Edwards sickens me...

[Plunge]

This (http://www.legion.org/vision/currentevents/2007/05/message_to_america_respect_mem.html) could have gone in a variety of areas, but I chose to put it here because it deals with a presidential candidate. May he burn in hell.


Here is a surprise, I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won’t even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. VA budget? Not today. That’s because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than one million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period.

Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day. I recently received an e-mail from a group called “Supportthetroopsendthewar.com.” It included a video of former Sen. John Edwards. He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to “bring an end to this war.” Shockingly, the video is titled “A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards,” with the smoking gun note, “Paid for by John Edwards for President.” Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message “Support the troops, End the War” to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone.

...

The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it’s for a “popular war” or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes.

Amen to this article.

[Stiofán]

May he burn in hell.




Maybe Falwell will hold the door for him. He's a politican. They do this stuff.

:shake:

[joseftu]

The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause.

Exactly wrong. Their loved ones should not have died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because those in power, who were charged with making wise decisions and valuing their service and their sacrifice, failed miserably to live up to the responsibility. The families of those killed in war have every right to know that, to acknowledge that, to protest that, to be outraged by that, and Memorial Day is an excellent day for this kind of outrage. The fault lies not in the belief, but the fact. It's a hideous shame, and that's what sickens me.

[MNeedham73]

No, I don't think it's an excellent day at all, Joe. What about those who are celebrating Memorial Day for relatives lost in other wars? They don't need to see this sort of thing. It has nothing to do with them and yet they'll have to put up with these protests.

Memorial Day is a day to remember those lost, not to be politicized. I'm with Scott on this one. It's disgusting.

[joseftu]

They don't need to see this sort of thing.
I guess the issue rests on what is "this sort of thing." As long as the protests are civil and not insulting, demeaning or threatening (I'm thinking o WBC), they're part of a very important American tradition, in my eyes.

Exactly the sort of thing that the veterans served and sacrificed in order to protect. Of course, not all veterans or their families will agree--but the diversity of opinion and response is part of the heritage and part of what they vowed to defend, part of what they gave their lives to protect. Some veterans' families, certainly, will agree, and in many cases will even be protesting themselves.

[ravital]

Exactly wrong. Their loved ones should not have died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because those in power, who were charged with making wise decisions and valuing their service and their sacrifice, failed miserably to live up to the responsibility.



Now let me make sure I understand this correctly: This is an opinion, right? Your opinion, and we can safely assume the opinion of those who would carry such signs and make such displays at Memorial Day events, memorial services, and such. OK. So we agree, it's an opinion.

The families of those killed in war have every right to know that, to acknowledge that, to protest that, to be outraged by that,

...they have the right to have that opinion forced down their throats?

The families of WWII veterans, Korea veterans, Vietnam veterans, are obligated to allow all and any opinions about the current war to soil their memory of their loved ones who were killed in Europe, Japan, the Pacific, Korea, Vietnam?

Memorial Day events are for the most part public, and as such, any non-thinking mammal carrying a sign and a half-baked imitation of an opinion is allowed to participate. Disruption is something else again, and if that happens, let the public authorities deal with it appropriately.

Burning in hell might be too kind for him, and for many of his ilk.

[ethics]

He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to “bring an end to this war.” Shockingly, the video is titled “A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards,” with the smoking gun note, “Paid for by John Edwards for President.” Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message “Support the troops, End the War” to local Memorial Day parades.

I fail to miss the outrage, Plunge?

[joseftu]

I saw nothing about disruption, or anything being forced down anyone's throat. That would be outrageous. But neither Edwards nor anyone else seemed to be calling for any such thing.

[ravital]

I fail to miss the outrage, Plunge?

Oh, come, come, even the caveman gets it :)

Seriously: Remember the outrage around the lunatics, if I remember correctly, they were the Phelps family, protesting near funerals and memorial services for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You were outraged. I was outraged. We were all outraged, and we all applauded the Hell's Angels Patriot Guard when they showed up on motorcycles to stand between the Phelps' and the grieving families, and to rev up their engines to drown the protests.

