Why? Here's why:

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:47 pm

Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in

Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in

Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in

Korea?

Another mother asked President Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to Die at

Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on

the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die

at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President Washington, "Why did my son have

to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son

have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "that others may have life and

dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

mominiowa · Post by **mominiowa** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:53 pm

WOW! I copied that- I hope u don't mind...That was beautiful...........

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:55 pm

mominiowa wrote: WOW! I copied that- I hope u don't mind...That was beautiful...........
Of course I don't mind, Mom. The more people that read it, the better. :yh_bigsmi

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:53 am

Diuretic wrote: The cowardly side of me wants to leave this alone. The principled part of me wants to dismantle it. The polite part of me says I should shut my keyboard up and move on. The inquiring part of me says "where did this come from?" The slightly paranoid part of me is asking if this is propaganda. The naive part of me says to shut up, it's doing no harm. The rational part of me says this is a discussion board so have at it.

So I will.

Warfare is about achieving political objectives by force. Military personnel die because it's unavoidable. Linking war and war deaths with Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is a non sequitur. It doesn't enoble the death of any one individual in warfare, whether that person be military combatant or civilian non-combatant.

I'm sorry if this appears unduly harsh BR but this is in the thread Warfare and Military and the rational part of me won out in my own internal struggle.
You're entitled to post whatever opinion you feel, D, and however you see fit. I actually struggled with the forum to put it in, wasn't sure what would be appropriate. If it offends you to have it here, and you can think of a more suitable spot for it, I will ask admin to move it there. I thought it was an intriguing parallel.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:20 am

Diuretic wrote: It doesn't offend me BR and my point that it was in Warfare and Military was to assuage my own feelings of critiquing something that you valued or you wouldn't have posted it.

What does offend me is - not referencing you - is where I read apologia. I cringe when I read eulogistic stuff about my own occupation that fails to tell the truth and varnishes it all over. In the same vein I dislike apologia for war. War is a necessary part of human relations, unpleasant but not likely to go away any time soon. That's why ideas such as this drive me up the wall, sorry but as you might tell, this really hit a nerve. I've never been in the military or been in a war but it seems to me that any hint of glorification of war has to be hit on the head there and then. The objectives of war are rarely to allow people to live in peace, happiness and freedom. War is a political tool.
Ah. Well, that's not a debate I'm willing to pursue in this particular thread. It hit a nerve with me, too, and that's why I posted it. I found it moving, and the shot at Cindy Sheehan was just a bonus.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:43 am

Diuretic wrote: Shot at Cindy Sheehan? Ah so it was propaganda then. I feel better now.
Propaganda? What are you talking about? I think the woman is a whacko....I don't think we're on the same page as to what this post means. To me, anyway.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 am

The post being propaganda doesn't make it untrue. Propaganda isn't synonymous with lie.

Christ died so that we may all be free. Cindy Sheehan's heroic son died for the same reason, if only in a more materialistic and less important sense. (anyone else' opinion of the war he died in is irrelevant to his reason for giving his life, btw)

It's a harsh irony that war is necessary to maintain freedom and peace. If we did not have people to fight and die for freedom and peace, we would not be allowed to have this conversation.

Good post, BR. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:48 am

I'm not up for a debate.

Good post, BR. :yh_flag

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:05 am

Diuretic wrote: Of course propaganda isn't synonymous with lie, it's not synonymous with truth either. It's a special hybrid. The story about Jessica Lynch's rescue was propaganda - a nice blend of truth and lie but not quite either.

The trick in this piece is to begin with the mental picture of Cindy Sheehan who protested the death of her son. That was an event that began to turn much public opinion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Prior to that many people had simply accepted what they were told and didn't protest it. But the Cindy Sheehan event was a little like the picture during the Vietnam War of the little girl running down the road, naked, skin peeling from the effect of napalm. It was an important visual.

So, Sheehan has now been demonised. BR says she is a whacko. Therefore she can be ignored or made fun of. So the piece starts off with Sheehan. It then takes us selectively through various Presidents and links them with various wars.

Then we get to the story of Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. An absolute and total non sequitur, despite your attempt at pre-emptive denial Accountable, none of it follows at all. It is clever propaganda.
Why do people have to take a heartfelt, patriotic post, that means something, and sends a good message, and pick it apart like this? You say you're not up for debate, Di, but here you are, practically poking a stick at me.

