Anti-war group targets recruiters (Seattle P-I)

[icymist]

Friday, February 4, 2005

Anti-war group targets recruiters
Effort launched after campus clash

By JAKE ELLISON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A mob of Seattle Central Community College students chased military recruiters off campus last month, after a tense confrontation. Now a student anti-war group is stepping up efforts to keep them out for good.

Students Against War has launched a petition drive aimed at persuading administrators to order a halt to on-campus military recruiting.

The group points to a November ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Philadelphia-based court held that a college opposed to the policy barring gays and lesbians in the armed forces has a First Amendment right to protest by blocking access to military recruiters.

<snip>

The students hurled insults and water bottles, according to witnesses, forcing the recruiters to flee under the protection of campus security officers. There were no reports of injuries.

<snip>

The flap has energized Central's anti-war effort, sparking the petition drive. The group's goal is to get recruiters off campus "by legal means," said spokesman Gerald Lisi.

He argued that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is in conflict with the college's code barring discrimination on campus. While petitions circulate, the group is consulting with attorneys and researching the issue.

More:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/210741_protest04.html

[saigon68]

1. GOOD GET THOSE PERVERTS OFF CAMPUS GRAPHIC PHOTOS

LET THEM SHOW THIS SHIT TO THE RECRUITS




Joséé Martinez
source: Associated Press via

Most Americans haven't seen the growing legion of wounded troops returning from Iraq
who are cared for at military facilities sealed off from the public. The media, in turn, have
focused on the hit-and-run guerrilla attacks that claim one or two GIs in Iraq almost daily.
Little attention has been paid to the long, difficult and very personal struggles that ensue in
wards at BAMC and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington




Justin R. Burgess, with Denzel Washington
source: Associated Press





P.S. I HAVE LOTS MORE DON'T LOSE YOUR LUNCH

[liberal N proud]

2. I chuckled at the thought of students chasing the recruiters

quickly changed to sadness when I saw post your post.
Just sad.

[saigon68]

3. Here's a Few More GRAPHIC

THIS IS THE SHIT THE CHIMPANZEE HIDES FROM

AND THE MSM REFUSES TO SHOW




Robert Jackson





James E. Wright











Albert Ross





Brandon Erickson






Allan Doyle, with uncle and daughter





[llmart]

56. As awful as these are to look at.....

this is what has to get out to the public, some way, some how. I know the MSM won't do it, so we at DU should print them out and lay them around in public places. If that's what it takes, so be it.

Bush doesn't want people to see this.

Thanks Saigon68. Some of us are old enough to remember VietNam.

[Red_Viking]

4. Almost lost my Corn Flakes

Thanks for sharing these photos. I'm not sure I could look at more, but I also think we SHOULD force ourselves to look. Maybe not so much the folks at DU who get what an unholy mess we're in, but the members of the Christo-Fascist Zombie Brigade who think our glorious leader was ordained by God. Those folks who think * is swell need to soak awhile in photos of our wounded soldiers and photos of the maimed and dead innocent Iraqis and see how well that comports with their idea of compassion.

My mom works with a woman whose son-in-law was right behind a soldier who stepped on some kind of land mine. The soldier was killed, and the SIL lost virtually all of his face. He's blind and disfigured, and not even 30 years old. From what I hear, he has a terrific spirit and is healing up nicely.

Sobering thoughts for a Friday morning, but we need the reminder.

Thanks for your service--I was too young to know what was going on, but I know now. I appreciate it, man.

Peace,

RV

[egoprofit]

23. what about pictures of mothers, sons daughters, fathers, crying??

brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandmas, grandpas, father-in-laws, etc... they die a thousand deaths.

[David__77]

5. Direct action is best.

Rather than having the college expel them, I think it is even better for the students to do it themselves. This makes an excellent organizing folcrum. During Vietnam, it was a great issue, the recruiters being vampires.

[Ian David]

6. A cautionary tale for churches seeking faith-based money

Churches, please see "Solomon Act," before you accept money from the government.

