 |
|
Reply
| | From:  CyndyK2 (Original Message) | Sent: 8/29/2005 9:50 PM |
An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan
From the Proud Father of a U.S. Marine
By Brantley Smith
Posted On August 17, 2005
Ms. Sheehan,
By your actions over the past two weeks it is clear that you missed
an important aspect of Civics 101: With rights come responsibilities. You certainly have the right to voice your opinion against the war in Iraq and the President's policies. You even have the right to camp outside the President's home in Crawford and demand he meet with you. Your status as a mother who has lost a child in the war also gives your words and actions a credibility and a larger audience than otherwise would be the case. Now that your supporters have given you a broad forum from which to be heard, making you a national figure, its time you considered your responsibilities to all of us. I have a daughter set to deploy to Fallujah in two weeks and I have a serious concern with how your irresponsible and short sighted actions might
impact on her. She is, after all, a volunteer, like your son, and she is
going in harm's way because she believes it is her responsibility to protect your rights and freedoms.
Well meaning people like you always seem to forget the law of
unintended consequences and in your vanity and arrogant self-righteousness never bother to think through what it is you are trying to do versus what you may actually accomplish. I am here to inform you, Ma'am, that you will not change the policy of our government by sitting outside Crawford making a spectacle of yourself in the name of your rights to free speech; what you will do is provide more propaganda for our enemies and cost the lives of even more brave and selfless American warriors. How long do you think it will be before you become a star on Al Jazeera? For all I know, it may have already happened. One thing is certain, though, and that is that your actions and words will further embolden a ruthless and evil enemy and more
American blood will be shed and some of it will be on your hands. I pray that my daughter will not be one of them. If she is, then I will hold you and those like you partly responsible. Yes, my daughter's fate will depend mostly on her own courageous decision to serve, but only the most naive among us can deny the impact our own words and actions here in America have in a world grown smaller by the revolution in communications technology.
I am sure you believe that you are serving some great cause by
putting our servicemen and women in more danger and that you can, by your irresponsible exercise of free speech, help end a policy you disagree with. Your emotion may be compelling but the reality is that you will not set in motion any process that will change or undo what has been done. The war will go on because to end it now would dishonor the sacrifice of all of our fellow countrymen who have died in the cause of fighting terrorism. Rational Americans will not allow that. Too much is at stake. Unfortunately, shallow and irrational ones, such as yourself, will continue to put the lives of our sons and daughters in danger by aiding and abetting an enemy who sees propagandizing in the mass media as its main weapon in a war it could otherwise not win standing on its own wretched and evil justification of radical Islam, or by force of arms. You, Ma'am, have joined forces with an evil you neither understand nor apparently have tried to comprehend. You
direct your anger toward our country while the enemy plots to kill and maim the innocent. You make a mockery of responsible free speech while thousands of young men and women fight desperately to preserve your safety. Instead of honoring your son's sacrifice you are inspired to comfort an evil enemy.
You clearly do not understand the challenge we face as a nation and
have not tried to put it in historical perspective. It is a sad fact that it
is those of your thinking that have led us to where we are today. Decades of appeasement to these haters of everything we hold dear has cost thousands of American lives from Beirut to New York and in dozens of other forgotten places. Remember Lockerbie? The Achille Lauro? The USS Cole? We as a people were dragged into this war, much like December 7th, 1941, and we must fight and win it wherever the enemy hides and against whomever would support him. Make no mistake about Iraq. It is both a legitimate and crucial campaign in this much larger, global war of radical Islam's making. These people hate us for who we are, not what we have done. We did not bring this on ourselves, as many would have us believe, by our policies and actions abroad. We brought this on ourselves in 1775 when the Founding Fathers embarked on a course of freedom, tolerance, and liberal democratic and social ideals. These haters of all we hold dear strive to destroy forever a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Abraham Lincoln hoped would never "Perish from the earth". They would replace it with an oppressive world theocracy unlike anything modern history has ever seen for its ruthless disregard for personal freedom and liberty. If more appeasement is your answer for an alternative policy, spare us. We have suffered enough from cowardice and inaction.