And just because MY opinion of Cindy Sheehan is that she is a whacko, does not mean that now, because of what I said, she can be "demonized." Quit being so melodramatic. She was "demonized" by some, and put on a pedestal by others, long before I posted what I did. Sheesh, just leave it alone.

If you can't see the connection, I feel sorry for you.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:27 am

Diuretic wrote: Nothing personal BR, it was simply an observation.

Perhaps I'm too critical of what I see, hear and read. But then perhaps I don't swallow everything hook, line and sinker either. I call it as I see it and that's what I saw.

This piece is everywhere, mainly on conservative blogs and sites. I'd never seen it before you posted it.

I call it propaganda and I stand by that. Everyone is free to decide what they wil about it.
My mother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then keep your damn mouth shut."

I never learned it, either.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:39 pm

Scrat wrote: I can rip this thing to pieces, what bullshite. I'll get to it this evening.
Aw geeze, Scrat, and I'm so disappointed you can't rip my thread to pieces right now. What an utter bummer for me. I'm so looking forward to it.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:12 am

Ya know what? Screw the both of you. Cindy Sheehan IS a whacko, and that's all I'm going to say about it. I should have known better than to post this here, and I'm out of it. I'll re-copy and post it where the people who read it will appreciate it. All you two did was cheapen something that meant something to me. So, p!ss off.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:23 am

BabyRider wrote: Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in

Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in

Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in

Korea?

Another mother asked President Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to Die at

Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on

the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die

at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President Washington, "Why did my son have

to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son

have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "that others may have life and

dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."
None of these men had to die. Each of these men chose to risk/give their lives for reasons they themselves saw as bigger than themselves and worth dying for. They are heroes. They are heroes.

To use the death of a son to protest the very reason he died cheapens his sacrifice.

To use their sacrifices as a propaganda tool cheapens their sacrifice.

To perform an autopsy on a post honoring their sacrifice to discover/discuss possible reasons the original author wrote it, without regard to the sacrifices themselves or the reason this poster posted it - cheapens the sacrifice and shows disrespect to the last poster.

To post a statement such as the one originating this thread for patriotic and respectful intentions honors their sacrifices and deserves respect.

Good post, BR.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:41 pm

BabyRider wrote: Ya know what? Screw the both of you. Cindy Sheehan IS a whacko, and that's all I'm going to say about it. I should have known better than to post this here, and I'm out of it. I'll re-copy and post it where the people who read it will appreciate it. All you two did was cheapen something that meant something to me. So, p!ss off.

she posts "updates" on Michael Moron's website, that solidifies her whacko status! :yh_bigsmi

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:12 pm

BabyRider wrote: Propaganda? What are you talking about? I think the woman is a whacko....I don't think we're on the same page as to what this post means. To me, anyway.Simply in order to voice my distaste, may I say that "that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom" is an appallingly trite vulgarity and that its author should be pelted in the stocks. One Cindy Sheehan standing up to be counted is worth any number of heartless triumphant killers.

Maxi_Uno · Post by **Maxi_Uno** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:20 pm

BabyRider wrote: Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in

Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in

Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in

Korea?

Another mother asked President Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to Die at

Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on

the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die

at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President Washington, "Why did my son have

to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son

have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "that others may have life and

dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

Where did this come from? What a crack up, I wonder what size flag they wear?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:38 pm

Maxi_Uno wrote: Where did this come from? What a crack up, I wonder what size flag they wear?Dunno. What size would you guess?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:45 am

spot wrote: One Cindy Sheehan standing up to be counted is worth any number of heartless triumphant killers.
So now our military men and women are heartless killers? You've got a warped sense of the world, spot. One Cindy Sheehan ain't worth a hill of beans to me. Bleeding hearts will never get it....:-5

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:17 am

BabyRider wrote: So now our military men and women are heartless killers?Too damned right, little girl. That's at the heart of the problem. There's those who don't care, there's those who care but can't change what the system turns them into, and there's those who care too late. The answer is not to sign up in the first place, not to fall for those reptile conmen in uniform who scour the street for school leavers offering excitement, skills and an income. They're the tongues of Satan.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:02 am

spot wrote: Too damned right, little girl. That's at the heart of the problem. There's those who don't care, there's those who care but can't change what the system turns them into, and there's those who care too late. The answer is not to sign up in the first place, not to fall for those reptile conmen in uniform who scour the street for school leavers offering excitement, skills and an income. They're the tongues of Satan.
Wow. Paranoid, delusional, and completely uninformed about what our soldiers do, what they are, and why they do it. Did I mention whacko, too?

And you can take your "little girl" and stuff it. Don't patronize me spot. It's not becoming of a person of your intellect.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:04 am

Accountable wrote: Good post, BR.
Thank you 3 times, now Accountable. Appreciate the support. :yh_bigsmi

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:11 am

BabyRider wrote: Wow. Paranoid, delusional, and completely uninformed about what our soldiers do, what they are, and why they do it. Did I mention whacko, too?

And you can take your "little girl" and stuff it. Don't patronize me spot. It's not becoming of a person of your intellect.If you behave the way you do, BR, you'll get patronised, if only to raise your dander. You don't think the "little girl" was a play on the word "baby" in your AV? No, neither did I, but I thought I'd ask.

You'll remember that there was at one point many uncorroborated allegations of spitting at servicemen returning from Vietnam. I assume, since so much effort was put into finding anyone who would state that he'd been spat on or seen such an incident, that it didn't happen. That war was fought by a conscript army, though. After the last three years news footage and newspaper comment regarding the behavior of the all-volunteer allied forces in Iraq, I wouldn't count on matters staying that way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:17 am

spot wrote: [...]

You'll remember that there was at one point many uncorroborated allegations of spitting at servicemen returning from Vietnam. I assume, since so much effort was put into finding anyone who would state that he'd been spat on or seen such an incident, that it didn't happen. [...]
Found in a different thread:

Clipper wrote: When I came back to the world in 1971 we arrived at the San Francisco International Airport. I for one will never forget the reception that we were given. The names I was called,the human feces thrown on me,and the animal blood which totally ruined my uniform....I sure would like to meet those folks who performed those acts against me......

Here is what I served on from 68-71....PBR-6,TF-116,DaNang Vietnam....

When you accuse me of being a heartless killer, Spot, bring some evidence.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:27 am

Accountable wrote: When you accuse me of being a heartless killer, Spot, bring some evidence.I'd have thought it was apparent that I'm generalizing, Accountable. I'm fully aware that scattered through all armed forces there are saints, though I'd maintain that they're a lot more commonplace in a conscript force than an all-volunteer one. Do you really want me to dredge up quotes from those who served in Iraq Two describing senseless roadside shootings of inoffensive civilian passers-by just to relieve the tedium or to show off to friends? I've watched documentaries with just that sort of crime described by men still in uniform. I'll dig out transcripts if you insist. Patriotism has a lot to answer for.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:30 am

spot wrote: I'd have thought it was apparent that I'm generalizing, Accountable. I'm fully aware that scattered through all armed forces there are saints, though I'd maintain that they're a lot more commonplace in a conscript force than an all-volunteer one. Do you really want me to dredge up quotes from those who served in Iraq Two describing senseless roadside shootings of inoffensive civilian passers-by just to relieve the tedium or to show off to friends? I've watched documentaries with just that sort of crime described by men still in uniform. I'll dig out transcripts if you insist. Patriotism has a lot to answer for.I would allege that any of those instances that are verifiable are very rare - exceptions to the rule. Nobody whines and complains about the hundreds of thousands who follow the rules, give candy to kids, and make friends among the population.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:43 am

Accountable wrote: I would allege that any of those instances that are verifiable are very rare - exceptions to the rule. Nobody whines and complains about the hundreds of thousands who follow the rules, give candy to kids, and make friends among the population.Of course they're exceptions to the rule. Why can't your blinkered command structure get the criminal offenders locked away for life as an example to those who subsequently follow their example? As much as anything I'm unimpressed by the witless defense of the indefensible by military courts, the pettyfogging sentences that result from convictions, the extraordinarily minimal number of the many potential cases brought before a court in the first place and the invariably low rank of those tried for crimes obviously instigated at a higher level.

I'd quite like to put http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ing_image/ into the thread at this point, since you quoted Clipper earlier and it might be thought to have discredited my prior comment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:11 am

Gotta work. I'll be back. But I want to say I don't like the term 'discredit'.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:48 am

Accountable wrote: Gotta work. I'll be back. But I want to say I don't like the term 'discredit'.I agree with you entirely, it was infelicitous. Refute is far more precise.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:45 am

Scrat wrote: And you'd expect another train of thought from someone from Texas. :rolleyes:

Save it. Go feed your steers, they ran out of cactus to munch.

You have no reason to be rude to me, I would never treat you or anyone on this board in a disrespectful manner and if I was unable to do so than I would just avoid or ignore the person.

I am entitled to *my* own opinion. Do a simple search on this woman that you are defending on here and you will see that some of us are justified in our opinion of her! Or are you not open minded enough to accept that?!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:20 pm

spot wrote: Of course they're exceptions to the rule. Why can't your blinkered command structure get the criminal offenders locked away for life as an example to those who subsequently follow their example? As much as anything I'm unimpressed by the witless defense of the indefensible by military courts, the pettyfogging sentences that result from convictions, the extraordinarily minimal number of the many potential cases brought before a court in the first place and the invariably low rank of those tried for crimes obviously instigated at a higher level.

I'd quite like to put http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ing_image/ into the thread at this point, since you quoted Clipper earlier and it might be thought to have discredited my prior comment.
I'm glad I had to take the break. Spot, your argument is with the military leadership, not the soldier. You yourself said that those soldiers who murder, torture, etc. are the rarity. Those people should be convicted, I agree. The leadership need to find the spine and integrity to hold their soldiers to the set standard. Their leaders likewise need to find the spine and integrity to punish those too weak to uphold their duty as leaders. That is where the shame and blame lies, not with the typical soldier.

I'm purposely not addressing the bigger picture of what we're doing or why, because it is irrelevant here, imo. The claim, true or false, that these heroes are duped does not mar the sacrifice or the soldier's personal reason for placing his life on hold in service to his country.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:29 pm

Accountable wrote: I'm purposely not addressing the bigger picture of what we're doing or why, because it is irrelevant here, imo. The claim, true or false, that these heroes are duped does not mar the sacrifice or the soldier's personal reason for placing his life on hold in service to his country.And what of the sacrifice of those who resist foreign occupation of their homeland?

By all means if you put an armed force against another of rough parity it can be the band of heroes you claim them to be. That's where admiration of soldiery comes from. Put it up against a weaker force which lacks air superiority and consequently lacks any prospect of military (as opposed to guerilla) success and each member of that invading force becomes no more than a cheap amoral enforcer for the biggest mafia warlord. All that differs between them is the legal standing of the enlisted man at arms compared to that of the hoodlum. I note that both the hoodlum and the enlisted man have both volunteered to be where they are - none of this applies to conscripts.

I'd go further and say that any individual or organization taking up arms on home territory to resist an alien occupier is beyond criticism. He may be misguided but nobody could ever say he was in the wrong. It's too simple just to label the opposition as cowards and the home team as heroes, it lacks balance. Everyone here who's gone near the subject of any military invasion of US soil has said that they'd be proud to defend their homeland to the last.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:38 pm

spot wrote: And what of the sacrifice of those who resist foreign occupation of their homeland?

By all means if you put an armed force against another of rough parity it can be the band of heroes you claim them to be. That's where admiration of soldiery comes from. Put it up against a weaker force which lacks air superiority and consequently lacks any prospect of military (as opposed to guerilla) success and each member of that invading force becomes no more than a cheap amoral enforcer for the biggest mafia warlord. All that differs between them is the legal standing of the enlisted man at arms compared to that of the hoodlum. I note that both the hoodlum and the enlisted man have both volunteered to be where they are - none of this applies to conscripts.

I'd go further and say that any individual or organization taking up arms on home territory to resist an alien occupier is beyond criticism. He may be misguided but nobody could ever say he was in the wrong. It's too simple just to label the opposition as cowards and the home team as heroes, it lacks balance. Everyone here who's gone near the subject of any military invasion of US soil has said that they'd be proud to defend their homeland to the last.
I agree with all you've said here, except for the mafia warlord example (he probably doesn't have many volunteers to fight for him) but that's inconsequential; the point is still clear. Good points all.