Mrs. Sheehan speaks

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by wrigley
I think it's agreed that we want all of our loved ones to be safe.

It bothers me that the military who are sent overseas are not equipped with up-to-date equipment. How many articles have been printed about families who have to pay out of pocket costs to send for improved protective vests so their sons and daughters will be kept safe? I couldn't find any numbers online that showed the percentage of Congressional members who have sons and daughters serving in the war.

It seems that our government isn't doing a good job in appropriating funds so that military families don't have to scramble to have basic needs met. If average Americans are expected to take a hit in the pocketbook for the war, why can't Congress take a paycut in salary?

I do think you have a very good point here. If our men and women are going to go to war, then they should definately be equiped as well as possible!

And Honeychile, thank you for your comments.

[amanda6035]

Quit complaining about the 1st ammendment. It goes both ways. I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours. The problem is that people on this board are attacking those of us who are supportive of our troops, and the president and what is being done right now because we dont agree with y'alls point of view and you pull our the first ammendment card, but yet you seem to forget that the first ammendment card works in our favor too, NOT just yours.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by amanda6035
The problem is that people on this board are attacking those of us who are supportive of our troops, and the president and what is being done right now because we dont agree with y'alls point of view and you pull our the first ammendment card, but yet you seem to forget that the first ammendment card works in our favor too, NOT just yours.

I haven't been attacked, and I've been vocal in my support for the troops. My 1st AMENDMENT rights are fine and well, thanks.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by amanda6035
Quit complaining about the 1st ammendment. It goes both ways. I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours. The problem is that people on this board are attacking those of us who are supportive of our troops, and the president and what is being done right now because we dont agree with y'alls point of view and you pull our the first ammendment card, but yet you seem to forget that the first ammendment card works in our favor too, NOT just yours.

I'm not sure why you can't tell the difference between people getting annoyed because of how you behave vs. people getting annoyed because of your opinion.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
An ICBM is an InterContinental Ballistic Missile. Despite the name, it is understood to mean that it can hit a target, half way around the globe, in under 30 minutes. You probably meant an IRBM.

I asked the security guy that in DC when I was there in November, 2004, he said, "Naw, the N. Koreans have ICBM capability"... Don't know what that really means, but that's what he said... Don't know what his true credentials are, but he said he was former Delta Intel...

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Do you actually know what SU-22s and TU22s are? You can read about the SU-22 here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-17.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm

These are very old designs. Why would China buy them from Russia? Also, considering China's reputation with intellectual property rights (I'm thinking specifically about the many Soviet/Russian military designs that China has stolen over the decades,) why would Russia sell to them? MOST importantly, how is this relevant to anything discussed in this thread?

AIn addition to all of this, you have not provided any sources.

My source for the SU-22s and Tu-22's is from the Seattle Times Newspaper. Not the most reliable source of true information, but, they did state that the Chinese have these items on their "military shopping list" from Russia...

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Also, what are you talking about with NORAD? Is that just a non-sequitur thrown in for fun?

Yepper... Just for fun since at the time of my last post, I had not heard what bases were up for closing, but I do remember Clinton trying to list NORAD as a base closure back in the day...

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
As far as what's going on in the minds of North Koreans, how do you know?

The only way I know of anything is reading the press and watching the news and seeing if 2 and 2 fit together. But I don't know anymore than anybody else knows... But homey up in N. Korea having nukes does not sound like a cool deal to begin with--as well as Iran having nukes...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interestingly, I saw a brief spot of Cindy Sheehan telling the "world" about her issues and wanting to meet with Bush again...

Why she sound like a preview a fight match on a Jerry Spinger or Maury Povich Show??? With the fight bell "ding"??? Can we say, "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me"???

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by amanda6035
Quit complaining about the 1st ammendment. It goes both ways. I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours.

You're right and you do. But see, none of us have told you to GTFO because you don't agree with us. That's is what is upsetting us - NOT your support of the president.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by amanda6035
Quit complaining about the 1st ammendment. It goes both ways. I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours. The problem is that people on this board are attacking those of us who are supportive of our troops, and the president and what is being done right now because we dont agree with y'alls point of view and you pull our the first ammendment card, but yet you seem to forget that the first ammendment card works in our favor too, NOT just yours.

If y'all are going to preach on about the 1st Amendment, learn how to spell it. The Constitution is a pretty sweetass dcument that way.

GP, who is using her right to "bare arms" today because it's nice outside

[DeltAlum]

I'm sorry for her loss, but I heard Ms. Sheehan on NPR today, and she was a real jerk to the guy who was trying to do what I thought was a decent interview.

No way to win friends and influence people.

[KSig RC]

Can we stop saying "I support the troops" as a point of argumentation?

The truth is, 99.9% of us do not, in any real way, 'support' the troops in a real sense of 'doing something to ameliorate their situation' - what people instead mean is something along the lines of "I have expressed approval, sympathy, respect, or some other positive adjective, along with hopes for the safety and survival, for our troops overseas. I did this by purchasing a 3-dollar ribbon for my car, and this money did not in any way go toward 'supporting' the troops. I'm such a douche that I didn't even get a sticker, I got a magnet, I didn't want it to fuck up the paint on my 1994 Corsica."

Regardless of your position on the war, the reasons behind occupation, the actual status of the troops on the ground or your reasons or reactions to the actions and well-being of these troops, in ALMOST EVERY CASE you are not actually providing 'support' for the troops in any way. It is NOT a point to include in argumentation.

