BS: We're not against the soldiers.

19 Jul 04 - 06:37 PM (#1229316)
Subject: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jim Dixon

Something in "Fahrenheit 9/11" struck a nerve. There is a scene where Lila Lipscomb – the woman whose son was killed in Iraq – is being questioned about the attitudes and beliefs she had before her son was killed. Michael Moore asks her, "What did you think of the war protesters?" She answers, "Oh, I HATED them…but then I found out they weren't against the soldiers; they were only against the government."

(I'm paraphrasing from memory here. I saw the film when it first came out. I would love to get the exact quote but I can't find it.)

This statement made me want to beat my head against the wall and scream, "WHY DIDN'T SHE KNOW THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

I think this question is of crucial importance, but I really don't know the answer. If we knew the answer, it might hold the key to getting people like Lila Lipscomb on our side BEFORE their sons are killed.

I would like to hear your thoughts (if they're not too cynical).

---

19 Jul 04 - 07:39 PM (#1229370)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Sorcha

My POV exactly. I do indeed support our troops, just not our policies.

---

19 Jul 04 - 07:47 PM (#1229375)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks

WHY DIDN'T SHE KNOW THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Perhaps, as here in Albuquerque, the protestors choose to demonstrate at a military base rather than at, for example, the Federal Building where the senators and congressmen have their offices or in front of Republican Party headquarters?

---

19 Jul 04 - 08:16 PM (#1229393)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Too many protestors in the '60s WERE against the soldiers. It poisoned the well -- people assume that they are against the soldiers and veterans. Some still are, it seems.

---

19 Jul 04 - 08:20 PM (#1229396)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos

I'm sorry -- she didn't know it because she was unwilling to look until her own personal tragedy forced her to,. The streets of San Francisco, just for one, were swarming with people holding posters that read "NOT IN MY NAME" and protesting the war. It would have taken perhaps ten seconds of her intelligent focus to see what the hell they meant.

My heart goes out to her, but if you want to know why she did not see what was there to be seen, you do not have to look far. She had no reason to reject her programming yet.

A

---

19 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM (#1229444)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

Just a clue:

Back in January of last year, I attended the massive demonstartion in Wsahington, D.C. against attacking Iraq. There were at least 300,000 people there. The Washingotn Post said tens of thousands. They gave as much press time to the 20 or so Bush people.

The demonstration in October 2001, the same, except this time the demonstartion didn't even make the front page but on page A-17 there it was and the same 20 Bush folks got as much press...

It's all about images and advertising and right now the hawks own the microphone, the nespapers, the television stations, ClaerChannel, the governemnt and everything else that is used to manipulate the masses.

Bobert

---

19 Jul 04 - 09:33 PM (#1229467)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

Rapaire,

I don't buy that people in Seattle yelled "baby killer" at a returning soldier. This is the same kind of propaganda that was used after Vietnam, when the story was spread that protesters were spitting at returning soldiers. As it turned out, no one was ever able to prove that that had happened. In folkloristic terms, the narrative always maintained "flight distance": when you tracked it to the supposed eyewitness it was always a friend of a friend of his who had seen it, and so on and so on. (Watch, now five people on Mudcat will claim they were really there).

In this case, whose word are we taking that someone yelled "baby killer" on July 4th 2004? Well, it looks like the word of a journalist with a Seattle newspaper. But look a little closer. The journalist does not claim to have witnessed this. Whom did he interview to get this story then?

Well, Jason's mother, for one.

Indeed, she seems to be the source of the story in the community. "I believe Jason's mom that someone called her son a murderer," the Chamber of Commerce chairman says. What does this mean? He was unable to get independent verification that this had happened, despite the fact that he was investigating the situation. So he had to simply take her word for it. There were not a hundred eyewitnesses to this, it seems, just good ol' Jason's mom.

And who is Jason's mom? "A tireless activist behind the 'pro-troops' movement," whatever that means. For one thing, it certainly means that she supports the war!

I find it all too convenient. It looks to me like she's using this parade as a way to discredit war protesters, and this wouldn't be the first time. I'm just glad she didn't claim her son was spit on.

And this answers Jim's initial question. People think that war protesters are against our soldiers because the right wing echo chamber--FoxNews, MSNBC et al--is telling them so every day. After a while, it creeps into the more established news sources. Then, like "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" (which of course he never claimed), this goes from right-wing talking point to widespread unquestioned belief.

Nifty, huh?

---

19 Jul 04 - 10:40 PM (#1229516)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Billy the Bus

Serendipity! F9/11 premieres here in NZ tonight. This morning Lila Lipscomb was interviewed on our national witrless - an interesting lady. I guess after a life of 'patriotism' it took peronal tragedy to 'open her eyes'.

Back in the 60s I won a government sponsored lottery - the prize? A paid holiday In the Army. Our version of conscription for 20yr old males consisted of drawing 'lucky' birthdays by ballot. I quite enjoyed the training. BUT.. at the same time I was quite heavily involved in anti-Vietnam protest, especially a visit by LBJ to NZ too whip up supporrt for more troops. At one stage my unit was on 24-hour notice to go. I was set to go 'bush' insted.

During training we had a political pep-talk on Vietnam and the 'Domino Theory'. I was sitting up the back with senior NCO instructors who'd seen service in WWII, Korea and Malaya. Their sardonic comments about "This one's different" were interesting, to say the least. Iraq's 'even more different'.

Anyway... all the above, and what's gone on since, is why I moved here, as far as I can get from the madness in the rest of the world 25 years ago. Lila Lipscomb's viewpoint was indeed interesting to listen to...

Cheers - Sam - Stewart Island (NZ)

---

19 Jul 04 - 10:45 PM (#1229519)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

Any work fir a blues player there, Sam?

Though I love my home and my friends, I've fallen out of love with my country and maybe in the market fir a new one...

Bobert

---

19 Jul 04 - 10:51 PM (#1229525)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Billy the Bus

Plenty of work, Bobert, but not much pay - cheers - Sam

---

19 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM (#1229534)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

That's why they call it the blues...

Bobert

---

19 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM (#1229541)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Well....

