[geegee]

I had a lot of "windshield time" to put in on the job yesterday, and throughout the night. It gave me a long time to listen to the radio and hear a lot of reporting on this weekend's peace rallies & marches.

One interview was done with a former veteran who said he had served about 20 years in the military, and as a result had the opportunity to observe governments all over the world. His perspective on the people who march in these rallies has come to a point where he now sees them as "patriots", every bit as much as those who serve. His opinion was based on the fact that it may be him (and others) who have fought and served in the military to protect our freedoms, but (as I understood him) those who choose to march are exercising their rights and are fulfilling a role in the cause for freedom which is just as important. His comments surprised me, to say the least.

Have any of you vets come to this conclusion, or do any of you have friends who served with you that see things as this vet does? geegee

[DFBonnett]

Yes and no. I remember a lot of "patriots" who were peace marchers in the late 60s and early 70s and who were far more interested in avoiding any unpleasant military service and saving their own asses than in the greater scheme of things.

[Mark Tyson]

A minority of them are patriotic. The vast, noisy majority are spoiled self rightous brats with nothing better to do. I go to a very liberal college in the D.C. area and I am very familiar with the people in this movement. Believe me, many, many of these characters simply enjoy being loud and feeling indignant about something. In twenty years all these drum beating, green haired wonders will have minivans and mortgages.

[Art Eatman]

A problem with being pro- or con- on protestors is that the majority do indeed love this country, but disagree with certain Administrative policies--but: All too often, these "movements" are hijacked by people with their own agendas.

For instance, there was much to disagree with in the Vietnam era. The problem was that much of the leadership of the protesting groups were definitely against our basic Constitutional structure. Examples are of course such as Hanoi Jane and socialists or anti-capitalists in general. The USSR "disinformation" efforts ran in high gear, here. The end result of those days are people like the Clintons, Feinstein, Bonior, Waters, Dellums, and many, many more.

Same sort of deal vis a vis the anti-Iraq-invasion folks. I can see lots of reasons to try to use other countries in an effort to get rid of Hussein. I'm not convinced that direct invasion is the best thing to do. But I'd watch very carefully as to who the leaders are in any anti-war movement. So far, it seems to be a case of "...the usual suspects." in the hate-Amerika claque.

Some perspective: The original Sandinistas were purely Nicaraguan patriots. The rebirth of that movement in the Somoza era was hijacked by the Communists as the new government formed after Somoza's exit.

Same deal in Cuba: An anti-dictator uprising against Batista was supported--tacitly--by the U.S. Castro's people then killed the purely patriotic types and took over at gunpoint. The world was presented with a fait accompli.

Thus we have folks in sincere disagreement with policy, who will wind up led by hate-America people.

You read it here, first.

Art

[suvdrvr]

A lot of vets from the 60's and 70's were draftees, as such not the "creme de creme" so today a lot of so called vets exersise their rights that have been secured by patriots and seek an idealic world where we all live in peace and harmony. No such place exsist, except maybe in the minds of the ones who have expanded their minds with the aid of chemicals. People who protest today I would not call patriots, I believe they are sincere in their beliefs. Does that make them right? Many missguided people are sincere.

[AnklePocket]

I firmly believe that to protest shows a lack of support for those sitting in foxholes with rounds flying inches away from their heads. They are not patriots and their beliefs are of zero interest to me. Our national leaders of today have my confidence and support.
Fortunately, it's a free country and people can peacefully do whatever they like, for the most part, but these miscreants are protesting a firm grip on reality more than anything.

[telewinz]

Don't like them doing their protest......but I guess Bush will give all the FACTS at sometime before we invade. I'm a Bush voter and I trust him but it's not wise to trust any government too much. I bet a majority of protesters are Democrats and they are just using the anti-war demonstations to dump on Bush. I've seen it all before during the Viet-Nam War.

[Mike Irwin]

Patriotism is very hard to define.

I'd say that yes, some of these people are patriots who truly believe that US interests are not served by going to war with Iraq.

Quite frankly, I've got serious doubts about it myself.

Sometimes the most patriotic thing to do is to not follow the government blindly.