Well, legitimate expressions of political opinions are every bit as legitimate, intelligent (or not), relevant (or not) on the day before and the day after Memorial Day. All 364 days of the year other than Memorial Day are just as good.

It should be obvious that what Edwards suggests, is the hijacking, to purely political ends, of a dignified occasion in which people wish to express grief, and honor a loved one's memory and sacrifice. It's legal, therefore I'd protect the right to do it, except if we're talking about private services, parades paid for by private organizations and such. Either way, I find it obscene, and it reveals more of the organic dreck of which Edwards is made.

[MNeedham73]

That'd be the Patriot Guard, Rav. Not the Hell's Angels. *Slight* difference :)

[ravital]

That'd be the Patriot Guard, Rav. Not the Hell's Angels. *Slight* difference :)

Oops. Sorry. Yep, thanks for the correction (My bad, I was thinking "Some motorcycle gang..")

[ethics]

Maybe I am really thick today (wouldn't be the first time) but can someone translate what outrageous thing Edwards is promoting?

[MNeedham73]

The main issue, Leon, at least for me, is that he's wanting to politicize a holiday that is meant for reflection and remembrance of those that have lost their lives for this country by promoting protests during Memorial Day events.

Regardless of what Joe says, it will be disruptive. It's just a matter of degrees. Every bunch of anti-war protesters I've seen since the Iraq war began have been loud and obnoxious in order to get people's attention. It's not much better than the Phelps clan doing their thing at a soldier's funeral, as far as I'm concerned.

[ShinyTop]

I would not participate in any protest to mar Memorial Day for anybody. However, putting an end to this war that cannot be won with as few brave soldiers lost as possible is a noble goal.

Expressing a desire to see fewer soldiers die is neither disloyal nor disrepectful. Because those seeing it might perceive it that way does not make it so.

[ethics]

Mike, instead of relying on the OpEd from the OP, I went to the site (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/Supportthetroopsendthewar.com) and found a huge disclaimer on top that reads:

As citizens, we honor and support our troops for their service and sacrifice.
As Americans, we are blessed by that sacrifice and support, which keeps us safe and keeps us strong.


As patriots, we call on our government to support our troops in the most important way it can - by ending this war and bringing them home.

This Memorial Day weekend, we will all take responsibility for the country we love and the men and women who protect it. We will volunteer, we will pray, and we will speak out. In the days leading up to Memorial

To me, it's ALL about the troops on the Memorial Day and while I won't dismiss it's politics, it's also the greatest honor TO the troops themselves. To bring the ones that are LIVING, TODAY, home is a great way of supporting them, don't you think?

I mean, that is one of the STRONGEST messages I've heard from ANY candidate on supporting our troops.

Keep in mind that people have a different way of supporting our troops. Your ways can be different, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, no more than Edwards' message of being wrong.

[Sarge]

Regardless of Edwards' intentions, disclaimers, etc., if I had a family member killed in the war on terror and I saw Edwards with a protest sign at a Memorial Day event he'd likely end up in the ER having the sign removed from his rectum.

[ethics]

I am really not getting it then. Why, Sarge? If your kid was killed in this or any war and you saw a sign that was begging to bring home troops (essentially SAVING lives of other potential deaths) why would this anger you?

[ravital]

Ethics,

How many times have you argued that perception trumps reality? Let's say for the sake of argument that protesters had the most noble intentions, what do you think the perception is, among anti-war demonstrators towards soldiers, dead or living? Or the perception among families of soldiers, honoring their memory, of protesters coming to their memorial services? It doesn't mater where the spark will come from, it will come, it will disrupt, and I don't know of a Constitutional right to free speech by crashing parades. If I see a moveon.org demonstration and get in their face, and end up having my right of free political speech denied on one day out of 365 in a year, I was asking for it, and I deserve it.

The entire act is based on the fact that it would happen on Memorial Day. No disclaimers and tortuous wiggling can change the fact, that they want the protest on that particular day, because on that day it gains and multiplies its effect precisely because it happens on that day, at an event intended for reflection, recognition, gratitude, honor, and respect for the sacrifices made, by the dead, and by the living loved ones they have left behind. Can't people who lost a son, a brother, a sister, a mom, at war, can't these people have one miserable day a year free from the disgusting political confrontation that fills every minute of every other day on the calendar?

And without discussing the war itself, which is OT here, even though your argument that "bringing the living troops home is a great way to support them," may be a valid argument, it is just as valid for anyone else to argue that it only condemns them to fight a worse war in the future. So that's neither here nor there.

[ethics]

Let's say for the sake of argument that protesters had the most noble intentions, what do you think the perception is, among anti-war demonstrators towards soldiers, dead or living?

AH! Ok, I finally get it. And I understand where this anger is coming from. I don't share the same anger the rest of you have though, but at least I understand where you are all coming from.

Thanks.

[Sarge]

I am really not getting it then. Why, Sarge? If your kid was killed in this or any war and you saw a sign that was begging to bring home troops (essentially SAVING lives of other potential deaths) why would this anger you?

Simply because I don't agree with John Edwards and his message. I wouldn't want him using my loss to bolster his political image or agenda any more than I would want Fred Phelps to use my loss to promote his sick religious views.

I'm all for saving lives. As I have said before; We didn't choose this war. I do not exactly agree with how the fight is being fought and I do become discouraged at the news of each service member's death. However, we have no choice but to fight.

We shouldn't minimize the cause for which our soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice for. Nor should we allow anyone to politicize and exploit our moment of silence to memorialize our fallen heroes. The sacrifices of selfless Americans alone are strong enough statements for peace and the preservation of lives.

Grief and remembrance is personal - not political fodder.

[MemphisMark]

All of you,

Go to a Veterans cemetary this Memorial day. But tread lightly, for heroes sleep there. My brethren, and the brethren of many here, laid down their lives so that we could live free.

This is one day a year, set aside for rememberance of these honored dead. We, don't, they don't need those who hate the military to ruin this day for the greiving families of these men and women. Please keep this day as a quiet and reverant moment for those who paid the ultimate price for freedom.

I ask all of you, please don't use this day to advance your political agenda. This day is too sacred to mar in such a way. For those of you who do, shame on you.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
This starts my tirade about the war. It is optional reading.


You can't support the troops and want to bring them home at the same time. Why? Because the troops want to stay and finish the job. Reinlistments are at an all time high, recruitment is meeting or surpassing goals. There are people standing in line to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to play weasel stomping day with Al Queda. They know the risks. They know the odds. And yet they still want to go.

I long ago lost my support for this war. Why? Because W won't turn the full military loose. Just like Vietnam, this has become a politicians war, not a Generals war. But I agree with the troops being over there.

Tell me this, where would you like the next suicide bombing to be, Baghdad or Boston? If we retreat now, we will start having bombings here, simply because they will come here to finish their stated objective: Destruction of the United States. Those who ignore their words do so at all of our peril.

Here's another way to look at it: the 3,400 troops we have lost to date in the War on Terror is miniscule compared to other wars. Yes, they are dying, but it is a trickle compared to the floodgates of other wars. We lost 5,000 troops in one day just on a training exercise for D-Day.

Those who gnash their teeth and rend their clothes over every casualty and scream "we're losing!" just don't understand. People are supposed to die in combat. The trick is to kill more of them than they do of us. And with one hand tied behind our backs, we can't do that very well.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[ethics]

You can't support the troops and want to bring them home at the same time. Why? Because the troops want to stay and finish the job.

This is new. Do you speak for ALL troops? Do you know what they want? Do you know how hampered they are in trying to do their job? Do you know how many WANT to get the flock out of there and not because they are not loyal to their uniform?

[ShinyTop]

You are making a broad assumption that those who favor leaving Iraq hate the military. For my part, I want us to leave because of my love for my fellow military. Broad, totally inaccurate generalizations like that weaken any argument you make.

[ravital]

This is new. Do you speak for ALL troops? Do you know what they want? Do you know how hampered they are in trying to do their job? Do you know how many WANT to get the flock out of there and not because they are not loyal to their uniform?

I don't think Mark speaks for all troops. And many reporters, and others, who say the troops are demoralized and fed up, and claim to speak for the troops, don't either.

But I'll venture an educated guess, based on past history that we all know so well, that if they are demoralized, it's because they are not allowed to do the job they went to do.