An historical analogy screams to be let out here. It is one of two
men, both named Chamberlain. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a school teacher turned soldier in the American Civil War, found himself in the crosshairs of history on a warm July day in 1863 on a small hill in Pennsylvania. Commanding the 20th Maine Regiment on the extreme Union left at Gettysburg he was in a most perilous position. Should he fail to hold against a strong Confederate attack, the Union could be lost. You see, he was serving in an increasingly unpopular war at home against a resurgent enemy, and for a President fighting for his political life. Colonel Chamberlain, stoic but determined, refused to yield. His small regiment held against an onslaught of Confederate attacks, an action many historians believe turned the tide of the war. He was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The other half of this analogy focuses on Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain in the years preceding World War II. His story is widely known. Through his policy of appeasement and a lack of moral courage, he handed Adolf Hitler much of Europe. Which side of history have you chosen, Ma'am?
Your son died in the service of freedom and my daughter will go in
harm's way to protect and preserve it. Honor their sacrifice, Ma'am, by exercising it responsibly.
I will pray with you and I will grieve with you but I will not stand
by silent while you needlessly and arrogantly endanger the life of my
daughter and her comrades in arms. Please bless us with your silence and go home.
Brantley Smith
Proud father of a United States Marine
Tullahoma, TN (Thanks to Olive, who sent this to me in e-mail; it deserves to be shared with a wide audience!)
Cyndy
|
|
 First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
AMEN!! AMEN! AMEN!AMEN!!AMEN!! I went to my adopted sis's house today while her brother was there. By September 29, he must report to duty in Kuwait. He re-enlisted right after 9-11. He said NOBODY is going to do that to us, and him not fight to the deaths of the cowards who did it. So, I will be joining another crochet group. The group that is knitting and crocheting helmet liners for our boys and girls on the other side of the pond. Sheehan doesn't speak for me. I back our men and women over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait 100%. Not those on the other side of the Mississippi. Thank you Cyndy for posting this for all to read. |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 8/30/2005 12:57 AM |
Sigh. But folks, don't you deplore this mind set? I mean the mind set of this "Brantly Smith". Yes, I guess he's worried about his daughter. But to equate Cindy Sheehan disagreeing with the war with putting his daughter in extra harms is... well, it's just not true. I mean, how does that follow? His logic is flawed. Does he truly think that the terrorists are going to redouble their efforts because there's a woman that wants to meet with President Bush? Bah! Does he think they watch CNN? On what? What do they use for electricity? It's pretty much still out in most areas in Iraq. I doubt they can get Al Jazeerha. Don't get me wrong. Please, don't get me wrong. I am for the troops. I WAS a troop. And I believe if you asked Cindy Sheehan, she'll tell you SHE's for the troops too. I believe they need more men, more equipment, more money and more logistical support, as well as more armor, better intellegence and more general suppport all around. Cindy Sheehan doesn't think they need to be there at all. And, there are a lot of Americans who agree with her. That does NOT make them "shallow, irrational, self serving, short sighted, arrogant" and gosh, what else did he call her? I mean, come on. OK, disagree, but stop with the name calling already. I just really get tired of this. Disagree with the president and the next thing you know a person is smeared, dissed and linked to Al Jazeerah and is accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We've GOT to be able to disagree with the president without this kind of invective being aimed at us every time we open our mouths or take a stand. And that final analogy. Cindy Sheehan is Nevelle Chamberlain. Oh, for goodness sakes. Yeah, go Cindy. Write some treaties with the terrorists, OK? Let us know when you've done that. Sheesh. I mean the guy just goes too far. This is a mother who lost her son and wants to talk to the guy who's responsible for getting him killed. Period. And I just deleted what I think about Bush for not meeting with her. That's not the point of this little response. I tell you, this has Carl Rove written all over it. I bet this guy, what's his name? I bet this "Brantly Smith" doesn't even exist. Hmmm... "Smith?" How you gonna check THAT? How many "Smiths are there? I tell ya, I will bet you anything this was put out from the white house situation room, approved by Carl Rove. It's just the sort of thing he would do. I've been watching that rat for years, since the days he smeared Sissy Farenthold here in Texas. Well, if it is or if it isn't. The point still remains. We've GOT to be able to disagree with the President without having this kind of smear job done on us. This isn't the first of it's kind I've seen, and I doubt it will be the last. And it's sad. Debate the issues. Don't attack the person. Should we be there or not? THAT's the issue. That's all lost in this sort of thing. The conversation becomes "Is Cindy Sheehan a traitor or not." It should be rediculous on the face of it, but say it often enough, and loud enough, and people will begin to believe it. And again, that's very, very sad. Her son didn't die for that. She is no traitor. Nor is she "arrogant, self righteous, providing propaganda, shallow, irrational, aiding and abetting an enemy, making a mockery of free speech, (asking for) more apeasement or Neville Chamberlain". She thinks the president screwed up when he went to war over weapons of mass distruction that weren't there, and she thinks we should get out of Iraq. Now, is that so hard? THAT's the debate. So debate that. Should we stay or should we go. He touches on that, stating that to leave would dishonor those who have died. Maybe. That's his opinion. Her opinion is that to stay is to throw more lives away. Whose opinion has more weight? The father who is sending someone off to war? Or the mother who has lost someone to that war? You can bet your bottom dollar neither of the Bush girls is going over there. They've got partying to do over here. Dan |
|
Reply
| | | From: CyndyK2 | Sent: 8/30/2005 9:44 PM |
What I mainly deplore is that she has two other LIVING children and a husband at home who have begged her to come back to them and she refuses. She is letting the death of one child overshadow the lives of two others; how must they feel? And she has destroyed her marriage. I am a mother, Dan, and I know I would grieve terribly at the loss of one of my children in war OR peace. But to blame the President would be misguided. There is no draft that forced her son to enlist; he signed up on his own. We may have gone to war over misinformation about WMD, yes, but the fact remains if past Presidents like Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton had pursued these terrorists when they attacked us before, we might not be having to be at war now. And if we back down again, we are sending the message that they can continue their terrorist acts with impunity. That's how I feel about it. I've forwarded the above letter to snopes.com for investigation and if it turns out to be a hoax, I will be the first to apologize here on the board. Cyndy |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 8/31/2005 12:25 AM |
Again, it's not the point, Cyndy. Her personal life isn't the issue. What she wants to do is to talk to him about why we shouldn't continue the fighting. It's her opinion that we should pull out. That's my understanding. He's made up his mind that we're going to "stay the course". And he won't meet with her and listen to her. Instead we get all this extraneous stuff coming at us to deflect us from the issue. THAT'S what's got my nose out of joint. Let's quit blaming her for making things worse on the troops, and quit telling her what to do with her personal life, and listen to what she has to say. Here's a direct quote from an interview with her. When asked why she decided to speak out she replied: <<" I have to. I can’t bring my son back. I can’t go back to April 3rd and bring Casey home. I can’t stand on the side while other mothers and families will have to go through what we’re going through. I have to speak out, and I have to help try to bring the troops home." >> That keeps getting lost. She's been consistent, as far as I can tell on her message, but so much crap has been put out about her, her personal life, and all this other stuff, that her message is not being debated. THAT'S what's got me upset. And again, this is so typical Carl Rove. If you don't like what someone is doing, demonize them. Put out disinformation. Are you SURE her home life is breaking up? Didn't she just leave to be with her mother, or an aunt who had a stroke? Doesn't sound like someone who was ignoring her home life to me... By the way, last Sunday's New York Times had an article on "The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan". In it they talk about the smear campaign that's been launched against her. There's another article in the Philly Daily News, "Cindy, Crawford, and the Bush Smear Machine", at http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002301.htm, lSo I'm not just making this up. There are several other articles about how there's this smear campaign going on. Just do a Google search. You'll see them. That snake in the grass, Carl Rove and the White House situation room are at it again. Mark my words. Like I said, I watched him operate here in Texas. He took a wonderful woman, who was doing a great job for Texas and smeared her with rumors that she was lesbian (which she most certainly was not) and thereby won Dubya the governernor's job. Dubya, running true to form, proceeded to do exactly what he's doing for the country. He ran up a huge budget deficit, didn't keep a single campaign promise, and left the state in a mess. We still don't have decent school financing down here, and that was a major plank of Dubya's campaign. No, I don't like him much. But again, that's not the point. Should we stay or should we go from Iraq? That's what Cindy Shehan's trying to get a dialog going on. I still love ya, hon. Even if you do like Bush. You just don't know him like I do. You're like my sister, who I love dearly. We just don't talk about politics. LOL She loves Bush too. Go figure... Love, Dan |
|
Reply
| |
Dan, Bush is cleaning up the mess the damn dems left behind. They didn't have the balls to go after the terrorists when they were in office. All Clinton wanted to do was chase Monica around the desk. How bright was she??? She kept a dirty dress hanging in the closet. That should tell you how bright the dems are. Why do you think they're called " DEMS?" By fighting over therre, they're making it safer for us to walk the streets over here. Do you want another 9-11 to happen over here? I sure as heck don't. I support our troops 100%. Sheehan had her chance to talk with Bush once, why didn't she ask him then to bring our boys and girls home? She had her chance and she blew it. Tough noogies. |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 8/31/2005 10:49 PM |
Well, you're mind is closed. So no need to even comment. But you know me. I'm going to anyway. LOL  If you look at the time when she did meet with him, and the venue, it was almost immediately after her son's death, and before the revelations about there not being any WMD, WMD programs, or even plans for any aquisition of WMD. She thought there was a reason to go there. She thought he died for something real. In other words, at that time, she didn't know we went to war based on a lie, or at the very least, faulty intellegence. So no, she didn't have a chance to talk to him about this. But again, the White House situation room has put out just half the story. Carl Rove strikes again, and people fall for it. Fall for it, heck, they jump on it. "LOOK! This prooves she's a kook." Well, it doesn't proove anything of the sort. Sorry, Doofers. And, hon... what does Clinton have to do with any of this? Nevertheless, I'll respond... You know I will. LOL President Clinton did far more than "chase Monica around the desk" but far be it from me to burst your bubble, hon. You can ignore the 8 straight years of econmoic growth, the retiring of the federal deficit and the building of the first surplus in this century as well as the downsizing of the entire federal bureaucracy and oh, so much more that was accomplished. Yes, it was tainted by the Lewinsky thing. So fine. Focus on that and don't pay any attention to anything good done during those 8 years. That's fine. I'm used to that mind set. It's all distraction. When will someone take on the question? Why are we there? THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11. Don't mean to yell. But please, let's be clear on that. Well, there seems to be a connection in Bush's mind. But no person anywhere else thinks so. There's certainly no proof. And if you have some, please show me. And remember, allegations are not proof. Bush thinks if you keep saying it enough people will believe it. And, I guess they will. But please, try to be more discriminating on what you believe. Saudi Arabia... Now there's a lot of connnections there with 9/11. Why didn't we invade them? They have a repressive regime. Most of the people involved were Saudi citizens, here legally on Saudi passports. Never hear anything about that though, do we? Hell no! The Bush's are good friends with the Saudi roalty and they make a lot of money off Saudi oil. Nope, it's Iraq. But exactly why are we there? Is it to topple Saddam Insane? OK. Well we did that. So let's come home. Mission accomplished. No? We know it's not WMD. There are none. No evidence of any WMD. OK. So it's Nation building? Well, OK. When did it become nation building? Was that after we captured Saddam? It's not to stop terrorism. Just don't give me that line. I'm not buying it. If anything, being there is increasing terrorism. There have been more terrorist attacks against Americans since we got into Iraq than in all the years before Iraq. There's almost one per day average now. We seem to be giving the terrorists more ammunition to use against us by being there. Anyway,. that's what the experts are saying. So I'm not buying that "fighting terrorists overseas so we don't have to fight them here" line. It doesn't wash. I know. I know. That's what Bush says and if he says it enough people start to believe it. But try to think past the rhetoric and look at the facts. Have we had no terrorists attacks here because of what we're doing there, or because of hightened security and a more aware populace? We've stopped how many planned attacks here so far? There were several since 9/11, contrary to what the president and his people keep saying. Remember the post office and the Anthrax letters? Plus there have been Al-Qaeda cells uncovered and arrested. They used to give us updates on that but now, they're keeping a lot of it quiet. Why? I'm not sure. National Security? Maybe. It's hard to say. I guess I can see reasons to keep busted cells quiet. Or maybe it's so they can say "There have been no terrorists in the US blah blah blah." But then that's my cynicism showing. Last busted cells I can find were in 02. http://www.emergency.com/cntrter2.htm They were happening pretty regularly, then they just stopped. All I can figure is they quit reporting busted cells. OK. Gonna quit now. I spent way too much time on this again. LOL Why do you girls do this to me? Cyndy, I really appreciate you checking out the veracity of that letter to Cindy Sheehan. Any response yet? Oh, and if it turns out to be a real letter, then I'll appologize. OK? But I got a dollar that says it's out of the White House Situation Room, or one of the PACs. Dan |
|
Reply
| |
Dan, You Dan say there "IS NO RELATION TO 9-11" all you want. I happen to believe it is. 9-11 didn't just happen over night. It took years in the planning. Clinton was in office for 8 years while this terrible thing was being planned. And while he was in office, just how many jobs went over seas? How many Americans lost their jobs and went on Welfare? How many bankruptcy cases were filed in the years after Clinton?? Say what you want about Clinton, but in my book, he's still a slime ball. Doofers |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 9/1/2005 11:45 PM |
OMG, Doofers. I can't tell you how it galls me to see Clinton blamed for loss of jobs overseas. All those massive layoffs and job losses didn't happen until Bush pushed through the Free Trade legislation early in his first term, fulfilling his promises to his money backers, the corporate big wigs who wanted to send their production facilities overseas to cut down on labor costs and elliminate costly labor laws that protected workers, like OSHA. Clinton was a big labor man, and didn't dare do things like that. His labor backers would have dropped him. It was BUSH who was responsible for that. For the 8 years Clinton was in Office we experienced the longest sustained peacetime economic groth period in this cenury. And he did it while maintaining the environmental and labor laws that Bush has been busy dismantling since he got in office. Those are the facts. Bush meanwhile ignored all the anti-terrorist recommendations put forth by Clinton's people prior to 9/11. What do you think all those hearings were about? He was focusing on his domestic issues concerning his tax cuts for the wealthy and the NAFTA and other Free trade issues and didn't have time for security, until 9/11. Then, suddenly... "Oh, terrorists are bad." I can cite you web site after web site that confirms this. Or you can just do a google search yourself. Show me one, just ONE independent source that confirms that Iraq and 9/11 are linked. I can't find one. But if you say they're linked, fine. Show me something that confirms that. It's not that I don't believe you. I just like confirmation.  Oh, never mind. You're not going to pay any attention anyway. "Clinton was a sleaseball so Bush can do no wrong." OK, dear. I love you anyway. The emperor is not naked if you say he's not. I just happen to believe he's a bigger sleaseball than Clinton, just in a different way. Clinton may have screwed Lewinsky. But Bush is screwing the whole country. Heh, heh. I know which I think is worse. But each to his or her own. Hugs, Dan |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 9/4/2005 1:10 AM |
No links, huh? Thought so. Heh, heh. I can't find one either. It's OK, hon. You're not the first person to be taken in by that guy. Not the first one at all. And I'll just leave it there. Hugs and love, Dan |
|
Reply
| |
Just another note. There are no terrorists in Kuwait and Iraq. Hate to burst some people's bubble here, I am from India and well, ask me about Kashmir and the border of Pakistan and ask me what a terrorist is and what he/she stands for. I also recommend the movie "The Terrorist". You can find it at your local Hollywood Video that may have you understand where and what it the terms comes from. I love how people are convinced Iraq is the problem. It's hilarious actually. It's like telling the world chocolate isn't the color brown and everyone goes, "oh my gosh, you are right!" One says it and people start to believe it. There is no proof that there are terrorists in Iraq is what I should say correctly. I think what the Cindy Sheehan is doing is absolutly correct. I believe she will help more lives that are actually going in "harm's" ways. If I came to your house, invaded it and said, I believe you are harboring terrorists and beat up your mother and sister while doing so, you think you may just self deffend yourself - in anything, that's the "harm" to worry about. Anyone know that there have been 1400 soldiers killed thus far and over 14k severely wounded. Makes you wonder. Also, the fact that bush comes from a family that has heavily vested in Oil companies and Iraq just happens to be a gold mine in terms of OIL. I am sure no one believes there is a direct correlation as to why gas prices are going up. Hmm, you think the US controlling IRAQ has anything to do with it? I am not going to say that I am taking sides. Another note: Did you know it took bush over 1 full day to respond to 9-11 and 3 days to respond to Katrina? There are too many facts out there and I support Cindy Sheehan 100%. I believe what Cindy Sheehan is doing is absolutely necessary. I wish mothers and fathers of dead soldiers would have come forward a lot earlier and it could have saved so many lives. Bombing Iraq is not going to help our country feel more safe. Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorists or 9-11. |
|
Reply
| |
Oh and one more thing -- 911 did take years but why did it have to occur when bush was in office? Since Bush has been on office --- The Country went to shambles in economic ruins after 9-11. The dot come boom was one factor, but 9 11 really took its toll. Bush did nothing to revive the economy. Gore won popular national vote. Iraq war was declared Katrina took place Over 1400 solidiers killed, not to mention the thousands severely hurt. Bush never responded to Katrina, dediced to go to SD first and attend a party before he flew over the Hurricane site. He didn't even have the guts to come down near the site and address some serious concerns. 2/3 of Louisina is in poverty and even though scientists bitched and moaned about the national goverement to do something before the disaster occurred, federal aid was never put into the city prior too, knowing that a disaster such as Katrina would put the State of Lousiana particularly New Orleans in ruins--- hmm did i mention 2/3 of lousiana has an african american population. Since bush has been President, we have had more deaths than any president since the Vietnam War. I think after 911, the economic recession, the War on Iraq and now Katrina -- I am sure the Vietnam War feels like a walk in the park. |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 9/6/2005 9:30 PM |
Well, not exactly right there, my friend. Bush doesn't have the honor of having the most casualties. I believe that would go to Lyndon B. Johnson. The total lost in Viet Nam was a little over 58,000 men and women. That's right,. 7 nurses were killed during Tet. The actual total, according to the Viet Nam Veteran's memorial website was 58,178, including the MIA. No MIA has ever been found alive. Sooooo, Viet Nam was the bloodiest war in modern times. Even bloodier was the Civil war. And if you count KIA for both sides, then Lincoln wins hands down. In the 4 years of the Civil war, more than 100,000 American soldiers were killed. Talk about a bloody war. But then, they used to do really dumb things, like line up in a line and charge into cannons and massed rifle fire. Well, Bush is working on it. By the way, the body count is up to more than 1,800 now. We're never really sure, because they don't actually release information on a timely basis. And, of course, we're not allowed to see the coffins of these heros as they are brought home. No. That might upset some folks. OF COURSE IT WOULD UPSET FOLKS. Grrrrrrr. And no one seems to care. That's what gets me. I want every one of those coffins in the news every night. I want the American public to see those coffins. Those are real soldiers. They are real men and women there. And they're DEAD. And no one givs a damn. They just sneak them into the country in the dead of night like, or at least under a news blackout, and ship them off to be buried. Can't have those planeloads of flag drapped coffins photographed, now. Can we? Bah, I knew I shouldn't have gone to the Viet Nam Veteran's memorial web site. I get this way every time I see that thing. War is such a waste! Dan |
|
Reply
| |
Wow.... what I missed while I was gone!! I didn't read all the way down this thread yet.... but I got far enough to realize that in general, I agree with Dan. Having the guts to say that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place DOES NOT equal "blaming" or "disrespecting" the troops who are there. I have MUCH admiration and respect for those men and women who are committed to serving their country. Whether it be in wartime or not.... they love their country, and are ready to put their lives on the line for it. They deserve our respect. But I think they also deserve a country who is looking out for them too. How many have to die before it becomes TOO many? Its the DECISIONS made at the TOP that are being called into question here..... and I think rightfully so!! Personally I believe this war will go down into the history books as a grievous mistake on the part of this American administration. I truly believe that we are NOT defeating "terrorists"..... we are just creating more!! Many countries (outside the middle east) are increasingly looking at the US with disdain and hatred for what they see as an arrogant nation who wants to make all the rules (then quietly subvert them when no one's looking).... who thinks all the cultures of the world should BE just like us and THINK just like us, regardless of their own heritage. The world is a beautiful and diverse place.... with a multitude of different and fascinating cultures and there is good to be found all of them. But do we as Americans always respect those differences? Bigotry? Racism? Eletism? I think all those words apply. Certainly there are many nations who are guilty of civil rights violations, and worse. And we as part of an international community SHOULD put pressure on them to change thier practices. But I don't believe we should appoint ourselves as the world's POLICEMEN. There are scores of countries who live without freedom, where atrocities and genocide are practiced daily. If freedom and civil rights are all this is about, why don't we invade them? Because this is about OIL. We need to keep the precarious balance in the middle east tilted toward OUR favor, or risk losing control of our OIL-based economy. I just wish the lies and posturing of our leaders would stop. If you don't AGREE with everything the government says, you're told you're not patriotic. Baloney!!!! I am proud to live in this country..... but I am not shortsighted and narrow-minded enough to believe every piece of propaganda that is shoved down my throat. Nor am I "unpatriotic" to use my voice to disagree with policy. That IS what this nation is founded, on is it not? How can we be so hypocritical anyway? You only have to go back a couple hundred years to see THIS country practicing genocide. How quickly we forget history. I know I have veered off the subject a bit.... but I strongly believe that showing "support for our troops" is vastly different from "questioning" our governments policies and decisions. To use my brain, and to contribute meaningful dialogue to the process..... THAT, I believe is my patriotic duty! Ann will undoubtedly make me an unpopular person |
|
Reply
| |
ooops!!! .... forgot to delete that last line.... |
|
Reply
| | | From: Dan | Sent: 9/18/2005 11:22 PM |
Oh, it won't make you unpopular with me, hon. LOL There are a lot of questions starting to come out. Why did Haliburton get the rebuild contracts in Iraq without a bidding process? Who really was in Cheney's energy task force, and why can't we see the minutes of those meetings? Why is our current energy "policy" to continue as is with an oil based economy, and not support alternative sources of energy? Why are the corporate entities who gave the most to Bush/Cheney in the last election paying no taxes? (They're sheltering in "off shore banks".) Oh, there are a LOT more questions. These are just for starters. Am I anti-American for asking these questions? I hope not. I don't think I am. I mean, who's more anti-American, the people who are asking the hard questions, or the people who refuse to answer them, and instead smear those who are asking the questions? Seems to me that those who preach personal responsibility need to stand up and take some. Answer some of these questions. Tell the Amercan people what's going on. OK. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this today. LOL This is enough. Hugs and lots of love, Dan |
|
|
First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Politics-HotTpic