TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Cindy Sheehan - what do you think?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cindy Sheehan - what do you think? - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Wrong again. What you seem not to understand is there was no failure, whether you think there was or not.
They did follow through on the plan of action. The plan of action was to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. There was NEVER a plan of action to invade Iraq and remove Sadaam from power during Desert Storm. Yes, you need further research if you believe the plan was to remove Sadaam from power. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Why don't you ask your father what the plan of action was. Don't mean to seem condesending but we did obtain our objective in Desert Storm.

Like i stated. I have nothing further to state on the subject someone else already stated some of what i would have to say and you tossed them down as wrong wrong too. So thats cool. thats you opinion and i have mine. and you may not seem to be condesending. but in all honesty your coming off a bit as such. But like i said you have your opinion i have mine. we are all entitled.
post #62 of 89
Although this is really a thread hijack, I wanted to comment on the Operation Desert Storm. Essentially, both of you are correct. We did "win" in the fact that we thoroughly kicked the Iraqi Army's butt not only out of Kuwait but back to Baghdad. However, we didn't finish the job, which is why we're there now. Our forces were in position to take out Saddam's regime from power, but the UN (pesky organization, huh?) cried foul and Bush Sr. bowed to their wishes. If you've ever heard or read Gen. Schwartkopf's (sp. I'm sure I butchered that name!) speak about it, he never could understand why our forces were pulled back when removing Saddam from power was the logical conclusion and we already had him on the run. Instead, because the UN insisted on leaving him in power, we had 11 years of him thumbing his nose at every resolution, shooting at surveillance planes in the "No Fly Zone", and snubbing the inspectors...as well as continuing with the torture and rape chambers, death by decree, etc.
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Although this is really a thread hijack, I wanted to comment on the Operation Desert Storm. Essentially, both of you are correct. We did "win" in the fact that we thoroughly kicked the Iraqi Army's butt not only out of Kuwait but back to Baghdad. However, we didn't finish the job, which is why we're there now. Our forces were in position to take out Saddam's regime from power, but the UN (pesky organization, huh?) cried foul and Bush Sr. bowed to their wishes. If you've ever heard or read Gen. Schwartkopf's (sp. I'm sure I butchered that name!) speak about it, he never could understand why our forces were pulled back when removing Saddam from power was the logical conclusion and we already had him on the run. Instead, because the UN insisted on leaving him in power, we had 11 years of him thumbing his nose at every resolution, shooting at surveillance planes in the "No Fly Zone", and snubbing the inspectors...as well as continuing with the torture and rape chambers, death by decree, etc.
The objective of Desert Storm was NEVER to oust Sadaam from power. NEVER. Like I said before we were able to assemble the coalition that included Arab countries (a first) because we promised we would NOT invade Iraq. I don't care who said what, no matter is it was General Stormin Norman.
All Hell would have broken loose with the Arab countries if we had broke our word. Stormin Norman, while a brilliant General, does not and did not set policy. It all had to do with keeping our word to the coalition. We achieved our objective and won. If we would have wanted to take Sadaam out after Desert Storm we would have had to do the entire operation without a coalition. Which would have meant Saudi Arabia would not have let us use their country as a staging area. You can't change history no matter how hard you try. Facts are facts.
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Although this is really a thread hijack, I wanted to comment on the Operation Desert Storm. Essentially, both of you are correct. We did "win" in the fact that we thoroughly kicked the Iraqi Army's butt not only out of Kuwait but back to Baghdad. However, we didn't finish the job, which is why we're there now. Our forces were in position to take out Saddam's regime from power, but the UN (pesky organization, huh?) cried foul and Bush Sr. bowed to their wishes. If you've ever heard or read Gen. Schwartkopf's (sp. I'm sure I butchered that name!) speak about it, he never could understand why our forces were pulled back when removing Saddam from power was the logical conclusion and we already had him on the run. Instead, because the UN insisted on leaving him in power, we had 11 years of him thumbing his nose at every resolution, shooting at surveillance planes in the "No Fly Zone", and snubbing the inspectors...as well as continuing with the torture and rape chambers, death by decree, etc.

