# Mayor kicks Marines out of the city



## Archangel M (Feb 10, 2008)

Mayor gives US Marines the boot.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 10, 2008)

Sounds like a communications failure among city officials?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2008)

Did you notice that this news article did not name the current Chief of Police for Toledo, Ohio. The article neglected to name the single person, or committee responsible for approving the training in the City; instead only naming the 'former' Chief of Police, who authorized earlier visits.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 10, 2008)

Now I know that referring to David Icke as a source is only going to draw ribaldry and ridicule but he does have a point when he notes that allowing your armed forces to practise urban warfare tactics in your own cities is a bad idea.

I forget which one of his releases I saw it in but the footage wherein the American soldiers were being trained to ignore the cries of their own citizenry about civilian rights and the Constitution was quite chilling.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 10, 2008)

*Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city'*
# Story Highlights
# Berkeley, California, tells Marine recruiters they're "not welcome in our city"
# GOP lawmakers introduce bill to take $2 million in federal funds from city
# Protester says recruiters attract youth "to go to Iraq to kill and be killed"
# Veteran blasts City Council, says Marines are "the best thing we have"
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/


----------



## arnisador (Feb 10, 2008)

I saw the Berkeley thing. How foolish.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 10, 2008)

Whay can one really say


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Whay can one really say



How about "yay for people exerting their democratic freedoms"?  Disagree or not, I think that its a good thing that our constitution allows the citizens of this country the right to express and enforce opinions like this.  

I'm sure the Marines can find another city where the populace would be much more supportive of their actions.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 10, 2008)

Wow, that's over the top!


----------



## grydth (Feb 10, 2008)

Today at least we learned who'll be Secretary of Defense if Hellary is able to steal the convention from Obama.

What a supreme lawn sausage.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2008)

Okay, maybe its just me, but if people decide that they want no part in their homes and locales being used to train kids to go over to Iraq and kill, then what is the problem?  Are they the ones who placed our soldiers in danger?  Are they the ones who created the situation where the training was needed in the first place?  Do people really think that folks that don't want the Marines conducting drills up and down the streets are endangering our soldiers lives?

This level of doublethink is absolutely terrifying.  Think for one minute about audacity that this political spin is taking.  It's not the commander in cheif's fault for ordering our soldiers into a war without end.  It's not the congress' fault for voting for the authorization.  It's the citizens fault for attempting to take a stand against it.  It's the citizens fault for not falling in line and blindly supporting like every other god damned sheep.

I am absolutely dumbfounded right now.  My god, my fellow citizens need to wake up and smell the constitution.


----------



## grydth (Feb 10, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, maybe its just me, but if people decide that they want no part in their homes and locales being used to train kids to go over to Iraq and kill, then what is the problem?  Are they the ones who placed our soldiers in danger?  Are they the ones who created the situation where the training was needed in the first place?  Do people really think that folks that don't want the Marines conducting drills up and down the streets are endangering our soldiers lives?
> 
> This level of doublethink is absolutely terrifying.  Think for one minute about audacity that this political spin is taking.  It's not the commander in cheif's fault for ordering our soldiers into a war without end.  It's not the congress' fault for voting for the authorization.  It's the citizens fault for attempting to take a stand against it.  It's the citizens fault for not falling in line and blindly supporting like every other god damned sheep.
> 
> I am absolutely dumbfounded right now.  My god, my fellow citizens need to wake up and smell the constitution.




There is no showing here that the last minute denial of the Marine unit's training was due to any popular uprising by the good citizens of Toledo. It is a fit of pique by one stupid man. there is no showing that peoples' homes were to be used in the exercise.

Had there been a popular movement and the Mayor previously announced a Marine Free Zone, or whatever, that would have been one thing. But to allow prior training and have this exercise approved by other officials - - - only to have it sabotaged as the unit is en route, that's just disgusting.

The need for urban warfare training is not limited to Marines nor was it caused by George Bush. I was trained in Urban Warfare tactics as an Army soldier in the 1980's.... decades before Iraq or George Bush the Lesser. It is simply training every soldier should have. I can understand being against the war, but denying service members training is simply being in favor of these Marines being killed.... which means being in favor of al-Qaeda.

I wonder how parents who've lost a child in Fallujah or Mosul or Baghdad views the mayor's fatuous comment about "playing war". This turd is of the same cloth as the "Reverend" Phelps.

I ain't smelling the Constitution in Mayor Finkbeiner's behavior, but rather something warm brown and steaming.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 10, 2008)

grydth said:


> I can understand being against the war, but denying service members training is simply being in favor of these Marines being killed.... which means being in favor of al-Qaeda.


 
Yeah. That sounds about right.

The new age version of the "spitters in the airports" are amongst us. 

I think many of the males suffer from low self-esteem and ego covered in self-rightesouness.

Lacking the spine, nerve and nads to stand up for anything they enjoy cutting down those who do to assuage themselves. Or study the martial arts as a salve for their flagging machismo.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 10, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Or study the martial arts as a salve for their flagging machismo.



Jesus, and you wonder why the right wing gets flogged as being over-compensators.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 10, 2008)

grydth said:


> I can understand being against the war, but denying service members training is simply being in favor of these Marines being killed....



There's a time and a place for everything. If Toledo is to be the place for a federal warfighting exercise, it should indeed require the consent of the city. It's easy to see how it could be disruptive.



> which means being in favor of al-Qaeda.



That's simply ignorant.


----------



## grydth (Feb 10, 2008)

arnisador said:


> There's a time and a place for everything. If Toledo is to be the place for a federal warfighting exercise, it should indeed require the consent of the city. It's easy to see how it could be disruptive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply ignorant.



You might try reading the basic article yourself before applying "ignorant" to somebody else.

Fact is, the Marines had trained in that "place" four times before, and training for this "time" had been approved by the city police department and announced in a press release. Any inference that there is sneakiness or impropriety by the Marine unit here is, well, ignorant.

There can be ways of being against the war and dissenting without harming the troops who seek to fight it. This cheap political stunt interfered with training that is and has been a necessity for troops. 

One other thing....Personally, I think splitting quotes of a person to attack them is a sleazy practice. But with only a doctorate degree, guess I'm just not smart enough to appreciate it.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 11, 2008)

> The mayors spokesperson, Brian Schwartz said, The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people. He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."


 
Hell, they could have done live-fire exercises in Toledo and nobody would have known the difference.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah. That sounds about right.
> 
> The new age version of the "spitters in the airports" are amongst us.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, so a person stands up for a deep seated belief and you say this?

Sounds like a programmed response...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2008)

grydth said:


> There is no showing here that the last minute denial of the Marine unit's training was due to any popular uprising by the good citizens of Toledo. It is a fit of pique by one stupid man. there is no showing that peoples' homes were to be used in the exercise.
> 
> Had there been a popular movement and the Mayor previously announced a Marine Free Zone, or whatever, that would have been one thing. But to allow prior training and have this exercise approved by other officials - - - only to have it sabotaged as the unit is en route, that's just disgusting.
> 
> ...


 
I disagree for the most part.  I think we are seeing the tip of a gleaming shitberg where the public is going to start turning the on the military at every turn.  It happened in the 60s and 70s because we couldn't pay for the guns and butter of the Vietnam war and it helped to drive our country into recession.  It's happening now because because of the same reasons, except its a whole lot worse financially.

Our leaders, for the most part, are unresponsive to democracy and people are getting sick and tired of paying 50 cents out of every tax dollar to support something they consider wasteful and dangerous.  So, I can completely understand where this mayor is coming from.  People are getting sick of this war, sick of this tax burden, and sick of no "leader" listening to what they've got to say.  

Like I said before, the marines can find a new city with people that still support what they are doing...for now.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The new age version of the "spitters in the airports" are amongst us.


 
I suppose that it is a new age version, is good. Because the plain old Vietnam-Era version never happened. Facts be damned ... a good story is hard to suppress, even if it is completely untrue. And if it is even better if it is used to smear a political opponent. 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ticles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/



> The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 11, 2008)

If a city goverment held an open vote on allowing the marines  to be in the city or not I might aprove of the action taken by the mayor, however if the mayor acted on his own i disaprove.  He may be a elected city official but should not the community as a whole have a say in the matter.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> If a city goverment held an open vote on allowing the marines to be in the city or not I might aprove of the action taken by the mayor, however if the mayor acted on his own i disaprove. He may be a elected city official but should not the community as a whole have a say in the matter.


 
We call our system of government 'representative democracy'. 

When the citizens elected the mayor, they said, in effect, we believe you are the person who's views most closely align with ours; we can't be involved in every decision the community needs to make, so you make them for us. 

The whole community did, essentially, speak through his decision. 

If the whole community disagrees with his decision, they will have the opportunity to correct his decision in the ballot box during the next election. 


Believe me, I have been waiting for more than seven years to correct the decision my fellow citizens made with President Bush. Having to wait sucks; but it is how the system works.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 11, 2008)

True
 I guess they could also call for a special election or ballot if enough people in the community where upset


----------



## grydth (Feb 11, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I disagree for the most part.  I think we are seeing the tip of a gleaming shitberg where the public is going to start turning the on the military at every turn.  It happened in the 60s and 70s because we couldn't pay for the guns and butter of the Vietnam war and it helped to drive our country into recession.  It's happening now because because of the same reasons, except its a whole lot worse financially.
> 
> Our leaders, for the most part, are unresponsive to democracy and people are getting sick and tired of paying 50 cents out of every tax dollar to support something they consider wasteful and dangerous.  So, I can completely understand where this mayor is coming from.  People are getting sick of this war, sick of this tax burden, and sick of no "leader" listening to what they've got to say.
> 
> Like I said before, the marines can find a new city with people that still support what they are doing...for now.



We are mostly in - respectful - disagreement. 

I do not question your right to be against this war, or your right to protest via legitimate means. That may be via voting, posting here, letter writing or demonstrations. I do not question your right to be against the quality of leader we have - personally I don't much like or respect most politicians at most levels, on either side of the aisle.

Where I do continue to strongly dispute your position is on the point that it is legitimate to take it out on the troops. I really think you should re-examine that. These Marines had no part in deciding on this war, and taking it out on individual service members is just wrong. 

While this Mayor's actions seem rooted in pique, inefficiency and a child like view of "playing war", I read your posts as saying that an intentional interference with combat training in time of war would be a legitimate form of protest. That endangers these men and womens' lives. To me, legitimate protest does not encompass giving aid and comfort to a despicable enemy.... and that's what interfering with combat training is doing.

I think you can be against the war without taking actions that endanger our service members and assist the enemy in killing them. I cannot see a person with your heartfelt values being in favor of our soldiers being killed.... but that's where your course of action takes us. Please rethink this!


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2008)

grydth said:


> These Marines had no part in deciding on this war, and taking it out on individual service members is just wrong.


 
Are there any branches of service where the service member does not have the ability to 're-up' their service over a five year period? I think the Navy has one line of duty where the initial committment is six years.

I believe this war is illegal and immoral. 

Also, I believe that every soldier who might believe as I do, has had the opportunity to be honorably discharged from their service during the engagement of this war in Iraq; which is approaching five years, soon to begin its sixth year. 

It is logical to conclude that the Marines had every opportunity to decide if they would continue to serve in the military at this time, and in this war.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 11, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Also, I believe that every soldier who might believe as I do, has had the opportunity to be honorably discharged from their service during the engagement of this war in Iraq; which is approaching five years, soon to begin its sixth year.
> 
> It is logical to conclude that the Marines had every opportunity to decide if they would continue to serve in the military at this time, and in this war.


 

That is not completely true.  I know of several people who tried to get out (not of the Marines but of the ARMY) and weren't allowed and last I heard 3 of them still haven't been allowed out and I know of at least two people, 1 who is the wife of a coworker, who have been called back after being out for a few years, and have not had the opportunity to leave yet and I know it has been a few years at least for her....


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 11, 2008)

If it had been British Royal Marines I could have understood it, towns visited by them are usually left with their maidens deflowered, the towns bars drunk dry and a lot of very satisfied women and unhappy men.
No not joking! 
We have specially built areas specially for urban fighting called Fibuas (Fghting in in-built areas), out on the training ranges, we've had them for over 40 years. other service people volunteer to be the towns people and they can riot, use civil disobedience or whatever is necessary for training.
I think the British service personnel lead the way in urban fighting as we had so much practice in Northern Ireland.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2008)

Ping898 said:


> That is not completely true. I know of several people who tried to get out (not of the Marines but of the ARMY) and weren't allowed and last I heard 3 of them still haven't been allowed out and I know of at least two people, 1 who is the wife of a coworker, who have been called back after being out for a few years, and have not had the opportunity to leave yet and I know it has been a few years at least for her....


 
I'ld love more information on the specific circumstances. 

As far back as the Kerry Bush '04 election there were discussions about the 'Stop Loss' being a 'back door draft'. I think I have heard of of Four active / Four Reserve contracts in which those reservists back to active duty during their second four years. (Is that the ready-reserves?? - what were the initial motivators for the eight year contract??)

I would like to know how many active duty service persons there are currently serving who have not had the opportunity to disengage from the military since 3/20/03. I am guessing this is a tiny minority of those serving. Having actual information would certianly be better. 

My daughter is currently dating a young man who completed four. Resigned as a reserve in a training program, and he may be called to active duty. But, he was able to complete a separation, and had to re-sign to his current position.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2008)

grydth said:


> You might try reading the basic article yourself before applying "ignorant" to somebody else.



I re-read it. I stand by my assessment. Your statement was that opposing training the U.S. military in Toledo, OH is the same as supporting Al-Qaeda. That's an ignorant statement.



> One other thing....Personally, I think splitting quotes of a person to attack them is a sleazy practice. But with only a doctorate degree, guess I'm just not smart enough to appreciate it.



If I'm to be impressed by your _doctoral_ degree ('doctorate' is a noun, and you require an adjective there), please post your credentials for judgment. I gather your doctorate was not in English.


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 11, 2008)

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]


----------



## grydth (Feb 11, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I re-read it. I stand by my assessment. Your statement was that opposing training the U.S. military in Toledo, OH is the same as supporting Al-Qaeda. That's an ignorant statement.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm to be impressed by your _doctoral_ degree ('doctorate' is a noun, and you require an adjective there), please post your credentials for judgment. I gather your doctorate was not in English.




As _anyone_ can see, my statement was part of an omgoing - and respectful - debate with upnorthkyosa concerning forms of protest..... specifically his post #11. That debate will continue.

I am not going to waste time and space engaging in a personal insult duel, especially given the moderator's caution. Welcome to my Ignore List, and please add me to yours.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2008)

grydth said:


> We are mostly in - respectful - disagreement.
> 
> I do not question your right to be against this war, or your right to protest via legitimate means. That may be via voting, posting here, letter writing or demonstrations. I do not question your right to be against the quality of leader we have - personally I don't much like or respect most politicians at most levels, on either side of the aisle.
> 
> ...


 
So, when is it okay to throw some bricks in the gears of this war machine?

I say this because people have voted, for the most part, against the war.  We are still there.

People have protested peacefully.  And have been shunted off to "free speech zones."

People all across the country have consistently spoken out about the war.  They have gather numbers and marched.  They have done all of the things that responsible citizens in an informed democracy should do and yet the war marches on.  

As I said before, it seems as if our leaders and our system is completely unresponsive to the will of the people.  

The megaphones keep blaring the telescreens are primed with slogans and the president tells us to go out and shop...

When is it okay?  Is the military seriously going to send soldiers into battle without the training they need?

Grydth - I'm looking at a system that beginning to unravel.  This mayor is just the tip of the iceberg that is bearing down the military industrial complex.


----------



## grydth (Feb 11, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, when is it okay to throw some bricks in the gears of this war machine?
> 
> I say this because people have voted, for the most part, against the war.  We are still there.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:

A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?

B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.

C) By attacking the foot soldiers you are bringing the civil war - that I have said I greatly fear - that much closer. I am surprised you place zero confidence in Obama.

D) Can not a man with your values and your training come up with a more refined, more focused and more legal form of protest? 

E) Suppose you get violence in  return.... is our society really better off with a common private and you dead, hospitalized or in jail?

F) However much you despise Bush and his warlords - do you really want to make common cause with an enemy of the nature of al-Qaeda? Have you kept track of their atrocities in Iraq? 

G) What makes you feel that you would receive a positive response to violent tactics? To the contrary, I would expect the government to label you a terrorist and use your actions as an excuse to steal yet more of our freedom.

When you ask if the military would send troops into battle unprepared.... have not the liberal critics accused Bush of exactly that on multiple occasions?  Please review a good military history of the 20th Century - - - our troops have been committed to action woefully unprepared in conflict after conflict, to the point of almost criminal negligence.

My question to you is whether it is legitimate protest to keep troops from being prepared? I feel it definitely is not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2008)

grydth said:


> Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:
> 
> A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?
> 
> ...


