Angry mother protesting in Texas

[Felix The Assassin]

Today is a great day.
The type of day that focuses energy.
The kind of day that makes one go hmm.
The kind of day that makes one wonder why they served 22+ years in the service of of this womans nation.

I'll tell you why. To allow her this day, this freedom of speech, this freedom to travel from one location to another, and the freedom to protest the President of the United States! Now she has these freedoms, and NONE have been lost, even thou she has a loss. She now needs to take her energy, and focus it towards a thing called "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS". The more messages people like this send out, the more our liberal "READ" 'LEFT WEENIE REPORTERS' transmit all over the world. What do you think that does to the moral of the grunt on the ground? Review history, and realize when we gave up on Korea, we could only hold half of the country free. When we gave up on Vietnam, we gave all hope of freedom away. When the Russians gave up on the Balkans, freedom to an extent was removed. Then the British pulled out of the Balkans, and again freedom feel. We are still in the Balkans, however we have many allies on this mission, and freedom has a chance. Didn't know we were still there? It was only a 3 year mission under President Clinton. 9 years later, we are still there. Why? What have they done to us? How many WMD do they have? It ain't all about WMD anymore, the invasion is over, the reason we entered to start with. The country as a whole has given us no resistance, it's the 'Freedom Fighters' (freaking terrorist), and loyalist, and brainwashed underlings seeking favortism from superiors that won't do it themselves, and Allah that are preventing the exit. I thought everybody understood that. Today it's all about building and allowing freedom to reign. But I'll tell you right here on this forum. If we pull out prematurely, WE WILL have to go BACK, and our enemy may have a larger stromger front when we do!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html


The loss of a soldier, any soldier is a tradgedy. Where would we be today if we would have given up on General George Washington?

[Grojlach]

Is it alright if I start a petition to keep you from using the word 'liberal' ever again in your posts?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Ya gotta admit, Felix, there are as many idiotic liberals as there are idiotic conservatives. The idiotic conservatives just don't get as much press.

As for the woman... Yeah, that'll happen.

As for you, Felix... She probably does believe she's supporting the troops. You don't believe that she's doing it constructively, and that's your right. She probably could be spending her time on something more productive, this is true. As for Vietnam... Interesting. Do you believe we should have stayed?

[Iron Greasel]

I, who have most mercifully been spared from the US politics, don't even know what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean. But I would say that if I was a leader of a large and powerful nation and attacked an another nation I would rebuild it and make them pay taxes to me. As for the terrorists, I think most of them could be destroyed with excessive propaganda and the "watch-your-neighbors" attitude from soviet union.

The woman is obviously quite dismayed for the loss of her son. Wars will nonetheless always require soldiers. I'm suprised that more haven't died.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Is it alright if I start a petition to keep you from using the word 'liberal' ever again in your posts?

Here you go Pardner, if it fits wear it. If it doesn't, nobody is forcing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Liberalism

[DBear]

Groljach--would you prefer the term 'moonbat'?

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: When we gave up on Vietnam, we gave all hope of freedom away.

Forgive me, but did the American's not enter Vietnam to continue the work of the French in keeping the Vietnamese subjugated as a colony, namely Indochina? Keep in mind that America was supporting the French with equipment and money many years before direct military intervention.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the wood for the trees, but I can't quite see how the presence of American troops was setting them free.

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Here you go Pardner, if it fits wear it. If it doesn't, nobody is forcing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Liberalism

There's nothing particularly undesirable in that definition as an intellectual position to take.

If a person is annoying or a bleeding-heart then just call them that! The fact they are Liberal is incidental to the annoyance they cause us. Many Conservatives can be annoying too.

[ 08-08-2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: When we gave up on Vietnam, we gave all hope of freedom away.

Forgive me, but did the American's not enter Vietnam to support the French in keeping the Vietnamese subjugated as a colony, namely Indochina?

Perhaps I'm not seeing the wood for the trees, but I can't quite see how that was setting them free. [/QUOTE]

Shamrock, if you lean, I will not falter. If you push, I will stand. If you stand, then I also will stand. I will offer my bloodline runs deep, too deep at times/in fact, but I have battle blood in my veins from the 17th Infantry, KY cicra battle of 1812, through too myself, GW1 and GWOT. Thou a loose cannon I may be, I do not let loose my cannon freely. http://www.iaw.on.ca/~jsek/us17inf.htm

From my personal collection:

"But there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North."

"President John F. Kennedy rounded another turning point in early 1961, when he secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, committed the United States most fully to the war. In August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual) declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March 1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, of targets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam. Legal declaration or no, the United States was now at war."

"The multiple starting dates for the war complicate efforts to describe the causes of U.S. entry. The United States became involved in the war for a number of reasons, and these evolved and shifted over time. Primarily, every American president regarded the enemy in Vietnam--the Vietminh; its 1960s successor, the National Liberation Front (NLF); and the government of North Vietnam, led by *Ho Chi Minh--as agents of global communism. U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the antithesis of all they held dear. Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights, pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist countries. Americans compared communism to a contagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakers expected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations were dominoes lined up on end. In 1949, when the Communist Party came to power in China, Washington feared that Vietnam would become the next Asian domino. That was one reason for Truman's 1950 decision to give aid to the French who were fighting the Vietminh."

"As the United States went to war in 1965, a few voices were raised in dissent. Within the Johnson administration, Undersecretary of State George Ball warned that the South Vietnamese government was a functional nonentity and simply could not be sustained by the United States, even with a major effort. Antiwar protest groups formed on many of the nation's campuses; in June, the leftist organization Students for a Democratic Society decided to make the war its principal target. But major dissent would not begin until 1966 or later. By and large in 1965, Americans supported the administration's claim that it was fighting to stop communism in Southeast Asia, or people simply shrugged and went about their daily lives, unaware that this gradually escalating war would tear American society apart."


So, in a nutshell, we were in support of the colony, in order to prevent the spread of communism, which as we all know, did spread.

[quote]Originally posted by Felix The Assassin:
Here you go Pardner, if it fits wear it. If it doesn't, nobody is forcing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Liberalism

[qb]There's nothing particularly undesirable in that definition as an intellectual position to take. If a person is annoying or a bleeding-heart then just call them that! The fact they are Liberal is incidental to the annoyance they cause us. Many Conservatives can be annoying too.

I posted that for a simpleton reason. Not all liberals are of the American liberal society, and it is mainly the American Liberal press to the free world that evokes annoyance to the rest of society.

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: I'll tell you why. To allow her this day, this freedom of speech, this freedom to travel from one location to another, and the freedom to protest the President of the United States! Now she has these freedoms, and NONE have been lost, even thou she has a loss. She now needs to take her energy, and focus it towards a thing called "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS". The more messages people like this send out, the more our liberal "READ" 'LEFT WEENIE REPORTERS' transmit all over the world. What do you think that does to the moral of the grunt on the ground? Review history, and realize when we gave up on Korea, we could only hold half of the country free. When we gave up on Vietnam, we gave all hope of freedom away. When the Russians gave up on the Balkans, freedom to an extent was removed. Then the British pulled out of the Balkans, and again freedom feel. We are still in the Balkans, however we have many allies on this mission, and freedom has a chance. Didn't know we were still there? It was only a 3 year mission under President Clinton. 9 years later, we are still there. Why? What have they done to us? How many WMD do they have? It ain't all about WMD anymore, the invasion is over, the reason we entered to start with. The country as a whole has given us no resistance, it's the 'Freedom Fighters' (freaking terrorist), and loyalist, and brainwashed underlings seeking favortism from superiors that won't do it themselves, and Allah that are preventing the exit. I thought everybody understood that. Today it's all about building and allowing freedom to reign. But I'll tell you right here on this forum. If we pull out prematurely, WE WILL have to go BACK, and our enemy may have a larger stromger front when we do! http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html The loss of a soldier, any soldier is a tradgedy. Where would we be today if we would have given up on General George Washington?

Felix: I offer a couple of agreements and a few challenges. We both separate the initial (second) invasion of Iraq from the occupation. Leaving now would be worse than invading a nation on spurious claims. I can also understand your anger as it pertains to the effects on troop morale, since you've in all likihood witnessed that firsthand.

I read that (disputed) Wiki on American liberalism, and, while informative, I think it detracts from your usage of the term 'liberal' more than it defends it. It identifies the philosophy of containment as liberal, which is the only mention of political stances on war. Liberal media claims are another matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_b..._United_States

This is also disputed and as an added caveat, is not up to 'higher standards' of wiki. There's really not much to go on objectively. What it boils down to is that American media is variably subject to some level of political bias (both liberal and conservative), but all American media is subject to structural and financial biases. Those aren't to be overlooked, and it's not something you'll see any media challenge itself on. For political bias, you could point to the Dan Rather SNAFU and daily tallies of American and insurgents killed, but you could also point to the rallying media war-cry in the run-up to the Iraq war. Recently, a very liberal media would have probably put more emphasis on the FBI's recently acknowledged spying on anti-war groups and protesters at the RNC/DNC. Instead I see this in the context of stories about soldiers being awarded medals, non-profits building wheelchair accessible houses for disabled vets, and a local WW2 vet being awarded the veteran of the year award. All of it happened locally (for me), and all were reported.

I posted that for a simpleton reason. Not all liberals are of the American liberal society, and it is mainly the American Liberal press to the free world that evokes annoyance to the rest of society.

Here I see 'liberal media' as a scapegoat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be against the idea of free press as far as military matters go. Though you're annoyed by this woman and story, it happened. It drove its gaudy train right up to where GW is vacationing. Hell, I'd be annoyed if I ended up behind them in our single lane highways in backwoods Texas going 15 mph lol. However, I didn't see any bias in the actual story. Maybe there's a bias in presenting it, but given all the "One bereaved mother/wife" stories with the opposite message, I wouldn't go to the mat for this. Plus, if you believe in an omni-present liberal media, then that gives you something in common with Rush Limbaugh. I'm just saying...

As for the view of political and military intervention as decreasing and increasing freedom, I'll just say we've been decreasers too, and that this kind of reduction isn't useful in the first place.

...

If we'd given up on George Washington, we might be doing as poorly as, say, Canada and Australia

And lol DBear...never heard that one. I did find "Wingnut" for our conservative friends though, which seems equivalent.

[Chewbacca]

Demonstrating is as least as old as America. If it's not tea in the harbor, A bra burning, or a march from Selma, it's sitting in the middle of BFE Texas demanding to speak with the boss.

Fact of the matter is there are partisans from both sides in the media. Many of those people would rather divide us. Fortunatly we have great choice of media in an information-free society.

Anyway, The vast liberal media conspiracy is a myth. Some times the truth published by mass media doesn't help political goals and pipe-dreams of how policy should play out. Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter becasue of my previous point. Great amount of choice of outlets, more than a few with objective accurate reporting.

I think all foriegn troops should leave Iraq ASAP. Our presence hasn't stopped the killing and I don't see how our exit can make it worst.

Besides, I support this woman and have all along. I only authorize the use of my tax dollars to kill as a last resort of national defense. That wasn't the case in 2003 and isn't the case now.