- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
what is not supposed to happen?This is not supposed to happen.
.
what is not supposed to happen?This is not supposed to happen.
.
No, being decisive is the only reasonable position.
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.Until rash action leads to more deaths and destruction than careful assessment.
I think it takes a lot of gall to denounce "decisiveness" out-of-hand when the lack of same could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.I think it takes a lot of gall to enthusiastically support "decisiveness" when it could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
No, being decisive is the only reasonable position.
Until rash action leads to more deaths and destruction than careful assessment.
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.
I made a decisive position. Parents should not be the deciding voice on military action. This stance does not change if I agree with the parent or I disagree with the parent. It is a principled position, not one that is fickle akin to a President deciding what to do simply on poll ratings. Presidents should not be making military decisions based on what makes a parent happy.
I agree we need to send those troops in, and we needed that decision to be made weeks ago. That doesn't change the fact that I do not think, nor want, a President to make decisions based on the complaints or pleas of parents. Unlike those of you bellowing out about this becasue it fits your fickle political position today, I base my actual political views on these things called "principles" and they don't shift like the wind like the daily gallop poll. Parents should not be setting military policy. They shouldn't have when they were asking Bush to "end it" and they shouldn't now with Obama.
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.
I think it takes a lot of gall to denounce "decisiveness" out-of-hand when the lack of same could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
Cindy Sheehan of the right. Oh no wait....this one is legitimate because she's trying to make Obama look bad....
So you assume some one with less information about a situation is making the right decision, while some one with more information than her, you or I is wrong.
She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight. How is that wrong?
The difference being, that this lady isn't trying to undermine our soldiers while they're serving this country on a far away battlefield.
What is not supposed to happen? People using a military situation to try and score political points?
No matter what choice Obama makes, it will probably lead to a multitude of very bad outcomes for the United States and the people of the Middle East.
Well, of course not.
The Messiah and the Democrats protested the war only to hack at the roots of the Bush.
They don't want anyone undermining their incompetent Messiah over the same subject.
No, can't have that, even though their incompetent Messiah persists in keeping the troops on the battlefield and persists in refusing to define what they're there for.
Every American in who died in Afghanistan after the Messiah made his "I'm too ignorant to define "victory" in Afghanistan" speech became the Messiah's dead American.
I am really not sure how any of this addresses what I said.No matter what choice Obama makes, it will probably lead to a multitude of very bad outcomes for the United States and the people of the Middle East....
I am really not sure how any of this addresses what I said.
You're trying to equate decisiveness with rashness.
There is no necessary relationship between the two.
She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight. How is that wrong?
What is not supposed to happen? People using a military situation to try and score political points?
Cindy Sheehan of the right. Oh no wait....this one is legitimate because she's trying to make Obama look bad....
Your position is supported by probabilities that are based on your assumptions. Unless you can show that your assumptions are accurate, your position is unsound.The relationship doesn't have to be one of casual necessity, it can be conditional so long as it is the case in fact. Given that immediate action 'may' (that is, there is a fairly good chance) cause more trouble than it solves, immediately deploying more troops could fairly be considered rash. The only way decisiveness certainly isn't rash is if it is probably not going to result in more trouble than it solves. Because deploying more troops to Afghanistan could entangle us deeper in a war we aren't sure if it is in our interest to be further immersed in, sending more troops immediately on request is rash. On the other hand, immediately leaving is also not a good idea when you may not want to be that suddenly untangled from a conflict that deeply concerns your interests.
So you assume some one with less information about a situation is making the right decision, while some one with more information than her, you or I is wrong.
Mostly because it is easier said than done. Anyway, saying it isn't wrong; politicizing and moralizing it is.
You realize its all just how you spin it right?
She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight.
Or go back in time 4 years
She wants her son and his comrades to be brought out of harms way and removed from a war we shouldn't be in and has no defintive way to achieve victory.
Do you HONESTLY believe that parents calling for the end of the Iraq War was doing so becasue they wanted to undercut the troops effort and not because they simply wanted their children safe? Do you think the majority were going "mwhahaha, here's how we can screw Bush and stop this war effort, by taking advantage of our sons situation" and not going "I just want my baby back safe and sound".?
The REASON these parents are likely saying what they're saying, when it comes down to it, is that they want THEIR CHILD safe. This is a fully reasonable, understandable, natural mentality for parents. I'd rather that almost no parent is pleaing for something to be done in regards to this war and relating to their child that is for a reason other than they think it will best help their child.....people just disagree on what will best help them.
But its for those reasons that a President should, in no way, decide on military strategy based on what PARENTS want. This is because a Presidents care first and foremost should be for the well being of the country while a Parents care first and foremost is likely to be for their child...and soemtimes those things may not be one in the same.
Indeed.
Tell us what you thought of Sheehan's actions and criticisms.
Pelosi and Sheehan have nothing in common. Sheehan is a man.
Holding hands with Hugo Chavez doesn't need demonizing. She's holding hands with a self professed enemy of the U.S.A.. Doesn't get much worse then that IMO. She's a lady who wont get over the fact that her son signed up for the military. He accepted to take all the risks involved in that particular line of work. He died. I feel sorry for her and her son. However dying is a risk people who join the military take. She can't blame the president for a choice her son made. She might as well blame Congress for providing the funding for this war or the 3/4 Americans who supported Bush when this war started.