Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Now if you join the Army you could wind up going to war, so why did he join th Army. Did his mother think that he would be excused going to wars that she did not approve off. If you join the forces you take the same rsks as every one else around you and if you don't want to do that then don't join. He she meets Bush she will want to to make her point on National Television, she wont want to listen to any thng he has to say but just to go into her anti war mode.

I dont think shes on a anti-military soapbox per se, if she is then she is wrong. I think shes merely seeking answers to the reasons to why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place. That isnt surprising there are lots of people in both yours and my country who would like to know the same thing. My impression is that her beef is with the politicans not the army itself. Im sure Army itself did all it could, but like you said in war there are risks.

I happen to sympathize with her cause but even if i didn't, I think its very difficult to criticize someone whose lost so much. Its not like she is just a political hack on a soapbox.

I don't think you ever get over losing a child. Cindy is still searching for answers.

mmarsh......He was sent to Iraq becuase he was a soldier.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20050...eehan39sagenda

"Like any other American, she is entitled to a personal agenda. Sadly, the one she's developed is ugly."

"Cindy Sheehan is a fully fledged member of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party. She rails about how terrorism could be ended if only Israel would "get out of Palestine" — and compares Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "Hitler and Stalin."

Moreover:

* She says that the same news media that have so adoringly covered her these past two weeks are nothing but "a propaganda tool for the government."


By the way, her husband filed for divorce and her family has disowned her.

Missileer

For every Rupert Murdoch owned periodical you can find condemning Sheehan I can find another that does exactly the opposite in a Liberal Paper. For example, here is Maureen Dowd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/op...rticle_popular

You see? It proves nothing.

Actually Maureen said something I said not to long ago. Whatever opinion about the war is, it would be better politically for Bush to meet with this person just to get rid of her. The longer it drags on the more arrogant, nasty, and uncaring Bush looks. Espically as the war continues and that there are likely more Cindy Sheehans likely to pay Bush a visit.
Most people support Sheehan and disapprove of the war, Bush is making a politcal error here...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Missileer

For every Rupert Murdoch owned periodical you can find condemning Sheehan I can find another that does exactly the opposite in a Liberal Paper. For example, here is Maureen Dowd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/op...rticle_popular

You see? It proves nothing.

Actually Maureen said something I said not to long ago. Whatever opinion about the war is, it would be better politically for Bush to meet with this person just to get rid of her. The longer it drags on the more arrogant, nasty, and uncaring Bush looks. Espically as the war continues and that there are likely more Cindy Sheehans likely to pay Bush a visit.
Most people support Sheehan and disapprove of the war, Bush is making a politcal error here...

I think that the fact of her family condemning her actions speak volumes.

Originally Posted by Missileer

I think that the fact of her family condemning her actions speak volumes.

So she should abandon her cause? The very fact that she is prepared to follow this through, regardless of the personal cost to her, says something about her commitment and belief in what she is doing. Most people would probably prefer to face the bullets than face the loss of their family's support. Whether you think she's right or wrong, you have to acknowledge her courage.

Or shes just gotten addicted to the attention and cant even rember what her orginal goal is?

Originally Posted by Missileer

I think that the fact of her family condemning her actions speak volumes.

So she should abandon her cause? The very fact that she is prepared to follow this through, regardless of the personal cost to her, says something about her commitment and belief in what she is doing. Most people would probably prefer to face the bullets than face the loss of their family's support. Whether you think she's right or wrong, you have to acknowledge her courage.

It's not her courage I question, it's her timing. She's being used to, once more, give the enemy aid and comfort that America is not committed. That will cost more lives of our servicepeople. The same thing that Jane Fonda and her kind did for the NVA. Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?

Originally Posted by Missileer

It's not her courage I question, it's her timing. She's being used to, once more, give the enemy aid and comfort that America is not committed. That will cost more lives of our servicepeople. The same thing that Jane Fonda and her kind did for the NVA. Is that a reasonable assumption on
my part?

But she's not out there cuddling insurgents - she's questioning why her son had to go, and die, in the first place.

And there is an irony here. She's using a fundamental (and democratic) right to free speech to question why the US should fight a war for...ensuring that another nation gets that same right? (or was it to get rid of the nukes).

My view is that we (the allies) have to see through what we started but I can't help feeling that the reasons we are there have become more and more confused over time. First nukes (none there), then democractic freedom (now setting up a theocracy)....just not making a lot of sense to me.

She thinks that we should pull out of Iraq. She's not calling troops murderers (as we did in Vietnam), she's not giving information to the enemy. She is just saying "we shouldn't be there". Luckily, in countries like ours she can do that - but if we get to the stage where we say "for scurity reasons you can't question the govt anymore", then we probably need a whole new revolution.