The important thing to remember in all of this, though, is that in this country those who disagree with the Government's actions have the right to express those views. In most nations today, disagreeing with the government would get you a stay in Club Torture Chamber.

[Wildalaska]

Thus we have folks in sincere disagreement with policy, who will wind up led by hate-America people.


Art or anybody I seem to remember an article about the hijacking of the peace movement by the loony left..I think I saw it in WND...

WildishouldsavethesethingsAlaska

[popbang]

Patriots? I don’t know about using that word for them, but I do know that they are exercising the rights that many have died to protect. To me a person who gets involved with the process even when I don’t agree is at the very least being a citizen of this country. It would be a very sad day when we all believe one way and nobody can disagree. You know it seems so easy to sit and criticize those we don’t agree with but few of us will do anything about it, as these protestors will.

I do not agree with the protestors, so to call them patriots I think not. I don’t see them as having done anything heroic or even anything to compare with people who have laid down their lives for our country. No, they are not patriots just citizens to me.

[motorep]

I'll agree with DFBonnett and add that when we had the North Vietnamese at the peace talks, they walked away because they felt- due to the protesters and activists- that the US population was not behind the war. That cost uncountable lives.:fire:

[blades67]

Anti-war protesters aren't patriots. They're able to be protesters because of patriots. Military veterans and those people that serve our country are patriots, the rest are just benefiting from our sacrifices.

[Mr Jody Hudson]

From my observations there may be 2% or so who are U.S.A. patriots who differ on current policy based on what they THINK they know about politics and reasons for actions... It is my guess that NONE of them get invited to the meetings where the real data and reasons are discussed.

I suspect that another 60-80% are patriots of nations with red stars prominent in the symbology! And the rest of them are just going to places where the action is (drugs, sex, rock and roll) as the demonstrations and marches and the before and after are good places to HOOK UP for most of them.

That's my take on it! :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Berkov]

Anti-war protesters aren't patriots. They're able to be protesters because of patriots. Military veterans and those people that serve our country are patriots, the rest are just benefiting from our sacrifices.

So just because you are in the military, you are a patriot? That is absurd. For example, how did I benefit from the people who served in the Vietnam War, or the Korean War?

Any country can have a military and military vets. Saddam has a military, Stalin had a military. That someone will serve in the military is neither here nor there. However, a true love of the foudning principles of this country, such as freedom, individual liberty, etc, has nothing to do with the military per ce. Any person can be a patriot, and it has nothing to do with whether they protest or not, or whether they have served in the military or not.

[Dan Morris]

NO vet wants a war.....minds and bodies are mangled.However, some things are beyond negotiation...I'd rather do it on the other guys turf than my own back yard. It does not take guts to defend
your country, just love of it.
AS to protestors being patriots....NO they are not. A patriot supports the ones that already stand between us and danger!
JMO
Dan

[MountainPeak]

Many are just plain naive. They actually believe the evil in the world can be changed with a couple of group hugs.

[Marko Kloos]

Moved to Legal & Political.

[Lennyjoe]

Kinda bothers me to see stuff like that when Im over here away from my family. Makes guys like me feel seperated from those that we serve.

But its a freedom that we all posses. The freedom of Speech. So if Im gonna fight for my freedom to defend myself and family and to own and carry weapons I cannot say its wrong for them to speak out on their own beliefs.

There will always be protests. From one person griping at the dinner table to 1,000 speaking their mind in Washington D.C. in front of the White House. Freedom of Speach.

Either way, when the bullets fly and the war is over all we want is the nations support and a "Thank You" when its over. The guys didnt get it coming home from Vietnam. The guys did after Desert Storm. I think it was the country's way of saying "Thanks" to both the Desert Storm troops and the Vietnam vets.

How would this world be if we weren't out here keeping the peace? Caos is a word that comes to mind.

[Joe Demko]

Many of you on this thread seem to believe
patriotism = supporting the military

I disagree. Patriotism is supporting the principles on which this country is supposed to be based. The military is just one of many tools that are supposed to be used to keep this country, and its principles, intact. That old guilt trip about supporting our boys in uniform has been used too often to silence critics of bad wars. Supporting our boys in uniform often means preventing those in power from sending those boys off to pointless deaths.