Thank you.
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
The objective of Desert Storm was NEVER to oust Sadaam from power. NEVER. Like I said before we were able to assemble the coalition that included Arab countries (a first) because we promised we would NOT invade Iraq. I don't care who said what, no matter is it was General Stormin Norman.
All Hell would have broken loose with the Arab countries if we had broke our word. Stormin Norman, while a brilliant General, does not and did not set policy. It all had to do with keeping our word to the coalition. We achieved our objective and won. If we would have wanted to take Sadaam out after Desert Storm we would have had to do the entire operation without a coalition. Which would have meant Saudi Arabia would not have let us use their country as a staging area. You can't change history no matter how hard you try. Facts are facts.
Sad thing is..we went into Iraq this time pretty much alone..and the UN sure didnt like us doing it none. but thats a whole diffrent topic.
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Although this is really a thread hijack, I wanted to comment on the Operation Desert Storm. Essentially, both of you are correct. We did "win" in the fact that we thoroughly kicked the Iraqi Army's butt not only out of Kuwait but back to Baghdad. However, we didn't finish the job, which is why we're there now. Our forces were in position to take out Saddam's regime from power, but the UN (pesky organization, huh?) cried foul and Bush Sr. bowed to their wishes. If you've ever heard or read Gen. Schwartkopf's (sp. I'm sure I butchered that name!) speak about it, he never could understand why our forces were pulled back when removing Saddam from power was the logical conclusion and we already had him on the run. Instead, because the UN insisted on leaving him in power, we had 11 years of him thumbing his nose at every resolution, shooting at surveillance planes in the "No Fly Zone", and snubbing the inspectors...as well as continuing with the torture and rape chambers, death by decree, etc.
Heidi,

it wasn't the UN, it was Bush sr. I am not saying if it was good or bad, but it was Bush's decision.
post #67 of 89
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003250.htm

HEy she must be making progress, the right bloggers are attacking her for personal reasons, the sad story that her husband is filing for divorce. I mean we don't know why, maybe he's a wife beater, but the point is they are attacking her for reasons other than her cause, that shows they are desperate.

And Bush wants to ride with Lance Armstrong...but can't meet with her. This is your leader folks! What a man!
post #68 of 89
Better Bush than Kerry
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Heidi,

it wasn't the UN, it was Bush sr. I am not saying if it was good or bad, but it was Bush's decision.
It was what was agreed upon in order to assemble the coalition.
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
It was what was agreed upon in order to assemble the coalition.

Nah, you guys..>I was alive and well when this happened and actually paying attention.

Here is a quote from Wiki
In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." [2] Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq". [3][4] In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."



Note the quote from Cheney about HIS concerns.
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003250.htm

HEy she must be making progress, the right bloggers are attacking her for personal reasons, the sad story that her husband is filing for divorce. I mean we don't know why, maybe he's a wife beater, but the point is they are attacking her for reasons other than her cause, that shows they are desperate.

And Bush wants to ride with Lance Armstrong...but can't meet with her. This is your leader folks! What a man!
And how many times does Bush have to meet with this woman? He already met her once. Many families (approx only 900 family memebers have met with Bush, but not all) haven't had the chance or invitation to meet with the President after their son or daughter was killed... and she wants a second meeting? What’s so special about her then the other families that she wants a second meeting? Sorry... I mean what is she going to do if she meets him? Yell at him? Ask him questions that already know what the answers are, even though it may not what want she wants to hear? Sorry next... In my opinion, this is just another political stunt used by the anti-war people to and she's letting herself be exploited, in fact she's nearly enjoying it from what I have seen on the news and the wires.

And as for her family, most of her family is against with what she is doing (if you didn't read the prior posts), I guess its putting a strain on the marriage that the husband is filing for divorce. I guess that means that he's not a wife beater (where ever that came from). I mean, that is common sense... And I guess the left side never made personal attacks on anybody before for political or whatever reasons... Whatever...
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
And how many times does Bush have to meet with this woman? He already met her once. Many families (approx only 900 family memebers have met with Bush, but not all) haven't had the chance or invitation to meet with the President after their son or daughter was killed... and she wants a second meeting? What’s so special about her then the other families that she wants a second meeting? Sorry... I mean what is she going to do if she meets him? Yell at him? Ask him questions that already know what the answers are, even though it may not what want she wants to hear? Sorry next... In my opinion, this is just another political stunt used by the anti-war people to and she's letting herself be exploited, in fact she's nearly enjoying it from what I have seen on the news and the wires.

And as for her family, most of her family is against with what she is doing (if you didn't read the prior posts), I guess its putting a strain on the marriage that the husband is filing for divorce. I guess that means that he's not a wife beater (where ever that came from). I mean, that is common sense... And I guess the left side never made personal attacks on anybody before for political or whatever reasons... Whatever...
My point is we know nothing about why this divorce is happening. Now wouldn't you call it a little sad and sick to post them to justify being against this woman? How many of us are divorced or have divorced friends?
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
My point is we know nothing about why this divorce is happening. Now wouldn't you call it a little sad and sick to post them to justify being against this woman? How many of us are divorced or have divorced friends?
It maybe sick, but both sides have pulled stuff this type of cr@p on each other. And this information is public domain, it would be used. But honestly I haven't heard on the tv side (Fox and CNN) of things about divorce until I read it here. I'm sure we'll hear soon why this divorce is happening sooner or later. However, it did make me ponder why her husband and the rest of her family wasn't there supporting her when this first started up and still aren't there until this revelation.

Correction:
I saw this on the Drudge Report:
TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

I guess her political "ambitions" are more important then her family.
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
My point is we know nothing about why this divorce is happening. Now wouldn't you call it a little sad and sick to post them to justify being against this woman? How many of us are divorced or have divorced friends?
You're right, we don't know anything about the divorce. But I would have to say that it's probably more likely that Casey's father disagrees with how she is using the memory of their son, or how she has become so obsessed with this mission that the rest of their family (him and their other 3 younger children) have been put aside, rather than assuming he must beat her since he isn't holding vigil with her.
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
It maybe sick, but both sides have pulled stuff this type of cr@p on each other. And this information is public domain, it would be used. But honestly I haven't heard on the tv side (Fox and CNN) of things about divorce until I read it here. I'm sure we'll hear soon why this divorce is happening sooner or later. However, it did make me ponder why her husband and the rest of her family wasn't there supporting her when this first started up and still aren't there until this revelation.
Apparently the "family" story is a big made up too, it's her husbands side that was against her. Family feuds get really ugly so I don't care about that either.
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Apparently the "family" story is a big made up too, it's her husbands side that was against her. Family feuds get really ugly so I don't care about that either.
Made up? Source for this information? Btw, I posted this addendum in the prior post:

I saw this on the Drudge Report:
TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."


I guess her political "ambitions" are more important then her family.
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
Made up? Source for this information? Btw, I posted this addendum in the prior post:

I saw this on the Drudge Report:
TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."


I guess her political "ambitions" are more important then her family.
I'll try to find it but really, the family feud makes hand to hand combat seem tame. I wouldn't take a lot of stock in what her family says.
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I'll try to find it but really, the family feud makes hand to hand combat seem tame. I wouldn't take a lot of stock in what her family says.
Sorry, I think they do. To me it shows that there differences and its splitting the family apart, including filing for divorce (found on the smoking gun) and showing that the family for the most part doesn't support her and she's not speaking for the family.
post #79 of 89
Rosie O'Donnell talks about this in her blog. I just thought some of you might enjoy it. http://www.rosie.com/
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Nah, you guys..>I was alive and well when this happened and actually paying attention.

Here is a quote from Wiki
In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." [2] Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq". [3][4] In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."



