The purpose of the strong
For all you folks in the military or their
families back home. Keep this in mind the
next time something about the war on
terror comes out of Cindy Sheehan's mouth:
"The purpose of the strong is to protect
those who are unable or unwilling to
defend themselves.
The purpose of the weak is to remind
the strong of their purpose."
posted by Robbe Morris at
9:15 PM
11 Comments:
Cindy Sheehan is not week; she has enough strength to stand up for what she believes in, doesn't she?
If anything she is the strong one, standing up for the weak-minded who only do what they are told without question...
By
Anonymous, at 1:16 PM
Appeasement isn't strength.
Running away from a fight that is not only winnable but needs to be won isn't strength.
I feel bad for her loss and pity for her knowing how much the left is using her.
Her son served a noble and just cause. It is unfortunate that his efforts are overshadowed by her 15 minutes of fame.
Soon, she will be forgotten but the memory of his efforts should never be.
By
Robbe Morris, at 2:54 PM
It is true that the sacrifices of every soldier should never be forgotten. But I would hardly describe the cause of the current war in Iraq as noble or just.
And it isn't a matter of running away from a fight; it is a matter of not wanting to waste the lives of our soldiers when the motives for being at war in the first place are shady at best.
By
Anonymous, at 11:03 AM
Of course, we differ on the notion of whether the war was just or not.
I did find her comments on afghanistan quite revealing with Chris Matthews.
Chris Matthews interview with Cindy
She is clearly against us defending ourselves and not just another one of those "bush lied about iraq" nutcases.
So, my original comments about her being weak are dead on.
By
Robbe Morris, at 2:34 PM
I'm not necessarily a big fan of Cindy Sheehan. I do admire her courage, but my first post really wan't a response to what you said about her, it was more about the idea of weak vs. strong in general.
The argument over who is weak and who is strong is really irrelavant. Hasn't history shown us enough that reacting to violence with more violence will never solve any problems?
Winning the so-called "war on terror" simply is not possible. How about instead of bombing them, we try to address the issues that made them terrorists in the first place?
Unfortuntely for the rest of us, the people who are making those decisions care more about their own wealth and power than they do for the welfare of the country and it's citiens.
By
Anonymous, at 10:51 AM
Also, how is the United States' involvement in the Middle East protecting American citizens? If anything it is putting us more at risk. I don't know about you, but it makes me more than just a little bit angry that the current administration is putting the safety of my family in jeopardy for the benefit of the oil companies and big corporations that currently control our way of life.
I realize that this may sound a little cliche, but it is the truth. If we spent a fraction of what we spend on the military on trying to address the problems in our own country, we would probably be able to solve the problems of poverty and national healthcare, among other things.
By
Anonymous, at 11:31 AM
If anything, I think you are an accurate representation of liberal thinking. You also did so without going into a fit of rage. It is not often that a liberal can communicate their ideas like that.
Couple of quick items.
1. Speaking your mind when
there is no negative
consequence isn't courage.
Its freedom provided by those
with real courage.
2. Can you name one thing
that terrorists have done
that you consider rational
in attempting to attain
their goals?
Looking back at recent
history. Look where
Al Qaeda finds themselves
now. Are they any closer
to getting rid of Israel?
Are they any closer to
a Palestinian state?
Can you have a rational
negotiation with those who
are irrational? Could
you trust the outcome
of such negotiations?
I point to Clinton's
good faith negotiations
with North Korea in the
90's.
3. Regarding the money
spent on the military...
Have you ever seen a
bully stop picking on
someone because they
had a discussion about
their feelings?
What if a bully just doesn't
care how you feel about things?
How would you protect yourself
if you aren't the toughest
kid on the block?
History is full of power mad dictators who try to force their will on the free. To date, the U.S. has been the only power to consistantly push back these forces.
And before you say, Bush isn't
one of them.
You should have paid more attention in history class.
While I respect your good intentions, Liberal thought processes are typically dangerous to freedom and prosperity when applied in the real world.
As for oil, I would agree that we
are far too reliant on foreign oil and oil in general. I wish that all states had 95% ethanol gas stations like some of the midwest states do. I noticed several of
the big 3 automakers are shipping combo gas and ethanol engines in 2007 and 2008. Our reliance on oil by 2015 will be drastically different than it is today.
Then, we'll have to deal with the oil companies buying up all the farm land...
By
Robbe Morris, at 12:43 PM
Very well said, and yes I am more or less a liberal person. After thinking about it for a while though, I actually agree with pretty much everything that you said in your last post. I'm really not so much anti-war as I am anti big business.
The thing is, I can accept that there is a time and a place for war, and that it is an inevitable fact of life because there are simply people out there who are just evil.
But I don't think that that is the case with what is going on in Iraq. It just seems to me that there is so much corruption involved in the war. and for that matter with our goverment in general. I also feel like big business plays too much of a role in the behavior of our government. The whole thing with Dick Cheney and Halliburton is just a little too shady. It turns my stomach to think that there are people in power who are using the military as pawns for their own personal gain. There's definitely more too it than the U.S. coming to the rescue of the Iraqi people. If I could believe that for a second than I would be pro-war.
I'm also not really anti-Bush (I couldn't help but laugh when you thought I'd consider him a power mad dictator). I don't think that he is really the problem, although I really don't feel as though he deserves to be president, and still cannot believe that he won either election.
There is one thing that you said that did bother me; that being that I didn't pay attention in history class. While that is probably true, I wouldn't put much value in any "traditional" history book that you'd be given in school because they only give you the story from the perspective of the the elite.
I'm currently reading "A People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn, which I must recommend by the way. It gives the history of our country from the perspective of your everyday working class American. And I have to say that alot of what I have ready is very disturbing; so much of what we're taught in traditional history is very misleading, if not downright untrue.
Seeing how we do have different views on things... I'd be curious to hear what you had to say about the book. If you google it you'll find that it is a very respected work, so I'm not just some nut who read some radical book and started ranting about shit...
By
Anonymous, at 5:34 PM
Dick Cheney benefiting from Halliburton and the war in Iraq?
Cheney to give up job
Fact check on Cheney's Halliburton income
The fact about the war in Iraq is really quite simple. Bush and his crew (myself included) truly believed Saddam had the weapons (as did our enemies and allies - in particular the Russians as they gave specific warnings to us just before the invasion). Someday, we may discover that they were moved out of the country. Perhaps by the French or even the Russians.
You may not agree with his strike first mentality. That is fair. To make a statement that they did it for political reasons or for financial gain is just not based in fact.
As for the Halliburton stuff, you ought to do some research as to how contracts were handled for them during the Clinton years concerning Kosovo. You'll find
the circumstances strikingly similar. Halliburton is often either the only candidate for the job or is the clear winner based on capability and cost to the taxpayer and past history of success.
Now, this is interesting about your perspective on text books in school. I'd be interested in your thoughts on school vouchers for private schools in conjunction with your distrust of government approved textbooks.
My comments on history weren't a reflection of America being perfect. We are a great country but certainly not perfect. The notion that we comitted wrongs in our path to the America of today is not lost on me nor do I discount it.
It was just to reflect on how tyranny is ultimately defeated and what it takes from a military perspective and a mindset to accomplish. This stands in stark contrast to appeasement and its history of success or lack therof.
I will read up on your suggested book out of curiosity.
By
Robbe Morris, at 6:15 PM
I think that you are throwing the word "fact" around a little too much. You can't accept everything that you read in a book or hear on the news as being purely factual, or even honest and truthful.
Granted, this doesn't give any more credibility to what I believe, but you can't tell me that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with politics or oil. Clearly they were hell bent on invading Iraq, one way or another. Just look at the whole Karl Rove / Joseph Wilson debacle.
By
Anonymous, at 7:38 PM
Rove and Libby were attempting to keep the press from printing Joe Wilson's account which they knew to be false. His wife was not a covert agent then or now.
In the end, they were right about Wilson's assessment and how inaccurate it was.
The Iraq war was bad politics. Bush was riding high on his conservative agenda. I wish we could have stayed focused on that.
Bush did it anyway because he felt the country was in danger because of Saddam's weapons, his willingness to use them, his ties to Palestinian terror groups, his known ties to Al Qaeda (although apparently in the early stages).
The position Bush is in is pretty tough. If I believe there is a growing threat, do I address it now when I can limit its overall affect or do I wait for another 3,000 americans to die?
Think of it this way. There are a minimum of a dozen convicted sex offenders living with 10 miles of your home (I guarantee there are probably more). If you see regularly scoping your house and watching your children, what would you do?
Call the cops? Perhaps.
Kill him. Maybe.
I think Bush saw Iraq in this light. There are no cops to call. The buck stops with him.
Our world is governed by the aggressive use of force. It always has been and always will be due to human nature.
By
Robbe Morris, at 8:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home