NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: As I have stated on here before, the "protestors" will continue to become more and more vile, violent, and vindictive. First it was the worthless mom, Ms. Sheehan, now it's the organization supporting her calling wounded war veterans deluded and mained without cause, outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. This sort of thing will escalate and get out of control.


Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html)


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

How low can protesters go? This is a pathetic show to say the least. One thing I always wonder about these people. Where is there income source? Why is it they have all this time to protest when I think they should be either working or spending time with there families. Makes you wonder...

Incredibly tasteless.

Do you know where these protestors ought to hold their protests?

Iraq. :D

I have to say I disagree with Sheehan but this is just ridiculous. How far will these people go? This is just incredibly insensitive.

Do you know where these protestors ought to hold their protests?

Iraq. :D

Exactly, or they can join those lunies who ran over to Iraq pre-war in protest and ended up being shields.

I wonder how much longer it's going to take before these protestors start suicide bombing vfw's and veteran hospitals in the name of soldiers...

Do you know where these protestors ought to hold their protests?

Iraq. :D

Actually, shouldn't that be where those for the war should be?

By the way, dishonoring a soldier is holding up a sign like "soldiers suck" or "baby killer" or "our men are war criminals." None of these people are doing that, and I would be severely pissed if they were.

On the other hand, I do agree that these people are going a bit far, and that their actions are bringin pain to some people who have had to go through enough already.

Though, based on some of the comments from the protestors, the entire point is to make people angry enough so that the main stream media actually pays attention to these soldier's plight and the true cost of the War. Crass, yes, but perhaps effective.

Again, though, I think "dishonoring" is simply a knee-jerk buzzword and it's no better than what these people are doing.

Before all war protesters are labeled as vicious bloodsucking beasts... watching the great Oliver Stone movie.. "Born on the 4th of July" might help to put things into perspective.

While I have NO love for this war, or the current administrations policies, I denounce this tactic. These guys have been through all kinds of hell, and they're in the hospital to HEAL, leave them in peace.

If a person wants to protest...well I can tell you right now that there are better ways to go about it. What they're doing here is no better than Fred Phelps picketing at a funeral.

This is an outrage.

These people were wounded in defense of freedom and this is what they do? I guess their parents didn't raise them properly or that their parents are like them.

Anyway, I am just to mad to say something coherently.

Well, if you don't like it - and I can understand why - then you should write your Congressman and other representatives to get a measure through that will repeal the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble and protest.

Sucks, yup, but they have the right to do it. I just wonder if they realise that it's the people in that hospital who worked to guarantee them that right.

I don't get it. So they're saying that the war is a bad thing and the result is lots of killed and maimed soldiers, right?

In other words:

"Oh look! There are fringe idiots at BOTH ends of the political spectrum! But I'm only complain about one side......"


This constant attempt to call people expressing opposition to policy as being disrespectful of the troops is the lamest crock going. If these people truly are fighting for your freedom (which I don't think is the case in this war, but let's go along with it since its such a popular buzz-phrase), then the notion that the best way to support them is to flush that very same freedom down the toilet is the ultimate level of disrespect in my opinion.


And to keep things in context, it sure was fine for the Right to express their displeasure with Clinton policy when he sent men (and women) into the Balkans to fight. Wasn't it?

Oh yes! THEN everyone understood that it was a discussion about policy.... and not about the fine fighting men and women.


Now all of sudden the country is too stupid to figure that out I guess.


I know, let's blame Clinton's education policy for that.....


:rolleyes:

I don't get it. So they're saying that the war is a bad thing and the result is lots of killed and maimed soldiers, right?

Its one thing to protest a war, its a totally different thing when you involved those that died or are wounded in combat.

I don't care if you protest the war, don't use our soldiers as tools in said protest.

I wonder how much longer it's going to take before these protestors start suicide bombing vfw's and veteran hospitals in the name of soldiers...

That's in pretty bad taste.

Certainly protesters can be considered insensitive toward the families of those wounded. However, with slogans such as "Maimed for lies", they hope to get their point across to families; that their loved ones have been injured for all the wrong reasons. This, understandably, is not something that the family members want to hear. To the protesters, though, there is a different priority than the comfort of distressed family members - whether this is right or wrong is not for me to decide, nor is it for any of the rest of us to decide - namely, bring the soldiers home before more are injured, "maimed for lies".

Clearly, we (the US and the UK) are too far into the mess that is Iraq to just cut and run. Ruthless dictatorial tyrant Saddam Hussein certainly was, but he was also the only thing holding Iraq together. Imposing our ideology on a country, not to mention a part of the world, that doesn't necessarily want it, certainly isn't ready for it, is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, but to do so without considering the consequences and with no apparent plan for what to do afterwards was just plain irresponsible. All concerned should be ashamed.

What is more poisonous than legitimate protest is the vitriol that is spurted back and forth between the left and the right in America, by both those who can formulate coherent argument (and ought to know better) and those who can't, on both sides. Nothing will improve until this is stopped, the time for name calling and vitriollic humour is surely over, we must be better than that. Can we please practise some tollerance for those with whom we disagree (I'm talking about, and to, everybody on the political spectrum).

So to go back to the quote, equating legitimate protesters with suicide bombers is in supremely bad taste... and you should be ashamed.

I wonder how much longer it's going to take before these protestors start suicide bombing vfw's and veteran hospitals in the name of soldiers...

That's in pretty bad taste.

Certainly protesters can be considered insensitive toward the families of those wounded. However, with slogans such as "Maimed for lies", they hope to get their point across to families; that their loved ones have been injured for all the wrong reasons. This, understandably, is not something that the family members want to hear. To the protesters, though, there is a different priority than the comfort of distressed family members - whether this is right or wrong is not for me to decide, nor is it for any of the rest of us to decide - namely, bring the soldiers home before more are injured, "maimed for lies".

Clearly, we (the US and the UK) are too far into the mess that is Iraq to just cut and run. Ruthless dictatorial tyrant Saddam Hussein certainly was, but he was also the only thing holding Iraq together. Imposing our ideology on a country, not to mention a part of the world, that doesn't necessarily want it, certainly isn't ready for it, is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, but to do so without considering the consequences and with no apparent plan for what to do afterwards was just plain irresponsible. All concerned should be ashamed.

What is more poisonous than legitimate protest is the vitriol that is spurted back and forth between the left and the right in america, by both those who can formulate coherent argument (and ought to know better) and those who can't, on both sides. Nothing will improve until this is stopped, the time for name calling and vitriollic humour is surely over, we must be above that by now. Can we please practise some tollerance for those with whom disagree (I'm talking about, and to, everybody on the political spectrum).

So to go back to the quote, equating legitimate protesters with suicide bombers is in supremely bad taste... and you should be ashamed.

Its one thing to protest a war, its a totally different thing when you involved those that died or are wounded in combat.

I don't care if you protest the war, don't use our soldiers as tools in said protest.


So, do you equally object to the President using soldiers when he's trying to SELL the war? Like choosing the VFW to surround himself with uniforms for his "stay the course" speeches last week?


Just curious if you are fair in your disdain for those who use of service-men as political props.

Before all war protesters are labeled as vicious bloodsucking beasts... watching the great Oliver Stone movie.. "Born on the 4th of July" might help to put things into perspective.
Why would I want to watch propaganda like that? I get more than enough from the news reports about the protestors. :(

Surely it's a Free country?

That is, if pro-war people want to put forward their case outside the hospitals, they have a right to do the same.

So what's the fuss?

Why would I want to watch propaganda like that? I get more than enough from the news reports about the protestors. :(
It is not propaganda. Top Gun is propaganda. Ron Kovic's story is real and he is against the War in Iraq.

Surely it's a Free country?

That is, if pro-war people want to put forward their case outside the hospitals, they have a right to do the same.

So what's the fuss?


Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!


We're trying to stifle dissent around here. Don't go being all reaasonable about the need to exercise those freedoms that the terrorists hate so much.

I mean....you don't want the terrorists to win their war against those freedoms do you?

So put them aside like a good boy, be quiet, and let people go and fight for those freedoms that we don't want you to actually use....


m'kay?

I don't care if you protest the war, don't use our soldiers as tools in said protest.
But soldiers in Iraq are tools of the bush administration. So if Bush is allowed to use tools then surely the ones against the war might use them, too. I think both is in bad taste, anyway.

However, doesn't the fact that the hospital is full of wounded soldiers somehow prove the point of the protesters?

Its one thing to protest a war, its a totally different thing when you involved those that died or are wounded in combat.

I don't care if you protest the war, don't use our soldiers as tools in said protest.

Yeah cause the pro war people don’t use the solders like tools
:rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: As I have stated on here before, the "protestors" will continue to become more and more vile, violent, and vindictive. First it was the worthless mom, Ms. Sheehan, now it's the organization supporting her calling wounded war veterans deluded and mained without cause, outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. This sort of thing will escalate and get out of control.


Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html)


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.


Reasons why you shouldn't react to anything from CNN news:

1) 1/2 the protestors were protesting the proposed BRAC commission closing of the hospital. The other 1/2 were protesting the war, using the injured children as an example of what a bad idea the war is.

2) CNN takes this information and turns it into a circus making it look like liberal hippies protestors are attacking injured soldiers.

I hate CNN. Good for the protestors. They can do what they want. Even if the Bush-controlled media reports is wrong.

Why would I want to watch propaganda like that? I get more than enough from the news reports about the protestors. :(

Umm...didn't you start this post with a huge piece of Support Our Troops propaganda?

"Born on the 4th of July" is a film, for entertainment and introspection. The article you posted is propaganda from an administration that does whatever it wants and never apologizes.

So in a way you were right...you get plenty of propaganda from the news.

Support our troops...get them the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries with no threat rating to the US.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!


We're trying to stifle dissent around here. Don't go being all reaasonable about the need to exercise those freedoms that the terrorists hate so much.

I mean....you don't want the terrorists to win their war against those freedoms do you?

So put them aside like a good boy, be quiet, and let people go and fight for those freedoms that we don't want you to actually use....


m'kay?
You have no idea what you're talking about. You make wild, insipid remarks like these and approve of bastards like these assholes who dishonor and disrespect the very people who defend their right to make idiots of themselves. Get real!

Reasons why you shouldn't react to anything from CNN news:

1) 1/2 the protestors were protesting the proposed BRAC commission closing of the hospital. The other 1/2 were protesting the war, using the injured children as an example of what a bad idea the war is.

2) CNN takes this information and turns it into a circus making it look like liberal hippies protestors are attacking injured soldiers.

I hate CNN. Good for the protestors. They can do what they want. Even if the Bush-controlled media reports is wrong.
Um ... it was CNS. Perhaps if you learned to actually ... you know ... like, read!

You have no idea what you're talking about. You make wild, insipid remarks like these and approve of bastards like these assholes who dishonor and disrespect the very people who defend their right to make idiots of themselves. Get real!

Eutrusca, you're being unreasonable.

Umm...didn't you start this post with a huge piece of Support Our Troops propaganda?

"Born on the 4th of July" is a film, for entertainment and introspection. The article you posted is propaganda from an administration that does whatever it wants and never apologizes.

So in a way you were right...you get plenty of propaganda from the news.

Support our troops...get them the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries with no threat rating to the US.
To what "propaganda" do you refer? The only thing I've posted on here is a news article and my own opinion. When I post my own opinion, it's either labeled as such or is obvious from the context.

Um ... it was CNS. Perhaps if you learned to actually ... you know ... like, read!

Same service. Perhaps if you actually learned to like follow corporate foreclosure. CNS is the CNN News Service for papers. It's the same damn company, goose-stepper.

To what "propaganda" do you refer? The only thing I've posted on here is a news article and my own opinion. When I post my own opinion, it's either labeled as such or is obvious from the context.

The news article itself would be the propaganda to which I refer. Your opnion, though ill-formed and obviously uneducated, is yours to hold. That's the beauty of freedom.

Eutrusca, you're being unreasonable.
No, I'm being enraged ... engraged at the same sort of people who used the media, used violence, used spittle, used vituperation, and used scorn to dishonor my brothers and me when we came back from Vietnam. I swore then that I would do all within my power to to make sure that never happened again, and yet here it is ... Vietnam protest redeux.

If I wind up in jail, I hope my friends on NS will start a fund to raise my bail money; it's for damned sure I don't have enough to pay it myself, since they keep old, disabled soldiers on a very short leash.

The news article itself would be the propaganda to which I refer. Your opnion, though ill-formed and obviously uneducated, is yours to hold. That's the beauty of freedom.
Scorn is a skill almost unique to the left. You use it well. Thank you.

The news article isn't "propaganda." Sorry, but no cookie for you.

No, I'm being enraged ... engraged at the same sort of people who used the media, used violence, used spittle, used vituperation, and used scorn to dishonor my brothers and me when we came back from Vietnam. I swore then that I would do all within my power to to make sure that never happened again, and yet here it is ... Vietnam protest redeux.

If I wind up in jail, I hope my friends on NS will start a fund to raise my bail money; it's for damned sure I don't have enough to pay it myself, since they keep old, disabled soldiers on a very short leash.

Calm down. You know this isn't the same. They are protesting near soldiers. They are not directly protesting the soldiers as "they" did in Vietnam.

Okay?

I can understand why this would be upsetting, but you must know it's not the same.

... equating legitimate protesters with suicide bombers is in supremely bad taste... and you should be ashamed.
It may not be in the best "taste," but it's very accurate. When you oppose those who fight, you in effect support those they fight against. Simple equation.

Scorn is a skill almost unique to the left. You use it well. Thank you.

The news article isn't "propaganda." Sorry, but no cookie for you.

Eutrusca, please stop insulting me, I am not your enemy. I've warned you about this before.

So, do you equally object to the President using soldiers when he's trying to SELL the war? Like choosing the VFW to surround himself with uniforms for his "stay the course" speeches last week?
The VFW don't wear uniforms.

It may not be in the best "taste," but it's very accurate. When you oppose those who fight, you in effect support those they fight against. Simple equation.

Dammit Eutrusca, I know you're smarter than this. They are not opposing those who fight, they are opposing those who sent them. This is not the 70's. This is different.

[snip] and approve of bastards like these assholes who dishonor and disrespect the very people who defend their right to make idiots of themselves. Get real!
a) the protest isn't targeted at the soldiers but their ultimate commander.
b) soldiers in Iraq do not defend freedom, or any other rights of Americans.

Dammit Eutrusca, I know you're smarter than this. They are not opposing those who fight, they are opposing those who sent them. This is not the 70's. This is different.
Oh? Just how is this different? They're protesting outside a hospital where the wonded are being cared for. Those wounded soldiers who have been interviewed say it's disrespectful to demonstrate there, so how is it different? If they're opposing "those who sent them," then why protest the hospital and the wonded, why not protest at the White House and the Pentagon?

Oh? Just how is this different? They're protesting outside a hospital where the wonded are being cared for. Those wounded soldiers who have been interviewed say it's disrespectful to demonstrate there, so how is it different? If they're opposing "those who sent them," then why protest the hospital and the wonded, why not protest at the White House and the Pentagon?

Uh, because the Pentagon and the White house are not "free speech zones."

Also, protesting is about publicity. Pragmatically, someone decided that this would receive the most publicity. Yes, it's tacky. It's cold-hearted and calculating. What it is not, is protesting the troops themselves in any way shape or form.

Scorn is a skill almost unique to the left. You use it well. Thank you.

The news article isn't "propaganda." Sorry, but no cookie for you.
Lol your joking right? … look at how much you are scorning those protestors

And yet you claim it is a tactic only of the left?

Wow … that’s all I got to say.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You make wild, insipid remarks like these and approve of bastards like these assholes who dishonor and disrespect the very people who defend their right to make idiots of themselves. Get real!


My, and you complain about the statements of others?


Calm down, take a pill, and feel free NOT to make assumptions on what I know or don't know.

Becuase the hypocricy in your own statement seems to show which one of needs to "get real".


Which is to say, you are wildly ranting and raving about people for being idiots at the same time as you clearly note their right to be that way.

But feel free to lump me into your ravings. However, when I clearly touch such a nerve with you then labelling my comment as "insipid" seems equally assinine.

in·sip·id ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-spd)
adj.
Lacking flavor or zest; not tasty.
Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest; dull



Looks like I got your interest stimulated just fine.

Eutrusca, please stop insulting me, I am not your enemy. I've warned you about this before.
That wasn't an insult, and if you took it as such then you're being overly sensitive.

It is protesting the troops. Ask the troops.

You don't ask a bigot if he is a bigot, you ask the person they are talking about if they are being discriminated against, or suppressed, or insulted etc., the bigot sometimes doesn’t even know he’s a bigot.

The protestors want to pretend like they are doing nothing wrong, but really, they are just like the bigots.

Eutrusca is protesting them, I support that.

The VFW don't wear uniforms.


No, they just all wear hats clearly indicating their military affilliation and background. Gosh - You're right, it's not using (former) soldiers as political props at all!


:rolleyes:

My, and you complain about the statements of others?

Calm down, take a pill, and feel free NOT to make assumptions on what I know or don't know.

Becuase the hypocricy in your own statement seems to show which one of needs to "get real".

Which is to say, you are wildly ranting and raving about people for being idiots at the same time as you clearly note their right to be that way.

But feel free to lump me into your ravings. However, when I clearly touch such a nerve with you then labelling my comment as "insipid" seems equally assinine.

in·sip·id ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-spd)
adj.
Lacking flavor or zest; not tasty.
Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest; dull

Looks like I got your interest stimulated just fine.
The statement stands. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that you and your fellow-travellers are anything other than exactly what I called you.

Scorn is a skill almost unique to the left. You use it well. Thank you.

The news article isn't "propaganda." Sorry, but no cookie for you.

Why isn't it propaganda?

My scorn was based on you stating I couldn't read...perhaps I should have stated in my initial post about CNS = CNN, but nonetheless, the fact was presented. And in reality, I see a great deal of scorn output by you in various posts...are you the leftist?

I want a cookie...I am hungry...denying me a cookie is cruel...and somewhat unusal.

No, they just all wear hats clearly indicating their military affilliation and background. Gosh - You're right, it's not using (former) soldiers as political props at all!

:rolleyes:
Sigh. Where did I say that? Point it out to me and I will retract it. You quoted my statement in its entirety: "The VFW don't wear uniforms."

It is protesting the troops. Ask the troops.

You don't ask a bigot if he is a bigot, you ask the person they are talking about if they are being discriminated against, or suppressed, or insulted etc., the bigot sometimes doesn’t even know he’s a bigot.

Well, you're a moron, because, being a person that just read your post, I know you are a moron.

HA!

It may not be in the best "taste," but it's very accurate. When you oppose those who fight, you in effect support those they fight against. Simple equation.


False analogy. the protestors oppose those who SENT the people to fight, not the soldiers for doing their jobs.

Perhaps that is too subtle for you, but it isn;t for most people that can get above "Simple" equations.

Yeah cause the pro war people don’t use the solders like tools
:rolleyes:

Let me put it another way:

Both sides need to stop using our soldiers as tools in this debate.

However, doesn't the fact that the hospital is full of wounded soldiers somehow prove the point of the protesters?

No it doesn't prove the point of the protestors.

The statement stands. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that you and your fellow-travellers are anything other than exactly what I called you.


Oh gosh. Labelled me and stuck me in a nice little pigeon-hole already have we? From that one post you know that I fit into a great amorphous group that all think exactly alike. Bet you have a catchy name for it too.... like "Liberal"


"Simple equations" is, I'm afraid, all you'll ever manage to understand with this sort of mindset.

I think that for the good of the soldier's mental health, any of the protestors that are distressing the families or soldiers themselves (such as coffins and flags draped over them, saying they died for nothing etc.) should move their protest elsewhere and not continue the harm put upon these unfortunate men and women.
From my own experience, Survivor Guilt is one of the worst things for a heavily injured person to experience along with the physical pain. If any of them are like me, it is likely that their mind will repress it for now, and the consequences will not be felt for some time. Myself, it took 2 1/2 - 3 years to deal with it. And I had no-one putting any excess pressures on me, which I sincerely hope causes none of the soldiers to snap.
Survivor guilt is the non-sensical, irrational, but completely understandable idea that a survivor of an incident may have over someone who has died. Basically, you blame yourself for their death, even if there is not a possibility that you had caused it, but your mind finds the smallest reasons and 'what ifs' to cause you to blame yourself. It is very difficult to deal with, and if the soldiers experienced any kind of trauma (physological or psychological - likely if theyre in a hospice), protestors are making these individuals pay an even higher price than they already have. Please protest somewhere else.

False analogy. the protestors oppose those who SENT the people to fight, not the soldiers for doing their jobs.

Perhaps that is too subtle for you, but it isn;t for most people that can get above "Simple" equations.
Yes, it probably is too "subtle" for me, stupid, old, disabled soldier that I am. I'm just "simple" enough to think that when you stand outside a hospital where you know there are maimed and wounded soldiers inside trying to recover, and you chant and carry slogans which say they were maimed and wounded for nothing, that equals being an asshole and a bastard in my book.

Mock if you like, that's your perogative, but it's my perogative to be "simple" enough to recognize these bastards for what they are ... the enemy within! :mad:

Let me put it another way:

Both sides need to stop using our soldiers as tools in this debate.
That I can agree wtih :p

Eutrusca,

As a Vietnam Vet don't you find it offensive that the soldiers over there think they are having a wonderful time because they are hepped-up on Valium doses twice the normal quantity?

Just curious...

That I can agree wtih :p

LOL!

*Dies of a heart attack*

Anyway, it is a truth! Protest the war and counter their protests if you wish but leave the soldiers out of the equation. That is how this is supposed to be done but both sides are only out for political gain. That is really sad to see.

Yes, it probably is too "subtle" for me, stupid, old, disabled soldier that I am. I'm just "simple" enough to think that when you stand outside a hospital where you know there are maimed and wounded soldiers inside trying to recover, and you chant and carry slogans which say they were maimed and wounded for nothing, that equals being an asshole and a bastard in my book.

Mock if you like, that's your perogative, but it's my perogative to be "simple" enough to recognize these bastards for what they are ... the enemy within! :mad:

It could be worse. They could actually be dying for nothing and no one does or says anything about it. I prefer to err on the side of questioning war. I understand why you have a personal stake in this, but you have to admit to the logic contained in my point here, right?

Yes, it probably is too "subtle" for me, stupid, old, disabled soldier that I am. I'm just "simple" enough to think that when you stand outside a hospital where you know there are maimed and wounded soldiers inside trying to recover, and you chant and carry slogans which say they were maimed and wounded for nothing, that equals being an asshole and a bastard in my book.

Mock if you like, that's your perogative, but it's my perogative to be "simple" enough to recognize these bastards for what they are ... the enemy within! :mad:



Oh give me a break. You're screaming rude rhetoric against them, me, and anyone else on this thread who disagrees with you. Whether it's a pattern with you or not, I don't know - but to sit here now and play the "disabled vet" card after YOUR comments is less than endearing.

Maybe shouting down opposing voices works for you in person, but it doesn't work online.

And neither does playing the victim in a thread where YOU started (or at least willingly joined into) the nast rhetoric.

If you can't take it - don't dish it out.

As one soldier put it,

I lost both my legs so these people can have their right of free speach.
Might not like what they have to say but I defend their right to say it.

JMayo

Oh give me a break. You're screaming rude rhetoric against them, me, and anyone else on this thread who disagrees with you. Whether it's a pattern with you or not, I don't know - but to sit here now and play the "disabled vet" card after YOUR comments is less than endearing.

Maybe shouting down opposing voices works for you in person, but it doesn't work online.

And neither does playing the victim in a thread where YOU started (or at least willingly joined into) the nast rhetoric.

If you can't take it - don't dish it out.
Ha! Looks to me as if you're the one who can "dish it out" but "can't take it." :D

When have I been, as you put it, "screaming rude rhetoric?"

Do you know where these protestors ought to hold their protests?

Iraq. :D

I feel the same about the counter-protesters and the people who linger around here complaining about the protesters. There's no hypocrisy in protesting a war you believe is wrong, but protesting opossition to a war you think is right while being unwilling to fight it... Well that's pretty pathetic.

I feel the same about the counter-protesters and the people who linger around here complaining about the protesters. There's no hypocrisy in protesting a war you believe is wrong, but protesting opossition to a war you think is right while being unwilling to fight it... Well that's pretty pathetic.

So your saying that those that support the war and are doing counter-protests to those that are against the war, shouldn't be protesting?

This is a right-wing propaganda mill...Matt Drudge's middle name is SPIN. Secondly the site that will run the expose is CNSNews.com- one look at their headlines and you can tell what side of their toast they butter. CNS news is one of the sites that pretends to be an unbiased news source, but it is nothing more then a right-wing spin machine. The same holds true for Drudge.

Now this is not to say that we do not have nutty extremists, that say and do stupid things on the left same as on the right. Sadly, it happens...but as far as this report is concerned- understand that EVERYTHING on Drudge's site in support of the Bush family and anti-left! As well as anything you will find on CNS.

I know CodePink is out there trying to draw attention to the fact that the government is bringing wounded soldiers into the hospital in the middle of the night., as to avoid the REAL press.

Just take it from the source it comes from, nuff said.

Ha! Looks to me as if you're the one who can "dish it out" but "can't take it." :D


Take a remedial comprehension course. I'm commenting on your lame-assed, wounded duck schtick. It doesn't work.


When have I been, as you put it, "screaming rude rhetoric?"


No, you're right. Using terms like Bastards, and Insipid while making wild, blanket statements that try to lump everyone who disagrees with you on this as being involved in the protests themselves (blanket comments like "Scorn is a skill almost unique to the left.", "you and your fellow-travellers", etc. etc.) represents polite, reasoned discourse.


:rolleyes:


Just so I know for future reference.... you're a troll right?

This is a right-wing propaganda mill...Matt Drudge's middle name is SPIN. Secondly the site that will run the expose is CNSNews.com- one look at their headlines and you can tell what side of their toast they butter. CNS news is one of the sites that pretends to be an unbiased news source, but it is nothing more then a right-wing spin machine. The same holds true for Drudge.

Now this is not to say that we do not have nutty extremists, that say and do stupid things on the left same as on the right. Sadly, it happens...but as far as this report is concerned- understand that EVERYTHING on Drudge's site in support of the Bush family and anti-left! As well as anything you will find on CNS.

I know CodePink is out there trying to draw attention to the fact that the government is bringing wounded soldiers into the hospital in the middle of the night., as to avoid the REAL press.

Just take it from the source it comes from, nuff said.
So what about the article is incorrect? You rant about the source, but totally ignore the substance of the article. Do you have an alternate source for information about these "protestors?"

So your saying that those that support the war and are doing counter-protests to those that are against the war, shouldn't be protesting?

No, what he's saying is that if they really support the war, they should sign up and fight in it, instead of just paying hollow lip service and then pretending to be morally superior or somehow more macho.

So what about the article is incorrect? You rant about the source, but totally ignore the substance of the article. Do you have an alternate source for information about these "protestors?"

I just know what type of sites CNS and The Drudge report are. They are anti-left and pro-right, so you can just imagine the spin going on. It was probably like three kooky people on the far left and they've blown it way out of proportion.

I have anti-war sites I visit on a regular basis, and it appears that from what I'm hearing that a "few" very "few" who were not actually members of CodePink did show up and act like idiots, but they were not with the mainstream protestors, who are only trying to expose the government trying to hide the fact that so many wounded are coming in. That is the only purpose of the protest at Walter Reed.

There are losers on both sides of this, that won't change. But the story is just a tad misleading, they are making it sound like these few people were with CodePink and they were not.

I have anti-war sites I visit on a regular basis, and it appears that from what I'm hearing that a "few" very "few" who were not actually members of CodePink did show up and act like idiots, but they were not with the mainstream protestors, who are only trying to expose the government trying to hide the fact that so many wounded are coming in.

And of course those reports aren't biased in the least...

So what about the article is incorrect? You rant about the source, but totally ignore the substance of the article. Do you have an alternate source for information about these "protestors?"

It's not about whether the article is incorrect or not. You have to question what may have been left out and what may have been emphasised. It's called bias and it calls for reading between the lines.

And of course those reports aren't biased in the least...

I suppose no more biased than CNS and The Drudge report. ;)

A few things;

We can all agree the protestors are at least in bad taste because they are exploiting the soldiers. Yes I know Bush does it to but it doesn't make it right.

The problem with the article has been stated on a previous post, the one you (Eutr) replied to saying something like "learn to read it is CNS not CNN" then got owned a post later. CNN IS a coonservative press outlet so they spin stories. Yes there are alternate sources but the protestors are still in bad taste.

I am a republican and I don't like the war. I understand that we have a responsibility to fix the country we bombed, anyoone can see that, but an exit strategy should be started. I support america because of its ideals, I DO NOT support bush because...well let's just say count the number of times he uses the words "troops, freedom, 9/11, terrorism" in any speech and you can figure out why.


Oh, and my father was in Vietnam, and we both belong to a VFW (I belong as a son of) and when political figures come to town they DO wear uniforms that mimic the color of army uniforms as well as the hats that have become correlated with them as well as their medals/striped/etc. So of course they will get associated with soldiers.

I suppose no more biased than CNS and The Drudge report. ;)

lol...don't get me wrong...I wasn't defending those two.

These people are, simply put, barking up the wrong tree. The soldiers don't send themselves to war - it's the government that does. Protest to the government. Let the injured have their rest. I am still anti-war, but I'm disgusted at their actions. What a disgrace. :rolleyes: :mp5:

Well, some kooks had to show up sooner or later, if you look at the AP's most recent poll on Iraq, I'm not surprised that some people are making fools of themselves.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq? (IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE, ASK) Is that strongly or somewhat?

--Strongly approve, 20 percent (26)

--Somewhat approve, 16 percent (15)

--Somewhat disapprove, 13 percent (11)

--Strongly disapprove, 45 percent (45)

--Not sure, 5 percent (3)

TOTAL APPROVE -- 37 percent (41)

TOTAL DISAPPROVE -- 58 percent (56)

These people are, simply put, barking up the wrong tree. The soldiers don't send themselves to war - it's the government that does. Protest to the government. Let the injured have their rest. I am still anti-war, but I'm disgusted at their actions. What a disgrace. :rolleyes: :mp5:

I wouldn't say that is completely true, since military service is voluntary. If there were a draft I'd agree, since there isn't, they are essentially sending themselves to war.

I wouldn't say that is completely true, since military service is voluntary. If there were a draft I'd agree, since there isn't, they are essentially sending themselves to war.

Not necesarrily. There are alot of reasons people join the military other than of what the military does. I mean look at the reserves who are there, kids trying to pay for college, etc. However i do think that the families/media should realize no matter why they are over there and if they die it isn't a tradgedy. If a fireman who fights fires dies in one. Its not a tradgedy, its unfortunate. Its ashame someone putting them forth for a cause that is altruistic died. But it should not come as a shock.

Not necesarrily. There are alot of reasons people join the military other than of what the military does. I mean look at the reserves who are there, kids trying to pay for college, etc. However i do think that the families/media should realize no matter why they are over there and if they die it isn't a tradgedy. If a fireman who fights fires dies in one. Its not a tradgedy, its unfortunate. Its ashame someone putting them forth for a cause that is altruistic died. But it should not come as a shock.


I think that sums up my thought pretty much.

A friend of mine is a Marine Reservist (sic?) in Baghdad. He knew this could be part of the job when he signed up and he knows the consequences. He also knows that if he gets hurt it's likely he won't keep getting his college money (which also happened to my brother in the First Gulf War), which I think sucks. Especially when you have guys who didn't serve but were, for example, accountants during Vietnam and therefore get war benefits. They never even left the country.

You Americans are so weird. It's all extremes with you...I can't think of any examples (there may be some, but they aren't well known) of people being called traitors for not supporting Canadian soldiers...or of soldiers being spat upon...I simply can't imagine something like this whole Sheehan thing happening here...people don't seem to align themselves so radically. Why? Why do you folks seem to want to make it 'either or' on issues like this? (honest question...)

COMMENTARY: As I have stated on here before, the "protestors" will continue to become more and more vile, violent, and vindictive. First it was the worthless mom, Ms. Sheehan, now it's the organization supporting her calling wounded war veterans deluded and mained without cause, outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. This sort of thing will escalate and get out of control.

1. You call this "vile, violent, and vindictive." You offer no evidence of violence by the protestors whatsoever. You offer no evidence they are being "vindictive." They are being "vile" only in your mind -- which images things that are not happening.

2. I thought you agreed insulting Ms. Sheehan was disrespectful to her son. Shame on you. The mother of former Eagle Scout and honorable soldier is now the target of name-calling simply because you disagree with her. She merely wants an adequate justification for why her son died.

3. Sheehan has nothing to do with this protest and has no direct connection with Code Pink. You are using the McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association.

4. There is a long history of protests at Walter Reed Medical Center against wars -- most of them organized by veterans and some by patients. This is nothing new -- except the nasty vitriol and others are throwing at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War#Walter_Reed_Memorial_Service
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Veterans_Gather_in_Protest_111203.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/15/iraq.protest/
http://www.notinourname.net/war/families-15mar04.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/17174/

5. CodePink and other organizers have specifically sought to HONOR the veterans and war casulaties! Some have volunteered at Walter Reed!
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=229
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Protesters_honor_031404.htm
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1949

6. Isn't a greater outrage that the Bush Administration wants to shut down Walter Reed Medical Center?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/16/politics/main695661_page2.shtml
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/082605dnnatbases.1a8c4803.html

One of the things Code Pink is protesting is the closing of Walter Reed and:

Even after their stealth arrival at Walter Reed, soldiers must begin a bureaucratic battle to obtain sufficient disability benefits to provide an adequate quality of life. Initial determinations of military pension amounts (10-20% of salary, for example), made by the Army’s Medical Review Board, are often inadequate, and must be appealed to the Veterans Administration (which, to its credit, often increases the lifetime disability payment).

We also vigil to protest ongoing cuts in the Veterans Administration budget made by the very same administration that sends these soldiers to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the FY05 budget institutes a new health care enrollment fee and increases prescription drug co-pays for middle-income veterans. The VA budget is not fully funded, failing by more than $2.6 billion to fully fund quality veterans’ health care. Despite strongly lobbying by veterans organizations, the Bush administration fails to recognize veterans as an extension of the costs of war. Other FY05 budget cuts in educational, vocational and adult education, and family support programs also directly impact veterans and their families.

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=191



Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html)

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

CNS is a self-proclaimed biased source. I notice that no sources on Google other than conservative blogs and CNS appear to be carrying this alleged "story."


But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

So, many of the protestors -- or at least leaders -- are veterans and they have a perfectly good explanation for targeting Walter Reed Hospital.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke.

Nice double standard about demonstrations. Either it is appropriate to demonstrate outside Walter Reed or it isn't.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Again, many of these protesters are veterans. They just have a different view than you, Eutrusca. Get off your fucking high-horse and quit calling every attempt to stop the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq "vile," "despicable," or "vindicative." (Let alone calling peaceful protests "violent.")



** the above are results of quick Google searches. I can find more evidence if someone wants to dispute my assertions.

The Cat-Tribe - You my dear freaking rock! :)

The Cat-Tribe - You my dear freaking rock! :)
I told you that man actualy DOES his homework on a topic

I told you that man actualy DOES his homework on a topic

He reminds me so much of Zeppistan in the way he forms his posts. How can I not like someone who reminds me of Zep? :fluffle:

He reminds me so much of Zeppistan in the way he forms his posts. How can I not like someone who reminds me of Zep? :fluffle:
He reminds me of him too ... though I was fairly young poster when ZEP left ... I remember it but I was not into real discussion threads by that point

**blushes**

Thanks. :) :fluffle:

You Americans are so weird.


My God, woman-You would know weird.

Cat Tribe is the cat's ass. I often bookmark his particular arguments and sources just so I can dredge them up if need be.... :p

All these threads seem to be the same thing...trying to whip up anti-protester sentiment, defining patriotism the way certain people see it, and sharing opinions disguised as facts.

With what point? Just to make certain people feel good?

Just to make certain people feel good?


My God, Woman-you know how to make me feel good.

My God, woman-You would know weird.
I knew that would catch your eye! But seriously...I can't imagine this same sort of thing going on here in Canada. Not because we are superior, or anything like that...it just seems kind of alien from our viewpoint to get so worked up about something...one BOTH sides of the issue I mean. And not just this issue...so MANY issues...why is there this radicalisation south of the border? For example...if a Canadian singer speaks out against the current government or a certain policy...we don't go bulldozing their CDs on tv and banning their songs from our radio stations...we don't tend to go after our soldiers with such anger, and our soldiers don't seem to need to defend themselves the way certain folks think they must...why? What is the difference between us? I just don't get it....in so many other ways we are similar.

Cat Tribe is the cat's ass. I often bookmark his particular arguments and sources just so I can dredge them up if need be.... :p


I'll say I like Cat Tribe. I dont always agree, but when he dumps his landslide of sources to back up his opinions, I usually just figure, the hell with it.

But calling someone the "cat's ass"? I cant understand that as being positive.

Ever see those "Caramel Cremes" in the clear plastic wrapper at Halloween? I call those Cat's Assholes.


They dont remind me of Cat Tribe though.

I'll say I like Cat Tribe. I dont always agree, but when he dumps his landslide of sources to back up his opinions, I usually just figure, the hell with it.

But calling someone the "cat's ass"? I cant understand that as being positive.


Rockabilly. Used to be the 'cat's pajamas'. Now it's the cat's ass. It's a good thing:).

My God, Woman-you know how to make me feel good.
Stop it. I'm already too stimulated right now as it is.

No matter how well intentioned the protestors are, most of the maimed soldiers that they are supporting don't agree with them and would like them to go away. I think they should respect that.

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
Kerry was actually a pro-war candidate.

I wonder how much longer it's going to take before these protestors start suicide bombing vfw's and veteran hospitals in the name of soldiers...
It's never going to happen. Firstly, suicide bombing is decidedly against pacifism.

It's not going to get any worse than Vietnam. At least these protestors are still trying to stand up for the soldiers. Back in the 1960s you had protestors spitting on soldiers, calling them evil, etc.

I knew that would catch your eye! But seriously...I can't imagine this same sort of thing going on here in Canada. Not because we are superior, or anything like that...it just seems kind of alien from our viewpoint to get so worked up about something...one BOTH sides of the issue I mean. And not just this issue...so MANY issues...why is there this radicalisation south of the border? For example...if a Canadian singer speaks out against the current government or a certain policy...we don't go bulldozing their CDs on tv and banning their songs from our radio stations...we don't tend to go after our soldiers with such anger, and our soldiers don't seem to need to defend themselves the way certain folks think they must...why? What is the difference between us? I just don't get it....in so many other ways we are similar.

Sin- neither I, nor anyone I know, done any of the crap you mentioned. I know a lot of people.

Our media sucks more. Maybe we need more stimulation-the media keeps upping the ante, stirring and inciting and small groups of people look bigger and lean toward extremes in the spot lights. its like the public is getting numb and need more sensational things to capture their attention.
When they cant stir something up, they talk about an approaching hurricane for a week-everyone runs out and buys six loaves of bread, 10 gallons of milk-Home Depot raises the price of plywood and it all sells out at $25.00 for a 4X8 sheet- then the storm passes and they talk about it for another day or two. Then teh next storm hits and they have hours and hours of footage of people in their moments of absolute misery-homes demolished, loved ones dead, insurance co not paying-blah, blah, blah.

Dont you get it? People here have been made to feel they need a BIG story on cable news every damn night when they get home. Or people might start watching sitcoms again.
Maybe Canadians are easier to entertain. Maybe you guys play more board games or cards-I dont know. We have so much freaking news now, there is a person speaking on the news, with captions directly beneath them-AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN,THERE IS A CONTINUOUS TICKER WITH THE REST OF THE NON-STORIES>

there really aint that much going on.

Rockabilly. Used to be the 'cat's pajamas'. Now it's the cat's ass. It's a good thing:).


Whats with the "cat's meow" then? No one gives a shit anymore? And whats with all the Cat shit anyway?

I want the dog's pajamas...they'd fit me better anyway

--snip--

Wow. Just, wow. Sometimes I forget just how biased reporting can be. Thanks for shedding some light here. Unfortunately, it will likely go unheeded by the very ones who need to see it most.

Stop it. I'm already too stimulated right now as it is.

Ohh-you sound a little nasty...

Sin- neither I, nor anyone I know, done any of the crap you mentioned. I know a lot of people.

Our media sucks more. Maybe we need more stimulation-the media keeps upping the ante, stirring and inciting and small groups of people look bigger and lean toward extremes in the spot lights. its like the public is getting numb and need more sensational things to capture their attention.
I think your larger population and media coverage blow it out of proportion. I agree with what you've said...because I was just thinking about ecology protesters who put spikes in old-growth trees in BC, and how the communities supported by logging get pretty pissed off...and how violent those confrontations have been...but they never got played up in the media the way stuff does in the US. So, perhaps the difference is not so much in terms of nationality, just in size and media?

So, perhaps the difference is not so much in terms of nationality, just in size and media?


Thats my opinion. 20 years ago, the average person might have watched one 1/2 nightly news show to get an idea of what was happening. Now, the shows are an hour each, they bring in adversarial guests that just yell at each other the whole time-kinda like in here. No one is able to make a legitimate point, they're smug and hostile and the host grins and cuts them short. These shows repeat late night.

Who needs that much news? There is way too much being whipped up out of nothing. And as an alternative, there are a dozen, moronic "reality" shows on, with shallow douchebags dropping their drawers and morals,desperately in search of fame while eating roaches and sucking on cow teats.

Read a freaking book, assholes!!! Stop getting caught up in the tidal wave of petty biased bullshit. Go to the community college and take a course on basket weaving. Anything-just do something!!! Dont just sit there being led into anger and frustration-by the nose while your ass gets fatter and your heart gets weaker.

Well, let's work this out logically, shall we?

The United States Constitution is the foundation of the US government, the fundamental law of the land, and the most basic protection of the rights of citizens of the United States.

To attack a right protected by the US Constitution is to attack the Constitution itself, and by extension to attack the United States.

Among the rights protected by the Constitution are the right to freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably.

The protesters outside of Walter Reed Hospital are exercising their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Therefore anyone who attacks the rights of the protesters is attacking the Constitution, and the United States as a whole.

Therefore it is not the protesters who are anti-American. It is those who attack the protesters' right to protest who are anti-American.

Soldiers in the United States Army are required to take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, those who attack the rights of the protesters are dishonoring, not just wounded or killed soldiers, but all soldiers, by attacking what those soldiers are sworn to defend.

So, you want to talk about dishonoring soldiers? Be careful that you aren't doing it yourself.

Once again ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ratified 12/15/1791.

If you don't want people protesting, have that bit in bold removed.

Once again ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ratified 12/15/1791.

If you don't want people protesting, have that bit in bold removed.
Since Cat-Tribe put his usual slam dunk on this whole thing (and gawdamn, man....sheesh, don't call it a comeback....anyway...) I'll play devils advocate here.

I don't think, and you can pull up a quote to prove me wrong because I wasn't doing the most careful reading, Eutrusca or the others where ever really calling for them to be banned or barred from protesting, rather they where commenting strongly on the protest, critisizing it. This is the very nature of free speech, to in essense critisize someone elses free speech. It only crosses the line when you insist someone else cannot, not should not, say what they are saying. I don't believe Trusci crossed that very important line.

PLEASE do not interprut this as me agreeing with him. This is trademark Trusci equivocation and Cat-Tribe nailed it. However, I don't believe I've seen him advocate the removal of anyones free speech rights.

Just to be devil's advocate.

1. You call this "vile, violent, and vindictive." You offer no evidence of violence by the protestors whatsoever. You offer no evidence they are being "vindictive." They are being "vile" only in your mind -- which images things that are not happening.

vio-lent, adj.:
1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

The protesting is violent.

vindictive, adj.:
1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.
2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.

The protesting can be considered in many cases to be vindictive, as certain protestors are related to injured soldiers, and protesting outside a hospital can certainly be taken as spiteful.

vile, adj:
1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.
a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b. Of mean or low condition.
4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.

The protestors are most certainly vile.

2. I thought you agreed insulting Ms. Sheehan was disrespectful to her son. Shame on you. The mother of former Eagle Scout and honorable soldier is now the target of name-calling simply because you disagree with her. She merely wants an adequate justification for why her son died.

I know you're not stupid enough to honestly believe that is what she wants. She is using her dead son as a pawn.

3. Sheehan has nothing to do with this protest and has no direct connection with Code Pink. You are using the McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association.

Fair enough, we'll come back to this.

4. There is a long history of protests at Walter Reed Medical Center against wars -- most of them organized by veterans and some by patients. This is nothing new -- except the nasty vitriol and others are throwing at it.

Are you trying to say that Walter Reed Medical Center's history of being targeted by protesting makes it less objectionable?

5. CodePink and other organizers have specifically sought to HONOR the veterans and war casulaties! Some have volunteered at Walter Reed!
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=229
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Protesters_honor_031404.htm
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1949

And that makes their current actions less callous and unfair?

6. Isn't a greater outrage that the Bush Administration wants to shut down Walter Reed Medical Center? [snip]

Gee, Code Pink's alternate targets and the Bush Administration's attempt to shut down Walter Reed is about as relevant to whether or not these protestors are out of line in where they chose to protest the war as Cindy is to this protest, a comparison that you scolded a short three paragraphs ago.

Nice double standard about demonstrations. Either it is appropriate to demonstrate outside Walter Reed or it isn't.

Nice double standard about irrelevant points. Either it is okay to make them, or it isn't.

Again, many of these protesters are veterans. They just have a different view than you, Eutrusca. Get off your fucking high-horse and quit calling every attempt to stop the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq "vile," "despicable," or "vindicative." (Let alone calling peaceful protests "violent.")

Again, that makes their protesting no less callous or poorly located.

It makes me soo very mad. When the protesters protest it tells the insergents in Iraq to keep fighting, its working and it just raises their moral and will to fight.

It makes me sad, that Iraq War Veterans (Like my Brother) who have been wounded serving their nation bravely have to come home to people yelling at them and cursing them out for doing a great servise to this country.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

That'd show them. ;)

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.

Wow, I feel so guilty about falling out of my chair laughing at that apology.

(By the way, I agree, to an extent. Just funny that you apologized for such a tame comment.)

It makes me soo very mad. When the protesters protest it tells the insergents in Iraq to keep fighting, its working and it just raises their moral and will to fight.

It makes me sad, that Iraq War Veterans (Like my Brother) who have been wounded serving their nation bravely have to come home to people yelling at them and cursing them out for doing a great servise to this country.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.


I understand how you can feel this way, but the insurgents in Iraq are not fighting because they know people in the US are protesting the war. They have a whole other agenda that does not depend on protesters.

People are not terrorists for exercising their right to free speech in this country. This protest can be seen in bad taste from one angle, media-savvy from another and the ultimate honor to soldiers from yet another angle. But I don't see how it makes them terrorists.

I understand how you can feel this way, but the insurgents in Iraq are not fighting because they know people in the US are protesting the war. They have a whole other agenda that does not depend on protesters.

Yes, but you really can't deny that the large number of people against the War in Iraq hurts the effort by keeping the insurgents going. The more possibility they see of the United States giving up on the effort do to lack of morale, the more optimistic they become, which keeps them going longer.

(parts snipped to get to relevant point)

Gee, Code Pink's alternate targets and the Bush Administration's attempt to shut down Walter Reed is about as relevant to whether or not these protestors are out of line in where they chose to protest the war as Cindy is to this protest, a comparison that you scolded a short three paragraphs ago.


I thought the protest wasn't about the war but about the closing of Walter Reed and the fact that the administration brings wounded soldiers during the night to limit exposure in the media.

In fact, I think only conservative sources pointed to this protest as a anti-war protest.

Unfortunately, any protest brings out a few anti-war slogans and protesters that are tagging along with their pet issue. Just like a protest against the WTO will bring people who protest on the environment, against war or for abortion.

I thought the protest wasn't about the war but about the closing of Walter Reed and the fact that the administration brings wounded soldiers during the night to limit exposure in the media.

In fact, I think only conservative sources pointed to this protest as a anti-war protest.

It was about both, to my knowledge, and I wouldn't call an offshoot of CNN a conservative source - not for an American news station, at least.

Unfortunately, any protest brings out a few anti-war slogans and protesters that are tagging along with their pet issue. Just like a protest against the WTO will bring people who protest on the environment, against war or for abortion.

I'm under the impression that it was more than a few.

COMMENTARY: As I have stated on here before, the "protestors" will continue to become more and more vile, violent, and vindictive. First it was the worthless mom, Ms. Sheehan, now it's the organization supporting her calling wounded war veterans deluded and mained without cause, outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. This sort of thing will escalate and get out of control.


Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html)


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
No one should be surprised by this. The extreme anti-americanism of the leftist protestors is just getting more vile each day.

Yes, but you really can't deny that the large number of people against the War in Iraq hurts the effort by keeping the insurgents going. The more possibility they see of the United States giving up on the effort do to lack of morale, the more optimistic they become, which keeps them going longer.


You know, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't agree either. It's just a feeling I have that even if all protests stopped they'd still be fighting. It's not us they care about. It's a point they are trying to make.

Can we agree to disagree?

It makes me soo very mad. When the protesters protest it tells the insergents in Iraq to keep fighting, its working and it just raises their moral and will to fight.

It makes me sad, that Iraq War Veterans (Like my Brother) who have been wounded serving their nation bravely have to come home to people yelling at them and cursing them out for doing a great servise to this country.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.

Was Lincoln against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Mexican War in 1848?

Was Mark Twain against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Spanish-American War?

I can go on and on with examples.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

You know, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't agree either. It's just a feeling I have that even if all protests stopped they'd still be fighting. It's not us they care about. It's a point they are trying to make.

Can we agree to disagree?

I think so. It's stupid to say that the war would end if protesting stopped, but I think it's fair to say that it would run more smoothly, and that the insurgents wouldn't fight as hard.

No one should be surprised by this. The extreme anti-americanism of the leftist protestors is just getting more vile each day.
As is the rights pathetic attempt to paint peace protestors as soldier haters

Was Lincoln against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Mexican War in 1848?

Was Mark Twain against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Spanish-American War?

I can go on and on with examples.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore RooseveltThanks for the idiotic comparison of people lying about the president, and people protesting wounded soldiers.

It was about both, to my knowledge, and I wouldn't call an offshoot of CNN a conservative source - not for an American news station, at least.

Are you claiming CNS is an off-shoot of CNN? And is not conservative?

It was founded by L. Brent Bozell III specifically to give a conservative spin to news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, what he's saying is that if they really support the war, they should sign up and fight in it, instead of just paying hollow lip service and then pretending to be morally superior or somehow more macho.

And what if they can't sign up to fight but yet still support the war, then what?

Thanks for the idiotic comparison of people lying about the president, and people protesting wounded soldiers.

Again with the made-up facts.

Smells increasingly trollish in here.

In fact, do you like Faulkner?

As is the rights pathetic attempt to paint peace protestors as soldier haters
Well, they are, so it rather pathetic for you to defend protesting wounded soldiers, but keep it up. As a soldier, I say, "your welcome". You are welcome to hate me, and all your fellow countrymen who defend you. That is what we are for, to defend your right to have disgusting views.

Again with the made-up facts.

Says the "person" who cites anti-Bush wakjobs as "credible" soureces.

:rolleyes:

I think so. It's stupid to say that the war would end if protesting stopped, but I think it's fair to say that it would run more smoothly, and that the insurgents wouldn't fight as hard.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What a view. Oy vey.

Was Lincoln against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Mexican War in 1848?

Was Mark Twain against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Spanish-American War?

I can go on and on with examples.

Cat-Tribe, you truly are a master of making it sound like you've made a brilliant point by citing irrelevant example after irrelevant example. What exactly does who the protestors are protesting against in a war have to do with how they affect the overall morale of the insurgents? Do you think a terrorist leader would say, "We are winning the fight against the American soldiers in the U.S.," in an effort to boost troop morale, but would not say, "We are winning the fight against the agenda of President Bush in the U.S.?" It doesn't matter whether the protestors protest the soldiers or the leaders, they're still protesting, and they're still improving enemy morale while damaging troop morale. That's all Minskia was saying.

Says the "person" who cites anti-Bush wakjobs as "credible" soureces.

:rolleyes:

You are confusing your opponents for each other. Perhaps you should pause and read before posting.

Cat-Tribe, you truly are a master of making it sound like you've made a brilliant point by citing irrelevant example after irrelevant example. What exactly does who the protestors are protesting against in a war have to do with how they affect the overall morale of the insurgents? Do you think a terrorist leader would say, "We are winning the fight against the American soldiers in the U.S.," in an effort to boost troop morale, but would not say, "We are winning the fight against the agenda of President Bush in the U.S.?" It doesn't matter whether the protestors protest the soldiers or the leaders, they're still protesting, and they're still improving enemy morale while damaging troop morale. That's all Minskia was saying.

So your argument is that Lincoln and Mark Twain were providing support for our enemies, regardless of whether they supported our troops?

I'm so glad you clarified the error in my point.

Well, they are, so it rather pathetic for you to defend protesting wounded soldiers, but keep it up. As a soldier, I say, "your welcome". You are welcome to hate me, and all your fellow countrymen who defend you. That is what we are for, to defend your right to have disgusting views.
I was not talking specifically about this incident … but you assumed so I see , interesting.

Well, they are, so it rather pathetic for you to defend protesting wounded soldiers, but keep it up. As a soldier, I say, "your welcome". You are welcome to hate me, and all your fellow countrymen who defend you. That is what we are for, to defend your right to have disgusting views.

Not even the original post claimed that anyone is protesting against wounded soldiers.

Earth to Stinky Cheese Head. Come in, Stinky Cheese Head.

So your argument is that Lincoln and Mark Twain were providing support for our enemies, regardless of whether they supported our troops?

I'm so glad you clarified the error in my point.

Ummm, yes, because they were only expressing distaste for the government's military choices which they knew would be heard by many; they weren't also going around holding up signs saying "Down with [insert random enemy]," or "Support our Troops," or writing articles about how great we were and what a terrible cause the enemy's was at the time. Their enemies weren't spying on them 24/7 to find statements of troop support at home, nor could they read their minds - there was no way their enemies could know anything about them except what was made widely public, as is something shown in national TV or in a large newspaper.

Ummm, yes, because they were only expressing distaste for the government's military choices which they knew would be heard by many; they weren't also going around holding up signs saying "Down with [insert random enemy]," or "Support our Troops," or writing articles about how great we were and what a terrible cause the enemy's was at the time.

I'm glad I am in good company with Lincoln and Twain.

Although I'm less traitorous, because I have held a sign that said "support our troops."

I'm glad I am in good company with Lincoln and Twain.

Although I'm less traitorous, because I have held a sign that said "support our troops."

How is this even remotely relevant? Just because you do doesn't mean half of the rest of the country's protestors do.

Anyway, I'm heading out, if you want to continue to say that protestors don't hurt ally morale and boost enemy morale, go ahead. Judging by the fact that you've started bringing in irrelevant points on the subject already, I'm going to assume that A. I'm right, and B. I'm not going to convince you of that. D&D time.

Anyway, I'm heading out, if you want to continue to say that protestors don't hurt ally morale and boost enemy morale, go ahead. Judging by the fact that you've started bringing in irrelevant points on the subject already, I'm going to assume that A. I'm right, and B. I'm not going to convince you of that. D&D time.
Or C you are so wrong its not worth commenting on :p

Anyway, I'm heading out, if you want to continue to say that protestors don't hurt ally morale and boost enemy morale, go ahead. Judging by the fact that you've started bringing in irrelevant points on the subject already, I'm going to assume that A. I'm right, and B. I'm not going to convince you of that. D&D time.

I'm sorry you think democracy and freedom are weaknesses, not strengths.

I, and the history of this country, disagree.

We locked them up in WWII.
Shame we didnt do it about Nam. :(

Mind you i am against the Iraq war because i knew it was all a sham.
However the troops should be supported.

Shame we didnt do it about Nam. :(


Yeah, it would have been a great way to illustrate the freedom the USA was fighting for?

Not even the original post claimed that anyone is protesting against wounded soldiers.

Earth to Stinky Cheese Head. Come in, Stinky Cheese Head.
Go spend the $100 or so it cost to get hooked on phonics, fininsh the course, then go back and reread the first post.

Then come back and spout your drivel.

We locked them up in WWII.
Shame we didnt do it about Nam. :(

Mind you i am against the Iraq war because i knew it was all a sham.
However the troops should be supported.

I have to go vomit. I seen enough of this thinking for today. I'm done.

Go spend the $100 or so it cost to get hooked on phonics, fininsh the course, then go back and reread the first post.

Then come back and spout your drivel.

LOL.

That isn't what the original article says, buckaroo.

Perhaps you didn't "fininsh" the reading comprehension course.

LOL.

That isn't what the original article says, buckaroo.

Perhaps you didn't "fininsh" the reading comprehension course.
So which are you refering to, the original post or the article? GEt it straight, ignorance is no excuse, even if in your case, it is congenital.

In this thread, it seems to be mostly the pro-war right wing who are desparately clutching at straws and making wildly emotional "arguments". I'm pro-war, but the anti-war people are looking much better in this thread.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.
So your brother is the one who bombs and kills for political reasons, yet the people who are against the war are the terrorists?

Anyway, I'm heading out, if you want to continue to say that protestors don't hurt ally morale and boost enemy morale, go ahead.
Aldranin, you make good points about the protestors. Given that they are endangering the lives of the troops by assisting the enemy, I think that protesting against the war should be outlawed. Are you with me?

COMMENTARY: As I have stated on here before, the "protestors" will continue to become more and more vile, violent, and vindictive. First it was the worthless mom, Ms. Sheehan, now it's the organization supporting her calling wounded war veterans deluded and mained without cause, outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. This sort of thing will escalate and get out of control.

You can make your point without flaming. Your venom is no better than theirs.


Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html)


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

I very much agree that the wounded soldiers have gone through quite enough without this ugliness going on while they are trying to heal

.... "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

They have a point.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

This makes their choice of the hospital as a location make more sense.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

Yes, as i said at the beginning, it is very insensitive to the soldiers.

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

Well, i don't think it will help any veterans who are already wounded, but it might help save others if the american public was informed well enough about the costs of the war to question its efficacy.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added..

yes, and you wouldnt want people shouting at you about how worthless your sacrifice was. If the wounded soldiers could be sheltered from the protest, I would wholeheartedly support their actions. It just seems very insensitive, almost cruel, towards the already-wounded.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

That is also completely tasteless. Being proud of a prison that exists solely to circumvent the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Geneva convention is equally horrifying to me.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.


I have somewhat of a problem with what they are doing. But i also understand that if they are trying to get media coverage about the wounded soldiers (which has been generally ignored by the media), where else could they effectively do that?

It's an ugly situation...but isn't that sort of the point? The protesters want America to get OUT of the ugly situation.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Neither have most americans. They need information to make sound decisions. If they are supporting the war because they know the facts and agree, that's one thing. If they support the war because of major media propaganda and selective reporting, or because the administration is misleading them, then getting the information out there is technically a patriotic thing to do.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

This kind of character assassination is also unnecessary to make the point. Should the media include Arnold's sympathy for the Nazi party in an article written about his activities? I find this gratuitous mudslinging. The story had enough merit without all that. Adding it just makes the author look as hateful as the protesters.

Back to my initial comment. This venom is no better.

*yawns*

Wow, looks like we've all been busily gnawing on each other's legs this week.

That's what I get for taking a temp gig at an ad agency.

Oh, by the way, the hot new thing next spring is going to be transparent glass candle holders. And wicker. Wicker everything. You heard it here first, folks. Get ready to sell your ratty old stoner furniture for big bucks on eBay post-Xmas.

Just saying. And staying irrelevant. Like I wanna actually say anything and have my head ripped off while someone uses my throat as a pissoir. No thanks.

Good luck on martyrdom, or freedom of speech, or whatever.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree whether by government force or by intimidation and mudslinging.

We should not lock up those we disagree with as some suggested here. We should not accuse those who merely disagree with a current policy of being less patriotic.

Patriotism, if it is to have any meaning for a U.S. citizen, should mean respect and worship of our ideals, not the policies of one Administration.

It makes me soo very mad. When the protesters protest it tells the insergents in Iraq to keep fighting, its working and it just raises their moral and will to fight.

It makes me sad, that Iraq War Veterans (Like my Brother) who have been wounded serving their nation bravely have to come home to people yelling at them and cursing them out for doing a great servise to this country.

Sometimes I just wanna punch them right in the face and say shut the hell up you terrorist!

I appoligize for that remark but thats how I feel.stop appologizing and...Enlist!!!

If you are a true patriot you should enlist inmediately...and stop appologizing.

How low will people go? It'll get to the point of violence one day, mark my words.

*Goes back to cleaning rifle*

How low will people go? It'll get to the point of violence one day, mark my words.

*Goes back to cleaning rifle*


Please read my post #144 carefully. The idea of silencing those that disagree with you with force is sickening.

The idea of silencing those that disagree with you with force is sickening.
I'm hearing this idea more and more frequently of late. It's not as sickening as it is frankly worrisome. It's a sign of the polarization between the two American Solitudes; the right-wing vs. the uhh... vs. the extreme right-wing.

However did you find yourselves in such a pickle?

Its one thing to protest a war, its a totally different thing when you involved those that died or are wounded in combat.

I don't care if you protest the war, don't use our soldiers as tools in said protest.


i hate bush,not sure about the war yet,even if i was 100% dead against it,what shehan is doing using her sons death and these lowlife scumbags are doing at the vet hospital is utterly despicable and cruel.

i support anyones right to protest against policies they disagree with..absolutely there right...but i hate to say it,and i am extremely anti violence,but if i was seeing this spectacle of disgracing the wounded first hand,i would have a tough time restraining myself from punching the fuckin lowlife scumbags square in the face!

protest across from the whitehouse or congress...in front of a bunch of men and women traumatized and maimed is beyond tasteless...borderline beating time. :sniper: :mad:

p.s. before someone tells me to enlist...i tried but they wouldnt take me because i have a crimminal record from a m.v stop a few years ago..non violent but disqualifing none the less :(

Please read my post #144 carefully. The idea of silencing those that disagree with you with force is sickening.
But tell _me_ something, aren't there situations where protests might well be legal, but inappropriate? This is the more important question regarding the protesters at Walter Reed. Is the place where these kids are resting, recuperating, and healing from life-threating wounds the proper place to mount a protest? Why not just go march up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue, instead?

But tell _me_ something, aren't there situations where protests might well be legal, but inappropriate? This is the more important question regarding the protesters at Walter Reed. Is the place where these kids are resting, recuperating, and healing from life-threating wounds the proper place to mount a protest? Why not just go march up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue, instead?

Of course, protests could be legal but inappropriate.

The reason for protesting at that site is explained even in the extremely biased article that started this thread.

Walter Reed has a long history of being a site of protests. Patients themselves have organized protests.

One of the points of the protest is that the Bush Administration wants to shut Walter Reed down and is cutting support for these wounded veterans. Isn't it appropriate to protest that at Walter Reed itself?

Get a grip on the facts, not the hype.

One of the points of the protest is that the Bush Administration wants to shut Walter Reed down and is cutting support for these wounded veterans. Isn't it appropriate to protest that at Walter Reed itself?

Get a grip on the facts, not the hype.


Maybe you should read the facts on the Walter Reed shutdown. It is in order to build a new state of the art facility within the same area. In fact it wont be closed until the new one is open and patients are transfered. That is the reason.

But tell _me_ something, aren't there situations where protests might well be legal, but inappropriate? This is the more important question regarding the protesters at Walter Reed. Is the place where these kids are resting, recuperating, and healing from life-threating wounds the proper place to mount a protest? Why not just go march up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue, instead?

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. It keeps our government honest (well, somewhat more honest, anyway).

And why they don't go to Pennsylvania Avenue, as i mentioned before, they are trying to get the media to report on injured soldiers.

Not that i agree with the tactics...they are very insensitive and perhaps inappropriate...but they have a right to make their point in the best way they see fit.

whether or not i agree with the protesters, i will defend their right to protest.

I have contempt for those who show disrespect for our military men and women who put their lives on the line, regardless of how strongly I disagree with the war.

I don't support the war. I have been against this war from the very beginning. However, I don't condemn the men and women who fight honourably for the United States.

I have contempt for those who show disrespect for our military men and women who put their lives on the line, regardless of how strongly I disagree with the war.

I don't support the war. I have been against this war from the very beginning. However, I don't condemn the men and women who fight honourably for the United States.

No one is condemning the men! In fact, many of the Protestors are veterans.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.

Is the place where these kids are resting, recuperating, and healing from life-threating wounds the proper place to mount a protest? Why not just go march up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue, instead?

The hospital may not be an appropriate venue for protest, however simply marching "up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue" would only call attention to the fact that people are marching "up and down the mall, or Pennsylvania Avenue", it would not highlight the issues that the protestors care about; which specifically involve the Walter Reed Army Hospital and the sheer numbers of wounded soldiers being shepherded in under cover of darkness. The hospital may not be an appropriate location for a protest but in this case it is the ONLY place.

The purpose of public protest is to call attention to an issue and spark debate, the more media coverage they get the more successful a protest will likely be in doing this. By protesting where they protested they recieved more media coverage for their issues than they would have had they protested elsewhere. As for sparking debate? Post number 157 says job done.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.

BEAUTIFUL.

point well made.!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.
And all this succeeds in doing is re-proving the first axiom of politics: "Our oppoents are evil."

No one is condemning the men! In fact, many of the Protestors are veterans.
Bullshit. Prove it.

Maybe you should read the facts on the Walter Reed shutdown. It is in order to build a new state of the art facility within the same area. In fact it wont be closed until the new one is open and patients are transfered. That is the reason.
Please don't confuse them with the facts. Their minds are already made up. :(

Bullshit. Prove it.

Why, you haven't proven anything you've stated. Why should I show you more respect than you show me?

Bullshit. Prove it.
Why do you get so aggressive in these threads of yours?

Please don't confuse them with the facts. Their minds are already made up. :(
For some someone who just says "bullshit" when faced with information or opinion he disagrees with, this is quite hypocritical.

i want to know what type of "Veterans" would sink so low as to protest outside of walter reed?

BTW, a very good friend of mine is in walter reed at the moment, and would love to let a few of those protesters know what he thinks of them. the men in that hospital by and large are better men than those protesters could ever hope to be.

Do you have any idea how many soldiers that come thru walter reed request and demand to get back to thier units in the field as soon as possible?

The only "vets" that I can think of that would attend a protest like this are the ones who talk big, and then abandon thier men as soon as they can, ex John Kerry

The only "vets" that I can think of that would attend a protest like this are the ones who talk big, and then abandon thier men as soon as they can, ex John Kerry

Except that all of the men who served directly on Kerry's boat continue to support him, as does the man whose life he directly saved.

Tell me, whose life did Bush directly save?

So your saying that those that support the war and are doing counter-protests to those that are against the war, shouldn't be protesting?

WTF is there to protest? The government is already doing what they want it to do.

I'm saying that if the government is doing something that you think it shouldn't, then in a Democracy your job is to say so.

If the government is doing something that you think it should be doing then your job is to help.

Counter protesting isn't helping the troops. If you believe in the war and want to help it then you should go and fight it. To protest protesting of something that's already happening and you want to keep happening is pointless and hypocritical.

If I were a military recruiter I'd head down to Coney Island and hire a sideshow barker, then we'd head down to Crawford and sign those counter-protesters up.

WTF is there to protest? The government is already doing what they want it to do.

First correct thing you have said!

I'm saying that if the government is doing something that you think it shouldn't, then in a Democracy your job is to say so.

Correct. However, if you believe in what the government is doing, then you have full right to counter the protest with your full support. In otherwords, your protesting the protestors.

If the government is doing something that you think it should be doing then your job is to help.

Correct on that point too. However, you still have the right to have a counter protest against those that are protesting the action.

Counter protesting isn't helping the troops.

I have to disagree with you there.

If you believe in the war and want to help it then you should go and fight it. To protest protesting of something that's already happening and you want to keep happening is pointless and hypocritical.

And what if your unable to go an fight? Then what are you supposed to do? I will show my support in whatever fashion. If that means doing my best to make sure the supporters get their words in then I'll do it.

If I were a military recruiter I'd head down to Coney Island and hire a sideshow barker, then we'd head down to Crawford and sign those counter-protesters up.

Here's a question. What if they support the war but don't want to fight it? What if they actually just don't like Cindy Sheehan using our troops for political gain? What if they are just protesting her but yet still didn't support the war? Now what?

Many times, in debates such as this thread and others, some express disgust at protesters being ungrateful because the soldiers 'are fighting to protect our rights and freedoms'.

However, I've always been a bit puzzled at this, so I ask for a factual, non-jingoistic explanation: how is, say, the Iraq war defending freedoms or rights at home?

I could understand the statement if this were a defensive war, if there was the threat of some foreign invader displacing our government and revoking the constitution or some such thing. But it isn't. This is a war fought thousands of miles from here.

How do the actions of a few people way over there threaten freedoms here? Are insurgents saying that they are going to march into Washington and abolish the First Amendment?

Unless, of course, one means that if the insurgency attacks continue, it will result in the Bush administration curtailing more and more rights, and that is why we need to stop them--but that is hardly an argument a war supporter or conservative would use, now is it?

Bullshit. Prove it.

Did you even read the conservative trash piece that you quoted to start this thread?

Even that bit of tripe expressly quoted veterans that were among the organizers of the protests. I provided additional links later.

What you call "bullshit" is something you yourself already proved. :headbang: :headbang: