An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

[RSVX]

A long, yet interesting read... Thoughts?

An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan From the Proud Father of a U.S. Marine By Brantley Smith Posted On August 17, 2005

Ms. Sheehan,

By your actions over the past two weeks it is clear that you missed an important aspect of Civics 101: With rights come responsibilities. You certainly have the right to voice your opinion against the war in Iraq and the President's policies. You even have the right to camp outside the President's home in Crawford and demand he meet with you. Your status as a mother who has lost a child in the war also gives your words and actions a credibility and a larger audience than otherwise would be the case. Now that your supporters have given you a broad forum from which to be heard, making you a national figure, its time you considered your responsibilities to all of us. I have a daughter set to deploy to Fallujah in two weeks and I have a serious concern with how your irresponsible and short sighted actions might impact on her. She is, after all, a volunteer, like your son, and she is going in harm's way because she believes it is her responsibility to protect your rights
and freedoms.

Well meaning people like you always seem to forget the law of unintended consequences and in your vanity and arrogant self-righteousness never bother to think through what it is you are trying to do versus what you may actually accomplish. I am here to inform you, Ma'am, that you will not change the policy of our government by sitting outside Crawford making a spectacle of yourself in the name of your rights to free speech; what you will do is provide more propaganda for our enemies and cost the lives of even more brave and selfless American warriors.

How long do you think it will be before you become a star on Al
Jazeera? For all I know, it may have already happened. One thing is certain, though, and that is that your actions and words will further embolden a ruthless and evil enemy and more American blood will be shed and some of it will be on your hands. I pray that my daughter will not be one of them. If she is, then I will hold you and those like you partly responsible. Yes, my daughter's fate will depend mostly on her own courageous decision to serve, but only the most naive among us can deny the impact our own words and actions here in America have in a world grown smaller by the revolution in communications technology.

I am sure you believe that you are serving some great cause by putting our servicemen and women in more danger and that you can, by your irresponsible exercise of free speech, help end a policy you disagree with. Your emotion may be compelling but the reality is that you will not set in motion any process that will change or undo what has been done. The war will go on because to end it now would dishonor the sacrifice of all of our fellow countrymen who have died in the cause of fighting terrorism. Rational Americans will not allow that. Too much is at stake. Unfortunately, shallow and irrational ones, such as yourself, will continue to put the lives of our sons and daughters in danger by aiding and abetting an enemy who sees propagandizing in the mass media as its main weapon in a war it could otherwise not win standing on its own wretched and evil justification of radical Islam, or by force of arms. You, Ma'am, have joined forces with an evil you neither
understand nor apparently have tried to comprehend. You direct your anger toward our country while the enemy plots to kill and maim the innocent. You make a mockery of responsible free speech while thousands of young men and women fight desperately to preserve your safety. Instead of honoring your son's sacrifice you are inspired to comfort an evil enemy.

You clearly do not understand the challenge we face as a nation and have not tried to put it in historical perspective. It is a sad fact that it is those of your thinking that have led us to where we are today.

Decades of appeasement to these haters of everything we hold dear has cost thousands of American lives from Beirut to New York and in dozens of other forgotten places. Remember Lockerbie? The Achille Lauro? The USS Cole? We as a people were dragged into this war, much like December 7th, 1941, and we must fight and win it wherever the enemy hides and against whomever would support him. Make no mistake about Iraq. It is both a legitimate and crucial campaign in this much larger, global war of radical Islam's making. These people hate us for who we are, not what we have done. We did not bring this on ourselves, as many would have us believe, by our policies and actions abroad. We brought this on ourselves in 1775 when the Founding Fathers embarked on a course of freedom, tolerance, and liberal democratic and social ideals. These haters of all we hold dear strive to destroy forever a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Abraham Lincoln hoped would never "Perish from the earth". They would replace it with an oppressive world theocracy unlike anything modern history has ever seen for its ruthless disregard for personal freedom and liberty. If more appeasement is your answer for an alternative policy, spare us. We have suffered enough from cowardice and inaction.

An historical analogy screams to be let out here. It is one of two men, both named Chamberlain. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a school teacher turned soldier in the American Civil War, found himself in the crosshairs of history on a warm July day in 1863 on a small hill in Pennsylvania. Commanding the 20th Maine Regiment on the extreme Union left at Gettysburg he was in a most perilous position. Should he fail
to hold against a strong Confederate attack, the Union could be lost. You see, he was serving in an increasingly unpopular war at home against a resurgent enemy, and for a President fighting for his political life.
Colonel Chamberlain, stoic but determined, refused to yield. His small regiment held against an onslaught of Confederate attacks, an action many historians believe turned the tide of the war. He was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The other half of this analogy focuses on Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain in the years preceding World War II. His story is widely known. Through his policy of appeasement and a lack of moral courage, he handed Adolf Hitler much of Europe. Which side of history have you chosen, Ma'am?

Your son died in the service of freedom and my daughter will go in harm's way to protect and preserve it. Honor their sacrifice, Ma'am, by exercising it responsibly.

I will pray with you and I will grieve with you but I will not stand by silent while you needlessly and arrogantly endanger the life of my daughter and her comrades in arms. Please bless us with your silence and go home.

Brantley Smith Proud father of a United States Marine Tullahoma, TN

[Noir]

Originally Posted by RSVX

A long, yet interesting read... Thoughts?

brantley smith is just as dumb as cindy sheehan, but once again, that's just my opinion.

These people hate us for who we are, not what we have done. We did not bring this on ourselves, as many would have us believe, by our policies and actions abroad. We brought this on ourselves in 1775 when the Founding Fathers embarked on a course of freedom, tolerance, and liberal democratic and social ideals.

[Royal Tiger]

Noir, instead of name calling home about some foundations for your opinion. I totally agree with him. She has become the Hanoi Jane of our generation. 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.

[Shadow248]

I think she just wants to be on the news. Which is the same motive behind half the anti-war idiots' actions. They don't think about the consequences of their actions because they don't really care about the cause, they just want to have an opinion (no matter what that opinion may be) and they just want to be heard.

Since Mr.Smith apparently considers responsibility to be important.




Where was the Bush administration's sense of responsibility to provide accurate information about WMD in Iraq to Congress and to the nation?

Where was CIA director George Tenant's sense of responsibility to provide accurate information to congress about WMD?

Responsibility starts at the top. And Ms. Sheehan has every right to protest her sons death.

He is no longer a gallant American who died in the cause. Now he's Islamic Cidy's kid. What a shame.

This young man's efforts are no longer gallant because his mother is protesting the war? Your pro-war rhetoric is pathetic Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans do not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

[Phast SVX]

Originally Posted by SVXtra

Since Mr.Smith apparently considers responsibility to be important.




Where was the Bush administration's sense of responsibility to provide accurate information about WMD in Iraq to Congress and to the nation?

Where was CIA director George Tenant's sense of responsibility to provide accurate information to congress about WMD?

Responsibility starts at the top. And Ms. Sheehan has every right to protest her sons death.




This young man's efforts are no longer gallant because his mother is protesting the war? Your pro-war rhetoric is pathetic Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans do not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

Hindsight is 20/20...GROW UP

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!!

[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.

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by SVXtra

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.

Again I refer you to my trivia - name one popular wartime president. There are none and there will never be any. That's just the way it works in this country.

Originally Posted by Manarius

1. We still gained unconditional surrender (well, "officially"), didn't we? Yes, we did. Thank you.

That has nothing to do with how the war was planned.

Originally Posted by Manarius

2. We were properly prepared. We had the weapons, we had the people, we had the money. Is that not preparation?

Well since we had all three of those things before we invaded Iraq, you would say we were completely prepared for the Iraq invasion? Almost everyone who knows anything about this war would disagree.

Originally Posted by Manarius

3. Not after 1863. And, how about the War of 1812? Yes, yes, you missed that one.

Perhaps you shoudl go back and re-read my post then.

Originally Posted by Manarius

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."

Wrong and wrong. You might want to brush up on your American history.

Originally Posted by Manarius

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.

So you're saying that while we did not know if he did or did not have WMDs, we were supposed to simply sit around and wait until we could figure it out, while in the meantime, for all we knew, he could have been building himself an arsenal and planning to nuke NY? By the time we would have been able to know for sure that he didn't have any WMDs, he could have built a complete weapons program and flattened any US city. If that were the case, you'd be sitting here complaining that "Bush did nothing when Saddam OBVIOUSLY had WMDs".

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

See the problem is that you are still looking at things from the late-90's American's point of view. On September 11th, 2001, that point of view became obsolete. My point is this is a completely new world. The most powerful nation on the planet has the power to single handledly change the tide of world progress, and anything that it does, or anything that happens to it, also affects such. We are now in a new era...which ironically is much like the old-era where diplomacy had little value and the man with the biggest stick was the safest. We can't rely on diplomacy and treaties and sanctions. There are organizations and countries out there that want us dead. They use explosives, not words. We cannot fight these people with sanctions and treaties and other useless talk. We have to get our hands dirty and do it the old fashioned way. Taking over Iraq filled one very important role - GETTING RID OF A MAJOR THREAT. It's that simple. You can argue that there was more to it, cause there certainly was. But primarily, we vanquished a very dangerous enemy. So what if it was fair, or right. In the end our goal is preservation, and acheiving such a goal is all but impossible to do "fairly" in this world.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

WOW - we are still on this!? COME ON NOW!!! Ok, let me explain this one more time, cause i know not everyone has heard it yet, and this is nothing groundbreaking, just a reality check. First - forget everything the government and media have told you about the connections between Saddam and Al-Queda. Forget evidence found supporting the connection, forget all the "experts" opinions. USE ONLY COMMON SENSE. Here's the situation...a rag-tag organization made up of men of faith has a very lofty goal that would be nearly impossible for them to accomplish on their own, despite their devotion to the cause...however, there is a very wealthy and very powerful man living RIGHT NEXT DOOR who would benefit greatly if this organization accomplished it's goal. All of a sudden, this organization "magically" gains the resources it needs to go to work on it's goal very efficiently. It doesn't take a historian, politician, or any kind of expert in the field to assess what has happened here.

In short...YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN OUT-OF-YOUR-MIND INSANE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT SADDAM NEVER HELPED AL-QUEDA.

Ok that should cover it.

[n00b on demand]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

Noir, instead of name calling home about some foundations for your opinion. I totally agree with him. She has become the Hanoi Jane of our generation. 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 100%

[Royal Tiger]

SVXtra, what branch did you serve in? As for her, becoming a face of disent for the enemy only increases the resistance, not end it. No one made her son enlist. He did it of his free will. Since I was actually in the military, all I can say is most of the people I talk to are in good spirits and still believe in the war. Maybe you should go visit the rape rooms in Bagdad and meet some of the 12 year old victims. You are pathetic. Since it's the people in the military who actually go out and die, I'll take their opinion over sideline watchers. Which includes most of the media, so that's what you hear about all the time. Do I think somethings have gone wrong? Absolutley. But I'm not in charge of nationaly policy, and as far as I know, neither are you. The greatest American General just about of all time, Robert E. Lee, said he never knew it was so easy to be a General by reading the columns about the war. Since they had all the answers he was going to go be an editor, and they can lead the troops.

SVXtra, what branch did you serve in?

I served in the Army as a pilot of a UH-1D Medivac helicopter with the 101st out of Camp Eagle in Phu-Bai and Firebase Howard mostly. I was wounded twice in combat while attempting to dust-off wounded soldiers from the battlefields near Hue and Pleiku.

I will not address your personal attack against me because I have come to expect them from those who support the war.

[UberRoo]

Soldiers are pawns. People tend to gloss over that concept, but that's how it works. It's not really possible to win a game of chess without losing a few pawns. The better your opponent, the more you lose. If you don't make any aggressive moves, your opponent will clear the board of your pieces. If you don't want to be a pawn, don't sign up for it. Mothers, if you don't want your children to be pawns, ask them not to be. (If they decide to join up anyway, blame yourself for being a lousy mother.) Like chess, war doesn't afford you the luxury of hindsight. I'm willing to admit that I'm no Bobby Fischer. I think I'll just stand back and watch.

[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.