Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - What Cindy Sheehan (Also) Said

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

What Cindy Sheehan (Also) Said
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:35 am Post subject: What Cindy Sheehan (Also) Said

"I'm finished crying for Casey. I'm crying for all the other mothers."

Cindy Sheehan, quoted in Wikipedia

��Some people are trying to paint her as one crazy woman against the war, and she��s not. A lot of people feel like her and want to know what the noble cause is,�� said Karen Meredith, referring to Cindy Sheehan.

From the article Another Gold Star Mom Speaks Out

Her public statements have been quoted extensively, especially when they are controversial or inflammatory. What cannot be denied is that she has had an effect : since she began to sit outside of the Crawford Ranch in August and continued with a tour of cities where antiwar demonstrators have begun similar vigils, the presidents approval rating has dropped by below anything he has seen before, and the numbers of Americans polled who respond with negative views about the war in Iraq have climbed steadily.

It's made her highly feared among the Right, and a near-constant target for conservative pundits and bloggers - she has been called anti-semitic, a fruitcake, unpatriotic, a feckless tool of the left, and a disgrace to the memory of her son. She has written a lot and spoken a lot and her detractors have gone to enormous effort to cull through the lot of it to find a few quotable moments to use for attack-fodder.

But she has said a few other things as well.

Exhibit A : Sheehan Meets the Guvinator

SF Gate Thursday, October 13, 2005

Quote:

"We believe all of our troops should be brought home immediately," she said. "But let's bring the National Guard home. I want them to come home alive from this lie."

She said the troops were needed at home in case of an emergency.

"What's going to happen if we have an earthquake in California or a fire? Who's going to protect California?" she asked. "The natural disasters we have had in this country prove that having our National Guard troops overseas has made our country more vulnerable."

I think she has a good point. Bush sent soldiers into New Orleans, untrained in matters regarding natural disasters, because the National Guard, who is trained and set up exactly for that was, um, occupied elsewhere. At the very least, this is a sensible point of view that ought to be heard.

Exhibit B : On Her Public Image

From her blog, Sat Aug 27, 2005

Quote:

I didn't set out to become anyone's hero. I am a regular mom who just wants peace and no one else to be murdered for the deceptions of our government. I love the love and support of America: it is what sustains me through these very difficult times ... I think we really need to focus our energies on the cause of peace, though...and the message, not the messenger. I am not a perfect person.

Included for those who accuse her of self-aggrandisement. She is the last person, it would seem, to who this would stick. As she says, she is not a perfect person, but she doesn't need to be. She only needs to be average, and bt alkl accounts this does in fact describe her.

Exhibit C : The Sheehan Approach to Participatory Democracy

Despite Hillary Clinton's standing as a darling of the liberal class (even while the Junior Senator of NY time after votes and compromises with the Right), Cindy does not back in the face of the woman who not only voted for this war but has recently suggested sending MORE troops.

Quote:

On Thursday, Sheehan sat down with Clinton and Reid, two of the highest-profile Democrats, to pose the same question she has posed to President Bush: 밯hat noble cause are our loved ones fighting and dying for?"

"I asked them, 'Are you going to be willing to lead us out of Iraq? Because if you do, the rest of the nation will follow you,'"Sheehan said.

Nutball? Moonbat? No, this is what citizens tell politicians. At least, if they think democracy matters ...

Exhibit D : Cindy's Latest Friend

Guess who Cindy's latest friend is? . Yeah, go wiki him, though their entry on him is pretty thin ... in the meantime, let's see what Cindy's been saying :

Quote:

Every day we do things, we are things that have to do with peace. If we are aware of our life..., our way of looking at things, we will know how to make peace right in the moment, we are alive."
Thich Nhat Hahn

In a speech I delivered at the Riverside Church in NYC on the one year anniversary of Casey's death, which was also the 37th anniversary of MLK, Jr's death, [b]I said: We must all do one thing for peace each day. I now know that is not enough. We must live peace and embody peace if we want peace on earth. Our entire lives must be for peace. Not just one activity a day.

Every step is peace.

That was the theme for today's walk in Mac Arthur Park. Tha^y reminded us to be in the "present" and take every step in peace and know that we are walking on the earth in peace. He lovingly admonished the hundreds of people who came to hear his witness to do everything in peace: eat, walk, talk, breathe, sleep, work, play, etc. No yelling, no angry words, no harsh statements. This admonishment struck me to the bone because I have been so "strident" in my criticism of the Bushies in their quest for power, greed, and destruction. There must be a better way now if we truly want our country to live in eternal peace and not eternal war.

A lot here will find more than a little in this to nominate her for fruitbat status, but I'm from California and her reaction to Thich Nhat Hahn is mild compared to some others I've known who have met him - he has that effect on people, and I confess to some affection for him do to things I've read of his, and by the example set by his life and work ...

Regardless, do note Cindy's reaction to him - note that it is a rational one that combines humility with compassion and with a clear-eyed look at her own self and her own direction. No, as she admits, she is not a perfect person, but it is interesting to see that her biggest drawback and her biggest draw is that she is average.

And this is what the American Right finds so fearsome about her.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:31 am Post subject:

For there to be peace - well that means both sides have to agree to it. The Bathists , Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have engaging in low level war against the US for a long time. The US is just hitting back.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:38 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

For there to be peace - well that means both sides have to agree to it.

The Bathists , Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have engaging in low level war against the US for a long time.

The US is just hitting back.

Yoiu forgot to mention Cindy Sheehan, Joo ...

There have been a couple of thread devoted to tearing this woman down already here, so I intended this one as an attempt at balance - it's hardly needed these days, as the opinion polls in the US show that her view is quickly becoming the accepted one. Two such threads I know are still available in the Cafe are :

Smearing Cindy Sheehan

Sheehan:...pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans ..

I quoted "Cindy's blog" a couple of times in the OP, but in fact she doesn't have a central place that one would call a "blog," but rather several sites post her semiweekly thoughts on what she is going through these days.

Daily Kos hosts a lot of bloggers, more than I can count, and she shows up there. I find it a hard place to search, for some reason - just too big, me thinks.

Michael Moore's website also publishes her, but not everthing, I notice ...

Lew Rockwell is a prominent Libertarian and he posts this Archive, that includes speeches and writing going back to early February - she's been at this a while but gained some media attention just recently in August.

The site for the group formed as part of her recent wave of activism in August and since then is called Bring Them Home Now.

Her "blog" is most consistently found in The Huffington Post. That's where I found the mellow piece about Thich Nhat Hahn

Perhaps these people are "using" her, or perhaps she is using them - I don't really care ... it appears that a lot more Americans are asking the same questions she has been asking. I strongly urge clicking on the various links to read more than the few paragraphs I give you, though you'll be disappointed looking for stirring rhetoric.

She's just an average American woman, in the end.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:14 am Post subject:

Exhibit E : Cindy On the Safety of Our Troops

From her blog, Monday, Octber 17, 2005 :

Quote:

Secondly, I hate to spoil CNN's euphoria over the vote on the referendum, but 5 soldiers and a Marine were killed by IED's on Saturday. I wonder if the families of those tragically slain on the "peaceful" day are celebrating the turn-out on Saturday? I know I don't think that it was worth Casey dying so the people of Iraq can vote in a theocracy.

The soldiers and the Marine were all killed by IED's. There exists such a thing as an IED jammer. For $47,000/vehicle, our children can be saved from most of the IED attacks. The Pentagon has decided that $47,000 is too much to spend to keep our children alive!!! Halliburton steals that much from the Pentagon before the CEO's first cup of morning coffee. For the two vehicles that were destroyed and the 6 of our children killed, it comes to a little over $15,000 per person. Not to be crass, but the government will be handing each family a check for $100,000.00 soon (the deaths are still "pending") and $400,000.00 in insurance death benefits. I know each family would mortgage their homes, or sell their souls, if they knew it would have cost $15,000.00 to keep their precious family member alive.

Yes, this is a very dangerous woman.

Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Exhibit E : Cindy On the Safety of Our Troops

From her blog, Monday, Octber 17, 2005 :

Quote:

Yes, this is a very dangerous woman.

She was safe until she mentioned Haliburton: now, she is a lady marked for special treatmnent under the Prevention of Criticism Act.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:48 am Post subject:

Cindy's rantings would have a lot more meaning if:

A) she could get some of her family come out to support her

B) her son were drafted

Quote:

It's made her highly feared among the Right, and a near-constant target for conservative pundits and bloggers - she has been called anti-semitic, a fruitcake, unpatriotic, a feckless tool of the left, and a disgrace to the memory of her son.

Uh-huh. Well, the Right has a point.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Cindy's rantings would have a lot more meaning if:

A) she could get some of her family come out to support her

Not sure why this is important. Most of those in her immediate family - the ex-husband, the surviving sons have said that they agree with her, just not with her decision to make this issue the total focus of all her energies. It has little to do with the issue under discussion, in any case.

Quote:

B) her son were drafted

There would be more power behind the injustices embodied in the Bush administration's tactics of using lies and half-truths to justify the invasion if in fact Casey had been sent there against his will - this much is true. Again, though, it does not change the fundamental issues under dioscussion : the war was sold to the American people under false pretexts, and the men and women in uniform are being asked to sacrifice themselves for things quite different from what they were, and are, being told.

Quote:

she has been called anti-semitic, a fruitcake, unpatriotic, a feckless tool of the left, and a disgrace to the memory of her son.

Uh-huh. Well, the Right has a point.

Except for one small thing - all the charges listed above are aeither completely false, baseless slurs, or the result of the most selective kind of personal opinion. Once more, none of it changes the essential thesis.

The war is wrong, and it is bad for America. End it. End it now.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:47 am Post subject: Sheehan is a menace

The Bobster wrote:

The war is wrong, and it is bad for America. End it. End it now.

Okay, I'll agree with that...let's get an immediate drawdown and prepare to leave.

But Cindy Sheehan is a menace.

Quote:

Cindy Sheehan. Could there be a more ineffective anti-war voice?

As soon as the casualty number tops 2,000, the grieving mother says she's going to tie herself to a White House fence and refuse to leave until President Bush agrees to bring home the troops. "I'm kinda addicted to getting arrested," she says.

When Sheehan first arrived at Crawford, I was taken with her from-the-heart action and seeming political virginity. Then I read an interview Sheehan did with the Counterpunch newsletter and I cringed: 9/11 was America's fault, she says. Terrorists are the invention of the government. We gave Saddam the WMD he used against his own people. The military-industrial complex pushed us into war against Iraq. The administration is driven by "imperialism" and "greed."

I looked up other interviews she's done -- in TomDispatch.com and Buzzflash -- and it was more of the same.

It isn't just that her utterances are factually incorrect and simplistic, or that they betray unsophisticated views of the world. And I don't want to make the argument that Sheehan somehow is "unqualified" to engage in a complicated debate.

After all, if there's anything politically encouraging that came out of the World Trade Center attacks, it is that the 9/11 families mounted a powerful challenge to the Mandarins who otherwise have a hammer-lock control over national security. I might completely disagree with the ferocious clamoring of the New York families for MORE, MORE, MORE homeland security. But I love the fact that normal Americans participate, that they have power, and that they try to turn their grief into solutions.

My problem with Mrs. Sheehan is that as a political voice, she is disempowering, and she has no solutions. In condemning the Bush administration, Sheehan seems utterly uninterested in either their thinking or the possibility that there were genuine and unpremeditated missteps that led us to where we are today. In short, she insists on characterizing the political battle over the Iraq war as merely a battle of good (her and her anti-war forces) versus evil (Bush).

It is the same shallow approach that George Bush uses when it comes to terrorism.

Hey Cindy, even Nixon Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs says that Bush's "Texas cowboy approach -- shoot first and answer questions later, or do the job first and let the results speak for themselves -- is not working."

In her interviews, Cindy Sheehan calls George Bush a "terrorist." "The evil [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Dick] Cheney and [Richard] Perle, along with the rest of the neocons," Sheehan says, intentionally push war and manufacture fear for their own economic benefits. Bush, Cheney, the entire administration, she says, have "committed war crimes." "It's black and white," Sheehan says.

