• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cindy Sheehan Quits

"I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical.."

Well Cindy, you have to admit that concept right there is radical as hell to the brilliance that is American politics and the mindless polarization of most of the general public that continues unabated. You're either "us" or "them." If you're "us," you're faultless. If you're "them," you are ALL that is wrong with the world.

wtf did you expect from Americans? Intelligence? yeesh
 
Ion said:
Like causing a war based on passion with no facts.
Click to expand...
Although I am against the Iraq war, I wouldn't suppose for a minute that the war was based on passion. This war has been on the table since the day Bush and Cheney were sworn into office, though I admit that it was just "an option" until after 9-11.

I don't doubt for a minute that there were cold hard reasons for the war, which may have included some ideas on how contractors could benefit from it. I also include it in the solid realm of possibilities, that Bush thought (from the beginning) that it was a good idea for America.

True, passion played a large part of how the war was sold to the people and how Congress was brought into line by threats of making them look like cowards and traitors to an enraged and patriotism-infused populace, but that wasn't what caused the war. They had a plan. It wasn't a good plan. It wasn't a plan that had many contingencies. It wasn't a five-year plan. But it was a plan. It wasn't passion. You can't have passion unless you have a heart.

If you're replying to this, yeah, I know this little speech is filled with ornate oratory, rhetoric, and appeals to emotion. Some times I get that way. I can be passionate too. So sue me.
 
Tricky said:
Although I am against the Iraq war, I wouldn't suppose for a minute that the war was based on passion. This war has been on the table since the day Bush and Cheney were sworn into office, though I admit that it was just "an option" until after 9-11.

I don't doubt for a minute that there were cold hard reasons for the war, which may have included some ideas on how contractors could benefit from it. I also include it in the solid realm of possibilities, that Bush thought (from the beginning) that it was a good idea for America.

True, passion played a large part of how the war was sold to the people and how Congress was brought into line by threats of making them look like cowards and traitors to an enraged and patriotism-infused populace, but that wasn't what caused the war. They had a plan. It wasn't a good plan. It wasn't a plan that had many contingencies. It wasn't a five-year plan. But it was a plan. It wasn't passion. You can't have passion unless you have a heart.

If you're replying to this, yeah, I know this little speech is filled with ornate oratory, rhetoric, and appeals to emotion. Some times I get that way. I can be passionate too. So sue me.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But I speak of the U.S. masses that got brainwashed.

They got brainwashed on passion, without facts.

They got brainwashed on Goebbels tactics of 'patriotism' circa 1940 in Germany.

Freedom Fries, Support our Troops, France was eliberated by U.S. in 1945 and is now ungrateful, War on Terror, Iraq-and-9/11-are-tied-together, and other such U.S. governmental propaganda a-la Goebbels.

I know personally people who got brainwashed, and tell them so.
 
Last edited:
Ion said:
I agree.

But I speak of the U.S. masses that got brainwashed.

They got brainwashed on passion, without facts.
Click to expand...
"Brainwashed" is a hot button word that does little to encourage reasoned debate. Why can't you just say "misled"? I was misled. I was convinced that Iraq had at least some WMDs stowed away and I was feeling like attacking was a sure way to make them use them. But brainwashing infers that the person is no longer capable of making rational judgments, and that is not the case with the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, the strong opposition that our citizens now have toward the war indicates that they were not brainswashed, but misled and manipulated. You can get over that.

Ion said:
They got brainwashed on Goebbels tactics of 'patriotism' circa 1940 in Germany. Freedom Fries, Support our Troops, France was eliberated by U.S. in 1945 and is now ungrateful, War on Terror, Iraq-and-9/11-are-tied-together, and other such U.S. governmental propaganda a-la Goebbels.
Click to expand...
Oh please, don't Godwin this thread. Talk about emotional appeals. But yes, the whole "Freedom Fries" thing was a horrible mistake, one that the Bush administration is being roundly, universally and justly ridiculed for.

Ion said:
I know personally people who got brainwashed, and tell them so.
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm sure they're grateful for you setting them straight. :rolleyes: Diplomacy is a lost art.
 
Tricky said:
But yes, the whole "Freedom Fries" thing was a horrible mistake, one that the Bush administration is being roundly, universally and justly ridiculed for.
Click to expand...

It was worthy of ridicule, to be sure. But it was a congressman, not anyone in the Bush administration, who came up with the stupid idea.
 
Tricky said:
Bush could have vetoed it.
Click to expand...

I don't think he could because I don't think it was legislation. IIRC, it was purely an internal decision regarding Congress' food services.

He could have at least called it stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, but why would he pick a fight with a congressman over some irrelevant stupidity when he can just ignore it completely? That may not be the most admirable path to take, but what do you expect in politics?
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think he could because I don't think it was legislation. IIRC, it was purely an internal decision regarding Congress' food services.
Click to expand...
I think you're right here, IIRC.

Ziggurat said:
Well, sure, but why would he pick a fight with a congressman over some irrelevant stupidity when he can just ignore it completely? That may not be the most admirable path to take, but what do you expect in politics?
Click to expand...
Not surprising. But if he let it pass and it were Republicans who proposed it, (I suspect this is the case, but don't know for sure) then politics says you can crucify him over it. On his watch, and all that stuff. Internationally, nobody will know who was responsible, but because it happened and Bush didn't speak out against it, then he'll get the blame by our... um... allies. After all, Americans expect this sort of stuff, but to Europe, it is high theater.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yup, and he's just as incoherent and flamingly antisemitic as ever.
Click to expand...
[gratuitous_snarky]
Which is why I'm happy to see him back.

Any time I wonder, "Am I nuts?" I just look at one of Ion's posts. If it looks like an incoherent foaming rant, I assume I'm still at least partly sane.
[/gratuitous_snarky]
 
Tricky said:
"Brainwashed" is a hot button word that does little to encourage reasoned debate. Why can't you just say "misled"? I was misled. I was convinced that Iraq had at least some WMDs stowed away...
Click to expand...
Brainwashed is the right word in my opinion.

I saw brainwashing first hand in Communist Romania.

I didn't fall for it, even as a kid.

To see it in U.S., has me saying "What? You fall for this?".

I didn't raise in professional skills and critical thinking from Romania onwards, to see the lame but persistent U.S. Fascist brainwashing.

In 2003, I remember when Bush went to war, the oldest Senator said not to fall for this.

Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Angola, France, Germany, Czech Republic, they all said not to fall for this.

There was sufficient evidence in 2003 that Bush was lying about WMDs in Iraq.

Without the support of brainwashed U.S. sheep, Bush could have done next to nothing regarding the war in Iraq.

In today's The San Diego Union Tribune Bush states that U.S. troops are in Iraq for the long term.

So that's what he wanted in 2003, to occupy Iraq and loot.

WMDs were baloney then, and I knew it in 2003.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom