Generations of disrespect...

[hardheadjarhead]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

upnorthkyosa

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

...When the Vietnam War began to become unpopular the soldiers who were fighting that war began to pay a psychological price for it, even before they returned home.

Psychiatric casualties increase greatly when the soldier feels isolated, and psychological and social isolation from home and society was one of the results of the growing antiwar sentiment in the United States. One manifestation of this isolation, noted by numerous authors such as Gabriel, was an increase in Dear John letters. As the war became more and more unpopular back home, it became increasingly common for girlfriends, fiancees and even wives to dump the soldiers who depended upon them. Their letters were an umbilical cord to the sanity and decency they believed they were fighting for. And a signifigant increase in such letters as well as many other forms of psychological and social isolation probably account for much of the tremendous increase in psychiatric casulties suffered late in that war.

...The greatest indignity heaped upon the soldier waited for him when he returned home. Often veterans were verbally abused and physically attacked or even spit upon.

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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