(Sorry.)

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I'm such a douche that I didn't even get a sticker, I got a magnet, I didn't want it to fuck up the paint on my 1994 Corsica."

I'm sorry, I take your post completely seriously, and think it is a valid point.

But for this quote, I have to say: Hahaha. You made me laugh. Thank you.

[amanda6035]

Actually I do.

For those of you who dont but wish you did, www.adoptaplatoon.org

When I have loved ones overseas, I support them. If I'm lucky enough that my friends arent overseas, I adopt a soldier through that organization and send him/her care packages, letters, emails etc.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Can we stop saying "I support the troops" as a point of argumentation?

The truth is, 99.9% of us do not, in any real way, 'support' the troops in a real sense of 'doing something to ameliorate their situation' - what people instead mean is something along the lines of "I have expressed approval, sympathy, respect, or some other positive adjective, along with hopes for the safety and survival, for our troops overseas. I did this by purchasing a 3-dollar ribbon for my car, and this money did not in any way go toward 'supporting' the troops. I'm such a douche that I didn't even get a sticker, I got a magnet, I didn't want it to fuck up the paint on my 1994 Corsica."

Regardless of your position on the war, the reasons behind occupation, the actual status of the troops on the ground or your reasons or reactions to the actions and well-being of these troops, in ALMOST EVERY CASE you are not actually providing 'support' for the troops in any way. It is NOT a point to include in argumentation.

(Sorry.)

I've been saying this since before the Iraq war. It's such a joke whether it's said on Greekchat, in daily life, or by annoying moronic protesters.

This woman is a nutjob. Her words are at the minimum those of a loon job conspiracy theorist and at the maximum someone who is ignorant and stupid. Let's stop treating her with kid gloves.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Another point, there is no first amendment protection in this forums. As long as John let you post, you are allowed to do so.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Can we stop saying "I support the troops" as a point of argumentation?

The truth is, 99.9% of us do not, in any real way, 'support' the troops in a real sense of 'doing something to ameliorate their situation' - what people instead mean is something along the lines of "I have expressed approval, sympathy, respect, or some other positive adjective, along with hopes for the safety and survival, for our troops overseas. I did this by purchasing a 3-dollar ribbon for my car, and this money did not in any way go toward 'supporting' the troops. I'm such a douche that I didn't even get a sticker, I got a magnet, I didn't want it to fuck up the paint on my 1994 Corsica."

Regardless of your position on the war, the reasons behind occupation, the actual status of the troops on the ground or your reasons or reactions to the actions and well-being of these troops, in ALMOST EVERY CASE you are not actually providing 'support' for the troops in any way. It is NOT a point to include in argumentation.

(Sorry.)

I have to agree... the whole empty statement that many make "I support the troops" is hollow and hypocritical in many cases - amongst supporters of the War in Iraq and the protestors.

While the issue of "supporting the troops" isn't even close in terms of scope or message up here, it does still happen. Most of those who "support the troops" by purchasing a ribbon or some other trinket aren't really supporting the troops, but rather stroking their own ego by making a hollow (and often useless) gesture.

If people really wanted to support the troops there are a number of ways or approaches to take - all more constructive than buying some marketing tool and spouting the same tired refrain.

1- You can directly send your support via care packages, or moral support through letters (or even email or MSN - ah the wonders of technology). The help you give an indivual trooper through this physical and emotional connection is worth a hundred times the cost of sending it... so if any of you have friends serving overseas, drop them a line and talk to them - they need you to be a friend now more than ever.

2- You can get involved politically and work to ensure that soldier's benefits and interests are protected, and advanced. If you think that the troops aren't paid enough; or they aren't getting the medical treatment you think they deserve; or they aren't getting the logistical and material support they need - get involved and let the politicians know.

3- You can support or help the troops when they get home - volunteer to help at a veteran's clinic or hospital... or even just send a care package. You could even simply just be there a friend, someone who will listen and let the soldier talk to someone who will care or understand.

Personally I can say that I support the troops, and I support the War on Terror, but I don't support the War in Iraq (like most Canadians). I have friends (and family) serving in Afghanistan, and I have friends in Iraq, and I support them in the best way that I can - by being a friend
Now obviously I can't personally get involved in the 2nd option I listed when it comes to the US - but I have made an effort to be there as a friend for both those going over and those coming back.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Can we stop saying "I support the troops" as a point of argumentation?

The truth is, 99.9% of us do not, in any real way, 'support' the troops in a real sense of 'doing something to ameliorate their situation' - what people instead mean is something along the lines of "I have expressed approval, sympathy, respect, or some other positive adjective, along with hopes for the safety and survival, for our troops overseas. I did this by purchasing a 3-dollar ribbon for my car, and this money did not in any way go toward 'supporting' the troops. I'm such a douche that I didn't even get a sticker, I got a magnet, I didn't want it to fuck up the paint on my 1994 Corsica."

Regardless of your position on the war, the reasons behind occupation, the actual status of the troops on the ground or your reasons or reactions to the actions and well-being of these troops, in ALMOST EVERY CASE you are not actually providing 'support' for the troops in any way. It is NOT a point to include in argumentation.

(Sorry.)

True - everytime someone starts a post with "I fully support the troops," I cringe a little and wonder just how they're supporting them. A happy thought and a sticker on the car don't necessarily equal support.

It also seems like a way for people to say "I can say whatever I want, as long as I preface it by saying that I support the troops."