[ethics]

I don't think Mark speaks for all troops. And many reporters, and others, who say the troops are demoralized and fed up, and claim to speak for the troops, don't either.

No one said anything of the sort. In your zeal to defend Mark I think you are scraping at the bottom of the proverbial barrel. Mark was the one speaking for all, I questioned that, nothing more.

But I'll venture an educated guess, based on past history that we all know so well, that if they are demoralized, it's because they are not allowed to do the job they went to do.


Newsflash: THEY DID THEIR JOB. It was over two weeks after the invasion in April 2003.

There's no reason for them to be trolled along the IED laden roads anymore.

[ravital]

No one said anything of the sort. In your zeal to defend Mark I think you are scraping at the bottom of the proverbial barrel. Mark was the one speaking for all, I questioned that, nothing more.


There is no zeal here, and no accusation that anyone said anything other than what's in their posts. I wanted to point out that Mark's argument was a welcome balance in the constant stream of negative comments coming out of the press every day.


Newsflash: THEY DID THEIR JOB. It was over two weeks after the invasion in April 2003.

There's no reason for them to be trolled along the IED laden roads anymore.

If their job had really been over, either there would be no IEDs or the Iraqi authorities would be taking care of IEDs. I think that means their job is not over, mainly because they're not allowed to do it right.

At this point, whatever your reply, out of respect for the topic, I won't go any further OT than this. Maybe a separate thread would be appropriate?

[ethics]

There is no zeal here, and no accusation that anyone said anything other than what's in their posts. I wanted to point out that Mark's argument was a welcome balance in the constant stream of negative comments coming out of the press every day.

Ok, if you said as much I doubt I would have an issue with the way you termed it.



If their job had really been over, either there would be no IEDs or the Iraqi authorities would be taking care of IEDs. I think that means their job is not over, mainly because they're not allowed to do it right.


Military operation was over. What these men and women were trained to do is over. What is left in Iraq can only be fixed by Iraqis.

[MemphisMark]

Okay, I don't speak for ALL the troops. Just the ones that understand why we are over there in the first place. You can't look at the enlistment and reinlistment rates and say they don't want to be over there.

It has taken 4 years of merciless browbeating by the press of casualty counts, reporting all of the bombing attacks and so on while NOT publishing the positive things that are going on there, to get the American people to finally turn against the war.

Our military during the first Gulf War specifically targeted the infrastructure. We caused massive damage, and then Saddam spent the oil income on palaces instead of rebuilding the infrastructure.

We broke this country in both Gulf wars, and it is our responsibility to fix it. We have been fixing it, and it is Al Qaeda and military agents from Iran who are supplying the explosives and other materials for all these car bombs and IED's. It is these agents that are stirring up the sectarian violence and it is the fifth column of our press are the ones screaming "CIVIL WAR!" and ignoring facts to shave the truth.

[ethics]

Okay, I don't speak for ALL the troops. Just the ones that understand why we are over there in the first place.

Mark, you have a tendency to bash people indirectly. See above statement? You are saying that those troops that want to stay there are the only ones that understand the mission? That soldiers that know it's a hopeless clusterfuck DON'T understand it?

See, I tend to see it quite the opposite.

You can't look at the enlistment and reinlistment rates and say they don't want to be over there.
Simplistic evaluation at the least. Plenty of people volunteer for things, plenty of people take up careers and then realize how wrong they were either by seeing the reality of their choice, or realizing that they meant something else entirely.

It has taken 4 years of merciless browbeating by the press of casualty counts, reporting all of the bombing attacks and so on while NOT publishing the positive things that are going on there, to get the American people to finally turn against the war.
Just because the ignorant MSM has been this way doesn't make the war in Iraq less hopeless. MSM was right based on their writer's ideology. Not because the war was over and the "rebuilding" or "building a Democracy" is only achievable with a populace that WANTS to have a bright future and who are not hung up on hatred, revenge, and shit culture that doesn't respect women, minorities, or even anyone who is not their own.

Are you worried that MSM will beat its collective chest and point and say, "SEE WE WERE RIGHT!!! LISTEN TO US IN THE FUTURE!"?

