|
|
|
Stare Master
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:25 PM
Posts: 9,796,
Visits: 51,511
|
|
That's not the issue. Cindy Sheehan hasn't been to combat either. Her rants are about national policy and don't carry any more weight than anyone else. But if you want to look at it that way, fine. You're not a combat vet?
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
      
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
| Yeah, I am, and actually, that is the issue. You stated that people with experieces should not be given any more weight than your average Joe out there with none, and that actually, his experience should be viewed with bias because of his experience. If you're going to apply it to Sheehan then you have to apply it to everybody else. For Sheehan, it's not her opinion about war as in strategy or whether we should or should not fight, it's about her grief as relates to her opinion on war's effect. So, if taking your argument about the weight given to a person's experiences should be employed, a combat vet's opinion about war should be given no more weight and actually treated with bias versus a 16 year old's. If that's not true, then you need to abandon or adjust your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Stare Master
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:25 PM
Posts: 9,796,
Visits: 51,511
|
|
I don't have to abandon or adjust anything. It's two different things. Like I said, she is talking about national policy. She has no expertise and no specific knowledge about the events that give her any special insight. To balance her opinion because of her experiences you have to factor in the bias that grief brings to her opinion as well. Hence, her opinion should not be given any more or any less weight than anyone else's.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
      
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
| Yes, I see your point 509, and I tried to address that. Perhaps this may be better: it matters about the context. Just as you rightly stated that technical opinions deserve technical expertise.
|
|
|
|
|
Beekeeper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 11/11/2008 9:01 AM
Posts: 3,636,
Visits: 13,895
|
|
Regardless of what that hooker we've been arguing over does, the fact remains that there are mothers such as the Marine mother whom I, and many here, respect more for their continuing faith in the WOT and unwavering support of those who sacrifice. For her and others like her, I am grateful.
-
- IMO
- SFC Richard J. Lacey
LLDS,RCG 1st Sig Bde. 31JAN1968 104535N 1063940E(XS816898) "The young dead soldiers do not speak. Nevertheless, the are heard in the still houses...We were young, they say. We have died. Remember us." Archibald MacLeish
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
      
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site Owner/Operator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:38 PM
Posts: 6,046,
Visits: 7,157
|
|
| Well, isnt this the lovely tea time I always hoped for? Interesting derailment of a topic but even more interesting is the point and counterpoint. Allow me to weigh in. Cindy is entitled to all the rights of an American, she can inject herself wherever law permits and spout whatever she pleases within the bounds of the law (like not enciting a riot etc or making threats.. no she hasnt to my knowledge just making the point about the bounds). Cindy isnt articulate or even accurate in many things and as pointed out previously she's not experienced combat, service or had much experience outside the United States. Unfortunately we dont know if she was opposed to her son serving from the get go or if this all stems from her grief. Frankly I care less about what she says and more about the puppeteering of democrats who sought to use her for thier own political ends. If I recall, much of Cindy's fame (or imfamy) came because she wanted to see the president for a second time. Since it was brought up about equality, then it should be noted that her frustration was due to the fact that the President wouldnt grant another audience with her since doing so would open up a potential can of worms of having parents/spouses calling him up like he was on speed dial. I understood the Presidents position, and Im sure he understood her loss. She was denied a second go around and in my opinion, much of her start was a tantrum. The press and many ultra-libs took hold of her and pointed her around, making the circuit, pushing her to say stuff, get her mug in the paper... its mainly the media and those people that PUT her in plain site, and then when she wasnt useful, demonized her so they could rack up a few more minutes on the subject. Do I think that Cindy is the first mom pissed off at the government for the loss of a soldier? Nope... there are rooms full of people who's grief and politics must have flared such issues, they just didnt go for max facetime and grandstanding. So... can Cindy say what she wants.. absolutely.. she can talk non stop till her last breath and we dont have to like it either.. but the same holds true with the other side, if they dont like her and they want to demonize her for it.. it's THIER opinion and they too are entitled to it. If you cannot stand the rules that you yourself are working under, then you shouldnt play. Its obvious that Cindy doesnt care about what has been said against her because she is still out there... maybe all this movement is making her feel like she has a purpose and her sons death has greater meaning if she accomplishes something by it. Who knows... only Cindy and God and I dont think Big G will be logging onto PNET to argue her case. As for you guys... agree to disagree, everyone brought points to this dance and I am happy to see that even if it gets heated, it didnt digress into some FU fest. In my opinion she has a positive spin for both ends.. if you agree, then she can champion your cause, if you dont then she brings us together to argue the situation and EVERYONE learns something about you in the debate. Troopers have a passion and it can get a little dicey, nice to see that while we dont always agree with each other, we do remain a family of paratroopers. ATW!
Facebook me!
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
      
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
| Fantastic points all around, and better spoken than anyone here. Cheers to teatimes.
|
|
| |