# Generations of disrespect...



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

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

Guess were past the Vietnam era "kill the messenger" days....:shrug:


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree.

Lets abolish the military.

Then we will see who becomes Slaves.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will find themselves subjugated by those of us smart enough to keep our swords"


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 17, 2005)

They'll never get the recruiters gone though.  The school will loose federal dollars from scholarships and such if it denies the recruiter's entry....no school is going to say no to money cause of an anti-war group of students.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Wonder if they all went to the airport to spit on soldiers when they were done there? 

By all means protest the gvt. the administration, have anti-war protests, thats your right. But abusing people doing their jobs, fulfilling their oaths and following orders??? Pathetic.


----------



## dubljay (Feb 17, 2005)

I am glad this is not the case here at my college.  Despite the liberal and anti war sentiment here, I know of a few people that live on campus that have signed up for millitary service.  I am proud to simply know these people and live in the same community with them.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

Gosh, that's terrible. Peaceful protest on an important public issue.

It's a pity that folks don't seem to be able to deal with the fact that in THIS country (unlike, say, Iran) we consider democracy important.

It's a pity, too, that so many Americans should have come to think that only convenient, generally-acceptable statements and sentiments are acceptable. 

They'd taught me that this country was built upon, and had a long proud history of, difficult people expressing unpopular opinions and talking smack to power. Did they lie?

They taught me, too, that there was this freedom of speech thingy? In the Constitution? That what separated this country from others was our respect for dissent? 

Now if you want to discuss social privilege on the parts of college students who all too often find it convenient to sneer at the working-class and poor kids who defend them, that's another issue. But it is profoundly un-American to attack people simply for their exercise of their Constitutional rights.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Peaceful?? Since when is chasing out people you disagree with a long and glorious American tradition? Throwing things at people? If it was the Christian student group chasing out a pro-choice speaker I wonder what you would say???

We have some protesters here that picket with signs on the sidewalk in front of recruiting stations. While I personally find it distasteful (I have the right to think that dont I?) and directed at the wrong people, its miles away from this ****.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-00.html


----------



## Marginal (Feb 17, 2005)

I can't say I've ever enjoyed talking with a recruiter. Never had a problem talking to someone in the millitary, but recruiters are another story entirely because they tend to combine the righteous indignation of a born again with the tenacity of a telemarketer.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Theres a poster here (ill let him reveal himself) who can tell you a story about a college professor he had. He told a story in class about how back in the 60-70's he used to send letters to the families of war dead telling them that he was "happy their child was killed" in the unjust war in Vietnam...yadda yadda...American Imperialists...yadda yadda....

Nice.

Needless to say my friend dropped his class....


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> I can't say I've ever enjoyed talking with a recruiter. Never had a problem talking to someone in the millitary, but recruiters are another story entirely because they tend to combine the righteous indignation of a born again with the tenacity of a telemarketer.


Oh yeah! Never believe a recruiter, and get any deal down in writing (just ask Loki who posts here)...every troop in basic/boot camp wants to go back and kick his recruiters ***. However, their job is to get people to sign on the dotted line......


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree, this was not really an activity that reflects well on the message.  Violence to protest violence.  The question is, was it the execution of a planned tactic, or uncontrolled mobbishness?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Either way, shouldnt be condoned by the college administration IMO.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 18, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I agree, this was not really an activity that reflects well on the message. Violence to protest violence. The question is, was it the execution of a planned tactic, or uncontrolled mobbishness?


 
What 'message' was it?  

"I don't have the stones to join the service and keep an oath." 
(Deflected and unaddressed cowardice)

"I can't even target my frustration for the rechannelling of federal funds from Student Aid to Military funding at the right person....I'll attack the worker bee doing his job with permission from the institution I am paying to attend..."
(Innattentiveness or lack of ability to pay attention in class so I can think critically and form a reasonable and rational argument)

"Hey!  There are a bunch of other people having fun at the expense of a public servant....COOL!"
(Stupidity and "Sheep" Mentallity at it's best.  At its worst, the desensitisation to participation in pointless violence from over exposure to rehearsed dehumanization of human figures through video games)

Is the college taking any action against the students involved?  This type of behavior creates an unsafe environment and constitutes harassment.

This was obnoxious.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Since when is chasing out people you disagree with a long and glorious American tradition?



Glorious?  No.  Tradition?  Yes.  

Think of the events prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.  I seem to recall a bit of unrest and violence leading up to the battles at Lexington and Concord. 

Let's go a bit further and take a look at a partial list of government troops/police versus protesters in what you refer to as "chasing out people you disagree with"...just for comparison with the simply appalling event that led up to this thread:

Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.  That was where George Washington, the richest man in America, had an army crush farmers who were protesting (among other things) their farmland being taken without compensation by rich easterners.  A shot was fired...it was not heard round the world for some strange reason.

Chicago's railroad labor riots of 1877...that was a good one.  The cops shot and killed about 30 people.  This was actually part of _The Great Strike_, which was nationwide.  The New York Sun had called for "a diet of lead for the hungry strikers."  The superindtendant of the Pennsylvania Railroad had recommended giving strikers "a rifle diet for a few days and see how they like that kind of bread."  Over a hundred men, women and children were killed by government troops and police.  

One of the survivors said, "We were shot back to work." 

The Lattimer Massacre of 1897.  How dare those immigrants protest peacefully?  Nineteen unarmed Slavic-Americans are shot...many in the back as they ran...and thirty-six are wounded.  Kudos to the sheriff and his deputies for hitting a running target!

Then there were those ungrateful WWI veterans and their families demanding their promised bonus at a protest in Washington in 1932.  The President called out the Army on them, of course.  Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, and Dwight Eisenhower led the toops in a charge. In the ensuing fracas a baby suffocated from tear gas.  

Remember Kent State in May of 1970?  I was thirteen at the time and recall it clearly.  The National Guard shot and killed four college students at a war protest, wounding thirteen.  But the students were throwing rocks, right?  All but one of the victims was over a hundred feet away from the guardsmen.  Honestly, anybody who can throw a rock that far ought to be shot, as they're a clear and present danger to the Republic.


Since when is chasing out people you disagree with a long and glorious American tradition?

_You tell me._


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Are any of these actions something we should condone or be proud of?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

How about this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3494.htm

Now, there is a "bit" of difference here. I dont know how much I would have appreciated being "force fed" somebodies political opinion at my own graduation ceremony. There is a "captive audience" flavor to this example. If it was a classroom speech I would have just walked out. Here I can kind of see how people would boo. However I would never condone people rushing the stage, throwing things at the speaker etc.

If it was a guest speaker at a college political event, I wouldnt condone any of this examples behavior at all......


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Then there were those ungrateful WWI veterans and their families demanding their promised bonus at a protest in Washington in 1932.  The President called out the Army on them, of course.  Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, and Dwight Eisenhower led the toops in a charge. In the ensuing fracas a baby suffocated from tear gas.



My great-grandfather brought his young family 1,500 miles in order to exercise his right as an American in 1932.  He was a veteran of the railroad strikes (and WWI) so he knew that one had less of a chance of being shot if women and children were present.  

Apparently, it didn't help.  Shots were fired that were not recorded in any history book.  One of them passed through my grandfather's leg.  The irony of this is that my grandfather hit the beaches of Normandy and helped liberate Germany without a scratch.

His only bullet wound came at the behest of the orders from his commanding officers in the future...

This thread is provacative.  I need to think carefully before I post anything more on topic.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> His only bullet wound came at the behest of the orders from his commanding officers in the future...


Wow...:asian: what does that say about his generation? Why were people like him able to be shot by his own government yet still go to war for it? While some from the next generations protest and riot when the toughest treatment they ever got from the government was waiting in line at an IRS office? Or just get fumed over what they see on TV or the internet?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wow...:asian: what does that say about his generation? Why were people like him able to be shot by his own government yet still go to war for it? While some from the next generations protest and riot when the toughest treatment they ever got from the government was waiting in line at an IRS office? Or just get fumed over what they see on TV or the internet?



You know, I never thought of it that way.  Thank you for the insight.   :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

A 2 war veteran too...I remember hearing stories about WWII soldiers running across trenches they were in , bunkers they attacked, and graffiti they themselves wrote when they were there during WWI.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wow...:asian: what does that say about his generation? Why were people like him able to be shot by his own government yet still go to war for it? While some from the next generations protest and riot when the toughest treatment they ever got from the government was waiting in line at an IRS office? Or just get fumed over what they see on TV or the internet?




What does that say of the generation who shot into the crowd?  Or of the leaders that led the charge?  Or of the President who ordered the troops into Washington and who denied them their just and promised compensation?

TGace, you're trying to mythologize a generation so you can compare them favorably to this one.  That was my father's generation, and while I'd like to think them "The Greatest Generation," I will not.  They were great, surely, but they like any generation had their flaws.  

You can not, based on your limited experience of one lifetime, compare today's children with those of yesteryear and place the latter on a pedestal.  It isn't fair to suggest that this generation is less worthy because of the protesters in this picture.  

This generation of young people are committing one fourth of the violent crime that was committed in 1973. Their property crime rate is drastically down. Their rates of teen pregnancy are lower.  They're better educated.

Note please that the youngsters getting shredded in Iraq ARE this generation.  I for one admire them for going in harm's way, though I oppose the war.  Likewise I honor protesters who oppose it, though I no more condone the physical abuse of a recruiter than I do the abuse of a prisoner of war.  

If I am wrong and the "Greatest Generation" is truly that, then Disraeli is right and "sprung from our loins is a race of weaklings."  Or, perhaps, maybe "The Greatest Generation" failed miserably in passing on their staid family values on to their children and grand children.

On the other hand, maybe what we're seeing in that picture is a vestigial disrespect passed down from times of old.  Those kids are, in any case, descended from the people who protested for a cause long ago...and who were shot by soldiers for it.  

That they are not being shot now shows how far we've come, not how far they've descended.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Chill dude..I dont mythologize anybody, believe me. However you probably dont see many 60's style protesters that joined the military and fought 2 wars either. :shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 18, 2005)

Well, NOW we're having a discussion. Much better.

There are any number of American soldiers who fought in our wars, came home and said what they thought, and got vilified for it. Max Cleland is one of them: he lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, came home, worked, opposed the War, worked as head of the VA, got elected to Congress--and got beat for re-election in 2000, by a guy who never served who accused him of being a traitor, a sell-out, an America-hater.

John Kerry's another. Yes, he only served in Vietnam for a relatively short time--and he got his *** shot at, and he shot back, which is a lot more than most of the stay-at-homes who attacked him for being a coward and a bad American can say. 

It's funny that respecting our troops only becomes important when we agree with what they say. It's funny that we only want dissent when it's on our side. It's funny that respect for the military and its hard service only counts if  they're Republicans.

The picture shown at the head of this thread doesn't depict anything all that bad. The soldier's kinda laughing, as well he might be, and it only shows Americans--kids, maybe; stupid, maybe; wrong, maybe; privileged, maybe--but Americans, engaged in an act of fairly-peaceful protest. They aren't the sort of folks who are blowing up buildings, walling themselves up in compounds with lots of guns, shooting doctors and nurses--it's the Bible-thumpers, the "militia," types, the flag wavers.

It's guys like the group of yo-yos who call themselves, "The Republic of Texas,"  and who, "gained notoriety eight years ago when some members took a couple hostage in the Davis Mountains of West Texas, and endured a week-long siege by more than 100 police officers," (see last Sunday's NYT), and have presently moved into an abandoned nursing home in Overton, Texas, where they plot making the state an independent country, that y'all might take a moment or two to complain about. 

