Camp Casey situation

[Lynn7]

I think it is interesting that big political organizations are getting involved on both sides. I think this will dilute the issues and people will end up tuning it all out. sometimes I think protestors are trying to recapture the spirit of the 60's (especially when singers and actors get involved) but I don't think it will ever happen. These times are different cause before the country was afraid of communism encroaching on our political system whereas now we are afraid we will get blown up or poisoned on our streets.

I think it's terrible that protestors are positioning themselves outside Walter Reed hospital where wounded vets are recovering.


From a San Francisco paper (taken off Drudgereport)

PR Machine Behind Cindy Sheehan?ABC7 Looks At The Financing Of 'Camp Casey'
By Mark Matthews
Aug. 25 - With the President back at his Crawford ranch, the anti-war protest right outside his ranch is getting a lot more media attention. ABC7 looks at who is financing the operation and who's providing on-the-ground support.

The camp at Crawford is full of Cindy Sheehan supporters, people from all walks of life, but off to the side are a small group of professionals skilled in politics and public relations who are marketing Cindy Sheehan's message.

Cindy Sheehan kneels before a cross with her son's name on it, touches his picture, wipes her tears. It's an outpouring of emotion that is part of a scheduled news event organized daily for the television, radio and print reporters who crowd in to capture a mother's grief.

Cindy Sheehan: "I'm never going to see him again, I'm never going to hold him again, I'm never going to hear his voice again."

Sheehan's message hasn't changed since she got here, but the support staff interested in getting that message out to the world has grown considerably.

Organizers are set up in a house trailer. Their meetings closed to reporters.

Leading the group is Fenton Communications employee, Michele Mulkey, based in San Francisco. Fenton specializes in public relations for liberal non-profits.

Their bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen -- of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream fame.

Ben Cohen, True Majority: "People are willing to listen to her and we want to do as much as we can to make her voice heard."

Cohen's group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades.

Earlier this month, MoveOn helped organize anti-war vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan.

Current Democratic National Party Chair Howard Dean's organization Democracy for America is also involved, as is the more radical anti-war group Code Pink organized by San Francisco's Medea Benjamin.

Money donated through these groups and others is helping to pay for Gold Star families whose children have been killed in Iraq to attend anti-Bush protests.

This week Simi Valley California Gold Star wife Melanie House flew to Idaho for a protest and then flew to Crawford.

ABC7's Mark Matthews: "Can you tell us if you're getting help in airfare to come down here?"

Melanie House: "What difference does that make?"

There is real reluctance to talk about who's paying, and the P.R. machine that's promoting Cindy Sheehan, but not everyone here is completely comfortable with it.

Gold Star mother Karen Meredith came here from Mountain View. Her son Ken Ballard died last year.

Karen Meredith, Gold Star mother: "Sometimes things don't feel quite right to me. They don't feel wrong, but maybe that's how they do it in the marketing business."

ABC7's Mark Matthews: "You feel you're part of a marketing business?"

Karen Meredith: "Possibly. Yeah I think so."

On the other side, pro-Bush supporters are getting on the ground to help reiterate their message.

Grassfire.org and IM4W.com came back to the same Iowa-based conservative public policy organization, an organization with ties to the Republican National Committee.

There is also the "Cindy you don't speak for me tour," a caravan of military wives and mothers led by Deborah Johns of Roseville. Her son William is a marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq.

Johns and her supporters are traveling to Crawford to confront Cindy Sheehan.

Deborah Johns, caravan leader: "It means everything for me to be here, to see the support. We're so proud of him."

The caravan is getting a lot of help from MoveAmericaForward.org. It's a non-profit organization co-chaired by former state assemblyman Howard Koologian. Koologian is a Republican who takes credit for launching the recall against Governor Gray Davis. His co-chair is KSFO Radio talk show host Melanie Morgan. The group's PR firm is led by a veteran California political strategist and the firm claims clients running from a county supervisor to President of the United States.

KSFO Radio is owned by Disney which also owns ABC7.

The "You don't speak for me" group is expected to be in Crawford on Saturday. Sheehan said today she'll welcome to meet with her without reporters present.

[someguy]

Ugh...

Ok, I like Bush getting all this negative press, but this Sheehan one is annoying. She's this typical 'support our troops!' mom before this and has her son in the army. Well her son dies and now she's all fuck the war and fuck bush. It's just selfish. She only cares when it hits her directly.

What's even more shocking is the reaction from the other side. I thought you couldn't be more retarded than what Sheehan did, but I was wrong. They spin this into a whole liberal/conservative argument which it isn't. And then those people who have the support our troops stickers and whatnot go off vandalising the protest site that's by the mother of a dead troop.

The more I think about it, the more it baffles me at how stupid it all is.

[Thrizzle]

I love what Rush Limbaugh had to say about Sheehan: "I'm weary, ladies and gentlemen, of even having to express sympathy. 'Oh, she lost her son' -- well, yes. Yes. Yes. But you know, this is [sigh] -- aaah. We all lose things."

Heres a woman who lost her son in Iraq and shes trying to put an end to a war thats taking young American lives every day, and she's relentlessly smeared and called disingenuous. Shes not unpatriotic or un-american, she doesnt hate our troops, she just doesnt believe the Iraq war is worth so much death.

The anti-sheehan protestors should be more concerned with how to keep our soldiers safer.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I love what Rush Limbaugh had to say about Sheehan: "I'm weary, ladies and gentlemen, of even having to express sympathy. 'Oh, she lost her son' -- well, yes. Yes. Yes. But you know, this is [sigh] -- aaah. We all lose things."

Like your sense of human decency, for instance?

What I find ironic (and irritating) is that there was a pro-war mom at the protest. How is this particularly annoying? Well, she basically says that Sheehan should get over it, while putting out her son's in the armed forces. However the article I read it on said that her son's apparently in the marines, not serving in Iraq, so no matter how long the war goes on she won't lose her son and thus can cheer it on knowing he's safe.

On an added note, I'm also fucking pissed that that coward Bush recently said she's "weakening America" and will soon have to resort to saying she's terrorist sympathiser in a few weeks.

[TheDeadWalk]

I don't blame her for not liking the war after she lost her son.

But starting this whole movement or being a huge contributer to it just makes her look like a silly shit.

[Lynn7]

I think it's OK for her to be against the war but then she starts saying things like this country isn't worth dying for and that she is not going to pay her taxes etc and it just dilutes her message. I think Rush straddles a very fine line and it the excerpt above he sounded pretty bad. But I think it is bad that people are saying that becasue Cindy lost her son she deserves special rights or something. Like we are supposed to let her set the agenda for the country now.
I think it is terrible that all these soldiers are dying but I blame the terrorists for all that has happened. If I am mad at all, I am mad that we are not doing more to stop these people from streaming across the IRan and Syrian borders.

[The Postmaster General]

I've never viewed Code Pink as a radical organization. That's a somewhat absurd statement on the Grude Report's part.

And am I the only one who finds it fucking ridiculous to protest for a war which is essentially what the anti-Sheehan protesters are doing....


"Make War, not Peace!" "There's Still More Stuff To Kill!" "1-2-3-4 We think the war should go on some more!"

Weirdness....

[Mr-Blonde]

Sometimes it takes something like the death of a loved one for someone to wake up and get active. Just because she supported her son going into the military doesn't mean that she necessarily supported the war in the first place. Or maybe like many of us, she beleived the lies that the Bush administration spewed out about WMD's, links to Al-Queida, and Iraq being an "imminent threat" back when they were pounding the war drums to first go into Iraq. There is nothing wrong with protesting a war that is propogated entirely on lies and deciet. The loss of human lives on both sides has been tragic and ugly. And all for what? Not a damn thing as far as I can see.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I would also protest FOR the war cause to leave that country now would mean that the country would fall into the wrong hands and we could lose millionss of lives (including ours) down the road and also our credibibltiy as a country would be shot to hell.

That may be true, but we wouldn't be in this situation if Bush and his cronies hadn't had such a hard-on to go to war with Iraq in the first place. I have very little faith in the CIA at this point anyway.

Never forget that this was a preemptive war based on false intelligence that was started by BUSH. His administration should be tried for war crimes.

[Lynn7]

I would protest FOR the war cause I think we are getting some really good intel that is helping us to protect our country. I would also protest FOR the war cause to leave that country now would mean that the country would fall into the wrong hands and we could lose millionss of lives (including ours) down the road and also our credibibltiy as a country would be shot to hell.
I think the Casey people mean well but don't understand the gravity of the world situation. It is sad that these young soldiers are dying (in our places) but their bravery has saved our lives at least for the time being.

[The Postmaster General]

Why not just protest FOR better intelligence, and homeland security?

[Criminal Rock]

That isn’t enough. Our Government Intelligence is much better then it was before the towers fell, and we’re still not entirely safe Islamic Terrorists…

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think the Casey people mean well but don't understand the gravity of the world situation. It is sad that these young soldiers are dying (in our places) but their bravery has saved our lives at least for the time being.

Please explain to me how any soldier dying in Iraq is saving yours, mine, and our lives.

(Unless you're concluding that otherwise without sufficient military folks could be drafted into the war)

The gravity of the world situation is weighed upon in the eye of the beholder.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
That isn’t enough. Our Government Intelligence is much better then it was before the towers fell, and we’re still not entirely safe Islamic Terrorists…


Yeah, but no one is protesting for those things, so it's hard to say if it's enough or not. We don't surely know if it's the war that's made our intelligence better, or just the fact that they've made other improvements. It's almost like saying that World War 2 is responsible for jazz going to Europe, because they happened at the same time, but obviously that's an exaggeration.

And I hardly see the point in protesting for something we already have. It makes no sense. Isn't the support enough? Isn't sending your kids to enlist enough? I used to think protesters seemed like they had too much time on their hand, but now I'm hearing about people protesting protesters.

I mean... They are protesting for a war that we have been fighting for years now. It makes sense to protest for change, but come on -- I don't care which stand on the war you take -- It amazes me that no one else can see the absurdity in protesting for things to not change -- which essentially boils down to protesting nothing.

To me, it's nothing but monkey see monkey try and out do the other monkey. It's no different than when one kid calls a kid "stupid" and the other kid replies "No, you're stupid."

People turn on their TV, they believe in the war, and they see protesters on TV - their natural reaction is that they feel they should be on TV saying how they feel. There's not much more to it than that, but regardless -- It's a bit infantile, IMO, all based on the reasons why I say it makes no sense to protest for something we already have. Therefore, these people aren['t even protesting - they are only there for confrontation and debate -- that's all. They have no right to claim protest, because no matter what definition you take, they are not protesting - they are just outraged and bitter about... protesting. So they respond by copy-catting.


Seriously, if I went on Capital Hill and held up a sign saying "I support the Bill of Rights!" and started screaming how they shouldn't take that away from us -- wouldn't that be kind of silly considering there is no movement to take that away. It would be almost as absurd as protesting for a war during the administration of a self-described "war president" who has no reservations about staying at war for "as long as it takes."

