On Saturday, tens of thousands of people marched in an anti-war demonstration against the war in Iraq in Washington. The demonstrative body consisted of regular citizens, military families, law-makers, and celebrities (including Jane Fonda). The organizers of the protest said that the demonstration and the crowd consisted of people that traveled there on 300 buses from 40 different states. The rally was a peacefeul one, eventhough a few protesters tried to rush the Capitol. No arrests were made, however. 40 or more people including injured veterans held a counter-protest at around the same time; stating that the crowd needs to take the sacrifice of the soldiers in Iraq into consideration. Smaller rallies had been set up in California. Apparently, a lot of people are against the war and ready for the troops to come back home.
Crowds on both coasts protest Iraq war
By CALVIN WOODWARD and LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_re_us/iraq_protest;_ylt=AjvCBD3WbzEyBBsuu6.DyY9vzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Jerrell Bostick (POS2001 MWF 8a.m.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Peaceful protest is one of the rights that we are fighting for overseas.
The funny thing is that the people who won't volunteer are the ones demanding that the soldiers come home. And then wounded soldiers gathered to counter protest.
There is something that I hear a lot from the anti-war camp, "I support the troops, but not the cause." This doesnt stand. The troops support the cause. Any soldier fighting overseas now has had opportunities to get out. It's easy, a soldier who wants out just doesn't re-enlist. But the fact is, they are re-enlisting. Most of the troops believe they are defending our country and helping Iraq. So if you don't support the cause, then you want it to fail.
And we fail when our troops die and we pull out of Iraq.
Oh, and Jane Fonda . . . she is a fool. Any anti-war activist who believes they are doing the right thing should keep her as far away as possible.
Fonda told The New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie." She sad this after visiting Hanoi and posing in pictures with North Vietnamese soldiers on an anti-aircraft gun. That gun was used to shoot and kill American pilots. Her visit and comments on the communist radio for days was a sick blow to America and our soldiers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HJGE.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.applesanity.com/fetish/jane_fonda/jane-fonda-traitor.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.applesanity.com/fetish/jane_fonda/&h=480&w=640&sz=71&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=UsfMgg89TGPeGM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djane%2Bfonda%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
I understand the points you are trying to make, Ryan, but you back them up with logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You can't prove the things you are trying to prove through these methods.
>The funny thing is that the people who won't volunteer are the ones demanding that the soldiers come home.
Truth by declaration, where is the evidence to back up this statement? I've seen numerous stories of former military engaging in protests, starting with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and other organizations.
>And then wounded soldiers gathered to counter protest.
Similarly, this statement makes it seem like all who are counter-protesting are wounded soldiers, when in reality, most counter-protesters I've seen or read about don't fit this category. Some do, sure, but the counter-protesters I've seen in Tallahassee are all college students who have not served overseas (with a few exceptions, of course). When you drive by the protests in Tallahassee, you see a whole lot more military fatigues on the anti-war side.
>There is something that I hear a lot from the anti-war camp, "I support the troops, but not the cause." This doesnt stand.
False dichotomy. It is certainly possible to separate people from policy. You are suggesting that the position that most Americans hold doesn't exist. As far as I can tell, every poll in recent years says a majority of Americans support the troops and oppose the war.
>The troops support the cause.
Some do, some don't. It is clear from polls of active military (see Military Times, for example) that there are many troops that don't support the war.
>Any soldier fighting overseas now has had opportunities to get out.
Has the war actually been longer now than the minimum enlistment period? I'm not sure it has, particularly with stop-loss programs. Also, the war isn't thought of as positively as it was when it started. There are certainly people who signed up initially supporting the war who have changed their minds and their enlistment hasn't ended yet.
>But the fact is, they are re-enlisting.
Some are, surely, but where is the evidence to show that these numbers are as universal as you say they are. I've read or heard numerous stories that re-enlistment rates are declining.
>So if you don't support the cause, then you want it to fail.
Another false dichotomy. It is easy to imagine a person who doesn't support the cause and doesn't want it to fail. Again, this position is the majority position in America.
Again, Ryan, I understand your position and that you clearly dislike the opposition's position, but that doesn't mean you can prove yourself correct simply by attacking the other side or just by making statements without supporting them with any evidence. You provided evidence for the Jane Fonda argument -- although I don't think anyone would even question that argument -- but not for the things in your argument that are debateable.
There are many options for enlistment. They have 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 year enlistments and re-enlistments.
The sentiment towards the war has changed and could have changed in many soldiers but it has been over five years since september 11th. And one year after that most soldiers and Americans knew this would be bigger than just Afghanistan.
September 12, 2002 President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly that Iraq is a "grave and gathering danger" and said if the U.N. doesn't deal with Iraq, the U.S. will. (THE WAR IN IRAQ, Life books)
So, a soldier who enlisted for the first time (usually four years) in 2002 had the oppotunity to leave in 2006.
Stop loss has affected some. But I speak only from knowing other soldiers. The last soldier I knew who had the stop loss was in 2003 because he was coming back from Kuwait just before the invasion.
But if noone would question that Jane Fonda is not a good or credible person to have on your side of a protest then why IS she there? Someone thinks she is.
The leaders of the anti-war movement have a strange agenda. These are the celebrity and new celebrity-like leaders, who have not served.
And Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in combat. Her son, Casey was a Spc in the Army 1st Cav. He re-enlisted to join his command and go to Iraq. He was awarded a brnze star. It is sad to see his mother on tv spouting anything she can to hurt America. She won't just stop with a peaceful protest. She has visited and hung out with this nations' leading enemies. In 2005 she went to Venezuela taking pictures with Chavez. And just a month ago she went to Cuba to protest our base. Unbelievable. She is following in the footsteps of Mrs. Fonda. I await her trip to Iran.
Even troops who I know are Democrat or anti-war have a hard time relating to those ideals. When presidential candidate and US SENATOR John Kerry makes statements about troops, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Now, Senator Kerry says it was a jab at President Bush (which doesnt make it much better, seeing he is our Commander-in-chief and I think all leaders Rep or Dem deserve repect for the sake of the nation and the position they represent). If it was a botched joke, why did he not immediately apologize?
Noone in the armed forces thought it was funny, nor did we care to hear him blame the media for printing what he said and not what he meant to say. Unconditional apology would have been the right, respectful thing to do.
But, I honestly don't think he respects our military.
>But I speak only from knowing other soldiers.
Anecdotal evidence, of course.
>The last soldier I knew who had the stop loss was in 2003 because he was coming back from Kuwait just before the invasion.
There have been widespread reports of stop-loss being used since then. So with a typical enlistment and the use of stop-loss, there are some troops who have not had the opportunity to opt out, although most have.
>But if noone would question that Jane Fonda is not a good or credible person to have on your side of a protest then why IS she there?
She's there because of the right to freedom of assembley, since she can't be prohibited from being attended. More importantly, she's there because people either disagree with your interpretation of her motives (not many) or have accepted her apology (probably most involved) or they agree with her original activities (probably the smallest group).
>The leaders of the anti-war movement have a strange agenda.
While your comments may apply to the celebrity leaders of the anti-war movement, I think most of the leaders are celebrities only in a political since, such as elected officials, members of interest groups and bloggers.
>It is sad to see his mother on tv spouting anything she can to hurt America.
You are creating a motive here that does not follow from the evidence. What she is doing may hurt American (that's a question up for debate), it's hard to see that her goal is to hurt America.
>In 2005 she went to Venezuela taking pictures with Chavez.
Venezuela and Chavez are American allies. He and Bush have a strong, shall we say, dislike for each other, but it is a personal and philosophical dislike, not any kind of official one. Our policies toward Venezula are positive.
>And just a month ago she went to Cuba to protest our base.
Protesting our base there doesn't necessarily mean supporting Castro. That's a pretty big logical leap.
>She is following in the footsteps of Mrs. Fonda.
She'd probably take that as a compliment.
>I await her trip to Iran.
Slippery slope.
>Even troops who I know are Democrat or anti-war have a hard time relating to those ideals.
And I think most troops would agree with you.
I'm not going to even begin to try to speak for John Kerry, although if you watch the clip, it was clear that his intention was to attack President Bush. Maybe if he were a better speaker, he might have done better in the election. Maybe not.
>Unconditional apology would have been the right, respectful thing to do.
I think most Americans agree with you on this one.
All of the protestors have a right to do so.
As for going to Cuba and hanging out with Chavez in Venezuela . . . there are rights and then there is responsibility.
Chavez may not officialy be labeled an enemy but he is moving in a dangerous direction. He is buddies with Ahmadinejad and they (Iran) are even further down that dangerous slope. The US just sent another carrier into the gulf region. It is an American show of force because of Iran's dialogue. Iran is also saying now that it will help Iraq militarily. This cannot happen.
Iran is pushing us for something. They are playing a deadly game with their nuclear program and defiance to the UN (who has ZERO authority...look at Iraq and Saddam's previous defiance, and their dealings with Africa, esp Darfur and the corrupt Sudanese gov't. And let's not forget Hezbollah, and the UN observers sitting next to Hezbollah artilery who were shelled by Israel. That is just to name a few failures.)
Many agree that Iran is helping the terrorists and we know they have ties with al-Sadr.
So, when Hugo calls Ahmadinejad his "brother", then I think it is safe to say Venezuela will officialy be on our "bad" list soon.
As a vet. of two conflicts(The First Gulf War and Somalia) I have a few observations and opinions. First and foremost let me say that ANY parent, brother, sister, son or daughter who losses someone they love in war has a right to say what they feel, obviously within the limits of the law. Another thing about the troops re-enlisting, the U.S is now offering up what I call bribe money (around 5-10k) to re-up. Now from experience that money is more than most of the young soldiers have ever seen. Remember that the majority of our core soldiers are between 17-22, hard to turn down $10.000! The military is also forcing the deployment of the inactive reserves. So if I were about to get out and I knew I was going to get stuck going back to Iraq because of this policy, a re-enlistment(paid) is a much better option. Finally, when it comes to the troops themselves who are there, most of them just want to make sure themselves and their friends come home safe, period. I did not support the reason for being sent into Somalia but once I was there it was about getting everyone home, NOTHING ELSE. Thats why many of us voluntarily made 5-6 trips into the city from the airport, most people would have called us suicidal. I hope I did not offend anyone, but I wanted you to hear first hand from someone who has experienced Hell on Earth.
Ryan, unless Chavez actually does something illegal or in some way compromises our interests abroad, I doubt he will be officially labelled an enemy. I think he is a lot of talk and won't do anything too crazy.
Referring to the U.N. as a failure is also questionable, since it does not have any enforcement powers, never did and never claimed to. You appear to want something from the U.N. that they can't do and never said they could do. As long as countries remain sovereign (which is always), the U.N. will remain powerless.
Alex, your comments are consistent with everything I have read and numerous documentaries and docudramas I have seen.
I personally support our troops, but I would also say I am not a big fan of the current war in Iraq.
But I also agree - just because we have the right to peaceful protest (among many others that other nations dont have) doesnt mean that people should go around constantly complaining about the war.
I consider myself a Democrat but the last thing I want to hear in any political discussion is an individual complaining about Iraq and how terrible the president is - we already know that Iraq is in bad shape - and yes, Bush has made some questionable decisions - but what good does it do to complain about it?
Im tired of the divide that has seemingly formed in the U.S, and I really do not honestly believe that Cindy Sheehan has been very productive in anything. Sure, she attracted a lot of attention to herself - but thousands of sons, daughters, husbands and wives have died in Iraq and their families have been far more supportive for our country.
Sam, you have a good outlook.
Alex, the money issue is arguable. I don't think money is the large motivating factor into enlisting. And it definately isnt the case for the cadets and soldiers I am serving with now. My ROTC cadet class is bigger than it was last year. I enlisted in October in a new National Guard unit in town. It has doubled between two drills. The guys we see enlisting and contracting with ROTC now are not here for the big money.
Though my Guard unit is not having problems, the Reserve unit in town is having problems with retention.
The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) you are talking about I want to make clear to others. good point. When a soldier enlists he is making a contract for 8 years. He may only sign up for 4 active duty, then after that he can go home. The remanding four years he will have zero contact with the army unless the army needs him and can call him back up. This only applies to your first enlistment. They are calling up IRR's from specific jobs such as Military Police.
"Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Army has called up more than 2,500 IRR Soldiers -- the majority through IRR volunteers, though some have been involuntary call-ups." (Army Press Release, taken from Global Security.org)
Kenneth, I'm really unsure what the UN is for. It was created to prevent war, a replacement for the League of Nations which had failed before WWII.
The UN is a hard topic. I really need to just ask a lot of questions.
It seems to be just a big bureaucracy with no power, no authority, anti-US and anti-Israel. They seem to want to appease anyone rather than do the right thing (Darfur, Iraq, Iran, NK, Hezbollah). They are more concerned with being everyone's friend than one's enemy. I am frustrated with the UN.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-irr.htm
We'll talk about the UN more in detail in class towards the end of the semester. They were primarily created to prevent World War III and hopefully other wars. With the first, they have been very successful, with the second they have not been successful at all.
In modern times they serve three primary purposes:
1. Peacekeeping. Not to stop wars that have already begun, but as a force to be put into areas where there is a cease fire to prevent hostilities from breaking out again. They've had some success in this role and some failure.
2. Developmental assistance. Helping third world countries move forward with economic development. They've been much more successful at this.
3. Disaster relief/aid. Helping countries out when they are hit by natural disasters, famine, drought or large refugee crises brought on by various things, including war. This has probably been their most successful area.
The UN does many other things, with varying degrees of success, but this is what most of their budget and resources are spent on.
We'll talk about the UN more in detail in class towards the end of the semester. They were primarily created to prevent World War III and hopefully other wars. With the first, they have been very successful, with the second they have not been successful at all.
In modern times they serve three primary purposes:
1. Peacekeeping. Not to stop wars that have already begun, but as a force to be put into areas where there is a cease fire to prevent hostilities from breaking out again. They've had some success in this role and some failure.
2. Developmental assistance. Helping third world countries move forward with economic development. They've been much more successful at this.
3. Disaster relief/aid. Helping countries out when they are hit by natural disasters, famine, drought or large refugee crises brought on by various things, including war. This has probably been their most successful area.
The UN does many other things, with varying degrees of success, but this is what most of their budget and resources are spent on.
Wow, just reading these comments makes you think. I just had two things to say. I am not a troop and have never fought in a war, but I still have the right to protest. Some people might be protesting because they don't believe in this war, but some might just be protesting because they don't believe in war at all. Also I support the troops but not the cause, which is completely understandable. I obviously don't want any troops dying, and I want to them do what they are there to do (that's me supporting them..) AND I don't agree with the war, but it's a little too late for us to turn back now (that's me not agreeing with the cause..). I just wanted to show you that it is possible to be both.
In the interest of balance and fairness, I'll go ahead and update the reenlistment bonus figure- $22,500 is around the maximum. I was offered this for a 6 year reenlistment (would have been tax-free since I was in Afghanistan at the time); not hard to turn down considering spread out over 6 years it seems like a lot less money. I'm also with Ryan in the thought that money is never the sole reason someone would enlist or reenlist- it's too different a lifestyle to put a dollar figure on it. Most people could make more overall outside the military anyway.
The decreased enlistment and reenlistment rates are indeed true as well, but that's no surprise. War is never as fun as peace can be.
Also, the Army is no longer reactivating the inactive reserves. The program was instituted in very limited numbers to fill specific MOS slots that were needed, they approved the vast majority of written appeals to mobilization, and the program was allowed to expire on it's original time-limit, because it was no longer needed. (So, failing the sudden and simultanious invasions of some major countries, you'll still see me around at school.)
Post a Comment