Wednesday
19Apr2006
Peaceniks Support WHOSE Troops?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 06:23PM A couple days ago I received an entry in my guest book from one of the anti-war protesters I have the displeasure of encountering when I go downtown to support America, the troops, the President and the mission in Iraq:
Name:
EdwardWhere are you from?Columbia, SC
How did you find this website?Searched for "Fascist Wingnut in Columbia SC"
Please enter your comments:Amy, I met you when Cindy Sheehan was in town. You and your GOP sycophant twin Ruth Russell were hanging out with “Crazy Eugene” who was holding a "Free Saddam" sign. It was nice hearing Cindy dress you down .
You no longer come out to the Statehouse with your children in tow to protest peace. Using children to support your agenda of killing Iraqi children was perverted indeed.
You claim to be a good Catholic, but you support a war condemned by Pope John Paul II and the current Pope. Did you not know that before we started bombing Iraq, Christians in Iraq were accepted well. Now, their future is bleak at best.
You say you support the troops, but what you support is their deaths and mutilation in your deranged attempt to bring about Armageddon.
Quit using God to justify your bloodlust and hate. Your lord is George W. Bush.
I took the liberty of responding (I was ticked at the time)
Edward, since you left no e-mail in your drive by comments, I’ll respond here.1) Cindy didn’t "dress me down". My sign read, "Cindy Doesn’t Speak for Me", since she claims some superior status to speak for military families because her son died in Iraq. My husband didn’t die in Iraq although he served there a year and will be going back, as with Mrs. Russell’s husband, and we have as much if not more authority to speak up in favor of this war. Cindy’s response was, "I never said I DID speak for you." Oh, REALLY? Then why just behind her head was there a sign that said, "America Stands With Cindy"? If that’s a dressing down, I consider it a compliment. Poor Cindy has the brain power of a 9 year old.
YOU are obviously the one who doesn’t come to the State House any more, and my children WANT to be there. I have another who prefers to play Game Cube to having to look at the peacenuts like yourself, so I bring the ones who want to come. My kids have minds of their own and enjoy laughing at the stupid signs you guys hold. It reinforces their understanding that peaceniks are insignificant and have no understanding of national defense. They are proud to support their daddy’s service.
I do tell them when they read your signs, "Don’t stare! It’s like looking at the sun, you’ll go blind."
I try to be a good Catholic but you’re wrong about the Popes. The current Pope Benedict, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, is in favor of the liberation of Iraqis. Pope John Paul supported the war before his death, although the official stance of the Church must be for peace. This war, despite your ignorant assumption, meets the criteria of a Just War.
It is the TERRORISTS who support killing of Iraqi children. Do some research. Here’s what’s perverted: the peacenik out there draped in a Muslim prayer rug. Solidarity for the Terrorists, yay! At least you guys don’t try to hide whose side your on.
And don’t insult my Iraqi friends by feigning concern for Iraqi casualties. We all know the more the better for you. If you truly cared about Iraqis, you’d have supported liberating Iraqis from Saddam long ago. I also noted the celebration you sickos had at the 2000 soldiers death in Iraq. Celebrate good times, yahoo, right?
I DO support the troops. I’m married to one and know that comforting the enemy doesn’t support them. Why do the soldiers who pass us by on Wednesdays always thank us and not YOU? Why do they give us the thumbs up and thank us for being out there… IF we don’t support the troops? And why do you guys never have American flags, which the troops defend with their service, if YOU support the troops?
Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, "Why doesn’t the military like me?" If you think they feel supported yourself, you’re smoking too much dope.
Bloodlust? Let me guess, YOU’RE for abortion, and I’m for liberating people from being fed through a meat grinder by Saddam and I’m the bloodthirsty one? Take your Darwinistic survival of the fittest - I don’t care what happens to the rest of the world because it isn’t me- mentality and shove it. In Christian love.
Pres. Bush is a great President. Lord? You guys have some comprehension issues. The 60’s are over. Move on.
That was harsh, but it was real. The creepiness of these people are a deterrent, but we won’t stop supporting America, whom we love. GOD bless America. Support Iraqi freedom. HOOAH! By the way, we gave peace a chance; we got 9/11.
Cindy Sheehan encounter:
Counter Protesting:
Proactive Republicans (1st counter protest)
It’s Party Time (peaceniks celebrate the 2000th US casualty in Iraq-local)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/448521
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/448521
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (55)
Heck, Cindy doesn't even speak for her husband, who is divorcing her. What a sad-sack miserable woman she is. But she typifies a wild-eyed raging minority of lefties who seem to hate everything that is good and love everything that is wrong and perverted.
I have no idea which one Edward is, nor do I care to know (I'd prefer to think they're all above the sort of stupidity than what was posted in my guest book, but I'll bet I'm wrong). Last week we were standing there and some older man (I'd call him a gentleman but it doesn't apply) came up and started harrassing us about how we don't support the troops because if we did we'd be for better armour, blah, blah, blah. He didn't know we were Army wives... until I told him, and that both our husbands did a year in Iraq. He hit the roof. He went on an incessant tirad of typical Cindy Sheehan quotables (I don't believe they think anymore, they just choose the first memorized rhetorical line that pops into their heads). He was so upset he kept coming back and I pulled out my cell phone to call 911, and he almost walked into oncoming traffic. He meandered through the cars totally disheveled. As he walked away the peaceniks yelled at us, "Shame on you!" For what? Being yelled at by an old man with his facts wrong? "Shame on you" is actually a line they copied, having not an original bone in their collective bodies, from Ruth who said that when they'd protest outside our military post with signs claiming to military families against the war. Of course, none of them are military, dependents or any resemblence, but these are NOT an honest bunch. They just like to *play* military families on TV. Now they say "Shame on you" every time we're accosted by a peacenik. I don't get it.
My children really enjoy taking a positive stand for their country and the war effort in Iraq, but sometimes the hippies worry me. It's really a shame we can't just support our country without being harrassed.
Edward said: "Did you not know that before we started bombing Iraq, Christians in Iraq were accepted well. Now, their future is bleak at best." The opposite is true. Christians were not "accepted well" in a PanArab state by a secular Muslim dictator. True, Saddam stocked his palaces full of Christian workers because their work ethics were superior to Muslims (Christians didn't lie, cheat, steal or take bribes), but they had little legal protection under the law, were raped or murdered for converting to Christianity (Remember Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan?), Christian girls and women disappeared routinely, churches routinely sacked... sounds like they had it good under Saddam. Now Iraq is working hard to develop a government that will protect religious freedom and the rights of women. Their future is bright, not bleak. You have to be willing (which hippies are not) to look beyond the latest BBC news report of a terrorist bombing and focus on the long term.
Many, if not all of these hippy/"peace" people are under the influence of communist propaganda and at least one illegal drug. I have tried to talk with those using chemicals, but it is just about impossible.
Maybe they do that on purpose.
But on the other, we're consciously bringing the fight to the insurgents rather than have them attack our homelands. Does that amount to using Iraqi civilians as a human shield?
--Cobra
Absolutley, I disagree with Bush's policies all the time. (Not Iraq, but others) But there is a differenc between disagreeing with him and calling him a "Nazi", or a murderer, or a terrorist, or disrespecting the troops, etc.
Iraqis were already being used as "human shields" by Saddam. When Johnny was in Baghdad, the 82nd ABN found large missiles (I've written about these countless times on my blog) positioned against the walls of Catholic Churches. Saddam did this; he literally used civilians as collateral damage, hoping that the US would bomb the missiles, not knowing they were against churches.
So this, unfortunately, is nothing new for Iraqis. War and violence has been a part of their lives for centuries. We're trying to change all that.
As I understand it, a human shield is someone who shields himself with an innocent person, or stands in the stead of violence being done to an innocent person. Al-Qaeda uses this tactic, the US does not.
Oh, don't worry, I had no problem "confronting" the idiots at State College and I'll do it again if I come across the same thing. Its a little harder to protest anti-war idiocy here in Canada though. But I'm coming home to PA for the summer and I have some interesting plans lined up. But the first thing I'm doing is getting some guys together to go to Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.
--Cobra "
Absolutely. I don't agree with all of the President's policies, either. Patriotism isn't defined by what party you love, but what COUNTRY you love. Anyone who LOVES America (in deed, not just lip service) is patriotic.
When Pres. Clinton sent my husband to Haiti, I wasn't sure if I supported the military action or not. Based on humanitarian needs, it seemed appropriate. I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt as our Commander in Briefs, er, I mean, CHIEF, Commander in Chief. When he sent troops
to Kosovo, I was suspect of Clinton but supported the mission based on humanitarian reasons, if nothing else. Pres. Bush doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
As a policy, Iraq is a worthy one. How long have Democrats talked about world peace while accomplishing none? If a President can bring peace to the Middle East, inasmuch as that is possible, that should be supported.
The fact is that liberals HATE Bush and the military. The fake rhetoric used by opponents of the war have been disproved time and time again. Everything from civilian casualties (more Iraqis died under Saddam on a daily basis than during this war), Bush "lied", the US is occupying Iraq (clear ignorance of history and terminology), this is a war for oil, Iraqis aren't stepping up to the plate, the terrorists and insurgents are winning, etc., etc., etc. have all been disproven. The anti-war fanatics are simply regurgitations of the anti-Vietnam War crowd who've recruited young ignorant college kids who think rebellion and tactlessness are cool (who like using big words like "imperialism" to be even cooler).
So the reason why those of us who know better and/or are in the military are so offended by peaceniks is because it is NOT a sincere, genuine movement based on facts. The Republican split on illegal immigration is just one of many proofs that we're willing to think outside of a political box to do what we believe is right, not politically beneficial. The constant criticism of the operations in Iraq are a direct criticism of what the military is doing there; Bush order military commanders on the ground, he oversees them. It is the troops who are carrying out orders. They get no respect (or media coverage) for the amazing progress they are carrying out in Iraq. Its' an insult that these peaceniks have their right to free speech protected by soldiers who they in turn criticize and feign support for. It's just not true. If they supported the military, they could not call the troops occupiers, baby killers.. and they pretend to support Iraqi civilians, although they'd prefer if Saddam had not been "interfered with".
Here are some Cindy Sheehan quotes. Do the math and figure out why this would be offensive to anyone supporting the mission in Iraq:
************************************
"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush."
"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
"They’re (Bush administration) a bunch of f***ing hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up."
"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullsh**, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"
"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."
"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog sh** in Washington, we will impeach all those people."
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11."
"I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. Iraq DID NOT have WMD's; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these continue the murder and mayhem moms to see the light."
************************************
There is nothing sincere to negotiate on with these nuts about the war in Iraq. It's purely political, purely spin, purely stupid.
I just wonder how they are going to act if we have to use our Military Might on Iran...
AubreyJ.........
I think you handle yourself with great integrity and intelligence.
You are amazing and I wish I was as quick-witted as you in your responses to these left-wing nuts. I personally would have loved to torn into some them after all they have done and said about our military and our president.
Thank goodness there are those who can retaliate with great decorum and grace.
I applaud you, Amy!
It's a difficult position to be in because I believe in loving my neighbor, yes, even the ones who are wrong, and yet they exploit vulnerabilities and the stupidity of some Americans with simpleton slogans... I never want to be mean, yet the desire to point out the error of their ways is overwhelming. Ruth is far more blunt than I, and I don't go downtown to argue or to debate, just to show support for the troops,the Pres. and the mission. I hope I do what I do in an honorable way.
Chief, we're not an organization, although we probably ought to be, but the more the merrier.
Your displeasure towards camp evil (aka peaceniks), is a bit ironic, and perhaps humorous, considering your apparent "Christian" following? I was under the impression people of honest faith, wouldn't even consider bringing up the word "war" as a second thought, unless there was a catastrophic series of events taking place. I suppose, we must accept that there are "Religious" people for whom, the glory of fighting outweighs the implications of the event itself. I personally don't see it.
Evidentally you've never read the Bible, particularly the old testament.
Or you've never heard of "American history": Civil War, Revolutionary War...
Amy's children aren't the focus of debate here. We're talking about peaceniks' lack of scruples. Keep up!
Also, judge not! The last thing I do is pigeonhole knowledge and information... they get the whole story, not just the "good" and "evil". The fact that my children are straight A students and in gifted and talented courses, the top of their respective classes is an indication that they are capable of thinking and do so quite well.
I am obviously doing something right. My children see and hear my and Johnny's views and embrace them instead of run from them. Apparently they can see that we are not hypocrits. My daughter said something interesting to me the other day; that is, I am one of the most polite people she knows. She said that when she reads my blog (and she does; she loves the issues and reads what I have to say about them) I'm very to the point but that I'm very kind to others; out in public, friends, to strangers. The point being that often something is lost over the internet. All you're getting is my written word. The spirit can be lost in translation.
My kids would reject what I believe if it were faulty or unattractive.
You only validate, my assertion that it is people like yourself that seem take pride in turning divisions in politics, to divisions in all other facets of our existance. When are YOU, going to realise that there is more to humanity than "Conservativism" and "liberalism"? Perhaps, you are only capable of dissecting social and political issues with oversimplified flash TV news style rhetoric, but I would not be so quick to reflect all "conservative" thinkers in the same light. Do you even understand the history of your own political affiliation? The historical meaning of Conservatism and "libertarianism", and its relationship with "liberalism"? Differences, similarities? I doubt it.
Amy, I do not know how you raise your children, nor am I attempting to tell you how to do so. I just had my doubts that you would allow your, apparent political savvy children, to be free thinkers, in consideration to the authoritarian nature of your blogging.
Of a course it is essential that kids be taught fundamental value "righteousness" for lack of a better word. A great parent, is able to instill these values, without diminishing a child's ability to develop their own views. Obviously, this would be naturally hampered by an intellectually authoritarian parent. For example, you are Christian aren't you? Would you consider letting your children learn about other religions, belief systems and values, or do you think that this would hamper their "Christian" upbringing? Rest assured that a child who has been raised with a strong base, isn't usually going to spontaneously turn into a a leader of a strange cult, as a result of the parent being intellectually open towards the child. There is a huge difference between being an intellectually open parent, and an intellectually authoritarian parent, while both could be parents who have provided their children a good base.
Trent, if only you attempted to read beyond the first sentence that I wrote...........
Amy, I notice that you home-school one of your children. Is that because of specific local schools, or distrust of public schools in general. I'm considering changing career and becoming a school teacher... would you object to your kids being taught by me?
I read your whole comment.
In other news, you can be raised in a traditional Christian home and it could come to nothing. I've seen that numerous times. God doesn't have grandchildren, everyone has to come to Him themselves.
I mearly asked questions, not making accusations.
Hypothetically, not wanting to take Children to church for said reasons, would be considered a way of shielding them, and perhaps also a form of subtle indoctrination.
Perhaps from a personal perspective, I can say that I was apparently raised as a Hindu, yet my parents openly took me to Churches, Mosques, and Buddhist Temples as a child, not necessarily to worship but to understand other religions. I can only be thankful for not being indoctrinated with one faith or realm of thought.
Jez,
Are you serious out becoming a school teacher? If you are that is wonderful!
Jez, we live on an Army post and up until 6th grade the kids go to school on post. Then they go to civilian schools. So my 2 oldest are in civilian schools.
My youngest was in a DOD school that I felt was suited to him (I'll just say that). It was a combination of some bad teachers, ebonics and so on.
Truthfully, I wouldn't hire you as a homeschooling teacher or supplemental instructor for my children, but they already do have teachers like you in the public school. My oldest daughter was just taught evolution, which she rejects. The teacher told her, "It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's true and that's a fact." Okay..... She's also been given an assignment to do a project on a deceased American poet from a list, and so far she's chosen E.E. Cummings, who was a flaming anti-war writer. She dropped that and chose Amy Lowell, whom she has discovered was a lesbian. Many of her poems were about her "girlfriends." My daughter's reaction isn't positive, but she's going to do her best with what she has.
This is to say that I don't believe in withdrawing my children from the world around them. I want them to have exposure to different beliefs and lifestyles. It has buttressed their support of a Catholic/Christian nuclear family lifestyle. They know more why they believe what they believe than if they didn't see the fruit of "alternative lifestyles" up close and personal.
Mavic, I'll answer you in a bit.
The "conservative" label means nothing to me. I'm a Christian first, last, second, and that is all there is for me. I find my Christian perspective and world view conflicts with most contemporary liberal ideology. Nice try.
"I don't think its out of place actually. Seeing pictures of a her children under captions of politically heated "protests", made me wonder."
I wonder about parents all the time, especially parents who allow schools to force political ideology on the students, such as assignemts like writing the President and asking him to get out of Iraq, comparing him to a Nazi, that sort of thing. I'm also traveling to Westboro this summer to confront the people who think its appropriate as "Christians" to let their children where t-shirts that say "God Hates Fags."
"Rest assured that a child who has been raised with a strong base, isn't usually going to spontaneously turn into a a leader of a strange cult, as a result of the parent being intellectually open towards the child."
Most church statistics prove you wrong. It is historically much harder for PK's (Pastor's kids) to maintain a walk with God than it is for most serial killers. An exaggeration, but you have clearly never befriended a pastor. I suggest you do so, and watch intense struggle.
I disagree. Jane Fonda did lots of "volunteer work" in Vietnam, but I would use any poetry she had written as toilet paper.
Raising children at all, ultimately, is indoctrination. If you bring your children to church, you're indoctrinating them. If you don't ever do it, ditto. If you actively poison them against any type of faith, ditto.
I don't see what's so wonderful about exosure to "a broader range of ideas". Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No amount of "different perspectives" will change that.
"'Deeper truths', they call them. (Depths of Satan, really)."
In most cases, young kids naturally copy their parents in any case. A little later, they naturally rebel. It's just how the mind works and grows, it's pretty much unavoidable. But even when rebelling, it is the parents' beliefs that are the main anchor or reference point, even if the reference is being used as an example of what to avoid! A parent's successes and failings are seen most strikingly by his sons. I can tell you *exactly* why my dad is brilliant, but also why I don't want to be quite like him. Finally at around the age of 57, they might finally come to terms with some of it.
But luckily, as well as the references which the child will first embrace, then reject, then tentatively embrace again, we can provide the tools with which help them deal with it all. These critical faculties might turn out to be even more important than the beliefs you foster in your children, depending on what they're exposed to in the future.
Tim's right about pastors -- their interests and time are so hugely in conflict between flock and family. A child can easily resent his father's church. I know it's very hard for a pastor's wife who doesn't share his calling.
Mavic, the day I decided it wasn't inappropriate to allow my children to participate was the day I knew I'd be questioned about the wisdom of taking my kids out there. If it weren't safe or exposed them to anything that would damage them, I wouldn't take them.
We of course teach our children our beliefs. As I said before, even the "we're doing nothing so our children can decide for themselves" is also indoctrination: that nothing is worth standing for or against.
Jez, I am exposing my children to many different trains of thought and not shielding them, while not damaging them in the process. I'm certainly not exposing them to crap for the sake of being comphrensive. There's a balance between teaching and protecting.
Don't worry, my kids rebel, but that has nothing (yet) to do with truth and practical ideology. They hold on to what they see as true while working out their own expression of themselves, including rebellion. Most children don't want to participate in such an event, but they really get a lot out of the experience and it gives them boldness to speak up for what they believe in. That can only be a good thing.
Cummings may be very sexy, but how good is that for a 7th grader? Don't worry, her teach will be hearing from me. Robert Frost is, I believe, on the list. So is Edgar Allen Poe. That guy creeps me out.
'nuf said.
Amen.
"man you should have seen them kicking edgar allen poe"
Poe's supposed to creep you out, that's his point.
Tim, if you dismissed every drug user from art, you'd be left with a pretty pale selection. However, if you wanted to be critical of Poe, I'm sure a well researched and argued paper dismissing him as a pot-head would be graded well... I personally think he had moments of genius, and while it's not certain he was a drug user, he did have an alcohol problem.
In my school we studied Coleridge's "rime of the ancient mariner" -- the incomplete product of an opium trip.
I know for me it was quite an important moment when I realised that there was more to poetry than twee bs.
To most people, Einsteins' theory of relativity, Bernouilli, Liebniz, Newtonian Calculus and other major works of discoveries are also extremely "boring and useless". Mainly due to a lack of comprehension and also that it doesn't seem have DIRECT effect on their lives. Those are generally the folks who tend to see the value of things that are only two feet in front of them (figuratively).
I read both your posts. Guess what?
Poetry is still boring and useless.