If that's not absurd, I'm starting my official protest to make 21 years the legal age for alcohol consumption.

"Hey! Hey! Have you seen: What drinking does at 18? Hey! Hey! Have you seen: What drinking does at 18?"

Yeah, now I feel useful. I'm doing my part to keep the drinking age at 21. :rolleyes:

[free]

This is my opinion on the whole situation:

She is dishonoring her son's memory. He fought in Iraq, and volunteered to go over there again, so obviously he was in support of the war. Don't you think he would be upset that his mother is using his name to criticize a war that he was in favor of?

I think what it all boils down to is that Cindy Sheehan isn't mad at Bush, or even at the war. She is mad at her son. He joined the war against her wishes, and went back. I can't speak from experience, but I would think that she had envisioned a life for her son that included a wife, grandkids, and spending time with her. Now that can't happen, so she does blame her son, but since she can't bring herself to consciously realize that, she projects her anger at Bush and at the war.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Please explain to me how any soldier dying in Iraq is saving yours, mine, and our lives.

(Unless you're concluding that otherwise without sufficient military folks could be drafted into the war)

The gravity of the world situation is weighed upon in the eye of the beholder.

I've said this before but I beleive that after 9-11, the terrorists took great heart by the effective strike against the US and the attacks would've escalated here- instead they were redirected to the land of Iraq and that has been a good thing for us. I don't think it is a permanent fix- just a buying of time and hopefully any intel we can get from the people we captured can help to give us some insights into the minds of people who are absolutely differeent minded than the people in the WEst.

[TheDeadWalk]

I just don't get the logic in thinking that fighting in Iraq suddenly stopped potential terrorism in the United States.

There was no terrorism coming from Iraq in the first place.

This is what you sound like:

"We fight in a neutral terrorist country in attempt to lure terrorists from other middle eastern countries from attacking the United States."

It makes absolutely no sense...

By the way: Islamic extremists have always wanted to claim Iraq for their own, but Saddam wouldn't let them. We helped him fight them off in the 80s. So why is it that we invade this country to fight against the terrorists, when Saddam didn't get along with them in the first place?

[The Postmaster General]

Okay, now can you explain the concept of protesting for something that we already have. It's an oxymoron: "protesting for".

Could someone just admit that they aren't protesting -- they are confronting. I think the difference is integral toward understanding the mindset of this specific pro-war crowd.

[Mr-Blonde]

Exactly Bubba, they have nothing to protest, they should be happy with the war they have. What I find both infuriating and sad at the same time is how that those who tend to beat the drumbeat to go to war tend to be those with the least to lose personally.

"I stand with President Bush. It's downright unamerican not to!"

"So when are you sending your kids to go sign up?"

Lynn7- your idea that we are somehow safer by fighting in Iraq is at odds with my viewpoint that we are simply stirring up a hornet's nest of fundamentalist pyschotics.

[C-Desecration-]

"I stand with President Bush. It's downright unamerican not to!"

"So when are you sending your kids to go sign up?"


So getting tired of that stereotype. . .
Hell, in this very thread there's a chick who was not only in support of the war, but also sent her son off! Unless someone's got some statistics, I'll go on figuring that hypocrisy won't play, if only because a huge number of bush and war supporters sent their children off because it was what their children believed.

But I agree with someguy. I suppose it's fine that her son's death 'opened her eyes' and all that, but I never take to people making this big a splash over something selfish (although understandably so). It's never too late to have a change of heart, but it's only her anger that seems to be working the strings now.
So, that's fine if you're pissed, but quit trying to take your anger out on the biggest target you can find.

[someguy]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
But I agree with someguy

This is impossible. Nobody agrees with me damnit! NOBODY!!!


I love the commercial they play now with Sheehan. What, you didn't realize that there were no WMDs in Iraq and he sent the troops in for nothing until your son became a victim?

I saw a video the other day where these 'intelligent' conservatives go to protest sites and use irony and other clever forms to protest. They go to an anti-Cindy/pro-War protest carrying a sign that says this:

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/6937/thesign3ig.jpg

The protesters there call them leftists, liars, filth, scum, whatever when they didn't even bother to read the sign. Remember what I said about the protesters being retarded?

Here's (http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/08/1763194.php) a video.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I just don't get the logic in thinking that fighting in Iraq suddenly stopped potential terrorism in the United States.

There was no terrorism coming from Iraq in the first place.

This is what you sound like:

"We fight in a neutral terrorist country in attempt to lure terrorists from other middle eastern countries from attacking the United States."

It makes absolutely no sense...

By the way: Islamic extremists have always wanted to claim Iraq for their own, but Saddam wouldn't let them. We helped him fight them off in the 80s. So why is it that we invade this country to fight against the terrorists, when Saddam didn't get along with them in the first place?

Hussein made an agreement so he could stay in power. He broke the conditions and sent our inspectors on wild goose chases and then kicked them out of his county. He shot at our planes. We did nothing. AFter 9-11 the world watched to see what we would do about 9-11. Terrorists said the US was too weak to fight and we would not want to die in any war. WE sent our troops to Afghanistan which everyone agrees was a nest of terrorist activity- in the meantime we could no longer tolerate Husseins in-your-face attitude cause now what we did with him really sent a message about if we meant what we said. Turns out we did.All he had to do was comply, even up to a few days before our troops went in, George W gave him chances to call it all off- Hussein would not. So there we are.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Okay, now can you explain the concept of protesting for something that we already have. It's an oxymoron: "protesting for".

