Baldimo wrote:
I have a secret for you. The mothers have no say in the matter unless their sons who are joining are under the age of 18. If they are over the age of 18 then they are adults and make their own way in the life. They chose to join the military and serve. It wasn't their mothers who have done this but the sons joining.
Are you seriously trying to say that the parents of a slain soldier are not affected by the decision to send their son to war? It's the son decision to join, of course. It's the president's decision to send him to war. the entire country is owed explanations why our fighting men and women are put on the line. Certainly the parents of the soldiers are especially owed that explanation.
Quote:This has nothing to do with Rosa Parks.
This has everything to do with Rosa Parks. Your criticism of Cindy Sheehan is that she had a different agenda than the one she has publicly stated-trying to meet the president in order to get the reasons her son had to be sacrificed. You're right-she does. She wants to highlight the fact that the reasons the president gave for this war are being proven wrong everyday, his assessments of the enemy are being proven wrong everyday, and that if he insists on sending people to the front lines he owes everyone an explanation why. And as the mother of a slain son, certainly she would be high on the list of people who are owed explanations. That's her real agenda. Rosa Parks had a different agenda than just trying to sit in the front of the bus on the way to her destination. She had no destination. She was there to confront authority, just as Cindy Sheehan is there to confront authority.
There was nothing wrong about it when Rosa Parks did it, there is nothing wrong about it when Cindy Sheehan does it. With both women, the justice of what they did is not affected by the fact that their stated pretext was different from their real goal. Yet, the Right insists that the fact that Cindy has a different goal from her stated one somehow besmirches her actions. It didn't besmirch Rosa Parks' stand, and it does not besmirch Cindy Sheehan's stand.
Baldimo wrote:Those affected most by the decision are the ones serving not those who aren't. While mothers are important it is the soldiers who are most effected by such decisions.
All Americans are owed explanations why the president insists on sending people to war despite the fact that his assessments of the situation have been proven false again and again. Surely the parents of the soldiers require explanations more than most.
Quote:No one had her son killed expect [sic] the guy who pulled the trigger and killed her son. Bush didn't do it and neither did his supporters.
Her son is not in Iraq facing enemy fire unless makes the decision to send him there. To send soldiers to invade a country, and then try to avoid responsiblity when people in the invaded country shoot back and kill our soldiers is arrogance of an amazing degree.
Baldimo wrote:Segregation is far different then an anti-war protest and they have nothing to do with each other.
Chrissee nailed this one. Tell that one to Martin Luther King.
The government has the right to insist all it's citizens are treated equally under the law. It also has the right to explain to the citizenry the honest reasons that soldiers have to be put on the front lines. So far, virtually nothing the government told us about this war has come to pass-not the WMD's, not the bit about being cheered as liberators, not the support the enemy has among the Iraqis. The government does not have the right to lie to the citizens about the war-and so far, that is motly what they have done.
Baldimo wrote:Would you argue that people protesting abortion clinics have the right to do so? Do you support their right to protest?
Of course I support their right to protest. However, I do not support anti-choicers' supposed right to interfere physically with people wanting to get into the clinic, their proclivity to shoot people who perform abortions, their websites where doctors are listed with the assassinated ones crossed out, and thir calling up workers at clinics and making threats every day. Every day. Cindy Sheehan does none of those things.
You are absolutely straining credulity here.
Baldimo wrote:Once again the 2 [Parks and Sheehan] are not linked.
They are both brave women who are determined to challenge authority and the status quo-and have done so peacefully, without the threat of violence. As opposed to the anti-choice movement.
Baldimo wrote: There is a difference between then and now and there is no social injustice going on."
The president owes the country the truth before he commits troops to war. The truth was not told about WMD's it was not told about the strength of the enemy, it was not told about the support the US would enjoy from the Iraqi people. Cindy Sheehan was deeply wounded by these untruths, and has every right to take her case to the author of this policy. If he wants to ignore her or her cause, he may do so at the peril of the support of the people.
