NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Although I realize that some of you will idolize these students and faculty members, my personal opinion is that the faculty members should be fired and the students sent back home to mommie, permantely. Not because they protested or demonstrated, that's perfectly ok, but because they went too far. Recruiters have a right to be there to talk with students who are interested in the military, just as much as the faculty and students have a right to protest ... within limits.

Your thoughts? And do try to add something of substance and value rather than simply rant, ( either pro or anti military ) please.


Recruiters leave college job fair (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)


Associated Press

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — Military recruiters left a campus job fair when about 60 student and faculty anti-war demonstrators showed up outside the event at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Four recruiters from the Army and Army National Guard left after an hour-long standoff Tuesday at the College 8 West Field House.

“The recruiters thought the crowd was getting out of control,” campus vice chancellor David Kliger said.

“This is about creating a community where we make the change we want to see in the world,” student Sam Aranke said.

One student protester was arrested as the recruiters were departing in a van. While a campus police officer was videotaping a person throwing rocks at the van, a student blocked the camera and was cited for interfering with police duties, campus spokesman Jim Burns.

The student was released pending a decision by the district attorney’s office on whether charges would be filed.

That is too far, people have the right to recruit. :mad: :( (Eut the link doesn't go to an article, it goes to a coding page)

That is too far, people have the right to recruit. :mad: :( (Eut the link doesn't go to an article, it goes to a coding page)
I think so too, obviously. This same sort of thing happened during Vietnam, and the protests got wayyy out of hand, yet seldom was anything done about it.

Why do some protestors not understand that, regardless of how you feel about the Iraq conflict, the military exists to protect them? That the military is composed of people too? This is something I'll probably never be able to understand. :(

I think so too, obviously. This same sort of thing happened during Vietnam, and the protests got wayyy out of hand, yet seldom was anything done about it.

Why do some protestors not understand that, regardless of how you feel about the Iraq conflict, the military exists to protect them? That the military is composed of people too? This is something I'll probably never be able to understand. :(
Simple answer is people are idiots!! In my opinion protesting like this is disrespecting those who have given their lives for their country by fighting for these people, and other peoples freedom. :(

FIXED LINK!! (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)

Thats just stupid.. protests are stupid..

When the amry guys come to my school most students just go up to the table for the free stuff. I don't have a problem with them being there even tho I'm not for the war..

They have the right to do that.

The protesters are stopping them from doing their jobs, and stopping those interested in the army from getting educated on what is important to them.

There is more than just killing to do in the army and all those other forces you know.. There are jobs in repair and what not. And I hear they pay hella good.

I think I lost my point.. *goes off to watch TV*

I'm sure the people footing the tuition bills are happy their respective students are protesting and throwing rocks.

Get back to class. Isnt a good education on the other side of the spectrum from rock throwing?

In a country like the US, unless almost the entire country is killed off and repopulated with reasonable people, the military isn't going to stop recruiting, or getting recruits, just because you walk in and block off their table at a fair. Anyone with common sense would know that one. I don't agree with the actions the US military's had to take, but they aren't the ones giving the orders in the first place, they're just doing their job: trying to keep the rest of the country safe and free, wherever and however they're needed. I truly respect those who go into the military in any country, and those who try to stop it are usually kidding themselves, especially in a country as military-oriented as the US.

Ruining a university is too much to ask for just because some fool throwing rocks.

Military collective ego über alles.

That article's pretty vague. The kid who was throwing the rocks was certainly out of line, but why didn't the article go into detail as to why the recruiters felt the situation was getting out of control? Is it possible that the recruiters--who were in a decidedly hostile environment to begin with (it's Santa Cruz, for Christ's sake)--perhaps overstated the threat because they knew they were wasting their time?

(Eut is no doubt turn this into me bashing the military somehow--all I'm trying to point out is that, other than the kid tossing rocks at the van, which should get a ticket for vandalism, there's nothing in the article that describes the actual scene.)

Simple answer is people are idiots!! In my opinion protesting like this is disrespecting those who have given their lives for their country by fighting for these people, and other peoples freedom. :(

FIXED LINK!! (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)
Oops! Thank you for correcting me on that. Fixed. :)

I'm sure the people footing the tuition bills are happy their respective students are protesting and throwing rocks.

Get back to class. Isnt a good education on the other side of the spectrum from rock throwing?
One would think so. Sigh.

Oops! Thank you for correcting me on that. Fixed. :)
NO problem. :)

In a country like the US, unless almost the entire country is killed off and repopulated with reasonable people, the military isn't going to stop recruiting, or getting recruits, just because you walk in and block off their table at a fair. Anyone with common sense would know that one. I don't agree with the actions the US military's had to take, but they aren't the ones giving the orders in the first place, they're just doing their job: trying to keep the rest of the country safe and free, wherever and however they're needed. I truly respect those who go into the military in any country, and those who try to stop it are usually kidding themselves, especially in a country as military-oriented as the US.
Good points.

One of the reasons the military even exists in this Country is to protect the right of people to speak their minds. Those same recruiters would, I'm sure, intervene on the protestor's behalf should someone try to stop them from exercising that right. This sort of out-of-control reactiveness against the recruiters completely mystifies me. :(

That article's pretty vague. The kid who was throwing the rocks was certainly out of line, but why didn't the article go into detail as to why the recruiters felt the situation was getting out of control? Is it possible that the recruiters--who were in a decidedly hostile environment to begin with (it's Santa Cruz, for Christ's sake)--perhaps overstated the threat because they knew they were wasting their time?

(Eut is no doubt turn this into me bashing the military somehow--all I'm trying to point out is that, other than the kid tossing rocks at the van, which should get a ticket for vandalism, there's nothing in the article that describes the actual scene.)
Yes, the article was rather spare. I too would have liked more information, but that's all they had on the subject. :p

Ruining a university is too much to ask for just because some fool throwing rocks.

Military collective ego über alles.
Is that "a Godwin?" :p

Yes, throwing rocks is a bad idea, but protesting is not.

Certainly, sometimes protestors get out of hand, but I am of the opinion that far too often the same is true of military action. As to protesting recruiters, what better time to make people really THINK about what they are doing than BEFORE they actually sign up? It seems to me that it is much better to get a person to reconsider his actions before going to war than it is to revile him after he returns.

By the way, I agree that the article is a little skimpy on info.

Is that "a Godwin?" :p
No, but your OP was a fine example of mindless militaristic chest-thumping.

A more detailed report.

Military recruiters leave UCSC campus in face of protests (http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3296&page=1)

The rock thrower, if possible, and the student who prevented the thrower from being identified should be prosecuted.

Eut, this will suprise you but I believe that the protesters were wrong here. People sould be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wish to join the armed forces and not have someone else try to tell them what they should do.

well ive got to say throwing rocks at a peace protest is pretty moronic, but i reckon protesting at a recruiting station is probably the most obvious and efective places to protest a war and the military machine that is fighting it. that way you are presenting your argument of protest to the very people who can actually change anything on the ground if the politicians aren't going to listen (which they have no interest in doing). it is a perfectly legitimate location for a protest and is not disrespectful at all. protesting at a cemetery is disrespectful. there is a difference between the levels of respect deserved by people who have already fought in wars and people who wish to fight in wars.

Yay, another threat bashing protesters! I say rack 'em up and let loose another Kent State on their asses!!

[/sarcasm]

Prosecute the vandal and the one who interfered with the cops.

Let recruiters do their job. Anyone dumb enough to believe they'll actually be doing what they want to do in the military instead of what the military wants them to do deserves the MP post they draw.

Just to set the record, my father, brother, three uncles and cousin have all served in the military, and of them, half are war veterans.

Protesting has become a cliche and has about as much effect as a gnat does to a battleship. The recruiters at UC-Santa Cruz were out enjoying the sun and surf, knowing they got a plum assignment with very little, if any, actual recruiting paperwork to deal with.

If you wish to change something, the most effective way would seem to be hittin gthem where it counts -- the wallet. Since the civilian population only gets that chance with the military once every (two or) four years, I suggest organizing boycotts that work against companies who will feel a boycott's sting. Someone sent me a chain forward mentioning that the way to lower gas prices was to select one company and outright not gas up there if it was possible. If enough people across the nation did that, they'd have to lower prices to lure them back, and other gas companies would be forced to follow suit to remain competetive. I don't know how truly effective that would be, but it's a hell of a lot smarter than chanting stupid slogans and waving stupid signs protesting the people who are carrying out the orders of the administration.

I hate the war, but I love my soldier relatives and respect the armed forces in general. I get pissed when I hear of unfunded VA healthcare or soldier families who need second jobs or Welfare. I get pissed that families had to send civilian-manufactured body armor to their soldiers overseas because our military didn't have any ready. But under no circumstances do I take out my anger on those in uniform...unless they're generals, and even their hands can be tied.

When I'm out and about and I see soldiers in uniform, I go out of my way to walk up and thank them for serving. THAT'S THE LEAST I CAN DO. That doesn't mean I'm a flag-kisser or a war-lover. It means that I respect those people and know they have families of their own and they don't need a bunch of misguided little throwback-wannabees chanting at them.

One last part to this rant: my best friend, Capt. Steven R. Hobbs, US Army Infantry returned home from a tour in Iraq as a company commander. When he got back, he wanted to continue to serve his country in a more local capacity. He'd run for office in 1994 before going active duty the following year. After ten years, he wanted to run for county council, which he did, with me as his treasurer. He's a Democrat, and I know you don't need much of an imagination to figure out how hard that is within the Republican-dominated military culture. After keeping most of his opinions to himself for 10 years of service (in Kosovo as well as a Iraq, and as an advisor to the general who restructured basic training to reflect the modern terrorist threats now faced in the Middle East), he found that the peacenik assholes in the county Democratic Party HQ thought his military service was a liability! They accused him of being a hawk and supported his primary election opponent. Steve ran anyway and lost in the primary.

I was incensed that these 60s throwback jackoffs, who knew NOTHING about Steve (I've known him since 1979) were automatically writing him off as too far right to even be a Democrat -- despite being raised by a single mother and being half-Japanese (two things that many Democrats in the Seattle area have in common).

So I hope these Santa Cruz protestors all contract syphilis.

If they really want to join the military, they can think of getting through a crowd of protestors as part of basic training.

Seriously though, the protestors are in the wrong. It's not their right to force their opinions on other people. By all means they could have staged a peaceful protest, but by blocking access etc. they went too far.

On the other hand, from a quick search, it appears far worse happened last year, so what did the recruiters expect?

Yeah ... nothin' sucks more than that whole "Right to Protest" thing ... we should just get rid of that whole First Amendment thing. It's upsetting to the delicate sensibilities of our military.

Recruiters have a right to be there to talk with students who are interested in the military

no, they don't. governments and their agencies don't have rights.

Stupid ass rock thrower

What a dumbass - they were already leaving for gods sake.

Although I don't see where the problem is in protesting the recruiters being on your campus and hope that noone is suggesting that freedom of speech and speaking ones mind is a bad thing.

I greatly applaud the protestors and congratulate them to having driven of these inane recruiters! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
It's nice to see that there are actually a few sane people left in the US, for a change.

Recruiters should have *no* right to enter a campus anywhere, since it's their despicable task to get new fresh meat to be used as cannon fooder in such injust causes like the Iraq war. Thousands of US soldiers have already died there just because of the greed for Iraq's ressourses :mad:
It really really surprises me, Eut, that you as an ex-soldier (as you claim) are obviously totally untouched by the thousands of dead US soldiers in Iraq and even fully support the recruitment of new ones to be sent over there to live under abysmal conditions and fearing savage attacks by angry Iraqis. :rolleyes:

Military recruiting is a perfectly acceptable activity.

As is protesting.

What aren't acceptabe activites are: Throwing rocks at people. Interfering with police and general idiocy.

One thing that concerns me, however, is what these people were protesting. They weren't protesting military recruiting or a military policy like gays in the military. They weren't even protesting the military in general. They were protesting the war. Now what concerns me is that just like in the Vietnam era, protests and hatred will be misdirected to the men and women who do the fighting and away from the people who send them to fight.

Save your protests for the people who send these people to die for us, and not for the people doing their sworn duty and trying to protect our country. Soldiers don't decide who to fight, politicians do. A lot of damage was done 35-40 years ago because people forgot that. I'd hate to see that lesson lost.

What aren't acceptabe activites are: . . . general idiocy.

That has to be sigworthy!

COMMENTARY: Although I realize that some of you will idolize these students and faculty members, my personal opinion is that the faculty members should be fired and the students sent back home to mommie, permantely. Not because they protested or demonstrated, that's perfectly ok, but because they went too far. Recruiters have a right to be there to talk with students who are interested in the military, just as much as the faculty and students have a right to protest ... within limits.

Your thoughts? And do try to add something of substance and value rather than simply rant, ( either pro or anti military ) please.

Any violence (ie. the kid throwing rocks) is certainly out of line. Anyone who actually physically kept someone from getting to the recruiters is out of line. However, simple protesting, even if it interferes with the recruiting activities, is not. Sit-ins interfered with restaurant/etc. business, but there was nothing wrong with it being done.

I also disagree with the blanket statement of, "Recruiters have a right...." The Supreme Court recently came down on the side of recruiters, stating that college policies that regulate who can and cannot recruit on campus essentially don't apply to the military. This is not something I agree with. If a campus has a policy stating that no organization that discriminates on the basis of ethncity/gender/sexual orientation/etc. will be allowed on campus, that should mean no such organization, not "This applies to every organization but the military." In such a situation, they should not be forced to allow the recruiters on campus, nor should they be coerced to do so with the loss of funds.

I also disagree with the blanket statement of, "Recruiters have a right...." The Supreme Court recently came down on the side of recruiters, stating that college policies that regulate who can and cannot recruit on campus essentially don't apply to the military. This is not something I agree with. If a campus has a policy stating that no organization that discriminates on the basis of ethncity/gender/sexual orientation/etc. will be allowed on campus, that should mean no such organization, not "This applies to every organization but the military." In such a situation, they should not be forced to allow the recruiters on campus, nor should they be coerced to do so with the loss of funds.

I agree. :)

(Eut is no doubt turn this into me bashing the military somehow--all I'm trying to point out is that, other than the kid tossing rocks at the van, which should get a ticket for vandalism, there's nothing in the article that describes the actual scene.)


It would more likely be assault-not vandalism.

Santa Cruz???? :D

Not exactly the most military minded area.

Not surprised by this at all...

Well, these people have a right to not want the recruiters on their property.

Now that I've said my thing of substance, I will add a little rant:

...I would have been the one throwing rocks.

Well, these people have a right to not want the recruiters on their property.

Now that I've said my thing of substance, I will add a little rant:

...I would have been the one throwing rocks.

Then all they have to do is reject government funding.

Then all they have to do is reject government funding.

Actually in many cases they do.

Actually in many cases they do.

Ta daa!

Then all they have to do is reject government funding.

I would say that should depend on why they don't want the recruiters there. If it is, "We don't like the miltary!" then, yes, I would say you are absolutely right.

If it is something more like, "We don't let discriminatory organizations recruit on campus," then I don't think a loss of funds is in order. The law relating to funds states that military recruiters must be given the *same* access as other recruiters. Thus, so long as the military is not singled out for being the military, there should be no funding problem. If the campus never lets a single recruiter on campus, that should include military. If the campus never lets discriminatory organizations on campus, then not allowing the military is still allowing them the *same* access as other groups.

Once again, I'd second the opinion that protestors shouldn't re-hash the howling errors they made during Vietnam. The recruiters have a job to do and they're doing it. Protest all you want, but realize that without the soldiers, your protest would likely not be happening.

Incidentally, would those protesting ever drive to a poor neighborhood and protest recruiters doing their job there? Or is it just another case of unenlightened self-interest? You have a problem with recruiting, then protest it everywhere, lest your class and/or race bias start to show.

I would say that should depend on why they don't want the recruiters there. If it is, "We don't like the miltary!" then, yes, I would say you are absolutely right.

If it is something more like, "We don't let discriminatory organizations recruit on campus," then I don't think a loss of funds is in order. The law relating to funds states that military recruiters must be given the *same* access as other recruiters. Thus, so long as the military is not singled out for being the military, there should be no funding problem. If the campus never lets a single recruiter on campus, that should include military. If the campus never lets discriminatory organizations on campus, then not allowing the military is still allowing them the *same* access as other groups.

Actually, the SCOTUS case stated that recruiters can be on campuses even if they have "no discriminatory recruiter" policies.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/06court.html

I was apparently wrong on the money thing though:

"Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money."

Why do some protestors not understand that, regardless of how you feel about the Iraq conflict, the military exists to protect them?
Because the understaffed, underpaid, and undertrained police force exists to protect citizens, the military exists to carry out the orders of politicians, primarily the president. The last time it can be argued that the military was used defensively was the last World War.

Protest all you want, but realize that without the soldiers, your protest would likely not be happening.

only in the sense that then there wouldn't be a reason to protest war and militarism.

Honestly, since I fairly recently graduated high school, I have to say that most recruiters are fast-talking, silver-tongued, jerks who can't take a hint. However, I guess I'm a bit… whatever, as in I don't like large protests. Groups of people are only as great as the sum of their faults. The more people in a group the stupider and more emotional (and violent) they seem to become as a general rule, of course there's always exceptions. That being said, I believe that persons should be able to protest and speak their mind. I just don't like mass stupidity.

Stupid ass rock thrower

What a dumbass - they were already leaving for gods sake.

Although I don't see where the problem is in protesting the recruiters being on your campus and hope that noone is suggesting that freedom of speech and speaking ones mind is a bad thing.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the rock thrower was a government plant.

But it was probably just a dumbass kid who thinks we all ought to rise up in revolution, and follow him like he was some sort of Che Guevera or something.

Actually, the SCOTUS case stated that recruiters can be on campuses even if they have "no discriminatory recruiter" policies.

Not directly, no. They ruled that the particular suit brought by the college, which was to claim that their 1st Amendment rights were being infringed by having to allow the recruiters, was incorrect.

Personally, I think the lawsuit was handled in the wrong way. The law in question clearly states that, in order to receive funding, military recruiters must be given the same access as any other recruiters. I think the school could have argued, quite successfully, that the military did have the same access as all other recruiters. SCOTUS might still have ruled in the military's favor - probably would have, in fact, as the court has always leaned on the safe side of allowing military such priviledges, but I would argue that it would have been wrong.

"Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money."

This part I actually had not heard, although it doesn't surprise me. Just goes to show that they would have made the same decision even if the school had been smarter about the actual lawsuit. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with their interpretation.

I am just dissapointed that I was not there to evict them, myself.

It would more likely be assault-not vandalism.
Doesn't assault have to be against a person? Can you assault a van?

Doesn't assault have to be against a person? Can you assault a van?

I think the argument would be that throwing rocks at the van was clearly meant to harm those inside.

I think the argument would be that throwing rocks at the van was clearly meant to harm those inside.Yeah, but that argument would be as stupid as half the posts around this joint.

only in the sense that then there wouldn't be a reason to protest war and militarism.
War isn't the fault of the soldiers, it's the politicians. My country has had an army since independence and it has never been used to attack another country.

War isn't the fault of the soldiers, it's the politicians. My country has had an army since independence and it has never been used to attack another country.

sure (though having a large standing army is awfully tempting to the politicians...), but that wasn't my point

Simple answer is people are idiots!! In my opinion protesting like this is disrespecting those who have given their lives for their country by fighting for these people, and other peoples freedom. :(

FIXED LINK!! (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)

I think the Iraq war and the whole parade of lies that was used to justify it is disrespectful of those who have given their lives for your country genuinely fighting for freedom.

I think the Iraq war and the whole parade of lies that was used to justify it is disrespectful of those who have given their lives for your country genuinely fighting for freedom.

And that has what to do w/ throwing rocks at recruiters and interfering w/ the police?

And that has what to do w/ throwing rocks at recruiters and interfering w/ the police?

I was responding to that post. Protesting is a legitimate way to voice political dissent and excercise your freedom of speech. Throwing rocks is taking it too far and should be condemned.

I was responding to that post. Protesting is a legitimate way to voice political dissent and excercise your freedom of speech. Throwing rocks is taking it too far and should be condemned.

OK. I took the "protesting like this" as the rock throwing, etc so I was wondering what brought on the Iraq war bit. A peaceful protest I have no problem w/.

COMMENTARY: Although I realize that some of you will idolize these students and faculty members, my personal opinion is that the faculty members should be fired and the students sent back home to mommie, permantely. Not because they protested or demonstrated, that's perfectly ok, but because they went too far. Recruiters have a right to be there to talk with students who are interested in the military, just as much as the faculty and students have a right to protest ... within limits.

Your thoughts? And do try to add something of substance and value rather than simply rant, ( either pro or anti military ) please.



I call bullshit.

You say that the faculty members should be fired and the students should be expelled. Why? "Not because they protested or demonstrated .... but because they went too far."

Yet you admit that the article does not say a damn thing about how the protestors allegedly went too far (except for one kid that threw a rock).

Your trigger finger is still too itchy from 'Nam.

And that has what to do w/ throwing rocks at recruiters and interfering w/ the police?

And that would be one or two protestors out of over 60, right?

And that was after the military recruiters were already leaving.

YAY! Loud americans teach the government yet again!

And that would be one or two protestors out of over 60, right?



And that was after the military recruiters were already leaving.

And those one or two should be punished. The others I don't have any legal issue w/ as much as I find it reprehensible. One of those fun dichotomies of life.

And those one or two should be punished. The others I don't have any legal issue w/ as much as I find it reprehensible. One of those fun dichotomies of life.

At least you agree that those merely exercising their right to free speech should not be punished. That puts you on up on Eut.

But it was probably just a dumbass kid who thinks we all ought to rise up in revolution, and follow him like he was some sort of Che Guevera or something.

A dumb kid who probably owns a Che Guevara shirt he bought at Banana Republic, not understanding just how much Guevara would have despised him for that.

...I would have been the one throwing rocks.

nothing wrong with that - throwing rocks at the war machine has a long and noble history behind it.

At least you agree that those merely exercising their right to free speech should not be punished. That puts you on up on Eut.

Of course not, you know me better than that. Had I been there, I probably would have said some things back.

I'm betting that the crowd was starting to get a bit rowdy(yelling, getting closer, some shoving, etc. )when the recruiters decided to make a tactical withdrawal, though.

nothing wrong with that - throwing rocks at the war machine has a long and noble history behind it.

Then dying. :)

COMMENTARY: Although I realize that some of you will idolize these students and faculty members, my personal opinion is that the faculty members should be fired and the students sent back home to mommie, permantely. Not because they protested or demonstrated, that's perfectly ok, but because they went too far. Recruiters have a right to be there to talk with students who are interested in the military, just as much as the faculty and students have a right to protest ... within limits.

Your thoughts? And do try to add something of substance and value rather than simply rant, ( either pro or anti military ) please.


Recruiters leave college job fair (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)


Associated Press

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — Military recruiters left a campus job fair when about 60 student and faculty anti-war demonstrators showed up outside the event at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Four recruiters from the Army and Army National Guard left after an hour-long standoff Tuesday at the College 8 West Field House.

“The recruiters thought the crowd was getting out of control,” campus vice chancellor David Kliger said.

“This is about creating a community where we make the change we want to see in the world,” student Sam Aranke said.

One student protester was arrested as the recruiters were departing in a van. While a campus police officer was videotaping a person throwing rocks at the van, a student blocked the camera and was cited for interfering with police duties, campus spokesman Jim Burns.

The student was released pending a decision by the district attorney’s office on whether charges would be filed.

I'm tempted to call bullshit.

This source claims 60 student and faculty protestors, 'AB Again' found a source that says 150 protestors.

Both sources claim that police tried to video a student throwing rocks, but failed. So - what we have there is an allegation of a 'crime' that is completely unsupported by evidence?

The source you show seems to ignore the material from AB's source, claiming police and recruiters violently assaulting students.

Further, this source seems to imply that people were physically blocked from entering, yet the other source says one student entered anyway?


Also, as far as I know, people ARE allowed to express free speech, even WHEN the group they are freely speaking about are the government and/or military.

That is too far, people have the right to recruit. :mad: :( (Eut the link doesn't go to an article, it goes to a coding page)

I don't think the army should recruit at school. Actually, I don't think it should recruit at all, but if it's going to, it should be to people who aren't young and vulnerable. That doesn't, however, mean that it's okay to start a riot and throw rocks. Peaceful protest is a better way to go.

Yay, another threat bashing protesters! I say rack 'em up and let loose another Kent State on their asses!!

[/sarcasm]


Eut always forgets that bit of history.

I'm tempted to call bullshit.

This source claims 60 student and faculty protestors, 'AB Again' found a source that says 150 protestors.

Both sources claim that police tried to video a student throwing rocks, but failed. So - what we have there is an allegation of a 'crime' that is completely unsupported by evidence?

Except police witness testimony.

The source you show seems to ignore the material from AB's source, claiming police and recruiters violently assaulting students.

I didn't read anything about the recruiters assaulting anyone and the police one is up for question.

Further, this source seems to imply that people were physically blocked from entering, yet the other source says one student entered anyway?

And they were blocking the doors. A few pushed their way through.


Also, as far as I know, people ARE allowed to express free speech, even WHEN the group they are freely speaking about are the government and/or military.

Yep, except when protestors start throwing rocks, destroying property, and prevent the police from doing their job.

meh there university students its pretty much the only thing there good at! the weird thing is when the police are peaceful the students are worse so why the hell aren’t I reading about nightstick beatings and teargas?

meh there university students its pretty much the only thing there good at! the weird thing is when the police are peaceful the students are worse so why the hell aren’t I reading about nightstick beatings and teargas?

Cause students run faster then cops. :D

Simple answer is people are idiots!! In my opinion protesting like this is disrespecting those who have given their lives for their country by fighting for these people, and other peoples freedom. :(

FIXED LINK!! (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1682911.php)
I agree they ARE disrespecting the people that choose that career

But do they have a right to vocaly do so

I think yes they do

Same reason pro millitary protestors have the same right

I refuse to wish to limit the rights of people just so you can "feel good" about what people say

You can’t go to far in the war against neoconservative imperialism.

Get used to this kind of thing. Just as the anti-war movement took time to heat up during Vietnam so will this one. Soon soccer moms will be spitting on wounded veterans and it will be glorious.

Eut always forgets that bit of history.
Selective memory ... the experiences of being protested by a few assholes that did not have the forethought to do it in good taste is burned into his brain

Everything is compared back to that

I dont think I have seen a thread by him yet that is on protesting where that is not brought up.

Except police witness testimony.


I see no evidence. Doesn't the article say the person who was charged was the one allegedly 'blocking the filming'? Which, surely, means they couldn't identify the alleged 'rock-thrower'?

So - what is the use of testimony?

Further - I'm not THAT up-to-date on the American legal system, perhaps... but... isn't some form of evidence usually required to make charges stick?


I didn't read anything about the recruiters assaulting anyone and the police one is up for question.


I'm under the impression that the 'administrators' in a recruitment drive, would be recruiters, no?

"Sam Aranke, a political theory student who helped organize the protest, said that three women who seized recruiters’ brochures were struck by police and an administrator".

Perhaps this is supposed to be a school administrator - although that doesn't seem to 'fit' the rest of the text.


And they were blocking the doors. A few pushed their way through.


One pushed through, I believe. But, that means their attempt to 'block access' was merely by 'being there'. It doesn't imply they 'attacked' or 'restrained' anyone.

Sounds less confrontational than the average picket-line.


Yep, except when protestors start throwing rocks, destroying property, and prevent the police from doing their job.

Yet, neither source has evidence of any of those things, except lone allegations, unsupported.

You can’t go to far in the war against neoconservative imperialism.

Get used to this kind of thing. Just as the anti-war movement took time to heat up during Vietnam so will this one. Soon soccer moms will be spitting on wounded veterans and it will be glorious.
Not glorious no ... they have every right to protest and speek their mind weather in good taste or not

I refuse to condone spiting on them though... that is over the top

You have a right to speach not that

You have a right to speach not that
But the soldiers have a right to murder and torture brown people?

Not glorious no ... they have every right to protest and speek their mind weather in good taste or not

I refuse to condone spiting on them though... that is over the top

You have a right to speach not that

Agreed...though there is always a line to cross.

But the soldiers have a right to murder and torture brown people?
No they do not have that right either.(not even going to get into your specious use of murder)

Then dying. :)

sometimes. but that is usually used against the shooters to great effect, so they typically try to avoid it.

No they do not have that right either.(not even going to get into your specious use of murder)
If the soldiers are allowed to commit their crimes without penalty, then the least we should be able to do is humiliate them.

sometimes. but that is usually used against the shooters to great effect, so they typically try to avoid it.

Strap dynamite to yourself and blow yourself up....forget the regular suicide bombers...Dynamite = takes out all!

If the soldiers are allowed to commit their crimes without penalty, then the least we should be able to do is humiliate them.

I agree.

If the soldiers are allowed to commit their crimes without penalty, then the least we should be able to do is humiliate them.
No we should make sure that they are punished if they have commited a military crime.

No we should make sure that they are punished if they have commited a military crime.

True. Though its not a civilian trial by any means.

No we should make sure that they are punished if they have commited a military crime.
The military does not try the genocidal maniacs that it calls heroes.

Strap dynamite to yourself and blow yourself up....forget the regular suicide bombers...Dynamite = takes out all!

¿que?

True. Though its not a civilian trial by any means.
Did not say it was ... they operate on a different ruleset

Our job is to continue to put presure on the millitary to make that ruleset fit our civil values of what should or should not be allowed.

The military does not try the genocidal maniacs that it calls heroes.
Then we must call them on it and make sure that they do

I don't really have a problem with this. The demonstrators have a right to protest. The military recruiters chose to leave, they probably chose the sensible option in order to defuse the situation. If the protesters went too far, broke the law, then prosecute them through the legal system.

I don't really have a problem with this. The demonstrators have a right to protest. The military recruiters chose to leave, they probably chose the sensible option in order to defuse the situation. If the protesters went too far, broke the law, then prosecute them through the legal system.
Agreed

Then we must call them on it and make sure that they do

But they never will. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here. You kill a lot of my enemies, then you get supreme worship from us. :rolleyes:

But they never will. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here. You kill a lot of my enemies, then you get supreme worship from us. :rolleyes:
It always works that way. :)

The military does not try the genocidal maniacs that it calls heroes.

Yes, because, you know, all of the military are "genocidal maniacs." That's why the "heroes" get medals for, you know, saving people.