right][post="136623"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Nope, the disheveled, grieving mom thing plays way better to the media you're whoring.

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Aug 28 2005, 08:11 AM']Nope, she's just a grieving mom who has lost her sense of reality.
No Cindy hon, the Iraqis shot your boy.
I dont think they want freedom. I think they want things their way. 
Too bad his mom is a whack job. 
Nope, the disheveled, grieving mom thing plays way better to the media you're whoring.
[right][post="136651"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I agree 100% [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

She has went from a grieving mother to a left wing
nut job mother.


I think Michael Moore is slipping her acid...

[Guest steggyD]

Humans cannot die and become angels. Angels are created by god as angels. I mean, you know, if all this were true.

[Guest BlackJesus]

Meanwhile in Heaven ....

[img]http://www.eskimo.com/~ktlange/Crossland/048%20Party%20Time.JPG[/img]

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 28 2005, 09:16 PM']Meanwhile in Heaven ....

[img]http://www.eskimo.com/~ktlange/Crossland/048%20Party%20Time.JPG[/img]
[right][post="136942"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
[b]Ooorah!!![/b]

[Hooky]

Using her son to gain fame and fortune. There's a real role model. She met with Bush already and acted like things were cool. Now that someone has apparently "showed her the money", the tide has turned. Money kicks integrity's ass again.

[url="http://http://www.thereporter.com/sheehanopinions/ci_2936053"]http://www.thereporter.com/sheehanopinions/ci_2936053[/url]

[Hooky]

"She publicly thanked her son and others who died in the Iraq War, and claimed to have the backing of Casey and his fellow fallen soldiers in the afterlife."

Why is she thanking soldiers for fighting and dying in a war she opposes so much? Another lame attempt to support the soldiers but not the war. Which is impossible. The soldiers aren't fighting blindly as Bush's puppets, like the lefties want you to think. If you're going to support the troops, you could start by giving them a little more credit. They're over there and you're here. I'm sure they know a hell of a lot more of what's going on than what you get from reading your anti-Bush rags. My brother is getting ready to go back for a second tour. He's a mindless cuddly wuddly teddy bear that has no clue? Fuck you!

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Hooky' date='Aug 30 2005, 07:56 AM']"She publicly thanked her son and others who died in the Iraq War, and claimed to have the backing of Casey and his fellow fallen soldiers in the afterlife."

Why is she thanking soldiers for fighting and dying in a war she opposes so much?  Another lame attempt to support the soldiers but not the war. Which is impossible.  The soldiers aren't fighting blindly as Bush's puppets, like the lefties want you to think.  If you're going to support the troops, you could start by giving them a little more credit.  They're over there and you're here.  I'm sure they know a hell of a lot more of what's going on than what you get from reading your anti-Bush rags.  My brother is getting ready to go back for a second tour.  He's a mindless cuddly wuddly teddy bear that has no clue?  Fuck you!
[right][post="138003"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Hooky' date='Aug 30 2005, 08:56 AM']My brother is getting ready to go back for a second tour.[right][post="138003"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I hope your brother remains safe while he and his unit perform their tasks over there. In the meanwhile, I will be doing my small bit in support of your brother by pressuring politicians of both parties to withdraw our troops from Iraq. This immoral, senseless, wasteful war was not started by soldiers, it was started by a group of empire-minded galoots who respect your brother a lot less than I, a fellow veteran, do.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 12:09 PM']I hope your brother remains safe while he and his unit perform their tasks over there. In the meanwhile, I will be doing my small bit in support of your brother by pressuring politicians of both parties to withdraw our troops from Iraq. This immoral, senseless, wasteful war was not started by soldiers, it was started by a group of empire-minded galoots who respect your brother a lot less than I, a fellow veteran, do.
[right][post="138214"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

no offense homer (more power to you for trying either way) but considering the military is a voluntary army, and voted for bush in overwelming numbers, how is pulling them away from their job before its done, honoring them?? YOU may not agree w/ it, but most of them do... if one of their buddies died in this war, and they believe in what they are fighting for, how is pulling them out honoring anything?? it will just make you and others taht don't agree feel better... a small percentage in the military itself though... thats who we're talking about, not me or you...

lets give them true honor, when/if they succeed in this war... bringing them home w/ their tails between their legs dishonors them and makes us as a country, much less safe... it would only embolden them at this point...

[Hooky]

Thanks. I would love for the troops to come home. I disagree with the war, or whatever it is, being immoral. I think it's too moral. I'm tired of us helping other countries and never getting help in return. Sometimes I think we should just take care of our own back yard.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 30 2005, 12:41 PM']no offense homer (more power to you for trying either way) but considering the military is a voluntary army, and voted for bush in overwelming numbers, how is pulling them away from their job before its done, honoring them?? YOU may not agree w/ it, but most of them do... if one of their buddies died in this war, and they believe in what they are fighting for, how is pulling them out honoring anything?? it will just make you and others taht don't agree feel better... a small percentage in the military itself though... thats who we're talking about, not me or you...

lets give them true honor, when/if they succeed in this war... bringing them home w/ their tails between their legs dishonors them and makes us as a country, much less safe... it would only embolden them at this point...
[right][post="138252"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Rick, I'll try to be gentle and tough at the same time.

1) You equate honor and support. That's a mistake. I support the military because they are my brothers and sisters, not because I have some romantic notion of military service and honor. It is possible to serve in the military and be an honorable individual. It is possible to serve and be a dishonorable individual. But, don't confuse this idea of honor with the causes for engaging in warfare. The causes, themselves, can be either honorable or dishonorable, independent of the motives and actions of those serving.

2) Here's the tough but gentle part. You make some claims about the nature of military culture, but it's a less informed view than the perspective of folks who have actually done their time. It's more nuanced than you present, but the key idea to grasp is this: In the military, you follow orders. You do it even if you disagree. You take pride in being able to carry out orders, and there is a special professionalism associated with executing orders to high standards, whether or not you agree with them. This notion of professionalism overrides the individual predispositions of folks in the military.

In civilian life, there's more slack around disagreement. I'll give you an anecdote to describe what I mean. When I was a young manager, I worked for a fellow who was one tough bird: he was an ex-paratroop officer in the French Army who had served both in Indochina and in Algeria. We understood each other even though we had differing ideas of how to run operations. Being a young turk, I wanted things run my way within my area of responsibility. Being the boss and ultimately responsible for not only my area but that of other managers, too, he sometimes insisted on his way. On those occasions in which I explained that I strongly disagreed with his instructions, we both reverted to our military backgrounds. He issued an order and I "locked up" and did it his way. No hard feelings between us, just a clear understanding of the delineation of responsibility.

3) Our military does what the civilian bosses tell them to do. It's a strong tradition and one of the hallmarks of our republican way of life. Historically, there have been factions in the military which have interacted with the civilian leadership in unprofessional ways, but the core idea of this "delineation of responsibility" is still an almost sacred cornerstone of how we operate.

The question of honor, as it pertains to relations between military operations and civilian guidance, is a question of obediance to this fundamental principle. The civilians tell the military what the nature of the job is, and civilians decide when the job is done or not done.

Thus, folks in the military tend to trust their civilian leadership, regardless of the party issuing the orders, because in some very important ways, military culture is above the disputes of ideology. That's not to say that service members are politically illiterate, or that they don't possess a variety of ideological preferences specific to their personal way of thinking. It is to say, that for the most part, those preferences are subordinated to the idea of excellently executing any mission given to them by the civilian leadership. If we withdraw the troops from Iraq, they'll do it without any harm to their sense of professional honor, though there will be a variety of opinions about the wisdom behind such a move.

3) About "feelings." Rick, this is not about feelings. It is about what is right and wrong for our country to be doing. What feelings I have are dedicated to the troops as individuals, not their job. They'll do their job regardless of what I feel. If I disagree with Sheehan, it is about this aspect of the way she presents herself to the world. Her son died, okay. Some of my friends died, too, in peacetime, but they are just as dead, and they were doing their jobs as much as any fellow in a battle zone. The poor bastard who died in a bloody mess on the deck next to me in 1975 is to be honored just as much as the friends of Bung's, Lawman's, and Steggy's (and other vets who frequent this board, I apologize if I have left anyone out) who have died in service to their nation.

So, while I do have strong personal feelings about the guys I knew, as well as sympathetic feelings for the folks I didn't know (but have a pretty good imagination of how their death fits into the historical importance of this nation), that it not the question. The question is one that requires a kind of ruthlessness: is this good for the country or not?

4) About the Volunteer Military. That's a two-edged sword. There's something positive to be said for volunteering. I did, not only because it is family tradition, but also because I sensed the need to get my act squared away. There are millions of others who for a variety of good reasons volunteer to serve a greater idea than that of oneself.

On the other hand, the volunteer military has to potential to cut the other way, too. At its worse, it tends towards a kind of mercenary outlook--"let's hire some folks to do the dirty work." I could get into the unprecedented "lack of sacrifice" our broader culture is tacitly accepting while our folks are overseas, but that's another thread. I could make a case for "not showing honor to our troops" by pointing out that not many folks are calling for the normal kinds of sacrifices that a country makes in wartime. In my view this is supremely selfish and deplorable. Sadly it appears to be a condition of our current culture. Part of the justification offered by some folks to rationalize their implicit selfishness is to raise the spectre of the "volunteer military." They may be fooling themselves, but they are not fooling me.

Now I know you seriously considered serving and I give you credit for engaging in that kind of internal dialogue. It's a struggle, no doubt about it. I would even advise you not to join the military under the present conditions of the conduct of our foreign policy. On the other hand, friend, the fact is that you have not served, so you are not as authoritative a voice on the honor of the troops as other folks might be. I know you mean well, Rick, but that doesn't bring any of my friends back from drowning in Barcelona harbor, or that poor fellow I barely knew in 1975.

How many more troops have to die to give honor to a situation in which the civilian leadership has acted, from the beginning, with dishonor? That's the question I struggle with and that's a question I know you and many others struggle with, too.

I've concluded: Bring 'em home, the sooner the better.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:23 PM']Rick, I'll try to be gentle and tough at the same time.

1) You equate honor and support. That's a mistake. I support the military because they are my brothers and sisters, not because I have some romantic notion of military service and honor. It is possible to serve in the military and be an honorable individual. It is possible to serve and be a dishonorable individual. But, don't confuse this idea of honor with the causes for engaging in warfare. The causes, themselves, can be either honorable or dishonorable, independent of the motives and actions of those serving.

2) Here's the tough but gentle part. You make some claims about the nature of military culture, but it's a less informed view than the perspective of folks who have actually done their time. It's more nuanced than you present, but the key idea to grasp is this: In the military, you follow orders. You do it even if you disagree. You take pride in being able to carry out orders, and there is a special professionalism associated with executing orders to high standards, whether or not you agree with them. This notion of professionalism overrides the individual predispositions of folks in the military.

In civilian life, there's more slack around disagreement. I'll give you an anecdote to describe what I mean. When I was a young manager, I worked for a fellow who was one tough bird: he was an ex-paratroop officer in the French Army who had served both in Indochina and in Algeria. We understood each other even though we had differing ideas of how to run operations. Being a young turk, I wanted things run my way within my area of responsibility. Being the boss and ultimately responsible for not only my area but that of other managers, too, he sometimes insisted on his way. On those occasions in which I explained that I strongly disagreed with his instructions, we both reverted to our military backgrounds. He issued an order and I "locked up" and did it his way. No hard feelings between us, just a clear understanding of the delineation of responsibility.

3) Our military does what the civilian bosses tell them to do. It's a strong tradition and one of the hallmarks of our republican way of life. Historically, there have been factions in the military which have interacted with the civilian leadership in unprofessional ways, but the core idea of this "delineation of responsibility" is still an almost sacred cornerstone of how we operate.

The question of honor, as it pertains to relations between military operations and civilian guidance, is a question of obediance to this fundamental principle. The civilians tell the military what the nature of the job is, and civilians decide when the job is done or not done.

Thus, folks in the military tend to trust their civilian leadership, regardless of the party issuing the orders, because in some very important ways, military culture is above the disputes of ideology. That's not to say that service members are politically illiterate, or that they don't possess a variety of ideological preferences specific to their personal way of thinking. It is to say, that for the most part, those preferences are subordinated to the idea of excellently executing any mission given to them by the civilian leadership. If we withdraw the troops from Iraq, they'll do it without any harm to their sense of professional honor, though there will be a variety of opinions about the wisdom behind such a move.

3) About "feelings." Rick, this is not about feelings. It is about what is right and wrong for our country to be doing. What feelings I have are dedicated to the troops as individuals, not their job. They'll do their job regardless of what I feel. If I disagree with Sheehan, it is about this aspect of the way she presents herself to the world. Her son died, okay. Some of my friends died, too, in peacetime, but they are just as dead, and they were doing their jobs as much as any fellow in a battle zone. The poor bastard who died in a bloody mess on the deck next to me in 1975 is to be honored just as much as the friends of Bung's, Lawman's, and Steggy's (and other vets who frequent this board, I apologize if I have left anyone out) who have died in service to their nation.

So, while I do have strong personal feelings about the guys I knew, as well as sympathetic feelings for the folks I didn't know (but have a pretty good imagination of how their death fits into the historical importance of this nation), that it not the question. The question is one that requires a kind of ruthlessness: is this good for the country or not?

4) About the Volunteer Military. That's a two-edged sword. There's something positive to be said for volunteering. I did, not only because it is family tradition, but also because I sensed the need to get my act squared away. There are millions of others who for a variety of good reasons volunteer to serve a greater idea than that of oneself.

On the other hand, the volunteer military has to potential to cut the other way, too. At its worse, it tends towards a kind of mercenary outlook--"let's hire some folks to do the dirty work." I could get into the unprecedented "lack of sacrifice" our broader culture is tacitly accepting while our folks are overseas, but that's another thread. I could make a case for "not showing honor to our troops" by pointing out that not many folks are calling for the normal kinds of sacrifices that a country makes in wartime. In my view this is supremely selfish and deplorable. Sadly it appears to be a condition of our current culture. Part of the justification offered by some folks to rationalize their implicit selfishness is to raise the spectre of the "volunteer military." They may be fooling themselves, but they are not fooling me.

Now I know you seriously considered serving and I give you credit for engaging in that kind of internal dialogue. It's a struggle, no doubt about it. I would even advise you not to join the military under the present conditions of the conduct of our foreign policy. On the other hand, friend, the fact is that you have not served, so you are not as authoritative a voice on the honor of the troops as other folks might be. I know you mean well, Rick, but that doesn't bring any of my friends back from drowning in Barcelona harbor, or that poor fellow I barely knew in 1975.

How many more troops have to die to give honor to a situation in which the civilian leadership has acted, from the beginning, with dishonor? That's the question I struggle with and that's a question I know you and many others struggle with, too.

I've concluded: Bring 'em home, the sooner the better.
[right][post="138399"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Homer I know this was directed at Rick but its a very good post, but there are two questions I have.

1) How do we go into a country destroy a lot of it and then just leave? Should part of the mission not include getting things back in order for the country we just screwed? Wouldn’t that be the honorable thing to do? I can agree about not going in, but I have a hard time with just saying "fuck 'em" to the Iraqi's. And I say that with no disrespect intended, I just think the action of leaving now is to a certain extent saying just that.

2) I don't know Rick's background with the military, however for the majority of my life I have been a "supporter" in that my father spent 20 years in the Army, which was all of my childhood and a few years into my adulthood. I had no desire to enlist, not because I didn’t feel a sense of duty to my country but because moving every 3 years and not knowing what it was to have a long term friendship took its toll. Now that I’m 30, I have spent the better part of my adulthood still in "support" of the military through my career. Maybe I misunderstood it, but the idea that one cant have a "knowledge" or be a voice without being a member of the military is something that I strongly disagree with. I may not have gone through basic or boot camp, but I have lived the military life in some fashion since I was born.

[Guest bengalrick]

homer, i understand what your saying, but the majority of guys that are there now, are speaking in much different terms than what we hear here in american media... most of them are proud of what they are doing, and the worst thing for their moral, is to send them home w/out getting their job done... this will also make the "anti-freedom" fighters think that their tactics can win.. mainly, using our media against us...

there is plenty more i could say, but i don't know as well as other "military vets" know, and let them take the floor if they please...

let me add, that i realize that mlitary guys are working for their country and might have to hold their tounge alot of times... but i still think that most believe what they are doing is making a difference... what better way to die than to fight for something you believe in.. on the same token, what a worse way to die for something you don't believe in... i see your point... trust me, i do...

i wish it wasn't to this point, but if we didn't go to iraq, saddam would be getting off sanctions about now, and we would have another iran, who is literally flipping off the EU right now...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:06 PM']1) How do we go into a country destroy a lot of it and then just leave? Should part of the mission not include getting things back in order for the country we just screwed? Wouldn’t that be the honorable thing to do? I can agree about not going in, but I have a hard time with just saying "fuck 'em" to the Iraqi's. And I say that with no disrespect intended, I just think the action of leaving now is to a certain extent saying just that.[/quote]

Depends on how you leave. I agree we have a great deal of responsibility for getting things back in order, but I also believe that the continued presence of our military may be working against creating better conditions. Bring in the blue hats.

Again, it may be too late as there appears to be a civil war on the horizon, but I suspect that many of the insurgent types might stand down if they knew we were leaving. The terrorist types are another story. So, it boils down to how one assesses the situation: to what extent is this an insurgency and to what extent is this a terrorist playground?

[quote]2) I don't know Rick's background with the military, however for the majority of my life I have been a "supporter" in that my father spent 20 years in the Army, which was all of my childhood and a few years into my adulthood. I had no desire to enlist, not because I didn’t feel a sense of duty to my country but because moving every 3 years and not knowing what it was to have a long term friendship took its toll. Now that I’m 30, I have spent the better part of my adulthood still in "support" of the military through my career. Maybe I misunderstood it, but the idea that one cant have a "knowledge" or be a voice without being a member of the military is something that I strongly disagree with. I may not have gone through basic or boot camp, but I have lived the military life in some fashion since I was born.
[right][post="138421"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Since when did I say you can't have a voice? What I did say is that folks who haven't lived in military culture cannot understand it as well as those who have. Do you dispute my central idea? If so, how so? If you think the shoe fits, wear it, but wear it well and stop feeling guilty that you haven't gone out and gotten your ass blown up. I don't wish that on anybody, especially to make a macho point about honor. Consider the main point I was making: notions of honor don't fully answer questions about right and wrong.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 04:23 PM']Depends on how you leave. I agree we have a great deal of responsibility for getting things back in order, but I also believe that the continued presence of our military may be working against creating better conditions. Bring in the blue hats.

Again, it may be too late as there appears to be a civil war on the horizon, but I suspect that many of the insurgent types might stand down if they knew we were leaving. The terrorist types are another story. So, it boils down to how one assesses the situation: to what extent is this an insurgency and to what extent is this a terrorist playground?
[b]Since when did I say you can't have a voice? What I did say is that folks who haven't lived in military culture cannot understand it as well as those who have. Do you dispute my central idea? If so, how so? If you think the shoe fits, wear it, but wear it well and stop feeling guilty that you haven't gone out and gotten your ass blown up. I don't wish that on anybody, especially to make a macho point about honor. Consider the main point I was making: notions of honor don't fully answer questions about right and wrong.[/b][right][post="138438"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I appologize then, as I said I though I may have misread that. There is another poster whom has said as much and I get rubbed the wrong way when I even slightly read something about it, even if its not intended that way.

As to the 1st anwser, thats not a question for me to anwser so much as is it our generals.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:13 PM']homer, i understand what your saying, but the majority of guys that are there now, are speaking in much different terms than what we hear here in american media... most of them are proud of what they are doing, and the worst thing for their moral, is to send them home w/out getting their job done...[/quote]

Rick, be ruthlessly honest now. Neither you nor I can with precision say just what the majority of folks over there are thinking. For every neocon pom-pom anecdote you can cite, I can cite a lefty defeatist story. Having said that, review what I said about military culture: mission above politics, but the civilians determine when the job starts and when the job ends. I'm speaking strategically, tactics are up to the guys on the ground. Morale is important, naturally, but following orders is more important.

[quote]this will also make the "anti-freedom" fighters think that their tactics can win.. mainly, using our media against us...[/quote]

Christ, are you farging brainwashed? Anti-freedom fighters? Our media against us? Broaden your horizons, friend, or at least think for a while before you type.

[quote]let me add, that i realize that mlitary guys are working for their country and might have to hold their tounge alot of times... but i still think that most believe what they are doing is making a difference... what better way to die than to fight for something you believe in.. on the same token, what a worse way to die for something you don't believe in... i see your point... trust me, i do...[/quote]

I'm sure they think what they are doing makes a difference. I am also certain that what they think has little to do with whether or not the civilian leadership uses them wisely or not.

[quote]i wish it wasn't to this point, but if we didn't go to iraq, saddam would be getting off sanctions about now, and we would have another iran, who is literally flipping off the EU right now...
[right][post="138428"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I can't reply to this now, I don't have time. You're a good guy, Rick, but we're gonna disagree on this, too.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:29 PM']I appologize then, as I said I though I may have misread that. There is another poster whom has said as much and I get rubbed the wrong way when I even slightly read something about it, even if its not intended that way.[/quote]

No harm, no foul. Believe me, Jamie, like a lot of folks on both sides of these issues, I struggle with them. There are a lot of contradictory tendencies to account for and all a person can do is work their way through 'em the best they can. And act like a citizen to the best of one's ability. It'll all come out in the wash, but I'd still like to avoid some of the bloodstains.

[quote]As to the 1st anwser, thats not a question for me to anwser so much as is it our generals.
[right][post="138444"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Generals on a tactical level; civilians on the strategic. I gotta believe, though, that there is a solution better than what these present civilian clowns are offering.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 04:53 PM']No harm, no foul. Believe me, Jamie, like a lot of folks on both sides of these issues, I struggle with them. There are a lot of contradictory tendencies to account for and all a person can do is work their way through 'em the best they can. And act like a citizen to the best of one's ability. It'll all come out in the wash, but I'd still like to avoid some of the bloodstains.
[b]Generals on a tactical level; civilians on the strategic. I gotta believe, though, that there is a solution better than what these present civilian clowns are offering.[/b]
[right][post="138460"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I just hope the civilians listen to the generals, rather than the polls.

[Guest bengalrick]

i will get to the rest when i have more time..

[i]this will also make the "anti-freedom" fighters think that their tactics can win.. mainly, using our media against us...[/i] - rick


[i]Christ, are you farging brainwashed? Anti-freedom fighters? Our media against us? Broaden your horizons, friend, or at least think for a while before you type.[/i] - homer


anti freedom fighters is something that i decided was the closest broad description of who we are fighting... they certainly aren't fighting for freedom and are scared of what a democracy in iraq will do for them... i was proud of myself honestly, b/c i hadn't heard that term at all, and it fits very well imo...

the media is being used, b/c "if it bleeds, it leads" and the whatever you want to call them, know that... they can't beat us militarily, so they try to have big exposions, that will cause us to rethink what we're doing and go home w/ our tails between our legs...

if i were being brainwashed, its certainly not from our media...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 30 2005, 03:58 PM']I just hope the civilians listen to the generals, rather than the polls.
[right][post="138464"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Agreed, if you mean the traditional Shinseki-types, and not to the Special Ops types like Schoomaker.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 30 2005, 04:10 PM']i will get to the rest when i have more time..

[i]this will also make the "anti-freedom" fighters think that their tactics can win.. mainly, using our media against us...[/i] - rick
[i]Christ, are you farging brainwashed? Anti-freedom fighters? Our media against us? Broaden your horizons, friend, or at least think for a while before you type.[/i] - homer
anti freedom fighters is something that i decided was the closest broad description of who we are fighting... they certainly aren't fighting for freedom and are scared of what a democracy in iraq will do for them... i was proud of myself honestly, b/c i hadn't heard that term at all, and it fits very well imo...

the media is being used, b/c "if it bleeds, it leads" and the whatever you want to call them, know that... they can't beat us militarily, so they try to have big exposions, that will cause us to rethink what we're doing and go home w/ our tails between our legs...

if i were being brainwashed, its certainly not from our media...
[right][post="138474"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Really, cuz it's a standard part of the rhetoric being [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22anti-freedom+fighters%22&btnG=Google+Search"]tossed[/url] around.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 10:07 PM']Agreed, if you mean the traditional Shinseki-types, and not to the Special Ops types like Schoomaker.
[right][post="138685"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I tend to lean on the conservative estimates and think 2-3 years at best will be the best scenario for a withdraw.