Could someone just admit that they aren't protesting -- they are confronting. I think the difference is integral toward understanding the mindset of this specific pro-war crowd.

Let's use an analogy- a school district is embroiled in controversy- the school has been teaching evolution but some parents want creationsim to be taught. If the parents begin to protest and promote the cause of creationism would the school remain silent on their point of view or would they send out people to represent their point that creationism is religion?

The people protesting the war have the right to do so- but the people on the other side who beleive in the war should not remain silent or their point of view will not get any attention. I think to remove our presence at this point would be dangerous to our country.


To Someguy- I love that sign. It is so true.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Hussein made an agreement so he could stay in power. He broke the conditions and sent our inspectors on wild goose chases and then kicked them out of his county. He shot at our planes. We did nothing. AFter 9-11 the world watched to see what we would do about 9-11. Terrorists said the US was too weak to fight and we would not want to die in any war. WE sent our troops to Afghanistan which everyone agrees was a nest of terrorist activity- in the meantime we could no longer tolerate Husseins in-your-face attitude cause now what we did with him really sent a message about if we meant what we said. Turns out we did.All he had to do was comply, even up to a few days before our troops went in, George W gave him chances to call it all off- Hussein would not. So there we are.

Nice explanation. So if that is so why did W's administration have to drum up false intelligence and lie to the American public about the reasons we went to war in the first place?

Also even if what you say is true it is still a flawed policy. Thinking that going to war with Iraq is going to deter terrorist organizations from striking is dead wrong. The terrorists are not legitimate goverments who care if their host countries get invaded. If anything it will allow them to recruit more into their ranks.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Let's use an analogy- a school district is embroiled in controversy- the school has been teaching evolution but some parents want creationsim to be taught. If the parents begin to protest and promote the cause of creationism would the school remain silent on their point of view or would they send out people to represent their point that creationism is religion?



I seriously don't think the school would send people out to hold a counter-protest. I think they would wait for a school board meeting and voice their support in a appropriate manner.

These people aren't protesting, they are eager for confronting and trying to level what they see as a playing field. There is an enormous difference between being heard, and protesting. People don't respect the difference, and conseuqently end up acting foolish as evident by their eagerness to confront and outspeak, resulting in them running off their own supporters - the ones who were making very decent point without yelling and getting emotional. If those people were there to protest, it wouldn't have ended up the way it did in that video someguy linked.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
To Someguy- I love that sign. It is so true.


Yeah, because we all remember how the Civil War was all about slavery. Not to mention the War of 1989 that took down the Berlin Wall. We can't foget that war we fought that took Castro out of power, forever ending Fascism either.

Oh yes, that sign is oh so true. Too bad no one told that guy where the real protest was.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Oh yes, that sign is oh so true. Too bad no one told that guy where the real protest was.

Bastard.

I was going to slaughter that idea, you beat me to it.

Anyway, I'm just baffled at how I'll come up with an arguement to that sign that proves Churchill and Roosevelt were the ones who started the war first while Hitler and Mussolini did everything in thier power not to have a war. I'm also unable to counter their logic that China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba are actually capitalist democracies. And not even somebody as articulate and intelligent as Ricahrd Dawkins could counter their shattering discovery that, contrary to him saying his he was a follower of the Ba'ath Party, Hussein was actually a quater Communist, Fascist, Nazi and slave owner, otherwise I don't understand how anyone could praise for taking down things THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM!!!

Originally posted by Lynn7
To Someguy- I love that sign. It is so true.

Yeah, it's only flaw is that they forgot to add "...and a disturbing lack of insurgencies in Iraq".

[The Postmaster General]

Hell, I might have been quicker on the draw, but you hit the mark better. Right on, man!

What I really want to know - I wonder if that guy thought his sign was clever as he was being booed out of the rally... One can only wonder, but I seriously doubt he thought much of anything, except "They just don't get anything. All of them - a bunch of idiots!" Meanwhile he feels ostrasized and ridiculed, and goes on to smoke pot, experiment with homosexuality, give homeless people change, and eventually vote for Hillary.

[TheDeadWalk]

Lynn -

"Supposedly", Hussein gave inspectors a run around when they were searching for WMDs. But why would someone

A.) less powerful

and

B.) having no WMDs

have a reason to give inspectors a run-around?

Our grandchildren will be taught in history class that this war was wrong.

[JohnTheHenchman]

No they won't.

Atleast not until they get to college.

[someguy]

I saw Sheehan go on a rant today, blaming Bush for the hurricanes because he's screwed up the environment since he's been in office :rolleyes:

Both sides look terrible on this one

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
I saw Sheehan go on a rant today, blaming Bush for the hurricanes because he's screwed up the environment since he's been in office :rolleyes:

Both sides look terrible on this one


And I guess Karl Rove was the one who manned the weather control device when he created the december tsunami?

[The Postmaster General]

I haven't ruled out a weather machine.

That was probably the WMD they were looking for. Nukes, and chemicals mean nothing to those inspectors, it was all about the weather machine.

If it's not environmental degradation, how else could you explain the weirdness in the environment -- and this isn't shit that's been going on, don't sell me that. This is stuff that started happening in the past couple years. Snow in Texas, 100 degrees in Minnesota during May, 4 hurricanes in 2 months, Tsunamis, first recorded tornado in the antartic....