These kinda dopey-looking students didn't do a passel of other things, either. They didn't hang out around OB/GYN clinics, and scream, "Baby-killer!" in poor women's faces. They didn't sneak a big rock with some cryptic message carved into it through the doors of the courtroom late one night in order to whip up religious hatred and help their campaign for office. They didn't make up stuff, exaggerate, and play on religion and xenophobia to get a war started, rush in without adequate preparation, planning and equipment, then smugly sit back (never having fought themselves) and watch a lot of patriotic kids fight hard in a desert for very iffy purposes that change every time political necessity demands. 

Sure, it's jerky for college students to pull these stunts. (For that matter, I'll take these protests seriously the day that these kids get a clue and figure out some way to stop looking like dismissible fools and support that soldier while making it clear that their beef is with the government.) So what? They're college students; wadddya expect? Lincoln, Ghandhi and Martin Luther King?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Some good points, but if they are "just kids" then why does the media give such attention to them. Either their protests are the valid expressions of the nations citizens (and as such should behave like adults) or they are just naive kids...which is it?
Other than that I can agree with this...





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sure, it's jerky for college students to pull these stunts. (For that matter, I'll take these protests seriously the day that these kids get a clue and figure out some way to stop looking like dismissible fools and support that soldier while making it clear that their beef is with the government.) So what? They're college students; wadddya expect? Lincoln, Ghandhi and Martin Luther King?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Chill dude..I dont mythologize anybody, believe me. However you probably dont see many 60's style protesters that joined the military and fought 2 wars either. :shrug:



Well, your intent aside, you're contributing to the notion that there was a better generation, and better time, and it was long ago.  Note the title of the thread, which you started.

Sixties "style" war protestors?  No, if that means the stereotyped hippie.  Sixties war protestors that fought two wars?  Can't say I do. Two that come to mind that fought one war are James Gavin and David Shoup.  But they don't fit the stereotype.

Shoup won the Medal of Honor at Tarawa and was later Commandant of the Marine Corps.  He later supported John Kerry's activities against the war and testified before Congress, presenting his reservations.  

Jim Gavin cracked his spine parachuting into Holland during WWII and ignored the pain so as to lead his troops through Operation Market-Garden.  Oh...he'd also jumped with his troops at Sicily and Normandy earlier in the war.  People thought this somewhat daring, given he was a major general.  He was but 37 years old at the time.

Shoup, Gavin, and Rear Admiral Arnold True all protested the Viet Nam war.  Some classified them as traitors...while others recognized they had the sense and intelligence and courage to stand up to a military action that was bound to end in defeat.  No spinners, these guys.*

Now did they have the crude style of these protesters?  No.  They came up in a different world, of course.  They, like some of us here now on MT, hated to see the troops squandered in battles fought for suspect reasons and no discernable gain.

_*Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era, by Robert Buzzanco._


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, your intent aside, you're contributing to the notion that there was a better generation, and better time, and it was long ago. Note the title of the thread, which you started.


If you would read most of my replies to the "the sky is falling" attitudes towards modern events, current administrations and the like you would see that my recurring response is "show me a historical time in the past when there was perfection, political harmony and absolute peace". No there was no 50's style American/Happy Days perfection. And no single president or party is ever going to create one. I was just pointing out the fact (well maybe not "fact" but my opinion) that Upnorths' great-grandfather was unusual (and probably not a singular example of his generation) in that being shot by the government, while protesting what that government owed but wouldnt give him, didnt keep him from fighting WWII. It would be like a Kent state shooting victim enlisting in the Marines and going to Vietnam. I dont think we will see a lot of that anymore.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

As to the thread title..it was more a play against Technopunks "Generations of Valor" thread...you know, one picture of 2 Marines from different generations embracing, while on a local college campus...............


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I was just pointing out the fact that Upnorths' great-grandfather was unusual (and probably not a singular example of his generation) in that being shot by the government, while protesting what that government owed but wouldnt give him, didnt keep him from fighting WWII. It would be like a Kent state shooting victim enlisting in the Marines and going to Vietnam. I dont think we will see a lot of that anymore.



Just a small point for clarification, my grandfather was shot (he was seven years old), not my great grandfather.  This does not effect the overall point that you made, though.

I'm not sure how to reply to this thread.  There are a lot of conflicting ideas running around in my mind and its hard to articulate them.  One of them is my negative feeling toward the yellow "support our troops" ribbons.  I can't help but feel that the slogan is more a command then a request.

The other is the fact that across our country and in my hometown VA hospitals are being closed down.  This is happening despite the fact that so many vets are coming home now with horrific injuries.  And, it does nothing but hurt those who sacrificed so much in the past.

The last is even more complex.  I'm thinking about the business end of the military industrial complex and about how, in the past two decades, its been put to use in ways that are more blatent then ever.  I think about how the poor kids I teach are targeted by recruiters and I wonder if they ever will realize who it is that they are serving.  The jingoist phrase about "protecting our freedom" is louder then ever, but in my mind the echo is "freedom for who?"

When does serving in the military cease to become a good moral choice?  When are the people justified in expressing their displeasure with the military and what they fight for?  Would the actions in the above picture ever be justifiable?  Maybe our society is too militaristic to even broach these questions...

Sorry, in advance.  Not trying to sound like an ***.  I know people are dying and are coming home in peices.  My neighbor lost his legs in the initial invasion of Iraq.  His humvee was hit by an RPG.  When he finally came home, I offered to cut his grass and help him take his kids fishing.  

Part of me is humbled by his sacrifice.  Part of me is saddened for his loss.  And part of me harbors a deep resentful anger...(and that is what I'm having a hard time articulating).

I won't ask him how he feels because if it were me, I couldn't bare the answer.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

There is a difference between what the Soldier, in his heart believes and the bare political ugliness of war. IMO there always has been. Do you honestly think WWII was "really" about fighting tyranny and "saving the world"? To some extent it may be true, but under it all you just know there were political, economic and capitalistic motivations behind getting into it as well....what the nation fights for and what the soldiers fight for are always two different things....IMHO.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Just a small point for clarification, my grandfather was shot (he was seven years old), not my great grandfather. This does not effect the overall point that you made, though.


