Oil and world domination at the expense of everyone else is noble, right?
Right?
*crickets*
*an own hoots in the distance*
... right?...
So the guys who died before him won't have died in vain.
This is just asking for sarcasm and cynics.
Well, if there's a straight-faced answer to the question, I wouldn't mind hearing it.
There is NO good reason Casey had to die. But Cindy Sheehan is a hero, an outraged mother with every right to be heard. But will she be?
I would answer "his own".
His choice, his destiny, his fate demanded that sacrifice.
I would also say that we cannot listen to one grieving mother and say "she has the moral authority" without listening to other grieving mothers who still support the war in Iraq. Pitting the two camps against one another is wrong. It's not a contest, for God's sakes. And if it were, it would be one I wouldn't want to win, as it would require more grieving mothers.
Smarticus: George W. Bush marked the death of 14 soldiers in Iraq by saying that they had died for a noble cause. This is what caused Sheehan to wonder what that noble cause actually was. No word from Bush on this.
Well, I suspect that those Iraqis who voted in the last election would thank Sheehan for her son's sacrifice. Ditto those Iraqis who are fighting radical Muslim insugents, or those who no longer have to worry about being disappeared by minions of a corrupt regime.
I am not overly fond of Bush and Co., but I think we can point to some good coming out of this war without saying that *everything* is A-OK!
My heart goes out to Sheehan, of course, and I in no way condemn her actions. Grief is horrible, and messy, and doesn't exactly behave with decorum.
How patronizing some people are to Cindy Sheehan. I have a comment on my own blog on her that calls her a "nice" nut and says what good will it do. From my own point of view, Cindy Sheehan may be grieving but she is not a "nut." She is speaking against an injust war in the hopes of saving more brothers, sons, and husbands (wives, mothers, sisters) from dying. She is doing what no single politician has had the courage to do. If any of them had the balls, they would be down there with her. It is just this sort of event that captures hearts and minds and turns the course of wars. And all I have to say to those who think there is something good coming of this war is - do you have a loved one over there who has died? Are you going over there yourself?
I just typed out several long paragraphs of response, but after I read it, I realized the rampant sarcasm and deleted all of it.
There are many people there dying brutally, most of whom are Iraqis who did nothing wrong but to be born there, and they are dying by the hands of non-Iraqis.
He died for the noble cause of creating a democracy in Iraq. I tend to agree the right has been overly harsh with the mother. How many people are up for the absolute rationality and consistency demanded by a national spotlight during a time of such sorrow?
What noble cause is Cindy Sheehan serving by making a spectacle of herself?
According to Cindy, her son died in a war for Israel. Is this logical?
And my oh my, look at these comments from June of 2004: "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
and this: For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.
You should read a bit more before blindly lining up behind the latest media created cause celebre.
Of course, with David Duke supporting your viewpoint maybe there's something to it. He's a nice, rational man after all.
Can't wait until Ms. Sheehan tries to cut the deal for the TV Movie about her son's elistment (voluntary, I might add) in the armed forces and her subsequent campaign. How much money do you think she'll look for? Do you think she'll want to star as herself, or is she going to ask for Meg Ryan? Nah. Maybe Julia Roberts.
So you can't answer the question either, can ye, blinded?
Nobility is a matter of perspective.
Pat Robertson seems to feel that assassinating Hugo Chavez is a noble cause.
Many thought for many years that terminating children who had mental illnesses was a noble cause.
Some would argue that assassinating George Bush is a noble cause. I say take care of two birds with one stone and have someone with a mental disability do it.
Any volunteers?
Cindy Sheehan is seeking nothing but attention for herself and her incoherent view of world politics, and is using her son's death as a platform. That's not a noble cause. That her son didn't have to die; that it was his choice to serve in the armed forces doesn't seem to affect her viewpoint. That her son may feel that he died in the proud and noble service of his country, and her opposition to that may be offensive to his views, seems not to have affected her viewpoint.
Your question explicitly implied that one existed, or was asked in a mocking spirit. Given your views of President Bush, the former seems more likely to be the case - short sighted and ill thought out though it may be.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps your expected your audience to enlighten you - I doubt it though. You're far too preachy most of the time for this to be an exception.
Comments (14)
Oil and world domination at the expense of everyone else is noble, right?
Right?
*crickets*
*an own hoots in the distance*
... right?...
So the guys who died before him won't have died in vain.
This is just asking for sarcasm and cynics.
Well, if there's a straight-faced answer to the question, I wouldn't mind hearing it.
There is NO good reason Casey had to die. But Cindy Sheehan is a hero, an outraged mother with every right to be heard. But will she be?
I would answer "his own".
His choice, his destiny, his fate demanded that sacrifice.
I would also say that we cannot listen to one grieving mother and say "she has the moral authority" without listening to other grieving mothers who still support the war in Iraq. Pitting the two camps against one another is wrong. It's not a contest, for God's sakes. And if it were, it would be one I wouldn't want to win, as it would require more grieving mothers.
Smarticus: George W. Bush marked the death of 14 soldiers in Iraq by saying that they had died for a noble cause. This is what caused Sheehan to wonder what that noble cause actually was. No word from Bush on this.
Well, I suspect that those Iraqis who voted in the last election would thank Sheehan for her son's sacrifice. Ditto those Iraqis who are fighting radical Muslim insugents, or those who no longer have to worry about being disappeared by minions of a corrupt regime.
I am not overly fond of Bush and Co., but I think we can point to some good coming out of this war without saying that *everything* is A-OK!
My heart goes out to Sheehan, of course, and I in no way condemn her actions. Grief is horrible, and messy, and doesn't exactly behave with decorum.
How patronizing some people are to Cindy Sheehan. I have a comment on my own blog on her that calls her a "nice" nut and says what good will it do. From my own point of view, Cindy Sheehan may be grieving but she is not a "nut." She is speaking against an injust war in the hopes of saving more brothers, sons, and husbands (wives, mothers, sisters) from dying. She is doing what no single politician has had the courage to do. If any of them had the balls, they would be down there with her. It is just this sort of event that captures hearts and minds and turns the course of wars. And all I have to say to those who think there is something good coming of this war is - do you have a loved one over there who has died? Are you going over there yourself?
I just typed out several long paragraphs of response, but after I read it, I realized the rampant sarcasm and deleted all of it.
There are many people there dying brutally, most of whom are Iraqis who did nothing wrong but to be born there, and they are dying by the hands of non-Iraqis.
He died for the noble cause of creating a democracy in Iraq. I tend to agree the right has been overly harsh with the mother. How many people are up for the absolute rationality and consistency demanded by a national spotlight during a time of such sorrow?
What noble cause is Cindy Sheehan serving by making a spectacle of herself?
According to Cindy, her son died in a war for Israel. Is this logical?
And my oh my, look at these comments from June of 2004:
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
and this:
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.
You should read a bit more before blindly lining up behind the latest media created cause celebre.
http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/?nav/fo/
http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/
Of course, with David Duke supporting your viewpoint maybe there's something to it. He's a nice, rational man after all.
Can't wait until Ms. Sheehan tries to cut the deal for the TV Movie about her son's elistment (voluntary, I might add) in the armed forces and her subsequent campaign. How much money do you think she'll look for? Do you think she'll want to star as herself, or is she going to ask for Meg Ryan? Nah. Maybe Julia Roberts.
So you can't answer the question either, can ye, blinded?
Nobility is a matter of perspective.
Pat Robertson seems to feel that assassinating Hugo Chavez is a noble cause.
Many thought for many years that terminating children who had mental illnesses was a noble cause.
Some would argue that assassinating George Bush is a noble cause. I say take care of two birds with one stone and have someone with a mental disability do it.
Any volunteers?
Cindy Sheehan is seeking nothing but attention for herself and her incoherent view of world politics, and is using her son's death as a platform. That's not a noble cause. That her son didn't have to die; that it was his choice to serve in the armed forces doesn't seem to affect her viewpoint. That her son may feel that he died in the proud and noble service of his country, and her opposition to that may be offensive to his views, seems not to have affected her viewpoint.
Your question explicitly implied that one existed, or was asked in a mocking spirit. Given your views of President Bush, the former seems more likely to be the case - short sighted and ill thought out though it may be.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps your expected your audience to enlighten you - I doubt it though. You're far too preachy most of the time for this to be an exception.
Comments are closed.