[Southern Dem 2005]

7. Umm, I don't see the problem with recruiters

What's with all the dislike of the military? For a lot of people the military is a way to a better future. Some people jsut feel like they have a duty to serve. Regardless, there's a lot of people in the military getting injured and killed to protect us. While the "protecting America" argument doesn't really work for Iraq (at least not for me), it does for Afghanistan.

[sarcasmo]

10. Southern Democrat an Oxymoron? FYI, I am not calling you a moron.

[Southern Dem 2005]

13. Southern dems will be an oxymoron if

some people on this board have their way. While I'm a liberal dem there are a lot of dems all over the country who are more centrist/moderate. Seems to me that there are some people who are too shrill in their attacks on people who don't agree with their views. Abortion is a good example. People in the party have got to accept that its ok to be pro-life. You can't just attack someone and try to shut them out because of their view on abortion. Military is another example. Most Americans (I'd wager at least 80%), regardless of how they feel about the war in Iraq, have a very positive view of the U.S. military. While these pictures help show the reality of war and graphically depict the real cost to American soldiers, it is counterproductive to make personal attacks on the military.

[Bouncy Ball]

11. Did you READ the article?

Pertinent part here:

"The group points to a November ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Philadelphia-based court held that a college opposed to the policy barring gays and lesbians in the armed forces has a First Amendment right to protest by blocking access to military recruiters."

Now, let the recruiters SUE to be on campus and watch what happens. The student groups against war already have that ruling from the 3rd US Circuit Court as a precedent.

[primavera]

18. The problem with recruiters

... is that they target the most desperate and vulnerable sectors of the population. Watch sometime the segment from Fahrenheit 9/11 which shows Marine recruiting officers cruising around, looking for likely spots to pick up potential recruits. They specifically avoid any place that looks too well off, favoring the seediest and most impoverished locales where they're likeliest to find the absolutely wretched, people so depressed and hopeless that they can be deceived even by the transparent be-all-you-can-be crap. Strangely, they never seem to tell prospective recruits about the chances of being killed, mutilated, disfigured, crippled, or any of that stuff. Sure, people should be bright enough to see through the propaganda, but the military's systematic pattern of targeting the weakest and most desperate members of society suggests that they know only too well that what they have to offer is not going to be terribly attractive to anyone with a promising future. So, rather than provide a more attractive future for persons entering the military, they prey upon those who lack, or perceive themselves to lack, a future, and are too down to question the miltary's misleading marketing pitches.

[Rebel_blogger]

31. Your statements are false ...

The military is a volunteer organization. NO ONE is made to join. And the falsehood of them preying on the weak and stupid is wrong. While we can disagree with the policies of the administration, denigrating the military is not the way to do it. Who do you think protects your way of life? Your right to freedom of speech? And as much as some people here like to squawk about it, we DO have freedom of speech.

[icymist]

33. A war in Iraq, a country that was detained, does not defend my

right to free speech. Attacking a country already beaten into submission is not going to protect my way of life. Pre-emptive war is not the way to spread democracy. Iraq was not a threat to the United States until we invaded it. In my humble opinion, any other argument is stupid pride and defeatist. To think that an entire section of the planet would succumb to 'our way of life' through military might is just plan arrogance.

[Southern Dem 2005]

34. Hmmm

You are right that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, and preemptive war is a terrible idea, and we aren't any safer than we were before the invasion. But that doesn't mean people need to attack the US military. After all, many of them signed up because they could get college paid for or it offered a better future, not so they could go to Iraq and get their leg blown off. I think we should fully support the military. I also think the ones who engage in prisoner abuse or shoot wounded enemy are criminals and should be treated as such.

[icymist]

36. I never told you to drop your support of the military.

And I was answering in response to a perception of the military preying on the weak and stupid as not being the case for these military recruiters on compass. The military does prey on the unfortunate in society. All the promises in the world will not compensate for being sent off to fight a war in some place such as Iraq. This is not the same as fighting the Taliban or Al Qaida for, at the time before the invasion, Iraq was not a threat to us. I would also implore you to read the article, especially about the part of the military excluding gay and lesbian recruits, even though that's against local city and county law where they are recruiting. That's what the main beef in this article is about.

