An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

[Red SVX 92]

Originally Posted by SVXtra

You see Shadow248 I would rather save lives than take lives.

But I'm sure some of those soldiers you were saving were sent right back out to kill more of those enemy soldiers.

I can see that you chose the lesser of two evils, especially when forced into the military, but it still achieves similar results, and you're not much different from anyone else that was out there. You were still one cog supporting a killing machine.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Bipa

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

bah, Foiled again!

[Royal Tiger]

I think any of us that have served in the military, especially those from Vietnam, can tell you the media is the worst thing in the world. We now have a military that is afraid to look bad on the 6 o clock news. Can you imagine fighting WWII with today's media coverage? The country would flip at the number of casualties. I have a book from just after VJ day that has all the front pages from the Philadelphia Bulitan, I believe, during the whole war. None of the pages I saw list casualty numbers. It's a different world, one our enemy uses against us. Look at Vietnam. We also didn't have the media hinting at upcoming offenses in WWII like now. Anyone with access the CNN can figure out where the troops are and what direction they were last heading. The German would have stomped us in Normandy with that information. "Live from the deck of the USS Akron, we have just turned south and no longer appear heading to Calis. Word on the ship seems like Normandy might be our destination. We'll be back live in 3 hours when we hit land, back to you." The media should be 2 days behind the actual events minimum.

[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.

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I think any of us that have served in the military, especially those from Vietnam, can tell you the media is the worst thing in the world. We now have a military that is afraid to look bad on the 6 o clock news. Can you imagine fighting WWII with today's media coverage? The country would flip at the number of casualties. I have a book from just after VJ day that has all the front pages from the Philadelphia Bulitan, I believe, during the whole war. None of the pages I saw list casualty numbers. It's a different world, one our enemy uses against us. Look at Vietnam. We also didn't have the media hinting at upcoming offenses in WWII like now. Anyone with access the CNN can figure out where the troops are and what direction they were last heading. The German would have stomped us in Normandy with that information. "Live from the deck of the USS Akron, we have just turned south and no longer appear heading to Calis. Word on the ship seems like Normandy might be our destination. We'll be back live in 3 hours when we hit land, back to you." The media should be 2 days behind the actual events minimum.

Amen brother.

I think after this whole Iraq thing is over, we need to invade the media.

I think any of us that have served in the military, especially those from Vietnam, can tell you the media is the worst thing in the world.

Amen brother.

Really? I didn't know you and Shadow served in Vietnam. Where were you guy's stationed?

[n00b on demand]

Originally Posted by SVXtra

Really? I didn't know you and Shadow served in Vietnam. Where were you guy's stationed?

Umm I dont think Tigershark was in vietnam...i think he was too young for that. I think he was saying that people who served in vietnam should know more than anyone about how the media is the worst thing. He did serve in the US Air Force though.

[wawazat??]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I attacked him? He called me pathetic for my belives, I called him pathetic for his, seems like a draw to me.

Dan if you re-read his post

Originally Posted by SVXtra

Your pro-war rhetoric is pathetic.

he did not refer to you as pathetic as you did him personally. In my mind there is a difference.

Todd

[n00b on demand]

Right after 9/11 happened i distinctly remember hearing on the news that at least 3 of the hijackers on those planes were in Iraq for some reason or the other a few weeks before the attacks. Gee i wonder what they were doing? . And I love how people keep using " we didnt find WMD in iraq so why did we go there in he first place"....we went and took that dictator out because he was a threat and we have to protect our own people. Not to mention we probably saved alot of lives in Iraq by taking him out. Living in NY isnt an easy thing....everyday I walk down the street wondering whats going to happen. If a plane looks like its flying too low people always look up and wonder. Better safe than sorry.

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

Since you wish to bring up the question again. How about George H.W. Bush. He oversaw two major U.S. military deployments. He ordered the invasion of Panama. Which I believe was the largest airborne assault since World War II. I also believe his approval rating was around 80% after that war.


And how about George W.Bush's easy reelection while fighting two wars. He moped up the floor voter wise using John Kerry as a mop.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by wawazat??

Dan if you re-read his post



he did not refer to you as pathetic as you did him personally. In my mind there is a difference.

Todd

I agree with Todd on this one. So far things have remained relatively civil in this thread, so please keep it that way.

Originally Posted by Shadow248

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.

Actually, I've heard this type of thinking before. What I find interesting is that the previous folks who espoused similar values were leaders of the CCCP. The goal justifies the means. Was despised by the West as going against all our beliefs. Guess those beliefs have changed. Oh, well.... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

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.

You ask me to use common sense. Here goes. That rag-tag organization is led by a man with excellent family connections and a great deal of personal wealth. Bin Laden was one of 54 children born to a Saudi Arabian of Yemeni origin who made a fortune in the construction trades. At the time of his death in 1968, Osama's father was worth in excess of $11 billion. Osama was raised and educated with members of the Saudi royal family.

Won't go into lots of detail, but Osama initially saw the CCCP as being the greater threat, and having been strongly influenced by his cleric teachers, he went to Afghanistan to join the mujahideens. In the 1980's, Osama formed an organization called Maktab al-Khidamar, which together with the other mujahideen groups, were covertly being supported by the US/CIA in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is estimated that the CIA funnelled over $3 Billion over the course of the war to fund anti-Soviet fighters, which included Osama.

By 1982, they were receiving $600 million per year from the CIA and the same from the Gulf states. (Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 143

When that war ended in 1989, Osama had not just his family wealth, but very good training and weapons - mostly supplied by the USA, and a vast interconnecting network of fellow guerilla fighters. On his return to Saudi Arabia, he continued to be disillusioned by the activities of the royal Saudi Family, which he viewed as dissolute and degenerate. He was also against the increasingly close ties between the Saudi Royal Family and the USA, which he saw as contributing to the downfall of traditional Saudi moral values.

In 1988, Osama left the Maktab al-Khidamar along with a group of other like-minded extremists to form a new organization: al-Qaida. So it could be argued that the whole situation is a problem step-child of the USA and CIA. Seems that history repeats itself continuously as there are many similar examples of USA backed individuals and groups later returning to bite the hand that fed them.

The USA isn't actually Osama's primary target. He sees the USA as enabling and contributing to the liberalization of Saudi Arabia. In simple terms, he sees the Saudi's as having a bad drug habit, and the USA is the supplier. He's decided to cut off the supply of "drugs". Not a new concept.

And that's the short version of how "All of a sudden, this organization "magically" gains the resources it needs to go to work on it's goal very efficiently." (your words)

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

I usually don't respond at all to these kinds of inappropriate comments. I shall ignore the personal disparagement and move on to your speculation about possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida.

I assume you are aware that Osama was extremely upset when the Saudi's "invited" the infidel US Armed Forces to use Saudi Arabia as a base in 1990 for the first Iraq war. He wanted the Saudi's to instead invite only true-believers - i.e. former Afghan mujahideens, who would not pollute Islam by their very presence. He perceived Saddam as a threat not only to Saudi Arabia but also to Islam in general. Saddam did not have clerics in high government positions and was extremely secular in nature. He allowed women unprecedented freedom for an Arab society, among other things. Saddam did not follow the strict conservative interpretation of Islam which Osama believes is the only true path.

So considering the well-known fact that Osama was ready and willing to use his former Afghanistan network against Saddam for the protection of Saudi Arabia, and given their diametrically opposed beliefs, I see no way that they could ever cooperate.

In fact, Osama kicked up such a fuss about US presence, that finally in 1991 he was "asked" to leave the country. They actually stripped him of his Saudi citizenship in April, 1994.

Once Saddam was gone, and the mainly US forces were occupying Iraq, it was only natural and to be expected that the Islamic conservatives, both Osama's group and others (for example Iran) would view this as a opportunity to change a secular, fairly modern country into a conservative, Sharia based Islamic state.

The struggle within Islam between the rationalists (the champions of ijtihad), and the followers of tradition (taqlid), has been going on since the 10th century.

Ijtihad takes a very different view of the Quran.
There is no Compulsion in Religion (Quran; 2:156) is a favourite quote of theirs. Followers of ijtihad seek to promote freedom of thought
(hurriyah al-ra'y) and independent thinking (Ijtihad) among Muslims everywhere. For more info, please see http://www.ijtihad.org/

Taqlid, however, literally means "to follow (someone)", "to imitate". In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a mujtahid (expert of Islamic jurisprudence) in religious laws and commandment as he has derived them. There is no standard set of legal codes, but it is mainly dependent upon the opinions, beliefs and personal interpretation of the individual mujtahid. There are various schools of thought - some more radical, some more flexible. For more info, I recommend http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/practices/taqlid.html

Ok that should cover it.

Yup... I agree

Originally Posted by Red SVX 92

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

Thanks <curtsy>

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.

I agree. Unfortunately, many 18 year-olds simply don't think it through all the way. I certainly wasn't very wise in some of my major decisions when I was 18! So I am not surprised that when they are actually faced with paying the full price of service, they suddenly realise that the actual "cost" for this free education is possible death. Should have thought about that before enlisting. It is the nature of the job, and shouldn't come as a later revelation that their lives might be in jeopardy if they sign up to be soldiers.

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.

We agree again. The degredation of civil liberties in the USA should be of concern to all US citizens.

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.

As I indicated in my previous post, the actual causes of war are always extremely complicated. They are tough to figure out even years later when much more info is available and unclassified. Sure I can say that the trigger for WWI was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June, 1914. But that is way too simple an explanation. One has to understand the background and all the interconnecting and complex agreements between various countries, plus take into account personalities. Often the personal interaction between leaders has a significant effect upon how disputes are resolved, or not.

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.

That is a prime example of both the strength and weakness of American society. Both freedom of speech and freedom of the press are double-edged swords. It is no wonder that they are usually the first rights to be curtailed by dictators and tyrants. But suppression and censorship goes against everything we believe in. We try to maintain certain standards of honour and decency, even in times of trouble when they seem to hinder us in attaining our goals. To descend to the same uncivilized level as the bad guy, to use his methods rather than sticking to our higher principles, might at first seem the easier route. In the end, however, it simply leads to a beastial existence where might makes right and justice has no meaning.

I actually pretty much agree with you. I'm just not certain why you think the media would want to purposely shoot America in the foot. I don't think they're that bright

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.

Gosh dang it... we agree again. How can I have a good argument when what you write makes sense to 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.

To be honest, it isn't the concept of a pre-emptive strike in theory that bothers me all that much. Obviously, nation states play by different rules, and you don't always have time to hold a nice trial by judge and jury and find someone officially guilty before taking action.

My biggest problem is with how the target for this pre-emptive strike was chosen. I think we should be much more selective, and not hold to account 26 million people* for the actions of a few. It is equivalent to throwing all of Chicago in jail because a small group of gangsters are operating out of there, and we don't have the time or inclination to figure out the bad guys from the good. (*CIA factbook July, 2005 estimate of Iraq's pop.)

I also must admit that after reading Bob Woodward's "Plan Of Attack", I have severe doubts about how great a threat Saddam actually posed to the world in general, and the US in particular at the time of the 2nd Iraq war. It was a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

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.

I have no doubt that Saddam was involved with all of the above. I just don't believe the al-Qaida connection. However, there are many other bad leaders out there doing the same things freely and unhindered. Perhaps one of these days we'll learn the truth of why Saddam was singled out from amongst all the other rotten ones.

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.

With power comes responsibility. Obviously, there will always be disagreement about the US responding too little, too much, too soon, too late - that comes with the territory. I honestly believe that in general, the USA has used its power responsibly. But once in a while I just can't figure out what the heck is going on. I see something like Iraq happening, try to educate myself from various sources, and end up thinking WTF were they thinking? Of course in hindsight one is better able to consider possible options and outcomes. But certain things remain basic cause and effect stuff and can be anticipated. The current mess in Iraq SHOULD have been anticipated.

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.

Yeah, the US was never very good at assassination. Should have asked for more help from Mossad. They've gotten quite good at pinpoint strikes.

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.

Not to sound too harsh, but so what? Saddam gets rich while his people starve and die. Nothing new, and happening right now in several other countries. Doesn't mean that he's manufacturing WMD. Could just mean that his Swiss bankers are happy.

I don't like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tightened border patrols, and emptier airport terminals.

Oh, yeah... the hassle at the airports. I do everything possible to avoid transiting through US airports now when flying between Europe and Canada. Obviously, I'm not the only one. I wonder how much $$ that's costing the US economy?

I don't really like the fact that we invaded Iraq. But we're in there...

You broke it, you own it... as the saying goes. Now it needs to be fixed. I actually am NOT in support of pulling out the troops. I would have preferred that they never went in there in the first place. Yet the past is done, can't change it, and we need to focus on today and the future. Right now, Iraq can't manage on its own. The only question remaining is how to fix it.

... 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.

We've known for a while that occasionally the pen is mightier than the sword. China is really trying to block internet access right now, yet how long will that last? As people get richer and switch to direct satellite, it will become impossible to curb the flow of information in either direction.

The truth shall set you free. I've always liked that saying. But it can also get you in trouble.

I doubt that Ms. Sheehan is actually responsible for any deaths. She's speaking her mind, and it is up to the individual to listen or refuse to hear, to agree or disagree. That's the American way. She isn't saying anything particularly original. Others have been saying the same thing since the war's beginning, and more joined in once casualties started to mount. I don't mean to sound disdainful, but could you explain to me how a mother protesting her son's death can actually get soldiers killed? She might act as a trigger for a large populist movement, but surely then the whole movement is to blame for influencing government actions, as opposed to the lone individual whose call was heard and heeded. And if the government acts in some way that later results in unecessary deaths, then the gov't is responsible since they made the actual decisions.

How should the US react to this? Should the US curb the civil liberties it stands for to protect itself? I don't know.

I would say no, that we have to stand up for what we believe in, or else we are hypocrites and everything becomes a sham. You can't try to promote civil liberties in other countries while at the same time limiting them in your own. Funny enough, they'll take what you actually are doing as an example, and ignore what you say should be done.

But I still think Casey's a freakin idiot.

That's the beauty of America. Anyone is allowed to rise to their own level of stupidity

[Noir]

Bipa

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I think any of us that have served in the military, especially those from Vietnam, can tell you the media is the worst thing in the world. We now have a military that is afraid to look bad on the 6 o clock news. Can you imagine fighting WWII with today's media coverage? The country would flip at the number of casualties. I have a book from just after VJ day that has all the front pages from the Philadelphia Bulitan, I believe, during the whole war. None of the pages I saw list casualty numbers. It's a different world, one our enemy uses against us. Look at Vietnam. We also didn't have the media hinting at upcoming offenses in WWII like now. Anyone with access the CNN can figure out where the troops are and what direction they were last heading. The German would have stomped us in Normandy with that information. "Live from the deck of the USS Akron, we have just turned south and no longer appear heading to Calis. Word on the ship seems like Normandy might be our destination. We'll be back live in 3 hours when we hit land, back to you." The media should be 2 days behind the actual events minimum.

Umm..yes..my dad was drafted in 72 to go over to Vietnam (thank God it ended before he did), and he hasn't said a word about the media being an issue in Iraq. And he wholly supported us NOT going in there.