Note the quote from Cheney about HIS concerns.
I rest my case, that says exactly what I have been saying, as in, stated above and I quote what you say above "went beyond the stated mission"
(if he would have invaded Iraq) Invading Iraq was NOT the stated mission
if it had been there would have been NO coalition.
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I rest my case, that says exactly what I have been saying, as in, stated above and I quote what you say above "went beyond the stated mission"
(if he would have invaded Iraq) Invading Iraq was NOT the stated mission
if it had been there would have been NO coalition.
But it was his decision, he wasn't under pressure, he was a UN guy remember, his mind works as a diplomat.
post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
But it was his decision, he wasn't under pressure, he was a UN guy remember, his mind works as a diplomat.
I don't understand what you are saying. It was the agreement that was the glue that bound the coalition together. Desert Storm was not just Bush Sr. it was a multitude of countries that included Arab countries. The Saudi's let us stage our troops in their country for gosh sakes. Do you think that had ever happened before. It was a very tenuous thing for very apparent reasons.
Bush had to agree to NOT topple Sadaam's govt and to eject Iraq from Kuwait ONLY or the coalition never would have happened. We were the main player (as in we had more troops there than anyone else) but by no means the only player.
There was no way we could have toppled Sadaam's govt. at the time of
Desert Storm. That would have totally broken our word going in, in August
of 1990. This is history you cannot argue with history, it happened.
post #83 of 89
All I can say is man I miss Bush sr, a thoughtful Man who actually did his job like an adult. *sigh*
post #84 of 89
Now this is interesting: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...unnerved_x.htm

Quote:
"I appreciate all their help, but their help is going to have to diminish and go to the sidelines, so it's going to have to get back to a mom sitting in a chair waiting for George Bush," she [Sheehan] said in an interview Tuesday. Of those who suggest that her personal tragedy has become a political rallying point, she says, "I kind of see their point that this was a grass-roots thing that grew into a monster."
post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb

YOur never going to believe where i heard it (maybe you..?) on Rush. I was flipping channels this morning and heard his lovely voice (I still can't deal with the guy, he is so simple minded, sorry..I am a sucker for brains)Still doesn't mean anything, she is just surprised
like any non professional spinner would be.
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
YOur never going to believe where i heard it (maybe you..?) on Rush. I was flipping channels this morning and heard his lovely voice (I still can't deal with the guy, he is so simple minded, sorry..I am a sucker for brains)Still doesn't mean anything, she is just surprised
like any non professional spinner would be.
I think you, secretly, really do like Rush.
Rush is a very intelligent man. Because his opinion differs from yours, does that make him simple minded?
post #87 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I think you, secretly, really do like Rush.
Rush is a very intelligent man. Because his opinion differs from yours, does that make him simple minded?
Maybe it's like some repressed love thing. No, he boils down opinions to like the lowest common denominator. There is no complexity, it's like your Uncle who is obnoxious, maybe you do have affecition for, but who you can't take seriously. He also doesn't try to tell teh truth, just say it in a way that sounds like the truth. I have been listening and reading a lot of right wing stuff cause
I am curious. Also one right wing argument is always "well did you read the book? Do you listen to him" so I am trying to hear some of this. I also listend to Bernard Goldberg on CSPAN, the one who wrote "100 people who are screwing up america" and
once again I could beat this guy in a debate so easily.
post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
YOur never going to believe where i heard it (maybe you..?) on Rush. I was flipping channels this morning and heard his lovely voice (I still can't deal with the guy, he is so simple minded, sorry..I am a sucker for brains)Still doesn't mean anything, she is just surprised
like any non professional spinner would be.
You caught me. He's carried on the radio station I actively listen to from 6:30-12, then Rush is on, then I listen to the afternoon "Ride Home" show. Honestly, after the Terri Schiavo thing he made me so mad I usually just have him on as background noise at work and in the car to and from lunch and don't pay much attention. (Unfortunately because of all the electronic equipment as well as being in a valley, I can't change the station at work because it will take me 1/2 hour to find it again!) I caught his talking about the story in the car and wanted to see for myself what she said.

Although I still disagree with her, I respect her a lot more now that she's trying to distance herself from the hoopla that has been surrounding her. I don't agree with either of the extremes, left or right, and it seemed from the press coverage (mainstream, mainly) that she was going along with the extreme left. But I guess it was more that they were exploiting her one-woman cause for their own gains.
post #89 of 89
Just heard see has left Crawford, Texas. Her mother just had a stroke and she went to L.A. to be with her.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Cindy Sheehan - what do you think?