[Southern Dem 2005]

39. I respectfully disagree

The military does not "prey" on anyone. For years the military has offered a better lifestyle than what many of its recruits could expect if they did not join. Since people with money already have a good lifestyle they didn't need to join the military and would only do so out of a sense of duty. Unfortunately, the military is now doing what it is designed to do--fight a war--and people who joined for the money are now fighting a war. I haven't read the article but I do not support the military ban on homosexuals. It is discrimination at its worst. However, a local or state ordinance cannot keep the military from recruiting, regardless of what people think about their policies.

[primavera]

42. I wonder how many active military would agree with you

that their livestyle is better in a place like Iraq than it would have been in civilian life. Permanent disfigurement and PTSD are heavy prices to pay for a few thousand dollars from the Army College Fund. And what does it say about our country that, for many of these people, military service was their only option for obtaining an education and a decent standard of living? Isn't that something a citizen of the wealthiest country on earth ought to be able to get without having to sacrifice a limb or two? How many of those eager recruits do you think would have joined up had they read the fine print which outlined just how indefinitely their terms of service might end up being, or if they understood what the true costs of their enlistment might ultimately be? I think we can safely assume that the recruiters didn't feel it necessary to elaborate too much on those points.

[Southern Dem 2005]

44. I'm don't disagree with most of what you say

I think I'm not making my point clearly. Most people in the military join because it offers a chance at a better life. They join voluntarily. I don't think the military "preys" on them I just think that the military is aware that a trust-fund baby isn't going to be too receptive to a military lifestyle.

Now, when it comes to people who are less fortunate join the military during peace-time so they can have a better life I'm all for it.

When its time to fight a war and die for your country everyone needs to share the burden equally. This means we probably would have to institute a draft to distribute the burden.

[primavera]

47. I hear you, I just think there's another layer

Consider, if you will, the practice of state lotteries of putting up posters in unemployment offices and social security offices, encouraging people to buy lotto tickets. As we all know, the odds of winning the lottery are almost incalculably remote. If one does it in good fun, that's one thing, most people can afford to set fire to a buck and not miss it too much. The people standing in unemployment lines are the ones who can least afford to set fire to a buck, yet they are also the ones who most want to believe that there is a chance that they could strike it rich and become Donald Trump overnight. Their specific circumstances makes them more likely than the average audience to be willing to gamble - even though they are undeniably the worst equipped to bear the loss. Marketing people know this, yet, as far as they're concerned, they'd have to be some kind of fool to not take advantage of a market when they see it, so they push lotto on the vulnerable. That's what marketing principles would teach a marketing professional to do. But is it really responsible social policy to place the burden of lotto-generated revenues on the poorest sector of society? Think on it like taxes, as that's ultimately how the money is used. Do you think it's fair that the lowest earning segment of the population should pay the highest percentage of the taxes for social programs from which everyone benefits?

Same deal with the military. As you say, the military knows that the trust fund kids won't come within ten miles of the military, so they direct their efforts at an audience which is more receptive to what they have to say. Sure they join voluntarily. There was a story I read this week about villagers in India voluntarily selling their kidneys to wealthy western patients in order to pay off their debts. Prostitutes "voluntarily" sell their bodies so that they can survive. Okay, fine, so it's "voluntary," but what does it say about these poor people and the governments which bear responsibility for them, that their best shot at survival is selling their bodies? It sure doesn't seem like a thing to be proud of or to glorify, and it certainly doesn't need my tax payer dollars paying some official to go around and encourage the practice.

[Herkdrvr]

50. I am active duty military and here's my opinion...

You can spend all day arguing over foreign policy and other administration policies, etc. But it absolutely turns my stomach to see articles like the above...just as it makes me mad when I read how some of you say "we support the military" and then throw bottles at recruiters to prevent our military from being properly manned.

F9/11 is a film that shows one side of the arguement. Sure, some recruiters probably look in poor communities to help their numbers. But I've been in the military now for 13 years, and I've seen a pretty even spread of people who came from various backgrounds. I myself came from a pretty typical middle-class background, and I have many friends who came from lower-income, middle-income and wealthy backgrounds.