[motorep]

"Supporting our boys in uniform" is not supporting the regime behind them. It's supporting those who protect your freedom.

One of those in uniform 66-68.

[AnklePocket]

To add to LennyJoe for whatever it's worth: Our flight home from Desert Storm was pretty uneventful. To prove that I'm not bragging I can tell you that I didn't do anything high-speed or heroic, but I do remember being a little confused on the whole concept of war. Why on earth would another person want to kill anyone for any reason? When we wearily disembarked at about 3AM we were greeted by a completely empty terminal that was a literal overflowing sea of posters made by school children. It was as moving as moving can be (and still is). Our warriors need all of your support, period, end of discussion, no arguement.
Then, I completely understood war without a question of a doubt when I saw the Twin Towers burn with my own two eyes from the New Jersey Turnpike. I guess we're all free to live in a dreamworld, if we wish, but I choose not to.

[MountainPeak]

Golgo, do you disagree that many in the anti-war crowd are not naive? I believe they think that if we would just give up our arms others would too! That thought process is stupid. I agree with you, they have every right to protest all they want.

[Joe Demko]

Certainly many in the anti-war movement are naive. So are many who are all for this war. I support our soldiers. I used to be one. That does not mean that I automatically start rah-rahing for every military action a POTUS ships those boys out on. Those boys aren't part of the decison making process that sends (some of) them to their graves. Supporting LBJ's war and Clinton's peacekeeping missions was in NO WAY supporting the troops. I'm not even real sure that the Korean effort was needed, or Reagan's adventures in Grenada, Beirut, etc. or Bush I's desert war. Defense of this nation is a real need. I'm just not of the opinion that this latest escapade actually consitutes defense.

[Oatka]

Patriots? No.

Naive/useful idiots, '60s retreads, wannabees, and hard-core America-haters? Yes.

I suspect that when (not if) we go into Iraq, the place will collapse like a house of cards.

I wonder what these idiots will do when the streets are crowded with Iraqis cheering the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam?

[geegee]

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough with the original question. I'm not asking if you (as a vet) believe that war protestors and peace marchers are patriots, but rather have you (or any vet you may have served with) changed your position on them to where you now see them as patriots? That after all was the position staked out by the veteran I heard interviewed on the radio. Sounded strange to me, but I don't have the perspective of one who has military service. Thanks, geegee.

[Gila Jorge]

Draft dodgers and cowards....or in my day "pinko commie xags" as the song said. Had a brother in law like that...wanted to go to Canada during Nam.
Filthy scum wnet into teaching school to avoid the draft....know what's teaching your kids now....!?

[Vladimir Berkov]

But why is it bad to avoid the draft? How is being enslaved by your country, and being sent to fight a meaningless war honorable, but practicing civil disobediance by refusing to go, dishonorable?

America's history is full of useless wars, where many thousands of Americans died for no good reason whatsoever. How is submitting to this right, but opposing it wrong?

[motorep]

geegee, to answer your question more directly: no.

[F4GIB]

NO. No more than "Hanoi Jane" was.

Wars should be fought by the IPSC recipe "DVC". It isn't fair to your own soldiers to "waste" them in a war the politicians don't have the courage to win. Anti-war protesters cost US lives by undermining the political will of the country. Anyone who costs the lives of our troops is not a patriot.

[motorep]

Vladimir- who pays for the freedom we enjoy? There are those who acknowledge the obligation and step forward to pay it. There are those who are self-centered, small people who let others pay for them, and will always be considered lesser persons as a result.

[Art Eatman]

Hey, look guys, there just ain't no "one size fits all" in this.

Say somebody really believes we should not have troops in foreign countries, and believes we should not invade Iraq. Is this person unpatriotic to say so? To march, to write letters, to buy air time, to spend his money in his protesting of present policy? Could he not be a patriot who believes the duty of the military is to defend our borders, but only our borders?

How is disagreeing with policy a refusal to love and cherish those who are now in harm's way? Seems to me there is at least some caring, just by virtue of wanting the guys out of harm's way! Why is it "patriotic" to send guys into harm's way for no apparent good purpose? (Bosnia and the Balkans come to mind.)