(Bubba puts on his aluminum foil hat and heads back into the darkness)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Nice explanation. So if that is so why did W's administration have to drum up false intelligence and lie to the American public about the reasons we went to war in the first place?

Also even if what you say is true it is still a flawed policy. Thinking that going to war with Iraq is going to deter terrorist organizations from striking is dead wrong. The terrorists are not legitimate goverments who care if their host countries get invaded. If anything it will allow them to recruit more into their ranks.

I dont' beleive any false intel was drummed up. no one was there at eh time and intel sucked. now we are there and we have good intel. about a lot of places over there which is why i htink it is helpful we are there. Otherwise totally out fo the muslim loop. now we have a few friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait and Jordan and i'm not sure about Saudi Arabia- they seem like friends but are they?

I htink a lot of communication taht comes out of DC is watered down into political speak so they don't always get to the point- they think of ways that will be more palatable for the public and htis is not just Bush but all administrations

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah, because we all remember how the Civil War was all about slavery. Not to mention the War of 1989 that took down the Berlin Wall. We can't foget that war we fought that took Castro out of power, forever ending Fascism either.

Oh yes, that sign is oh so true. Too bad no one told that guy where the real protest was.

Without war we would ALL be slaves to some other country who would take us over becasue they did not mind war. Survival of the fittest.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Lynn -

"Supposedly", Hussein gave inspectors a run around when they were searching for WMDs. But why would someone

A.) less powerful

and

B.) having no WMDs

have a reason to give inspectors a run-around?

Our grandchildren will be taught in history class that this war was wrong.

You tell me. Why did his own people think they had weapons of mass destruction. He had scientests on his payroll for that. He also gassed and kiiled the Kurds so he obviously had no qualms about killing people he disagreed with.And as I've said before, he wassn't as big a threat as the sons who waited to take his place- they even scared their father with their depravity.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
No they won't.

Atleast not until they get to college.

LOL!!!!!


Someguy-I saw Sheehan go on a rant today, blaming Bush for the hurricanes because he's screwed up the environment since he's been in office

Adn robert Kennedy has been blaming the governor of Mississippi I think. He is the huge environmentalist who flies in private planes and is protesting against windmills cause the wreck the view from his summer beach home.Actually the windmills are pretty and can hardly be seen from there but will be very effective for the environment he claims to love. What a hypocrite.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Without war we would ALL be slaves to some other country who would take us over becasue they did not mind war. Survival of the fittest.

That's not what the sign said. It said war ended slavery.

Besides, what you are saying is purely hypothetical, and the sort of mindset that makes WMD's such a desired commodity for underprivledged radical fundamentalists (such as the people who took down the trade centers out of fear of being taken over and enslaved by what they view as a decadent culture - and end up getting labeled 'nutjobs' by the people they are pushing for a war with)

And with some of the fat bastards in power, it wouldn't seem that being fit has little to do with anything.

Also - Let's not forget, if I'm not mistaken, the first account of escaping slavery, and probably one of the most popular: The Jews didn't need a war, just good leadership, and faith to accomplish their goal.

Every other account after that could be chalked up to coincidence. Funny how so many people credit the Civil War for blacks freedom, never mentioning the massive revolts, underground railroad, and even slave holders with changes of heart - all occuring before hand -- no war, just escape.

The biggest thing accomplished by war is in explaining who has the better military.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
So getting tired of that stereotype. . .
Hell, in this very thread there's a chick who was not only in support of the war, but also sent her son off! Unless someone's got some statistics, I'll go on figuring that hypocrisy won't play, if only because a huge number of bush and war supporters sent their children off because it was what their children believed..

“Only four of the 535 members of Congress have children in the military; only one, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a child who fought in Iraq.” Kevin Horrigan, “Hired Guns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 11, 2003.

Granted this was back in 2003 but I think it illustrates my point rather well.

And we know that Bush sure the hell won't be sending his twin daughters into the fray anytiime soon!

"Politicians Hide Themselves Away-- They Only Statrted the War
Why Don't They Go Out To Fight? They Leave that all to the Poor!"

War Pigs

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Without war we would ALL be slaves to some other country who would take us over becasue they did not mind war. Survival of the fittest.

Hitler and Napoleon would agree with that statement. After all, they felt that everything was a "threat" to their nations and they goaded their people into fighting until the bitter end. Too bad they never thought about survival of the smartest.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Without war we would ALL be slaves to some other country who would take us over becasue they did not mind war. Survival of the fittest.

Without war nobody would've tried to enslave you period.

Ah hell, you've gone and riled up my blood...

There's something else on that sign that I can't figure out. What war are they addressing that 'ended' communism? The Korean war? Nope, that was a tie. The Soviet Union disolved from internal problems. Vietnam was a failure. Hell, the cold war was a long period of 'agressive cease-fire'.

Idiots (and thanks for the kind words Bubba).

[TheDeadWalk]

First off, it was bad intelligence about WMD's in Iraq. Even brown-nosing Bill O'Reilly says that on the uber right Fox News.

Secondly, why is it that when we rally around the flag to fight terrorism, we only do it in selective nations? South America has been turbulent for some time, and the Phillippines is one of the worst. The middle-east has been flourishing with terrorist networks in places other than Iraq, and of course, North F'in Korea.

Everyone is so hell bent on Iraq that we don't see that we are currently causing more trouble there than there ever was. Other places should have been focused on first, in my opinion if you wanted to really fight the war on terror. Because Iraq shouldn't have been number one on any list if you're going to fight the war on terror. I don't think it even really cracked into the top ten, if you were going to make a list as of places in order of priority you would like to fight the war on terror. This is also in regards to protection of lives on American soil, from the war on terror.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
First off, it was bad intelligence about WMD's in Iraq. Even brown-nosing Bill O'Reilly says that on the uber right Fox News.