Just as there are people who joined to simply get ahead in life by using educational benefits or just needed something to do after high school, there are many others who joined because they always wanted to serve in the military. It absolutely makes me cringe whenever I am told that people in the military are here in uniform because we didn't have any other lot in life. I distinctly remember being told one day by an uncle who questioned my reasoning to join the military by stating "why are you going active duty? that's for people that couldn't make it in the civilian world"...Sure, keep believing that.

I've held a civilian full-time job as a geologist, and I worked with some pretty pathetic people. That's not to say everyone in the military is 100% motivated...we certainly have some slackers too...but my intent is to say that we have a pretty solid representation of our country's population as a whole.

As for things like contract extensions, recruiters are supposed to mention that...problem is most people don't pay attention while the recruiter is going over all the legalese. When I first enlisted I distinctly remember being told I'd have to do 2 years in the IRR as part of my original contract...these guys saying they didn't know about it are either hedging or simply didn't pay attention before they signed.

And you must remember...a recruiter is just that...a recruiter. They aren't there to tell you how much the job sucks. No corporate recruiter would tell you about the cubicle hell their office might be, or the long hours, or the arsehole boss you might be working for. Similarly, a military recruiter isn't going to try to woo you into the military by telling you how you can get your legs blown off or spend months deployed in 130 degree heat. Some of that stuff is a given, to me. Military = possibility of war = possibility of getting wounded or killed.

Next time you want to post something that denigrates my service or anyone else's for that matter by suggesting I serve because I'm too stupid to do something else or got suckered into it...please do me a favor and keep your ignorance to yourself.

[primavera]

53. I don't disagree

I'm sorry if you heard in my comments the suggestion that people who serve in the military are stupid, I keep trying to correct some people's tendency to read that into my words, but am evidently not having much luck. My point was that targeting of poor and desperate elements was a less than commendable policy on the part of the military. If you'll look closely, you'll notice that at no point did I ever say that everyone who wound up in the military was from a poor and desperate background, I have no doubt that there are many like yourself who were not recruited from ghettos, but who joined voluntarily with their eyes open, knowing full well what they could expect, and did so because they believed that serving in the military was an important and honorable thing to do. I think that's great, I think everyone who serves in the military should be able to say the same thing, that it was a conscious choice that they made, armed with the facts, and in full possession of their faculties. That's the way it ought to be all of the time and I'm delighted to hear that you're one of the many for whom it worked out that way. You and others in the military like you are able to feel good about what you're doing and accept the personal consequence at least with the recognition that you incurred them as a result of a choice you made of your own free will. You are not my concern - my concern are those who did not join under such ideal circumstances. My concern is for the ghetto kid who never really wanted to serve in the military, but felt it was his only way out of the ghetto. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a reason to risk life and limb in the military: in a country as wealthy as ours, there ought to be a way for a kid to make it out of the ghetto without having to risk getting killed in a profession he never wanted to be part of in the first place.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that someone like yourself, who wants to be in the military and takes pride in being in the military, considers it good policy on the part of the military to send its recruiters to try to fill its ranks with people who don't really want to be in the military.

Oh, and by the way, I understand recruiters are assholes no matter what industry they're in, I just don't think that the fact that they mislead people in private industry makes it any more acceptable for them to mislead people about life in the military.

[Herkdrvr]

54. I never said...

...that it was good policy to recruit kids who don't want to be in the military, but that's the reality sometimes...recruiters have quotas to meet, and to meet them they will often target groups that might help their numbers.

Kids like that, unfortunately, often don't put away for their GI Bill in the first place, and many times only do a single tour and get out, winding right back where they started. Sometimes I wonder if they have enough motivation to do much of anything at all...I've seen some pretty bad attitudes in 13 years. And no, it's not them chafing at the military environment...they just don't want to work...or at least only do it when it suits them.

[primavera]

55. Cool, it sounds like we're not in that great a disagreement

It sounds like you're not all that much more thrilled by the practice of ghetto recruiting than I am. So what's making you sick?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[icymist]

45. First, I suggest you read the article you're responding to.

Second, your rhetoric sounds like a credit card collections letter. With the big promises of 'money for college' and a 'better life afterwords',the military IS preying on the poor. Since these wars are fought for the benefit of the rich (excluding Afghanistan) than this instrument is for maintaining a class of 'poor folk' to pull it's military from. Frankly, a local or state ordinance that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been decided in a court of law. Again, read the article before stressing your opinion.

