Its funny I could sworn a little bit ago there was a lady named terry schivo that all the right wing people seem to have so much support for .... now the same people seem to think its just soooo wrong to champion some indviduals cause. Just curious but how is she exploited?, if I wanted my protests heard about something and micheal moore or Bill Rielly or anyone for that matter would help me get more air time and more exposure I would stoked for the help.
Very true. That is a right winger for you. Thats why Im glad I supported what happened in that case. Schivo's situation is a completely different issue but I supported what happened. Then again Im no right wing person.
I don't think the Shivo case is at all the same. One couldn't speak for herself, the other is speaking for her son. I believe that Sheehan has her place to be mad but to change her story to the extreme she has is only damaging. She doesn't seem to be representing her son's wishes, but she is her own. I do feel sorry for her loss, but it seems she is being used. Soooo true....
they are differenent issues but essentially the same thing parent(s) losing their child being championed for poltical purposes except for the most part no actual democrat politicians have gone to hang out with sheehnan, but congress I believe had an emergency session to vote on some BS terry shivio law
Don't be hard on debunk, he has a direct line to God and he is in regular discussion with God and Jesus, so he knows things that mortals don't know.
funny how one line got your briches in a bind. LOL . I was trying to figure out in what way they where the same.
She has a very compelling case...... I was all for the war when the WMD were a slam dunk, but after all the lies came to light.......dont think she is too far of base. But as Colin Powell said "If you break it, you buy it." And we definitely bought it, as we just cannot cut and run.
WMD was a slam dunk only in Bush's eyes. He went into Iraq to finish what dad started. All he needed to do was come up with a reason that he could use to gain the populations support.
I see, so the reason Clinton when't in there was because he? a) Wanted to help to get revenge for George Bush Senior? b) Finish what George Bush Senior started? c) Gain populations support? d) To kill american troops for no reason and draw attention away from Ms. Lewisnosky. Hmm, I'll go ahead an phone a friend and anwser E, he when't in with the same reasons as Bush did (WMD) though much was much more of a will to win and a sense of pride for his and other freedom unlike Clinton.
In the present situation, it doesn't matter if you cut and run today or in 5 years, the only difference will be the cost and the number of casualties on both side. A modern army is not built to fight a Guerrilla warfare, look at the whole history of the world in this century, Brittan understood this and that was the reason they left their colonies after WWII. French learned their lesson in Vietnam and Algeria. Russians learned it in Afghanistan. American should have learned it in Vietnam and many proxy wars such as Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador but they didn't. The math is very simple: on one side you have soldiers in a foreign country that have no real knowledge of their environment and on other hand you have Guerrilla fighters that know every inch of their area. On one side, you have soldiers that do not want to die and it is hard to replace and on the other side you have people that living or death doesn't make that much of a difference to them because of their situation and new fighter join in to replace the dead because of the occupation. On one side you an army with huge cost that is a burden to economy and the other side you have a force that depends on local economy and is not suffering from any financial loss. This was the cause the Soviet lost in Afghanistan, not because of the number of their dead. If you don't believe me and if you are in USA then ask any West Point officer about this. The alternatives are simple, 1- either cut and run now and take the international blame for what ever happens after that. 2- Try to establish a real democracy and win the heart and mind of local population with true changes such as free democratic elections, free media (even for opposition), rules of law for prisoners,.... Stop all the American companies interest in Iraq to prove that the army is not there to benefit American financially. Establish a true international force that supports the true democracy. The outcome is not sure, it can be a pro-American or Anti-American government but in either case it stops the bloodshed in Iraq and let American force leave that country with moral superiority and leadership and friendship of local population.
All Clinton did was lob in a few cruise missles, his favorite response to everything including Bin-Laden when was spotted in Afghanistan.
Hell we better get some some american interests in Iraq, I'm sure as hell tired of paying 2.60 a gallon. Gworld, I'll keep this short and sweet, please tell me a nation that the U.N. has sucessfully rebuilt? After you get done looking for the anwser to that question then tell me the nations the United States has successfully rebuilt. Saying the United States can't rebuild Iraq in to a constructive democracy in the middle east is hogwash.
i thought clinton just did bombing raids on targets they believed to be involved with wmd? Did he send any toops in there? How many americans died overthere then?
The U.S. has been much more successful rebuilding than the UN but that was a long time ago and they didn't have the issues being faced in the middle east where their is too much going against democracy in any form due to various radical religious zealots that will never agree to anything but themselves having total control and are more than willing to use terrorism to prove their point.
What you don't understand is that American companies interest is not the same as American people interest. I mentioned this before and compared it to a company like world com or Enron, was the illegal actions was for the benefit of few in management or the share holders? While few earned many millions, the shareholders and employees lost everything in the bankruptcy. There is 5 million barrel of oil is produced in USA everyday and it is owned by American companies. Before the war this was sold at about $25/ barrel. Today it is sold at $60/barrel. The difference is 60-25=$35/ barrel. Since there is no war in USA, the production cost has not gone up compare to couple of years ago. Now can you tell me how much extra profit these oil companies make per day because of the war? If you referring to Germany or Japan, that was a war between countries and not a Guerrilla warfare. You don't need to believe me, ask any military officer (not simple soldier), especially a West Point officer about this. Where did I mention in my posting the UN?