American Legion: Declaring War On Dissent?

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

0 posted 2005-08-26 01:34 PM

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001020671

The American Legion just wrapped up their 87th annual three-day conference in Hawaii this week, making headlines with the group's national commander, Thomas Cadmus, announcing they will "stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,"

Thomas Cadmus also said that public protests during wartime "only provide aid and comfort to our enemies"

Also speaking, Vietnam veteran James Vialard said his toughest times serving during Vietnam were when actress Jane Fonda spoke her mind, or when anti-war protesters took to the streets., while Jim Hales, head of the Legion's Pennsylvania department, called anti-war activists "traitors".

In the end, the 4,000 American Legion delegates unanimously approved Resolution 3, pledging to unite in support of the war on terrorism and against anti-war activists, fearing that protests could motivate insurgents in their battle against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

********************

********************

Some of my points here:

1) It's a shame that this long-living veterans organization, which has done many great things including veterans rights and community service, is taking a turn toward the minds of the Ann Coulter and Fox News extreme arm of the right who call on and on for the deportation of liberals/protesters and want to suppress dissent in this great nation, which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees to all Americans.

2) There are many great, mindful and flexible veterans in the American Legion who I'm certain their views do not agree with the minds of their delegates or commanders. Some have already publicly expressed their resignation from the Legion in editorials because of their outcry on dissent.

3) A vast, strong majority of Americans support dissent. A brand new AP/Ipsos poll released today reveals 7 in 8 Americans believe it OK for Americans to publicly express their dissent.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5580679.html

4) Whether you agree or disagree with what anti-war protesters are saying, their right to protest, as well as those in support of the war to counter-protest, is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

5) Dissent is a most patriotic gift that has long helped America mature and complete the very democracy it is today.

6) If Pat Robertson wanted to march in front of my house right now, I'd certainly let him, where he could stay as long as he didn't vandalize my property, for as extreme as his mind may be, he is granted his Constitutional right to express himself.

7) Again, shame on the American Legion for heading down this direction, for taking a stand against our Constitution, against our Bill of Rights, against the rights that our veterans have fought to preserve for over 225 yeas.

********************

********************

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

1 posted 2005-08-26 04:19 PM

So those who dissent should be allowed their Rights, but people who dissent that dissent shouldn't have their's?

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

2 posted 2005-08-26 05:51 PM

And you can't dissent dissent dissent?

1)But what happens when you call someone a traitor? Doesn't that imply that you aren't just dissenting, you are telling them to shut up or face prosecution?

2)The protesting the protester line takes away from what they're protesting. Protest for the war, make a case for the war, disagree all you want, but what I see is simply avoiding the question of the protest itself.

Why are we at war?

3) Arguing that dissent or protest is 'bringing aid and comfort to the enemy' is a rather 'activist' interpretation of the constitution.

4)Historically, you can make a case for what you want (Shut up and support the war) if we were actually at war. Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt all did this.

But we aren't and we haven't been for the last fifty or so years.

Maybe instead of protesting the protesters, those who support this war should actually lobby Congress to declare war.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

3 posted 2005-08-26 05:54 PM

Some call protestors 'traitors'. Some protestors call the CoC and supporters 'murderers'. I'm just waiting for 'baby-killer'.

Of course, there's a large amount of interpretation. Those who think the War on Terror is a police action won't support the 'war' moniker. Those who think the War on Terror is a military action will support the 'war' moniker.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

4 posted 2005-08-26 06:10 PM

I don't see what's controversial or interpretational about Congress's Right to declare war.

That's pretty specific.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

5 posted 2005-08-26 06:22 PM

Well, as far as I know, Congress authorized war. So that's done. The Taliban and Iraqi militaries were defeated and the governments removed, in rather short order. All the rest since then has been rebuilding, or attempted rebuilding while complete morons keep blowing up water works, electrical grids, police stations, schools, hospitals, refineries, market places. Morons wasn't chosen as a term of mental attribute; the one I really wanted to use would've been edited.

What Congress did not do was to limit the charge of war, as they did during the Gulf War. The conditions of that declaration was the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Period. The aftermath allowed for forces to defend the Kurdish north of Iraq and Kuwait to the south from further attack by Saddam's military.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

6 posted 2005-08-26 06:33 PM

Show me where they declare war.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

7 posted 2005-08-26 06:36 PM

No, Alicat, dissent is appropriate in all forms. I have nothing against anyone in the American Legion who would disagree with what the protesters are doing and strongly question their credentials and intents.

What I'm speaking of here is something far more dangerous. They're calling for an effort to end or to prevent as many public protests and media events from happening as possible. Furthermore, the way they've chosen to respond to the growing anti-war movement which Sheehan has helped energize is by fueling McCarthyism into their convention; rather than saying they disagree with them or are understanding but believe what they're doing is the wrong approach, they instead choose to label them "traitors" and "terrorist sympathizers".

The more I go back and research what was going on during the protest of the Vietnam war, the more I find that many of these same complicit media tactics used today were at work back then, designed to attack activists. It may not be exactly appropriate for me to say it, but to America and many who lived through Vietnam, it indeed must be deja vu all over again.

These same intimidating scare tactics are being employed on these activists now out of desperation because they know things are looking real bad down there and they've already made an umpteen number of approaches in trying to defend the war.

The American Legion, Fox News, Ann Coulter and Move America Forward can say all they want about me being a sympathizer of the terrorists. I know better than that in that I'm not one.

What has come out of the annual American Legions conference this week strikes me as a huge endorsement to McCarthyism.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

8 posted 2005-08-26 06:46 PM

To never dissent is to offer an implied consent. I certainly don't intend to stop dissenting until I'm vaporized.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

9 posted 2005-08-26 07:02 PM

quote:
The Taliban and Iraqi militaries were defeated and the governments removed, in rather short order. All the rest since then has been rebuilding, or attempted rebuilding while complete morons keep blowing up water works, electrical grids, police stations, schools, hospitals, refineries, market places. Morons wasn't chosen as a term of mental attribute; the one I really wanted to use would've been edited.

You forgot that they also blow up people.

I don't have any problems euphemistically calling them morons:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/12476521.htm

quote:
Many Sunnis in Anbar say they'll vote against the constitution in October, as they've felt excluded from the process of drafting the document.

While fighting has badly damaged many towns and precluded widespread reconstruction efforts, Marines in Fallujah are working to make that city a centerpiece of rebuilding. Fallujah residences sustained some $225 million in damage last November during a U.S. assault aimed at clearing the city of insurgents, according to Marine Lt. Col. Jim Haldeman, who oversees the civil military operations center in Fallujah.

Homeowners have received 20 percent of that amount to rebuild homes, and will get the next 20 percent in the coming weeks, Haldeman said. Families are walking the streets once again and shops have reopened. The sound of hammers is constant, and men line the streets mixing concrete and laying bricks out to dry.

Even so, of the 250,000 population before the fighting, just 150,000 residents have returned. And the insurgency has come back to the area.

Iraqis are still a long way from being able to provide their own security in Anbar. As with much of the province, Fallujah has no functioning police force. Police in Ramadi are confined to two heavily fortified stations, after insurgents destroyed or seriously damaged eight others.

The Iraqi national guard, heralded last year as the answer to local security, was dissolved because of incompetence and insurgent infiltration, as was the guard's predecessor, the civil defense corps.

The new Iraqi army has participated in all the Marines' recent sweeps in Anbar, in a limited way. While the Iraqi soldiers haven't thrown down their weapons and run, as they have in the past, many of them are still unable to operate without close U.S. supervision.

Now, what troops have said:

quote:
"I don't think of this in terms of winning," said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines in an area of some 24,000 square miles in the western portion of Anbar. Instead, he said, his Marines are fighting a war of attrition. "The frustrating part for the (American) audience, if you will, is they want finality. They want a fight for the town and in the end the guy with the white hat wins."

That's unlikely in Anbar, Davis said. He expects the insurgency to last for years, hitting American and Iraqi forces with quick ambushes, bombs and mines. Roadside bombs have hit vehicles Davis was riding in three times this year already.

"We understand counter-insurgency ... we paid for these lessons in blood in Vietnam," Davis said. "You'll get killed on a nice day when everything is quiet."

Most of Iraq is far quieter than Anbar. But Anbar is Iraq's largest province and home to the Arab Sunni minority, which dominated the government under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. It's the strategic center of the country, and failure to secure it could thwart the Bush administration's hopes of helping to create a functioning Iraqi democracy.

Military officials now frequently compare the fight in Anbar to the Vietnam War, saying that guerrilla fighters, who blend back into the population, are trying to break the will of the American military - rather than defeat it outright - and to erode public support for the war back home.

"If it were just killing people that would win this, it'd be easy," said Marine Maj. Nicholas Visconti, 35, of Brookfield, Conn., who served in southern Iraq in 2003. "But look at Vietnam. We killed millions, and they kept coming. It's a war of attrition. They're not trying to win. It's just like in Vietnam. They won a long, protracted fight that the American public did not have the stomach for. ... Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is."

Do me a favor and just read the article. I've tried to make it flow a little better here, but didn't do such a great job.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

10 posted 2005-08-26 07:04 PM

For Brad.

I'll have to come back later to this. Been fighting a head/chest cold since Saturday.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

11 posted 2005-08-26 07:09 PM

Awwwwww, hope you feel better at least since last Saturday, Alicat!

I send chicken soup hugs your way, yay!

Love,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

12 posted 2005-08-26 07:22 PM

That's not a declaration of War. Bush is complying with the War Powers act -- desigined to limit the powers of the Presidency when Congress does or has not yet declared war.

I have other 'talking points' but I'll hold off for now.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

13 posted 2005-08-26 11:08 PM

I find interesting the evasion
of that Saddam Hussein was a monster
and his sons who were intended to succeed him
were at least as bad if not worst; that those called insurgents
can’t be conceived as intending anything better. And yet
the essential response is we had no right to get involved,
much like Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

14 posted 2005-08-27 12:20 PM

Evasion?

I don't see what SH and company have to do with constitutional checks and balances and or the power to declare war versus the right to address grievances to the government.

If you use the phrase 'provide aid and comfort to the enemy' as the AL does, shouldn't that be the question of this thread?

Are we going to take the constitution seriously or not?

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

15 posted 2005-08-27 12:28 PM

Noah...
Once again, I completely agree with the fact that you are allowed to have your opinions on any matter you choose, and that you hvea the absolute, militarily-given right to not have MY opinions on any particular subject... HOWEVER... I am going to invoke my right to respectfully tell you I feel you are not seeing things properly.

In the end, the 4,000 American Legion delegates unanimously approved Resolution 3, pledging to unite in support of the war on terrorism and against anti-war activists, fearing that protests could motivate insurgents in their battle against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please explain to me where this puts the Legion saying ANYTHING about deporting the deportation of liberals/protesters??? What it says is that they rose as one voice in support of the troops who are the ones putting themselves in harms way, and giving NO support to those who are not supporting the troops who are in harms way. The deligates of the American Legion (of which I happen to be a member) plainly stated that they feel public dissent hurts the troops effort to win the war, and that they choose to believe that anti-war protesting gives the enemy power (although only in their mind) over the troops and makes them fight against our troops a little more fiercely.
The American Legion is being maligned, my friend, for having an OPINION that doesn't match what the liberal.protesters feel everyone should have.
The Legion did not say it was illegal for the dissenters to have their view. The Legion did not vote to agree that those who oppose the war were to be denied their constitutional rights. The American Legion very simply voted to oppose those who dissent because many have felt (in their own minds and histories) the backlash from an enemy strengthened by said dissent.

There are many great, mindful and flexible veterans in the American Legion who I'm certain their views do not agree with the minds of their delegates or commanders

However the ones at the convention are NOT great, mindful, and flexible? Why would they not be great because they chose to have this opinion? Why would they not be mindful because they chose to have this opinion? I can almost guarantee that there were some who did not like the wording, however went with it because they felt very similar to what was actually voted on. Would that not make them flexible because they were willing to give a little on the wording when the sentiment was what they felt?

Some have already publicly expressed their resignation from the Legion in editorials because of their outcry on dissent.

I invite you to look up these veterans right now, and then again in a year... I will put my last ounce of breath on the fact that the majority of these same vets who "resigned" are STILL sitting at the bar of their post tonight drinking with their fellow vets. I also invite you to look them up one year from now, and I will bet you my last 50 cents that- with the VERY RARE exception- the ones that actually DID resign are there at the bar drinking with their vet friends. The majority of protesters yell their message, get their 15 seconds and then quietly go back to what they were doing.

A vast, strong majority of Americans support dissent. A brand new AP/Ipsos poll released today reveals 7 in 8 Americans believe it OK for Americans to publicly express their dissent.

Actually, THIS I agree with. I comletely support your right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY protest the fuzz on a peach, if that is what gets you hot... right to the point where you stop supporting my right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY call you an idiot for doing so. It is only when people decide that the ones that share those rights with you do not have the same rights for themselves.

...their right to protest, as well as those in support of the war to counter-protest, is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution

I am going to guess that the portion of the 14th Amendment that you are quoting is: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WHO IN THE NAME OF THOR'S HOLY HAMMER IS DENYING THEM DUE-FRIGGIN'-PROCESS???? OR EQUAL PROTECTION?????? The US Government would quite simply prefer that the liberals and the protesters would keep their collective mouths shut, however have done nothing to deny them the right to spread their propoganda at the same rate (or faster) than the government is spreading theirs. ANd the Vets of the Legion have absolutely no power to deny anyone anything. Noah, you are simply to intelligent to actually believe this argument.

Again, shame on the American Legion for heading down this direction, for taking a stand against our Constitution, against our Bill of Rights, against the rights that our veterans have fought to preserve for over 225 years

So, in effect, you are saying, "thank you for defending our rights, yet shame on you for actually USING those rights?"

Again, Noah, the ONLY thing the American Legion delegates did was to tell the protesters that the legion did not support their cause and would they please shut their mouths for once.

Apparently, the staff of the Editor and Publisher are mind readers as well as protesters... Here is what was said according to the American Legion. You will notice that it is the exact same thing... minus the editorializing. In their version of the story, the E&P, in their wisdom, has chosen to use inflammatory rhetoric, and- in my viewpoint- chosen to inform the American poeple that they are so stupid that they cannot read the remarks as they were stated, and not make up their own minds as to what was meant.

A quote that the E&P staff apparently understood better than we could when they read the Legion's release was: "“No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies,“
Apparently hoping you won't publicly protest means that you are against poeple's right to peaceful assembly and their right to free speech.

I also read the entire press release from the American Legion, and not once did I see where ANYONE used the word "traitor"
Other quotes that the E&P apparently missed:

“Warriors, above all other people, pray for peace, for they must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war,”

The measure recognizes that the global war on terrorism is as deadly as any war
in which the United States has been previously engaged and that the President and Congress did authorize military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is one quote that the E&P used quite effectively... and quite wrongly (IMHO):

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,"

Those of us who have been on the blue pages since the war started will remember one particular member who was banned because of the "facts" he presented about the US military, and the war, and about the "peace-loving Iraqi government". In, my opinion, Noah, THAT is what the American Legion was talking about. Cindy Sheehan is not the focus of their ire. YOU are not the focus of their ire. The two of you are using the first amendment properly (no matter how much I would prefer you didn't

). It is the "banned members" who are acting like the other "famous protester" of days gone by, who was simply using her First Amendment rights that we are fighting against.

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

16 posted 2005-08-27 03:01 AM

Question, what country has formally declared war
on another since after August, 1945?

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

17 posted 2005-08-27 10:04 AM

Good question.

I don't know.

Does that mean the constitution is now irrelevant?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

18 posted 2005-08-27 11:37 AM

I think since August 1945, declaring war,
which meant all out war, took on an aspect
that made it and the part in the constitution
pertaining to it no longer applicable.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

19 posted 2005-08-27 04:32 PM

Hi Bradley! I've missed you a lot here and am so glad you've added your voice to this discussion, yay!

Now let me respod to some of your comments.

******

"Please explain to me where this puts the Legion saying ANYTHING about deporting the deportation of liberals/protesters??? What it says is that they rose as one voice in support of the troops who are the ones putting themselves in harms way, and giving NO support to those who are not supporting the troops who are in harms way. The deligates of the American Legion (of which I happen to be a member) plainly stated that they feel public dissent hurts the troops effort to win the war, and that they choose to believe that anti-war protesting gives the enemy power (although only in their mind) over the troops and makes them fight against our troops a little more fiercely."

I never said they have advocated the deportation of protesters/liberals. I said that they are increasingly moving toward the minds of Fox News and Ann Coulter as an organization, which Fox News and Ann Coulter have often called for the kicking of liberals from the country, use the label "traitor" on them, etc. in agreeing to Resolution 3.
http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=303

Look at the press release on their official web-site. Even there it is admitted that Thomas P. Cadmus said that it was Jane Fonda and protesters that made all hell break loose during Vietnam, and that this must not ever happen again. He's referring to protesters in general that "demoralize our troops" and commit "cowardly attacks against freedom loving peoples".

I don't know to what extent they will go in seeing to it these protests don't happen again, but the language from the conference is most intimidating to me and very McCarthyesque.

*****

"However the ones at the convention are NOT great, mindful, and flexible? Why would they not be great because they chose to have this opinion? Why would they not be mindful because they chose to have this opinion? I can almost guarantee that there were some who did not like the wording, however went with it because they felt very similar to what was actually voted on. Would that not make them flexible because they were willing to give a little on the wording when the sentiment was what they felt?

I wouldn't know if all 4,000 delegates who've decided to back Bush and the war effort necessarily also agreed that anti-war activists are "traitors". I do believe the speakers I was referring to don't seem to be all that mindful to me, mindful tha these activists are not trying to impugn the honor of our young men and women in any way but rather believe our young men and wmen's mission is to defend THIS country and there are better, more sensible ways our elected leaders can do to offer freedom to the world rather than resort to war. To just dismiss them all in general as treasonous certainly isn't mindful to me. As far as being great and flexible, I suppose those are more rhetorical choice of words, yes.

*****

"Actually, THIS I agree with. I comletely support your right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY protest the fuzz on a peach, if that is what gets you hot... right to the point where you stop supporting my right to PEACEFULLY and RESPECTFULLY call you an idiot for doing so. It is only when people decide that the ones that share those rights with you do not have the same rights for themselves."

And rest assured I would never even attempt to strip you of your right to call me an idiot for expressing my opinions.

*****

"WHO IN THE NAME OF THOR'S HOLY HAMMER IS DENYING THEM DUE-FRIGGIN'-PROCESS???? OR EQUAL PROTECTION?????? The US Government would quite simply prefer that the liberals and the protesters would keep their collective mouths shut, however have done nothing to deny them the right to spread their propoganda at the same rate (or faster) than the government is spreading theirs. ANd the Vets of the Legion have absolutely no power to deny anyone anything. Noah, you are simply to intelligent to actually believe this argument."

It's true they have no governing authority to change the ways of our country and such. I already understood that to begin with.

However, like I said, I've found their unanimous backing of Measure 3 to be a major endorsement of McCarthyism. Bush already said earlier in the week that while she respects Sheehan's right to protest, he added anti-war protesters like her and myself don't represent the views of most U.S military families and are advocating a cause that are making the U.S weaker.

The "Either you're with us or against us" vibe is evolving to me to the point where it is becoming "Either you're with Bush, making America stronger, or you're making America weaker." And with Bush saying the views of those like myself don't represent the interests of a vast majority of American military families, and with some featured speakers at the American Legion conference going further, noting they are the largest veterans organization, going even further to not only confirm its true but that the protestors are many things from "traitors" to those who provide warmth to the enemy, it's a huge mess.

*****

"I also read the entire press release from the American Legion, and not once did I see where ANYONE used the word 'traitor'"
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050824/NEWS/508240416

Jim Hales, commander of the organization's Pennsylvania department, got extensive applause for calling anti-war activists "traitors."

*****

"Those of us who have been on the blue pages since the war started will remember one particular member who was banned because of the "facts" he presented about the US military, and the war, and about the "peace-loving Iraqi government". In, my opinion, Noah, THAT is what the American Legion was talking about. Cindy Sheehan is not the focus of their ire. YOU are not the focus of their ire. The two of you are using the first amendment properly (no matter how much I would prefer you didn't . It is the "banned members" who are acting like the other "famous protester" of days gone by, who was simply using her First Amendment rights that we are fighting against."

If that's true, I hope they can hurry and clarify immediately and prevent any needless further misinterpretation from occuring. Obviously, of course, their next few actions and responses to the Sheehan movement I believe will well indicate the intent of the Legion towards dissent in general. And I am willing to wait and see what comes next.

*****

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

20 posted 2005-08-27 05:57 PM

"Those of us who have been on the blue pages since the war started will remember one particular member who was banned because of the "facts" he presented about the US military, and the war, and about the "peace-loving Iraqi government". In, my opinion, Noah, THAT is what the American Legion was talking about. Cindy Sheehan is not the focus of their ire. YOU are not the focus of their ire. The two of you are using the first amendment properly (no matter how much I would prefer you didn't.
It is the "banned members" who are acting like the other "famous protester" of days gone by, who was simply using her First Amendment rights that we are fighting against."

**************
? no doubt I must have been asleep somehwere along the line, as I don't even know who you are referring to though I joined Pips just prior to the infamous 9-11 events.

Why would you fight against someone else's rights to stand behind their interpretation of the Constitution? since when have our individual opinions been elevated to both judge and jury?

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

21 posted 2005-08-27 09:15 PM

I am not going to give the banned member anymore air time than I already have by naming him, however the other people I am refering to are the ones who have in this and wars past spread propoganda about how the other side of the fight were peace-loving and had no wish for war, and were telling everyone that would listen that American combat soldiers and Marines were completely wrong and that they were all devils and deserved to burn for forcing the enemy into a conflict they had no desire for... especially when the proof was there, and not being presented. Jane Fonda is the most famous and the most popular for my side of the issue to pick on, however she wasn't the only one. In THIS conflict, you would have to include Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon, among others who spouted the same litany of garbage.
I applaud anyone who takes the time out of their lives to study the Constitution even a little, and try to interpret how it eaffects their lives and the lives of those around them. I also applaud anyone who has a belief strong enough theat they choose to defend it against certain criticism, such as Noah, and others like him... as long as they are being respectful about it, and as long as they are not using their First Amendment rights to blatantly cause harm to the gavernment, the country, or those who put their collective keasters on the line in her name.

Huan Yi- There have been several "declared" wars since the UN Charter, and the ending of WWII. America has never been in one, however several members of the UN have declared war on each other.
The Korean War is one example... Norht and South declared on each other... the UN never declared war, though.
The Middle East has had declared wars every other year between themselves. I might be wrong, however, I think that the Soviet Union actually declared war on Afghanistan. It happens, just not with the US.

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

22 posted 2005-08-28 06:42 PM

quote:
I think since August 1945, declaring war,
which meant all out war, took on an aspect
that made it and the part in the constitution
pertaining to it no longer applicable.

Doesn't this bother anyone?

If it's no longer applicable then you change the constitution, you don't simply ignore it.

Am I missing something here?

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

23 posted 2005-08-28 08:45 PM

Hi Bradley! Again, thank you for the most important points you have brought to this discussion.

Although we may have our disagreements on this war and on foreign policy in general, I want you to know how we are in absolute agreement that there are those who abuse the rights the First Amendment entitle all Americans and usurp them wrongfully.

I agree with you about Jane Fonda. It's not WHY she protested that was wrong, it was HOW she chose to protest that I am most critical of. Although I do absolutely claim myself to be a "peacenik", I believe no reasonable person can deny there are those who live with hate in their hearts and use the hatred to abuse and afflict the innocent. I want you to know that I would NEVER resort to those sorts of tactics Jane Fonda did including hugging the enemy on landing strips.

I believe just as you do that the line must be drawn somewhere in how we publicly dissent. If protesters vandalize property in their demonstrations, the police should most certainly respond and charge the guilty consciences. If protesters would make death threats to an individual or their families, the person or family being targeted should call the police and have those people watched closely and take necessary action should matters get worse. General things like that must be considered.

It's true that there are those like Jane Fonda out there who indeed dangerously exploit these constitutional rights. Ward Churchill and the Indymedia left-wing nuts have done it on the left side of the aisle, while on the right the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson have done it.

What I'm concerned about here is how Cadmus and other speakers at the Legion coference put protesters alongside Jane Fonda in the same sentence to who he was targeting. Cadmus wasn't specific, he seemed to have referred to anti-war protesters in general. And when in fact Jim Hales referred to anti-war protesters as "traitors", I feel as though it wasn't a bad choice of words, but in fact he meant what he said; that he wrapped all protestors under the Jane Fonda metonymy.

As a liberal who is opposed to everything about this war, and an active voice of dissent to it, I want y'all to know that I love and have always loved America very much, from the bottom of my heart, and I wish nothing but the best for all guided by Lady Liberty. One promise I can certainly make to y'all is that as I continue to protest this senseless war, I won't resort to any sort of protest that casts that sort of propaganda that puts a halo effect on the terrorists and a horn effect on our young men and women, for I have nothing but respect and comfort to our young men and women who I believe they're not at any fault for this mess of a war we're in, and its the misguided politicians that are operating this war and sent them there to begin with who are at fault.

I want you to know I will discipline myself in each protest I make and will not associate myself with the likes of the usurpers. My message will continue to be simply that I believe there is terrorism in the world and efforts must be made to stop it, but we must stop it in a way that does not resort to war on wide cultures where a vast majority absolutely agree with us that terrorism is wrong and acts of terror cannot be justified, which also very much weaken and short-change our own forces in efforts to defend our great nation.

I hope the American Legion can see that most who dissent do so responsibly, I hope Cadmus and those 4,000 delegates can see though our message may be the same that we are all unique and many, most likely most, don't kowtow to the practices of Jane Fonda. The #1 reason I keep taking many hours protesting is because I love America very much, and I believe the way I have protested each time to this day has been moral.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

24 posted 2005-08-28 09:39 PM

Noah, my misguided friend,
While I might be seen by some as snapping at you, and "yelling" to get my point across to you, I can assure you- as has been discussed in numerous off-thread posts- that NO ONE on these pages feels that you are to be lumped into the same category as Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and others of that nature.
You are, in fact, one of the few liberal "peace-niks" that I am willing to give the time of day to, and- also as has been discussed in off-thread posts- (specifically to you, as a matter of fact) that you have my snicerest praise and support for being put in charge of the various protests that you have been charged to lead. I might not agree with them, and I certainly don't feel that they are going to do anything except show the troops that their cause is not being supported (again, MY thoughts), I know what a priveledge it is to be asked to lead a gathering of that size, with that potential, and I am sincerely proud of you for accomplishing it.

Now, if you would only use that power for good instead of evil...

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

25 posted 2005-08-28 11:40 PM

Bradley, with all due respect, I'm just that kind of person who tries to see the world more in gray than in black and white, with just enough of a tint to make distinguishments of what makes us unique and different.

In other words, I just don't believe in labeling one person "good" and one person "evil". I agree very much with what Cindy Sheehan is doing in her protests, but I disagree with her in that she referred to Bush as "evil". Like I said before, I don't believe Bush is evil or a terrorist, I simply believe he is dangerously misguided and ignorant about foreign policy and his war practices are getting us in much more trouble than he can begin to believe.

I can't tell if you were just joking around or not on that last comment, but I certainly don't believe what I'm doing is evil by definition by any means. I am disciplining my protests in a moral manner. I'm not hurting or harming anyone in the process of what I'm doing, rather trying to save lives. The emotions that fill my protests are not out of malice or hatred but of concern and responsibility.

I believe what I'm doing is most morally upright. I just don't want more innocent people to be killed just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are many lives that'll be lost should this war press on that can be prevented should this war find its end as soon as possible. I don't want a culture which 60% is populated by children 14 years old or younger further inflamed under anger and hatred and fear. I believe my actions are only trying to prevent all these preventable things from happening further.

Again, I'm not sure if you were joing or not, but if you do consider my actions evil, I calmly dismiss your accusation and can say here in America I am happy to always openly give you the right to label me any number of things from idiot to evil. I believe we're all more or less ignorant ever so often throughout our lives, for we are all human and we all keep learning things everyday no matter how old we are. As for the evil comment, I don't understand where you may be led to believe how my actions deserve that label if you meant it, but either way I'm always glad to talk over these issues with you!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

26 posted 2005-08-28 11:51 PM

List any and all American wars
that should not have been avoided.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

27 posted 2005-08-29 02:41 AM

1) The American War for Independence
2) the War of 1812 where the British tried to take back the States
3) the War with the Barbary Pirates (... To the Shores of Tripoli)
4) The Civil War (Keep the Union together and -late in the war- end slavery in the US)
5) WWI (to keep America's shipping ventures free from harm)
6) The Banana Wars- Enforce the Monroe Doctrine
7)WWII- uh... Jews and Japan, anyone???
8) Korea (not a war)- the UN decided to take action, and since we were part of the UN and it was the UN's first test of strength and resolve, we needed to be there.
9)Gulf I (not a war)- if we do not assist our allies, and back the UN, then we have no standing in the world
10) Gulf II (not a war)- agin.. the UN stated it, and we had to abide by it to keep the UN a viable force.

Good enough???

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

28 posted 2005-08-29 02:21 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hall_schweizer200508290810.asp

As if their fathers couldn't tell 'em
it would be coming.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

29 posted 2005-08-29 03:06 PM

Huan Yi, in response to this latest article you've provided, firstly I will say that you know well what I think of Ward Churchill and like-minded extreme left professors that don't make up the majority opinion of campus students nationwide, who Churchill shares the same tactics Fonda did in spinning propaganda and hate speech to this great country.

About the article, I already strongly disagree that there is a vast "liberal elitist media" influencing many of these campus student's opinions.

I also believe that many of these campus activists are understandably protesting campus recruiters. I believe most of them would agree that the problem is not them just coming to visit to begin with; the problem is how some of them are exploiting these visits in demanding principals and professors hand over entire records to officials without permission from the student and parent of each one listed.

I believe that's the prime reason there has been vast protests against military recruitment nationwide; they fear that just this wrongful tactics are being used in trying to persuade brave, young men and women to consider a future serving this great nation through military service. In many minds who have learned about these incidents of some recruiters gathering entire records from schools, they fear its setting the stage for a wider backdoor draft or something along those lines.

I'm all for military officials visiting college campuses and high schools to hold a little assembly, make a little speech and get young people to know about the benefits a military career can offer young Americans. That's not what I have a problem with. I just have a problem with these officials exploiting these visits in the intent to usurp whole records without the consent of these students and parents. And given the situation right now, I can't help but not blame them in being nervous that some officials would indeed exploit their visits to their campuses.

A majority of parents nationwide feel just the same way. You have to understand that the student and the parent deserve to have a say as well.

Rest assured that most liberals have not "adopted" this mantra that though we don't agree with this war, we support our young men and women wholeheartedly; we believe in this notion wholeheartedly. I believe there are indeed many, if not most, recruiters who aren't using these exploitive methods. But all recruiters must understand that in supporting our young men and women wholeheartedly, you have to remember there's more than just the soldier, there's also the young man or woman in the uniform, and every young man and woman should have the full right to decide.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

30 posted 2005-08-29 05:25 PM

Naoh- having read that article, then you know the type of protesters that I was talking about in my earlier rant. As we all know, you are not one of them, and you do not feel that the vets are... what did she call him? a "disgusting human being"?...
While, we- again- disagree on the issues, I do NOT agree with the way that you do so, and the way you compose yourself when you discuss these issues.

However, I hope that I do not meet any of these protesters, due to the fact that I have a neighbor who was killed in Iraq, a friend who was severely injured, and a roommate who is leaving shortly for in-country. I have a short fuse when it comes to defending my friends and my family, and... well, anyhow...

The article proves that these young men and women are not what they are being called, and are, in fact, the finest type of human beings the nation can produce. While it takes nothing to be shot at- except being in the wrong job in the wrong place at the wrong time- keeping your cool under fire, and putting it all on the line for those around you shows character beyond any human expectation.

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

31 posted 2005-08-29 06:08 PM

quote:
While walking to class one day, McCormick stopped to listen to a speaker during an antiwar student rally. When he challenged the protestor’s arguments, the “peace” activist sneered, “The Iraqis don’t want us there. If you think the war is okay, then why don’t you go and serve!”

There was an obvious problem with the protestor’s retort: He had no clue who he was talking to — -Silver Star recipient Marine corporal Armand McCormick.

I would have loved to have seen that. It's not clear however if McCormick responded with, "I did," or not.

However, the essay doesn't even attempt to back up its point, does it?

Is there a conspiracy of liberal professors and anti-war activists to get rid of recruiters on US campuses? I don't know and I didn't learn anything from that essay.

The point, of course, is that dissent hurts the troops at home and abroad . . . .

The ellipsis, a shrug perhaps, is intended to get people fired up and let them do what they do. Many people have short fuses.

Yet, it avoids the question that surrounds this thread and the one that I thought was a corrolary.

1. Is dissent treason in time of war?

2. Are we in a war where the freedom to dissent should be temporarily suspended until hostilities have ended?

Somehow, the distinction that Ringo wants to make here, I think, would be a distinction without a difference for many short fused people.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

32 posted 2005-08-29 07:31 PM

I have to laugh every time I read the phrase "elite mainstream media".

is it elite? or is it mainstream?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

33 posted 2005-08-29 08:05 PM

I read an interesting question on another site.
Someone asked: given what the soldiers are basically currently doing:
protecting civilians, training security forces, and rebuilding
infrastructure, what is being protested now?

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

34 posted 2005-08-29 08:09 PM

Being jaded is easy when medicated. I think they keep protesting in the hopes of a book deal and a Lifetime Original movie.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

35 posted 2005-08-29 08:39 PM

quote:
given what the soldiers are basically currently doing:
protecting civilians, training security forces, and rebuilding
infrastructure, what is being protested now?

Hey, the war's over, bring'em home!

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

36 posted 2005-08-29 10:19 PM

lol, alicat...

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

37 posted 2005-08-30 12:38 PM

While I've been shaking my head over most of the last few posts on this thread, I could go listing dozens of reasons why protests keep happening, which have nothing to do with the soldiers but the greed of this administration, the politicians who sent them there:

*****

1) The ongoing and growing casualties there under their watch, with this August being the deadliest month for our troops since the war began 29 months ago. In addition, the needless tens of thousands of deaths of Iraqi civilians, tens of thousnads more injuries.

2) The manner in which the administration continues to change the story of why we keep fighting in Iraq, first using false information that weapons of mass destruction were there, then after the claims were proven false claim it was because Saddam was a bad guy, then after saying they didn't watch elections there, they bowed to pressure from al-Sistani to do just that in January. Then after eight million Iraqis went to vote but couldn't quell the violence and approval ratings continued to fall, they claim it was to bring democracy to the region. Now they claim it is to offer constitutional rights to the region. And the story and excuses continues...

3) Bush just doesn't have a plan, or if he does he just isn't making it clear whatsoever. No one seems to know what the plan is over there, all our young men and women are down there vulnerable, not being guided by what the objective clearly is, ever so vigilant to just respond defensively to the insurgency attacks.

4) The polarizing rhetoric that Bush has and continues to wedge on the American people, first with the "Either you're with us or against us" slogan and now the slogan that protesters actions are advocating a policy that weakens the U.S.

5) Iraq was not a nation that attacked us on 9/11, yet Bush and company keep up the lies linking them to 9/11 tirelessly and defend the ongoing mission there.

6) The double standard that Bush has employed on the war on terror. While he focuses all his attention one brutal dictator and keeps justifying it was right to remove him because he was a dictator, he hasn't shown that same response toward other places ruled by dictators that sponsor terrorism just as bad as Saddam's like Uzbekistan, which remains often considered an ally on the war on terror.

7) While during the election season Bush was concerned about nuclear proliferation, he has allowed nuclear-capable F-16's to be shipped to Pakistan again, while also calling for more nuclear power plants to be built, which stopping nuclear proliferation is one of the single most crucial missions to stopping the worst possible terrorist attacks.

8) The continuing effort to shove the United States further and further away from the international community.

9) Billions and billions continue to go needlessly to this invasion, with billions unknowing of exactly where they're going/missing which could have gone to providing health coverage and education for children, etc.

10) The Iraq war is damaging and weakening our own security forces necessary to defend our country. With most of them preoccupied in this senseless war, our country is more vulnerable to an attack with them over there and not here as the defensive army they should be.

*****

Surely I can go on listing more and more reasonable reasons me and others keep protesting this war built on smoke and mirrors, just don't have all the time right now, but you get the general picture here. I'm just completely baffled and amazed how despite all the deceit, falsehoods, injustice and denials, there's still many who still vociferously defend this war to the Nth degree. Makes me wonder if no matter if all the same was channeled toward any other country that some of our greedy politicians may declare war in the near future, the same support would be made.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

38 posted 2005-08-30 02:46 AM

Noah- I'm not going to answer to all of your thoughts because this post would take most of the bandwidth this site offers, however I do need to make a few comments, or it just wouldn't be me.

1) You (as most protesters I have talked to) are trying to make a quiche by using Egg Substitute as not to break any real ones. Yes, there are young men (mostly) dyinig over there... yes, there are Iraqi civilians dying over there...
THEY WERE DYING BEFORE.... And in a combat zone fighting men die. That is the end of the conversation, really.
The one thing you don't take into account is that the Iraqi citizens that are dying are not being killed by the Americans. They are being killed by muslim extremists from other countries. These same extremists are the ones that were being trained by the former regime, and they want the status quo as to coninue their power within the region. They realize that once the Iraqi people have accepted the change, and have adopted a Constitution that works, and the country is able to protect itself, they will more than likely be out of homes, so to speak.
So, let's think of it this way.... With the last regime, they were being tortured, raped and killed, gassed, poisoned, etc by their own people. If they listened to their thoughts and tried to oppose them in even the slightest way, they were subjected to said actions. If they said they didn't like the fact that they were starving and their kids could not get an education, they were subjected to the above actions.
NOW... they are being killed in smaller numbers by terrorists. If they speakl out against the new government... then the speak out against the new government. It's not like the kids are going to hear them, because they are all in school now (funded and staffed by mostly Americans, thank you). And it's not like they are dying in the street because of lack of medical care like before... because ALL of the Hospitals are open... because of the American presence there. The Iraqis can now say, think and feel as they wish... and once we leave, then it goes back to what was because they are not ready to do it alone.

6) OK... so, let's see... we toppled the Saddam regime, and now we go to Uzbekistan to take care of them... but, oh wait... we are still fighting in Afghanistan, and assisting them in rebuilding their government and country... So, now we fight a war on THREE fronts. Two is hard enough... we got severely lucky in WWII that we were able to win on 2 fronts.

7) If we don't build nuclear power plants, then we have to rely on coal and oil... then we have the protesters blaming PRESIDENT Bush (could he have THAT respect, please?) for destroying the ecology... OK... take your choice. One or the other... not both. It is my sincere belief that the people protesting would be protesting about anythinhg they could come up with very simply because this is not their president.
When President Clinton was in office, he sent more troops into harms way, and had more military personnel killed under his watch than both of the previous presidents combined. And he did this while dropping the military personnel and readiness to it's lowest point since WWII. NOT ONE protest march because we were in Bosnia (There were people being killed because of their beliefs). Not one protest rally or song because we were in Somalia (we were assisting people who were starving). We had people left in Kuwait and not one person screaming on the evening news because of it (we were helping them rebuild after a devistating war). UH... wait a minute... That sounds like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan right this very minute... Oh, wait... This isn't a liberal democrat president who is downsizing the mean old military, and kicking those brutes out in the streets where they belong. And it's not like he ever lied to us about ANYTHING *cough* Monica *cough* Whitewater *cough* Vince Foster *cough* Oh, wait... the president in office now is a Republican Conservative who hates the little people and dispises small business (even though small business opwnership and miority ownership is at its highest levels ever). My apologies if this line of questioning upsets you, however it is very simply a statement of fact.

8) Continuing effort to shove us away from the international community??? Does that include the 32 or so nations that are assisting us with this? So, taking us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and allowinig the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan to fall back into their former suppressive regimes would RAISE our standing???
When we left Somalia because of the Black Hawk Down incident, we took a hit in the international community that lasted several years. When we left Vietnam and let the communists take over, we hit an international slide that lasted into the Reagan administration. On the flip side, when we pulled the majority of our troops out of Bosnia, we had no international challenges because we were there until the job was done and left a few people there to help the UN peacekeepers. We still have Ameicans on the ground there... and NO ONE cares...When the first Gulf campaign was over, we left Americans on the ground in Kuwait... AND NO ONE CARED... because we got the job done. We might hqave some of the world going against us, however by leaving before the job is done, that number drastically increases.

9) Oh, yes... the "Billions to Education" rant. OK... here, very simply are the facts...
a)education news has an article showing the fallacy of throwing more money at the school system.

b)This shows the Department of Education budget for FY 2006. It includes major increases for Title I, ( a 56% increase since FY 2000), doubling assistance to schools needing improvement, 390 million for testing students in elementary schools EVERY year instead of every 3,33% increase for early reading programs, 15% increase for students with disabilities, asnd so on... yet we lag behind the rest of the world in student acheivement. Throwing money at the problem NEVER solved the education inadequacies...

10) More vulnerable against an attack from whom?? The Canadians? We had the majority of our "disposable" forces at home on September 11th... and they stopped what, exactly?

As for the protests not affecting the outcome of the war... that, my dear Noah, falls into the category of those not knowing the past being doomed to repeat it. There was a book I read last year called (I think) The Good War, talking about Vietnam. The research that the author did showed that America was within 6 months of actually defeating the communists at one point... then the protests really began, and the summer of love, and Robert McNamara tried to bring the war in under budget, and the politicians being(as usual) more interested in keeping their jobs than winning the war. The protesters got to be such a pain in the keaster, that the politcians stopped trying to win. Everyone calls the Tet Offensive the turning point in the war... the losing enemy took to terrorizing the citizens, and using sappers and terroristic-styled attacks on civilian Americans and military personnel... one small news flash, my friend... The Tet Offensive was a HUGE military disaster for the North Vietnam military. The only "success" they had was the propaganda that came out about how the NVA was winning, and all of that trash.
I might be too old, too tired, to friggin' set in my ways, however this, noah, my friend, looks to be exactly what is happening all over again. The enemy is LOSING (let me say that again, in case I didn't make myself clear the first time LOSING) and the protesters, in conjunction with the mainstream media, are showing ONLY the dead, and not showing the fact that these attacks are acts of desperation by people who are hanging on by their fingertips...
Perhaps that is the historical lesson these vets you vilified (no, not all... the ones from earlier in this thread) are attempting to get across.

Just my thoughts.

http://www.mysticwicks.com
(try the after dark section)

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

39 posted 2005-08-30 03:02 PM

Yes, Ringo, thanks for providing your thoughts for I was thinking of as many reasons at the top of my head and you answered some other ones I didn't think up in time before bed!

*****

In Response To #1: I'm not making any pancakes from Malt'O Meal here. You incompleted the thought I was making in my first reason. People are needlessly dying over there. They're needlessly dying in a war without a plan, without an exit strategy, without rational backing and honesty, without morals.

As crazy as Pat Robertson has always been, aside from the inflammatory bloodthirst of his Chavez comment, his most recent comment echoes another point I've been making this whole time. Robertson believes Chavez can be removed without resorting to billions of dollars in widespread war. Why couldn't we take Saddam out of power under the same strategy, to capture him and his faithful, or something along those lines? I certainly believe with our country having the finest troops in the world and the most advanced military technology in the world, there's no excuse to why we couldn't have tried that.

I read in some magazine that approximately 20% of Americans apparently will fully support any war that's American-led. I don't know if you are one of those theorized one in five or not, but from what you were apparently arguing there, war will bring out the best in every struggling culture. War will build schools and stop rape and torture and open hospitals. Sorry, my friend, but I can't ever believe that, that's a most dangerously misguided philosophy to have in all my heart.

I also don't personally buy the opinion that "Yeah, I know this war wasn't really right, but what can we do, we're THERE!". It strikes me as saying, "Oops, I did it again, I just invaded another nation, but what can I do, we're there now!".

The troops are doing a wonderful job trying to make things as best as possible for their people through the absolute mess of this greedy war. It's our senseless leaders that are wrong in continuing to excavate the hatchet and toss it around. I believe it's not until the hatchet gets a proper burial that the world will ever become the safe place for our children we both long for ever so much. I believe if mankind continues to war like this, it will inevitably imperil us all. I believe only non-violent peace strategies will ultimately prevail.

*****

In Response To #6: I'm well aware that our forces are weakened and over-stretched right now, you missed the point.

The point was, directly, that the Bush Administration has adopted a double standard on the war on terror. I mentioned Uzbekistan in that it keeps frequently being referred to as an ally on the war on terror, including in one of Bush's state of the union addresses. There Karimov and his faithful torture innocent civilians in a number of ways, including throwing them in large tubs of hot boiling water. It's also one of the worst police states on the entire planet.

The problem is, understandably, we cannot perform any special mission right now to remove Karimov, but that Bush is failing to condemn Karimov and his corrupt government, failing to say directly that they are NOT an ally on the war on terror, etc.

*****

7) Again, thank you for bringing up Clinton and Bosnia, as I have said before that if I were politically active then I would have vociferously opposed that invasion as I have Iraq. It's not my problem that I never watched news before when I was fifteen and younger and was totally outside the issues surrounding the national and international landscape, but as I continue to grow up, you will certainly see should another Democratic president be elected any time soon and he/she decides to make an invasion, I will be protesting it with the same volume.

Also, in bringing up Clinton and Bosnia, you bring up another crucial point about "flip-flopping" that made banners for the GOP under Kerry's constant use of it. In fact, when Bush was governor of Texas, he said this in response to Clinton announcing the invasion of Bosnia:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Santorum, DeLay and Lott, as well as popular right-wing commentary personalities like Scarborough, who support this war and the fact there is no strategy but criticized Bosnia for having no strategy, also made similar statements.

Who's keeping their story straight here? Many likened to Bush from the beginning because he was often seen as someone who you always knew where he stands. In terms of party lines, it really doesn't seem that way to me, and if anything, I believe I will be more consistent than he has been as I continue to grow, holding one stance on foreign policy that will be tested among the likes of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, Libertarians and Mickey Mouses.

And before I go on to the next point, I want to talk about the nuclear issue.

Can you imagine the consequences if terrorists were to attack one of our very vulnerable existing nuclear power plants? Millions would certainly perish, with millions more living with life-threatening injuries and conditions, and yet millions more, with total environments damaged with nuclear particles and chemicals, subject to deadly cancers, etc, with the damage done on the environment most likely irreversible.

My point on nuclear proliferation and such is just like what this Physicians For Social Responsibility bumper sticker says, "If we don't stop the arms race, it will stop us!"

Many counter that argument in that no state with nuclear power/weapons has ever been attacked yet. It's foolish to think that means it won't ever happen. There ARE bloodthirsty, hate-filled, troubled spirits in the world who want to harm the innocent, and they won't hesitate to target these most vulnerable targets. And if we are to continue building more and more nuclear power plants, you could only begin to imagine what could happen if just one were attacked. There could be a chain reaction, a domino effect. One plant is attacked, explodes, then others follow and put our entire nation at survival.

In Response To #8: Virtually majorities in every nation worldwide except Poland, the Philippines and Israel oppose this war and have a negative view of Bush. Many countries in this so-called "Coalition of the Willing" have already withdrawed and/or publicly expressed plans for withdrawal, where Italy will be beginning to withdraw forces next month. And let's not forget that just because the leaders of, for instance, Britain like Bush's war, their people think strongly the opposite way.

In Response To #9: The nation's poverty rate has risen again for the fourth straight year to 37 million (up 1.1 million from last year), a third of them children, while number of people without health care has risen up another 800,000 to 45.8 million Americans. All of this while efforts to improve the minimum wage standard in this nation continue to go neglected as they have for decades now. (We're approximately $3.50 below what it was in 1968)

Often I believe this administration seems to forget that making this great nation stronger doesn't rest only with our military, that's just part of it. It's about making the American family strong. The children are always the future and we owe them much more. America will be stronger than ever the day that all our children have health care coverage and their families are making living wages. I believe we're heading in precisely the opposite direction right now, and those billions that are heading to Iraq should be money going to them.

In Response To #10: Say what you will...we're only digging ourselves deeper in this hole...and WE'RE LOSING.

One of the excuses Bush was making in justifying this war mid-way since he took us there in March of 2003 was that Iraq is a central front on the war on terror. It was NOT a central front then. It has BECOME one now BECAUSE of this war. Iraq has now become a magnet for foreign militants, who are rapidly crossing over the borders to aid the insurgency and al-Zarqawi. This month was the single bloodiest in all 29 months of this war for us to date if you may have noticed.

In the three crucial Sunni-governed provinces of Iraq that are crucial in mandating the draft of this Iraq constitution, Sunnis are rejecting it. They're even calling it "illegal".

How could I even begin to believe we're winning if there's dissent within the administration itself? While Cheney says the insurgency is in its "last throes", Rumsfeld says the insurgency can last anywhere from 4 to 12 years. They can't keep their own story straight at all.

We're losing. This administration is dangerously disconnected from reality, virtually being raised on delusions. And you always have every right to argue otherwise and that Vietnam was also a "Good War" like you read of Studs Terkel, but I've been seeing all the signs, I've been hearing all the cries, and I certainly don't believe what you believe, and how you can continue to support an invasion built on an ongoing parade of falsehoods and deceptions is beyond me.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (08-30-2005 06:31 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

40 posted 2005-08-30 08:05 PM

The latest poll this morning stated that 79% state the protest has not affected their views at all. I'm sure, Noah, you would simply say that 79% of the population is wrong. The American legion is Mccarthyistic. Bush is delusional and whoever disagrees with your views simply don't know what they are talking about. Well, at least you are not biased

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

41 posted 2005-08-31 01:06 PM

Does that mean that we have 21 percent who actually listen?

Of course not.

Hmmm, how about 5 %? Is that a possibility?

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

42 posted 2005-08-31 02:02 PM

Yay, there you are Balladeer!

No, as a protester myself who continues to be enthralled by the building momentum and galvanizing of the anti-war movement here, I myself never expected for everyone to automatically change their perception at the snap of a thumb.

I do believe Sheehan's protest is most significant because finally, while the Democrats are lost in the woods thinking and believing God knows what and a majority of the GOP continue to strongly back the invasion, the movement finally has a face. I believe it already had stellar eyes and ears, it just needed something more, some sort of personality many could relate to. Sheehan didn't sprout out of the elite, she was a single American mother who had questions that desired to be answered, and out of the arrogance of the administration, it has fueled the validity of the movement. What has happened here is that in the success of her protest, she has brought the dialogue of the anti-war/peace movement to the national level, where before it only got blinking pilot lights of recognition on the anniversaries of the war in Iraq protests, parts of the election season, etc.

That 79% figure is no surprise to me whatsoever. It's pretty much just like suggesting that the slew of Bush's speeches linking Iraq to 9/11 and WWII in trying to stall the downward trend of public approval toward him and Iraq hasn't influenced or changed 79% or more of Americans minds. Getting the message truly isn't a spontaneous process a majority of the time, it's an evolutionary process, and as the months continue to tick by, I believe more have found it in their hearts and minds that something is very wrong with the picture here; they are making out the dialogue, the talking points challenging the policy.

You also have to remind yourself that it wasn't a single-party poll. Obviously a vast majority of Democrats polled there aren't going to be further influenced from the protests because they've already made up their mind anyway about Bush and Iraq. Obviously most Republicans wish to remain supportive of the president and back the war effort. If anything, I am encouraged the poll didn't come out 90% or above not being influenced by the events.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I believe deep in everyone's heart there is a place that knows something is wrong, a place stronger than all the cynicism that surrounds it at the core that ever so often can squeeze so tight, and I believe what's happening is just that; more are recognizing how ugly war is, how under a pragmatist's reasoning war should only be used as a last resort, and this certainly wasn't one, and that this war is only bringing out the worst in us all.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.