[Southern Dem 2005]

46. Hold On--You are wrong on several points

Here's the reality--I went into the military at a young age as a person from a lower class background. The military paid for my undergrad education and allowed me to go to law school, so the promise of benefits is the truth. I'm not sure that any war has been fought for the "benefit of the rich." I know Afghanistan, WWI and II, and the Civil War were not fought to benefit the rich. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that while we attacked Iraq for the wrong reasons we didn't go their to benefit the rich. The sad fact is that most people in the military have a less-privileged background so they suffer inordinately. But the reason for this is that the military is a way for many, many people to better themselves.

As for the local ordinance being legal it still can't trump federal law, which allows military recruiters access to pretty much anywhere.

[icymist]

48. You have a 'gung ho' attitude my friend.

I don't believe either one of us will change their views on this matter. I do beg you to at least read this article related with this thread so you will understand that a federal court ruled that the military is discriminative towards a class of people known as being gay. Afterwards, we may be able to talk.

[primavera]

37. You're entitled to your opinion

Personally, I find it pretty suggestive that military recruiters prefer to seek recruits in ghettos as opposed to Ivy League campuses. How many children of members of Congress are in Iraq right now? How many children of our captains of industry? Face facts, the people who make the decisions to go to war are not the people who have to pay the price for it. It has always been that way and I imagine always will be.

Please note, you are misquoting me when you claim I stated that military recruits were stupid. I never said that, only that their less privileged circumstances left them more vulnerable to recruitment than would be those whose futures were brighter. And I believe that the pattern of military recruitment demonstrates that they are aware of this fact and intentionally exploit it. But of course, there's no law that saws we have to agree on this point.

As for who protects my way of life, well, I would have to say right this instant at least, it isn't the people who are fighting and dying overseas to make the US the most hated nation on earth. Personally, I don't think that makes me any safer. A recent BBC survey of public opinion in 23 countries around the world found that the overwhelming majority of respondents in 21 of the 23 countries polled considered the US to be the world's greatest threat to peace. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential, what matters is that a majority of the world now perceives us as such. How exactly does that development protect my way of life? Frankly, I think my way of life would be a whole hell of a lot safer if I lived in a country like Canada, which has only the most minimal standing army, yet whose actions in the international community do not inspire other countries to hate and fear them. Yes, yes, I know, I must be a raving commie pinko to think that the world not hating us is preferable to the world hating us. Yet another point on which we will simply have to disagree.

Mind you, though, I do not blame the military for their presence in Iraq which is undermining our national security; rather, I blame the administration which sent them there. Just so we're clear on that.

[Southern Dem 2005]

40. Hey Kevin

I agree that the military focuses on the less-privileged as recruits. My other posts contains a similar statement. The reason they do is that the military often offers a better lifestyle than what they are used to. Unfortunately, they are signing up to fight if need be and right now thats what is happening. I don't think they are taking advantage of the less-fortunate though.

[Matriot]

57. The problem with recruiters are

I'm in the Army and had to attend a function to help the recruiters recruit. I also processed our newly enlisted soldiers. One recruiter flat out told a high school class of students that we are not activating National Guard and Reserve units. When I contradicted him he ordered me to leave then I had a report filed against me to my command. When I explained what happened, ofcourse I was not in trouble but I couldn't believe this recruiter just flat out "lied".

As someone who processes these recruits, I've seen these children recruited out of mental facilities, being told by their recruiters not to take their medication and therefore declining physically and mentally when they get to reception. Kids with "violent" felonies are being let into our service. Kids with physical disabilities are being let in as well, which we discover during the process of their training. It all boils down to their recruiters told them to lie so they can get in.

On the other hand recruiters have a quota to meet and, let's face it, no one of quality really wants to join the military. If you lower the standard of quality, the quality of your product is low. Welcome to your new military and it starts with the recruiters by accepting these low standards.

[Herkdrvr]

59. I have an issue with some statements of yours

"...let's face it, no one of quality really wants to join the military"

So, are you saying that you aren't "of quality"? You say you're in the Army then say that only losers join the military...???

I'm in the military...and I joined because I wanted to, not because I'm not "of quality" or somehow didn't have any other choice in life. Someone else in this thread asked why I had such heartburn over attitudes like that...for that quote above.

Are there some kids who join the military because they don't have anything else to do? Sure. But I disagree wholeheartedly that the bulk of us join for that reason. I work with a number of people who are very smart people, and could get out at the end of their terms but stay in. After all, you can't have 5-6 idiots crewing a C-130 and flying it around the world on their own.

[Matriot]

60. Let me clarify

I see how that can be taken out of context.

I too joined because I wanted to. As a matter of fact, this is my second time back to active duty and I was in the reserves during 9/11.

People of quality don't want to join because we're in a war that many feel is unjustified. The people of "quality" have their opinion that if they join they are approving of the war. Recruiters should stress that just because one joins, one doesn't have to believe in this war that we're fighting but join to make the difference in mitigating the lives lost in this war. Recruiters are bent on targeting the poorer quality potential soldiers because they're easy pickings. I blame the recruiters for taking advantage of our lowered standards to meet their quotas. If the recruiters maintained the old standards and found a good recruitment tool for our higher quality populace, it could make a difference in today's military.

Now recruiters don't get mad at me. There are some of you that maintain high standards and you suffer for maintaining that standard. I applaud you. However, recruiters that maintain a high standard and try to recruit to better our military will have to admit that they are few and far between.

Does that clarify the meaning behind my statement?

[go west young man]

8. Good for the students!

Those photos show the real story sad and humbling. There are also many real pictures of the war at www.robert_fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.html
Seeing the real horror is so important to getting war stopped. I despise the mainstream press for hiding this ugly reality. Please show these pictures to others so we can end this madness sooner. How many young children will die in Syria and Iran if this administration continues invading.

[go west young man]

9. Sorry the link didnt work. Here it is again.

www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.html

[Bouncy Ball]

12. Good. This is how it starts.

The students, the kids.

[Southern Dem 2005]

14. How what starts?

[Bouncy Ball]

19. Do you need a history lesson?

Feeling nervous, are you?

[Southern Dem 2005]

24. Sure, give me a history lesson

[Occulus]

26. France. 1800s.

That's a good place to start.

You may also wish to go read about the USA in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[Southern Dem 2005]

27. What are you talking about?

You think the people are going to rise up? Your crazy. I like you, but your crazy.

[hiley]

52. They are going into Grade School

now with recruiting propaganda, posters, stickers, video's all of it.

[bajamary]

15. Bravo Students! "Costly Mistake. Work for Peace and Justice"

God bless these students and thank you all for sharing the deeply moving photos.

My personal website has long been receiving hostile and even threatening emails because it is anti war and pro peace and justice.

But these threats are nothing compared to the horrible loss of lives and the terrible wounds, both physical and mental, that our brave men and women now suffer because of this unnecessary, wicked war.

Bless all of the service men and women, and the Seattle students!

[Southern Dem 2005]

16. Good post

I fully agree that this war was unnecessary (although I wonder if in the end the Iraqi people won't be better off).

[bajamary]

17. But

Thanks. But will we be better off?

[Bouncy Ball]

20. Well we certainly aren't.

And the Iraqis who were killed certainly aren't. And the Iraqis who have lost everything, have nothing left to live for, and have taken up arms against the foreign occupier (that would be us, by the way) certainly aren't. And the dead and maimed troops certainly aren't.

Oh yeah, did I mention we attacked this country because they were a (cough, bullshit, cough) THREAT to us?

It's good to remember things like that. That way no one can go revising history on you and you falling for it and shit.

[Southern Dem 2005]

25. I'm not saying the people who died are better off

and I definitely don't think George Bush presented any valid reason to go to war. If he had said "Saddam is a bad man who is killing women and children and must be removed" then I might have supported the war. That said, we are there now and can't just pull out. And it sucks that people are dying but just pulling probably leads to terrorists in charge. And regardless of what anyone says about being better of the Iraqi people are better off--Saddam was a killer. Arguing that the Iraqi's aren't better off is kind of like saying the Russians were better off under Stalin.

[keopeli]

38. Military recruiters target high school and college students

Since they are the subject of the military's efforts, they are completely within their rights to object and protest military recruitment efforts, especially if they can make a cohesive objection.

Using discrimination against gays is a brilliant move to justify protests. We must support their efforts if we agree with their cause.

The military is ABLE to protect us, but that doesn't mean that they actually do. They are controlled completely by Bush* and Republicans and must do their bidding. They must believe in the validity of the Bush* claims about keeping America safe or they would be commiting murder, perhaps genocide.

I support the military. BUT, I do NOT support their actions, nor do I support their discrimination against gays.

Any US Citizen who is eligible to be drafted has a profound reason to be concerned. The only thing voluntary about our military is that you have to voluntarily enlist. Once you have signed the paper, all volunteerism is gone, no matter what you learn about the military after you sign up. The idea of a volunteer army is weak at best. People who have retired or quit the military are being recalled against their will. Is this voluntary?

[Southern Dem 2005]

41. Actually, it is a volunteer military

When you sign up you agree to 8 years of service. If you separate before 8 years they can still recall you for the amount of time remaining on your agreement. While it sucks it is in the contract you sign (although most people who sign are 18 years old and don't know any better).

[Matriot]

58. Don't forget

That if you retire from the military that they can call you back at anytime. It's called the "back door draft" right now. I processed a bunch of soldiers who last served in Vietnam. Yes they were in their 60s. How fair is that?

[Herkdrvr]

51. We do not do "the bidding" of any administration

If you haven't noticed the military is also responsible to the Congress and the other branches of the government, not to mention the public at large. We have no allegiance to any president, other than the elected president being at the top of our command chain. Even still, Congress controls our budget, and the judiciary determines our legalities.

[saigon68]

21. I could post a thousand GRAPHIC PHOTOS of IRAQIS BLOWN TO BITS

BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THIS ONE IS THE WORST OF THE LOT---

NOT FOR THE GORE (THERE ARE WORSE)

but for what is happening.





Corpse in Fallujah dined on by dogs

[egoprofit]

22. the faces of war

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. No shit

What's your point? that war is a horrible thing? It is, and always have been. And we've had photographs to prove it since the Civil War.

But that does not make people who volunteer to serve their country any less honorable, perhaps more so.

[geniph]

28. Depends on what you think about theocracies

Will the Iraqi people be better off under a fundamentalist Shiite theocratic government than a repressive, totalitarian, secular government? Only time will tell.

[go west young man]

35. Is this young girl better off?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm
Is she free? I understand your hoping the best for the Iraqi people or even those under Stalin and such but is the high ground that we all seek through war. I don't think so. The high ground is through peaceful conversation never through war.

[ClayZ]

43. The Seattle Students then marched

to Westlake Center to meet up with the rest of us!

http://www.costumegoddess.com/antiwar/i-rally.htm

THEY ROCK! :yourock:

oops I think I replied in the wrong row!

[Mari333]

29. Good. My middle son is among the students there

chip off the old block.

[KissMeKate]

30. "Mob"- this paper is editorialising.

eom.

[Strabo]

49. Southern Dem 2005

I don't think much time has elapsed since Southern Dem 2005 last drank the kool-aid.

The people of Iraq are most definitely NOT better off. As is, they've traded one dictator for another, they've traded what little stability and peace they had for a country ripped apart by our vicious trained-killer military.

Bottom line: you can't shove freedom down someone's throat with the barrel of a gun. They have to want it and take it for themselves. Vietnam should have taught us that much.

Southern Dem 2005, I think someone needs to tie you to a chair and make you watch "A Quiet American" and "Full Metal Jacket" a few dozen times in a row.

Oh, and by the way. We DON'T have to "accept" someone for being Pro-Life. Being Pro-Life means being Anti-Choice. Pro-Lifers aren't fighting for the right to abstain from abortion, they're fighting for the right to deny abortion to OTHER PEOPLE. THAT is bullshit and we DO NOT have to accept it.