It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Forget Cindy. Remember...What's His Name?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if soldiers and sailors wouldn't have died defending your family, you, or even Wilfren Owen, you wouldn't be able to recite his poems, and he wouldn't be able to have written at all.


For the record, Wilfred Owen was a combatant in WWI. His vivid poem of his marching behind a wagon carrying the dead after a gas attack, has been used by the anti-war crowd, but there really isn't any evidence that I am aware of that Owen doubted the necessity of the war in which he fought. He does however, challenge any romantic view of war, preferring to highlight the horror of the advanced weaponry of the First World War. Taken literally, certainly there is nothing beautiful or sweet about combat. This does not, however, diminish the nobility of those who sacrifice for causes greater than themselves that further the human condition.

For those who keep calling the war in Iraq illegal and immoral, you're about a far off course as anyone could possibly be. The Bush administration did everything possible to avert the war and to exhaust every other possibility using the venue of the United Nations. That the fears that launched the war, e.g. WMD's, have not yet proven true, the threat posed by Saddam and his regime was no less real.

In retrospect, it could be argued that if we were going to use the atomic bomb against Japan, we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Marines and soldiers lost during the island campaigns of the South Pacific. The luxury of hindsight, however, is solely the domain of those who bear no responsibility for the threats of the unknown.

The illegal and immoral argument was used by the "anti-war" element during the war in Vietnam. It was as wrong then as it is now. While there may be nothing illegal about that argument, it is, in fact, highly immoral in-so-far as it is based on a flagrant lie as opposed to the supposed lie Bush is accused of.


[edit on 2005/9/22 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Do you know Cindy Sheehan's son's name?


I most certainly do. I am not so all-fired wrapped up in animosity toward Cindy Sheehan that I've forgotten Casey's name. It was 'Camp Casey' there in Crawford. Perhaps you're projecting your focus on HER and neglect of him to others?



But, what are we to make of his mother, who is portrayed in the media as a "grieving mother."


I am not in any position to think that I can accurately judge another mother's grief. "Portrayed in the media"? What does that mean? "Portrayed" She IS a grieving mother! She's a mother, her son died. She grieves. I don't understand the quotes at all. More sensationalism...



Mothers Against Drunk Driving is such an effort. "America's Most Wanted" is such a project. The Amber Alert is another and the reader can come up with plenty of others, I'm sure. But, what makes Sheehan's effort so different?


There's not a bit of difference between Ms. Sheehan's movement (whose purpose is to prevent further death) and MADD or Amber Alert or America's Most Wanted. Only in people's minds who don't want the peace she is working toward. She has always been against the war and then her son's death was the impetus that launched her into activism.



Casey Sheehan, at the age of 24, understood and acted on ideals...


These are all emotionally-based assumptions. How do you know he wasn't remorseful about signing up for the service? How do you know he didn't regret going to Iraq with every molecule of his being? How do you know he didn't hate Bush and his fabricated war? How do you know his thoughts on the 'greater good'? How in the hell do you know what was in Casey's heart? You assume to know better than his own mother? Because she says just the opposite. But I guess you've judged her as a "grieving mother", she's probably a liar, too, huh?


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
This is a transparent attempt to try to make her look bad, to infer that she cares not for her son and only cares for politics, to disparage, and to assassinate the character of someone who cares more about the death of her son than you ever will, far more indeed than your diaphanous ATSNN tribute could ever hope to convey, and who has made a mother's ultimate sacrifice to a bloody invasion that should never have been.


Well-said. If this was about Casey, I think his name and NOT hers would have certainly been in the title. But this is an emotional appeal to separate Ms. Sheehan from thousands of other grieving parents who have created some sort of organization or movement after the death of their child.

It failed.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

These are all emotionally-based assumptions. How do you know he wasn't remorseful about signing up for the service? How do you know he didn't regret going to Iraq with every molecule of his being? How do you know he didn't hate Bush and his fabricated war? How do you know his thoughts on the 'greater good'? How in the hell do you know what was in Casey's heart? You assume to know better than his own mother? Because she says just the opposite. But I guess you've judged her as a "grieving mother", she's probably a liar, too, huh?


Your diatribe is emotionally-based. My assessment of Casey Sheehan is based on the facts of his life. Here is an accurate biography of the heroic Casey Sheehan. There are others. They all substantiate his devotion to duty.

www.blackfive.net...

[edit on 2005/9/22 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My assessment of Casey Sheehan is based on the facts of his life. Here is an accurate biography of the heroic Casey Sheehan. There are others. They all substantiate his devotion to duty.


Well, nothing in that article tells me what he thought or felt. And I'm not going to argue Casey's character with you since I obviously don't know him as well as you do. Although I did know his name.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'm sorry if people are offended by what I'm about to say, but it can't be helped.

He got what he deserved.

He knew the risks. He made the decisions. He chose his path.

It killed him.

There's not much more to say, really. His mother is certainly entitled to grieve, nobody begrudges her that. It's the national spectacle that seems so offensive to some of us. She's doing what she thinks is necessary, I'm fairly sure of that. What she probably doesn't realuze is what a ridiculous precedent she's setting.

Soldiers fight and die, they follow orders, they go to far away lands and act according to the wishes of their commanders. The element of personal choice for those serving in the military is all or nothing. Either stay and do what you're told, or lay down your arms and refuse to obey orders.

It might get you tried in military court, it might get you censured, it might get you impisoned, or even executed, but it was always an option.

But for him to fight in a war he didn't support makes clear the fact that he lacked either will or conscience. If he thought it was wrong to do what he was doing, he should have stopped doing it immediately. He chose to stick it out, to follow orders, to toe the line and play mercenary.

And now he's dead.

This is a simple cause-effect situation.

If his mother spent more time in contemplation and less time mugging for the cameras, she might come to this realization herself.

The party responsible for Casey's death is, first and foremost, Casey. Her failure to grasp this, along with so many Americans, is painting a very dismal picture of the public's grasp of logic.

Your next door neighbor asks you to rob a liquor store for him, because he's thirsty. He pays you fifty dollars to do it. You need the money, and though you disagree with the principle of the action, you go ahead and commit the crime anyway. The liquor store owner shoots you, and you die. Whose fault is it really? Certainly blame is shared by at least three obvious parties, but the burden of guilt rests most heavily on YOU, the one who made the critical decision.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Someone put a gun to his head and forced him to become a professional soldier? I don't think so...

The whole affair leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, regardless of my feelings on this war or any other. The old chestnut "I was just following orders" doesn't fly in my world. He could have saved himself, but he didn't, for whatever reason.

His mother doesn't have my ear, because she's not thinking straight. She wants to exonerate her son from any wrongdoing, and I think that stinks. Casey is the one responsible for Casey's death, pure and simple. Her denial would be embarassing enough if it were private, but when it's splashed all over the national media it tickles my bile gland in unpleasant ways.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

More manure. Sheehan is saying that our leaders should stop sacrificing our men and boys for the oil interests. You make it sound like she is against our troops. You freaking spin a web of manure on par with Rove.


Let's see who is playing around with manure...


You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine


Excerpted from.
www.veteransforpeace.org...

Let's see what she is saying now about our troops...


pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans....


Excerpted from.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Now she wants US troops our of NO?.....after what we saw, and probably she saw happening with gangs shooting people, police, military helicopters and even first aid responders.....and still she wants the troops out of NO?.....


Originally posted by df1
I contend you couldnt indentify the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.


Who in the world cares about what you contend to?.... You think I care about what you think or what you contend to?........



Originally posted by df1
Yeah right. If you believe that Ive got some lovely beach front property to sell you in the gulf.


That is the truth, you don't want to accept it?...it is your problem not mine...


Originally posted by df1
Any power that Saddam had was subsidized by the weapons and WMDs that were given him by daddy bush. Lacking U.S. weaponization he and every other leader in the middle east were just slinging camel dung at each other and were no threat to the rest of the world.


I thought you were saying something about manure....

I guess that's why Saddam owed billions to the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Chinese and a few others....all who were against the war in Iraq because of their dirty deals.....


Originally posted by df1
Everybody else is doing it, so its ok for america to do it also.


How in the world was the US and the rest of the coalition in cahuts with Saddam if they helped oust him?.....



Originally posted by df1
A coalition created out of the manipulation and deceit of the bush administration. As bad as saddam was, the Iraqi people are dreaming of the good old days under saddam.


Riiiiight...that's why the Iraqis run away at the mention of insurgents being among them...that's why Iraqis have killed insurgents and helped the coalition find insurgents.

This is really stupid, I had enough wasting my time with you. I am not getting myself involved in more bickering because some people just like to argue about their wild rantings being the truth...



[edit on 22-9-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if soldiers and sailors wouldn't have died defending your family, you, or even Wilfren Owen, you wouldn't be able to recite his poems, and he wouldn't be able to have written at all. There are those who are less fortunate, those noone has fought for, and because of this are not able to put in print their thoughts, or even to say them aloud.

You should be thankfull to all those soldiers and sailors because they died to defend your right to demean what they gave their life for....


You really are clueless, aren't you.

Why don't you google Wilfred Owen? Then speak.

Soldiers and sailors have only died defending my family once, in WW2. Although we buried him in 2000, my grandfather was one of them. Every April 25th I give thanks to the sacrifices made by my countrymen, and every November 11th I pray for all those who've died in war.

There is nothing glorious about war. There may be honour in defending your country, or defending another country (as the ANZACs did), but there is no honour in Bush's lies, there is no honour in dodging the draft, bailing on your National Guard committments and then sending thousands of men to their deaths in the name of honour and duty. When did Bush ever do his duty?

Casey Sheehan did his duty, but I see little honour in his death. Bush took the honour away from him when he lied to the world and rushed to war.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   


You really are clueless, aren't you.


Despite the differing beliefs of members, and our varied interests, it's below the belt to accuse someone of lacking even a single clue. Muadibb and I have argued on several occasions, but he's got a clue.

Just not the same one as you, or me for that matter.

I don't see any real difference between Cindy and the Shrub, they're both whining malcontents with a limited vocabulary and just enough acting talent to fool the willing participants. Two sides, really no different in essence, so what's the only sensible place to be in this conflict? Squarely in the middle, in my opinion.

Just because the war is wrong doesn't mean Cindy is right. There's more layers to this particular onion than those that are readily apparent. They're both extremists with a very limited ability to use their heads and think outside their tiny worlds. All talk, no sense. Lots of words, little meaning.

Why was Cindy's son killed? Because he was overseas fighting a war. Why was he overseas fighting a war? Because he chose to be.

She can't, or won't accept this. But I suppose that's Bush's fault too? While we're getting wacky, let's blame Casey. After all, if he hadn't gone and gotten himself killed in a war, mom would have no cause for psychosis, right? I know you're not saying this specifically, but the preceeding comment uses exactly the same logic as is being used to blame Bush.

The problem is, this sort of reasoning reduces the burden of responsibility on the individual who made the freakin' decisions. Cindy has chosen her war, just as Casey chose his. Every man and woman on this earth is responsible for their own decisions.

It's when society starts reducing personal responsibility and bitching about lost rights that decline becomes inevitable. Non-reciprocal principle, and all that. It can't last forever. Cindy needs to take responsibility for Cindy. Mothers lose sons everyday, and her loss alone doesn't give her some mystical moral authority. In fact, she's exemplary of the general decline of true, personal, responsible morality, just like her doppleganger Bush.

She's basically gone and dug up her son's body to mount it on a battle standard, blaming her boy's death on her enemy, Bush. She's using the boy just as Bush and Co. used him. It's distasteful all the way around, I haven't been able to see it any other way as of yet.



Soldiers and sailors have only died defending my family once, in WW2. Although we buried him in 2000, my grandfather was one of them. Every April 25th I give thanks to the sacrifices made by my countrymen, and every November 11th I pray for all those who've died in war.


I have respect for Casey's decision to fight in the war, Cindy needs to learn how to accept his decision. I have respect for your grandfather's decision, and I don't see you blaming the government on his account, which I take to mean you have accepted his decision. I also have respect for the enemy's decision, they fight for the same reasons any man does, for life, liberty, property, happiness, and of course, peace, the ultimate goal of war.

I'm sorry about going on for so long, but this issue is very important for me. Not because I give a damn about Bush or Cindy, but because I have a great sense of responsibility for my own decisions, and I wish to impart that on as many people as possible. I'm not trying to talk down to you in any way, because I think you understand the principle point I'm trying to make about responsibility, given the manner in which you spoke of your grandfather.

Casey lived his own life, made his own decisions, and suffered for his own mistakes. If he chose to rob a bank and got shot in the process would she be protesting the cops who shot him? If he chose to blow his head off in the bathroom, would she blame the gun company, or rock music, or some other guiltless party? This sort of selfish, irresponsible thinking, is largely to blame for the state of our country, and indeed, the state of our world.



There is nothing glorious about war.


Yeah, you're absolutely right about this. There is glory to be had all over, as much as an individual can stomach, but fighting wars for fun and profit is not glorious, it's not noble, and it's not one of those wrong decisions you can take back if it turns out badly.



There may be honour in defending your country, or defending another country (as the ANZACs did),


I suppose there's honor, but honors, in my mind at least, are not necessarily good. Sometimes they are, but often times the quest leads men down the wrong path, either into wickedness or into premature death. I don't think Casey desired honor though, he seems to me like the sort of kid who wanted to save the world because it seemed the right thing to do.



but there is no honour in Bush's lies, there is no honour in dodging the draft, bailing on your National Guard committments and then sending thousands of men to their deaths in the name of honour and duty.


Nope, none at all. We don't disagree on our estimations of that man's character at least.

I just want to make it clear that a person can dislike both Bush and Sheehan. I'm living proof. I don't like Michael Moore either. Some members of this board think that makes me a neo-con. I think little boxes are too small to fit a man my size.

The labelling, the sides, the hatred for all opinions in disagreement, it's a very, very dark path, that one. The majority of humanity has been walking it..probably forever, since our appearance. It has led the majority nowhere. But they have nobody to blame but themselves, thank God.



When did Bush ever do his duty?


He's doing it now by embarassing himself, his family, and his country. His entire life has been an embarassment, I'm inclined to believe it hasn't been by accident. He's temporary, a shill in the audience, a hateful and unlikeable villain. Now, keep your eyes open for the 'hero' to come and save the day.

Except life isn't the fairy tales. The new boss is always the same as the old boss. What's your solution? More games, more lies, more freakin' ping pong with red and blue paddles and one miserable ball?

The only escape from this pattern is personal responsibility, and that's precisely what Cindy and Bush degrade daily with their drivel.

The United States of America = more doublespeak. It's precisely the opposite, thanks to Bush, Cindy, and all the other players in this farce. Meanwhile everybody's eyes are on the stage while the pickpockets work the crowd.



Casey Sheehan did his duty, but I see little honour in his death.


What's duty but decision? And no, I don't see any honor in his death either. He protested the justification for war but fought anyway. If he disagreed, he should have made the appropriate decision, but he didn't.

What about the Nazis who were just following orders? How many men of conscience worked the crowds, broke windows, burned stores, herded families into the trains? They made their decision, and history remembers everything. I'm not comparing Casey to a Nazi, except to say that he is equally responsible for his decision as they were/are.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I find the assumption that anyone who opposes the Iraq War does so out of some naive starry-eyed paciifism little more than a cheap rhetorical tactic to insult one's opponents and avoid confronting the real issues. I think the Iraq War was a fool's errand - you don't see me saying the same about Afghanistan. Or WW2. Or even the first Gulf War.

Wars are never good, but they are sometimes necessary. The Iraq War was simply not necessary. In fact it has proven to be almost entirely counterproductive. We solved one minor strategic problem (Saddam, who was already quite contained) and in the process created several major strategic problems (chaos in Iraq, burgeoning Al Quaeda recruitment, the effective loss of the US's leadership position in the West.)

I spoke this summer with my uncle, who was an Air Cav combat medic in Vietnam. He sees the same disconnect from reality in Iraq he saw there, and his sympathies lie with the troops, who were sent (again) to a poorly thought out war that loses public support every day, a war that was based on deception and foolish assumptions (US troops will be greeted with flowers & similar drivel.) I can't help but agree.

"Patriotism" is no excuse for muddy overly-simplistic thinking and denial.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I respect Casey's sacrifice, and the heroic circumstances under which it was made. That's not what this thread is about, and we all know it.

I respect Mrs. Sheehan's right to protest the war in memory of her son. That's not what this thread is about, either.

To me, this thread is about all the things I don't respect about the war and this protest, and it seems meant to sow and reveal political division on the board.

Everybody has their slogans. Bush Lied, People Died! Fight the Terrorists in Irag, Not Here! Where Are The WMDs?!? As the Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down.

Ulterior motives are the rule of the day. The whole ridiculous political structure of this country is a pack of lies holding up a house of cards on the verge of collapse, and puppet Bush is still hoilding what's left of the deck while the MIC pulls his strings.

The desperation of those that oppose his plans is evident in the questionably motivated causes they support and bring to national media attention, and the sheeple are completely absorbed by it all, bickering with each other while the whole stinking mess gets ready to implode.

Or so it seems. It makes me sick. Thanks, Grady.




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if soldiers and sailors wouldn't have died defending your family, you, or even Wilfren Owen, you wouldn't be able to recite his poems, and he wouldn't be able to have written at all.


For those who keep calling the war in Iraq illegal and immoral, you're about a far off course as anyone could possibly be. The Bush administration did everything possible to avert the war and to exhaust every other possibility using the venue of the United Nations. That the fears that launched the war, e.g. WMD's, have not yet proven true, the threat posed by Saddam and his regime was no less real.

In retrospect, it could be argued that if we were going to use the atomic bomb against Japan, we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Marines and soldiers lost during the island campaigns of the South Pacific. The luxury of hindsight, however, is solely the domain of those who bear no responsibility for the threats of the unknown.

The illegal and immoral argument was used by the "anti-war" element during the war in Vietnam. It was as wrong then as it is now. While there may be nothing illegal about that argument, it is, in fact, highly immoral in-so-far as it is based on a flagrant lie as opposed to the supposed lie Bush is accused of.


First off: Muaddib - you're posting from Fallujah? Glad to see you finally joined up and saved America from Communism, Castro style.


Grady: As it's an Op/Ed, I guess emotional tripe is allowed. I don't know if you're a parent, but where exactly do you think Casey absorbed all of the moral fortitude you so emotionally reference?

"did everything possible to avert the war " - knowingly a false statement on your part.

The luxury of hindsight, however, is solely the domain of those who bear no responsibility for the threats of the unknown"

"Solely" is an attempt to make truth bend to your perspective again. It's(hindsight) also referred to as post mortem - where experts go over an action and pinpoint the bad choices - it is done in every aspect of life and business. The post mortem on the march to war is that it was rushed on highly massaged and sometimes manufactured evidence. Never at any point, in the past decade prior to the "war" where allied forces flew over a quarter million bombing sorties over Iraq, did Iraq present anything approaching a clear and present danger to the US.

Also, given the statements bolded above, have you realized how far right you sound? The South East Asia exercise was as discretionary as the current Middle Eastern ones, regardless of the emotion you attach to it, those facts are well established. The only way that perspective is justified is if you are considering the US an empire - then you're spot on. The most devout anti-communists are fascists - neither group is desirable to Western democracy, a point worth remembering for Mub & Grady.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
...where exactly do you think Casey absorbed all of the moral fortitude you so emotionally reference?


Good question. His father? The Church? The Boy Scouts? The Army?

[edit on 2005/9/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

First off: Muaddib - you're posting from Fallujah? Glad to see you finally joined up and saved America from Communism, Castro style.


Wow... I don't know if I should laugh or cry by your attempt at demonizing me.... so I am another castro now acording to you huh?.......

Nice try.... not really, but if you get high from such idiotic statements....that's your problem.


Originally posted by Bout Time
....................
The most devout anti-communists are fascists - neither group is desirable to Western democracy, a point worth remembering for Mub & Grady.


Not really, the most devout anti-communists are those who see the truth of that doctrine, or those who have experienced it.

Nice try again Bout Time........



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


You really are clueless, aren't you.


Despite the differing beliefs of members, and our varied interests, it's below the belt to accuse someone of lacking even a single clue. Muadibb and I have argued on several occasions, but he's got a clue.

Just not the same one as you, or me for that matter.


I was referring to his discussion of Wilfred Owen without knowing who the hell Wilfred Owen was, or, I assume, what Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori means, OR why Owen would refer to it in a poem. Never, ever enter into a discussion about a person without knowing who they are or why they are being discussed. Unless, of course, it is your goal to appear ignorant at least and actively stupid at worst.

FYI Paul Atreides, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori is inscribed upon thousands upon thousands of white headstones in neat rows in Commonwealth War Graves across Belgium, France, Turkey, Israel, Palestine...

...it's exactly the line the shrub is peddling now. Even although he refused to take the chance to do it himself.

edit:

I was also personally offended at 'dib's assertion that I demean the memory and sacrifice of Australian soldiers. If this discussion were taking place in a bar/schoolyard/lecture hall I'd have given him exactly five seconds to apologise before knocking him flat on his ar$e. Colonel Ralph Honnor and the men of the 39th Militia batallion were all that stood between Australia and the Japanese. Untrained men with no experience fighting in the jungle and they halted the Japanese Army's advance. I know who I have to thank for my freedoms.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join