Yes, some who disagree are unpatriotic.
Yes, some who disagree are naive.
Yes, some who disagree are "soldier haters".

I just don't like to be insulted by the intellectual vacuum of "all".

:), Art

[AnklePocket]

At least protestors and draft dodgers aren't in uniform where they can do some real damage.
I would think that being in the military today would be so damn motivating that my head would explode. Compared to when Clinton had his pants down while terrorists attacked at will - now that'd be something to protest.
Wearing the uniform - honorable
Supporting our military personnel - honorable
Protesting - not honorable, but whatever
Draft dodging - not honorable, but I wouldn't mind
Burning the flag - probable health risk

[Vladimir Berkov]

Vladimir- who pays for the freedom we enjoy? There are those who acknowledge the obligation and step forward to pay it. There are those who are self-centered, small people who let others pay for them, and will always be considered lesser persons as a result.

Nobody "pays" for the freedom. Soldiers keep our nation SAFE, not free. Whether or not our borders and people are secure has nothing to do with freedom, it only means that we wouldn't be under the control of some foreign government.

Our freedom comes from every person in America, notably the voters. It is every voting American who decides to keep this country free or not.

I am very thankful for the soldiers who defend the country, however, don't cheapen their real sacrafice by trying to make it seem like this country is entirely dependant on soldiers for its freedom, that those who are against military action are unpatriotic, or that those who oppose war hate the United States, etc, etc, etc.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, here's an interesting dilemma, and I really want to see how some of you answer this...

People who don't back the government on the issue of war with Iraq to combat possible terror are felt to be unpatriotic. In other words, you've got to back your government, apparently unquestioningly, in this move to be a patriotic, true, American.

At the same time, we have the same American government working very hard to curtail a variety of civil rights in this country, including firearms rights, in an effort to combat possible terror.

Many of these steps have drawn SEVERE protest by members of this board.

If we say that those who don't support the war against Iraq are being unpatriotic, where does that leave the people who support war, but who are protesting the government's actions against firearms rights?

Does that mean that they're Patriotic Unpatriots?

That's the sad fact.

The same government that's bringing you a rush to war is also bringing you a rush to the stripping of civil rights.

Kind of a quandry, don't you think?

Or is this one of those cases where being patriotic means that you just stop thinking?

[Art Eatman]

"Or is this one of those cases where being patriotic means that you just stop thinking?"

Luvvit! :D

No, this is another one of those government deals where I once again gripe that, "Hey, I pretty much agree with what you want to do, but the way you're doin' it really sucks!" I say this to the Administration and to Congress and to the Bureaucracies.

Yeah, fight terrorism. Fine. Put explosives-sniffers in airports. Fine. But don't insult me by saying that fingernail clippers and box-cutters and pocketknives are any longer a potential threat, or that frisking a girl scout will make me safer.

Don't insult me by saying that pilots aren't responsible enough to be armed.

Don't insult me by claiming oil isn't part of the agenda for Iraq, or that pipeline routes aren't part of the agenda in the Balkans or Afghanistan.

Don't insult me by not demanding that accountability be built into such laws as the Patriot Act, when there is any misuse of the law against political enemies.

Don't insult me by refraining from publicly saying that private citizens have every right to protect their lives and property along our southern border--or anywhere else. By not saying that those decrying their actions are in the wrong.

Hokay, there's a start. :D Somebody else's turn.

Art

[motorep]

Vladimir- nobody pays? I've got some friends who have spent a lot of time in military and VA hospitals, and some who aren't able to be here today, who would disagree with you. You seem to think that if the voters say we're free, then it's so. If that were the case, then I guess we don't need the second amendment to support the rest of them. Freedom is kept by the force and the threat of our armed forces, whether you care to admit it or not.

[amprecon]

I have always believe that the protestors of the 60's and 70's were protesting more against the administration of the time than the war. I believe there was heavy communist influence during this time which fueled the fires against capitalism and used the war as a focal point for their demonstrations.

I have been fascinated with the Vietnam War for a long time and have frequently questioned the "real need" to intervene.

I believe that the adminstration during this era also tried to legislate morality which added to the anti-government attitude of the time.