Secondly, why is it that when we rally around the flag to fight terrorism, we only do it in selective nations? South America has been turbulent for some time, and the Phillippines is one of the worst. The middle-east has been flourishing with terrorist networks in places other than Iraq, and of course, North F'in Korea.

Everyone is so hell bent on Iraq that we don't see that we are currently causing more trouble there than there ever was. Other places should have been focused on first, in my opinion if you wanted to really fight the war on terror. Because Iraq shouldn't have been number one on any list if you're going to fight the war on terror. I don't think it even really cracked into the top ten, if you were going to make a list as of places in order of priority you would like to fight the war on terror. This is also in regards to protection of lives on American soil, from the war on terror.

You forgot to mention that Osama Bin Laden actually wanted Saddam out of power. Bush not only "let Bin Laden off the hook" but now he's serving as his errand boy.

Oh well, that's still better than showing signs of "wussiness" (i.e. using your brain and not rushing into every single conflict that may or may not have in relevance to terrorism). I guess.

[The Postmaster General]

Osama Bin Laden still scurries around, and scores of Coallition Soldiers are DEAD.

I assume that "Survival of the fittest" must only apply toward examples that support war.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
That's not what the sign said. It said war ended slavery.

Besides, what you are saying is purely hypothetical, and the sort of mindset that makes WMD's such a desired commodity for underprivledged radical fundamentalists (such as the people who took down the trade centers out of fear of being taken over and enslaved by what they view as a decadent culture - and end up getting labeled 'nutjobs' by the people they are pushing for a war with)

And with some of the fat bastards in power, it wouldn't seem that being fit has little to do with anything.

Also - Let's not forget, if I'm not mistaken, the first account of escaping slavery, and probably one of the most popular: The Jews didn't need a war, just good leadership, and faith to accomplish their goal.

Every other account after that could be chalked up to coincidence. Funny how so many people credit the Civil War for blacks freedom, never mentioning the massive revolts, underground railroad, and even slave holders with changes of heart - all occuring before hand -- no war, just escape.

The biggest thing accomplished by war is in explaining who has the better military.

but you cna't beleive that slavery would have ever ended without that war being fought? There is no way that those slave owners would have ever come around on theier own and who was ever going to make them comply?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Without war nobody would've tried to enslave you period.

Ah hell, you've gone and riled up my blood...

There's something else on that sign that I can't figure out. What war are they addressing that 'ended' communism? The Korean war? Nope, that was a tie. The Soviet Union disolved from internal problems. Vietnam was a failure. Hell, the cold war was a long period of 'agressive cease-fire'.

Idiots (and thanks for the kind words Bubba).

I like the sign- it means fighting for what you belive in. This world is a cold one- look at what is happening with the hurricane- raping, looting, people beating each other up- this is the human condition on a small scale.
Without wars, evil would just take over completely. If we hadnt fought in World War 2 then Hitler may have won and where would the world be now.? and as far as Communism goes, the cold war was effective. It was nuclear threat against nuclear threat. Both sides knew that pushing that button would devastate the world. The problem now is that in this new war, one of the sides does not care if the world is destroyed so the situation is even more grave.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I like the sign- it means fighting for what you belive in. This world is a cold one- look at what is happening with the hurricane- raping, looting, people beating each other up- this is the human condition on a small scale.
Without wars, evil would just take over completely. If we hadnt fought in World War 2 then Hitler may have won and where would the world be now.? and as far as Communism goes, the cold war was effective. It was nuclear threat against nuclear threat. Both sides knew that pushing that button would devastate the world. The problem now is that in this new war, one of the sides does not care if the world is destroyed so the situation is even more grave.

Fighting for what you believe in? Hitler thought he was that jews were a menace to civilisation and and fought to make the world a safer place. Why do even mention the hurricane in the context of a war debate? Unless it ends eith "and that's why we should stop the pillaging and raping by bombing the shit out of them with our glorious troops".

The cold war wasn't really effective. The U.S. commited many attrocities and suported the wrong people just to show that raped nuns in El Salvador were a small price to pay in order to spite them evil ruskies. If you thought the cold war was such a splendid idea, why not support it against Iraq rather than a traditional invasion.

Without war, evil coudln't take over. Some of history's worst dictators have been taken out of power by war. However my point is they were the ones who started it. Pol Pot ordered his men to attack the Vietnamese that would eventually oust his ass. Idi Amin stuck Tanzania before being de-throwned after biting off more than he could chew. Hell, we all know Hitler wasn't a "wussy", a term you use for pacifism.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
but you cna't beleive that slavery would have ever ended without that war being fought? There is no way that those slave owners would have ever come around on theier own and who was ever going to make them comply?


I can't hypothosize what would have happened. The war kept America large. IMO, it had the same result as the mexican-american war - more land for the Union. The slaves were free, and the people didn't like it, but no one really cared until they said they wanted their own country.

Imagine if all of a sudden, all the pot heads wanted to suceed California from the rest of the country, and there was a war. Do you honestly beleive that war would be more about keeping people from smoking pot, or about keeping California part of the nation?

And you probably just think I'm some bleeding heart, but I think that many people are ignorant about the stories about just how many blacks had already freed themselves. Do you think the Underground Railroad was all about a couple dozen slaves who got lucky?

As far as I'm concerned, the Civil War overshadowed Harriet Tubman, who was nothing less that a modern day Moses, and hearing something like that just makes so many butts clinch. But she's credited for freeing MILLIONS of slaves. It's easy to look at a time line and conclude that slavery was over after the war. History, as we know it was told by fans of Lincoln, and the government - they are tooting their own horn. Harriet Tubman had WAAAAAYYYY more to do with it that Lincoln and his fight to make sure he was leader of a great Union, as he put it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
This world is a cold one- look at what is happening with the hurricane- raping, looting, people beating each other up- this is the human condition on a small scale. .


Note the largest riots in US history, and try and figure out the dates:

1992 - LA Riots
1943 - Detriot Race Riots
1863 - New York Draft Riots
1969 - Stonewall Riots

9/11 - that day went down with no civil unrest.

Now, we are talking about civil unrrest not only during a time of war, but when many people are unhappy with things, not getting the government aid they'd expected, and a bunch of other factors I'll leave for people to figure out. In short, the people are pissed off.

And the looting is being widely blown out of proportion (EDIT: I re-read this, and realize I don't come off as understanding the more serious looting, but I am refering solely to peole making a big deal of stealing TVs) -- the stealing and hijacking of aid -- that is horrible. But I heard a FOX(?) correspondent suggest shooting looters. Come on, they are stealing plasma TVs.... Who the fuck cares? They probably just lost their home. And has any one seen the images that came out of the police who were looting in a Wal-Mart, then when stopped and asked what they were doing -- they said they wre looking for looters???? Had they said "Getting supplies" - Okay, that makes sense.

There were also kids who had to take stolen shoes off and walk barefooted. It's fucking sick. These are just material things (probably insured) that would have rot anyway from mold and waterdamage. And this is important.

Meanwhile, police are dealing with petty theft - and they ARE! They aren't focusing as much manpower on the real theives - they are going after easy targets like kids running out with shoes, and fucking plasma screens --- and most of the nation can't see the difference.

People think they are showing such a horrible side of humans (no you, Lynn7 - I'm ranting about the media) but they are mostly showing where their priorites lay.

It's funny how everyone complained about them not showing the postitive side of the Iraq War, but when we are talking about NO, the first thing most people mention is the bad shit.

[Thrizzle]

Anyone else see a story some bloggers focused on about the media and looting?

There were photos of people taking items from stores, and the captions under the pictures that featured white people said they were "finding supplies" whereas the the captions with black people all read "looting".

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Anyone else see a story some bloggers focused on about the media and looting?

There were photos of people taking items from stores, and the captions under the pictures that featured white people said they were "finding supplies" whereas the the captions with black people all read "looting".


The photos and captions were from different news organizations, so any direct comparison of trends is irrelevant.


Oh, and I hate to sound like a prick (not that many of you don't already think I am ;)), but let's face it, war is one of many important checks that keep population growth in line. Sad, but true. Malthus rules!

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
Oh, and I hate to sound like a prick (not that many of you don't already think I am ;)), but let's face it, war is one of many important checks that keep population growth in line. Sad, but true. Malthus rules!

1. So, if a bomb ever landed on your house and "guranteed" you could never add to more strain on the environment, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

2. What about the billions of dollars wasted on it? Couldn't it be used to get better things instead?

3. Isn't abortion infinetely more practical and cheaper? Hell, why not get rid of those who don't really anything to society (the brain dead, the mentally handicapped, paraplysed people from the neck down) while we're at it?

4. Should we de-criminalize or lesson the penalty for murder?

5. Hell, why not simply let Saddam stay in power. People like him made damn sure there wouldn't be a population problem in their own country.

So still think hight of war?

[Criminal Rock]

Population control is the most ridicules thing I have ever heard in my life.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by outsyder
The photos and captions were from different news organizations, so any direct comparison of trends is irrelevant.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/index_np.html?x

Judge for yourself.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
1. So, if a bomb ever landed on your house and "guranteed" you could never add to more strain on the environment, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

2. What about the billions of dollars wasted on it? Couldn't it be used to get better things instead?

3. Isn't abortion infinetely more practical and cheaper? Hell, why not get rid of those who don't really anything to society (the brain dead, the mentally handicapped, paraplysed people from the neck down) while we're at it?

4. Should we de-criminalize or lesson the penalty for murder?

5. Hell, why not simply let Saddam stay in power. People like him made damn sure there wouldn't be a population problem in their own country.

So still think hight of war?

I'm not saying I think highly of it, but checks are an important part of any ecosystem. Think of it on a biological level. War is a human check. You can't argue otherwise.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/index_np.html?x

Judge for yourself.


Exactly. They are from different news organizations, so there is no big racist conspiracy. The last picture has a black person in it, and nowhere does it say the word looting next to it.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
I'm not saying I think highly of it, but checks are an important part of any ecosystem. Think of it on a biological level. War is a human check. You can't argue otherwise.

That dosen't answer my questions.

[Thrizzle]

War does little to stymie population growth (WW2 and the baby boom anyone?), and it wrecks havoc on the environment, but it does create new technologies and develop roads, communication, and advancement in areas that otherwise wouldnt see it.


Exactly. They are from different news organizations, so there is no big racist conspiracy. The last picture has a black person in it, and nowhere does it say the word looting next to it.


To me, the caption shouldve read in the 2nd AP picture something like '2 looters', rather than saying one person sifted through her 'shopping bag', implying she shopped for her things legally. Its just opinion though.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by outsyder
Exactly. They are from different news organizations, so there is no big racist conspiracy. The last picture has a black person in it, and nowhere does it say the word looting next to it.