OK :asian:



> I'm not sure how to reply to this thread. There are a lot of conflicting ideas running around in my mind and its hard to articulate them. One of them is my negative feeling toward the yellow "support our troops" ribbons. I can't help but feel that the slogan is more a command then a request.


They dont say "support the war" or "support the cause"..They say "support our troops". Who are for the most part honorable men and women fulfilling an oath of service they swore to their country.



> Sorry, in advance. Not trying to sound like an ***. I know people are dying and are coming home in peices. My neighbor lost his legs in the initial invasion of Iraq. His humvee was hit by an RPG. When he finally came home, I offered to cut his grass and help him take his kids fishing.
> 
> Part of me is humbled by his sacrifice. Part of me is saddened for his loss. And part of me harbors a deep resentful anger...(and that is what I'm having a hard time articulating).
> 
> ...


I have no idea what your neighbor thinks about the war before his injury or now, but judging from the opinions of many injured servicemen in the media, and the opinions of some I know, you "may" not like his answer.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 18, 2005)

Boy, do I have a website for you:

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

I also recommend looking up their obvious predecessors, the VVAW and the Winter Soldier movement.

And if you still haven't seen it, John Kerry's words to Congress in the 1970s remain one of the great addresses of the 20th century. Pity he didn't speak so well during the last election.


----------



## 8253 (Feb 21, 2005)

Soldiers no matter what generation deserve the same respect.  No matter what the rank or the job.  They as a whole make the military function.  As far as the soldiers go, they should have the peoples support.  I believe that if someone wants to protest a war it should be geared towards the correct people such as the administration that actually caused the problem.  It should'nt involve yelling and throwing bottles at recruiters.  To me that is being disrespectfull to soldiers.  With what those soldiers do for everyone it just isnt right to treat them badly.  
As far as the Iraq war i can see both sides of it to a point.  However I dont believe that it should be going on, but that dosent make it any soldiers fault, it makes it the President's and Congress's fault.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 21, 2005)

8253 said:
			
		

> Soldiers no matter what generation deserve the same respect.  No matter what the rank or the job.  They as a whole make the military function.  As far as the soldiers go, they should have the peoples support.  I believe that if someone wants to protest a war it should be geared towards the correct people such as the administration that actually caused the problem.  It should'nt involve yelling and throwing bottles at recruiters.  To me that is being disrespectfull to soldiers.  With what those soldiers do for everyone it just isnt right to treat them badly.
> 
> As far as the Iraq war i can see both sides of it to a point.  However I dont believe that it should be going on, but that dosent make it any soldiers fault, it makes it the President's and Congress's fault.



While I disagree with making an *** out of one's self and treating other poorly, I have a couple of points...

1.  Large protests carried on in this country and around the world have had little effect on this administration.  They seem hell bent to carry out PNAC.

2.  The backers of this administration have shown a propensity for tampering with elections in order to "get things done."

So what other avenues of protest exist?

3.  Another way to stop a war you disagree with is to convince the soldiers not to fight.

4.  Another way to stop a war is to convince everyone else NOT to become a soldier.  

TGace made an important point.  The motivations that lie inside a soldier's heart are different then what may lie in the politicians.  As this difference becomes more and more clear and the motivations of our politicians are laid bare, I think that we will see more of 2 and 3.  

Of course it could also go like the game "Civilization".  When the people get pissed, a few entertainers are hired and suddenly everyone forgets that the majority of their national treasure is being used to blow other people up.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

*Soldiers no matter what generation deserve the same respect.  * 

Including those that shot men, women and children in Chicago and throughout the U.S. in 1877?   Those that shot Upnorth's grandpa in Washington in 1932?   Would you like a larger list?

Soldiers have to earn their respect just like everyone else.  EVERY generation.  Every unit.  Every individual.

*No matter what the rank or the job.  * 

How about if that includes the assassination of large numbers of Viet civilians without due process like we did during Operation Phoenix?  Do soldiers deserve respect for willfully throwing prisoners of war out of helicopters as part of an interrogation?  Firing live ammunition at unarmed college students?  Firing blindly into villages?  Burning homes and killing livestock?

Don't get me wrong.  Vietnam had its heroes, and I respect that.  I served with some of them, and they were some of the finest men I've ever met.  However; that war--like others in our nation's history-- had its criminals as well...and they went virtually unpunished.  Those vets that stood up and held themselves and their peers accountable for these actions were deemed traitors and are still  maligned as such.

*They as a whole make the military function. * 

The protesters do indeed see those recruiters as part of a whole, do they not?  They see these recruiters wooing young men and women, taking them from their community, and sending them off to a war that they themselves find immoral and ill conceived.  

*As far as the soldiers go, they should have the peoples support.  * 

Unless?  How far do we take this?  How much do we tolerate?  Do we blindly support the military when it blindly supports the President in a war that half of the nation disapproves of?   It took nearly a decade of protests and over 50,000 American lives to stop the Vietnam war...2 million Vietnamese civilians were estimated killed. 

At what point do you as a civilian have the right to tell the soldiers to stand down?

*I believe that if someone wants to protest a war it should be geared towards the correct people such as the administration that actually caused the problem.  * 

Again,  one can see where the protesters might consider soldiers as part of the problem.  It is an accepted fact that those in the military for the most part support this war and buy into the jingoistic whooyah marketed to sell it.  

*It should'nt involve yelling and throwing bottles at recruiters. * 

Throwing bottles?  No.  Yelling?  It's their right.  Let them yell all they like.  I'd prefer they did it more quietly.  I think it'd be far more effective if they silently surrounded the recruiters and let not a soul approach them through a crowd of massed bodies.  King and Gandhi would be proud.

*To me that is being disrespectfull to soldiers.  * 

Of course it is.  There's a long tradition of that in this country too, as well as in Great Britain.  Read "Tommy" by Rudyard Kipling and you'll see that.  

