Shouldn't War Vets Bond to Dissent?

[AbsoluteArmorer]

Ever wonder why war vets stand firm together in their bond for what they feel is right or wrong? Isn't dissent the end product of one who disagrees with another? Isn't it the right of war veterans to express their feelings against a group such as the Bush Administration or other authoritarian groups without being chastised or penalized for expressing such deep personal feelings or beliefs? Aren't war vets considered more 'experienced' in their overall knowledge that effects many lives in such important decisions?



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KRE20060324&articleId=2163


The Accepted System of Dissent
War Veteran Speaks Out

by Mike Kress

March 24, 2006

Veteran's speech on March 18, 2006




We are here because we oppose the war on Iraq. We are here because gathering together in one place makes a statement, and might have an impact on those who are afraid to question our government’s actions. We are here because standing in solidarity with others who are outraged about the war on Iraq helps us feel better. It helps us feel sane to find others who reject the lies of our government. It helps us feel grounded to know that other people don’t buy the propaganda fed to us by the mainstream media. We are here because we know that what’s happening in Iraq - and what’s likely to occur in Iran - is morally and criminally wrong. We are here because we hope that our presence, in conjunction with others doing the same thing across the nation and around the world, will make a positive difference. In short, we are here because we believe in an illusion. That illusion is an accepted system of dissent that ensures our resistance doesn’t go beyond boundaries established by the government and the corporate media.

Make no mistake: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Snow, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the fossil fuels industry, the military-industrial complex, and everyone controlling this system, are not incompetent or stupid. They are corporatists, and they know what they are doing. They are deliberately dismantling our freedoms and protections so that corporate capitalism - backed by military and police power - can become a global reality.

“But wait,” you say. Don't Americans have free speech? Can’t we vote the bums out? Well, what is free speech when it falls on deaf ears? What is voting when corporations manufacture hackable electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail? What is an election when the major political parties are two sides of a counterfeit coin?

It’s time to throw away our misplaced faith in this corrupt, undemocratic system and build alternatives to it. “Another world is possible” isn’t possible if we keep supporting a system that’s rigged against us.

[Joe for Clark]

1. Your post is really good.

And so right-on.

I really do think the generation that should have the most input is marginalized - they're 80 years old now, they don't know what the internet is, in my experience.

They left a lot us behind to talk for them - and we better do that.

Yes, a person that fought in battle to protect us should have the deciding vote - they really know what it means to go to war. Should be four votes to one, I think. And I go with their hard won wisdom everytime.

And they are on our side right now, I am certain.

Joe

[AbsoluteArmorer]

3. Thanks Joe

Glad you appreciate my post about war vets who need to further bond and dissent against government corruption.

As you stated, it's important for that experienced word to reach out to those up and coming into their own world of being a war veteran, as wars will sadly escalate in our near future. It will take those new war veterans to make changes in the war zones just as it will take civilians to not feed the war office of this lost nation of ours.

It appears that you are a W Clark supporter. I hope that W Clark may find his place somewhere in our future politics for I think he'll serve this country well in that capacity.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

23. Gulf War Vets Dissent - 2003

Friday, 17 January, 2003, 11:04 GMT
Military voices of dissent
US troops prepare to leave for Kuwait

By Steve Schifferes
BBC News Online Washington correspondent

Opposition to a possible war in Iraq has come from an unlikely source - the US military itself.

As anti-war forces are gathering for a major demonstration on Saturday in Washington, a group of parents of the soldiers currently being deployed in the Gulf have decided to speak out against the drive for war.


One son will by flying casualties to medical ships
They have been joined by organisations representing Gulf War veterans, who are particularly concerned about the problem of chemical and biological warfare casualties among servicemen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2663191.stm

[Acebass]

2. Yes they should!...n/t

[AbsoluteArmorer]

4. Kerry speaks of dissent

The man still has it! In John Kerry's blog he speaks about dissent




John Kerry spoke in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall today about patriotism and dissent at a time of war and the assault on free speech in America today. Below are Kerry's remarks as prepared for delivery.

Senator John Kerry
"Dissent"
Faneuil Hall
April 22, 2006


I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

[Major Hogwash]

5. Two more Generals just came out against Rumsfeld.

Odom and Von Riper joined the other retired Generals criticizing Rumsfeld and Bush's stubborn refusal to dismiss him.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

26. We need more Generals to dissent for what is right for true Americans!

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/04/generals-question-rumsfelds-leadership.html

Friday, April 14, 2006

Generals question Rumsfeld's leadership
Last night, we had a great discussion with three retired generals. The topic was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the question on the table was why are so many former generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign?

I don't take sides, but what I find interesting about the current debate is that for the first time we are hearing from high-level officers who served on the ground in Iraq.

For years now, Rumsfeld and others in this administration -- from President Bush on down -- have said that they take their cues from commanders on the ground. Whenever asked about troop levels and whether there are enough forces on the ground, they've said that if the commanders wanted more, they would have asked for them.

Well now it seems we are hearing from commanders who are saying that's not the way it really worked.

[flyingobject]

6. Veterans billboard - Impeach Bush

Veterans for Peace, Chapter 99 of Ashville, NC publicizing the justice part of their peace and social justice mission.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/9524

[Acebass]

7. He's an embarassment...

anyone who couldn't even complete his guard duty...if it had been me I'd have been drafted asp...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

8. Bush should have.......

.... at least gone overseas where it was safe to party hearty somewhere like Thailand or Japan. He could have sat around on his ass and collected PX medals to made it look like he was more a part of the Vietnam War, then ole GW would had a better looking military resume to brag about much like what Republicans love to do. Looks like its the wannabes like GW who always soaks up the real thunder in Faux Americka!

[Acebass]

10. You have this fixation about Thailand...

Why don't you explain to the rest of the vets here what it's all about...

I watched many a B52 fly out to save a lot of grunts like you ...you show respect you get respect!...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

12. how many missions....

did you fly?

[Acebass]

13. Not all in the Air Force were pilots...

It took good men on the ground to get them in the air and keep them there...for that I'd hope that those who benefited from the strikes would show some gratitude...

Vietnam was less than a days drive away from where I was and there was this country called Cambodia that was about an hour away so it wasn't a 365 day party as you have some believe...

Whatever differences you and I had wasn't about our service to our country, if you'll remember, till you made it so...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

17. off topic...

Despite your continuous off topic and apparent altered attitude in this thread much like you have done in other threads here in this military section, I'll address your comments as best as I can, if and when, I feel it appropriate. You seem to 'demand' answers that best supports your own agenda, whatever that may be. I certainly can see all of this as open dissent for which I feel is our rights to perform, but I must say that you sometimes seem to have personal problems with other issues that tends to arise in these military threads here in DU.

You may want to further check out this thread to seek help if you need it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x1213

Now as far as me and you and a dog named boo, there's no love lost here as far as I am concerned for what you have represented to me in our short past here in DU. You seem to want to promote your tour of Asian duty along with your versions for 'extra' chest pounding with it all. Makes no matter to me, pound your chest all you want if it toots your bugle. I've not stated anything here that disproves your claim of military service per your own statements made.


You say you were not far from the Cambodian border and a few days drive to Vietnam. Super. Now I ask if you took on fire? It also comes to my mind that the eastern part of Cambodia, of which you were not in, was where 'war' spilled over into Cambodia. The western part of Cambodia, as far as I know, was not in any 'direct' fire of war time fighting.

Were you in any position in where you was to take on a military missions that involved combat/assaults? See, the way I decipher your wording things here in DU is, in fact, how you make things appear that lends to the fact that you 'physically' was a part of combat in Vietnam. For those who were there in Vietnam, like myself, find that insulting to those we call real war vets. That means 'real time' my friend. Not saying those in support countries wasn't important, in fact some roles were important, but when it comes to when one tries to step on my toes and split the hairs the way you have, concerning real war time events, then I question such authority.

If others who has been reading these threads and posts have probably also realized that you are the one who addresses yourself to 'me' first in the threads, especially the threads that I have created here in this military section. You come into my threads making your comments as you do, and then start demanding answers from me about things that you somehow interpret inside your own mind as being 'possibly not to your liking' or things that 'best fits your own battle cry'. Hell I could respond the same, but I've been more 'courteous' while addressing topic issues as much as possible at the same time.

Now if you'd like for us to take this further than we have here, then I do know of a place where we can do that without fear of heavy moderation, unlike what I've been told about your own forum turf heavy moderation. By my understanding, you'll need not fear being banned as promised by this one new forum's admins that I have met. I will gladly PM you it's link if you want that. Other than that, I do not know what else to suggest to you concerning your strange off the wall remarks that you make here in this military section. Heck, maybe it's just me and I simply can't interpret RA bs very well. If so, I apologize for my RA 101 ignorance. But whatever you wish to prove to me about whatever else is going on in your head, then I suggest that we may best address this elsewhere, while I continue to pursue the topic matter in these threads.

By the way, a question to the mods. Is it ok for us to list a link in our signature area to a forum such as Acebass has? I'm cool with that, as I hope others are allowed to do the same. Thanks.

[Acebass]

22. LOL ...what ever you say there AA...n/t

[Acebass]

14. You didn't answer my question...n/t

[AbsoluteArmorer]

24. ??

What question?

[Acebass]

11. Got my DD 214 says I can wear my medals ...

I earned em I'll wear em!...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

15. I was in-country RVN......

.... and I still haven't collected all my medals. The few I brought home with me I kept in a box. If I ever did send off to get the rest of my medals, I wanted to do something honorable that would represent comrades who died in Vietnam. That's what my medals means to me. The guys who bought it over there in the real war zone.

The GW Bush camp bragged about his cream puff service while they secretly recruited and backed swifty boat liars and other RAs types to bash real war vets like JFKerry. I could care less if Bush stayed drunk in Texas, Alabama or anywhere else even if he had gone to Thailand or Japan, just as long as Bush would own up to who he really as a person. He's nothing but a fake and pure out liar when it comes to his 'own credentials' if you know what I mean.

That's what dissent is all about. Getting to the truth of such liars and fakes. Then there's Cheney and the rest of the GOP pigs. Then there's many forum imposters too who try to undermine real war vets and democratic issues. It's just never ending. If you know what I mean.

:freak: ;-)


In the words of JFKerry we are all about dissent... based on the truth!


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senator_Kerry_Attacks_on_dissent_cheap_0422.html

Senator Kerry: Attacks on dissent 'cheap and shameful'

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday April 22, 2006

In a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall on Saturday, Senator John Kerry accused President Bush and his supporters of stifling dissent.

"I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong," said Kerry. "And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.


America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.


But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country.

[Acebass]

16. I can agree to that...

We pee-ons just did what we were told and went where they sent us...we didn't have the money to do anything else...

I dispise the Swiftboaters because we all did what we were told to and came back alive. No man should have to defend his service to his country, as long as his service was honorable...

You and I used to see eye to eye, before others got in the way...we could again...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

18. eye to eye?

Where was this 'eye to eye' event that you stated took place?

If you hate the Bush idiots as much as I do, then yes, we see eye to eye. If you support completely free speech 'especially' in political forums than we see eye to eye. If you actually allow dissent to be expressed in such forums without ruling interference by biased moderation, then we see eye to eye. If you understand the difference between real time war vets and RAs, then we see eye to eye. For some reason I bet this next one might be tough for you to agree with. If you CAN admit to your wrongs and publicly do that before your peers and partners in crime, then we do in fact see eye to eye. That is what is needed in our entire political system corrupted by many of our lying politicians. That may help you to better understand where I am coming from with the facts that I know to be true.

[Acebass]

19. Another waste of time...n/t

[AbsoluteArmorer]

20. not really....

Dissent is calling chickenhawks by their true feathers. Time will tell.

[Acebass]

21. So much for Vets hanging together...

[AbsoluteArmorer]

25. [b]concerning your medals Acebass..... [/b]

I know this is a bit off topic, but since several of your posts are somewhat off topic, I'll address this fixation you seem to have about 'your' war medals. I'm sure you feel that you earned your medals since Congress was generous handing them out. Now since a few of those medals are exactly the same medals as what real in-country war veterans received, does that not bother you just a little bit if you have those very same medals as what a war veteran deserved and went through to show for their personal 'hell' inside that particular war itself? Myself, I would not even had brought up the subject of medals as you have, because I would be greatly ashamed to take away that special image and honor from an 'active' in-country war veteran.

Don't get me wrong about my opinion here, but I think RAs in support countries should have their own set of medals to display all over their chest for their 'specific' time and place they pulled overseas. See, I would not feel right to wear medals that signifies that I was in Thailand, Japan or the Philippines when I wasn't. That's just as simple as that. You have to admit that there's something very wrong with this picture when the very same 'war' medals are 'handed' out to those who were not in a war/combat zone. I do not consider those as 'earned' medals.

:shrug:

[AbsoluteArmorer]

9. OUTSTANDING BILLBOARD!

Gotta love it! Thanks for that uplifting post flyingobject.

By the way I was contemplating with relocating to the Ashville area. Maybe I should PM with you to get some Ashville tips for when that may happen. Glad they have a VFP there. Where's the nearest VA facility to Ashville, BlkMtn?

[AbsoluteArmorer]

27. WH turns veterans away

These veterans physically brough their dissent to the WH pro and was turned away.


http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=61&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Petition from Veterans Rejected at White House

May 14, 2006

News Veterans from throughout the nation converged in Washington to demonstrate near the White House, attend a teach-in, and lobby Congress.
By Jan Barry

Taking a petition to Washington signed by more than 2,000 veterans opposed to a preemptive war in Iraq is one thing. Getting someone to accept it is much more difficult.

“We cannot accept anything,” said a police officer at the White House. “Put it in the mail.”

As bombs exploded in Baghdad and battles erupted across Iraq, more than 400 military veterans and family members demonstrated Sunday in the nation’s capital demanding the safe return of our troops. Months of effort to collect signatures on an internet petition and deliver the message to the Bush administration and Congress seemed undone by the abrupt military assault launched just days before.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

28. Kerry: Bush dismissing dissent

John Kerry still pushes to expose the corrupt Bush regime! BRAVO!





http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0507kerry0507.html


Kerry: Bush dismissing dissent

Mike Glover
Associated Press
May. 7, 2006 12:00 AM

GRINNELL, Iowa - Sen. John Kerry on Saturday accused the Bush administration of stirring up a "spirit of intolerance" to suppress dissent over the war in Iraq.

Kerry said the Bush administration is targeting opponents of the Iraq war in much the same way he was attacked for protesting failed policies in Vietnam in the 1970s.

"Dismissing dissent is not only wrong but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure or genuine debate," said Kerry, D-Mass.

"Although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country."

[Major Hogwash]

29. Well, now that they've stolen all the info on us I doubt if many of the...

. . . retired vets drawing a pension will stick their necks out too far to voice their dissent of Bush now.

What with the news of the stolen VA disk, this seems like just another attempt by the neocons to silence any dissent.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

30. burdening dissenters

Not only that MajorH, now beaucoup confusion and fear of one's credit reports and financial standings will override concerns of what our slick Republican govt officials are doing. The Govt Goons knows that worried and concerned minds over their own personal affairs keeps citizen's minds off of their 'corrupt' affairs.

[goofticket]

31. Spporting the troops...in rhetoric or in deeds.

Support the troops.
We hear the phrase every day.
But we don't hear it as a request. It has become, thanks to the ranting of the conservative media divas, an insult to those who want the troops to come home. It's a cheerleading rally cry of the right. It has little to do with the actual troops in how it’s used today.
Support the troops. A great term, but highly abused. The disgusting conservative use of this phrase, is loud and clear. If you question the Bush plan, or anything to do with Iraq, terrorists or the military...you don't support the troops. Only conservatives are 'qualified' to support the troops. After all, the conservatives planned and designed the war, so they get to take credit for supporting the troops. Liberals have never supported war....well, maybe just this one in Iraq. Conservatives love war, it's profitable and thats were their support stops. Just like a four year old tank that can no longer be repaired.
No, liberals don't like war. In fact, only the fanatical far right likes war. If you'd ask Americans if they would prefer a war over peace talks, the talking part would win hands down. Americans know wars cost lives. Americans have enough experience with wars to know that supporting the troops is doing everything possible to avoid sending them into a war....any war.
If you don't support the troops....you hate America, you are a Bush hater.

If that isn't the most idiotic phrase, I don't know what is.

Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
It means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn't mean sending the soldier back into harm's way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived 'noble' causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it's hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can't find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It's not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven't waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don't wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It's called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn't make the HumVee stronger, it doesn't make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn't send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not 'inspired' by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the 'agenda' stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn't 'support the troops'; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

32. great piece brother

You wrote a wonderful post that tells it straight out based on the truth.

I also see the fact that war vets like ourselves who stands up in dissent against the wrong war and the Bush cabal are in fact supporting the troops. Those of us who dissent wants to put an end to the soldier's endless future that is in serious harm's way.

Keep up the good work!