What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

Let me start by asking you this: What is the difference in making truthful negative comments about someone--and smearing them?

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

What's so noble about that?

Had Hussein simply been hiding WMD and/or development programs, a few years down the road, one of these WMD might have ended hundreds of thousands of lives. Preventing that would be very noble.

Dude, why aren't you in Iraq? You obviously are of military age and you are a man, not that that matters. so why aren't you in Iraq fighting the insurgents?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Ho ho ho, not that we needed to prevent the mushroom clouds, no, we needed to resolve an issue. Earth to Brandon9000. Resoving issues is why we have diplomats!

Yeah, and we let them work at it for 12 years, but had Iraq been continuing its WMD research in secret, we might have had a finite time window in which to act.

Dude, you are tripping!

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Oh, you and others made the evaluation. Well, in that case.....why would any sane person dare to argue with that? Oh, the probability. Gotta love them odds. What are the odds that a father and son President would both invade the same country?
Where are the WMD???? You don't blow up women and children on probability!!! You don't have a large number of your citizen soldiers die on a probability. I ask you.... What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

You're wrong. If the probability that an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein is developing a stockpile of doomsday weapons which may one day be used to destroy New York or London is 50%, and years of diplomatic efforts have failed, and if said dictator may be using the time to perfect such weapons, then it would be irresponsible of us not to act. Not acting might very well result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, as well as allowing a madman to use his superweapons to dominate the Middle East.

Dude, you are just completely in denial.

Specifically of what?

of everything

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Oh, you and others made the evaluation. Well, in that case.....why would any sane person dare to argue with that? Oh, the probability. Gotta love them odds. What are the odds that a father and son President would both invade the same country?
Where are the WMD???? You don't blow up women and children on probability!!! You don't have a large number of your citizen soldiers die on a probability. I ask you.... What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

You're wrong. If the probability that an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein is developing a stockpile of doomsday weapons which may one day be used to destroy New York or London is 50%, and years of diplomatic efforts have failed, and if said dictator may be using the time to perfect such weapons, then it would be irresponsible of us not to act. Not acting might very well result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, as well as allowing a madman to use his superweapons to dominate the Middle East.

But alas, my poor deluded, gullible and pathetically brainwashed Brandon.
It did NOT happen.

Quote:

Let me start by asking you this: What is the difference in making truthful negative comments about someone--and smearing them?

The difference is relevance.
I don't think I buy that, but I'll read on.
Cindy Sheehan is angry at Bush. So what is the relevance of her paying or not paying her taxes?
She brought up the issue of taxes and her refusal to pay them--purportedly because "Bush killed her son." Many people rightly thought it was in poor taste for a mother to make a comment like this at all. Others discovered she has a habit of not paying her taxes, which makes her statement MUCH worse. It is beneath contempt to me, given the context and truth about her.
She is a private citizen, she isn't seeking public office, she is exercising her First Amendment rights. The issue of her taxes has nothing to do with the issue she has with Bush. But the issue of taxes is dredged up
by her.
and dumped on her in an effort to portray her as being an unworthy person -and by inference someone who has no right to take it up to the President.
You see by now you are not completely informed.
Michael Moore is fat, scruffy, can't dress well to save himself (the only man I've ever seen who could ruin a dinner suit by simply wearing it - and this before dinner) and can be a real pain but should his lack of sartorial elegance and a seeming inability to leave something on the plate have any effect on his work? No, not relevant. His work stands of itself, worthy of criticism as a piece of work.
I don't think criticisng someone's appearance is a smear. Possibly useless, but no smear.
So it is with Cindy Sheehan. She is exercising her right to free speech. It is irking the Bush Administration who haven't handled it at all well and now they're scrambling to organise waves of irrelevant criticism of Cindy Sheehan in an effort to deflect attention from her central message.
The administration has not said one negative thing about her, while she has called Bush a lying bastard, a murderer, and several equally base accusations. Bush has made excuses for her. She's humiliating herself and her family, and he's actually deflecting criticism from her.
Her central message is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a monumental foreign policy blunder and should be stopped.
If that was all she was saying, her message would be powerful, right or wrong.
Now agree or disagree with her point by all means but when I read about her being "plain" or "rangey" or "separated from her husband" or "an ordinary housewife from Vacaville, Ca." or any of the other irrelevant tags she has had to wear as a result of her protesting the war, I put it down to a smear campaign.
Again. her appearance...? A smear campaign? I disagree. The issue of her husband filing for divorce is at issue, because it shows her family--father of the same soldier, has a different opinion than she does.

The object of Chrissee's question was to know what answer Bush or those who support him might give as to the nature of the war, not the specific act in which Mr. Sheehan lost his life. Were there no war, Mr. Sheehan would not have faced a situation in which he felt he should risk his life trying to save others. Therefore, a justified question is why Mr. Sheehan was obliged to go in harm's way at all; what about this war makes his sacrifice justified.

Bush won't answer it so maybe his supporters can.

I'll ask again, if a fire was caused by an badly wired plug should a fireman try to save anybody in the fire?

Yes I am saying his death (in the scheme of things) was meaningless, yes I am a veteran. There are numerous veterans on this forum and you will find a full range of opinions from each and every one of them, liberal and conservative, your stupid indictment of "liberals" not knowing **** about war is just about the most inane observation I have ever seen.(you're not the first to post such gross stupidy and, I'm sure, not the last)

Quote:

I'll ask again, if a fire was caused by an badly wired plug should a fireman try to save anybody in the fire?

Of course they should. But the electrician who put in the badly wired plug should face a court.

Would anyone assume anything differently?

goodfielder wrote:

Quote:

I'll ask again, if a fire was caused by an badly wired plug should a fireman try to save anybody in the fire?

Of course they should. But the electrician who put in the badly wired plug should face a court.

That is of course,assuming that it was done by an electrician.

People here continually insist on attempting to equate this question with a contention that Mr. Sheehan's death is unimportant or ignoble. Look at the damned question again. It asks for what noble cause did he die. It is in the politics forum and the author refers to the President in the initial post.

To warp the question to suit one's desire to either defend the Shrub or simply to avoid examining the character of the war is to erect a stawman.