I was, myself, called a "baby killer" -- to be precise, it was "baby murderer." This was followed by a spitting, on the sidewalk, not on me, and the person walking away. And I wasn't even in Vietnam; I was in Korea back in '69! I did nothing about it, just let it pass as it wasn't worth it and besides, he was drunk. But that's by the way, and nobody ever asked me about it.

There's this, I copied it in full because you have to register with Seattle's KING-5 news:

"Bainbridge Island mayor apologizes to veteran for parade incident

"09:02 AM PDT on Thursday, July 15, 2004

"Associated Press

"BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, Wash. - Mayor Darlene Kordonowy has apologized to an Iraq War veteran who says he was called a murderer when he marched in a July 4 parade here.

"Even if politically we are perceived as left-leaning, it does not mean that is how we treat people," Kordonowy told The Sun newspaper of Bremerton. "We are also very tolerant and respectful of different points of view."

"Bainbridge Island is located six miles west of Seattle.

"Jason Gilson, 23, of East Bremerton, said he was carrying a sign reading "Veterans for Bush," when a man and a woman approached him and called him a murderer.

"You don't need to be attacking individuals for their partisanship," said Gilson, who as a Marine corporal was wounded in Nasiriyah early in the Iraq conflict. He is now in the Ready Reserve. "I was very unimpressed with the way the people of Bainbridge Island were."

"According to one account, the incident started when a parade announcer asked Gilson what he was a veteran of. Gilson said it was asked in a derisive manner.

"Deborah Cheadle, one of the announcers, has sent him a letter saying her question was not intended to offend him.

"The incident drew national attention after the Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed a July 9 column about it."

And there was an editorial about it in the Bainbridge Review.

I think that it did happen, but if I had been involved I wouldn't have made a big deal of it. Then again, I'm not exactly a "Veteran For Bush" either.

---

19 Jul 04 - 11:38 PM (#1229555)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

Rapaire,

It's still not clear to me that it happened, because this is the same guy! Only he and his mother seem to have heard it. But the fact that he himself makes the claim this time does make it more likely.

---

19 Jul 04 - 11:40 PM (#1229558)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

Well, I ain't gonna get into this thing too far but as fir me and my 60's cohorts, we was like brothers to those who went to Nam. I ran a rock joint in Richmond and we sent a driver down to Fort Lee (30 miles south) to fetch our brothers in arms to come to out events. Also did draft counseling. I wouldn't have thought in a milllion yeras to say anything offensive to my Nam brothers...

Weren't no spittin', no calls o' "baby killers" 'er nuthin from out anti war group... Maybe we was more enlightened in Richmond, Va. but we knew who was sending our friends and brothers to Nam.

Now I'm sure this sort of stuff happened but, as much as I love my brother Rap, I'd say that alot of the spiters were governemnt plants who were trying to divide us... We had folks on our campus who was plants. They said all kinds of stupid stuff and tried to incite us. Firget it. Martin Luther King didn't teach us to take out our frustrations for crappy policies on our brothers and guys we grew up playing ball with...

Now, Rap, I apologize to you from the majority of those of us of the anti-war movement for the redneck assholes that called you names. They do not represent the majority of us and at the time were nuthin' but the jerks that most of us tried to distance ourselves from. And I know I am speaking for the vast majority of those of us who were against the Vietnam War.

And those jerks were loosers then and if you were to follow those types of folks you'd find that they are still loosers...

Bobert

---

20 Jul 04 - 12:12 AM (#1229563)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

Amen, Bobert!

---

20 Jul 04 - 04:03 AM (#1229642)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Joe Offer

I've been opposed to the war in Iraq since the idea of it first hit the news. A number of times, people have chided me for "not supporting our troops." They see very clearly that those who oppose the war are detrimental to our soldiers in numerous ways - it hurts morale on "our side" and gives hope to our opponents. They say that since I don't support my country's war effort, I don't love my country. Oh, and they also accuse me of "disrespecting the President."

I suppose this is logic that has been used in every war since Cain slew Abel - and I suppose I have to say there's an element of truth in that logic. If "supporting our troops" means helping them win an unjust war, then I guess I don't support them. If "love of country" means that I mustn't criticize our leaders when they are unjust, then I guess I don't love my country. I can't say I agree with that logic, but I guess I have to admit that it makes sense on the surface.

So, what's a good way to refute that sort of logic in words a talk-show audience can understand? I have to say that in the area where I live, I'm afraid to put an anti-war bumper sticker on my car. Those who support the war are very angry at us who do not - and I like my pretty red car. I didn't mind getting fingers flipped at me when I marched for peace - but I don't want my car vandalized.

-Joe Offer-

---

20 Jul 04 - 04:59 AM (#1229671)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Ellenpoly

Ok, I admit it. I'm against soldiers. ANY soldiers, anywhere.

Being a pacifist I guess means I'm unpatriotic. And, oh yes...by the way, I AM unpatriotic.

To me, soldiers are for fighting and patriotism is for dividing.

I'll go back into my cave now.

..xx..e

---

20 Jul 04 - 09:40 AM (#1229784)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: JennyO

I personally am one of the many who are against the war but not the soldiers. However I can understand that there could be a perception from some that we are against the soldiers too.

What sprang to my mind straight away when I read this thread was the song "Universal Soldier" and the lines "He's the universal soldier and he really is to blame..." There is this thinking from some that the soldiers themselves should refuse to take up arms and that if they don't, they are to blame too - which is very fine in theory but easier said than done. So I can understand how some parents of soldiers might be sensitive on this issue.

Jenny

---

20 Jul 04 - 09:49 AM (#1229788)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Bobert, the guy was drunk, and I knew him from before my NG unit was activated. He was a jerk than and he continued to be a jerk. He's also dead, killed by his alcohol addiction; fortunately he left no spouse or progeny or much of anything else, actually.

I sat in the SEATAC airport with other veterans, when I was coming back from Korea, with Woodstock returnees across the aisle. We stared at each other, and I thought that except for a roll of the dice our places could have been exchanged and no one would know the difference.

After I returned I helped two guys obtain CO status.

Ellen, soldiers are people. I never met anyone in the Infantry who was both sane and in favor of war and killing -- in fact, those who'd "been there" were the most agin it. (I don't count the very few psychos, and the military CERTAINLY doesn't want them; when found, they provide psychiatric treatment and a discharge, and often followup psychiatric treatments as well. Such people don't follow orders well, among other very cogent reasons.)

I said elsewhere that I'd shipped off 21 boxes (12 x 12 x 18 inches) of paperbacks with the 1/148 Field Artillery. These are local people, neighbors and relatives and friends and the books were collected for them from donations from the community. Before anyone screams, yes, about four books were removed -- these were self-declaimed pornography and perusing the contents two of us thought so, too. Titles included "Revolution for the hell of it", "Book of Mormon", a BUNCH of science fiction, Tom Clancy, various bodice-rippers, a good selection of mysteries, word-search puzzles, poetry, "100 years of solitude" (in both Spanish and English) -- the sort of thing you might find in your own home. Support the troops, not the war seems to be the watchword around here and I can agree with it.

---

20 Jul 04 - 12:24 PM (#1229921)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Ellenpoly

Rapaire, of course soldiers are people. That's what I worry about. They are individuals who have signed an agreement to follow orders, which if they disagree with, they can be either put into prision, or in time of war, shot.

Being in the military means one gives up one's right to being an individual in ways I find difficult to understand, much less agree with.

I know there have been times that individuals have had to band together and fight some great insanities perpetrated by other bands of individuals...but it all is so damned depressing to me.

Okay, back to my cave again...xx..e

---

20 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM (#1229964)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Ellen, in any situation it takes true courage to go against the mass of people. At US military, at least, you are instructed, as an enlisted man or woman, that it is illegal for you to follow illegal orders and that you should refuse to obey such and report the orders to higher authority.

Now, this carries with it the unspoken charge that you must a) be correct and b) are willing to accept the consequences of your action. Nobody likes a fink, and that is an attitude in every sector of life, not just the military. But consider that both Abu Graibh and My Lai were both originally reported by enlisted personnel and then think of the courage that took.

In the history of the US Army, there have been other (and much older, dating back to the 19th Century) times when enlisted personnel refused to obey wrongful orders. (I don't have my books here at work, but I can cite the situations after I get home if you'd like.)

    I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
    The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
    The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
    I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

    I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
    They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
    They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
    But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the                                     stalls!
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

    Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
    Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
    An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
    Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

    We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
    But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
    An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
    Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

    You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
    We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
    Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
    The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
(lyrics also posted here - click)
It's always been a puzzle to me why people assume that everyone in the military share the same views as their leaders. I suspect it's because the leaders get the headlines and the grunts take the bullets and die, their own opinions about it unheard.

---

20 Jul 04 - 02:49 PM (#1230035)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: DougR

I guess it might be conceivable that you "aginers" represent a minority point of view.

DougR

---

20 Jul 04 - 02:58 PM (#1230043)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Larry K

The left seems to repeat the same mantra "we are for the soldiers but against the war" or "we are for the soldiers but disagree with the current administration".   The problem is that terrorist organizations have quoted Ted Kennedy and used the Michael Moore movie as recruiting films.   If these speeches and rallys cause terrorists to think the USA is divided and weak, it helps them recruit more terrorists.   This leads to more US lives being killed. (either soldiers or civilians- remember there were 8 terrorist attacks on the USA before 9/11 and before we invaded Iraq)

e-mails published from soldiers in Iraq and interviews with solders returning from Iraq state that the solders think this mantra is horse manure.   They don't believe it for one second.

Everyone has the right to protest the war.   Protesting alone does not make you a patriot or a traitor.   It is your belief in the USA.   Juding from the signs and language in these protests I think the majority of protestors are far closer to traitors than they are to patriots.

---

20 Jul 04 - 03:09 PM (#1230051)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

Doug, sometimes minorities are right. And in any case they *have* rights.

On the other hand, the people who voted for Bush were a minority...

clint

---

20 Jul 04 - 03:26 PM (#1230071)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Larry K., your points are well made. But remember that troops overseas don't get the whole message: we didn't during the Vietnam-time and they don't now. I know, personally, more than a few 'Nam vets who were going to "kill some of those hippie protesters" when they got home; they ended up joining them.

War is a glass globe, isolating you from what is going on at home, a glass that only allows certain views through it. Also, you must remember that when you are in a life-threatening situation ANYTHING that you perceive as undermining your position is also a threat. For example, in 1969 an EC-121 was shot down by North Korea and we stationed in South Korea went to a DEFCON 2 status. I sat in on a meeting where the Divisonal readiness was discussed, and it was found that we had about 1/3 the basic load of mines we were supposed to have TO&E -- the rest had been shipped to the troops in Vietnam. The troops in VN were cussed and railed about because equipment that we might need had been taken from us in Korea and sent to VN. We didn't hate the troops in 'Nam (some, like myself, had brothers there), but their needs now threatened us.

Lincoln to Herndon, February 1, 1848:

"I have always intended, and still intend, to vote supplies; perhaps not in the precise form recommended by the President, but in a better form for all purposes, except Locofoco party purposes. It is in this particular you seem mistaken. The Locos are untiring in their efforts to make the impression that all who vote supplies or take part in the war do of necessity approve the President's conduct in the beginning of it; but the Whigs have from the beginning made and kept the distinction between the two. In the very first act nearly all the Whigs voted against the preamble declaring that war existed by the act of Mexico; and yet nearly all of them voted for the supplies. As to the Whig men who have participated in the war, so far as they have spoken in my hearing they do not hesitate to denounce as unjust the President's conduct in the beginning of the war."

I, too, would vote whatever supplies were needed. Support of the troops is not necessarily support of the President's policies.

---

20 Jul 04 - 03:49 PM (#1230097)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

And, Larry K, the terrorists are sure to be using films of nude Iraqi prisoners and Bush saying "Bring it on" in their recruiting films alot more than anything Michael More or Ted Kennedy have to say... If you know anything about marketing, you know that is true... And I wouldn't assume that depicting the US as "divided and weak" does even half as much as the Bush foriegn policy has done in recruitments...

These are flawed arguments that have been recycled by the neo-con PR machine to continue to turn groups against each other which is the centerpiece of their control over evryone and every issue. I don't buy it but, given other things you have said here at Mudcat, you were one of their easier sells...

Bobert

---

20 Jul 04 - 10:38 PM (#1230379)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

LarryK's point is NOT well made.

"If these speeches and rallys cause terrorists to think the USA is divided and weak," in his words, then it is only because George Bush's speeches and rallies disagree with them. How can you blame one group and not the other? It takes two to quarrel, as they say.

First of all, if America looks divided it's because we ARE divided, not because Kennedy and Moore did anything. Bush has been the great divider, and has no one but himself to blame that he is running neck in neck with a guy few people had heard of a year ago.

Second, I don't think you have any evidence that the Michael Moore movie is used a recruiting film by terrorists, do you? Thought you could just slip that on by, didn'tcha?

---

21 Jul 04 - 04:03 AM (#1230497)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Ellenpoly

Rapaire, thank you for your observations, and the song, which I had never read before.

This is something I really can't argue with you. There is a basic difference in our philosophies which can not be changed here, nor need we.

My views are only based on a wish-that one day there will be no need for a military because humanity has stopped being aggressive.

But this, most sadly, isn't going to happen. It's too embedded in our DNA.

Thanks again for your posts... they are always thoughtful and interesting.

..xx..e (settling into her cave for the long haul.)

---

21 Jul 04 - 12:25 PM (#1230744)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jim Dixon

Bobert: You say "I'm sure this sort of stuff happened…." Well, I'm not sure it happened. (I'm not sure it didn't, either. As they say, it's impossible to prove a negative.)

See the thread BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon? (Not you, Bobert; I know you're aware of the thread because you posted to it, and I thank you for that, but others might not be aware of it.) Suffice it to say I feel certain that IF it ever happened, the stories of it happening were greatly exaggerated.

We have to be prepared for ridiculous, slanderous accusations being made against antiwar protesters, and for some naïve people to believe them, and repeat them. One thing we can do is challenge them.

Larry K: Can you cite any source for your allegation that "terrorist organizations have quoted Ted Kennedy and used the Michael Moore movie as recruiting films"?

---

21 Jul 04 - 08:31 PM (#1230987)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mg

it happened.

mg

---

22 Jul 04 - 12:28 AM (#1231124)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

Hey, Bobert lost his Wes Ginny dialect in that post. He must be REALLY committed to this issue!

---

22 Jul 04 - 05:22 AM (#1231210)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Boab

Rapaire---Larry K's posting was utter bollox......

---

22 Jul 04 - 05:41 AM (#1231222)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Hrothgar

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

---

23 Jul 04 - 05:13 AM (#1232016)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: harvey andrews

It is your belief in the USA.   

Which USA Larry K?
Who's?

---

24 Jul 04 - 02:29 AM (#1232666)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,NH Dave

I can say from personal experience that wearing a uniform wasn't popular during or even for some time after Viet Nam. But, having said that, I don't believe most of the protesters really knew whT they were protesting about.

I had a lady friend who gets all wound up about The School of the Americas, an international military school for what I suspect are the elite of the South and Central American states. Initially formed in Panama, it transferred up to Ft. Benning in Georgia when we relinquished our contol over Panama. Since all of the military dictators of this region have attended this school, she assumes that torture and killing is all that is taught there, and many demonstrators believing the same have been arrested for trespassing at Ft. Benning.

When is was briefly in Panama, I had the opportunity to visit the school, and I had a good friend who was transfered into the same base as I, from the school. For these reasons as well as my belief in our military system, I don't believe this school was set up solely to teach torture and murder. I do feel that many of the graduates improvised on what they had been taught to insure their rise in power, more because they were inherently evil than from whatever they learned there.

Some of the things I know were taught there were the things any serviceman needs to know about living and working effectively in the field, and fighting a war under those conditions. This runs the gamut from learning how to march - marching being one of the easier ways of moving a group of people between two points, in good order - to methods of constructing a field expedient privy - sanitation is very important in the field to maintain readiness. It's tough to try to perform ones duties while racked with dysentary, cholera, or malaria.

My friend was an electronics instructor, and since he had the same work experience as me, more than likely taught the theory and repair od the equipment that the US gave their air forces and army. Can these radios be used for torture? Sure they can, but the air hose you use to fill up your tires is just as effective and far cheaper. Small rods of the sort used to clean rifles can double for middle eastern interrogation/torture devices, but it is the person weilding the equipment and not his training that turns his equipment to these uses.

The army certainly didn't teach the guards at Al Graib prison to torture their prisoners, even as a method of making them more amenable to interrogation. Those folks did this mostly on their own, with perhaps some suggestions from their civilian interrogators - can you say CIA? Mind you the means used on those prisoners was far less severe than those used bu the Hussein regime.

Dave

---

24 Jul 04 - 03:50 AM (#1232680)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

I had served my time in the Army before the Vietnam war, and I sure as hell knew what I was protesting.

And I don't think that the people who protest at The School of the Americas think that "this school was set up solely to teach torture and murder." I've never heard that said anyway. But even if if you leave out "solely" it's still wrong to teach torture and murder.

I did hear in a TV documentary that none of the graduates of The School of the Americas who achieved power in their country was elected democratically.

Again, I don't see that it matters much if it was the CIA or the brass that taught the Abu Graib guards their tricks; the fact is that what they did was either encouraged or permitted by their superiors.

But all this is a sidetrack. I'm against torturers, soldiers or not, but I'm NOT against soldiers who are following legal orders, even if the orders are given by damn fools. And I am against the damn fools that give the damn fool orders.

clint

---

24 Jul 04 - 08:27 AM (#1232732)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

Beat me to it, clint, on the "sorely teach toture" aspect of the School of the Americas...

I'd love 60 Minutes to do a story on it but the folks who run it don't want no one sniffin' 'round. And, as NH Dave has alluded to, fir very good reasons...

Bobert

---

24 Jul 04 - 11:17 AM (#1232788)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd

You guys BOTH beat me to it. It's the first time I've heard a defense of School of the Americas that read, well, sure it teaches torture and murder, but it also teaches proper hygiene! Goes right along with his defense of American soldiers in the last sentence: "Not quite as brutal as Saddam Hussein!"

It's simply not been proven that the folks at Abu Ghraib did it "mostly on their own." That's a Republican talking point that is trying desperately to become an unchallenged belief among Americans. But the techniques they were using were too consistent with a widely known system called RTI (Resistance to Interrogation) for this to be credible. Someone above them in the hierarchy told them what to do (and from what I've heard, NHDave is right and it was a civilian operation, not even CIA but "contractors" aka mercenaries).

I also notice your statement that

Small rods of the sort used to clean rifles can double for middle eastern interrogation/torture devices, but it is the person weilding the equipment and not his training that turns his equipment to these uses.

Can they not also double for American or European interrogation/torture devices? Is it just me or did this seem racist: "this can be used for middle eastern torture, but it's the [middle eastern] people who are evil...

Okay NHDave, I know you didn't mean that. But I DO think a few prejudices show through that wording.

Also, a person CAN be trained to do this. It seems odd for you to to say "it's not his training that does it." Are you saying that it's okay to TRAIN people as torturers because in the end, you can still blame the person and not the training? That's walking a mighty fine line!

---

24 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM (#1232794)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Blackcatter

I'm against the soldiers who are in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are taking part in an illegal and immoral action and should be tried for war crimes along with their leaders and the President.

It is one thing to volunteer to serve our country in the military for defensive reasons. This is not what is happening and as far as I'm concerned anyone involved in this was deserves to be tried for war crimes since they haven't refused to obey illegal orders.

Until the average grunt or seaman refuses to follow such orders, there will be no peace in this world.

That being said, I hope they all come home soon safely, and that the government supported them and their families. Another thought - how many of you who support our troops have done anything to get them the pay they deserve so their families don't have to be on public assistance back here in the wonderful old U.S.A. I have written letters to the President and my congress people to push for better pay for our military.

---

25 Jul 04 - 02:57 AM (#1233255)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST

Ooh, I'm rubbing against one right now!

Oops, I forgot: Don't ask, don't tell!

---

25 Jul 04 - 03:02 AM (#1233258)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Blackcatter

HA!

---

17 Oct 04 - 03:39 PM (#1299185)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,we are not against the soldiers

we are not against the soldiers just against the Political schemes of the goverment that want war - bush {oil business} to save face with dad to get saddam - cheney - who has Military business whom is good friends with his dad bush sr ?

---

17 Oct 04 - 03:49 PM (#1299189)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST

If the US is still enlisting, I would be against any soldier who joins up whilst the US still has a presence in Iraq.

---

17 Oct 04 - 10:28 PM (#1299389)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan

Larry K. said, "speeches and rallys cause terrorists to think the USA is divided and weak, it helps them recruit more terrorists"

Wrong Larry K. - Killing innocent civilians, destroying infrastructure and ripping off resources helps them recruit more terrorists. Speeches and rallys send a message that there are people in America who think war is unnecessary.

I protested against the war in VietNam before, during and after my brother was in VietNam. I also wore a celtic knot braided around my wrist to remember him at all times. It didn't come off until he was returned to us safely.

War is not waged by soldiers. War is the result of inept politicians. The soldiers are members of our families. Nobody should die for the inability of politicians to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Wars are also caused by greed and ignorance. I hope protesting sends a message to the people of Iraq that I do not agree with the killing of innocent civilians.

As to torture - Who is to say what form of torture is worse or who's methods are worse. Toture is torture. I personally know someone who was one of Saddam's prisoners. Yes, it was hell sharing a tiny cell with another. Yes, it was hell to eat nothing but tomato soup and bread. Yes, although he hasn't told us about it yet, he was probably tortured. He was not, however, photographed in pornographic poses. That would probably have destroyed him. At least he is capable of having normal, healthy relationships with others. Shame is not a part of him.

d

---

18 Oct 04 - 12:41 PM (#1299794)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST

Doesn't anyone else here see a major league disconnect when opposing the war, but professing to support those who actually do the killing? Yeah, I felt that way in WWII. I supported the Gestapo and the SS, it was just Hitler and the German govenment I was against. It's the same thing (except it's our kids) and it makes no sense. After all, these aren't unwilling draftees like in Viet Nam. Were these kids so stupid when they enlisted that they thought this sort of thing (war) would never happen? or that maybe they could pick and choose which wars to fight?

Quit deceiving yourselves. If this war is immoral and illegal, then the resultant war criminals aren't just in Washington (or were the poor darlings "just following orders"-like the guards at Buchenwald and Dachau?).

---

18 Oct 04 - 04:25 PM (#1299973)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee

Must be nice to live in your world, GUEST...oh, yeah, how are W and Tom and Johnny-boy?

---

18 Oct 04 - 04:48 PM (#1300009)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST

In other words, you have no intelligent response.

---

18 Oct 04 - 09:54 PM (#1300241)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mack/misophist

The US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not G W Bush's Army. It's my Army. He only has the temporary use of it. Before he dies, bush will understand that he, not terrorism, was the greatest threat to it.

---

18 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM (#1300269)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan

Guest -

I would imagine, like so many Americans (including Kerry) they, at one time believed the president to be 'in the know'. Many of them probably thought they were going in to fight for a good cause. You know; protecting the people of the U.S. from terrorism, bringing democracy to the poor and oppressed, ridding the world of WMD'S, etc. How did they know that it was all lies?

Now they have to suffer with poor eqipment, shitty pay and a Commander in Chief that makes decisions based on his 'gut feeling'. I guess the 'vibes' from Iraq just aren't reaching through the walls of the oval office.

d

---

19 Oct 04 - 01:42 AM (#1300366)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: DougR

Balderdash! How could you profess to support the troops, if you don't support their mission? That makes no sense at all, unless you just want to go on record as liking everybody.

DougR

---

19 Oct 04 - 02:06 AM (#1300376)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan

I love my brother so I will support his decision to do what is right according to his own conscience.

Unfortunately, as we all know, young men often make rash decisions.

d

---

19 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM (#1300802)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

"Balderdash! How could you profess to support the troops, if you don't support their mission?"

Think of it this way: I do not think young people should die for GWB's mistakes.

Or say I think it irresponsible of Bush to send his troops into battle ill-equipped. I have seen photos of troops in the desert wearing "woodland" camouflage. And that's minor irresponsibility.

Or a historical analogy: Look up the "Charge of the Light Brigade" in the Crimean War. The soldiers were brave, and doing their duty; the commanders should have been jailed for life. At least.

I don't see how you could have supported that mission, no matter how much you supported the troops. Especially if you supported the troops.

clint

---

19 Oct 04 - 02:26 PM (#1300834)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos

The individual troops did not decide to begin this war, did not make the critical strategic errors which turned a diplomatic problem into a maelstrom of hard tactical flak. They are the ones who have to carry out the tactics OR face charges of cowardice and imprisonment as a result. Culturally, the latter is unacceptable to most of them. And for most of them, they trusted that certain moral guidelines were at work at the strategic and diplomatic levels when they "jined up" to provide tactical manpower.

If these distinctions escape you then you are not going to add anything discriminating tot he discussion,I guess. THere's a big difference between being ordered into battle   under extreme pressure, and foisting that same fate on others to face flying lead while one stays safe in the halls of power thousands of miles away. Vive la difference.

A

---

19 Oct 04 - 02:43 PM (#1300846)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: DougR

There is not a single solitary soldier or marine in Iraq who did not voluntarily join his/her branch of service. Anyone who has been in the service knows that you may be called on to go to war. Those who joined the service for the benefits may have been surprised to learn that simply being a member of the military wouldn't hack it. You may be called on to fight.

The congress of the United States authorized the president to go to war if he deemed it necessary. Based on the information available, not only to him but other world leaders, Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out that he did not. However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.

The world is full of Monday morning quarterbacks, and certainly the Mudcat is populated with it's fair share.

I repeat what I have said time and again here on the "Cat". If Kerry is elected, it will be a disaster for the war on terror. There will be now war. Kerry will treat it as a police action and that won't get the job done.

Those of you who profess to support the soldiers do not consider how demoralizing it must be to the troops, you say you support, to read and hear about protestors, like yourselves, who question the mission they are assigned.

Better that the battles be fought and won in Iraq than on the streets of New York.

Now, Amos, if you don't understand THAT, I doubt YOU can contribute much to this discussion.

And Jim, do you remember how troops returning from Vietnam were treated when they returnted home by the same kind of protestors that are marching against the war on terror? Perhaps you weren't old enough, but many of those returning soldiers, sailors and marines would be hard pressed to buy the statement from such people that "we're not against the soldiers."

DougR

---

19 Oct 04 - 03:00 PM (#1300869)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks

DougR, I was one of those returning soldiers from Vietnam, and I was treated that way. The fact that neither I nor anyone I served with knew about or was involved in any of the alleged atrocities had nothing at all to do with the fact that there was not, and never had been, any reason for us to be fighting a war in Vietnam.

It is equally true that the fact that American soldiers are now doing a difficult job in Iraq, as well and as honorably (except for an extremely small number of people) as they can, does not mean that we have any more business there than we had in Vietnam. It took over ten years and over 50,000 dead soldiers (without counting the number of dead Vietnamese, mostly killed by their own people) to realize we had made a mistake in the first place and to get out. By the time we did so, the US military had lost much of its sense of honor. I know...I was part of the US military at the time.

You say that we shouldn't question the mission they are assigned? We certainly should, and as often and as sincerely as we can, while assuring to the best of our ability that our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters know that they are not the ones being questioned.

---

19 Oct 04 - 03:00 PM (#1300870)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos

Based on the information available, not only to him but other world leaders, Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out that he did not. However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.


Monday morning, hell, Doug. There were numerous outcries all across the country saying that the rush to war was ill-informed. Don't try to cover that crap up by scraping dirt over it -- the administrative was fully, loudly, and unwaveringly informed that the information on which it was operating was riddled with flaws. People all over thew country said so at the time, all through the ramp-up against Iraq. Hell, his own advisors told him, when they could.

On this forum I said it over and over. I was not the only one saying so, either. It was a crappy analysis seeking to fulfill a pre-ordained dogfmatic decision.

If you believed the mythology Bush and Co were pumping up your possum-hole, that is your problem for being a robotic believer instead of an analyst.

A

---

19 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM (#1300922)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jeri

Why Lala Lipscomb hated the protestors, and thought at first they were against the soldiers: likely because right wing pro-war people spun it that way. That's what they said then and that's what they're still saying. Read DougR's post.

I think we did something afer Viet Nam that, for a society, is extremely rare: we listened to people (veterans) and actually learned something.

I'm against the war, but I'm not against folks in the military. I'm for them. These people put their trust in their leaders to not get them killed for a bad reason. We all should be able to trust our leaders, but soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the ones who can get killed if that trust is misplaced.

There is a perception that members of the military are all as hawkish as Bush & Co. It's simply not true. There are Republicans, Democrats, and independants. Some would have thought the war was right and still do. Some would have changed their minds. Some of those who went would have thought it was wrong from the outset and either gone anyway or been court martialed. Most who are still alive and still in Iraq likely believe there are things happening now that should be being done better.

People in the military aren't any more fond of viewpoints disagreeing with theirs than civilians are. It is definitely NOT demoralizing though, to know that the voting public cares about what happens to them and doesn't want them to get killed for a stupid reason. A person in the military will likely tell you he may disagree with a person's viewpoint, but will defend to his death your right to express it. There is occasional truth heard in the harmonics of voices on all sides of an issue shout at one another.

---

19 Oct 04 - 07:22 PM (#1301131)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

•And Jim, do you remember how troops returning from Vietnam were treated when they returnted home by the same kind of protestors that are marching against the war on terror? Perhaps you weren't old enough, but many of those returning soldiers, sailors and marines would be hard pressed to buy the statement from such people that "we're not against the soldiers."•

So, when I say "I'm not against the soldiers" you call me a liar? And are you saying I demeaned the soldiers who fought in Vietnam? Get the mush out of your mouth and let's hear what you mean.

clint

---

19 Oct 04 - 07:39 PM (#1301140)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

Whoo. lost my temper.

It's just that I tried to explain how one can be for the soldiers and against the war, and DougR comes up with a statement about how "such people" behaved to Vietnam veterans.

Which has nothing at all to do with the people on this thread who are anti-Bush but pro-soldier.

But even though I've calmed down some, I'd still like to hear if he's calling me -- and most of the others on this thread -- a liar.

clint

---

19 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM (#1301150)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,guest from NW

"I think we did something afer Viet Nam that, for a society, is extremely rare: we listened to people (veterans)
and actually learned something."

the only thing the government learned from vietnam is to get rid of the draft. an all-volunteer force makes it much easier to undertake military adventures without people of all economic classes paying attention. easy, you sell the poor kids on college money, job training, etc., send them off on your oil wars, tell'em "hey, you signed the paper, you knew you might have to fight" and bingo! there's your cannon fodder. no one raises a fuss cuz the people with no kids in the service are too busy to notice. it's funny, tho, if it's their kid on the line they pay a lot more attention. hence, no draft, poor classes in the military, everybody else into your SUVs and PARTAY!

now, however, with the massive screwups running this particular military escapade putting us in a position where 40 per cent of the troops in iraq are army reserves and national guard they won't be able to continue this BS without more troops. wonder where they'll get them?

---

19 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM (#1301181)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos

And just so the mealy-mouthing doesn't harp n the point again the reason the congress gave power tot he President was because they were handed false information which militated for pre-emptive warfare due to real and present danger.

Later it was neither present nor real.

So don't hand me that, Doug. It was power received under false pretenses.

A

---

19 Oct 04 - 08:40 PM (#1301184)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan

DougR - However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.

Doug, you can believe whatever you want to believe but what about all those other leaders that could or should be under suspicion. Wanna go after them too?

...and what about Bush? What if I suspect that he might sell or trade or use WMD's? Does that mean he should not be left in power?

d

---

19 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM (#1301242)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jeri

It's a requirement for all services that enlistees have a high school diploma or GED, that they have no criminal record, that they get a certain score on the ASFAB, which is a test given during the recruiting process. Want to get more people? Lower the requirements. My guess is there are sufficient numbers of fathers, mothers and single folks with very low income who'll jump at the opportunity. The probablity of dying may not be enough to deter people who are looking for a chance to provide food, a decent place to live, and receive free medical and dental care for themselves and their families.

All of the services have been greatly down-sized within recent years. Bases have been closed and numbers of people recruited have intentionally reduced. People already in have been given 'early outs' and other people that would have sailed through in years past were discharged for failing to pass tests on job training and not-all-that-serious Uniform Code of Military Justice infractions. I don't think we're going to see anyone pushing for a draft just yet.

As to Viet Nam and learning, governments don't ever learn anything unless it's about acquiring and maintaining power. Individuals who vote DO learn, though. I think a lot of us who heard veterans speak about their experiences with hate-filled lovers of peace really thought about the damage those angry with government's decisions can do to individuals who had no more say in those decisions that they did. I think some people were angry and other people were ashamed. I think maybe we, as a society, learned a little bit about not using human beings as targets for the anger and frustration we have with our government.

---

20 Oct 04 - 01:44 AM (#1301377)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan

No, due to the economy, it won't be that hard to find soldiers. Whenever there is high unemployment, war is an excellent way to get the young people off the streets before they start causing trouble. When push comes to shove it is often a means of putting the groceries on the table for your family. Why be an unemployed bum, hanging around the house or living on the streets when you get 3 squares a day and a bed? Better than welfare.

...and after all, isn't it your patriotic duty?

d

---

20 Oct 04 - 02:06 AM (#1301389)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Boab

"--based on --information,Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out he was not-----"
   I'd guess, Doug R., that some of your old posts could come back to haunt you. Know what Bushie calls that? --"flip-flop"!

---

29 Oct 04 - 11:13 AM (#1310560)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy

I protested this war vehemently, and was roundly insulted and called unpatriotic and unamerican - by folks who, to my mind, didn't understand just how American it is to be able to protest against your government.

However, I do not support the troops. It would be different if there were still a draft, but there isn't; all those soldiers volunteered to be exactly what they are, which is not war criminals, it is soldiers, whose main (only?) purpose is to kill and/or die.

---

29 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM (#1310588)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: saulgoldie

"He's the Universal Soldier, and he really is to blame..."

Buffy St. Marie

---

29 Oct 04 - 11:47 AM (#1310600)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: saulgoldie

Oops! Shoulda read the whole thread to see that JennyO already mentioned that.

True, economic times are tough (and getting tougher all the time) for those who are not white and landed. But we all STILL make choices. And we are responsible for those choices. This "responsibility" thing is a well-known Republican theme. They just don't like it when it refers to things they think are good.

---

29 Oct 04 - 12:03 PM (#1310623)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: CarolC

Military Families Speak Out

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Veterans for Common Sense

Operation Truth

---

29 Oct 04 - 12:42 PM (#1310663)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mg

No their main purpose is not to kill or die. How callous to have said that. That can be a side effect. Their main purpose is to defend and protect. That can mean they kill and it can mean they die. It does not mean it is their main purpose. mg

---

29 Oct 04 - 01:19 PM (#1310693)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy

It's not callous - it's the truth. Even Patton knew that - "No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country. He won by making the other poor bastard die for HIS country." How are they to defend - by writing writs and getting restraining orders? No, by killing. Otherwise they'd be lawyers. How are they to protect me from attack - if not by putting their bodies between me and the attacker? They sure aren't going to do it by writing notes in this Forum.

---

29 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM (#1310765)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mg

Wrong answer. Wars have been prevented by people standing strong and not blinking. Cold war did of course have deaths but could have been a whole lot more. Lots and lots and lots of soldiers, and other military of course, did not kill and did not die. It is the cost of peace and a high cost it is, to be stronger than then enemy and be prepared to do what it takes, which can, but hopefully does not, and does not necessarily come to, try diagramming this sentence, killing and dying. Eternal vigilance. mg

---

29 Oct 04 - 02:50 PM (#1310783)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

I am not against soldiers.

I am a pacifist but I respect the conscience of the young men and women who decided that they would serve their country for their convictions. I won't do what they did but I made the decision not to because I am a conscientious objector. Fortunately, I live in a country that respects conscientious objection and it is legal.

I respect John Kerry for his convictions regardless of whether I would do what he did. I worked in a hospital for two years.

Soldiers are human beings. They must be respected for their convictions as I must for mine. As a protester, I believe in the right of people to disagree and will only protest peacefully and non-violently.

Frank Hamilton

---

29 Oct 04 - 02:54 PM (#1310787)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Apollo

"Rendell Flip Came After Exposure of Jailhouse Vote Drive

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's decision Friday morning to seek an extension for absentee ballots returned by soldiers serving overseas came less than 24 hours after Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., accused him of mounting an absentee ballot vote drive for his state's prison population while disenfranchising the military.

"I've been in office twenty-three years and I've never had any governor send a nine-page document to our prison wardens across the state, telling them that they had to post a document in every cell block to allow our prisoners to vote by absentee ballot," Weldon told ABC radio host Sean Hannity on Thursday.

Story Continues Below

"I'm friends with Ed Rendell, too," an angry Weldon continued. "But I've go to call a pig a pig. I've got to call something the way it is. To me it's purely partisan. This is about Pennsylvania being a very close state."

Asked point blank if he though Rendell was trying to "disenfranchise" military voters in his state, Weldon told Hannity: "That's exactly what he's doing. I have soldiers e-mailing me from overseas ... Marines coming up to me saying, 'I have friends who haven't got their absentee ballot.'"

Asked how many prisoners would take advantage of Gov. Rendell's absentee ballot outreach, Weldon said, "I have no idea."

Surveys show that two-thirds of active-duty military back President Bush, while the same proportion of the prison population supports John Kerry.

In announcing his decision to seek an extension for military voters, Rendell said Friday, "I've decided that one military or civilian overseas [voter] not getting a ballot in time is too much."

Rendell served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/29/104857.shtml

---

29 Oct 04 - 04:10 PM (#1310865)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy

The fact that not everybody serves their purpose does not change what their purpose is... that's like saying Women aren't the ones supposed to bear the children because so many women are childless. Doesn't change the purpose one little bit, Barney.

---

29 Oct 04 - 05:01 PM (#1310911)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks

I was a soldier for 23 years. I was never told that my main (only?) purpose (was) to kill and/or die; this was not part of our training, and none of the other soldiers I served with would have been there in the first place if we thought it was. Patton, of course, was an abbherent individual, with an excellent grasp of the principles of tactics but not whatsoever of human relations. If you seriously believe that this is the purpose of the military, than I'm very sorry for you.

---

29 Oct 04 - 05:49 PM (#1310962)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert

Ahhhhhh, has anyone brought up the striking fact that if one looks down the list of prominent Dems that are vets and compares that list with their Repub, flag wavin' "support-the-troppers" one sees a pattern. Seems that the Repiubs PR team has done a fine job of casting them as the party that supports our troops. Problem is, they may support 'um butr they sure don't want to be 'um:

Dems who served:

Richard Gephardt
Davis Bonior
Tom Daschle
Al Gore
Bob Kerry
Daniel Inouye
John Kerry
Charles Rangel
Max Cleland
Ted Kennedy
Tom Harkin
Jacl Reed
Fritz Hollings
Leonard Boswell
Pete Peterson
Mike Thompson
Bill McBride
Gray Davis
Pete Stark
Chuck Robb
Howell Heflin
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Tom Lantos

Repubs who did *not* serve

Dick Cheney
Dennis Nassert
Tom DeLay
Roy Blunt
Bill Frist
Mitch McConnell
Trent Lott
John Ashcroft
Jeb Bush
Karl Rove
*Saxby Chambliss
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Newt Gungrich
Don Rumsfeld
**George W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Phil Gramm
JC Watts
Dan Quaylr
George Pataki
***Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rudy Giuliani
Spenser Abraham

*Responsible for linking combat disable veteran Max Cleland to terrorists...

**AWOL

***Awaol from Aurian army

Republican Apologists who did not serve:

Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael Savage
George Will
Chris Matthews
Pat Buchannon
Bill Kristol
Ken Starr
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Ted "2nd Ammenedment" Nugent

Hey, I'm still a Nadar Greenie but lets get real here about 'supporting the troops"... There are some difference between Dems and Repubs and this is probably one of them. Dems serve but, fir the most part, their rival fraternity boys and girls don't but sure nuff want to wear that "support the troops" badge...

Bobert

---

10 Dec 04 - 06:37 PM (#1353534)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,worried mom

does anyone know why the high schools are giving our 16 yr. old 10th.graders the ASFAB test?? I just heard my boy was given this test in one of his classes.

---

10 Dec 04 - 07:05 PM (#1353554)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Ebbie

Found this:

"The PSAT will be given on October 13 for all Sophomores and any Juniors. The cost for juniors is $11.00, but you may get to take the test free. Ask guidance. Seniors and interested Juniors may take the ASFAB test which can help show higher career interest areas and help with future planning. The ASFAB test is free.

"If members of the class of 2006 take the current SAT, they will have to schedule the test as early as December 2004 or January 2005. The College Board does not recommend that students take the SAT so early in their junior year. Students taking the test then risk doing less than their best because they will not have covered as much English and math as students testing later in the year. Most students wait until the spring of their junior year to take the test. That makes good sense.

"Many colleges and universities will accept scores from the current SAT from members of the class of 2006, but other colleges will not. Members of the class of 2006 who choose to take the current test should be sure to check the requirements at each school to which they plan to apply."

The ASFAB test

---

10 Dec 04 - 10:41 PM (#1353689)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Greg F.

Believe its resurgance is also part of the No Child's Left Behind/Right Behind bogus "education" bill that the BuShites put over on the American voters- just like sending all student's names to the Defense Dept.

These clowns have been planning this fascist crap for some time- and the voters love 'em for it.

God Help America.

---

11 Dec 04 - 11:22 AM (#1353995)
Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Cretinous Yahoo

Doug, it is quite clear how one can support the troops and be against their mission. Open your eyes and get the blinders off! We invaded the wrong country! They don't want us there! Those of them that have an IQ over 60 don't want to be there. (Except the officers, that's how they get promoted! I love my country, but, I hate what it is doing over there.I support the troops by screaming "Screw Iraq, bring them home".

---