They are all from yahoo news. The logos you are looking at are the coyright owners of the pictures - 2 from the AP, and one from AFP. Yahoo is responsible for captioning the pictures, and the pictures are not part of the AP and AFP copyrights, but the sole work of Yahoo news.

And no one is saying conspiracy - they are just saying that sometime perspectives differ. I agree: Look at how when people looted in Baghdad, we were made by the media to think that it was a good thing that they were stealing TVs, because they never had TVs, or were allowed to have them - even though they were stealing them, it was treated positively, and with gusto.

Now, for some reason, people without plasma screens taking them - oh, they don't deserve those. It seems kind of strange, because the situations have so many parallels in a poetic sense, and I question why we can't just smile at the fact that someone earning 10,000 a year, may just now be the owner of a 50" plasma screen.

In some cases, we like to look for the good, in others we like to look for the bad.

What ever the case - it's fucking moronic to put the words 'looting' and 'grocery" in the same sentance.

[Lynn7]

Looting a grocery store- I'm sure no one would care if someone looted a grocery store cause there are no clerks there and the food is just going to go to waste while people starve. It is the people taking the big screen tvs that are disgusting. At a time when there are people in deep need of help these able bodied people are helping themselves to stuff that in the end will do them no good.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Looting a grocery store- I'm sure no one would care if someone looted a grocery store cause there are no clerks there and the food is just going to go to waste while people starve. It is the people taking the big screen tvs that are disgusting. At a time when there are people in deep need of help these able bodied people are helping themselves to stuff that in the end will do them no good.


Yes, they are in need of some good leadership.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle




To me, the caption shouldve read in the 2nd AP picture something like '2 looters', rather than saying one person sifted through her 'shopping bag', implying she shopped for her things legally. Its just opinion though.

It kind of seemed like sarcasm but since I haven't read the whole article I can't be sure. And that was only like 3 pictures of of the 3 million that have been taken.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
They are all from yahoo news. The logos you are looking at are the coyright owners of the pictures - 2 from the AP, and one from AFP. Yahoo is responsible for captioning the pictures, and the pictures are not part of the AP and AFP copyrights, but the sole work of Yahoo news.

And no one is saying conspiracy - they are just saying that sometime perspectives differ. I agree: Look at how when people looted in Baghdad, we were made by the media to think that it was a good thing that they were stealing TVs, because they never had TVs, or were allowed to have them - even though they were stealing them, it was treated positively, and with gusto.

Now, for some reason, people without plasma screens taking them - oh, they don't deserve those. It seems kind of strange, because the situations have so many parallels in a poetic sense, and I question why we can't just smile at the fact that someone earning 10,000 a year, may just now be the owner of a 50" plasma screen.

In some cases, we like to look for the good, in others we like to look for the bad.

What ever the case - it's fucking moronic to put the words 'looting' and 'grocery" in the same sentance.

I suppose it comes down to what they're stealing. I saw an interview on CNN today with a NO sheriff who had arrested two looters who were caught stealing jewelry. He also mentioned that had it been foor or water they were taking, then the police probably would have let them go, or even follow them to make sure they were ok. The news caption comparison was unfortunate when looking at it from a racial angle, but I'm sure no offence was meant.


And Mac, those questions really do not have anything to do with what I meant by what I said. Those questions are more personal values ones or simply opinion.

But if you're curious:

1. Of course not. I'd be dead.
2. I suppose it all depends on what war, and what situation
3. Personally, I'm not fond of abortion, but I'm lenient on the situation.
4. Nah. Don't think so. Karla Homolka out of prison is bad enough thanks.
5. Uh, no.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
And Mac, those questions really do not have anything to do with what I meant by what I said. Those questions are more personal values ones or simply opinion.

But if you're curious:

1. Of course not. I'd be dead.
2. I suppose it all depends on what war, and what situation
3. Personally, I'm not fond of abortion, but I'm lenient on the situation.
4. Nah. Don't think so. Karla Homolka out of prison is bad enough thanks.
5. Uh, no.

Of course they work. I'm just attacking your logic the war stalls an overpopulation problem, but it's way too unethical to kill simply for the sake of killing's aftereffect.

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by outsyder
I suppose it comes down to what they're stealing. I saw an interview on CNN today with a NO sheriff who had arrested two looters who were caught stealing jewelry. He also mentioned that had it been foor or water they were taking, then the police probably would have let them go, or even follow them to make sure they were ok. The news caption comparison was unfortunate when looking at it from a racial angle, but I'm sure no offence was meant.


Yeah, I think some of the theft is uncalled for. I'm a bit of a bleeding heart I suppose though, because I just feel that these people have sort of been reduced to animals. And you know, when in Rome.... Undoubtedly, this is no excuse, but I think it is understandable. These people really aren't thinking straight I don't think. Like I said before, when they looted electronics in Iraq, it was made to seem like a positive thing - something the neighborhoods would focus on and judge upon. Here, I think the situations are similar enough for the comparison - these people are ceasing opportunities.

You keep hearing looting, looting, looting --- but ask yourself why the assults/rapes aren't being talked about as much. And really, they aren't. I think there is something there too -- In the cases of looting, people can associate with plasma screens, jewlery and so-forth. People understand what it would be like to have someone steal something. However, I don't think people feel as connected with the people of Orleans, the victims when the assults are involved. Because clearly those crimes are more dire than any thing dealing with material loss.