Because let me tell you, for every issue the MSM is right, there are 10 that they are wrong on. Their opinion of war was wrong because they too believed that Saddam had WMD's. They were beating the drums ever so loudly (NYTimes was even investigated internally for not doing their own research). But then the ideology kicked in and they happen to coincide with how the 'rebuilding' is playing out.

We broke this country in both Gulf wars, and it is our responsibility to fix it. Our responsibility was to our people. Due to (now known false) intelligence there was reason to believe that Saddam had WMD's and foremost, this administration had a duty to its people. Failing to find any, but disposing of both Saddam and his two henchmen sons, we've done enough. It's time for Iraqis to start caring more about loving their children, paving a future for these children, over hating another sect.

We have been fixing it, and it is Al Qaeda and military agents from Iran who are supplying the explosives and other materials for all these car bombs and IED's. It is these agents that are stirring up the sectarian violence and it is the fifth column of our press are the ones screaming "CIVIL WAR!" and ignoring facts to shave the truth.Please, the Civil War has been waging for at least a year. I don't need MSM to tell me anything about that. I have a good friend, ally, and trusted source in Omar and he tells me that the biggest problem is Iraqi disinterest nothing more. You want to waste another 3, 6, 9 thousand of US soldiers, by all means, get up on that hill with the flag and wave it till your throat gives out. But it won't do any good for the soldiers who are dying nor their families.

Seems to me there's too many arm-chaired soldiers who are sticking a flag in their ass and singing patriotic songs and fantasizing about battles. Reminds me of the following scene (3:45 left in the video):

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1IGYHVViJc8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

[MemphisMark]

Perhaps you are right.

But what is going to happen when we leave? Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria will split Iraq up into pieces, and the killings will continue unabated. We then will have a significant portion of the worlds oil under the control of our biggest opponents.

If we retreat back to the US, broken and bloodied, will they not follow?

There is no simple solution to this problem, and I admit that I don't have a solution.

But cutting and running will lead to real life 24's and possibly even a Jericho.

[ethics]

Perhaps you are right.

Mark, I wasn't posting to be right. I was posting to make you understand that just because someone wants our troops out they are not anti-troops, they are not the hippie assholes who spat upon veterans returning, our like are the TOTAL OPPOSITE. I see no greater honor in this country than to serve in the military and sacrifice the most valuable asset so that the rest of us can live free. I just don't want the useless slaughter of OUR men and women to continue without a good reason, especially when the Iraqis can not step up and clean their own shit.

But what is going to happen when we leave? Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria will split Iraq up into pieces, and the killings will continue unabated. We then will have a significant portion of the worlds oil under the control of our biggest opponents.

If we retreat back to the US, broken and bloodied, will they not follow?


They will try. They have been trying. Our best defense is to live the way this country was founded. Our greatest weapons is defensive measures here at home. And our best tactic is education of ALL of our children, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Russians, Mexicans, Africans, etc..


There is no simple solution to this problem, and I admit that I don't have a solution.


Neither do I.

[ravital]

Mark, you have a tendency to bash people indirectly. See above statement? You are saying that those troops that want to stay there are the only ones that understand the mission? That soldiers that know it's a hopeless clusterfuck DON'T understand it?

{Snip}

Seems to me there's too many arm-chaired soldiers who are sticking a flag in their ass and singing patriotic songs and fantasizing about battles.


Well, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but see your last statement above. Is anyone saying that those who DO understand are really armchair patriots with flags up their asses? I know you didn't mean it that way, so I'm not sure why anyone would thing Mark meant what he said in the way you suggest.


Plenty of people volunteer for things, plenty of people take up careers and then realize how wrong they were either by seeing the reality of their choice, or realizing that they meant something else entirely.


After four years? After four years of nothing but the worst distorted news and negative reporting, you really believe people who volunteer and re-volunteer and re-enlist, expected something else?

I understand what you're saying, and I understand what Omar is saying. He's not wrong, you're not wrong, but I don't believe Mark is wrong either. You're right that we can't be simplistic about any of it, and I honestly believe many of us are missing the big picture. That will be for another thread.