This probably isn't going to be popular on this forum, but...

Therein lies a significant difference between us. It would appear we have different definitions of "freedom".

 

Again, I'm gonna have to agree with Rufus. I have never understood the concept of war for peace, or why exactly Sadam was a threat to American freedom, but that's another can of worms altogether.

 

I still feel that these Americans died in a needless war. That does not effect the impact of their lives on others including Iraqui's but they still should have not died in this unjust war. In that respect, and only that one, I believed they died for nothing.

Therin lies the crux of the matter, imo.

 

There's a good chance that, if you don't consider yourself free now, you never will.

 

I understand, and I think it is not a proper dichotomy. One can die in an unnecessary war, but not die for nothing. The freedom of the Iraqi people is not "nothing" by any definition I can think of.

 

I think there is some argument as to whether the Iraqui people are really free. We'll have to agree to disagree on this mater. In the respect they died in an unjust war they died for no reason, for nothing.

 

Yes, WWII, and I would think the reason would be obvious. How about the Revolutionary War or the Civil War? Again the reasons should be obvious. As for Iraq, like I said there were plenty of other dictators who are more gruesome than Sadam ever thought to be, so I son't buy the Sadam was a cruel dictator reason and never have. Let's at least be consistent. Perhaps it needs to mentioned that by unjust I don't mean war in and of itself, but the reasons our country chose to go to war with this country......

 

Glenn Beck is giving her campaing an awesome eulogy. A class act, that guy.

And he's right. Her biggest mistake was thinking a political party meant what they said. She was used by the dems, then cast aside, after she gave everything she had to them.

But the woman made a complete fool of herself, several times. "...occupied New Orleans...". I believe she deserved a lot of the criticism she got.

 

Umm...humor yourself if you can't figure that one out. Is there some reason you feel the need to equate the two? I would LOVE to hear your reasons why they are similar.....

 

WARNING: TANGENT ALERT....

OK, mods if this should be another thread then OK.

WWII and certain other wars in our history were fought to...

1. Gain freedom from oppressive rule.
2. Respond/retaliate to a direct attack.
3. Stop a leader bent on world conquest from conquering USA's allies.
4. Protect American interests abroad.

Now, my list is WAY simplistic, and I'm not arguing that the 4 reasons I gave are equally valid (I'd argue 1 & 2 are much more easily explained than 3 or 4....but 3 & 4 have been used).

I guess where I'm going is this...is it possible that our response to acts of war forever changed after 9/11? It gets harder and harder to pin the "bad guy" label...because they aren't operating under an Afghanistan flag, but rather an Al Qaeda banner. Are the bad guys Iraqi? Afghanistani? Iranian? Syrian? Eritrean (Ethiopian)? Yes...and no. These terrorists are everywhere.

Couple that with a president who, shall we say, isn't exactly "Reaganesque" when it comes to motivating and inspiring America to unite & act, and you have Cindy Sheehans popping up everywhere.

I pray that the Lord will take Sheehan's bitterness away...and if she is not a believer, that she will confess Christ as Lord.

 

Sheehans behavior is not out of pain. I am not saying she isn't in any. But sheehans behavior has been out of her character and nothing else. You see character is on display most when things are tough. What we have seen is who she is as a person.

If my child died in what I thought was an unjust war. I would probably speak out about it. So I cannot condemn that. I am glad she had the opportunity to do it. She didn't behave very well though. And meeting with Chavez makes her an enemy of any Capitalist. The communists in the country and on this board are probably sayying "You go girl!"

I am glad she had the freedom and the opportunity to speak out. But I am also glad to see a communist take a walk.

 

Sorry there is still not enough of a correllation to equate WWII and Iraq. First of all we were attacked by OBL and AQ, groups to which Sadam did not have ties. Given this post 9-11 world there is still no justification for dragging the US into an ill-planned and unjustified war under false pretenses.

 

Just curious...do you think that President Bush knew this beforehand?

(this is not asking you to change your views...but if you answer "No," then Bush's competence is what is in question. If you answer "Yes," that's a whole 'nother story...then you have a president knowingly lied and sent folks to their deaths. Big difference, IMO)

Full disclosure: I'm pretty ambivalent on the Iraq situation. My confidence is much lower than it was. But I also have questioned the motivations of some of the more shrill voices I've heard in Washington, and on the tube.

 

I have never agreed with the Iraq war. I honestly don't know if Bush is just that incompetent or if he knowingly lied. I tend to believe one more than the other, but with no real concrete evidence I'll just decline to comment.

 

Because of the large numbers of Democrats that voted to "handle" Iraq a few years ago, I can't help but believe that we got bad intelligence. Otherwise, why would the Dems vote alongside a republican president?

In addition...I cannot make myself believe that Bush is evil enough to lie and say, "to heck with the soldiers that die." Incompetent? Quite possibly...but that's totally different than sending young men & women to their deaths...and knowing all the while you're deceiving them. I just can't believe Bush, even at his most incompetent, would do such.

Nonetheless...Sheehan had an audience, but she became too shrill in her criticisms of the Bush administration, and went "over the line" a few times. In the end, it cost her credibility...Couple that with the "15 minutes of fame" stuff that goes on in our country. She was "old news" and was receiving less air time than before. I'm not saying she was just doing this for exposure...but I'm sure that when there was little or no exposure, she started having thoughts about moving on.

But whadda I know? I'm only wrong about 80% of the time. On a good day.