http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_us/war_rally

From my own experience, I have seen something similar.

I don't think I posted about it, but I was tasked to escort a GO (General Officer) who was responsible for attending the funeral and presenting the flag to the family of a local guy who had been killed in Iraq.

A group (cult) from Kansas, called the Westboro Baptist Church, planned on protesting the funeral. However, I don't think they're necessarily against the war necessarily; they are just using funerals for KIA soldiers as their mechanism to protest the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policies and their placards actually say things like "GOD LOVES IED's", and "GOD HATES F*GS"

This is from the funeral we attended:




Anyhow, what really touched my heart is the fact that there is a small group of veterans who follow the WBC around America. I wasn't in a position to see too much, but one thing I saw was that one of the veterans on his Harley made pass after pass in front of the protestors just revving very loudly.

That cracked me the **** up.

 

They have about the same sentiment I do towards anti-war protest. Sure it's your right and sure you may not support the war but denouncing your government in public in that manner is just disrespectful to the troops on the ground. To anyone that reads this, you can argue until you're blue in the face but my opinion will not waiver on that.

 

I'm curious then, how do you suggest people express to the government that they are against the war? Join congress and vote against it?





Or do you suggest that all Americans should always support all wars entered by the US...


BTW, this is an example of right wingers protesting with pickets and such...didn't some of you conservatives say that they didn't protest this way?

 

Not in the least do I expect that. You can't honestly tell me (as an active member of any politics forum) that causing a public disturbance and chanting bias banter will have any effect on government policy. Write your congressman, create petitions, do charitable drives to support legal fees of your cause. All of these are much more applicable and influential methods of changing what is going on and they don't give those that are in harms way a feeling that their not being supported. The troops are just doing their job and like it or not, some would rather not be there. I know this. There is nothing more demoralizing than putting your life on the line for something that appears to be not worth supporting. Would you want to be ask to die for something that people seem to be so blantantly unsupportive of? I know I don't. If nothing else do it for the KIAs families. And if you are going to do it, a thanks to a veteran or hugging a widowed wife might be in line sometime.

 

I understand your point, but I think you underestimate the power of peaceful demonstration and overestimate the power of writting to elected officials (who NEVER see your letters because assistants and secretarys deal with them...).


Demonstrations and protests are neccesary and THE most effective way to let the government know that you're dissatisfied...it affects their public image, which is golden for politicians (obviously).
I really think it's up to the people who support the troops to realize the distinction between anti-war and anti-troop. Despite what you may say, there is a gigantic difference...I don't like the reasons we went to war, I don't like how the war is being dirrected, but I give support in a lot of ways to troops who actually fight. I'm friends with a bunch of vets and I know about half a dozen (I know it's not too many but...) soldiers in Iraq right now; they all get my support in monitary form and in my thoughts. But that doesn't mean I can't have a sign that says we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. For example, how is a sign that says "Stop our children from dying, bring the troops home from Iraq" anti-troop? To me it reads pro-troop, anti-war to the T.

Back to your point about being a soldier fighting for a cause that is being protested against. I would be disheartened that my gov't sent me to fight a war the American people are not behind, not disheartened because I thought my countrymen had a problem with ME or any soldier.

 

I can understand your point. A visual display of a portion of the public not being satisified with the actions of their elected officials will get their attention as these are potential votes. Of course. That being said though I believe that had all the people squeezed a petition the size of the San Diego Yellowpages in his mail box and telling media officials about it would be much more effective. Protesting is obviously effective but not as effective as other means. If it were I'd bet we wouldn't be in Iraq as protests happen daily in D.C. And as far as being disheartened by a gov't sending me to fight in a war America isn't behind I have to disagree with you there. If America were not behind the war in it's infancy (at least a majority) it would have never passed in Congress as the people that voted for it are essentially an extension of the citizens they represent. Kerry voted for the war but he doesn't support it now. Case in point.

 

MV,

I don't underestimate any form of political activism, however I think that protests aren't geared towards convincing those in a position of authority to change policy. I think they're plainly geared towards 'getting the message out'. I think that the effect of protest is to convince private citizens who are on the fence to feel the same way they do and potentially plant the seed of dissent in the minds of those who don't (I think that there are many with opinions that have been formed based on misinformation, on both sides of the topic; and I imagine that the folks in the anti-war movement feel the same way.)

It is disheartening, but don't think for a moment that because there are anti-war protesters and anti-Bush folk and because his approval rating is low that all of that reflects the American peoples' opinions with regards to the war.

I can't deny that this is not a popular war, but what does that phrase mean? Michael Jackson is popular. Drug use and alcohol abuse is popular. Jackass is/was popular. Jerry Springer was popular. If those things are popular, that just means that the American people must be ignorant and easily entertained. Is that true? You and I both know that it is in many cases and it isn't in many.

For argument sake, if the people who are the fans of such crap like I listed above comprise 80% of America and the Intelligencia comprise 20%, and 85% of America doesn't support the war but 15% does, does that make the war unpopular? We don't know.

I'm not saying that having poor taste makes someone incapable of forming a valid opinion about what's going on in the world, but how may people really know what we're really doing over there?

I'm not going to spout statistics, but at no time during the war on terrorism were soldiers ever getting decimated. I can tell you that if you were interested in doing a little research, you'd be amazed when you compare losses over there to any other war, or even mortality rates on our own shores from 'just living your life'. But I'll tell you that the majority of 'objections' that Army recruiters are hearing are that 'I don't want to die'. Well, maybe we all ought to just wrap themselves in bubble wrap and never leave our beds. I can buy non-support of our government's foreign policy, but the odds of you dying because you're a soldier, even a soldier deployed to Iraq are not what I'd call a 'near certainty'.

Anyhow, I'll also tell you what else the American people don't realize. The future. Heck, no one does. BUT, wrong or right, the policy makers have put some real, objective, deliberate decision making into the who, what, why... of maintaining a force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people, and I can validate for those between the ages of 17-32, don't put that much effort into deciding what they want their OWN future to look like. These kids are the same ones who come onto online forums to debate why America shouldn't be in Iraq.

I have no way of knowing, but I imagine that if it were possible to break down exactly who makes up the 'anti-war' faction, I don't think that it would make me lose sleep.

I am a professional soldier. By enlisting/commissioning, I have implicitly agreed to uphold my oath, which I take very seriously.

It's not my job, nor worth my time, to decide if what I'm doing is popular or not. I believe that I am serving the greater good, whether the American people know it or not. "Mine's not to ask why, only do or die." I am, however, responsible for ensuring that the orders that I am following are legal, which the Global War on Terrorism is.

 

Hardly. Do some homework on Fred Phelps and get back to us on who those idiots are in the picture. He's the founder of the cult gpatmac is talking about and an extreme nutcase. I really wouldn't categorize him under anything. Some of his views are extremely liberal, others are extremely conservative, but most all of them are wacko.

And to answer your question I have great disdain for anti-war protestors. Mainly because I think their message is wasteful in the grand scheme of things (toward Gov't), and because their message is forced in such a way a Jehovah's witness or Mormon Missionary would push their religion at your front door. I hate that... I can make educated decisions on my own, thank you. Their whole persona makes me sick.

But at the same time I'm extremely grateful they have the right to do what they do and honestly wouldn't have it any other way. It's one of the beauties of America.

 

Well said!!! I too take that oath very seriously but talking to you that goes without saying. I personally feel that America, moreso now than ever, wants everything but hardship. I've said before and I'll say it again that all good things come through hardship. Nothing worthwhile is ever just handed to you on the proverbial "silver platter" like so many modern day Americans expect it to be. Today's America is far from the America that fought in WWII and to be honest I think that is why I have such a conflict with my own peers. The soldiers and general public of WWII were hardened. They had endured what I would call some of the worst times in American history (the Great Depression, famine, lack of workers rights, poor health care, etc...). Look at today's generation. Their biggest concern was when mom would come to pick them up from soccer practice so they could go home to play PS2 and possibly stop for some McD's on the way back. Not quite the same as the kid who had to work a farm or factory to help put food on the table at his parents house. I think this whole perception of the war is merely a paradox of the changing ethics in America. Not to say this change is bad, I just think that the two so largely different political citizens have yet to learn to reason and deal with each other. I personally think that the people who contribute to this forum are generally far more open-minded and tolerant than the average public (as strange as that may seem at times). All I can say is that protests and petitions will go on forever as they always have we'll just notice them more now as they're happening in front of our own eyes and not reading about them in history books.

 

They protested in front of many local high-schools around here who started GSA clubs (Gay-straight aliance clubs). I had a ultimate game near by one where they were protesting and saw them and at first got angry, but then started laughing out loud at how bad THEY were looking.
-Jeff


EDIT: ANyone notice the fat chick in front who has the American flag hanging from under her shirt and dropped on the ground? Stupid ****.

 

yeah makes me want to run up to her ****** off her fat *** and wave it high..

then proceed to kick the **** out of her for dis respecting the flag and all it symbolizes while reminding her of her inability to think properly.

 

Those people aren't a concern of mine, however I am still puzzled and think about them often.

Why aren't they doing something along the lines of lobbying or demonstrating Congress to get the laws changed?

Why'd they pick the funerals of the fallen, where there's already enough hurt, pain, and loss to last 10 lifetimes, as their stage?

While I still wouldn't, obviously, condone it, at least I could see where they were coming from if they were actually anti-war and not anti-homosexual.

 

Search Google for them and read their webpage... it explains their "reasoning" there. Supposedly it is because they blame America for bombing thier church 10 years ago i guess

 

My 1SG was a recruiter in Topeka where the church is. He told me that they had been protesting and rabble rousing for years before that. He said that some kids from Washburn University had thrown some molotov cocktails at their church, which they blamed the government or something.

 

Everything else in this thread aside, I want to reiterate that peaceful public protest is one of (if not the) best way to sway the government. Letters and emails don't work. It's legal (protected by the constitution). I think the only reason some of you think protests are 'bad' is because you know they have influence over votes on a legitimate scale. People write letters everyday for decades and never get anything but a standard pre-printed response from govs/senators/congressmen/the pres... writing and email don't work. But if you cause enough of a stir (legally) that news vans show up, the gov't sees that people are aware of the problem and respond somewhat.