<p>BigGreen, good post. </p>
<p>Many of us card-carrying liberals are deeply grateful to people like your son and hope, in the “counterbalancing” spirit of catherine’s post 112, that whatever anti-war pressure we apply will result in making sure our government is profoundly judicious in the use of our military. We want the highest possible standards applied when determining whether or not they’ll be asked to risk their lives.</p>
<p>One scholar named Chaim Perelman once claimed that rhetoric stressed matters of style at the expenses of rationality. </p>
<p>Aren’t we spending way too much time discussing matters of style and delivery?</p>
<p>SBMom, I read the words in your answer to BigGreen, and I have to display some surprise, especiallly at the postulate of “many card-carrying liberals” expressing deep gratitude. If they do, they sure do it the privacy of their home! </p>
<p>As far as the judicious use of our military might, that must remain in the eye of the beholder. I have little doubt that many card-carrying liberals have applauded the “judicious” use of the military of the past administration when launching missile attacks from the safety of a battleship, and watch with glee when CNN images confirmed that the Iraqi capital was lit like a Chrismas tree -or should I say Holiday tree? Those “card-carrying liberals” are cut from the same cloth as Mrs. Albright who considered the death of hundred of thousand Iraqi children a fair price to pay. </p>
<p>People who serve our country by placing their life at great risk do not make such subtle differences; they understand the concept of duty and abnegation. Do many card-carrying liberals do? Again, that is in the eye of the beholder!</p>
<p>SB,</p>
<p>Please. Lauras attack was as you said, one sided and non-edifying (about FS).</p>
<p>You absolutely attacked Ms. Siren and you do yourself a disservice to act other wise. who are you kidding? Youve been relentless. </p>
<p>The point was that Cindy Sheehan has become a disgrace to herself and her son, but it is not all her fault. She has been lead into this by people who defend her behavior leading her further and further into her own dark crevices. Looking back through this thread I cant see where your nemesis said anything not said by anyone else, and often with a good bit of subtlety. </p>
<p>As opposed to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then directly at you and a few others here:
</p>
<p>As to comparing Ghandis tactics to Sheehans, it was said in a post. I read it. That is some serious parsing you did.</p>
<p>How about Comparing drug use to serving in the US military
As you said, in a comparison to Shehan’s antics, a parent of a kid who OD’d could be anti drug even though their kid loved doing drugs, right? How is your comparison superior or more appropriate? People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.</p>
<p>Of all the ad hominem attacks in this thread, FS seems to be the only one to fess up to having ever used them. Others are perhaps above such honesty, they have a rep to maintain.</p>
<p>i back you up Laura, cause I agree with you.</p>
<p>As for supporting our troops, the government does it the least.</p>
<p>The protection in combat, the armor, the care after, the not increasing money to care for veterans</p>
<p>If you want to bash us liberals because we are against the war fine, but our government is against the troops. They had to lower the goals for recruitment because they can’t meet them. So it looks better. We have vets who live in the streets. We have vets that have a hard time getting care. We have soilders who are missing limbs, who have post traumatic stress, who are going bankrupt, who do not have jobs to go back to, who have “diseases” from ammuntion</p>
<p>And the people that want them to come home and do the job they signed up to do, protec the homeland, get bashed.</p>
<p>SBmom, keep it up because some people don’t like knowing the truth</p>
<p>And, I bet you, that when children die, for whatever reason, it is sad, and if my daughter died fighting without the proper gear, I would be ****ed, but some people jsut don’t care about that…its all about themselves and their fears </p>
<p>FS- sign up if you believe so much. I don’t want anyone to go, but those that really support this war and why we are there and believe all the governemnt says, should step up</p>
<p>Seasong,</p>
<p>Welcome to CC. With two posts I don’t know how long you’ve been lurking… but there are patterns at work here. </p>
<p>I am very happy to debate legitimate points raised by FS or anyone else but I don’t like defending against deliberate hyperbole. It reminds me too much of Fox News. </p>
<p>FS & I have debated before and when she calms down she is very interesting, with a unique persepective. Search for an old thread on Christian Politicians and you will find one such debate, which evolved into an interesting conversation about poetry. That’s why I even bothered… she’s capable of better. </p>
<p>When examples, metaphors, comparisons are used to ILLUSTRATE SPECIFIC POINTS and then they are mis-quoted in a different (or much larger) context, this is not intellecutally honest, it’s just incendiary. </p>
<p>My illustaration about a kid who OD’d was by no mean equating doing drugs and military service. It was illustrating that a parent could in good conscience fundamentally oppose the actions/choices of a child they deeply loved. One could make the same point with a more neutral example, like a kid who died skateboarding without a helmet, or being killed as a miner… the miner’s mom has a right to say to her grandkids, or her neighbors “PLEASE don’t be a miner!”… Agreed?</p>
<p>Quite true that other posters made unseemly remarks and I did not comment. Throwaway lines by posters who will not join the conversation I generally ignore.</p>
<p>“Welcome to CC. With two posts I don’t know how long you’ve been lurking.”</p>
<p>Posts in the Cafes do not accrue towards one’s total. Something about crediting meaningful posts only. :D</p>
<p>good point, 27 posts actually…</p>
<p>My daughter’s boyfriend is serving with the 10th Mountain Division. All I know is that he would be the first to defend the right to different opinions, even if they are critical of him and the job he has to do. He would definitely be more tolerant of differing opinions than some who have posted on this thread, as I’m sure would others like BigGreen’s son. Those with the most to lose showing the most tolerance. Humbling.</p>
<p>The soldiers in Iraq were not defending America…</p>
<p>I would defend this country if we were under attack, I would give blankets, shetler, take in families, whatever it took</p>
<p>But this war is not to defend our freedoms, it never was</p>
<p>“I would defend this country if we were under attack”</p>
<p>I noticed the use of “were” in the above sentence. Interesting.</p>
<p>you can’t fight bombs with blankets.</p>
<p>xiggi, that’s because freedom fighters don’t count!</p>