In fact, she has been protesting all wars: "We began the killing as soon as we stepped foot on these shores and the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years. There has always been excuses for wars, but NONE of them have been good or valid."

So, since who stepped foot on the shores? The explorers in the 1600s? So the Revolutionary War was not good, the Civil War was not good (albeit somewhat useless since the South wanted peaceful trade)? World War I/II were not good? I don't mean the wars being innately "good" in and of themselves, because war is amoral. I mean our reasons for going to war were not justified? What about Korea? She clearly is protesting war.

She can protest all she wants for all I care, but she's wasting people's time by getting all sorts of coverage for it. Her son wasn't some sort of victim of the evil Bush Administration.

I don't remember her protesting anything until her son died. Does she suddenly think this war is immoral because of his death? It's a war. People die. I hate sounding unsympathetic, but she's blaming Bush like it's his fault her son is dead. It's not. He wasn't "forced" into Iraq. Anyone joining the military right now doesn't expect to go to Japan or something. They know there's a chance they're going to Iraq, and a damn good one at that.

"Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq..." from

http://spaces.msn.com/members/criticallythinking/Blog/cns!1pgk93Q41bEU2lfx_2VF1D4w!213.entry.

Wouldn't it be nice if he could? He's got as much power to do so as she has to prevent her kid from signing up...

Her son made his decision, and he paid for it with his life. Regardless of one's stance on the war, he should at the least be honored in death instead of having his mother make a fool of herself while the rest of his family is grieving.

I apologize for sounding harsh. I'm tired and feel like arguing

I got really worried when I called out prescott but two people preceded to agree with him. Well, not so much worried but disappointed. Their lack of sympathy really shocks me. They don't even have fake sympathy like Bush. I guess I was just surprised prescott would say something like that because I know he's going into the army.

I would say the exact opposite.

No. He wasn't forced into the army. He was ordered to Iraq. Those orders came from Bush. The only way he could have known he was going to Iraq was if he joined the army after the war started or imminently before (or at some other point when it was clear that we would go to war with Iraq).

I'm just wondering, to all these unsympathetic bastards....did it ever occur to you that were talking about a mother losing a son. I don't think there's any bigger fear that a mother can have in the entire world. Not only are you supporting an unjust war, you're being completely unsympathetic to the soldiers and families that had no choice whether they were going to war or not. It's truly amazing. You'll send them to their deaths and not even give two shits after.

He died of his own free will.

There is no draft in affect right now, now is there? I don't want to hear I have no sympathy for these fallen soldiers because I do. I hate hearing in the news that the death tool has risen but I'm not blaming Bush for their deaths, he didn't force them to join. The Democrats are always quick to blame someone else, instead of blaming themselves.

I think it is bullshit that you can tell me that I don’t sympathize because it was the soldiers fault; he died bravely under his own free will. That is like saying people who don't support the war are un-American, get real.

If a draft was in effect I would be right with you, but the fact of the matter is this soldier voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces. Now like I said, he knew what he was getting into when he signed that dotted line.

The whole idea is that yes, she lost her son. Many people have lost sons in Iraq, and even more have lost them due to other causes. I can actually empathize with her for having lost someone so close to her. The problem is that she's using his memory to protest the war, blaming Bush for her son's death. It's NOT Bush's fault her kid died, and I feel it's incredibly disrespectful to her son's memory to use him as a talking point in her protests. If she was protesting the war on moral grounds like most other people are, that's fine. But using her dead son's memory, her dead son who willingly signed the dotted line knowing full-well he might go to Iraq, is just disgraceful to his memory and to the rest of the family. Let the man rest in piece.

Also, she said he "signed up to defend America, not Israel". Seems kind of obvious, to me. We're not in Iraq for Israel's sake. And regardless, we have economic interest with Israel, and we would also directly defend Taiwan if China attacked them (I see that as likely in the next decade or two...imho there's a second Cold War getting underway, nice topic for discussion later on) because we have economic interests there, as well. Basically every war we're in is in some degree economically related to us, including Iraq (Hell, cheaper oil is a boon for us, right?). Also, increasing our international reputation is beneficial, although that won't happen unless Iraq's new government succeeds. No war was purely for "humanitarian" reasons, although I'd like to think they were. But I'm getting off-topic.

My point being I empathize with her grief, but she's abusing her son's memory and I'm positive he is flopping around in his grave after this. She has her own anti-war views, and if anything seems anti-Semitic since she's demanding Israel get out of "Palestine's rightful land", which oddly enough is shared by Hamas. Nevermind that Israel is starting to pull out of Gaza.

Again, I wouldn't try to stop her from protesting. I just hate the fact that she's using her son to protest war (not just the Iraq War, if you read my previous post). Do you see what I'm saying, though? It's a very fine line that she crossed. I don't like people bringing up dead to justify their actions.

And before you say Bush does that about 9/11, I know he does and I hate it. 3000 people died, right? Thereabouts anyway. That's not that many. That's like 2 square blocks of Manhattan. I mean it's a lot of people, but more people die in car accidents every 6 months. So him bringing up how "think of the people in the WTC" doesn't move me in the least. The nature of the attacks is what's more important, and the reaction was justified right afterwards (with Afghanistan). But now, that'd be like me saying "you know what? Fuck Japan. Think of Pearl Harbor" right now. It's nonsense.

Also, what about her using her son's memory right after her son's death? Well, the difference is that he was killed doing what he signed up for. Everyone that signs up for the military knows what they're putting at stake. Anyone who doesn't know that and signs up should, well, learn it quick. The WTC people were sitting at their desks when the jets hit and then the towers collapsed (although there's no way in hell the planes alone caused both towers to collapse. The fire's went out after a minute or two and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough for long enough to cause the tower's to pancake like that; you'd think they'd list considering there is a gaping hole in one side).

Yes, it is Bush's fault her son died. People know they are risking their lives when they join the military but they also expect to be put in harms way only when absolutely necessary and only for justified reasons. Bush lied his way into this war and her son died because of his lies. It isn't so strange then that her campaign in Texas has been very sucessful.

because the media is drooling over her like a pack of dogs. There's nothing special in the least about her protest. It's like the Michael Jackson trial. There's nothing newsworthy about her sitting there in protest. This isn't a media-bashing thread, so I'll save that for another time. Either way, there's nothing special about what she's doing and considering he signed up after we started fighting, he knew what he was getting himself into. Therefore, if he made the choice to join given the circumstances, you can't still blame Bush for his death. Whether or not he lied is irrelevant. Would you say that FDR is responsible for everyone's death in World War II? Of course not. If anything, FDR is more responsible than Bush, because in WWII there was a draft so people HAD to fight. You can't hold Bush responsible because this kid volunteered and died while doing a job he chose. If there was a draft, then your statement and hers would make a bit more sense, but if we were formally in a war, she'd have been arrested long ago since the whole country would be "at war", unlike it is now.

Losses happen. It's war. We got ourselves into this mess, and if anything the worst thing we could do is just send everyone home. We have a government in place that's on the verge of becoming a legitimate government, and the best thing we can do is try to turn it over to the Iraqi People as soon as they can handle themselves. I know some hard-line conservatives want to send in more people, but that would just make it seem like we're coddling them and they'll never be able to stand on their own.

It is completely relevant because if Bush had not lied to the American public and we had not gone to war then the mother's child would still be alive.

Well it's good to see that hev only argued this small part of your response Tabris

I have to disagree here. There is nothing to say that if Bush had not lied her son would not have joined the Army, and if he had joined the Army he may still have died. Hell he may have died as a silly-vilian. We can not say...