Activists protest war outside post

Activists protest war outside post

In conjunction with the sixth annual Iraq Veterans Against the War convention in Austin, Killeen's Under the Hood Café is hosting a concert and barbecue Saturday.

Under the Hood, at 17 S. College St., is a "place for soldiers to gather, relax and speak freely about the wars and the military," according to *www.underthehoodcafe.org. *Organizers also provide support services for soldiers and their families, including counseling and legal advice.

Set to perform are Travis Bishop, who was arrested in August at Fort Hood after refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, Ryan Harvey and R.A.S. Admission is free for those with military identification and a suggested donation of $5 each for those without.

This is the first large-scale event Under the Hood has hosted, said Manager Cynthia Thomas. The goal of Saturday's event is to let veterans and the military community know Under the Hood is there and willing to support them, Thomas added.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War convention began Thursday at Austin's Huston-Tillotson University and ends Sunday. Activities include Fort Hood outreach, panels and workshops.

Read the rest of the article:
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=42826

I would have some respect for these people if they were drafted! They volunteered during a shooting war—what the hell did they think they were getting into—a barbeque? Oh it was great when you’re getting a paycheck and the benefits just do your job it the States but once you go into the box I’m now against the war!!!—I respect their freedom of speech only.

I have no other respect for these whiners—Stan.

BTW:
My experience had been most of these whiners are not combat arms soldiers they’re combat support usually working in an office environment.

My experience had been most of these whiners are not combat arms soldiers they’re combat support usually working in an office environment.

That's what I thought. It's just like the hippies that think they know everything about military when they've never experienced it themselves. My grandpa was wounded during the Korean War (Sgt. Fred Van Kirk, Army 1st Cavalry, and he was drafted), and he doesn't sit around complaining about it. Matter of fact, he doesn't LIKE to talk about it. After the war, he came home, got a job, got married, and had kids, as if it had never happened.

And these people are complaining about what, sitting in a cubicle? Typical of bleeding-heart freeloaders, looking for a handout.

I understand where you are coming from...to a certain extent.
Yeah, you'd have to be living under a rock not to realize that we are in a war with Iraq and now Afghanistan...but....what if these soldiers are stop-lossed?

What if they didn't realize the fact that they would be recycled over and over into a war zone? That has to try the most hardened solider. My heart goes out to them, and I admire their sacrifice.

I was lucky...I was never in a war zone. I have no idea what it must be like for them...

Yeah, they raised their hand, they swore the oath, but...your average recruit is about 17-19. Do they read the contract b/f they sign it and understand the government has the right to hold them until the war is over?

Possibly not....so...I say if they want to protest, hey...

Question is, though....they aren't permitted to, are they? I suppose if they are off duty and not in uniform...hum.
I thought you couldn't, it was against the UCMJ-as an AD solider...oh, well...

[quote="JackVk, post:2, topic:204858"]
That's what I thought. It's just like the hippies that think they know everything about military when they've never experienced it themselves. My grandpa was wounded during the Korean War (Sgt. Fred Van Kirk, Army 1st Cavalry, and he was drafted), and he doesn't sit around complaining about it. Matter of fact, he doesn't LIKE to talk about it. After the war, he came home, got a job, got married, and had kids, as if it had never happened.

And these people are complaining about what, sitting in a cubicle? Typical of bleeding-heart freeloaders, looking for a handout.

[/quote]

The majority of combat veterans live normal lives—tell your Grandfather—FIRST TEAM!
And thank you for my freedom also Korea today is just like America he made that happen—BTW I’m married to a Korean.

Some people think the job of the US military should be the protect the nation's borders. It's unsurprising that some are unhappy with being used to attack poor countries on the other side of the world posing no threat to the US in order to take control of those countries' resources for the benefit of major US corporations, who don't give a damn about how many American soldiers are sent to their deaths in the process.

[quote="phoenixrrt62, post:3, topic:204858"]
I understand where you are coming from...to a certain extent.
Yeah, you'd have to be living under a rock not to realize that we are in a war with Iraq and now Afghanistan...but....what if these soldiers are stop-lossed?

What if they didn't realize the fact that they would be recycled over and over into a war zone? That has to try the most hardened solider. My heart goes out to them, and I admire their sacrifice.

I was lucky...I was never in a war zone. I have no idea what it must be like for them...

Yeah, they raised their hand, they swore the oath, but...your average recruit is about 17-19. Do they read the contract b/f they sign it and understand the government has the right to hold them until the war is over?

Possibly not....so...I say if they want to protest, hey...

Question is, though....they aren't permitted to, are they? I suppose if they are off duty and not in uniform...hum.
I thought you couldn't, it was against the UCMJ-as an AD solider...oh, well...

[/quote]

I enlisted it the United States Army @ seventeen my mother had to sign so I could enlist. I knew then when I was a seventeen year old kid that I was signing a contract for seven years!!!

Three years active duty—four years inactive I can be recalled anytime within those four years!

I am now on the retirement roster—I am still in the United States Army and can be recalled anytime.

Stop loss I don’t’ buy it! These people knew what they were getting into—if not they is telling me I’m smarter as a high school dropout from the 1970’s?

I’m not buying their excuses.

To your question OFF DUTY? Yes usually we didn’t care what soldiers did during off duty hours [when I was a young trooper NCO’s didn’t care about what I did]—however you’re in the military 24/7 a Sergeant years ago told me; you’re off duty when your ID Card expiries.

So technically I guess under Article 31 I may be wrong about the number if they are active duty they could be busted. However they really are not causing anything to upset moral because most soldiers know they’re full of horse hockey.

I have to correct one thing, it is not a war with Iraq & NOW Afghanistan, Afghanistan came 1st, starting in late 2001. I am disgusted with that guy for signing up & refusing to go.There is really no excuse for it if he signed up post 9/11. I have to agree on the assessment re desk jockeys. After 9/11, my husband & other Marines we knew were angry & said things like "finally get to put that training to use" Our brother in law is army admin & his people were all trying to find loopholes & excuses to get out of going.
In some ways, I can understand opposition to Iraq, Afghanistan has always been considered the war we should be in because Osama Bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks from the safe haven he had there with the Taliban,
The rules of engagement they have been under for the past 18 months, approx, are worse than Vietnam. It is akin to making them fight with both arms & 1 leg, 1 brain hemisphere tied behind their backs. It is dangerous & deadly & no matter what, they will not like us more.

Well my Muslim brethren:

Here is some American history:

People forget that the Gulf War the Iraqi Army was in battle formation pointed at the Saudi oilfields.

The Saudi government did not want the U.S. military in the Kingdom but when we showed a Saudi Prince, satellite photos in 1990 he flew back to the King and said we have to allow American Forces in the Kingdom. No way could the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces could go against the Iraqi army.
However Saudi Aramco is the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. It is the largest oil corporation in the world. Headquartered in Dhahran, It was known as just Aramco between the years of 1933-1988, an acronym for Arabian American Oil Company. I will say that during Desert Shield 1990 Aramco treated my troops very good every time they came upon one of their sites in the desert they gave them food, water, let them use their air conditioned trailers and had hot showers. I tell people the experiences I’ve had with the Saudi people is just outstanding. They did not have to do what they did and I was welcomed by them in their homes, Aramaco sites, and in Bedouins tents.
Below is an answer I posted to somebody who talked about American imperialism:

Now here is some real American history:

Views of American history, distort our present policies. Involvement in far-flung and unpopular conflicts doesn’t represent a recent innovation or the result of some conspiratorial takeover of U.S. foreign policy. American military involvement in remote corners of the globe characterized every stage of our emergence as a world power. The purpose of these conflicts and interventions has little connection to colonialism or conquest or empire building in the classical sense. More often the United States has done this for unselfish intentions. Regardless of the wisdom behind these frequent military or diplomatic initiatives, their overall, long-term impact most often benefited the peoples involved as well as the world at large.

Unlike other empires in human history, the powerful American sphere of influence has generally promoted the cause of both prosperity and liberty.

People forget the United States fought its first war against Islamic extremism more than two hundred years ago. This is where we get the first verse of the “Marines’ Hymn” “to the shores of Tripoli."

The first Barbary War (1801-5) lasted four years after President Thomas Jefferson sent the new Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American interests and honor. The semi-nations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli [today Libya] functioned like today’s State sponsors of terrorism backing ruthless pirates who devastated U.S. shipping until Washington paid lavish tribute to these local thugs.

The United States has a long-standing tradition of small wars or so-called low intensity conflicts. If you study U.S. military history it has a tradition of fighting small wars. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. The army and navy added a few small-scale engagements of their own. Some resulted in heavy casualties; others involved not fighting. Most of these campaigns were fought by a small number of professional soldiers. I can testify to this from some of the missions I was involved in though the 1970s -1990s.

I just want to scream when I hear not well educated on the subject or leftwing Hollywood stars, politicians and educated leftwing college professors totally distort the Bush administration Iraq policy saying this is the first time we have ever attacked a country without being attacked first. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest!

[quote="Kadaveri, post:5, topic:204858"]
Some people think the job of the US military should be the protect the nation's borders. It's unsurprising that some are unhappy with being used to attack poor countries on the other side of the world posing no threat to the US in order to take control of those countries' resources for the benefit of major US corporations, who don't give a damn about how many American soldiers are sent to their deaths in the process.

[/quote]

So you dont think that Afghanistan is a threat against us? On September 11th, 2001, we were attacked by terrorists trained in the safe haven of Afghanistan, given to Osama Bin Laden by the Taliban. The attacks were plotted & launched from there. I would call that a threat to us.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:8, topic:204858"]
Well my Muslim brethren:

Here is some American history:

People forget that the Gulf War the Iraqi Army was in battle formation pointed at the Saudi oilfields.

The Saudi government did not want the U.S. military in the Kingdom but when we showed a Saudi Prince, satellite photos in 1990 he flew back to the King and said we have to allow American Forces in the Kingdom. No way could the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces could go against the Iraqi army.
However **Saudi Aramco** is the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. It is the largest oil corporation in the world. Headquartered in Dhahran, It was known as just Aramco between the years of 1933-1988, an acronym for Arabian American Oil Company. I will say that during Desert Shield 1990 Aramco treated my troops very good every time they came upon one of their sites in the desert they gave them food, water, let them use their air conditioned trailers and had hot showers. I tell people the experiences I’ve had with the Saudi people is just outstanding. They did not have to do what they did and I was welcomed by them in their homes, Aramaco sites, and in Bedouins tents.
Below is an answer I posted to somebody who talked about American imperialism:

Now here is some real American history:

Views of American history, distort our present policies. Involvement in far-flung and unpopular conflicts doesn’t represent a recent innovation or the result of some conspiratorial takeover of U.S. foreign policy. American military involvement in remote corners of the globe characterized every stage of our emergence as a world power. The purpose of these conflicts and interventions has little connection to colonialism or conquest or empire building in the classical sense. More often the United States has done this for unselfish intentions. Regardless of the wisdom behind these frequent military or diplomatic initiatives, their overall, long-term impact most often benefited the peoples involved as well as the world at large.

Unlike other empires in human history, the powerful American sphere of influence has generally promoted the cause of both prosperity and liberty.

People forget the United States fought its first war against Islamic extremism more than two hundred years ago. This is where we get the first verse of the “Marines’ Hymn” “to the shores of Tripoli."

The first Barbary War (1801-5) lasted four years after President Thomas Jefferson sent the new Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American interests and honor. The semi-nations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli [today Libya] functioned like today’s State sponsors of terrorism backing ruthless pirates who devastated U.S. shipping until Washington paid lavish tribute to these local thugs.

The United States has a long-standing tradition of small wars or so-called low intensity conflicts. If you study U.S. military history it has a tradition of fighting small wars. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. The army and navy added a few small-scale engagements of their own. Some resulted in heavy casualties; others involved not fighting. Most of these campaigns were fought by a small number of professional soldiers. I can testify to this from some of the missions I was involved in though the 1970s -1990s.

I just want to scream when I hear not well educated on the subject or leftwing Hollywood stars, politicians and educated leftwing college professors totally distort the Bush administration Iraq policy saying this is the first time we have ever attacked a country without being attacked first. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest!

[/quote]

:clapping:
and thank you!

Every foreigner against the US military uses the same cliche argument that we protect the "greedy" corporations and how the communists are "victims of imperialism".

Imperialism, you say? Korea was started by Stalin and Mao. Today, North Korea is a secluded nut-house. Kim Jong-Il confiscates food donations from charities and feeds his army while the people starve, who can't go anywhere because they are forced to live in a pseudo-paradise and worship a false god (who is slowly dying). South Korea, on the other hand, is an economic superpower.

The People's Republic of China, with it's so-called "harmonious" society, is beginning to experiment with capitalism, and is currently on top of the world. The Communist party is using capitalism, but workers' wages are the biggest expense in a free market. the Chinese solution: use child slaves, thus eliminating the cost. I might add that the PRC has a thing for pirating intellectual property as well.

So, slave labor, forcing people to worship you while starving them, and illegal downloading. NOW WHO'S THE GREEDY ONE?!

Very true Jack. I live in South Korea & to see what they have become after 60 years & what the North has not become, is incredible.
It seems to me that actual free enterprise & capitalism has helped lift far more people out of poverty than any other economic system yet invented.
Every time I hear the greedy companies in regard to the war I have to laugh,. If it were true, why would our gas prices have doubled with our "take over" of their oil? Why didnt we use their oil money to fund the war & not sink ourselves into further debt? I would think that is what greedy, capitalist, imperialist aggressors would do.

1 last thing re communists. Stalin himself, killed double the amount of people that Hitler did. Mao exceeded both of them combined. They both used famine as a weapon to force compliance. Yet, we are the bad guys for not wanting this system to expand to free nations. Then you get the excuse that it is not the system that is bad, it was its implementation that was flawed. If that were the case, then why did nearly every attempt at implementation follow similar courses if it were not considered acceptable? Mass murder is not considered acceptable by free societies who feel they can throw out their leaders lawfully. It is acceptable to those leaders who become dictators who the people dont want to follow off a cliff. I do not see that as some kind of peoples utopia.

autdrew, exactly. If communists nations are so "perfect" then why do they have to lock everyone in to make it appear to work? In my eyes, Mao Zedong is one the many faces of evil.

I agree. Iraq was just the latest of a long list of countries the US has attacked without justification and the Bush/Cheney administration’s policies concerning attacking other countries were not substantially different from that of any other administration going back at least as far as Eisenhower. You made have noticed that (like in Vietnam) liberal intellectuals were all for attacking Iraq at the onset, it was only when it became clear that the war had gone badly wrong that they started arguing against it, and only for the reason that it had been a ‘mistake’. That the US has a right to just attack countries it feels like attacking is very rarely questioned, just whether exercising that right at a certain time and place would be wise.

[quote="autdrew, post:9, topic:204858"]
So you dont think that Afghanistan is a threat against us? On September 11th, 2001, we were attacked by terrorists trained in the safe haven of Afghanistan, given to Osama Bin Laden by the Taliban. The attacks were plotted & launched from there. I would call that a threat to us.

[/quote]

Afghanistan is one of the poorest, most undeveloped countries in the world, the idea that it poses a threat to the US is absurd. The 9/11 attackers did not train in Afghanistan, they were trained in the US and the attacks were launched from within the US, there's no dispute about that. Even if Osama bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks (which the US accepts he probably wasn't, the man behind them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammad who was captured years ago) he not in Afghanistan and hasn't been for a long time, in fact nobody's sure if he's even still alive. Anyhow the US isn't even fighting anyone connected to him US generals have reported that there are barely any Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The main people the US is fighting are Pashtun nationalists who want foreign soldiers out of their lands and whose grievances are fundamentally about the misplacing of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border by the British Empire which leaves Pashtuns (i.e. ethnic Afghans) a minority in what's supposed to be their own country and put most Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the border, hence why the Afghanistan and Pakistan conflicts are so interlinked they're part of the same conflict. So when you hear silly US media reports about 'foreign militants crossing the Afghan-Pakistan border' be aware that these are just Pashtuns moving (in their eyes) from one part of Pashtunistan to another, they never recognised the (almost totally unmarked) border the British drew through their country as having any legitimacy, in fact many don't know where it is or that it even exists.

The current government the US is supporting in Afghanistan is a corrupt gang of warlords and drug barons who totally rigged the last elections and according to McChrystal's last report before he fired has full authority in only 5 of Afghanistan's 122 provinces. It is also dominated by ethnic Iranians, Tajiks and Uzbeks which leaves the Pashtun population seeing as little more than foreign rule. This Afghanistan government however is strongly supported by India, which in turn has rattled elements with Pakistan's deep state (notably the ISI) who feel they are being surrounded by India, Pakistan of course being in a conflict with India over Kashmir. So as to prevent the Indians from getting an advantage in the Kashmir conflict by outflanking Pakistan from the West much of the Pakistani state has gone rogue from the government and is supporting and possibly even directing the Pashtun insurgency against the Karzai government, in return for which they're allowing the Pashtun areas of north-west Pakistan a great deal of automony and influence against the wishes of the Pakistani government, which in turn is destablising Pakistan and risking civil war.

The US is worried about China stretching its muscles in this region, Central Asia being the most strategically valuable area in the world outside the Middle-east because of its huge oil, gas and mineral reserves as well as its central position. The US also sees India as a potential ally and bulwark against China, so (as often happens) it is taking sides in the whole India/Pakistan/Kashmir/Afghanistan/Pashtunistan issue in order to strengthen India against China. But this isn't a very inspiring cause to rally the public around and send thousands of soldiers to their deaths to carry out, so they come up with propaganda about how it's to protect ourselves from Al-Qaeda, or its to fight the heroin trade, or its to help the Afghan people, or its to liberate Afghan women or whatever reason they're giving now as they can't even seem to decide themselves what the reason is anymore.

[quote="Kadaveri, post:15, topic:204858"]
I agree. Iraq was just the latest of a long list of countries the US has attacked without justification and the Bush/Cheney administration's policies concerning attacking other countries were not substantially different from that of any other administration going back at least as far as Eisenhower. You made have noticed that (like in Vietnam) liberal intellectuals were all for attacking Iraq at the onset, it was only when it became clear that the war had gone badly wrong that they started arguing against it, and only for the reason that it had been a 'mistake'. That the US has a right to just attack countries it feels like attacking is very rarely questioned, just whether exercising that right at a certain time and place would be wise.

[/quote]

You are forgetting history; the United Nations was still at war with Iraq since 1991. It was Saddam Hussein the Dictator of Iraq that kicked out the UN inspectors he said he had WMD’s but even if he didn’t President Bush did not need anyone’s permission to attack because we were still at war.

How many times did President Bush tell him Saddam you and your two murderess sons get out and we will not attack—so blame those people for Iraq being attacked which BTW is one of the best things that happened to that country.

Iraq has much more freedom and liberty now than it had when only a select few of Saddam’s people had it.

As for your take on the 9/11 attack; you are just silly.

[quote="JackVk, post:2, topic:204858"]
That's what I thought. It's just like the hippies that think they know everything about military when they've never experienced it themselves.

[/quote]

In my day the hippies were in VVAW -- Vietnam Vets Against the War. I guess they had some familiarity with what they were talking about. My uncle bobbed around in the Atlantic in an open boat after his ship was torpedoed in WWII and he had no use for the Vietnam conflict.

But, to avoid the ad hominem, are the protests accurate or not?

[quote="Kadaveri, post:16, topic:204858"]

The US is worried about China stretching its muscles in this region, Central Asia being the most strategically valuable area in the world outside the Middle-east because of its huge oil, gas and mineral reserves as well as its central position. The US also sees India as a potential ally and bulwark against China, so (as often happens) it is taking sides in the whole India/Pakistan/Kashmir/Afghanistan/Pashtunistan issue in order to strengthen India against China. But this isn't a very inspiring cause to rally the public around and send thousands of soldiers to their deaths to carry out, so they come up with propaganda about how it's to protect ourselves from Al-Qaeda, or its to fight the heroin trade, or its to help the Afghan people, or its to liberate Afghan women or whatever reason they're giving now as they can't even seem to decide themselves what the reason is anymore.

[/quote]

Did it ever occur to you that what the Chinese do wrong and immoral by any standards? They prohibit all religions; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn't matter. The PRC sees religion as an enemy of their state and will execute religious people in cold blood. Mao Zedong was responsible for over 70 million deaths in peacetime, and God knows how many more have died in his name after that.

Also, I find it very ungrateful for al-Qaeda to attack the US after we gave weapons to Afghanistan to fight the invading Soviets. We wanted muslims to not have to renounce their faith for the idol of communism. Communists don't care about human rights. They constantly violate the Geneva Convention, they don't have "rules of engagement", or any of that UN pacifist ****.

At the same time, an American soldier isn't allowed to defend himself against an insurgent pointing a bazooka at him. He has to give the insurgent his "rights". When the US soldier dies, he's just a casualty of war. When a terrorist is killed, the American soldier is somehow a "murderer" for defending himself.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:17, topic:204858"]
You are forgetting history; the United Nations was still at war with Iraq since 1991.

[/quote]

The United Nations entered into a ceasfire agreement with Iraq and the United States did not have the authority to violate it without the express consent of the Security Council.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:17, topic:204858"]
It was Saddam Hussein the Dictator of Iraq that kicked out the UN inspectors...

[/quote]

Wrong. The inspectors went to Iraq at Saddam's invitation after he stated that he had no WMD. Hans Blix reported that Saddam was cooperating and providing proof that the WMD had been destroyed. It was U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after Bush decided to ignore the truth and threatened war.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:17, topic:204858"]
he said he had WMD’s..

[/quote]

There was/is no evidence that he had WMD after 1993. In fact, all of the evidence shows that he destroyed them after the Gulf War. Additionally, Saddam admitted that he had no WMD

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:17, topic:204858"]
Iraq has much more freedom and liberty now than it had when only a select few of Saddam’s people had it.

[/quote]

Yeah, now the Iraqis have the freedom to get blown to bits by their countrymen.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.