Anti-war nuts plan death party
by The Panda Man · 10/25/2005 10:27 amWith 1,996 military deaths in Iraq as of Sunday, anti-war activists are gearing up for a macabre celebration when that “magic number” of 2,000 is reached. Cindy Sheehan even plans on chaining herself to the White House fence in protest.
"I’m going to go to Washington, D.C. and I’m going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I’m going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.
"And I’ll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I’ll go back and do the same thing," she said.
Better get that ditch ready for round two back in Crawford. Ms. Sheehan is not alone in her preparations though.
The American Friends Service Committee was helping coordinate activists to protest the Iraq war. "On the day after the 2,000th reported U.S. military death in Iraq, people will gather in communities across the U.S. to say that the country’s pro-peace majority wants Congress to stop the deaths by stopping the dollars that are funding the war," a coalition of anti-war groups said online at www.afsc.org.
Nothing warms the heart and honors the dead like a little Vietnam-era protest nostalgia.
E-mail the author or leave a comment below
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
23 Responses to “Anti-war nuts plan death party”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Since we don’t have an open comments section yet today and since your topic is relevant (protest), here goes:
A great American passed away yesterday, Mrs. Rosa Parks. Mrs. Parks act of refusing to give her seat to a white man (what a gentleman!?- he sarcastically writes) in 1955 was a defining moment (some would say catalyst) in the civil rights movement. From our vantage point of 50 years, it’s hard to believe that people other than whites were forced to sit in the rear section of buses, public transportation that they (non-whites) paid taxes to support. We should all remember that public opinion was against the tactic of Mrs. Parks and supported her jailing; therefore reminding us that popular opinion doesn’t always espouse “American” ideals like equality and freedom. This is especially relevant today when we debate such issues as “defining marriage” and the like.
God grant her serenity in her eternal rest. She was a true patriot.
Not to take away from Rosa Parks, but equating the civil rights movement in the 50’s and gay marriage is a non-starter. They could not be more different.
jimb: you and I will have to agree to disagree (as previously noted). I do, however, have a compromise:
why not let marriage be a civil matter in order to avoid any religious entanglements and the harmimg of religious morals? Oh yea, marriage is already a civil matter.
It’s not like gays are forcing churches to marry them. It seems to me that gays only want the same rights as heteros (i.e. to marry the person that they love); the same, not, god forbid, special ones.
You’re right - agree to disagree is the best we’ll come up with.
It just aint natural.
Jimb…When did we start being ruled by the minority? The majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with religious undertones. Our society is being eroded the secular society morals, or the lack thereof.
#6 - you’re absolutely right - I don’t get it…
So, I never believed in the WMD or nuke argument. I always felt we were being lied to. I never believed there was a connection to Al Qaida. I think this was is wrong.
Guess I am a nut.
#8, ohhh wait, I was right all along. Take back that confession. Guess I was not really a nut after all
Sheehan says, “I’m going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home.”
I say, ignore her, and let her stay tied to the fence till kingdom come.
As with rambunctious children, the more you reward her with attention, the more she’ll act up. Ignore her.
#8 the argument that we were lied to about WMD is suspect at best.
Lied to or not, the facts are that the issue of WMD’s was THE justification for the invasion of Iraq and we still, more than two years of bloody occupation (and 2,000 dead servicemen)later, have not found any. History will be the judge or whether we were lied to or misled.
This rush to war will have world wide implications if the truth is exposed. We can rehash all of the fabrications used by the administration. That would do no good. Little by little the truth comes out. If the truth is ever really known the damage to the US and our integrity will be permanent. It is my belief this administration will be known as one of the most corrupt in history. They cannot continue to hide the truth, and as seen with “plamegate” people will in time turn on each other.
Willie;
Please! enough with this WMD BS. You think that was the only cause for our being in Iraq? Can you say 911? Just think how wonderful it would be if we could just wish our problems away. Let’s pretend that Usama Bin Laden and Alqaida is really a misunderstood bunch of freedom fighters.
Lets just pretend our car’s full of gas when the gauge registers empty. Lets refuse to believe that we owe our school taxes. Lets just refuse to remember all the UN resolutions against Iraq. The Navy’s Cole. The first World Trade towers bombing. The Marines in Lebanon. Where do you draw the line?
When do you say enough of this pussy footin around?
How far can you be shoved around until your limit button is pushed?
Why should we as a recipient of the years of attacks by these maniacs continue to not fight back?
Please! Willie tell me/us where’s your limit?
Please! Help me/us understand what should be done differently than what is being done now?
Why aren’t you as upset with the thousands of people killed by drunk drivers each year in America as you are with the deaths in Iraq? Are those deaths acceptable to you, but the deaths of our Service Men & Women defending our Country not?
rj
#12 - Saddam needed to come out sooner or later. It was only a matter of time. Besides, the WMD arguments have been hashed and rehashed at this point, so I don’t want to waste too much time on that.
