Peace protesters (venting)

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
And just to clear something up, your present employers are not paying you to defend the rights of Mother's Day protesters. If they had their way, these protests would be illegal. But due to some pesky laws passed a long time ago, that's just the way it is.

Without a military...just how long do you think this country would have enjoyed those rights?

[speeder]

Araine, Thanks for your concern, but I happen to be one of the happiest guys I know. And I don't mean to single out the thread starter, his attitude is endemic. And it does make me pissed. This whole arguing on the internet thing might be getting out of hand, in the real world I choose my battles more discriminately, but I would not back down from this argument at any time.

"Our job is to protect these people's right to assemble, but I have utter contempt for them excercising that right" is bull*****. This should be taught to the slower students in basic training: you can't have it both ways. You are either for the freedoms that you are all supposedly fighting for, or you aren't. Standing on the corner w/ a protest sign is what you might call Freedom #1 in this country, if you don't believe in it 100%, get your ass out of the military, please. Don't do us any favors, go out and earn a living in the real world.

My Dad fought in Korea, my best friend in Viet Nam, and they agree w/ me all the way. Spitting on soldiers because you don't agree w/ foreign policy is a whole 'nother matter, and I would be the first one to throw fists on the side of the soldier if I ever see this happen, but if you are talking about my mother holding a sign outside of the military base, (which you are), you need some basic lessons. Of course the reactionaries try to lump Mothers together w/ people assaulting/spitting on soldiers, kiss my ass on that one.

We have an administration that wears little flag pins while cutting vets benefits, doesn't give a rat's ass about the lives of anyone, and hides behind the red herring of "supporting the troops". I don't support the way that our military is being used at the moment, and I know for a fact that many in uniform share my view. Also, the military culture contains the best as well as the worst in human nature, as we've seen this week, if you want to really do something positive try to educate thise around you about what "rights and freedoms" really means, and stop worrying about the Mother's Day protesters. Some of them have dead sons from this and other wars, they are as American as Apple Pie.

[kumma]

next time just wear a t-shirt that says

THANK ME FOR
YOUR RIGHT TO
PROTEST!

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder

"Our job is to protect these people's right to assemble, but I have utter contempt for them excercising that right" is bull*****. This should be taught to the slower students in basic training: you can't have it both ways. You are either for the freedoms that you are all supposedly fighting for, or you aren't. Standing on the corner w/ a protest sign is what you might call Freedom #1 in this country, if you don't believe in it 100%, get your ass out of the military, please. Don't do us any favors, go out and earn a living in the real world.

So everyone has the right to an opinion but folks in the military? Why should they not be able to hold the folks protesting them in contempt. It is a two way street. A person does not give up their right to an opinion just because they join the military. They have the right to think the protesters are scum as much as the protesters think Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld is.

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
Shoot them.

How can you disagree with the good Dr.

[SRISER]

Who gives a bloody hell what they think. Their stupid little signs are not going to change anything or influence my day in any way. I only wish one of them would ask me a question like "what do you think we should do in Iraq." Then I can say: "First, send your dumb arse there and second light the place up." Just to see the response.

I think the war on terrorism is being conducted in Iraq because it accomplishes a few things:

1. Disposes of Saddam (actually minor)
2. Establishes a foothold in the middle east for the seed of democracy
3. By conducted our war on Arab soil, all the nut jobs come out of the wood work so we can but a bullet in their head, thus making the world a safer place.
4. We keep attacks out of the US
5. We keep the war out of the US
6. We beging to pull the carpet out from underneath OPEC decreasing their stranglehold on our economy.
7. WMD probably had nothing to do with it...

[fintstone]

People tend to be judged by the company they keep. If a group of people are spitting on or throwing rocks at me...I find it hard to discern between them and the folks that are standing with them. I also resent the fact that military families that live on base are terrorized by these folks. If they want to protest, why can't they do it in their own neighborhoods?

[speeder]

Stone, If protesters in your town are ever throwing rocks at people in uniform, let me know and I will come to N.M. and kick some ass w/ you. My parents own a house there, so you don't even have to put me up.

There is a big difference between people "terrorising military families", (same offer as above applies), and peaceful protests by Mothers (and others). That is as American as Apple Pie.

[dd74]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Wow, so it does turn out you libs are one big collection of *********s after all.

And libertarians are a bunch of greedy sons of *****es who want to live out in the sticks and kill anything human that gets close to them while also not pay federal taxes...

Is that a fair assessment? No.

I've seen liberal *********s at work first hand, working over a uniformed 1st lieutenant officer in the Marine Corps. It was horrible. This happened in a bar in Santa Monica. Everyone was drinking, and saddened by current events, and the liberal *********s made it their purpose to buy the Lt. beers, shake his hand and say thanks for his duties.

********* liberals! They just don't know any better...

[araine901]

Speeder, I was pretty sure your not as freaky as your posts led me to belive that you were. (your a porsche brother, so we must be kindred spirits) The first pay raise I got was from this pres none from the previous pres. (military pay raise)

My father too fought in Korea, but died many years ago, I guess killing people for the CIA has its risks. However I had the opertunity to listen to a winner of the congressional medal of honor in vietnam speak last month. He was one of only three that received that honor in 1966 and was alive to have it pinned on his chest.

http://www.mishalov.com/Barnum.html

He had very strong opinons about what we are doing in Afganistan and Iraq right now. He made it clear that we were fighting an "away game" He liked to use Football analogies. He stated that we needed to fight this away game so we didnt have to fight anymore home games. He pointed to three little girls in the crowd and said "boys, this is why we are engaged in this current work, to make the world a better place for them. So they do not have to fear that thier childeren will be killed by terrorists like our childeren didnt fear death by terrorists" He made it a point to ask us to get this message out to all. He was there to award a unit of corpmen who had retruned from Iraq recently and had helped many civilians who had been wonded by terrorists. you see we do not choose to kill civilians. terroists do. We undoubtiby do on occation kill inocent people. It is the exception not the rule. But Terrorists do it every day and they are getting a free ride on this. Why are you and others failing to condem their acts? I know you dont support them. Is it your blind hatred for the current CIC that cuases this?

[jyl]

Can I ask a question that isn't directly related to this particular war, but might help define the issue without getting into personal back-and-forth. This question is to all the people who have posted here, no matter what "side" you're on:

Under what conditions do you think Americans should protest against an ongoing war? By "ongoing" I mean the war is already underway and American troops are in harms' way.

Remember, I'm not asking about the current war, the Vietnam war, or any specific war we've fought. Just in general, when should we protest a war, if ever?

[350HP930]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I'd be curious as to what you think is wrong with the military. I've been pondering that problem for years now, and have come up short on a definitive answer. Any insight you might have would be greatly appreciated. (Yes, I'm serious, that's not sarcastic.)

I think a very wise retired general and political leader answered this question very well several decades ago.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

Unfortunately recent events show the wisdom of these words and the fact that they have not been heeded.

[dd74]

Personally, I like Dr. King's way of protesting. I also like Ghandi's. Ceasar Chavez did well, but I don't think starving one's self is the optimum way of going about it.

When I was a kid in Westwood, CA. I actually saw a monk set himself on fire in front of the Federal Building. This was during the Vietnam conflict. I remember we were in the car, and just happened to pass by. My father, who was driving, buried the accelerator and we flew away down Wilshire Boulevard. The lesson learned, as horrific as it was, remains that this monk's sensationalism got him the papers, yes, but as a whacko. Did he sway the course of the war? No, I don't think so.

[CamB]

Yeah John - now that's a good question...

Further up:

1. Disposes of Saddam (actually minor)
2. Establishes a foothold in the middle east for the seed of democracy
3. By conducted our war on Arab soil, all the nut jobs come out of the wood work so we can but a bullet in their head, thus making the world a safer place.
4. We keep attacks out of the US
5. We keep the war out of the US
6. We beging to pull the carpet out from underneath OPEC decreasing their stranglehold on our economy.
7. WMD probably had nothing to do with it...

That pretty much sums up how the rest of the world is looking at the US and Iraq (if looking favourably and giving the benefit of the doubt).

And do you wonder why, on the basis of this list, there are so many people who are pissed off about the war? Promoting the USA above all others within your own borders is ok. Taking the battle to the world, with direct and indirect affects to other countries, is really really antagonistic.

[campbellcj]

I am 100% pro-1st Amendment and really don't give a rat's a$$ what anybody wants to protest or strike or demonstrate about.

UNLESS they impede me from going about my business or personal freedoms -- in which case I consider it a disruption of the peace as a minimum, and unlawful imprisonment in more extreme cases, such as the yokels who blocked traffic on PCH @ Topanga Cyn several times in early 2003. On those days it took me over 2 hrs to get home from work and there were no alternate routes as they had us "boxed in".

If another protestor denies my right to use public roads or facilities, and keeps me from reaching my family or other destination....I will run their effin' ass over...no matter what kind of sign they're waving.

The moral of this story is...if you're gonna demonstrate...STAY ON THE DAMN SIDEWALK.

Have a nice day y'all.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
Stone, If protesters in your town are ever throwing rocks at people in uniform, let me know and I will come to N.M. and kick some ass w/ you. My parents own a house there, so you don't even have to put me up.

There is a big difference between people "terrorising military families", (same offer as above applies), and peaceful protests by Mothers (and others). That is as American as Apple Pie.

If they want to stay on the sidewalk out of the way and hold signs saying things like "stop the war"....I have no problem with them. They are actually good for a laugh as they are usually the strangest collections of losers I have ever seen. If they wave signs calling soldiers "murderers," I personally think that is a bit too far. after all, we have families too...but certainly within their rights. If they run up to my car and block it while screaming obscenities at my children and scare them... I will make them wish they were in that prison in Iraq wearing that dog collar.

When in uniform, I have been spit on many times and have been hit with rotten apples, eggs, and once with a thrown brick. I have been physically assaulted several times in uniform and my car has been keyed twice and had paint remover dumped on the hood. Protesters harass my daughter on campus.
Now that I don't wear a uniform, the next person that spits on me or my family will be spitting teeth.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by speeder
I know that there are more intelligent people in uniform who understand that they did not "give me this right", I had it before they were born, and see the irony of this type of jingoistic stupidity.

Denis,

The reason you and I had this right "before they were born" is largely due to our predecessors having fought for it. But you're right, none of "us" have given you your freedom, we've just underwritten it's guarantee.

Randy

[speeder]

Randy, True, but I could say that my Dad gave the first poster his right to be a Republican and we're Democrats, you see the futility of this argument? It needs a rest, IMO. We are all Americans, unfortunately the country is split down the middle like it hasn't been since Viet Nam, (thank's to "the great uniter"), and people's right to peacefully protest is something that I will fight anyone over at any time, including verbally if someone makes a remark about it. I know that I shouldn't, I can't help myself.

I may be a peacenik, but I'm no pacifist.

I know for a fact that there are soldiers and politicians who are not threatened or even bothered in the least by people waving signs, especially a bunch of middle-aged mothers, whether they are protesting abortion or a war. It's part of the deal here, and it's a damn good deal.

[joeclarke]

unfortunately the country is split down the middle like it hasn't been since Viet Nam

This, I believe is the real root of the problem. Not the split itself, but the fact that the split is actuated along party lines. I know some of you may find this hard to believe but many, many Republicans are far, far too smart to really buy all that BS that Geo and the boys pitch about Iraq - but they feel duty bound to support the lads in Washington because they're Republicans. The only possible alternative (in their minds) is to support the Democrats - and that's just plain unspeakable.

I'm trying to set an example here - I don't support Iraqnam and this issue is too big to ignore - so I can't support GWB. But I ain't no Democrat. I believe that there are a million iterations of me in America that just need to be prodded "out of the closet". I have far too much faith in American brains and free thinking to believe otherwise.

[VenezianBlau 87]

Joe,

Sounds like a good thread in it's own right.

Bob