[Coleman]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235882,00.html

[img]http://www.foxnews.com/images/244439/1_61_120606_sheehan.jpg[/img]

In all honesty, what do you think about her and her specific actions? I can understand someone protesting, but I think she has gone overboard and lost her sanity. I feel for her that she lost her son, but I think she's ruining her son's death by acting like a child.

If someone can fill me in on a secret of hers it'd be great. What does she actually think she's trying to do? Is she advocating IMMEDIATE removal of troops? And by immediate I mean, "Hey guys, I signed the papers. Every troop shall be out of Baghdad by 1300hrs tomorrow afternoon. Leave what you can't bring with you in one trip." Does she want the president to say, "By March 3 of 2007 our last American troop will exit off the soil of Iraq."? Is that it?

[Sgt>Stackem]

screw her and Sarah Brady too

[ninty]

There are two issues here. Her right to protest and her ability to make news.

She does posses the right to protest. So in that sense, do whatever you want. You want to stand on the corner saying that the shit you took this morning is the reincarnation of the devil, go ahead.

I couldn't care less if she protests for the rest of her life.

The article said she got arrested for trespassing.

Now she was arrested for trespassing for trying to hand a petition over. It's not like she was trespassing to steal or something, which I guess is a thin line. Nobel? To some perhaps, but still against the law.

Perhaps they should try to find a legal way to go about doing it. Perhaps no one would take it.

That kind of reminds me of the type of stuff PETA does, although trying to hand over a petition isn't as severe.

If you want to protest animal rights or whatever, go ahead. But when you break the law, like vandalism, stealing, and all that other junk, to get your point across, that's not cool.

But here lies another issue.

Ask yourself this question:

What good is a protest if it doesn't get media coverage? If no one knows about it?

It's no good.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. held one of the black rights marches and nothing happened. So it didn't get on the news.

King is a smart man. What did he do? He went to another city where there was high racial tension and the police chief hated blacks. he knew there would be confrontation.

The police chief sent in the police and what we have all seen on TV ensued.

Do you think that if the police just stood by and did nothing that anything would have changed? No. It wouldn't have even made the news.

But because black people were getting beaten by white cops, it's national news and people say "look whats happening to those poor people. this is horrible and blacks deserve rights also".

That would not have happened without this situation.

Cindy sheehan, like all protesters, use the same tactic. You only get exposure if there is confrontation.

Why did people used to hijack airplanes? They always wanted to make a political speech or whatever. This was the way to get the attention. If they just stood out in some square yelling their message, no one would listen.

This is something that I don't think many people understand.

If Cindy stood outside her house protesting the war, no one would care. When she stands outside bush's house, it's a big deal.

When Cindy sheehan trespasses to hand in a petition, it's news. If she gave it to some dude who gave it to some UN dude, it's not news. Right?

Therefore, my argument is that Sheehan NEEDS to trespass in order to get her point across. If she doesn't, it doesn't make the news and her ideas aren't on national TV.

[Simo Häyhä]

i agree that war with iraq is wrong and i feel for her loss, however as i see it now if we withdrew our troops tommorow iraq will be a cess pool of terror. we've crossed the point of no return im afraid.

[Coleman]

nice posts ninty. what i still don't understand is her position/solution to it. It's one thing to say you're against the war, but it's another to say 'let's get the f outta there with no plan but leaving".

And i do agree with you about the media coverage. But don't you think there's a point that is past that fine edge of people respecting her for what she's doing and the point of 'omg she's just insane so let's not hear her out.'?

[ninty]

I don;t think anyone has a viable solution whether you stay there or not. You're screwed either way.

I think this war has divided people so much tot he extent that, if you oppose the war, you support cindy, and if your for the war you oppose her.

The middle ground has been lost and 95% of people are on one side or another. The one side blames the other and vice versa.

There's no compromise, theres no discussion. republicans hate democrats and democrats hate republicans. This is extremely bad for the country as I see it. When the people are divided is when bad stuff happens.

People need to realize that one side is not totally right and one side is not totally wrong. Both need to work together to accomplish anything otherwise it turns into a wrestling match.

yes, I think cindy sheehan looks like a douche. but democrats will side with her, because if they don't, then they must be a republican and that would be bad. republicans won't say she has a point because that would look bad on them.

[TGB!]

[quote:2db30]You're screwed either way.[/quote:2db30]

If the measure of a conflicts "need" was based around how difficult it was - blacks would still be slaves, The French would be even more fucked up than they are, Hitler's children would be running Germany, The US wouldnt have existed and Canada would be a land of pure driven snow, unspoiled by disaffected Frenchmen.

Political division is nothing new in this country; but then again most "students of history" have very little historical perspective to speak of.