#13 - It’s easy for you to think that the Bush Administration is going to be judged as one of the most corrupt in history, because you oppose Bush so vehemently. Just remember, they’re ALL politicians, and not to be trusted. I would argue that the Clinton Administration was pretty corrupt, too. He just had more charisma. So would have been the Kerry or Gore Admins. It doesn’t make any difference, in the long run. Each and every administration had its scandals, and will continue to do so as long as they have political opponents. It is easier to highlight mistakes and sling mud to destroy your opponent than it is to win on your own merit. This is the credo that politicians have lived by pretty much forever…
RJ, when you will you acknowledge what George Bush has already admitted. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush said so. If you don’t believe him who will you blieve ?
JimB, yes every admin has scandals. Unfortunatley Bushs’ scandal will cost thousands of young thier life. This scandal will and has reach to many other countries. It is just now bearing the tip of the iceburg. The lies and deception run very deep, and thru many governments. It will cause far more damage than the destruction of a single country and the loss of life.
Do I oppose Bush vehemently ? yes, becuase of this false war.
You think it is a ‘false war’ because you buy the line that we were lied to maliciously to justify the war. I happen to disagree. Not to take away from the 2000 US dead so far, but I certainly think that the war was justifiable. Now then, maybe we picked the wrong target for the time (maybe Iran or N. Korea first), we could argue that, but I don’t buy the “Bush Lied” argument.
I am not sure that there aren’t still WMD’s out there somwhere with Saddam’s name on it. He’s had many years of thumbing his nose at the rest of the world to hide them in a friendly nation or two…
rj:
C’mon, surely you must admit that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq? The attempt to link the two was one of many ways that the Bush administration tried to sell the people of America on the pre-9/11 idea of invading Iraq. I suggest you read Bob Woodward’s book concerning the lead up to the war. As the Twin Towers were falling, there was immediate discussion by the Cabinet on how to tie Iraq into the attack. It’s part of the public record. Wolfowitz himself never denied it.
As far as me pussyfooting around…know that as an ex-infantryman and combat veteran I was TOTALLY for the invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban. There was known direct linkage b/w al-Qaeda and the Taliban, therefore that war was entirely justified because we had concrete knowledge (and an admission by bin Laden) that they had committed this unspeakable act of terrorism (9/11). As I stated before, as a veteran myself, I know EXACTLY what it’s like to lose friends and loved ones, guys that are sometimes closer than one’s own family. I really don’t need some civilian with NO IDEA of what he is talking about (I assume, I apologize if my assumption errs) lecture me about where my limit should be. Sorry, but that kind of chickenhawk talk really pi$$es me off.
Willie;
Your being pissed off really has left me shaking. Self professed combat veterans like yourself seem to be the only ones to experience losing friends and loved ones.
I ask where are your limits. “where my limit should be” are your words.
You just want us out of Iraq and are using the excuse of the Military deaths and WMD as the whipping post.
In Bob Woodard’s “Plan of attack” the “gossip soaked pages, he didn’t deny it and he failed to confirm it. Woodward does portray George W. Bush as a conscientious, well-informed leader.
rj
rj:
Never claimed that I was the only one that has ever lost a friend or loved one (that would be foolish), although I’m not sure what your shaking has to do with anything. I do not want us out of Iraq. The military reality is that we are stuck there and have to see it through, otherwise the place will be much worse when we leave than it was when we invaded. My problem is that we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It’s sadly ironic that it was the people who served in the military in the Bush administration who advised against war. They were either fired (Gen. Shinsheki (damn, I’m never sure if I’m spelling his name correctly), or marginalized (Powell). Those who have no idea what warfare is about or who avoided service when the bugle was blown (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc…, not to mention GWB himself) were the ones that were all for an invasion (from the safety of D.C. no less). That’s sad.
I can also tell from your derision of my service (the things of which you have no idea) that you didn’t serve yourself. If you had you might think differently. All in all I would lump you in with the chickenhawks (those who advocate war but are mysteriously MIA when the bullets start flying). No wonder you support this policy, you fit the profile. I’m curious as to why you didn’t enlist in order to put your money where your mouth (or fingers, as the case may be) is?
willie;
Wait! You say that, for some reason only the people with Military backgrounds wanted no part of the ousting of Saddam and his murderous hynchmen.
If that were the case why do active veterans re-enlist?
It would be great if only military people could make the decisions of war. One example would be Adolf Hitler. If Hilary were to be elected Prez, (God forbid) would that exclude her from making executive decisions of when and where to use military force?
You have your head so far buried where the sun shines not.
You are right I “didn’t serve myself”, I served my Country.
rj
No rj, I was referring to those in the decision making part of the administration, not all enlisted men and women. Don’t be so dense.
Of course we live in a society where civilians control the military and that is how it should be. However, one should rely on the expertise of those who have some actual experience with what they are dealing with. Listen to them, don’t sideline them because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
rj:
By the by, what branch were you in and when?