The Vietnam War may have not been totally necessary, but it should have been won and I place the fault totally on the shoulders of the politicians. It was the politicians that involved us in the war, and it was the politicians who lost it for us.

As a veteran, I would say that probably a majority of those protestors were patriots. I don't believe they were against America or it's Constitution. They simply disagreed with the justification of that war, which was definitely questionable in its justification.

We have that justification today in our war against terrorism just as they had the justification for war after Pearl Harbor was bombed. Our people and our property were directly and deliberately attacked, not a friend of a friend of a friend that got in a fight with their neighbor as was the case in Vietnam.

So, are protestors patriots? In some cases, yes, in others, no. It depends on the ultimate objective that protesting might help to achieve. To protest a governmental action, or to protest the very being of a way of life and it's governing laws.

[JOE]

not that i agree this time .......but i really think we(USA)need protesters to show the world we don't kill someone for expression an opinion!!!!!!!!!

[motorep]

Amprecon, I was discharged in 1968, in time to start college in the fall. I hung out with a few other vets. The first protest on campus was moratorium day, the high school kids wore their black arm bands, we wore our fatigues. There wasn't one protester that I ever saw that was sincere, they turned away when they saw any of us, so we couldn't see the arm bands. If you think that the protests were against the adminisration then why were spit on?
Protest the policy, protest the polititians, support the troops- they're paying your bill.(not yours Amprecon)

[AnklePocket]

Freedom is always in danger both abroad and at home. Fortunately, there's good people in and out of uniform to hopefully get the job done. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem (complacency being one of the bigger problems).
I back the current war effort because I generally believe in the motives of our current national leadership - I trust them to do what's right with all of the info that they have even if it's not available to me. I'm frightened to think where we'd be with Gore and Lieberman in office at this time. Maybe I'm a blind follower and maybe not.

[Vladimir Berkov]

You seem to think that if the voters say we're free, then it's so. If that were the case, then I guess we don't need the second amendment to support the rest of them.

I never said anything of the sort. It is the voters who decide our level of freedom, what they think isn't really important. As we have seen, people will vote away their freedom. The point is, that it is only the voters who will protect our freedoms, short of some sort of armed revolt. Soldiers don't protect our freedoms, they protect our country. There is a difference.

Freedom is kept by the force and the threat of our armed forces, whether you care to admit it or not.

Our armed forces protect our borders and interests. They do not protect freedom. They protect our ABILITY to govern ourselves, and to thus have freedom (if we choose it). If a military protects freedom, every country with a strong military would be free. Stalinist Russia had a very strong military, yet was certainly not free.

[Blackhawk]

suvdrvr wrote:Many missguided people are sincere. As I presume you are, sincere that is.... :rolleyes:

[amprecon]

Motorep,
They probably spit on you because you and your comrades represented the government to them and carried out their agendas. I in no way condone this action, but am guessing that this is the reason. I also agree it's wrong, those in uniform ensure that others can go out in public and speak their minds whether it's popular or not.

geegee,
I don't know any protestor that has converted any of my military buddies or me to believe they were "patriots". I interpret a patriot to be one that supports America and the Constitution and either military or not is willing to engage its enemies either vocally or violently.
I have known an active duty air force sgt. that didn't believe in the second amendment, he believed that citizens shouldn't have access to firearms. How ironic, he maintains jets that drop bombs that kill people, yet he doesn't believe in people having guns. FWIW, this was at Andrews AFB on the NAF Washington, D.C. side.

[Seeker]

I firmly believe that to protest shows a lack of support for those sitting in foxholes with rounds flying inches away from their heads. They are not patriots and their beliefs are of zero interest to me. Our national leaders of today have my confidence and support.

I disagree. IMO protesting a bad policy decision made by the govt doesn't show a lack of support for the troops. I personally respect and support those in uniform, but I disagree with the proposed action against Iraq.

It is the responsibility of patriotic citizens to protest unwise actions taken by the govt. If it is unpatriotic to protest what one sees as a bad move by the govt, it follows that one should support any action that the govt takes and I Know that is wrong.

In fact one could consider it a lack of support and respect for those in uniform to send them into harms way when it isn't required for the Common Defense.

Many are just plain naive. They actually believe the evil in the world can be changed with a couple of group hugs.

Many are just plain naive. They actually believe the evil in the world can be changed with a couple of slugs.

Either way, when the bullets fly and the war is over all we want is the nations support and a "Thank You" when its over. I couldn't agree more!

[Griff]

geegee, could you define the term "vet"? I know many people, myself included, who served in the military but have never seen actual combat. Those, I think, will be among your most vocal opponents / proponents.
BTW, we just had a big anti demonstration here in Heidelberg this weekend, many of the same locals that laid wreaths and candles shortly after 9/11. Still, I don't think the world's ready for a bunch of pro-war Germans...

[jmbg29]

Question for Vets: Are peace marchers "patriots"? As Art said, it all depends.

If they have a bumper sticker that says: "Dissent is not unpatriotic!" They may or may not be patriots, but they are most certainly imbeciles. Some kinds of dissent are unpatriotic, ergo some dissent is unpatriotic, which renders their little bumper sticker a fatal logic blow. It's just a shame that pimp-slapping those folks is considered illegal.

Another example would be "No blood for oil!" If it was solely about "Oil", we would have nuked Venezuela last week and taken theirs.

Now if one of the current protesters could make a convincing argument to refute the obvious conclusion that terror cells were in the past (and will continue to be in the future) emboldened by our mamby-pamby softness in our response to those that threaten our nation; then I would probably be willing to consider the idea that they aren't unpatriotic. But nobody is making that argument. They can't. It's too absurd.

Instead, they will just continue to run the same old plays. "America Sucks!" and is at fault for all that is wrong in the world. Ho hum, whatever.:rolleyes:

I guess I'm just one of those weird guys that prefers to see our enemie's dead carcasses over those of my countrymen. I'm kind of freaky that way.

As to the sincerity of the protesters? Well, a whole lot of us vets risked our lives overseas, most of us were happy to do it. Why don't the protesters get on a plane and go to Iraq or Trashcanistan or (place your favorite turd world country here) and volunteer to be human shields? They can make new friends, and learn how to make dung beetle sandwiches, and all of the other fun stuff to do and see in backwater dictatorships. What an adventure!

Of course they may want to book a return flight that leaves before the next new moon. :rolleyes: ;) :cuss:

Unpatriotic? Some are, some aren't. Useless? They are to me.

[Sergeant Bob]

How is disagreeing with policy a refusal to love and cherish those who are now in harm's way? Seems to me there is at least some caring, just by virtue of wanting the guys out of harm's way! Why is it "patriotic" to send guys into harm's way for no apparent good purpose? (Bosnia and the Balkans come to mind.)
That about says it right there (and I thought Malone and I were the only ones who thought Albright's Follie was a load of bull).
If our government decided we need to invade Canada tomorrow, would the protestors be unpatriotic? Maybe the govt thinks they have a good reason which we don't know about. I'd be protesting then, but that doesn't diminish my support for our troops one iota. That said, I do believe we need to take out the Wacky Iraqi.

[Khornet]

I think most of them can be considered unpatriotic, and here's why:

They are not being loyal to their country, but to a political party. The cries of 'war for oil' and 'war to enrich Bush's cronies' began IMMEDIATELY, before any facts were available. They object to this war because it's Bush's war, because it's Republican administration's war. They were nowhere to be found when Clinton was bombing the dickens out of other countries.

Their behavior is a reflex. Most of them can't be credited with having thought it through, they just have 'feelings'.

Why was the Bosnia war ok with these people? Because there was no possible US interest served; we had nothing to gain. All the casualties, all the 'collateral damage' were acceptable because they didn't benefit the US in any way. But if we're acting to protect our national interest, that's corrupt.

Their opposition is mostly 'ad hominem', and while I'm glad they have the freedom to speak out, I don't have to respect them.

This is not to say that there aren't honorable, principled, thoughtful opponents of war with Iraq--there are. But listening to what the protestors say convinces me that most are not.

[JPM70535]

Possibly there are a miniscule number of those protesting the impending war with Iraq, but for the most part they are the usual leftist , blissninnies who protest everything that is proposed or instituted by the Republicans. I can't recall any significant protest marches against any of the military actions undertaken by the Clinton,(Democrat) administration. I am sure there must have been some, however I am equally as sure that the Media did not devote the same saturation coverage as is being given to the current situation.

The protesters are completely within their rights to protest. Anyone can protest anything they don't agree with. What I have a problem with is those who after a course of action has been undertaken by the US involving our troops, continue to protest. When American lives are being lost or placed in danger, IMO protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Encourageing a false belief among the that the US is not completely devoted to the action at hand, can prolong the enemys resistance and cost more American lives. This I cannot see as patriotic.


MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT MY COUNTRY!!!!!!

[geegee]

Griff:geegee, could you define the term "vet"? I know many people, myself included, who served in the military but have never seen actual combat.
That's a good point. When I heard the veteran being interviewed on the radio that made the original "Peace marchers are patriots" comment, the person conducting the interview didn't ask that question. Since you've raised it however, I do think it's a distinction worth considering.

I would think that no one should have greater weight given to their opinion than the vet who has seen combat. By doing that however, you run the risk of then building a pecking order where the non-combat vet's opinion is worth less-a view I wouldn't subscribe to. How could you discount the opinion of a vet who didn't see combat (through no choice of their own, more by virtue of the assignment they were given), but was say, stationed somewhere like Dover DE, and saw coffins of fellow soldiers and sailors coming home for burial? At some point I think you'd arrive at the discussion of whether or not National Guard and Reserve troops have an opinion that should be counted as much as active duty troops, and I for one wouldn't be willing to do that. But then since I never served, I could see some saying "Well sure he has that opinion-he's never put on the uniform!"

I guess I'd rather let a veteran make that distinction, if there is one to be made.

Khornet:They are not being loyal to their country, but to a political party. The cries of 'war for oil' and 'war to enrich Bush's cronies' began IMMEDIATELY, before any facts were available. They object to this war because it's Bush's war, because it's Republican administration's war. They were nowhere to be found when Clinton was bombing the dickens out of other countries.
That's something that can't be overlooked, but it's interesting that no one ever seems to ask that question when the leaders of these "peace movement" rallies get interviewed. When you consider the number of times Clinton used the U.S. Military for his "meals on wheels/peace keeping" missions, you realize that there wasn't much appetite for public demonstration. Arguably, there were not examples of military action that threatened a war on the scale of what we're facing with Iraq, but if you're a principled peacenik (talk about a self contradiction :rolleyes: ), then a military action in Bosnia should be as important as one in the Middle East, and just as worthy of a demonstration.

Without question, many of these demonstrations are populated with people who hate Republicans and promote the notion of "Blame America" when it comes to examining the world's problems. geegee

[Gewehr98]

I'm a vet, Desert Shield and Desert Storm. For that matter, I'm still active duty, just a little over 3 years to go before retirement. But I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm not entirely keen on the idea (now being reported by CNN) that plans were drawn up to attack the North Korean nuclear reactor and reprocessing facility where they strip weapons-grade plutonium from used nuclear fuel rods. North Korea has nothing to lose. We strike the reactor facility - we start WWIII, they've so much as promised it. So am I less of a patriot for not wanting Armageddon to begin?

[Art Eatman]

Gewehr98, that's all part of why there is so much aging seen in "before" and "after" photos of Presidents who serve during times with a lot of crisis. Probably a ton's weight in books have been written about the stress of decision-making with uncertain quality in one's information and input of opinions...

Re "Vet": I served only in occupation duty, not during a time of combat. To me, I'm an "Ex-GI". Anybody in-country during fighting is a Vet; those who saw duty only in CONUS are also Ex-GIs.

My son was a Staff Sergeant in the USAF in black-box maintenance for F-15s and F-16s. He and his group worked planes "hot" during Desert Storm. I'd call him a Vet. Any of his unit who stayed back in Germany--on duty, of course, doing important jobs--still are ex-GIs.

My own opinion, of course. I guess "Vet" to me means a real chance of some part of combat operations gettin' you killed. Bullet, bomb or Oops! makes no difference.

FWIW, art

[Gewehr98]

Veteran vs. Ex-GI.

I'll still use the veteran tag. Looks good on my mess dress, too!

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/ribbons/swasia.jpg

[Art Eatman]

Hey, I got a Good Conduct medal! :D (Dunno how, given my conduct.)

Funny about people and medals. Somewhere between the beaches of Normandy and Dortmund, Germany, my father got a Purple Heart. I didn't know about it until last year, going through a bunch of "stuff" he gave me. And, when he got back he had his Class A uniform dry-cleaned; it's been hanging in the closet since 1946.

From some of the little vignettes he's told, he sometimes seemed to feel that combat was merely a more challenging form of deer hunting. "The Germans always kept their helmets' throat latches tight. That made it easy, on patrol, to grab the lip of the helmet and roll his head over your arm and break his neck."

:), Art

[Gewehr98]

Waste of perfectly good fabric, in my opinion. I consider it a good way to tell if a person has a DUI on record or not.

The above Southwest Asia medal is a subtle little reminder to me when I was flying reconnaissance sorties over Israel. Those Scuds we saw arcing towards us like so many pretty July 4th fireworks did a hell of a job in shaking my confidence in the Big Sky Theory. :what:

[Griff]

Thanks for the clarification.
I'd like to explain my question in light of my experiences: first time in I was a tank mechanic. Lotsa field time and training accidents, nobody put up with bragging or BS.
Second time around, I was in commo. REMF. Strategic, fixed station, no deployments or the like. By far, the biggest whiners and blowhards were those in the rear. Most had no idea what they were never going to do, so had to make up their bravado from the old vets' war stories.
In light of that, I just don't see the ex-grunts, gunbunnies, and dats crowding the cameras for their 15 minutes of fame, since they don't have to prove anything to anyone any more.
May be generalizing, but that's how it seems to go here.

[jmbg29]

a military action in Bosnia should be as important as one in the Middle East, and just as worthy of a demonstration. The usual suspect protester types or the self-described "professional protesters" were O.K. with the bombings in Bosnia. Christians were being bombed, and for them, that's a good thing. Besides, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that anything we did in Bosnia would benefit America or Americans. Again, for them, that is a good thing.

"Subvert the dominant paradigm man!"... "U.S. out of North America!"..." Hemp Rules!"..."It's all about oil and the secret pipeline through Trashcanistan/Iraq" blahblahblah


Where is that puke smilie when I need it?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[foghornl]

I am not a veteran, disqualified at pre-induction physical because of damaged knee. However, my late Dad was a WW2 Army Infantryman, Silver Star recipient, oldest brother was a Vietnam era vet, Air Force. Nephew is currently a Marine, stationed at Camp Le June (sp?), awaiting transfer to somewhere in the Gulf.

Consenus of opinion: Most of those marchers/protestors don't have a clue about what it takes to defend freedom. The ony thing they are doing is giving aid, comfort, and counsel to the enemy.

My personal opinion is lower than that.

[Khornet]

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist."

[NewShooter78]

These people have the right to protest all they want. And whether or not its because they don't support the Republican administration is not a good point because a lot of us here on THR can't stand Bush or his cronies nor are we Dems. either. A lot of protestors believe themselves to be patriots. They don't believe that war is a good thing, nor do then think our young men and women should go out fighting in a foriegn land for policy's sake. I totally support all of our armed forces, and I consider myself a strong patriot. But I do not support this action in Iraq...at least not yet. I'm am not convinced we need to put our soldiers in harms way over a pissing contest. I don't like the UN either, but I don't think its wise for this administration to be acting like the bully on the block. If there is proof that we should invade Iraq then the administration should enlighten us. I do nor will I blindly believe anything that anyone on Capitol Hill tells me whether or not they are Repubs or Dems. :fire:

[Sean Smith]

Wow... ribbon pics online! Neato!

Let's see if this works with my service medals...

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/ribbons/armedexp.jpg http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/ribbons/afserv.jpg http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/ribbons/unobserv.jpg http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/ribbons/nato.jpg

:D

People can oppose war and protest it or other policies of the government for unselfishly patriotic reasons. Or, they can be radical twinks who couldn't make a bee burp if their brains were beans. I think war with Iraq would be justifiable, but the Bush administration has done a poor job of justifying it to the public... they have kind of relied on the "because I said so" school of public relations. :rolleyes: