War Veterans
I took the weekend in San Francisco and went to the protest there. Police said there were 200,000 (organizers said 250,000). There were so many veterans from the "Veterans for Peace" organization who were marching. Many were in uniform, with their mouths gagged with duct-tape. Some carried the American flag upside-down, which is a traditional cry of distress as opposed to insult, as assumed by a poster in another thread.
San Francisco also has a huge homeless population, and a large proportion of these down-and-outs are war veterans. Some of these folk were so mentally and physically scarred by the experiences of warfare at close hand that they cannot function normally in society. They fought "for their country", but have been since abandoned by the society that they were led to believe they were fighting to defend. On completing their "patriotic duty", the ones who endured the most suffering and came through it worst are often consigned to the landfill of society. They are regularly shafted by the Pentagon and the V.A., and the latest assault by the Bush Administration on veterans' benefits is nothing short of disgusting.
We have an administration in which most of their most pro-war hawks are clueless as to what war is like, on account of their privileged backgrounds. The one in the Bush gang who had the most credibility was Colin Powell, who rose through the ranks on account of his merit rather than entrenched nepotism. That evaporated when much of contents of his recent UN presentation were exposed as either inaccurate, plagiarized 12 year old material masquerading as "current intelligence", fabrications or outright lies.
A veteran who spoke later at the S.F. rally echoed the familiar sentiment "War is Hell". He was qualified since he was there and saw it first hand.
People who bay for war should know something about it.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
San Francisco also has a huge homeless population, and a large proportion of these down-and-outs are war veterans. Some of these folk were so mentally and physically scarred by the experiences of warfare at close hand that they cannot function normally in society. They fought "for their country", but have been since abandoned by the society that they were led to believe they were fighting to defend. On completing their "patriotic duty", the ones who endured the most suffering and came through it worst are often consigned to the landfill of society. They are regularly shafted by the Pentagon and the V.A., and the latest assault by the Bush Administration on veterans' benefits is nothing short of disgusting.
We have an administration in which most of their most pro-war hawks are clueless as to what war is like, on account of their privileged backgrounds. The one in the Bush gang who had the most credibility was Colin Powell, who rose through the ranks on account of his merit rather than entrenched nepotism. That evaporated when much of contents of his recent UN presentation were exposed as either inaccurate, plagiarized 12 year old material masquerading as "current intelligence", fabrications or outright lies.
A veteran who spoke later at the S.F. rally echoed the familiar sentiment "War is Hell". He was qualified since he was there and saw it first hand.
People who bay for war should know something about it.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Comments
<strong>What of the many war veterans who are for war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about gather up 200,000 of them to stage a demonstration in favor of war and we'll talk about them....
Does war scar? Yes. But whom does it scar? WW2 vets came home and went to work, raised families, paid taxes and built a country up. Vietnam vets came home bought Harley's and rumbled drugs and hookers across middle america. Gulf war vets came home and went to the couch or the street corner?
I think it may have something to do with who joins the army in the first place. I would have to see the vets in question to really say if we're talking about people scarred by war exactly or people who went to war because they were already scarred by society?
A poor boy who fights Uncle Sams wars because he hasn't any other options, comes home and still finds himself without options is going to feel very very dissolusioned. I believe other factors besides hard learned appreciation of pacifism is at issue.
Excuse me for my incoherence, I'm wont to bable in these fora, I'll restate.
Soldiers do not often return home to protest war, they protest, but whatever they may call it, they really protest their unsatisfactory stake in civilian life.
<strong>How about gather up 200,000 of them to stage a demonstration in favor of war and we'll talk about them....</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) There weren't 200,000 war vets there protesting. There were 200,000 and "so many" war vets.
2) Why would the pro-war people demonstrate en masse?
<strong>Some carried the American flag upside-down, which is a traditional cry of distress as opposed to insult, as assumed by a poster in another thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't even attempt to justify this. The flag is not supposed to be used for casual symbolism, whether worn or displayed without the stars in the upper left. There are exceptions, but I doubt protest is one of them.
Carry on. Save the whales.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>Simple viewpoints for a simple man!
I think mebbe not so simple... I play at mental masturbation but I have no idea what I'm on about most of the time, you've got something going there...
<strong>
1) There weren't 200,000 war vets there protesting. There were 200,000 and "so many" war vets.
2) Why would the pro-war people demonstrate en masse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Use whatever accurate number you like, but none was available to me.
2) To show support in the face of millions of protesters? Why didn't millions show up in France and Germany? Because their governments are against the war. Thousands still showed up though.
EDIT: YOU asked what of the war vets that support a war, not I. As far as I can tell they're not a sizeable number, thus are not to be taken as seriously as thousands, or hunderds of thousands, or just hundreds of vets that congregate to protest the war.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>1) Use whatever accurate number you like, but none was available to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only info I got was from SJO's post.
[quote]2) To show support in the face of millions of protesters? Why didn't millions show up in France and Germany? Because their governments are against the war. Thousands still showed up though.<hr></blockquote>
And then someone should counter the counter-protestors, eh? And then I'll be a counter-counter-counter protestor!
I showed my support by going on with my life. Counter-protest is not a common way of showing support for the government on an issue.
[quote]EDIT: YOU asked what of the war vets that support a war, not I. As far as I can tell they're not a sizeable number, thus are not to be taken as seriously as thousands, or hunderds of thousands, or just hundreds of vets that congregate to protest the war.<hr></blockquote>
I know 4 war vets on a very close, personal level. All 4 are pro-war. I know about 10 (not including the previous 4) on a less personal level. All 10 of them are pro-war. I have never met a war vet who is against the war. I know 8 current soldiers, all pro-war.
Think of how many war vets were in San Francisco at the time. Now think of how many were protesting. Hmmm.
It's idiotic to even imply that war vets in general are against the war. Even thought I believe it I won't try to convince anyone that war vets are for the war.
Using SJO's silly and inane argument we should all be pro war because I don't think you get a more horrific war experience than my grandfather in WWII and he's wanted to regulate on Saddam since the mid-1990s. Will I use that to advance my pro-war position? No, I'm not dense enough to believe that such anecdotal evidence is valid.
<strong>I took the weekend in San Francisco and went to the protest there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you even know the group who organized that protest? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> How does your bottom feel?
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
The <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/21/MN240732.DTL"; target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> does not agree.
They say 65,000 at most.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
so that is two for two that i know in my family...i am sure it will vary from place to place...
the vets for peace in our march in albuquerque were cute old men from WWII....reminded my of my grandfather....so that made me happy....g
<strong>
How about gather up 200,000 of them to stage a demonstration in favor of war and we'll talk about them....</strong><hr></blockquote>
As was stated later in the thread there are 65,000 protesters of which some were vets.
However even then how do we know they were really vets? Not to be mean but I have read several stories of pseudo-vietnam vets who were protesting the war who simply bought some clothes from a surplus store and declared themselves servicemen.
Nick
<strong>
It's idiotic to even imply that war vets in general are against the war. Even thought I believe it I won't try to convince anyone that war vets are for the war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then why did you ask about the vets that are for the war?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
How about gather up 200,000 of them to stage a demonstration in favor of war and we'll talk about them....</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's one going on right now
<strong>
There's one going on right now
Damn, that was funny.