Laura Bush heckled by Mother of Slain American Soldier

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think these actions go far beyond bereavement and move into the area of politcal action. I am sorry for her loss, but at this time, she is using her loss to further her agenda. I think her son would be ashamed of her actions and I certainly would be if my mother acted in this way.

I think that it is rather presumptuous to assume that you, a stranger, would know how this woman's son would feel about her actions. Her agenda is motivated by the loss of her son. I doubt that she was a closet war protester waiting for her son to die to start calling the media.

If the war in Iraq was justified, she would be grieving in private. Remember--no WMD's, no Al Qaeda-Saddam link, and the liberating the Iraqi's from tyranny story doesn't really fly with all the tyranny the U.S. has left unadressed in the world. Being that there is no reason for us to have invaded Iraq, her son died for nothing. I would be pretty mad if I were in her shoes and I would do my part to make sure that the world knew about it. It seems that there are many people who seem to ignore these facts.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Being that there is no reason for us to have invaded Iraq, her son died for nothing.

This is a lie perpetrated by those who oppose any US action to make the world a safer place. It demeans the sacrifice of a brave young serviceman. That man in his few short years contributed more to the cause of lberty than you are likely to contribute if you live to be one-hundred.

Why must you continue to repeat these lies. I will venture one possilbe response. You do not respect your freedom, your nation or those who serve it. You would rather see an utter defeat of America at the hands of our enemies than to break a sweat for a cause beyond your own personal benefit.

I have known many who died in the cause of freedom and for the most part their families have been saddened, but have understood the necessity for their sons' service and their ulitimate sacrifice.

I doubt that these persons' loss was any less painful, but they, for the most part, suffered their loss with dignity.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.


[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

That man in his few short years contributed more to the cause of lberty than you are likely to contribute if you live to be one-hundred.

Liberty for Iraqis? I don't think that we are responsible for liberating Iraq, as noble an idea as that may be.

You do not respect your freedom

You mean the freedom to speak your mind without being arrested for it?

I have know many who died in the cause of freedome

The freedom of living under government that is not a tyrannical police state?

Could it be you are more interested in fighting in wars for any exciting sounding rhetoric than in actually living in a free and open society?

At least as important as being able and willing to sacrifice for freedoms is the intelligence to make use of the civil liberties we [still] have and not needlessly squander resources and young human lives.

Isn't what you are calling 'freedom' Grady the 'freedom' to agree with the current government's political agenda no matter how inane it may be, and never disagree with it?

If it comes down to protecting my personal freedoms, I don't need someone like you Grady. Pack your bags and your wounded spirit and move along. Give me a gun and I will defend real and genuine freedom, not phony bogus small mindedness.
.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

This is a lie perpetrated by those who oppose any US action to make the world a safer place. It demeans the sacrifice of a brave young serviceman. That man in his few short years contributed more to the cause of lberty than you are likely to contribute if you live to be one-hundred.

Why must you continue to repeat these lies. I will venture one possilbe response. You do not respect your freedom, your nation or those who serve it. You would rather see an utter defeat of America at the hands of our enemies than to break a sweat for a cause beyond your own personal benefit.

I have know many who died in the cause of freedome and for the most part their families have been saddened, but have understood the necessity for their sons' service and their ulitimate sacrifice.

I doubt that these persons' loss was any less painful, but they, for the most part, suffered their loss with dignity.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Please tell us all, to our faces, why we supposedly "want" the U.S. to be defeated. Because I think you're just using that as a poor excuse for us being against the war.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am sorry for her loss, but at this time, she is using her loss to further her agenda.

And what would this poor woman's agenda be, since you seem to think your able to read minds ???????? Are you a woman,....... I didn't think so, please pray-tell us all,.... How a MOTHER is suppose to re-act to her child's murder by G W Bush's hand,.... yep I said it,... George worm Bush is just as guilty for the murder of that young man,.... he might as well have held a gun to that boy's head and forced that young man to try and dis-arm that bomb , the outcome remains the same.

Her son died with honor for his country. He was a not only a volunteer, but an officer. He deserves a better tribute than this.

That is HER son, she gave birth to him,..... not you, she bathe him as a child, feed him, nutured him, wiped his runny nose-when needed, and Loved him deeply as only a mother can,....... the same with the young man's father,...... my GOD,....... he tried to kill his self in a Gov't car/jeep by setting the thing on fire with him in it !!!!! That tell's me that this child's father didn't want to live any longer because the child he loved more than life it's self was dead, thanks to rim-liped Bush.
The poor woman is grieving...... for crying out loud and she's VERY angry with this good for nothing Bush and his Administration and she wants them to know, how she feels, and what this war that Bush started with LIES has done to her and her family. I'll tell you one thing right now, if I was in her shoes I'd be out for BLOOD because my grief would be too much that I would "flip out", if it was me...... because I know how I am when it comes to my children and grandchildren. She's doing the next best thing,.... by taking it out on the Bushes because THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for all that has been happening to our people and the Iraqi people .

Oh and, You are right about one thing you said, Grady. He and ALL the other dead soldiers do DESERVE BETTER than what this Administration has given the soldiers or shown the dead soldiers and THEIR FAMILIES.
Bush and his Administration have "no shame" but are to "blame" for mis-using our troops for THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN .

As GOD IS MY WITNESS, I will take every last dime I have to my name and if I would have to beg, borrow, or whatever to get enough money together so I can send ALL my children and their families out of reach of this Nazi Gov'ts grip, so my children and theirs were safe from this Gov'ts "abuse of power" and "manufacturing of American genocide", I will do it


One other thing, Grady,..... just because you worked with children that were/are in foster-care, does not give you the "right" to condemn all parents,....... that would be like me saying, "since foster-care has been known to hire (unknowingly) child-molesters and these people are among the children in their care,.... then all workers in foster care are child molesters".

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Please tell us all, to our faces, why we supposedly "want" the U.S. to be defeated. Because I think you're just using that as a poor excuse for us being against the war.

Your continued opposition to the war can only mean that you do not support a victory in Iraq, especially when you clamor for an immediate withdrawal, as many do. Your reasoning is completely beyond me. Each person would have to provide me with his own logic. Motive can only be known by the actor and cannot be attributed by an observer.

Do you go to a football game claiming to support your team, while sitting in the opposing teams section rooting loudly for the opposing team?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You do not respect your freedom, your nation or those who serve it. You would rather see an utter defeat of America at the hands of our enemies
[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

The possible enemy I see since this farce in Iraq has started, is the HitlBush Gov't for lying to Congress, the Senate, the Citizens of the United States and our Soldiers, just so they could get their hands on Saddam and the oil.

What happened to catching Bin Laden, Bush wasn't even really after that man,....... he wanted Saddam

[edit on 18-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]

Originally posted by slank
If it comes down to protecting my personal freedoms, I don't need someone like you Grady.

You see that is the one major flaw in your perspective. Those who have fought in wars such as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. have fought not just for their personal freedoms, but for the greater cause of liberty for all. We can't do it all the time for everyone, but there comes a time when one must fight for the greater good, not only for one's personal freedoms.

Pack your bags and your wounded spirit and move along.

You wish. Don't hold your breath. My spirit is fine, though, I have been somewhat battered by the compassionate left tonight. It's not the first time. Compassionate left!

Give me a gun and I will defend real and genuine freedom, not phony bogus small mindedness.

I've heard this from dozens of your type. Why should I give you a gun. Get your own. Talk is cheap.


[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady I'm on your side. Anyone who joined the military joined it VOLUNTARILY! There is no draft! Enough already. Do I like war, NO! Have there been wars in the past? Yes. Have they all been "good wars" No. But wars happen and will continue to happen. What is the definition of an acceptable or good war? Anyone? If these parents disliked war they should have stopped their children from joining, oh thats right they are over 18 and can make up their own minds. It wasn't the parents name signed on the dotted line now was it. Now it's Bush's fault that their son died? I don't get it.

If you honestly believe that the motive for invading Iraq was to "protect our liberty" and to "keep our freedom safe", you need a reality check. The ever-changing reasons that our government have given us for going to war with Iraq have all proved out to be false. The fact that there was no Al Qaeda-Saddam link nor were there any WMDs is not some lie spread by communists trying to infiltrate the government to stage a coup and make us give up our SUVs and wait on lie for bread. Honestly.

Bush & Co. didn't have evidence of this prior to going to war so they fed us some media spin and we ate it hook line and sinker and supported the war. Now, after lives have been lost and billions of dollars later, we get weak excuses that the intelligence was wrong, negating the reasons for being there in the first place. So the tune has changed to "liberating the Iraqi's" and "making us safer"--please. Going into Iraq with no plan for rebuilding the country hasn't liberated the Iraqi's from anything. Saddam is gone, but we have replaced him with... what? Read the recent NIE on Iraq--it is a very dangerous place. And we still don't have a plan. Rumsfeld's latest attempt at putting a post-war course of action together can be summed up as hoping the Iraqis will get tired of dying eventually.

And as far as the war making us safer, I really don't think that antagonizing radical Muslims is really the way to go. Terrorism around the world is at an all time high and eventually our "allies" our going to get tired of bearing the brunt of the consequences of our vanity wars. And eventually terrorism will return to U.S. soil as every security official has repeatedly stated that another 9/11 is an inevitability. Perhaps there is no war to win the "war on terror", but stop with the BS about making the world safer when that will clearly never happen.

And back to this poor woman who lost her son--and the other families of soldiers currently living and dying in Iraq. If there was a cause that they could get behind, so they could say that "My child died for _____" Mothers who lost their sons in WW I & II had a clearly defined enemy to blame and could be proud. Their child did die defending our freedom and protecting our country. Who is the enemy in Iraq? Who forced us into war? Was it Osama bin Laden? No. He wasn't even involved with Saddam Hussein, who he repeatedly called an infidel. So was it Saddam Hussein? Well, he certainly wasn't a fan of the U.S., but he wasn't posing an immediate danger as was Al Qaeda. Was it the Iraqi people? That's an obvious no, although the insurgents seem pretty dangerous now that we have blown their country to bits.

So who are the villains that these families are to blame for the loss of their children? How do these people complete the sentence "My child died for ____" without having to resort to nebulous (and meaningless) rhetoric.

Or how about the real truth --"My child died so that the U.S. could continue to receive foreign oil at favorable prices and so that the military-industrial complex could continue to thrive." Kinda sticks in your throat, doesn't it?

Originally posted by lmgnyc
My child died so that the U.S. could continue to receive foreign oil at favorable prices and so that the military-industrial complex could continue to thrive." Kinda sticks in your throat, doesn't it?

It sticks in your throat because it's BS. Consider the following. These are the reasons the US in Iraq today:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In response to all those who repeat over and over that Bush lied, here is one statement made by Kerry regarding the possession and development of WMDs by Saddam. Don't miss Senator Rodham Clinton's assessment.

Text from the Speech John Kerry Made on the Senate Floor
October 9, 2002

[...]
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case. www.independentsforkerry.org...

Senator Rodham Clinton speaks:

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

[...]
clinton.senate.gov...

Back to the OT (sort of), this woman is grief stricken. We all know the stages of grief and anger is a definate stage of grief. This poor woman is angry that her son had to die..what mother wouldn't be? So, she is acting out her anger in a political way. To me, that is a much sounder way of acting out her anger than some others I can think of. Leave her alone with her grief. She's sacrificed a son to this war and has every right to protest that war...just as every single one of us, who disagrees with this mess we are in, have a right to protest the war. Don't drag up the old Viet Nam comparisons...I was in my 20's during Viet Nam and I know the way soldiers were treated. Yes, some far-left people treated them badly and there's no excuse for that (blame the war NOT the soldier),but legitimate political protest is still allowed in this country and has NOTHINg to do with how we feel about our soldiers..except we don't want to see anymore die. My godson is in Iraq right now and I don't want to see him die. I support the troops wholeheartedly, but I don't like this war. Aren't I still allowed that privilege in George Bush's world?
joey

Ummm, those speeches were made in 2002, correct? Please don't rewrite history. The evidence that there was a link between Saddam & Al Qaeda and that Saddam had WMDs was accepted as truth at the time. And why was it accepted as truth? Because the president said so and because the country was at a vulnerable time. Anyone who went against the president was immediately labeled as unpatriotic.

It wasn't until mid 2003 that cracks started to show in this so-called "evidence"--and this has been admitted by all of the Bushies. This is the real issue here--Kerry, Rodham Clinton and 99% of congress were being good patriots by giving the president bi-partisan support when the country was recently attacked, and the president turned around and abused the power that he was given.

If you also read Bob Woodward's excellent book "Path to War" (also oddly recommended by Bush on his campaign website), you will read about how pressure was brought to bear by Cheney, Wolfowitz & others to influence this "evidence." You will read about how Powell most of this "intelligence" away when he was asked to make his presentation to the U.N. in February of 2003 and cherry-picked only 3 key events (which were flimsy at best) to make his case. We all know how this went over like a lead balloon with the security council.

I agree with you, Madeline Albright, and everyone that made comments about how Saddam was a bad guy and might have been dangerous to the U.S. at some point. However, going to war with Iraq when we were already facing attacks by an UNRELATED organization--Al Qaeda--was ill-advised, which is obvious by the events that have taken place since we have gone to war. Had we let the weapons inspectors do their job, which would have resulted in not finding the imaginary WMDs, this war could have been avoided and the billions of dollars could have been spent trying to target Al Qaeda. Perhaps the world would really be safer now if this money was spent on ferreting out the terrorist camps, securing Afghanistan, and putting real homeland security in place by inspecting shipping cartons, securing our borders and coastlines, and putting more cops and federal agents in place.

You, along with Bush & Co. have repeatedly obscured the issue in an attempt to distract us from the fact that 9/11 was used an excuse to attack Iraq. Iraq had no links to 9/11, yet Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and every Republican continue to pontificate about how Americans are made safer from the terrorists that caused 9/11 because Saddam has been deposed. This is the BS issue. And this is the BS issue that continues to be shoved in our face.

The invasion of Iraq is for imperialistic reasons, pure and simple. In this day and age, that is no longer a good enough reason to send people to die.

Originally posted by joey
Back to the OT (sort of), this woman is grief stricken. We all know the stages of grief and anger is a definate stage of grief. This poor woman is angry that her son had to die..what mother wouldn't be? So, she is acting out her anger in a political way. To me, that is a much sounder way of acting out her anger than some others I can think of. Leave her alone with her grief.

If you read this article, it should be clear that this woman went to the rally to create a disturbance. She was ordered to leave and refused to do so and was arrested on a very minor charge. When it is all said and done, she will probably have to pay a nominal fine.

Her grief is undestandable, but her behavior is not justified.

Wearing a T-shirt with the message "President Bush You Killed My Son," Sue Niederer of nearby Hopewell screamed questions at the first lady as the audience tried to drown her out by chanting, "Four more years! Four more years!"

She pressed on, refused to leave and eventually police removed her from the firehouse rally.

The first lady finished her speech, praising the administration's achievements in the war on terror and the economy.

Outside, Niederer said she wanted to ask Laura Bush "Why the senators, the legislators, the congressmen, why aren't their children serving?"

She went on to blame the president for the death of her 24-year-old son, Army First Lieutenant Seth Dvorin. He was killed while trying to defuse a roadside bomb that exploded on him.

"My son was in the Army, and he was killed February third this year," she said.

As the Hamilton police and Secret Service agents surrounded her and reporters pressed her with questions, she held her ground, claiming "I had my ticket" to attend the speech by the first lady.

Police subsequently handcuffed her and she was led away to a nearby van. As she was escorted, she repeatedly shouted "Police brutality" and demanded to know her rights and the charges.

Later, she was charged with defiant trespass and released.
Since her son's death, the bereaved mother has spoken out repeatedly against the ongoing Iraq conflict. She is active in an anti-war protest group, Military Families Speak Out.

The Pittsburgh Independent Media Center reports she recently participated in demonstrations around the Republican National Convention in New York.
In March, The Toronto Star reported that she appeared outside Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, D.C. where many of the wounded soldiers are treated; Dover Air Force base where soldier remains arrive; and shouting at Secretary of State Colin Powell's motorcade after a speech at Princeton University.

Neither the Bush campaign nor the Hamilton Police would comment on the incident.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, however.

Grady, you seem to only see things as black and white. People are not as simple in their actions as you seem to believe.

Being colour blind creates many disadvantages to you.

I don't mean to repeat myself, and if I were the mother I would also be angry and sad and confused BUT truly her son enlisted, he was not forced into it. She had every right to try and convince him not to join up. And yes being angry at the war and Bush is also quite normal, however sometimes we also have to take the blame for what happens. I don't want to go over the grounds of my earlier postings.

It would be interesting to read how the family felt about the war and their son's service prior to the tragedy? Were they out there fighting for all the boys out there who were fighting for nothing, or were they like all the other parents of soldiers you read of and speak to proud that their son is out there protecting the country from the enemy?

In the end I once again want to motivate strongly that mother's discourage their children from becoming soldiers if they do not want them to go to war.

My deepest sympathies go to all the mothers who have lost their children both here and in Iraq.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
The invasion of Iraq is for imperialistic reasons, pure and simple. In this day and age, that is no longer a good enough reason to send people to die.

You just ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old marxist lies. Marxists always betray themselves with their vocabulary. Bush, Kerry and Rodham Clinton, all make very good reasons why Saddam needed to be removed from power regardless of his connections to al Qeada.

As for al Qaeda connections, the 9/11 Commission noted that they existed even if a direct link between 9/11 and Saddam could not be proven.

Check out these links. Not that your anti-American bias could ever be shaken:

www.opinionjournal.com...

www.newamericancentury.org...

Originally posted by Kriz_4
I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, however.

Grady, you seem to only see things as black and white. People are not as simple in their actions as you seem to believe.

Being colour blind creates many disadvantages to you.

You don't know me or how I think about enough subjects to know whether or not I only see things in black and white, which is the same thing as saying that I am a concrete thinker. Now, there isn't anything wrong with concrete thought, it's just when a person is incapable of abstract thought or if they are overly abstract in their thinking that it is indicative of an organic problem of some sort. Being able to think concretely, under certain situations is anything but a disadvantage.

However, you are judging me based solely on the basis of the war on Terrorism and, indeed, I, and the President, have decided to see things in black and white for the purposes of survival. John Kerry got caught up in the more abstract, shades of grey kind of thought and wound up selling out his fellow veterans and his nation.

I prefer the former course.

Thank you.

[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
In the end I once again want to motivate strongly that mother's discourage their children from becoming soldiers if they do not want them to go to war.

Ya know it's funny that you say that, because just the other night after saying their prayers for supper, my son told my mother that he wanted to be a soldier just like his Uncle Matt, and my mom freaked out on him.

Then my father, who is a Vietnam Veteran, freaked out on her and told her not to discourage him from fighting for his country.

Yes the woman was grieving, yes there were better ways to handle her grief, however, place yourself in her shoes. Imagine the grief that she is feeling, and imagine the actions you would take. I could not imagine anything happening to any of my children, and I pray each night for their safety in the world.

These men ENLISTED, yes, because they believed in their country. But now, they don't. It's simple, they don't believe in this war, they don't believe in their government, and when they finally are allowed out of the military, what is left for them? A country that doesn't appreciate them. A country that doesn't understand the sacrifices that they have made.

Grady, I want to thank you for protecting our country in Vietnam, although I must say that I do not respect you at all because of your attitude. You of all people, who have seen what war does, should be grieving with this woman and all the mothers and fathers who have lost someone over there. You have seen first hand what war does. I feel that you are shell shocked and have no feeling or compassion anymore. I tell myself that because I don't want to believe someone who fought for my freedom and my country, be so callous towards others losses.

This woman should be allowed to express herself any way that she sees fit. is that not what her son gave his life for? Her freedom? And that includes free speech. Does it not?

(ready?)

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR -
SEND THE BUSH GIRLS OFF TO WAR!

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR -
SEND THE BUSH GIRLS OFF TO WAR!