Yet what I find far worse is when the government shows disprespect to soldiers by sending them off to a war that was founded on a lie, and then tell them they are being killed and maimed in the cause of "freedom."  All this when nothing in our Constitution calls for the dispensing of freedom to people of other nations.  Note the pledge those soldiers take is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Nowhere does it call for nation building.

*With what those soldiers do for everyone it just isnt right to treat them badly.  * 

On the contrary, those protesters see those recruiters as an agent of an unpopular government.  They might have nothing against the front line soldier, but everything against a recruiter who they perceive feeds more young bodies into the meatgrinder.

*However I dont believe that it should be going on, but that dosent make it any soldiers fault, it makes it the President's and Congress's fault.*

This is a volunteer Army.  There is no draft.  If a soldier signed in the last three years, they did so knowing there is a war on and that they'd end up fighting it.  Even though they may have noble intentions for doing this in their own hearts, they are still a part of the process supporting the war in Iraq.  They are not sheep.

The protesters know this.   They aren't sheep either.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 21, 2005)

As I read the article, it seem the students were protesting the No Gays Allowed policy in the military.

On campus, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed. However, the military does not honor that same policy. Seems completely reasonable that the students should demand the school policy be enforced.

I don't know if Clinton's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is still the current policy of the United States Military, but I do know there are continued discharges based on sexual orientation in the military. 

It could be that sexual orientation policy is just a convienent excuse for a protest, but, it could also be a valid reason.

Don't worry, the Recruiter will just move the poor part of town, where some of our citizens don't have the opportunity to go to college. There may always be fresh cannon fodder found there.

I watched Farhenheit 9/11 on DVD on Saturday (again). That does seem to be the message. Poor kids are best for recruiting and defending the American Way.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Start with recruiters...do you think these knuckleheads thought about the guys job? They saw a uniform, thats all. Down the path of "convincing soldiers not to fight" lies the "Vietnam treatment".



> On returning from Vietnam minus my right arm, I was accosted twice...by individuals who inquired, "Where did you loose your arm? Vietnam?" I replied, "Yes." The response was "Good. Serves you right."
> 
> -James W. Wagenbach qouted in Bob Greene, Homecoming
> 
> ...


Grossman, Dave Lt. Col. On Killing. New York: Little, Brown and Company 1995


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don't worry, the Recruiter will just move the poor part of town, where some of our citizens don't have the opportunity to go to college. There may always be fresh cannon fodder found there.
> 
> I watched Farhenheit 9/11 on DVD on Saturday (again). That does seem to be the message. Poor kids are best for recruiting and defending the American Way.



Historically, militaristic governments in general, actively create poverty among their citizenry.  Picking up a spear and putting your life on the line had less to do with ideology and more to do with putting food on the table.  I would say that the majority of people who join now face this same dilemma...the deadends of class are broken with the swish of a pen.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Actually "historically" it depends on how far back you go and to what culture. At some points it was only the wealthy land owners who could afford weapons and armor.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Historically, militaristic governments in general, actively create poverty among their citizenry. Picking up a spear and putting your life on the line had less to do with ideology and more to do with putting food on the table. I would say that the majority of people who join now face this same dilemma...the deadends of class are broken with the swish of a pen.


I ran across a fairly broad cross section of the nation when I was "in". You would have to really look at the enlistment data to back up that assumption. Many of the poorer, uneducated soldiers many not pass the ASVAB with a high enough score to get a technical or clerical job, agreed. But theres nothing wrong with getting a paying job with food, shelter and clothing included when your civillian prospects look dim. Better than living off welfare.

Carefull, many of us who signed up out of a sense of duty may resent being called "poor" deadends.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I read the article, it seem the students were protesting the No Gays Allowed policy in the military.




They were basing their actions on a judicial decision supporting the right to bar access to recruiters.

"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."

But this was an anti-war group.

"Central students opposed to the war in Iraq have been fighting the presence of military recruiters all year. The group organized a protest to coincide with President Bush's inauguration Jan. 20, but it started sooner than scheduled when several hundred students surrounded two Army recruiters."

Tgace in bold:

*Down the path of "convincing soldiers not to fight" lies the "Vietnam treatment".*

And you provide an infuriating story, certainly.  And not at all reflective of a hatred that went both ways.  BOTH ways.  That war was tearing this country apart and you want to present one side of the story?

Here are some letters to the parents of a young man shot at Kent State by National Guardsmen.  The man, Bill Schroeder, was an ROTC student.  He wasn't even a protester, merely a spectator.  


_Mr and Mrs Schroeder, 

There's nothing better that a dead destructive, riot making communist, and that's what your son was, if not he would have stayed away like a good American would do. 

Now you know what a goody-goody son you had. 

They should all be shot, then we'd have a better U.S.A. to live in. 

Be thankful he is gone, Just another communist. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mrs. Schroeder, 

I heard you on T.V. and if I were a policeman I would kill a lot more of these kids. Keep your kids home then they do not get in trouble. My boys and girls do not get in trouble. Sure looks bad for you parents. 

Kids belong in Your home, entertain them in your home like we still do here. hope the police and Army kill a lot more kids. It has to be stopped now as it is getting so you can not go out on the street. 

We do not feel sorry for none of you parents. Keep your kids at home. _ 


The hatred of that war ran on a two way street, Tgace.  It could be nasty on both sides. 

Schroeder's picture below, along with Sandy Scheuer, another bystander.  They were two of four that died that day.  Two men.  Two women.  Nine others were wounded.  One was put in a wheelchair, having been shot in the back.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats sad, but a tangent...Im not trying to dig up who was "right or wrong" during Vietnam. Im trying to illustrate the damage our own citizens did to soldiers who, for a large part were drafted into War. Are you suggesting that all of them were "baby killers" who got what they deserved? Were people to ignorant to be able to tell the difference between a draftee who went out of duty to his country (guess thats a bad thing now), and a "murderer". Or that they just didnt care?

Now we are starting to justify starting the same **** over again. What do you suggest, we ask troops deplaneing if they were Enlisted or stop lossed during the war and thats OK, but if you enlisted during the war its understandable to spit on them. Not that thats happening "yet". But you see where Im going.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 21, 2005)

If you bring up the, "Vietnam treatment," you really shouldn't be all that surprised or admonitory if somebody else brings up the minor detail that we fought an insane and pointless twelve-year war that killed about 60, 000 Americans and maybe two million Vietnamese in ways that led directly to the subsequent disasters in Cambodia and Laos. 

But mainly I have a question. At what point, what point exactly, would you say that a returning soldier deserves a little criticism for what he's done?
Certainly, you wouldn't argue that whatever one does in military service, they deserve our respect and a salute of some sort. Are we supposed to praise and honor a  William Calley, or an Oliver North, just because they wore the uniform? 

Sure, Kipling. Absolutely, citizens in this country have an ugly habit of sending boys, "over there," to fight and die, without doing more themselves than a little tub-thumping. Agreed that our politicians--especially the likes of MacNamara, Nixon and Kissinger--can be even worse and certainly far more hypocritical. Nonetheless, this country has repeatedly asserted that soldiers bear moral responsibility for what they do, even in the very worst parts of the very worst wars.

Or, just to make the obvious comment--I'd thought that a part of what our military was defending was the right of college students to protest, however foolishly.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Hell...anybody hear me suggest that any laws be passed or that students be gassed or shot? Just expressing my opinion and personal disgust.......having served myself, having gone to the wake of a comrade killed in Iraq and having a childhood friend over there right now....think I have as much right as they do to my opinion regarding harassment\abuse of Soldiers.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hell...anybody hear me suggest that any laws be passed or that students be gassed or shot? Just expressing my opinion and personal disgust.......having served myself, having gone to the wake of a comrade killed in Iraq and having a childhood friend over there right now....think I have as much right as they do to my opinion regarding harassment\abuse of Soldiers.


By the Grossman quote, any negative public sentiment about a war being currently waged is detrimental to the soldier's mental and physical health. 

(Even if the war's unjustified, and the people are against the war as much in interest of getting those same troops home sooner rather than later...)


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Actually, Grossmans quote implies that negative sentiment about the war that was innapproiately expressed as abandonment, violence, disrespect and ill treatment towards the individual soldier was detrimental to the soldiers health.

Spitting on somebody as an expression of concern for our troops seems like an odd stretch....

Or are you implying that harassing a soldier is really "Good" for him and his comrades in the long run?


----------



## academian (Feb 22, 2005)

I dont even want to get started on this topic so I will just leave it with this quote   They dont make nails from good steel and they dont make soldier from good men - unknown


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

academian said:
			
		

> I dont even want to get started on this topic so I will just leave it with this quote They dont make nails from good steel and they dont make soldier from good men - unknown


Oh yeah thats a real good way "not to get started"....:shrug:

I probably shouldnt feed the trolls.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Actually, Grossmans quote implies that negative sentiment about the war that was innapproiately expressed as abandonment, violence, disrespect and ill treatment towards the individual soldier was detrimental to the soldiers health.
> 
> Spitting on somebody as an expression of concern for our troops seems like an odd stretch....
> 
> Or are you implying that harassing a soldier is really "Good" for him and his comrades in the long run?



If he was saying THAT, he wouldn't have been talking about dear john letters and the like. (Or is that simply an inappropriate expression of abandonment towards the soldier?) Most of his comments seemed aimed at soldiers still in the field, and not soldiers getting spit upon as they return home. In the quotes provided, he was saying any negative public sentiment damages the soldier as it pops up in countless ways. A horrible domino effect from saying anything negative about a war. (Especially if the war has the misfortune of being unpopular in the population at large.)

Which boils down to, "Without a sense of moral and/or social justification for a given distasteful task, one questions the need of performing that task. Don't rock the boat please. Men at work."

You're trying to put the cart before the horse. I'm saying negative public sentiment is not innately harmful to the soldier. Not, "Yay spitting!" Sometimes the negative views of the whole are expressed badly, but the ultimate aim of that negative public opinion is usually properly focused. Getting troops out of a pointless meat grinder is a positive result.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I ran across a fairly broad cross section of the nation when I was "in". You would have to really look at the enlistment data to back up that assumption.



I'm sure I could find some data fairly easily...

Anecdotally, I've watched recruiters flock to my school which serves primarily the poor and lower middle class.  They regularly fill rooms by saying things like "Feel directionless?  Feel like you aren't going anywhere in your life?" 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Many of the poorer, uneducated soldiers many not pass the ASVAB with a high enough score to get a technical or clerical job, agreed. But theres nothing wrong with getting a paying job with food, shelter and clothing included when your civillian prospects look dim. Better than living off welfare.



I haven't heard of too many people being turned away because of lower scores on the ASVAB.  Also, there is nothing wrong with doing your best to better yourself.  Think about this question...if there were more options to better oneself, would the military have as many "new recruits?"



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Carefull, many of us who signed up out of a sense of duty may resent being called "poor" deadends.



The majority does not mean all.  Nor does it mean that I am calling anyone names or labelling anyone in particular.

The aforementioned message, when offered on the East end of town at the high school that serves the upper crust, doesn't work too well.  They'll be lucky to pull in one or two people.  Smart recruiters change their message to one of "Duty and Honor."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 22, 2005)

Being fairly well-acquainted with the moral character of academiCIANS, I find it hard to believe that the average college professor is inherently more moral than the average soldier. 

Unless, of course, one feels that being in a privileged position where about the worst that can happen if you exercise moral choice is not getting tenured is somehow inherently morally superior to having to exercise your moral sense while you're actually getting shot at.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Interesting article about recruiting practices. Not having been a recruiter I cant vouch based on personal experience...but it has a fairly balanced and rational approach on the subject.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1129-24.htm



> Rangel's critique also has a strong sense of racial grievance, but data suggest that the military is not putting its energy into high schools attended by poor minority students. Instead of race, the clearest indicator of how hard a sell a student will receive is class. Generally, recruiters focus on the lower middle class in places with little economic opportunity.
> 
> The Defense Department does not track the socioeconomic background of its recruits, although Rangel has commissioned a Government Accountability Office study of the matter. The military also does not collect data for how many recruits it gets from which high schools; that information gets no higher than local recruiting commands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace

Good find... :asian: 

www.commondreams.org is fairly liberal by the way.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Well, while I seem to get "pushed" to the extreme right around here for some reason, I really am more "right of center".

BTW I dont really see anything in the Army's approach as "immoral". The recruiters job is to find recruits. They go "where the fish are" so to speak. Kids with little other opportunity are given an opportunity for a job, training, money, some prestige amongst their peers. Granted recruiters can be lying ******** when it comes to getting you to sign (got screwed out of pay and rank when I signed up), but they arent up to any "evil designs".


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> BTW I dont really see anything in the Army's approach as "immoral". The recruiters job is to find recruits.


 I don't think the problem lies with the recruiters themselves or even the Army, but society as a whole.

 We continue to choose to engage in wars over specious causes that benefit only a limited segment of society, but the real anguish and burden of those wars is carried largely by people without any other options.  As long as we, as people, accept this as the status quo, our military will be forced to function in this way.

 Another example of capitalism at its finest.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Those Commies have a track record of peace?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 22, 2005)

Well, no. Not like Chivington and Custer, Johnson and Nixon, Rusty Calley and G. Gordon Liddy and, say, Edward Teller. 

It may also be worth noting that--as long as we're speaking of earning respect--however ugly he turned out later, Mao and the Route Army were fighting their country's invaders, behaving decently, and trying to help the Chinese people while the likes of Chiang Kai-Shek were throwing their people alive into railroad engine furnaces, looting everything they could get their sticky little hands on, and running from the Japanese.

Plenty enough blame to go around, I think.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats sad, but a tangent...Im not trying to dig up who was "right or wrong" during Vietnam. Im trying to illustrate the damage our own citizens did to soldiers who, for a large part were drafted into War. Are you suggesting that all of them were "baby killers" who got what they deserved? Were people to ignorant to be able to tell the difference between a draftee who went out of duty to his country (guess thats a bad thing now), and a "murderer". Or that they just didnt care?




Hardly a tangent.  As was brought up by Robert, you started this thread talking about the "Vietnam Treatment."

And for saying I am suggesting "that all of them were 'baby killers'" is out of line.  I've said nothing of the kind and prefaced my response to you with acknowledgement of the tragedy of such treatment.  Further, I stated earlier that I served with Vietnam vets who were of the highest caliber, and served with other Marines who would not have ever deserved such treatment.

You're pointing out the mistreatment of soldiers by protesters.  I'm pointing out--and have been clearly pointing out--that it goes both ways and protesters have been mistreated by soldiers.  How can you possibly misconstrue that to suggest I think they're "baby killers?"

Vietnam was, as Iraq is now, a war in question.  It was predicated on lies, cost millions of lives and huge amounts of national treasure.  We supported a corrupt regime, broke treaties that would have provided the Vietnamese with free elections and autonomy, and mistreated prisoners of war...and all of it made the news.  My generation watched it.  I clearly recall watching the film footage of the mayor of Saigon blowing the brains out of a suspected insurgent during the Tet offensive...and I will never forget it.

No, I'm not saying the protesters had a right to call these soldiers "baby killers."  They had a right to be angry, but not to misplace their vitriol...just as that cretin had no right to bruatalize Bill Schroeder's parents by sending them hate mail after their son had been killed.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 23, 2005)

I know of no recent protests, current students or anti-war proponents who have been mistreated by soldiers. Doubt any of those students have been shot at by Soldiers or even have any "personal" contact with riot control of either military or civillian derivation (Id wager a good chunck of them dont even know what happened at Kent State). My "Vietnam Treatment" aside alludes to the "path" we will start to go down if we allow (and before you attack that statement: by allow I mean in each of our own hearts, not by quashing civil rights) dissatisfaction with policy to come down on the wrong heads, and in the wrong manner....And as I havent expressed any intent or desire to stop protests, or infringe on 1st amendment rights, I dont even see what we are debating here. Just that protest and harassment are two different things.

As to the Kent letter...as ugly and mis-placed that sentiment was. Imagine how it would feel to get a letter from some protester saying they were "glad their son was killed in the illegal war in Vietnam"..Im pretty sure that the families of the soldiers "over there" didnt appreciate the attacks on thier loved ones alive or dead, and sprouted these types of letters. BTW I believe civillian law enforcement inflicted more violence on 60's protesters than the military (Kent aside:which, tell me if Im wrong was a State, not federal action. Could as easily been state troopers)...and I propose that events like the one that started this thread wont gian much sympathy with the families and friends of people who are serving "over there". I note there was no "bring our boys home" sentiment expressed by these protesters.....


----------



## Tgace (Feb 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, no. Not like Chivington and Custer, Johnson and Nixon, Rusty Calley and G. Gordon Liddy and, say, Edward Teller.
> 
> It may also be worth noting that--as long as we're speaking of earning respect--however ugly he turned out later, Mao and the Route Army were fighting their country's invaders, behaving decently, and trying to help the Chinese people while the likes of Chiang Kai-Shek were throwing their people alive into railroad engine furnaces, looting everything they could get their sticky little hands on, and running from the Japanese.
> 
> Plenty enough blame to go around, I think.


In retrospect I suppose the Commies had a better "kill ratio" against their own people. What with revolutions, purges, secret police, labor camps and all....


----------



## Tgace (Feb 23, 2005)

Would fit right in with the "Im glad your Son died..." letter writing crowd from was past IMO.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html


This guy was a little more confrontational in his approach but still....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html


----------



## Tgace (Feb 23, 2005)

And what about Afghanistan, isnt that an honorable place to serve? Shouldnt protesters ask which country the soldier served in before they sling insults at him/her....what if they served in bolth places? What if they only served in Bosnia, Korea, Germany? Should everybody in uniform accept this type of treatment?


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm sure I could find some data fairly easily...
> 
> Anecdotally, I've watched recruiters flock to my school which serves primarily the poor and lower middle class. They regularly fill rooms by saying things like "Feel directionless? Feel like you aren't going anywhere in your life?"
> 
> ...


Much like TGACE I would say that the cross section of servicemen I worked with voer 13 years was pretty broad. Kids from wealthy, middle and 'poor' families were about the same proportionately as the precentages present in the macroculture. The mililitary is the microcosm.

Your anecdotal evidence is flawed because you are focusing on observations in your school alone - just as I can only work from my direct experience. But, since I actually worked hand in hand with some of these folks on the job that came from a broader national pool, I think it might hold a little more substantiation.

I do agree that the likelyhood that more kids from poor neighborhoods might get targeted for the sales pitch, the question is how many actually sign?

How many can meet academic standards (and yes, they are inforced considering the amount of technology in the military now)?

How many of those approached have such an engrained mistrust of 'authority' and 'success' and even think that they are 'good enough' that there is no way that they would consider 'joining' anything, let alone the military? It is the equivalent of walking up to a 90 lbs weakling (mainly because he/she never really had the chance to be more) being approached to join the varsity football team.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And what about Afghanistan, isnt that an honorable place to serve? Shouldnt protesters ask which country the soldier served in before they sling insults at him/her....what if they served in bolth places? What if they only served in Bosnia, Korea, Germany? Should everybody in uniform accept this type of treatment?


Unfortunately, as servicemembers, wearing the uniform means that you 'represent' something regardless of where you indivivually served...

it is ironic though that the 'every snowflake is special' mentallity of the anti-military/government...you name it - types that like to justify such actions are making generalized and bigotous assumptions about 'servicemen' or attacking that 'individual' becuase of what he/she 'represents' instead of taking the time to 'understand them and their culture' better...

which is exactly what many have said should be the way to 'properly' respond to a violent act done by these individuals.  Why would that very desire for understanding not apply to a person that is not only a fellow AMERICAN, but a public servant?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

If we're going to compare horrors amongst capitalism and commieism (a subject brought up because apparently all protesters are Communists...), we might want to take a good solid look at the minor little population decline among Native American populations in the century or so of European colonialism following Columbus' arrival. Looks to me like they don't matter because either a) it was our side doping it, or, b) it was a long time ago. Like the Crusades...

How many Vietnamese civilians died within living memory? How many SE Asians in countries we bombed, mined, and destabilized? 

But more to the point, all these kids did was protest. Didn't shoot anybody, didn't hit anybody, didn't throw anything. Cheers and jeers was about it.

Run it by me again why exactly this was such a terrible thing that it forced comparasion to Stalin's Gulag?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I don't think the problem lies with the recruiters themselves or even the Army, but society as a whole.
> 
> We continue to choose to engage in wars over specious causes that benefit only a limited segment of society, but the real anguish and burden of those wars is carried largely by people without any other options. As long as we, as people, accept this as the status quo, our military will be forced to function in this way.
> 
> Another example of capitalism at its finest.


The whole capitalism vs. ?? thing.......unless you want to continue making assumptions about my opinion on protest/protesters.....


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The whole capitalism vs. ?? thing.......unless you want to continue making assumptions about my opinion on protest/protesters.....


 The comparisons and attacks against the records of communist countries were your own.  

 My point was simply that the United States has a long history of military adventurism designed strictly to benefit a small group of capitalists.  That fact has nothing to do with the actual merits of capitalism vs any other system -- one might argue that it's inevitable in a capitalist society, but I don't feel that it's necessarily so.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 28, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The comparisons and attacks against the records of communist countries were your own.
> 
> My point was simply that the United States has a long history of military adventurism designed strictly to benefit a small group of capitalists.....


And since we are all typing and applying technologies that are built on sciences and materials that came directly from those "military adventurisms" as you put it, to include some petroleum based materials that are essential to the quality of life we live today....I can really see how 'only a small group of capitalists' have benefitted.

I think the point here is that these types of protests don't do much for the 'cause of peace' or at least 'anti war' or what ever these mobs thought would be a justifiable reason to keep a public servant from doing his job.

Do we storm into DuPont now and throw eggs at the employees in the parking lot?  No, if you have an issue with DuPont and chemical production/industrial waste you take it to the decision makers, not the worker bees/


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Do we storm into DuPont now and throw eggs at the employees in the parking lot? No, if you have an issue with DuPont and chemical production/industrial waste you take it to the decision makers, not the worker bees/


I don't know if I necessarily agree with this.  Part of the effect of protest is to bring more attention to your issue; going a bit over the top can sometimes be a beneficial thing.  Refer to Tiananmen Square.  Of course, these things must be tempered with a respect for the rights of others, however, do not confuse the objectives of protesters with those of government lobbyists.

I am not condoning the methods of the particular protest under debate here.  What I will say, though, is that had these protesters instead chosen to take their issue to the White House, the likelyhood of being given an audience with the President would have been rather slim, wouldn't you say?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 28, 2005)

Good to know that what we did to, say, Vietnam and Chile is perfectly OK because, well, we all have plastic wrap now.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 1, 2005)

Mod Note:

Discussion of American militarism split off to its own thread.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Good to know that what we did to, say, Vietnam and Chile is perfectly OK because, well, we all have plastic wrap now.


Oversimplify the issue all you want but the computers we are working on, the medical procedures that have improved the level of trauma from surgery/prolonged lives, the simple math of the amount of fuel burned to transport lighter products because of plastic over metal or wood parts has drastically improved our lives overall.

I am not saying that it is a 'valid reason to go to war' so that we can test the limits of new materials/technologies.  I AM saying that as a result of the urgency and demand for being competitively superior to the enemy, we have made some discoveries that may not have been made otherwise.


----------