I know that is supposed to be political rhetoric, and at least in the blogosphere, this type of overstatement and opinion is completely normal. But where's any opening for political change? Where's any understanding of the other side? In Cindy Sheehan's world, there's no political argument that's winnable because anyone that Sheehan doesn't agree with is merely driven by ulterior motives.

"If peace activists really want to make changes they have to start putting intense pressure on their elected officials," Sheehan says, suggesting some belief in the political process.

Yet here's what she says about those elected officials. John Kerry: "cowardly" and a "warmonger." "Even more of a nightmare than George Bush," Sheehan says. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), whom Sheehan says she has been encouraged to run against in California: "despicable warmonger." Hillary Clinton? She's the same as Bush. Sheehan doesn't think she "ever will" change her mind on the war. The Democratic Party: "cowardly and spineless."

Sheehan says Iraq was not "an imminent threat to the United States." She speaks of "unnecessary war and death," of the President "rushing" into war "without having proper intelligence," of the United States acting unilaterally, of not planning for the peace, is "mismanaging" the occupation. She labels Iraq an "unjust" and "immoral" war.

These arguments at least suggest an interest in policy. That if Iraq were an imminent threat, war might be justified, that there is something called a necessary war, a moral war, or a just war, that a deliberate approach with international backing might get Cindy's backing.

But I doubt it.

I imagine not many of the families of the 2,000 believe it either, which is most of all what places Cindy's particular anti-war voice so far outside the mainstream.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:36 am Post subject:

The Yahoo News article referring to the day the 2,000th American dead human being became such :

Quote:

As Bush spoke, Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq, began a vigil in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. Her roadside demonstration near Bush's Texas ranch this summer helped ignite a nascent antiwar movement. The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org announced plans for television ads honoring the U.S. soldiers killed and the 15,000 others wounded in the war. The campaign is to be accompanied by thousands of planned vigils across the country this evening, which will feature protesters with signs saying "How many more?" and "Support our troops, bring them home."

Please note the next paragraph, how The Mighty Dubya responded to the news "

Quote:

In his remarks yesterday, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are laboring under "a dangerous illusion, refuted by a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with [insurgency leader Abu Musab] Zarqawi and [al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?"

Are there any Americans stupid enough to think that bin Laden, a Saudi, and Zarqawi, a Jordanian, have a chance of being elected to leadership in Iraq? I'm willing to be cynical about the saviness of my fellow citizens back home on the subject of international affairs, but it appears that our pResident is far more cynical than I ...

The news gets more surreal every day.

Cindy doesn't need to come up with solutions. It is enough if she causes a lot of people in America who never asked questions to simply start doing so. And not everyone has to agree with her ...

Like many other soldiers, Sergeant Jones was fatalistic about his third tour, telling his wife, Kelly, that he had "a bad feeling" about returning to Iraq. While there, he wrote letters and journal entries musing on death. His wife found one among his belongings after his death.

"Grieve little and move on," he counseled her. "I shall be looking over you. And you will hear me from time to time on the gentle breeze that sounds at night, and in the rustle of leaves."

Mrs. Jones, 26, said she struggled at first to contain her anger that her husband was sent to Iraq instead of Germany. But she has consoled herself with the conviction that he died for a cause he supported. And she firmly rejects the antiwar protests of Cindy Sheehan, saying they dishonor the fallen.

"I hope she doesn't have my husband's name on a cross," Mrs. Jones said. "My husband, if he had a choice, that's how he would want to die. As a soldier."

The same NY Times article tells us this personal story, in the next few paragraphs :

Sandra Williams-Smith never supported the invasion of Iraq, even though she is married to a former Air Force sergeant and has worked on military bases as a nurse. But Mrs. Williams-Smith kept her views mostly to herself, particularly after her oldest son, Jeffrey A. Williams, joined the Army out of high school in 2003. He saw the military as a steppingstone to becoming a doctor, and she encouraged his ambition.

But on Sept. 5, Specialist Williams, a 20-year-old medic, was killed by a roadside bomb in Tal Afar, Iraq. Mrs. Williams-Smith, 42, is silent no more. Though her oldest living son is in the Navy, and her youngest son wants to join the Marines, she openly rages against the war and President Bush.

No one needs to agree with everything Cindy says. I don't either, and that's not the point.

But we might need to be asking the same questions.

"It's time to bring these boys home," said Mrs. Williams-Smith, of Mansfield, Tex. "My feelings for Bush are harsh. He should have taken care of the needs of his own people before going across the ocean to take care of someone else's."

The anger Mrs. Williams-Smith, who is black, feels toward the war is shared by many other African-Americans, according to polls, military officials and experts. And that opposition is beginning to have a profound effect on who is joining the military - and potentially who is dying in Iraq, many experts say.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:44 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Cindy's rantings would have a lot more meaning if:

A) she could get some of her family come out to support her

I wasn't aware the meaning of what one said had to do with who is in support of it.

Kuros wrote:

B) her son were drafted

I also wasn't aware that a mother and son had to agree for said woman's point of view to be legitimate. Nor was I aware that being drafted or not had anything to do with the legitimacy of a war. And, finally, I also was not aware that every soldier supports the war they are fighting. It is a job and their duty once they sign on, but that does not mean they have to like it. Nor does it mean that every soldier does.

Quote:

Uh-huh. Well, the Right has a point.

You are correct. The right has done more in the last thirteen years to destroy this nation than any other single group or period I am aware of. Even the Civil War did, in a sense, reinforce the notions under which we supposedly live: life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, they are most definitely afraid Americans will wake up and reclaim their birthright.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Sheehan is a menace

Quote:

But Cindy Sheehan is a menace.

Would you kindly define menace? Let me see... seeking peace makes one a menace? Now if it's in the form of, say, committing some form of treasonous act to create peace that actually puts your nation under dominion to some other power, for example, but otherwise?

Quote:

When Sheehan first arrived at Crawford, I was taken with her from-the-heart action and seeming political virginity. Then I read an interview Sheehan did with the Counterpunch newsletter and I cringed: 9/11 was America's fault, she says. Terrorists are the invention of the government. We gave Saddam the WMD he used against his own people. The military-industrial complex pushed us into war against Iraq. The administration is driven by "imperialism" and "greed."

And in the sense she meant it, she may have a point. She is not the only person who thinks the policies of the US, both recent and going far back in time, have had a hand in creating the climate for the current situation. To dismiss this point is to bury one's head in the sand.

Quote:

I looked up other interviews she's done -- in TomDispatch.com and Buzzflash -- and it was more of the same.

It isn't just that her utterances are factually incorrect and simplistic, or that they betray unsophisticated views of the world.

She is a typical American. Why does he not simply celebrate that? In virtually the same breath he intimates she should be an expert before speaking. This makes no sense. Additionally, this gives insight into how the avg. American does think. Not what they think, but how. And sheds light on how so many on the far right have been duped so easily. Better he should use her as an example of how the United States needs to improve participation in the national dialogue so things like Iraq can be prevented in the first place.

Also, sometimes it IS simple. Sometimes the single most salient issue is the only issue you can afford to deal with. Some things are simply so precious that they should never be surrendered. Truth and Freedom are two of those.

Quote:

And I don't want to make the argument that Sheehan somehow is "unqualified" to engage in a complicated debate.

After all, if there's anything politically encouraging that came out of the World Trade Center attacks, it is that the 9/11 families mounted a powerful challenge to the Mandarins who otherwise have a hammer-lock control over national security. I might completely disagree with the ferocious clamoring of the New York families for MORE, MORE, MORE homeland security. But I love the fact that normal Americans participate, that they have power, and that they try to turn their grief into solutions.

My problem with Mrs. Sheehan is that as a political voice, she is disempowering, and she has no solutions.

Why is this a problem? When did it become necessary to not speak of a problem if there were no readily available solution? This is idiocy. The process is called problem solving, and it starts with identifying the problem.

Quote:

In condemning the Bush administration, Sheehan seems utterly uninterested in either their thinking or the possibility that there were genuine and unpremeditated missteps that led us to where we are today.

Does any clear-headed person actually believe Bush and Co. actually believed their own bull? Please. It has been clearly established htye had an agenda and then set about finding the "evidence" to support their contentions. She is right, so this point is irrelevant.

Quote:

In short, she insists on characterizing the political battle over the Iraq war as merely a battle of good (her and her anti-war forces) versus evil (Bush).

Again, where is this wrong? Give me a single example of Bush making a change that made Americans more free, safer.

Quote:

It is the same shallow approach that George Bush uses when it comes to terrorism.

Not quite. Her comments are based on the *results of Bush's actions*, while Bush's are nothing but lies and delusions.

Quote:

In her interviews, Cindy Sheehan calls George Bush a "terrorist." "The evil [Donald] Rumsfeld, [*beep*] Cheney and [Richard] Perle, along with the rest of the neocons," Sheehan says, intentionally push war and manufacture fear for their own economic benefits. Bush, Cheney, the entire administration, she says, have "committed war crimes." "It's black and white," Sheehan says.

Again, how is this incorrect? Iraq in and of itself is a war crime. The Scorched Earth rules of engagement result in war crime after war crime. Lying to take your nation into a war that is unjust, unnecessary and defintietly calculated to line the pockets of you and yours, is treason.

Quote:

I know that is supposed to be political rhetoric, and at least in the blogosphere, this type of overstatement and opinion is completely normal. But where's any opening for political change? Where's any understanding of the other side? In Cindy Sheehan's world, there's no political argument that's winnable because anyone that Sheehan doesn't agree with is merely driven by ulterior motives.

May have a bit of a point, except that a shift to pacificism is suggesting a radically different political agenda!

Quote:

Yet here's what she says about those elected officials. John Kerry: "cowardly" and a "warmonger." "Even more of a nightmare than George Bush," Sheehan says. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), whom Sheehan says she has been encouraged to run against in California: "despicable warmonger." Hillary Clinton? She's the same as Bush. Sheehan doesn't think she "ever will" change her mind on the war. The Democratic Party: "cowardly and spineless."

Yes, this is probably a bit overdone, but I don't know enough of their stances on the war to say.

Quote:

Sheehan says Iraq was not "an imminent threat to the United States." She speaks of "unnecessary war and death," of the President "rushing" into war "without having proper intelligence," of the United States acting unilaterally, of not planning for the peace, is "mismanaging" the occupation. She labels Iraq an "unjust" and "immoral" war.

These arguments at least suggest an interest in policy. That if Iraq were an imminent threat, war might be justified, that there is something called a necessary war, a moral war, or a just war, that a deliberate approach with international backing might get Cindy's backing.

But I doubt it.

Why does he doubt it? Gut instinct? This is an irresponsible comment.

Quote:

I imagine not many of the families of the 2,000 believe it either, which is most of all what places Cindy's particular anti-war voice so far outside the mainstream.

Outside the mainstream. OK, so what's wrong with being outside the mainstream? Those outside the mainstream should not speak loudly and be heard? When an extreme event occurs it usually requires extreme events to balance it. America needs her voice. She may not be the "best" spokesman, except that she is virtually the ONLY one that is putting this kind of pressure on the far right. Until an equally effective, yet more balanced and informed spokesperson comes along, perhaps she is the best.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:06 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005

Quote:

He never said that they would be elected (only in control). Should the Americans leave, they could install a puppet Iraqi regime which is beholden to and controlled by the insurgent groups.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:16 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

He never said that they would be elected (only in control). Should the Americans leave, they could install a puppet Iraqi regime which is beholden to and controlled by the insurgent groups.

I see nothing to support that. It has been reported earlier in this thread that the Iraqi generals in charge of large portions of the insurgency are not interested in Al Queda participation inthe governance of Iraq. They made it very clear their only interest was in that Al Queda is, in fact, killing the enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. While the Bath party was repressive and disgusting, it never sought a theocracy. A theocracy would only threaten their power, not supplement it.

Bush is full of dong, as usual.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:32 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

He never said that they would be elected (only in control). Should the Americans leave, they could install a puppet Iraqi regime which is beholden to and controlled by the insurgent groups.

Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:05 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.

We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow...

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe