?

Log in

No account? Create an account
DT: come reap
Posted on 2005.13.08 at 06:18
How I feel about it all: angryangry
Soundtrack: Air Conditioner
What he said.


I'm hearing rumours about five more years of war (sound familiar, Boomers?). In five years, they're going to run out of volunteers. Then what? I just hope we get someone in the White House next time with some sense who can stop this before they come for my kids.

And by the way, couldn't Dubya come out and answer some of a grieving woman's questions? Oh, right, he doesn't HAVE any answers. Or he doesn't want to give any and admit he was lying/wrong/fill in the blank.

Whatever happens in Crawford, Cindy Sheehan is my hero.


Double shift today. See y'all in sixteen or so.

Comments:


the day you left was just my beginning
patchfire at 2005-08-13 12:50 (UTC) ()
I told my mom that I was going to start a conscientious objector file for both my kiddos, just in case. Her response was "Good."

She told me once that she remembers thinking as a child that there had always been a war in Vietnam, and that there always would be a war in Vietnam. My fear is that Gillian & Jacob are going to grow up thinking that same thing about Iraq.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2005-08-14 02:41 (UTC) ()
She told me once that she remembers thinking as a child that there had always been a war in Vietnam, and that there always would be a war in Vietnam

I remember feeling exactly the same way.
my life's so common it disappears
songdog at 2005-08-14 01:26 (UTC) ()
From what I've heard, she only wants him to answer ONE question: "What is the Noble Cause that my son died for?" He can't seem to answer that....
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2005-08-14 02:42 (UTC) ()
He CAN, but he won't. :/
peacey at 2005-08-14 12:51 (UTC) ()
I can. And if I could, I would volunteer in a heartbeat because there IS no nobler cause. Believe it.

It is so easy for us to sit in our Ivory Tower where we enjoy the massively bountiful fruits of the bloody labors of some Rebels With A Cause some 229 years ago and preach oh so righteously about our freedoms, but when it comes time to assist a people being kept from their opportunity to create their own Ivory Tower, we horde our sons and daughters to us because freedom is just for us, apparently. Apparently it isn't a cause that knows no borders and doesn't blaze in the human heart. Apparently, it just burns in those that were born on this continent. Apparently those Rebels didn't need assistance some 229 years ago in winning us our shot at an Ivory Tower. What's that? They would've gone down in flames without the assistance, militarily and otherwise, from the French? Oh. Well. Hmm. And you say that the French came to our aid not so much because they cared about us and the lofty ideal of freedom? You say "France eagerly watched for rebellion in America from the days of the Stamp Act excitement, as a means for avenging the injuries she had received from Great Britain." ("Our Country," Benson J Lossing, pub 1877). Hmmm. They had less than noble motivations and yet look what they helped create nonetheless.

As for me, there are only two things that I would willingly lay down my life for: my family and the pursuit and/or defense of freedom. ANYONE'S freedom. If ever there is to be hope of a peaceful world and a global community (which is a pipe dream, but a good one), we must erase the borders in our mind and take the oppression of freedom *personally* no matter where we find it. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, straight, gay, black, white, red, yellow, Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Star Trek or Star Wars, we all must realize that after our primary needs are met (shelter, food, love, etc), we all yearn for the same thing. Freedom. And who in hell are we - moreso than any other people on the planet considering our origin - to deny help to anyone pursing it?

My sympathy goes to anyone who has lost someone dear to them in the pursuit or defense of freedom. I haven't lost anyone in that regard so I would never presume to understand what it would do to a person. However. Were it me that was laid down Over There, all I would ask of my family is that they remember me with pride and above even that I would beg them to continue to support the cause for which I gave my life. To turn against it is to turn against me. If you cannot support my cause, then I would beg them not to shout it from the mountains where the glare may reflect back to me, but work quietly toward your own goal. Above all, do not turn your back on those I left behind. Support my brothers and sisters still fighting the good fight, for I would have laid down my life for any one of them. Do not give them reason to be discouraged, but show them unconditional support.

I am not a Republican or Democrat. My views drift slightly right of center but by no means am I a raving extremest that has closed her mind off to any new idea or way of thinking. I am a Christian who's motto is "This above all, to thine own self be true, and it shall follow as the night the day, that thou canst be false to any man." I have opinions on just about everything but I pass no judgments on anyone. In case you missed it, I support the war. I support the troops. I have serious issues with the President on many fronts. I tell you all this blather so that you'll not dismiss my thought as that of some raving lunatic right wing extremest and just take in the bottom line message: Freedom - anyone's freedom - is worth ANY PRICE there is to pay.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2005-08-14 22:56 (UTC) ()
I'd like to think I'd go and lay down my life for someone I don't know; I hope I could be that noble. And even leaving that part out (as well as questioning how much better off Iraq is at the moment--yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but there are a lot of other bad guys out there, too. Do we just go around bombing evil guys?), I would never, never, nevereverever put one of my kids in harm's way, no matter HOW noble the cause (and I don't think this one is particularly noble since it's based on what I perceive to be lies and deceptions). I'll go to Canada, China, the bloody moon to protect them. Unfortunately, only one is under my jurisdiction, and fortunately, he's a conscientious objector.

And if W thinks that going to Iraq is the noblest cause in the world, why won't he go out and spend an hour with Mrs. Sheehan? It would at least be good PR for him. But I don't think he can, because he doesn't have an answer. He told us we were going to war for WMDs. Then it was for WMD manufacturing plants. Then it was for enriched uranium facilities, and on and on and on. Helping the Iraqi people was a tack-on last resort reason. That is NOT why we went to war. We went to war because Bush wanted to, and he had no Congressional backing to do so. There was a Noble cause to go to Afghanistan, but not Iraq, no matter what the President is spewing about connections between Iraq and Sept. 11 (there aren't any). He's lied, or at least been dead wrong, and he can't face a grieving mother and say that. I don't think I could, either. What I will do is talk, talk, talk to my kids 'til I can't talk anymore and do everything in my power to keep them out of this war, or ANY war.

Yes, those kids over there are serving the country. THEY are the noble ones, and I support every single one of them. It's too bad their leaders make Al Capone look honest.
peacey at 2005-08-15 01:23 (UTC) ()
As far as keeping your kids out of harm's way, no one has the right to PUT anyone in harm's way (except the President and Congress, of course). The decision would be theirs, not yours. If they were my children, I would present them with BOTH sides of the predicament fairly, as unbiasedly as I could and trust them enough to make up their own minds about what they wanted to do. I would support either decision if it was well thought out and was the action that was borne of their own belief system. I realize the urge to protect a child is perhaps the basest we have and rightly so, and I certainly understand the desire to do so for all the days of his or her life, but when a child reaches adulthood, the act of protecting them to that degree may hinder them and ultimately may breed resentment (I know it does in me).

As for Mrs. Sheehan, I support fully and wholly her right to protest peacefully although I feel she is being used by others. I believe that if she continued her protest alone, unencumbered by organizations with agendas, she would stand a much better chance of meeting with the president (which, I'm told, she already did once and I wonder what else she has to say). I had a discussion with a fellow worker the other day and both of us agreed that if it had been our son that had been lost, the last thing we would want to be doing when the loss is so fresh is going on TV, unless it was soley to tell the world about the glorious person our son was and speak of the pride we had for him. But different people react in different ways. In my opinion, it's a bit unseemly and risks casting the lost soldier with the same views as her own, which we will never know for certain if they were or not.

As for being good PR for Mr. Bush if he were to meet with her, at this stage of the game, I disagree. It has degenerated to a game of tug-o-war and if he meets with her, it'll be perceived that he "caved" to the pressure. It would be perceived as a victory when in truth, it should not be about a "victory" or a "loss"

As for the motivations in going to war, we'll never fully know that either, but my point in bringing up France's role in the American Revolution was to point out that noble things sometimes come from less than noble motivations. The reason for going is always very important, it's true, of course. However. If the reason for going is not the most noble BUT noble results spring from it, then the motivations will be left behind in the fog of history.

I do not believe George Bush lied. A lie, by definition is "a false statement made with the *deliberate intent* to deceive" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary). I do not believe there was deliberate intent. Without question, the intelligence was terrible. Without question, mistakes were made. But despite ridiculous comparisons by people and organizations that have completely lost all credibility due to these comparisons, George Bush is not Hitler nor is he Satan and it would take evil on that magnatude to send troops to war based on a personal vendetta, a want for oil, Haliburton, money, et al. Again, I have definite issues with Mr. Bush, but I would never make such comparisons if I want someone to take my opinions seriously.

As far as September 11, it's not all about a connection to September 11. As far as no congressional backing of the Iraq War, plese see IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION, 107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. J. RES. 114, October 10, 2002 http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm ,
As far as dropping bombs on all the evil guys out there, no we don't do so because it isn't always necessary to (ie: the Velvet Revolution in Eastern Europe). There is so much more in play out there than you and I will ever know, so much below the surface and wrangling out of the public eye. The motivations for any action (military, diplomatic, or otherwise) are never simple, never cut and dry. And it is my belief that John and Jane public don't need to know EVERYTHING.

As far as facing a grieving mother and telling her he was wrong, I'd never presume to guess what Mr. Bush is or is not capable of. I don't know the man. I do know that the definition of an adult is to take responsibility for your actions. He has done that.

try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2005-08-17 00:23 (UTC) ()
As far as keeping your kids out of harm's way, no one has the right to PUT anyone in harm's way (except the President and Congress, of course).

So far, no. But if there's a draft, then the government DOES have the right. And it scares me a LOT.

but when a child reaches adulthood, the act of protecting them to that degree may hinder them and ultimately may breed resentment (I know it does in me).

True, but instinct or whatever wins out for me. I would do just about anything to prevent my kids from getting blown up. Including talking until I'm blue in the face. I'm a mother hen, in general, and the fox ain't coming NEAR my chicks.

As for Mrs. Sheehan, I support fully and wholly her right to protest peacefully although I feel she is being used by others.

As far as I can tell, going to Crawford was her idea.

I do not believe George Bush lied. A lie, by definition is "a false statement made with the *deliberate intent* to deceive" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary). I do not believe there was deliberate intent.


In that case, how do you explain the Downing Street Memo?

My fear these days is that the US has set itself up as the Cops of the World, and IMO, we don't have the right (who's next, Syria? Iran? And why not do something about Saudi Arabia, whose Human Rights record sucks, and don't even get me started on "Most Favoured Nation" China.

And if we ARE going to be the cops of the world, why don't we do anything about Africa, which is dying from genocide and AIDS and poverty and a lot of other things? Most likely, I think, because Africa is expendable--African countries don't have any resources we want. The Middle East, however, has precious Oil, which in my not so humble opinion, is what the whole bloody thing is about. And I'm not sacrificing my children for it.
peacey at 2005-08-17 12:06 (UTC) ()
As for the draft, I'll never say never, but as we speak it is nonexistent and a very good way to add unnessary stress to life. I understand the mother hen mindset, I truly do. I have two cousins that are more my brothers than cousins that are of that age and it would be very scary to have them go, but I would NEVER EVER EVER consider trying to stop them (not that I could anyway). This would only add to THEIR stress and that would be the LAST THING I would ever want to do. The best thing I could do for them is let them know that I'll be okay and that I support and love them.

And best be aware that the fox is always near the chicks.

As for Ms. Sheehan, she did go to Crawford alone, but the speed with which some opportunistic organizations joined her was...well, not surprising now that I think of it. It's a fool's folly to second guess, but in my view she would've been taken more seriously had she distanced herself from them. Also, again stressing that I completely sympathize with the fact that her son was killed, the unseemliness goes on in the fact that she now is using her position as mother of a killed soldier as a platform to state other opinions not related in any way to the war in Iraq. It's a good thing that she has opinions, but it's a bad thing to spout them perched on the back of her dead son.

As for the Downing Street Memo and "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" you need to show me one single situation wherein a side is taken or a stance is made and this is not done in government or otherwise. We take a stance for or against something and state the facts that support our position. Now granted, doing this in our own lives is quite a bit different in scale and consequence than it is on the government level, but I would wager my house and everything I own on the fact that every president ever since Washington has done this to one degree or another (with varying results). It's the nature of the beast and it is not going to change. EVER. No matter Republican or Democrat.

As for "cops of the world" supposedly that's the UN's job. Effective and upright bunch, them. We are the world's only superpower. Nations look to us for aid and assistance, naturally and rightly so. If they look to us for assistance militarily, Congress and the President will determine if it's worth risking the lives of our own. If a country's leaders present a clear and present danger to our country, the Congress and President have a responsibility to act. The problem these days is that the most clear and present danger facing us in not from a country with borders from a well defined military that acts with honor and fights by the standard rules of engagement. These combatants could be in ANY country, hiding as cowards amidst the innocent poplulance. In the new world, a country overrun with these combatants could become a clear and present danger with or without the coutry's actual leaders or military declaring war. It's a tough situation, without question. One with no easy answers.

As for the oil arguement, I'm not buying it. Check gas prices lately? If we'd wanted Iraqi oil, we'd have it now. We're there with immediate access to it. Prices would be dirt cheap if this had been our objective.

As for Africa, aid to the continent has tripled during this administration (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-07012005-509295.html ) I agree that we should give more though.


peacey at 2005-08-14 16:45 (UTC) ()
Now that I'm off the soapbox, lookee lookee where I'm going in a couple weeks! http://www.michrenfest.com/index.html
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2005-08-14 23:00 (UTC) ()
OMG a Ren Faire! *loves*

Around these parts we have King Richard's Faire. It's fun, but it's gotten expensive, and Those In The Know say it's not the best of them. I might go anyway, though.
Previous Entry  Next Entry