 
All of this is such a catch 22.  You make a lot of valid points.  But as a fellow countryman who is seriously concerned about the health and well being of my home, concerned enough to consider moving my family if the outlook doesn't get better, I feel very strongly that we need to do everything we can to oppose this war.  We need to vote for people who will end it.  We need to protest and make our voices heard.  We need to stop aiding a system that sucks up our children and spits them into the places the elite wants them in order to grease their money wheels with blood.  

Grydth, my children are 6 and 3.  They are not at the point where they could be pulled into this system.  Yet, I am afraid that I somehow do not make a stand or do something to pull my family out of this system, I risk having the government pull them into the war machine.  Our leaders have told us to expect war for the rest of our lives.  We are being prepped with slogans and other propaganda to sustain a multigenerational conflict...for what?

I have no fear of UBL or any of his CIA contrived thugs.  None what so ever.  I am more afraid of getting in my car and driving to work then I am of them.  So, what am I risking my children for?

The truth is not something anyone wants to face in this country.  We have created a monster where private corporations bleed off our hard earned income and have created a market for...war.  

Think about that for a minute.  Think about how sick and disgusting that is.  People are making billions of dollars off of bogus wars from money that is forcibly taken from us and our children, if they don't pay with their lives, they pay with their standard of living.

This some seems especially appropriate now...

With all of this at stake, is amazing that more people are not out on the street and tossing bricks into this war machine.  Your enumerated list is chilling...

I post it now as a repose to some of the thoughts that I have shared...



> A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?
> 
> B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.
> 
> ...


 
All of these need to be weighed against what our future holds.  Especially the last one that I have bolded.  I cannot imagine anyone supporting any action this government does if they remotely believed that the bolded was a possibility.  I am not intending to inflame.  Only to provoke thought.  Just think about the nature of the beast that we, as fellow citizens, are dealing with.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I would truth Obama more if were not such a panderer.  That is my impression.  He will not do damned thing to really change unless his rhetoric really gets serious.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Is the military seriously going to send soldiers into battle without the training they need?



Well, this has been true not only of training but also of equipment. Remember earlier in the Iraq occupation when some troops refused to engage in transportation duties because of their inadequately armored vehicles?

Still, one must be realistic. While the "You go to war with the Army you have..." comment was poorly phrased, soldiers must be sent when they're (perceived to be) needed.

There was an interesting editorial in the WSJ not long ago about how turning Marines into an occupation force risks changing the very nature of their (expeditionary) force. It reinforces the idea that the main problem is using the U.S. military as a police force, an army of occupation.

Since we can hardly pull out immediately, more training must be done. Surely there's another site than Toledo, OH, though? Isn't there a NM site, associated with NM Tech? Surely any city has the right to decline to be used as a military base, and it's easy for me to imagine many reasons why they might do so: Concern over the effects on local traffic/business/image, concerns about damage the training might do, inadequate ability to police the area and keep civilians away, etc.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 12, 2008)

Excellent post by *Upnorth* above (number 34).  It lays out quite starkly what is happening in America at present. Note that I dont say "The West" because I believe that label linking Europe with the States is starting to fade as time goes by and the 'bad light' grows stronger over what is being done supposedly in the name of the democratic peoples.

The "Support our troops" slogan has been used many times in almost every discussion that touches on these matters along with such occaisional statements as "they're fighting for our freedom".  That last particularly is errant nonsense and I find it hard to countenance that any educated adult would swallow it for a second.  The former tho' is an emotive petard and really is being utilised as no more than a blunt instrument, in discoursive terms, to denigrate and disuade others from having a point of view that is not in line with 'party policy'.

It's a divisive and unhelpful approach when trying to intelligently talk about world events, especially ones that endanger the fragile balance of power and tenuous 'peace' with the non-western nations.  

Against the Soviet Union, the stance was to look big and fierce (for which we had to have lots of high-tech kit) and talk fierce to prevent a shooting war (whether that was ever on the cards or not is a whole other argument).  

With the fall of that Ominous Threat, another had to be found to fuel the military machine.  What stance can be taken to maintain a sense of threat?  The Shadowy Hand of Terrorism makes a perfect lever for such machinations as it's never going to be 'defeated' but target nations can be picked and invaded for plunder under it's banner.

I'm aware that this is not really directly related to the OP but it's this kind of background that needs to be brought out in to the open and acknowledged if sense is to be made of the actions of people such as the Mayor refusing to allow American troops to train in urban tactics in his city.


----------



## grydth (Feb 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> All of this is such a catch 22.  You make a lot of valid points.  But as a fellow countryman who is seriously concerned about the health and well being of my home, concerned enough to consider moving my family if the outlook doesn't get better, I feel very strongly that we need to do everything we can to oppose this war.  We need to vote for people who will end it.  We need to protest and make our voices heard.  We need to stop aiding a system that sucks up our children and spits them into the places the elite wants them in order to grease their money wheels with blood.
> 
> Grydth, my children are 6 and 3.  They are not at the point where they could be pulled into this system.  Yet, I am afraid that I somehow do not make a stand or do something to pull my family out of this system, I risk having the government pull them into the war machine.  Our leaders have told us to expect war for the rest of our lives.  We are being prepped with slogans and other propaganda to sustain a multigenerational conflict...for what?
> 
> ...




I have no doubt of your good faith and sincere beliefs.... I do question strongly the actions and motivations of the mayor in question.

We have 4 children, 2 of them boys at draft age and 2 of them girls of an age to be murdered by the ilk who produced 9/11. I don't know of any country where either of us could safely relocate our families. I'd be curious what places you are considering...

While the USA gets a lot of outside criticism, most of it comes from those whose governments have badly soiled drawers of their own. I frankly don't see many other places where I'd ever want to live or where individual freedom is not in steep decline.

I have no disagreement with the assertion that war profiteering is occuring at a sickening rate, and I would add that those corporations appear to have bought most of our politicians via "contributions". But the troops didn't ask for this war and they aren't the ones making millions off it. These men and women have kids just like we do, and many worry if they will see them again. I challenge the notion that actions targeting soldiers are appropriate where the villains you cite are private corporations. Why not protest them?

Protesting via "everything we can" can lead you to cross some lines you may not wish to. I do not see that disrupting military training in time of war is ever the right thing to do. A return to treating soldiers as per late Viet Nam will only hasten either civil war or the completion of our devolution into a police state.... maybe one after the other.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 12, 2008)

The only thing I'd disagree with in your very well reasoned post above, *Grydth*, is the "time of war" inference.

We may be dealing with different definitions of 'war' here, for the manufactured threat is not of the same ilk as the wars of the mid-20th century nor the Cold War that I grew up in the shadow of.

The Terrorist Threat is a hollow one, at a national level, for all the individual fear and harm it can cause.  Do you ever see the flea-bite attacks these groups can mount really changing anything for the better for them?  Yes, I agree that those assaults are anything but minor for those who fall under their auspices but they are not going to change anything of significance (as governments measure these things).

The most hackneyed and common definition of war is the extension of foreign policy by aggressive means.  In this case, those carrying out the extension of foreign policy are not the 'terrorists' and it is not a war carried out for purposes of defence of borders.  It's a smoke screen (and a thin one at that) for the fundamental basis of many conflicts throughout history i.e. the control of resources.  Religions been a popular choice for excusing bloodshed too but in this case the 'faith' is purely monetary.

Given the line I've walked in this thread (and others) it may be a surprise to find that I don't necessarily disagree with governments using (what should be) the final resort when it comes to survival.  As oil is absolutely necessary, at present, for technological society to continue then, if no reasonable way of obtaining it existed, armed conflict would be the only other option.  

What has happened here tho' is that greed and impatience on the part of those in postions of political and financial power have precipitated events that did not need to have happened.

That is why I can see a minor politician taking the most public and discussion provoking way he could to raise a hand of objection to what is being done in the name of people who largely do not want it to be done.

Of course, it is entirely possible that it is a self-serving act, I take your point on that - but the underlying issues still need to be addressed.  Lives are being snuffed out to line the coffers of those who are in no danger from the conflict.


----------



## grydth (Feb 12, 2008)

Okay, let's then examine the limits of dissent and protest.

For this debate purpose *only*, let's say the war in Iraq is illicit, that corporations are making a killing financially and that said corporations have bought many politicians.....

Through no fault of your own, you probably were not in the USA to see how returning Viet Nam vets were treated. But I was. A number of those men were friends of mine and what was done to them was despicable and unpardonable. The disgrace has never been made good, and a number of embarrased people like myself concluded. "Never again.... if I see soldiers treated that way now, I'll do something about it." <Oddly enough, I, a Cold War vet of the 1980s
 have always been treated wonderfully, and I am no hero. Go figure. >

If people have a bone with war profiteering corporations and their wholly owned politicians... why not take it out on them? Why not divest/ Why not protest? Why not kick *them* out of town?

I view actions taken against the troops themselves as just wrong. They didn't decide to start this and a good many of them have families of their own.

Don't forget, as I have said, the military performs a much wider and greater mission than Iraq. Training in urban combat has been seen as a general requirement for some time now - even I had a primitive type of it in the 1980's. When a grandstanding politician acts _only at the last __minute _to prevent such training, he's only helping any enemy these Marines may face. That's just wrong. For this mayor to pompously - and* IGNORANTLY* - refer to "playing war" when soldiers are dying in urban combat every day is grotesque.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2008)

I've protested the war several times since it has started and it is always an interesting experience.  Once, even, I found myself shunted into a "free speech" zone surrounded by a fence with a net over our head that was so low that we couldn't hold up our signs. We were told by the police that if we tampered with any of the barriers, which included touching them with our signs, we would be arrested. Further, this "zone" was located about as far from the location we were protesting and was actually positioned out of the line of sight that they people we wanted to see it.  

This is the state in which dissenting discourse in our country has been reduced.  This paltry farce of free speech.  How can the people who disagree ever hope to get their voice out into the public when the people that run the show can pull the strings and mechanize the police, the media, and local officials (with promises of increased aid) against it?

What other choices are available for people who are really passionate about stopping this ill-begotten and wasteful war?  I don't want to put other people in danger, but I can't see any other way then sheer civil disobedience.  I would say that a mass anti-tax movement would work better (Ron Paul).  Or maybe a total ban on recruitment in a city or town or school.  Anything legal that is going to make it more difficult to propagate this war probably needs to be considered.  

What other recourse is there when all other methods are so effectively checkmated?  As you have said, soldiers are our children, why should we give any aid to a cause that will get them killed for no benefit for America?  Is being against the war and supporting the actions of our military tacit complicity in the war?  

I can see the government really liking this hence the slogan "I am against this war, but I support our troops."

There is no easy way to deal with any of this.  Everyone loses something, but who loses more?  If our country collapses because we failed to stop this war, doesn't that defeat the very oath the soldier takes?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 12, 2008)

grydth said:


> Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:
> 
> A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?


 
Hey-advance request to anybody wanting to brick me--very much appreciated if you would either aim for my second-hand ALICE pack, or otherwise hold off till I can afford my helmet. I gotta buy my own uniforms and my own battle-rattle and K-pots don't come cheap 

In my case, being as my unit( www.mastateguard.com) cannot be deployed outside Massachusetts, I'm not in quite the same position as the regular Federalized National Guard and regular Army ( many people don't realize the National Guard, while units may have home states, is in fact Federal and has been since WWII, not saying I agree with it, just a statement of fact the absence of which can and has led to misconceptions) . By the time *we* have to actively face combat we're ALL a day late and a buck short.

Why not just join the regular Federal services? Because I tried at 17 and was turned away for, according to their tests,  excessive hearing loss. Last January when I attended my first MASG drill I mentioned I had hearing issues up front and we decided we would give it a go and if it became a problem I'd muster out. That was a year ago so I must be doing something right.

But being as our mission, as detailed in the site, is to provide training and support to the regular Guard, and to backfill for them in times of local emergency, of *course* it's gonna sting me to see this happen to the Marines. I'm not in that uniform for the pay ( which is nothing) or the benefits ( which are none), I'm there to contribute what small amount I can to those who have to go over because I care about them and want them to come home safe, and for the training I do recieve because I want the people *I* care about to be safe. That's it. 

With that said---anytime We've had to play "Civilian" or "Enemy" for them, we have used abandoned, usually gov't owned property well away from any civilian population to do so.( Both OPFOR missions I've been any part of have been at what used to be called "Fort" Devens , or at Camp Edwards up the Cape.) While I was, and remain, incensed at the Marines' treatment at the last moment, it must be admitted that there remains much to be said for combat training in environments where no one can watch the exercise who is not participating in it, lest an uninformed someone or a group of uninformed someones should see and misunderstand. 

At the end of the day, is this not the reason our very own dojo, dojang, kwoons, schools, clubs and gyms exist to start with?

As regards the Mayor's decision--Not having been present and in possession of all the facts, before I can form an opinion I'd have to know whether it was the neighborhood's decision or the mayor's after the OK had been given.

If the former, I'd be in support of the neighborhood.

If the latter, whether the mayor had the right to do what he did to those Marines will depend on the local laws, and his performance at the next election's polls.  But as others have pointed out above for different but related reasons, a thing can be legal, and still be wrong, and that's my gut feeling with only the info given. I've already made it clear in no uncertain terms my disgust at arbitrary refusal of training to those who may be about to need it, so I will dwell no more on that.




> B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.


 
Exactly--I rather enjoy the lyrics to the new song "Citizen Soldier" by 3 Doors Down--it makes no mention of the war, it's a tribute to the good qualities and essence of what I believe a soldier should be. 


I didn't swear in or put a uniform on for some bull**** abstract like my Flag, my Nation or "Democracy For damnsure I didn't do it for our President at the time.

I chose to volunteer for this way of life for one simple reason: I want the people I care about to be safe. Which included my brothers and sisters in my unit as well as my family, friends and countrymen.

Now I wasn't so naive as to think that I could wave my magic bayonet and magically prevent anything from happening to them specifically, but I guess what I was hoping is that if there IS some kind of higher power pulling strings up there, that maybe it understands fair trade. That if I prepared to face the bad things, maybe they wouldn't have to.



There are participants in this thread with whom I have strongly disagreed- a time or two in quite extreme terms-But when you come right down to it, the WORST thing I can say about those folks is that we don't agree--hardly a hanging offense. 

At the end of it, "you guys" are "my guys"--Upnorth, Empty Hands, Michaeledward, wouldn't make a damn difference--if any of you guys were MA residents and *T*hings *W*ent *S*ideways, and it happened that I was the one who first found you in need of assistance and you and yours were, for whatever reason, out of a house, hungry or thirsty, off comes the bedroll from my ALICE pack, out come my ponchos to make you a tent, and that person can have my MRE and the last damn drop of water from my canteen any day because that's what we DO. 

I'd hate to see this current situation become as it was in Vietnam, where the people had legitimate gripes with their government but took it out on the wrong people (troops).


----------



## grydth (Feb 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I've protested the war several times since it has started and it is always an interesting experience.  Once, even, I found myself shunted into a "free speech" zone surrounded by a fence with a net over our head that was so low that we couldn't hold up our signs. We were told by the police that if we tampered with any of the barriers, which included touching them with our signs, we would be arrested. Further, this "zone" was located about as far from the location we were protesting and was actually positioned out of the line of sight that they people we wanted to see it.
> 
> This is the state in which dissenting discourse in our country has been reduced.  This paltry farce of free speech.  How can the people who disagree ever hope to get their voice out into the public when the people that run the show can pull the strings and mechanize the police, the media, and local officials (with promises of increased aid) against it?
> 
> ...



Keeping in mind that I am not a big liberal......I would say your first option would be to support Obama with money, letters and vote. He has been against the war since Day 1, you may wish to give the man a chance. Since McCain is pro-war and the Klintons have been bought and paid for with dirty money, I'd say Obama should at least be given a try by the Peace Movement. 

Second, recall the anti-corporate actions taken in the days of South Africa...... agitate for divestiture. Instead of targeting our soldiers, pressure city/local/state governments to have nothing to do with these companies. Instead of attacking recruiting offices, how about pressuring government to not rent or sell to Halliburton and its ilk?

As I said, our troops perform an overall mission in protecting our country that is much wider and much different than only Iraq. Much as that conflict may offend you, that is not all, or even most, of what our soldiers do. Urban warfare training is needed for those duties as well.

"Free speech zones" give me the chills... between assaults on your 1st Amendment Rights and mine under the Second Amendment, I say we dare not give either Bush or Hellary any excuses to further erode the Bill of Rights. Violent protests against individual soldiers would give either one an excuse - draped in patriotism, of course.

Civil disobedience need not be violent. Always consider the possible consequences.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Mayor gives US Marines the boot.




It is not like there is history or anything between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Who knows maybe they thought Michigan wanted to take Toledo back.  

Sorry I could not refrain.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2008)

grydth said:


> Civil disobedience need not be violent. Always consider the possible consequences.


 
Sage advice.  :asian:

Perhaps my ignorance in the military's other duties colors my opinion, I'll have to make more of an effort to get informed on that.  

We are actually in agreement on quite a few points.  1st and 2nd amendment issues, especially.  

Where I think we differ is on the gravity of this particulary situation in which our country finds itself.  

I'm looking at an empire that is bursting at the seams with spending and doing everything it can to keep people in line so that it can keep lining the pockets of the rich.  Your suggestion to protest and or kick these people in their companies out of our communities might work if we were actually informed on what they do.  Unfortunately, these matters are not privy to the public record so this makes it espeically difficult.  Not to mention, there is no such thing as investigative staff on newspapers anymore...

With that being said, historically, unpopular wars have been stopped because the populace has turned on the military.  In the ancient world, this was especially common and has extended into the twentieth century.  The tactic has been to reduce morale to a point where people don't want to fight for worthless causes...and then the whole thing falls apart.

If another way existed to stop this thing before it ruined our country, I would take it.  The easy way out is to move...


----------



## grydth (Feb 13, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Sage advice.  :asian:
> 
> Perhaps my ignorance in the military's other duties colors my opinion, I'll have to make more of an effort to get informed on that.
> 
> ...



The potential problems with a civil war or large scale military-civilian fighting are many and serious. The prime risk I see in the present is the imposition of a police state. The Bush-Klinton Dark Ages have already seen erosions of basic liberties.... they'd love to take the rest.

Another risk would be the dissolution of the country itself along a number of already existing fault lines. This is why I - no liberal - am giving Obama a hard look. His stands on issues I mostly do not agree with, but I think the nation is most in need of a positive leadership figure, a unifier instead of a divider, a corrupter and a hater.

You cannot selectively destroy military morale. The effects may last decades. If the troops lose the overall will to fight, who defends the nation from those who'd like to see us all dead?

Name me a country that presents a viable place to resettle. 

Reports show even the Berkeley City Council now having a change of heart.... they see you can oppose the War but support the troops.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm very glad we continued this thread from the point where it seemed there were two camps at loggerheads.

It would seem that actually those of us who have been actively building arguments and describing positions have pretty much the same core view of what the problem is  ... we just differ a touch on how to go about finding an answer.

I can well sympathise with the view that not wanting to put the invested troops in undue danger - they are, as has been said, someone's sons and daughters and I, tree-hugging hippy that I am, think that almost every human life has value.

Is there a case for taking the view that it's a justifiable path to take actions which, in the short term, add to the threat to the soldiers in the field but, ultimately, lead to getting them all out of harms way?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2008)

grydth said:


> The potential problems with a civil war or large scale military-civilian fighting are many and serious. The prime risk I see in the present is the imposition of a police state. The Bush-Klinton Dark Ages have already seen erosions of basic liberties.... they'd love to take the rest.
> 
> Another risk would be the dissolution of the country itself along a number of already existing fault lines. This is why I - no liberal - am giving Obama a hard look. His stands on issues I mostly do not agree with, but I think the nation is most in need of a positive leadership figure, a unifier instead of a divider, a corrupter and a hater.
> 
> You cannot selectively destroy military morale. The effects may last decades. If the troops lose the overall will to fight, who defends the nation from those who'd like to see us all dead?


 
I agree with you regarding the precarious state of affairs that our country has reached.  There are so many fault lines that could break that I'm concerned about the future of my home.  

As far as a leader goes, I want to see someone who will protect our civil liberties.  Who will respect the constitution.  Who will restore the military to its proper role as protector of this country.  

I *AM* a liberal and I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul believes, but I believe that he would be the best person to lead our country right now.  I know he doesn't have much of a chance, but the reforms he talks about are the only ones that anyone is saying that make any sense.  

He's not charismatic like Obama, but I really respect his passion for liberty and the constitution.  We need to stop treating this document like a doormat.

As far as the troops go, I think that the longer they stay in Iraq, fighting a war that cannot really be won, one that isn't supposed to be won, the more their morale will be destroyed anyways.  If Obama is president and makes good on his pleadge to get our troops out of Iraq, that would be great.  If not, I think our soldiers are in for a hard and sad slog no matter what.



grydth said:


> Name me a country that presents a viable place to resettle.


 
Check your PMs.  



grydth said:


> Reports show even the Berkeley City Council now having a change of heart.... they see you can oppose the War but support the troops.


 
I question this.  I am wary of this slogan because it gets tossed out with no real logical basis.  People treat it as if its a forgone conclusion.  Yet, I think I made a salient point earlier.  If you are against the war and the democracy you depend on in order to exert your will is broken and you support our troops, isn't that tacit support of the war?

People don't want to accept the proposition in the middle of the above thesis, but I think that if we look at the state of our leaders, our voting procedures, and the media we can conclude that it really is broken...or at the very least sinking fast.

Thoughts?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Is there a case for taking the view that it's a justifiable path to take actions which, in the short term, add to the threat to the soldiers in the field but, ultimately, lead to getting them all out of harms way?


 
I honestly hope it never gets there.  History shows us that popular uprisings agaisnt unpopular wars are common, however.  It could happen here.


----------



## grydth (Feb 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm very glad we continued this thread from the point where it seemed there were two camps at loggerheads.
> 
> It would seem that actually those of us who have been actively building arguments and describing positions have pretty much the same core view of what the problem is  ... we just differ a touch on how to go about finding an answer.
> 
> ...



The last paragraph is very dangerous ground indeed.

I can well understand and respect those many people who believe strongly that the Iraq war is wrong. But, to intentionally add to the threat to our own soldiers requires some troubling judgments....  

We've heard many negative things about the USA, but how about the nature of monsters you'd be helping? How can people of conscience ever justify making common cause with the likes of al-Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah? These entities are the epitome of pure evil, their murderous misdeeds as stomach turning as anything I have ever read of. How could anyone ever justify helping them kill an American soldier or Marine? Maybe I'm just "ignorant", but in my view there can never be justification for that.

Also, those "actions" being debated are a Pandora's Box. Most of the harm to the American Army from what was done to soldiers lasted long past the end of the Viet Nam war. Lifetime enemies were made; societal fissures persisted at least a generation. Many veterans remain bitter over being attacked, while the political and corporate actors lived in safety and splendor. Morale and recruiting were damaged long after that war ended. 

Iraq, like Viet Nam, is not the main mission or the main reason of and for our armed forces. Note Andy's post about what his unit does. Ready to give that up. or be responsible for those guys' death. I'm not.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 14, 2008)

From what I've read here, *Grydth* I'd never dare to call you 'ignorant'.

My question was a hypothetical one, shaped to draw discussion and should not necessarily be taken to be an indication of my actual thoughts on the matter (bear in mind my accompanying 'every life is precious' statements).

As to the long term effects on the veterans of the Viet Nam war, well we have at least two of them here at MT that I can think of off the top of my head - is it significant that neither have posted here?


----------



## newGuy12 (Feb 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> If it had been British Royal Marines I could have understood it, towns visited by them are usually left with their maidens deflowered, the towns bars drunk dry and a lot of very satisfied women and unhappy men.
> No not joking!
> We have specially built areas specially for urban fighting called Fibuas (Fghting in in-built areas), out on the training ranges, we've had them for over 40 years. other service people volunteer to be the towns people and they can riot, use civil disobedience or whatever is necessary for training.
> I think the British service personnel lead the way in urban fighting as we had so much practice in Northern Ireland.



Well, then, that's good news!  Good for the Englanders!  And you would hope that the US would have as much sense.  But no! 

The Marines are elite, and no joke.  The "powers that be" -- all of them, the military minds AND  the local politicians -- should know that the Marines should choose a place where people are not put off by gunfire and shouting and so on.  I know little, but I know that the term Devil Dog was not given on a whim, they are called that *for a freaking reason.*  Some neighborhoods can't stand a lot of rowdy combat training, so choose a neighborhood that can stand it.  Its a big country here, with many different little communities.  Choose one of them that is suitable, but not this one.  

Why does this seem so simple to me?  Am I missing something?


----------



## grydth (Feb 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> From what I've read here, *Grydth* I'd never dare to call you 'ignorant'.
> 
> My question was a hypothetical one, shaped to draw discussion and should not necessarily be taken to be an indication of my actual thoughts on the matter (bear in mind my accompanying 'every life is precious' statements).
> 
> As to the long term effects on the veterans of the Viet Nam war, well we have at least two of them here at MT that I can think of off the top of my head - is it significant that neither have posted here?



I know you were not advocating violence or name calling.

Friends of mine were spit on and  (*falsel*y) called baby killers by leftwing protesters .... while from the other side, the 'establishment' corporations and media made it seem that the war and the loss of it were somehow the veterans' fault. Small wonder the vets don't want to revisit that. It is a national disgrace how those veterans were treated.

When we question whether soldiers are ever deployed untrained, ill equiped and unsupported, well there are many stomach turning tales from that conflict.

I served in the Army well after that war, but the damage to the military structure was still evident all over.

To me, when is it justified to interfere with our soldiers' training or to take acts that put them in peril?  Never. Never again.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 14, 2008)

I don't disagree with your points there at all and appreciate your insights into the long term effects of 'Nam in the American military structure.  

I can see why, given your background, that your feelings run the way they do on this and why you will never concur that putting your fellow serviceman in additional danger is justified.

I don't denigrate you for that, I fully understand it and will not try to change your mind.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 14, 2008)

If the Military Industrial Complex is hell bent on pushing this war in order to fill its coffers even if its bankrupts this country and there is no democratic way to stop it, what does a person do?

No wants to make common cause with our enemies, but I think that everyone would stand up if they realized that we really were on the brink of something that could sink the future of this country.  

So what do we do?  Other then a mass uprising where the populace roots these elite *******s out of their shiny mansions and sharpens the guillotines, I can't think of much.  These people have insulated themselves well and are effectively untouchable.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 15, 2008)

Gonna be totally honest with you, I don't see a way out of it, I just hope come time things kick off I've learned enough of what I need to to keep the people I care about as safe as I can do anything about. *shrug*


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> The "powers that be" -- all of them, the military minds AND the local politicians -- should know that the Marines *should choose a place where people are not put off by gunfire and shouting and so on*. I know little, but I know that the term Devil Dog was not given on a whim, they are called that for a freaking reason. Some neighborhoods can't stand a lot of rowdy combat training, so choose a neighborhood that can stand it.


 
I still don't see how this disqualifies Toledo.


----------



## grydth (Feb 22, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Gonna be totally honest with you, I don't see a way out of it, I just hope come time things kick off I've learned enough of what I need to to keep the people I care about as safe as I can do anything about. *shrug*



There may be a way out of it, and that's why I am looking hard at supporting Obama even though I agree very little with him on the issues. Very little.

The guy is preaching national unity and a limit to corporate ownership of the government. I view Hellary, and to a lesser extent McCain, as essentially divisive figures. Individuals like Mayor F here only encourage us turning on each other. Once that starts, and the backlash commences, there is very litle hope.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 6, 2008)

It was relocated (at least in part) to Indianapolis. The city has been largely supportive, but not without exception.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2008)

The protest in the streets may have been small but the verbage in the posts was as shocking to me as it was revealing of just how far things have strayed.

I could only shake my head at some of the things I read which were put there by residents of a nation that trumpets itself as democratic.  If they don't see the destructive path the voiced attitudes place their feet upon ...


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 7, 2008)

> "We do not want to promote war," said protester Mary Heins, 66, Indianapolis. *"You're giving tacit approval to war when you bring in the military to practice in our midst."*



Clown.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 7, 2008)

grydth said:


> I served in the Army well after that war, but the damage to the military structure was still evident all over.



Alas, I fear that is what is happening here and now.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Jun 7, 2008)

That's one tough mayor. The whole corp huh? Wow. Must have been eating his spinich.


----------

