An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

[NapaBavarian]

In my opinion after watching many interviews cindy lacks basic reasoning skills.

[Landshark]

my cat's breath smells like catfood.




<had enough of political discussion after listening to idiot co-workers tonight>

country goes to war to preserve the concept it was built on, and a citizen of that country voices dislike

Clearly 61 percent of Americans polled in a recent August Newsweek poll say they disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq. And 34% say they approve. The number of Americans who support the war in Iraq is decreasing monthly. I guess the next thing you will say is Newsweek is selfish.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

No one stuck a gun to her son's head and made him enlist. I served the U.S. Air Force as a reservist and was activated after 9/11. I didn't cry and demand to be released. My wife didn't write letters to congress. Granted I didn't die (obviously) but the premise is the same. You sign, you serve. She should get a grip. She is tarnishing her son's legacy. He is no longer a gallant American who died in the cause. Now he's Islamic Cidy's kid. What a shame.

I agree with you. Her son voluntary enlisted out of his own will. I think she should respect his wishes, but I can see why she's so driven as well. Will she accomplish her goals through the media? I doubt it.

Smith...he has his opinions as well, but I already highlighted what I think is wrong with his letter.

There's always more than one side. You are obviously on one and SVXtra is obviously on the other. I believe you are both entitled to your opinions.

[94svxred]

Don't mean to change the subject , but more to cool the waters ! my father is from Holland and there it is MANDATORY that you serve for 2 years when your out of school!!( it is still this way today). My father went through WW2 and I can tell you stories that would make you sick! My father was part of the Dutch underground!Quick example If the underground were to kill a German soldier for what ever reason ( generally rape) as he tells me! The next day the Germans would line up ten or so Dutch people and just shoot them down and leave them there in the streets for all to see!! Is that what we want for this country? I think NOT! Yeah I know we have poor and homeless people here and yes I wish we would do more about that problem instead of giving billons to countries that will never pay us back ,but that should be another thread! My bottom line on this is that she needs to SHOUT her pie hole and quick wasting more tax money and our time! Her son signed up on his own and this is part of the JOB!! If she has a grip maybe she should move to Iraq and she how the world outside the US lives!! My 2 cents Just an added note. I know what what my folks went through and if it wasn't for the US I might note even be here , so to finish my comments, If the military called me to serve i would go in a heartbeat!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!! Yeah I know were not perfect , but i don't think there is a better place too live? Sorry for the rambleing. I just got done watching the 9-11 show on Discovery Channel It still gets to me!

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

1. WWII. Remember D-Day 1944?

I asked for one war that went as planned. You picked the second most poorly executed war in our history (first would of course be Vietnam). Good choice. There was little planning if any to begin with, and both the major offensives in the war were large scale failures. Yup, just as planned.

2. WWII and WWI (Remember Pearl Harbor)

I asked for a war that we were properly prepared for. It was niether our desire or intent to enter WWII until Japan brought it to us. We had all our resources at work supplying the British...so much so, that we had to recall shipments of weapons that were meant for them. We were unable to enter WWII at full strength (as we did both Iraq wars) because we spent so much energy helping others who were already involved.

3. The Civil War or the War of 1812

HA! Um...are you forgetting the ENTIRE NORTHERN US!?!?!

4. FDR (He was elected during the war)

FDR was elected BEFORE the US entered the war. He was elected ON THE PREMISE that he would keep us out of war. After he was elected, we went to war. It doesn't take a genius to guess how popular this made him. Sure he's looked upon with a favorable light these days, but he was just as hated as Bush in his time.



What the hell does that have to do with anything? The constitution calls for the preservation of freedom. So how can you say that going to war in Iraq had nothing to do with defending our rights and freedoms? We have been directly threatened on many occasions by Saddam, and he made the 9/11 attacks possible. What other justification do we need?!



WTF?!

Then tell me, genius...how DO we protect ourselves from an enemy who has repeated threatened us, supplied his friends with the resources they needed to carry out a large scale attack, and whom we have good reason to believe has the capability to obtain very dangerous weapons?

1. We still gained unconditional surrender (well, "officially"), didn't we? Yes, we did. Thank you.
2. We were properly prepared. We had the weapons, we had the people, we had the money. Is that not preparation?
3. Not after 1863. And, how about the War of 1812? Yes, yes, you missed that one.
4. He was not elected on the premise that he would not enter. He was elected on the fact that things were looking up after he implemented things like "Cash and Carry." And besides, after JAPAN attacked us, we had the right to defend ourselves from those allied with them. Don't even try to compare Pearl Harbor to 9/11. 9/11 was an attack by a group you can't fight with guns.

As for you called me genius...please quote to me where it says the President is to defend freedom. I've read my copy of the constitution...it's missing

Ohh, and btw. Saddam didn't have WMD's. He also did not attack us. So, until we can prove he attacked us, we have no right to go in there.

Hmmm..... this is one time where no matter how much time I spend trying to find the exact words, I doubt I can clearly get my thoughts across to others.

I have extended (distant) family in the US. Two "uncles" (brothers) were in the US military. One was sent to Vietnam, the other got sent to Korea and also spent a lot of time in Germany. I've known the latter all my life. Just want you guys to know that there is a slight connection there and that I'm not a complete outsider, even though I'm Canadian and have never served myself. (does dating a Signals guy many years ago also count? )

I am always amazed at the self-sacrifice required of any person who voluntarily enlists in the military, regardless of which branch. (Conscription is another issue I don't want to get into right now.) Some do it out of strong convictions of civic duty and responsibility. Others see it as a road towards better training, higher education, and a brighter future. In times of peace, many intelligent young folk from poorer families simply see service as a way to get a college diploma in exchange for a few years in the military, and don't really factor in any feelings of duty or patriotism. It's simply another form of payment for education. Call it a barter system. They figure they'll stand guard duty somewhere, or help with tornado, flood and hurricane disasters, (either in the USA or elsewhere in the world) and stand ready for that dreaded invasion that'll come any day now from the evil northern socialist enemy (Canada )

None of them, however, sign on with the intention of invading and taking over another country. The main purpose of the US military is to defend the USA. Or have I missed something? Protecting your own land - absolutely. Protecting and helping your citizens - no questions asked. I still don't understand how taking over Iraq fulfilled either of those two primary missions.

As an amateur historian, I can't offhand recall any previous moment in history when the US was the initial aggressor and attacked/invaded another country without serious provocation. Traditionally, the US has always responded only to being attacked in some way (Quasi War 1798-1800, War of 1812, Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, Panama Invasion...) or come to the aid of allies with whom they had previous agreements. I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that the first attack on Iraq to get it out of Kuwait was the right thing to do. Had the US finished off Saddam back then, I wouldn't have had any qualms about it. But for various reasons, the decision was made in Washington to leave this former close ally in power. Vietnam also kinda/sorta falls into this latter category of aiding allies in my view with the US/French agreements. Very complicated, don't want to get into a long discussion of Vietnam right now. Maybe later

Well, perhaps the invasion of Grenada in 1983 was slightly questionable from this perspective, but there was at least an actual threat to the more than 1000 American students who were in Grenada at the time. Plus the long-standing problem with Cuba and Marxism spreading "next door" so to speak. It was also relatively quick and easy, lasted two months and then everyone went home.

My personal problem in understanding the 2nd Iraq attack is that I don't see a connection with any attack or real big threat to the US. If people still believe the hogwash that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden and thus responsible for 9/11, then those folks at least have a logical connection in their heads, albeit false. If people still believe that there was a secret WMD program which has remained under cover and hidden to this day, then they too have a logical reason for attacking Iraq, though I am extremely skeptical that such existed. I can understand other folks honestly believing these two factors, which contribute to their support of the current war. Take those two things away, however, and frankly no good reason remains.

Since the first Iraq war, I haven't seen any real, direct attack against the US or Americans by Iraq. Sure they talked big, but frankly no longer had the resources to do anything except talk. Historically the US has just ignored the little yapping dogs of the world, and swatted them hard AFTER they bit the ankle.

So is the US now going to become the doggie trainer of the world? Attempt to stop all those yapping little dogs before they actually bite someone? The International Dog Catcher's Society brought to you by the USA. Not likely.

Yet that is what they have in essence done with Saddam Hussein. If Saddam was a threat to his neighbours, then those neighbours should have acted to defend themselves, and then in need could have activated treaties and asked for help from the US. Help in a secondary role, and taken the brunt of the costs in manpower and equipment themselves instead of sitting back and letting the Americans pay for practically everything

If Saddam were really a threat to the US, then he should have been taken out the first time. He obviously wasn't seen as a big enough threat back then, and I don't think he became an even bigger threat later, given the oversight, overflights, and sanctions he was under during those years.

Finally, those poor kids who signed up just to get a "free" college education certainly don't feel like they are defending their Mom and Pop back home. Many US servicemen here in Germany are thankful they aren't "over there". They see the casualties coming in through Rammstein Base practically daily. Not a pretty sight, and not a very good reason.

See: RANCOR IN THE US RANKS
US Military Personnel Growing Critical of the War in Iraq (English)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...337091,00.html

Note: Casey wanted to become a priest. He joined the military to save money for college and was so deeply religious that he refused to have sex before marriage. Casey Sheehan was killed on April 4, 2004, in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, after volunteering to recover a wounded fellow soldier. He was 24 years old.
taken from: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...372017,00.html

[94svxred]

Vera You go Girl! , but lets not lose sight of the fact that these people are insane!!! They raise thier kids to hate(at least AMERICA). As much as I hate the middle east, I will not tell my daughters it's O.K. to highjack a plane and fly it in to the tallest Palace there!! because Jesus told me that it's O.K!! Unfortunately we as Americans have not seen the last of this They will keep coming like a pimple that won't go away! Well we all know how to get rid of a pimple (sqeeze the s**t out of it) I'm tired of the US being the cure-for-all! Because of all the other BS we try to take care of! We can take care of ourselves I.E. New Orleans! I Wil keep asking myself what this world would really be like without the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

[94svxred]

I must add that Canada has been a great help in the World safety sanity!!

[RSVX]

Twice I had written a long nice reply, and twice I lost it.

In short...

Iraq bit our ankles when they launched a SCUD missile at the Sharq mall (before we invaded), a well known hangout for off duty American troops stationed at one of the three bases we have in Kuwait...

I was there not two months before this happened... and there is no way that Saddam would have not known we always have people there.

/rant

[Royal Tiger]

I attacked him? He called me pathetic for my belives, I called him pathetic for his, seems like a draw to me. As for some of the other points posted here, anyone who thinks the US was prepared for WWII is far from being informed. There was protesting of the civil war. Go to Baltimore in the inner harbor. The cannons on Federal Hill face INTO the city. Why? To keep the protestors and pro-confederates in line. FDR promised to keep us out of Europe. To his credit he handled the change nicely. Truman on the other hand was a boob, except for OK'ing the atomic bomb. I agree there is views on all sides. I wasn't the one that called my beliefs pro-war rhetoric and pathetic. We are now fighting an enemy that tells 8 year olds it's OK to strap on some TNT and blow up a bus, then you go to heaven. Think you can speek to them logicly? Cindy Sheehan has become the Hanoi Jane for our generation. She decided to take that route, I didn't. She should have told her son to go work for the peace corp instead of the Army. There were risks, he knew them, he accepted them and the possibility involved, and he signed the papers and swore the oath. That's where I have a problem. Over half of my reserve unit is NYPD and there are a few FDNY. I was at McGuire on 9/14/01 when Bush flew in on Air Force One before departing to Ground Zero on Marine One. The emotions I have for that week and any other Islamic Extremeist are strong to say the least. My country didn't behead civilians, with the losers wearing masks. COWARDS. That's what they are. More like roaches of the world. And how do you deal with a roach infestiation? You exterminate them. I never saw anyone reason with a cockroach.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I was at McGuire on 9/14/01 when Bush flew in on Air Force One before departing to Ground Zero on Marine One.

I was Active Duty for 8 years, 6 of which were at McGuire, from 1997-2002.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Shadow248
1. WWII. Remember D-Day 1944?

I asked for one war that went as planned. You picked the second most poorly executed war in our history (first would of course be Vietnam). Good choice. There was little planning if any to begin with, and both the major offensives in the war were large scale failures. Yup, just as planned.

I would have to say that the current war in Iraq must be within the top two. I'd say that WW2 was executed better than Iraq because in WW2, we were able to determine our enemies and then establish a plan to conquer them. In Iraq, we still can't determine friend from foe. In Iraq, we've not been able to accomplish the goals we've laid out yet. Instead of taking earmarked funds that were supposed to go toward reconstruction, they're now being spent on security.

And in Iraq, the administration made one of the biggest blunders ever, in my opinion: the failure to anticipate such a large "insurgency" and the inability to deal with it.

Anyone notice that it's always the same people arguing with one another? Albeit some of them have changed names, but it's always the same people...

[Red SVX 92]

Bipa, good post, but I'll comment on a couple things:

Originally Posted by Bipa

I am always amazed at the self-sacrifice required of any person who voluntarily enlists in the military, regardless of which branch. (Conscription is another issue I don't want to get into right now.) Some do it out of strong convictions of civic duty and responsibility. Others see it as a road towards better training, higher education, and a brighter future. In times of peace, many intelligent young folk from poorer families simply see service as a way to get a college diploma in exchange for a few years in the military, and don't really factor in any feelings of duty or patriotism. It's simply another form of payment for education. Call it a barter system. They figure they'll stand guard duty somewhere, or help with tornado, flood and hurricane disasters, (either in the USA or elsewhere in the world) and stand ready for that dreaded invasion that'll come any day now from the evil northern socialist enemy (Canada )

None of them, however, sign on with the intention of invading and taking over another country. The main purpose of the US military is to defend the USA. Or have I missed something? Protecting your own land - absolutely. Protecting and helping your citizens - no questions asked. I still don't understand how taking over Iraq fulfilled either of those two primary missions.

For the majority that join for a college education and similar benefits, they gamble when they enlist, hoping that they don't get involved in any actual fighting. I think it's ludicrous that these people want a free education from the military until the military actually asks them to serve in the duty they were charged with. Plenty of these folks are getting out of this by claiming that they don't believe in the war. In my opinion, if you enlist, you are signing yourself up to be the military's b**** in exchange for education money and the like. I think it's ludicrous that some of these folks are getting out when the going gets tough, after what the military has given them.

As an amateur historian, I can't offhand recall any previous moment in history when the US was the initial aggressor and attacked/invaded another country without serious provocation. Traditionally, the US has always responded only to being attacked in some way (Quasi War 1798-1800, War of 1812, Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, Panama Invasion...) or come to the aid of allies with whom they had previous agreements.

You're very right. Our military is supposed to defend American interests, as well as those of our allies, and we fight under certain rules of engagement, which, until recently, included being attacked before retaliating. The only exception to this was peacekeeping activities like Bosnia, etc., and we weren't taking over a country back then. It seems that any moment, Bush will rename the US military as the "Ministry of Peace"... We've got the groundwork (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc.) to establish an Orwellian nightmare in this country already.

I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that the first attack on Iraq to get it out of Kuwait was the right thing to do. Had the US finished off Saddam back then, I wouldn't have had any qualms about it. But for various reasons, the decision was made in Washington to leave this former close ally in power. Vietnam also kinda/sorta falls into this latter category of aiding allies in my view with the US/French agreements. Very complicated, don't want to get into a long discussion of Vietnam right now. Maybe later

I don't think many of the wars were fought for the reasons publicly stated. Operation Desert Storm used Kuwait's invasion as an excuse to protect our own interests in the oil there, and Vietnam was in reality a proxy war between Capitalism and Communism, initially fought with American-supplied South Vietnamese soldiers on one side, and Russian- and Chinese-equipped North Vietnamese on the other, with any "alliances" and such used as excuses to become more involved. I also believe that war was lost on public opinion and was really the first example of how great an effect public opinion back home can have on the war effort. The Tet offensive was an overwhelming military victory for the US; it was a substantial public relations disaster at home. Hanoi Jane, Cindy Sheehan, these kinds of things can turn the tides of world wars.

Does Cindy have a right to protest? Sure. We can't suppress her and still consider ourselves Americans. Do I think she's an irresponsible idiot? Most definitely. Do I think the media is shooting America in the foot by giving her extended coverage? Yes, and I have a feeling that this is their intention.

My personal problem in understanding the 2nd Iraq attack is that I don't see a connection with any attack or real big threat to the US. If people still believe the hogwash that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden and thus responsible for 9/11, then those folks at least have a logical connection in their heads, albeit false. If people still believe that there was a secret WMD program which has remained under cover and hidden to this day, then they too have a logical reason for attacking Iraq, though I am extremely skeptical that such existed. I can understand other folks honestly believing these two factors, which contribute to their support of the current war. Take those two things away, however, and frankly no good reason remains.

There may not be one big, good reason for invading Iraq. I would say there was a great number of little ones. Do I think that those reason justify an invasion of another country? Definitely not. The concept of pre-emptive strike is a very dangerous one to wield, especially for the world's only current superpower. And we are. The fact that we crushed the world's third-strongest military so easily (Iraq) attests to that. But to give ourselves the license to invade any country if they look at us the wrong way really disturbs me.

At the same time, I understand that there's been a shift in tactics in the modern world. We now have weapons that could destroy the world a thousand times over if used. And they're no longer accessible only by nation-states. When Capitalism and Communism were at each other's throats, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented either side from nuking the other, no matter how easy it would have been to press the button. Now, if a small terrorist group, or any group not affiliated with a nation-state or a permanent settlement, launches a nuke at us, who do we retaliate against? The threat of MAD no longer holds, and that is why I see some use to a pre-emptive strike., because I can't think of any other way we could react to such an attack.

Since the first Iraq war, I haven't seen any real, direct attack against the US or Americans by Iraq. Sure they talked big, but frankly no longer had the resources to do anything except talk. Historically the US has just ignored the little yapping dogs of the world, and swatted them hard AFTER they bit the ankle.

I just explained above why I think we can't just swat them hard after they bite anymore. As for Iraq, I believe that we're not seeing the real reasons behind the invasion. Cynics will say that Baby Bush is just getting Saddam back for Daddy, after the attempted assassination, but I have feeling there's more subtle reasons than that. Aiding in black-market weapons trade, supporting or enlisting terrorist groups (I believe this has been proven), or the like.

So is the US now going to become the doggie trainer of the world? Attempt to stop all those yapping little dogs before they actually bite someone? The International Dog Catcher's Society brought to you by the USA. Not likely.

Unfortunately, the world has almost expected this from us since WW2. And I know for sure that this is what they expected after the fall of the CCCP. We have been the world's police for quite some time, and we always get flak for not doing enough and for doing too much, both at the same time.

Yet that is what they have in essence done with Saddam Hussein. If Saddam was a threat to his neighbours, then those neighbours should have acted to defend themselves, and then in need could have activated treaties and asked for help from the US. Help in a secondary role, and taken the brunt of the costs in manpower and equipment themselves instead of sitting back and letting the Americans pay for practically everything

Ideally, that would be the case. I doubt it's possible, though.

If Saddam were really a threat to the US, then he should have been taken out the first time. He obviously wasn't seen as a big enough threat back then, and I don't think he became an even bigger threat later, given the oversight, overflights, and sanctions he was under during those years.

They tried to assassinate him on the few occasions in the first Gulf War, and failed. He sued for peace before we could get him.

Also, those sanctions didn't work. The UN's "Oil for Food" program wa fraught with corruption, which was recently exposed, and Saddam was lining his coffers with the deals he was making. companies would be paying above the regulated price for the oil, and Saddam took the rest.

I don't like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tightened border patrols, and emptier airport terminals. I don't really like the fact that we invaded Iraq. But we're in there, and Casey Sheehan is getting soldiers killed by her actions. That is our world today, where information travels faster than the speed of sound, and is perhaps more potent a weapon than a roadside bomb. How should the US react to this? Should the US curb the civil liberties it stands for to protect itself? I don't know. But I still think Casey's a freakin idiot.

Originally posted by RSVX:
Twice I had written a long nice reply, and twice I lost it.

In short...

Iraq bit our ankles when they launched a SCUD missile at the Sharq mall (before we invaded), a well known hangout for off duty American troops stationed at one of the three bases we have in Kuwait...

I was there not two months before this happened... and there is no way that Saddam would have not known we always have people there.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Yeah, I'm having trouble posting with quotes, so here it is again without any

I think you've gotten your timeline a bit confused. Feel free to double check my info from other sources. I include one source each for mine.

U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam
Saddam denounces attack as 'criminal'
Thursday, March 20, 2003 Posted: 0631 GMT ( 2:31 PM HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. and coalition forces launched missiles and bombs at targets in Iraq as Thursday morning dawned in Baghdad, including a "decapitation attack" aimed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other top members of the country's leadership.
President Bush announced the start of the military campaign against Iraq shortly afterward in a televised address from the White House.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...sprj.irq.main/


Cruise missile hits Kuwait City
Around 1:45 A.M. on Saturday, March 29, a cruise missile thought to be an Iraqi CSSC-3 Seersucker exploded in Kuwait City's harbor, narrowly missing the popular Souk Sharq mall. Kuwait City's air defenses did not give warning that an attack was imminent. The Seersucker cruise missile, also known as a Silkworm, has a range of 51-125 miles and flies at a very low altitude of several hundred feet. Kuwait City is about 50 miles from the Iraqi border. This was the first time since hostilities began that a missile thought to be launched from Iraq had landed and caused damage in Kuwait: prior to Saturday, U.S. CENTCOM officials claimed to have intercepted every missile they deemed to be a threat to coalition forces. There were two injuries but no deaths reported from Saturday's attack. The missile involved was armed with a conventional warhead. Agence France-Presse, March 29, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/threat-pr.cfm