|
|
|
|
|
| | Fighting for our freedomPage 2 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) | this was very real in the uk although i will stress its a very minute minority who do abuse the troops
it does happen. but because of incidents like the ones below thats the reason the english defense league and the north west infidels have came into being. but hey its ok to insult our troops but have a wee gander at the last story. see who gets jailed for using insulting language.
Mr Garthley was also ordered to take off his uniform at Selly Oak hospital – then home of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine – in case it offended ethnic minority patients, sparking national outrage.
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2012/04/15/injured-soldiers-sue-birmingham-war-hospital-for-medical-negligence-66331-30761067/
An Army sergeant was verbally abused by a group of Muslim women at a Birmingham hospital where British troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, it was claimed yesterday.
Company Sergeant Major Neil Powell was reportedly surrounded and heckled by three women in an unprovoked attack at Selly Oak Hospital, where the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine is based.
It is not the first time the issue of security has arisen following claims of military personnel being abused by civilian visitors.
Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/tm_headline=muslim-women-abused-army-man-at-hospital&method=full&objectid=19279378&siteid=50002-name_page.html#ixzz1zy4ksWUn
Eight months for shouting “Muslim bombers off our streets”? But £50 fine for burning poppies
http://casualsunited.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/eight-months-for-shouting-muslim-bombers-off-our-streets-but-50-fine-for-burning-poppies/ | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/7/2012 2:53:36 PM | | My son the Marine suffers occasional prejudice and abuse. But it's not from anti-war, lost hippie wanna-be leftists; it's from resentment-filled idiots who genuinely believe that military people are coddled, overpaid, drown in benefits, and over-privileged. I personally suspect it's a direct outgrowth of general resentment about the economy, exacerbated by some of the very people who should be supporting the military: the folks who insist that the budget should be cut to "fix" the economy, by reducing wages and benefits to all the PEOPLE the government employs, and spend the money on outside contractors and weapons systems instead. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/7/2012 4:37:22 PM | it probably happened to a few guys returning from WW I, WW II, Korea, etc. as well but was not widespread then either
I doubt it was "unique" to the Vietnam era..what was the point, again? | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/7/2012 5:22:34 PM | The GOP and other conservative groups have for a long time now, been PRETENDING to appreciate and respect those who serve in the military.
I don't see the Republican Party as anything even remotely approximating a conservative group. If there are conservatives who don't respect and appreciate the U.S. military, or who don't care about our servicemen's medical needs, or who don't want to pay for the best equipment we can give them, I don't know who they are. I wouldn't support any politician if I knew that about him.
Since the opposition to those fake "military appreciators" is at least as blind to the warriors welfare, the actual military is abused by all sides.
Thanking a member of the military for his service is just a sign of respect and appreciation. I don't know what reason you have to consider it "fake." What's wrong with standing someone to a drink or a meal, or hosting them at a baseball game? I think it sells any serviceman short to think any of those shows of respect could change his vote, however many times they were repeated.
But you are right about the people who deride that respect as fake. It is this president--the man who didn't want to wear a flag pin, or attend the military balls, or pay his respects at Arlington--and his supporters who doing all they can to cut defense spending to dangerously low levels. One of their favorite mantras is that that money should be spend on social welfare programs instead.
| |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/7/2012 5:49:16 PM | War torn PTSD had been around as long as there have been manipulators consigning the lower classes to do battle for the elite. The "Red Badge of Courage" was the first exposure on the subject for me. WWI and WW II had shell shock. It was not till the early 1980s that it was acknowledged as a serious and potentially lethal wound of war that lasts a lifetime and is now killing 18 veterans a day with many more attempts.
The Chickenhawks of the far right have been engaged in using the troops and sentiments to their advantage since the Vietnam debacle, at the same time trying to be all fiscally conservative about accepting reponsibility for damaged goods upon our return.
http://www.politicususa.com/memoral-day-gop-va-cuts.html
Obama, his wife and Jill Biden have been championing the needs of veterans and their families since he took office. Romney, with multiple deferrals and hiding in a chateaux in France at the time, seeks to cut aid to damaged goods with the same passion he outsources labor and his money.
Matchlight..your flag pin and Arlington and veterans funding cuts are fox noise talking points. Paul...where is YOUR evidence of spitting hippies. It gets a bit tiring to be lectured at by chickenhawks and sunshine patridiots.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-honors-fallen-troops-arlington-cemetery-155053757.html | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/7/2012 6:47:34 PM | Paul K :
For you, or anybody to try to make it like it didn't happen is sickening, but then I really should consider the source.
I personally went to pick up a Marine at SFO, and were it not for the fact that we are both large people, we would have been assualted.
OK so you were somewhat of a 'hero' there, did you ever think of volunteering yourself for military service?
you would have been of prime age for service in Vietnam, turning 18 in 1971? or thought of it, then thought betterof it?
don't love your country quite THAT much (no matter how much you speak of it and proclaim that you do?) , much easier to buy coffee/dinner once in a while for a few service people to assuage the guilt? just wondering. then attack actual vets like EP and others who hold 'wrong' political views (in your estimation)
many of the anti-Vietnam war protesters were returned vets who had served there; I think that gave them a right to a voice? don't you? but Nixon & his minions gave orders to police to bust their heads for protesting..nice | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 9:17:14 AM | Match:
Thanking a member of the military for his service is just a sign of respect and appreciation. I don't know what reason you have to consider it "fake." What's wrong with standing someone to a drink or a meal, or hosting them at a baseball game? I think it sells any serviceman short to think any of those shows of respect could change his vote, however many times they were repeated.
The reason I have to consider it fake, is that
1) I was present and paying attention when it began, and that was immediately after the real end of the VietNam debacle, and the very people who actually started ostentatiously performing the "thank you" ritual, specified that the reason they were doing it, was because they despised the anti-war crowd, and wanted to pointedly make that clear via this phrase.
and
2) None of the wealthy and powerful people who have so grandly chanted that ritualistic phrase since, have done any of the nice things you mention. Not one congressman or senator has used it as part of a proposal to increase base pay of those serving, or to provide them with the level of care they deserve. If they had, my son would not now have to fight every month, just to get the minimum amount of base pay he is supposedly promised.
From those two direct observations, I can draw no other conclusion, than that it's a functionally meaningless phrase to them. Not much better than "of course I'll respect you in the morning."
Don't get me wrong, I don't throw it back in the face of the average joe on the street who asks me to pass his thanks on to my son. They haven't got the wherewithal to do anything more than talk. But I do suggest that they show their appreciation by writing to their representatives, and lobby them for REAL better treatment by our government. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 9:54:32 AM |
I asked the poster pretty much the same thing. So far, silence.
Some of us have things to do, keyboard jockey. ;o)
Just your math on what % of GDP is military spending shows me what a homer for stats and figures you are. And I'm sure they buried the "nation re-building" in other budgets. They just beg borrow and steal from other budgets now. If that is all the thought you've placed into these matters, I don't see much reason to respond to you. I suppose true unemployment is 8% too since the government "says so." Please...
I won't get into black ops that are under the table and funded by the drug wars and our own drug-selling bureaucrats and bankers.
And to those stating the Patriot Act is for "times of war." Fine. When is Congress going to declare we're at war? How many decades will go by without such a declaration? You don't really need to when its all Global U.N./NATO or unstated black ops, do ya, or the money is taken out of other budgets? | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 10:31:14 AM | To be accurate, or "fair," declarations of war seem to be a thing of the past. The U.S. hasn't declared war since 1941. Fussing about it now, some dozen conflicts later, is functionally specious as an argument.
As for budget games, I agree with you. But then, that too has been standard fare since forever. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 10:44:24 AM |
And I'm sure they buried the "nation re-building" in other budgets. They just beg borrow and steal from other budgets now. I won't get into black ops that are under the table and funded by the drug wars and our own drug-selling bureaucrats and bankers.
If you have evidence that is happening, and that it means the figures I cited for defense spending are far off the mark, you haven't said what it is. And you can't, so you try to hide that fact by attacking me instead.
Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is no less meaningful a number now than when FDR or Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson was president. It's cited in legitimate articles by reasonable, well-informed people all the time.
Your assertion that bankers--private citizens--are funding secret U.S. military operations by selling drugs is bizarre. Maybe you dreamed it.
And to those stating the Patriot Act is for "times of war." Fine. When is Congress going to declare we're at war? How many decades will go by without such a declaration?
Bulletin: Congress already *has* declared war--a decade ago, soon after 9/11. The document in which it declared it is entitled the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force." The Constitution doesn't require the title to be "Declaration of War."
You don't really need to when its all Global U.N./NATO or unstated black ops, do ya, or the money is taken out of other budgets?
If you say so. I guess that must be what was going on in 1950, too, when President Truman let the country get dragged into that UN "police action" in Korea. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:36:41 PM |
Don't get me wrong, I don't throw it back in the face of the average joe on the street who asks me to pass his thanks on to my son. They haven't got the wherewithal to do anything more than talk. But I do suggest that they show their appreciation by writing to their representatives, and lobby them for REAL better treatment by our government.
As Bill Maher has observed it's a bit of a disconnect for the uber-rich to say they support the military to the utmost while at the same time doing all possible to minimize or bring as close to zero, taxes they pay. moving most of their money offshore, etc.
WORDS are very cheap: " I love my country", " I support the troops" these often meaningless platitudes cost NOTHING, ZERO..so easy to say, meaning it is another thing.. a lot like "I love you" in personal relationships..as long as things are fine and the sex is good, but as soon as it's not..
no two ways about it, as much as you might lament it, soldiers are paid from tax dollars
maybe they are considered 'heroes' all the more because they work cheap?
you might find multi-millionaires paying less federal tax than a private making $1500/.month or whatever it is now
there's been documented cases in Canada and I think also in the US of service people getting welfare & food stamps be cause their pay is so low, especially when they are posted to an expensive area for living costs e.g. Victoria, BC or San Diego, etc. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 3:16:48 PM | I don't think any of the wars we are currently involved in have anything to do with our freedom or our Constitution which is what soldiers take an oath to defend. I think most people join the military for honorable reasons. I also think and actually know from past experiences that once these soldiers are sent somewhere it doesn't take long until those same soldiers realize that they aren't fighting for what they took an oath to fight for. They know exactly what they are fighting for then.. which is for foreign bankers and corporations. So what do they do then? They suck it up and they fight for each other to keep each other alive and they wait til their time comes when they can leave. If you doubt what I say either read War is A racket by Smedley Butler a two time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient or you can watch a remake of his speech that he gave to a veterans group on you tube.
I'm glad nowadays people recognize that most soldiers have no control of this. They don't even have the freedom of speech to speak out against a war they are in while they are on active duty. You watch a fox news or CNN correspondent interview a soldier in a theatre of war and you'll never hear them say anything against it or the people that sent him/her there. Why? Because he/she will end up in a stockade or brig for doing so.
The fact that Ron Paul received more money from active duty personnel than all the other candidates combined should tell you something since he was the only candidate against the current wars and against Libya, Syria and future Iran involvement. But the general public falls for all the rah rah war is good propaganda here we are, in skirmishes all over the world and losing more of our liberties for it while International bankers and corporations move in after we break a country and buy it up for pennies on the dollar.
The other thing of note is that suicide is at an epidemic level in the Army. I might point out that generally soldiers do not commit suicide when they believe they are fighting for a noble cause at epidemic levels..
The signs are there for people to see. Unfortunately when the draft went so did the interest in wars because large sections of the population didn't have to worry about being drafted or their children drafted for a cause that wasn't just. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 3:46:43 PM | Msg 46, your post put this in my mind. Something I hear some "political groups" say behind closed doors but havent yet brought out into the light.
I appreciate your service.... But, since after all you are on the taxpayers dime you need to do your "service" for less money. In an effort to reduce govt. size and expense we may even privatize our military ops. After all, why not let a private contractor handle our business of war?? You see, it helps boost the economy and we all know the Govt. does'nt produce jobs.
Plus, if a "soldier/mercenary gets killed or injured they can deal with their contractor of employment or the workmans comp. system. A lot less messy all the way around and now we'd have a contractor making money from the Govt. also.
Mind you, this is just some scuttlebutt I've heard on latenight radio. I sure hope there's really no one out there actually serious about this. I mean, putting our military in private. for profit hands seems like a recipe for disaster...But, I guess it goes right along with the mantra "by the profits, for the profits" . | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 4:05:12 PM | In both Iraq and Afghanistan, mercenaries have outnumbered troops in presence and in death tolls. Part of the "beauty" of privatizing oil wars is reduced costs via VA benefits, and and ability to distance the official US stance when things go bad.
On the bad side, the psychological profiling requirements are far different for mercs than uniformed troops and war crimes become more prevalent, losing hearts and minds in a negative feedback loop that kills our troops. They are also expensive making 10 times more money per warm body than our own troops. As we saw with Blackwater/Xe types of private christian militias, they can cause the war on error to escalate with Jesus rifles and koran defacement.
Special ops have also gotten a blank check while the standard military is dealing with austerity cuts. SOCOM gets what it wants, a defacto mercenary unit unto itself.
http://drjohnrobertson.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-military-threat-to-american.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/special-operations-military-obama-global-war-ussocom
There is evidence that the Seals really like the Obama lattitude and support in bending rules of engagement.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57425555-503544/are-navy-seals-really-angry-with-obama/
The Swift-boating of Obama is to be expected, but it is not because of how he has acted, but who he is. He is as disappointing to the left as he is to the right, but at least not dumb enough to bankrupt us further with an Iranian front...so far. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 4:22:12 PM | OP, you should check out the documentary "Why We Fight" made in 2006. It starts out with Eisenhower's warning against the military industrial complex. The movie has various interviews and shows scenes from a massive military armament exposition. It also asks random people what they think are the reasons the US has gone to war.
Basically, it argues that the more a country arms itself for defense, the more likely it is to go to war-- a self-fulfilling prophesy. The US has become in no small part a defense industry based economy. The irony for me is that I see the military industrial complex having gained traction during Eisenhower's presidency, what with the Cold War and all.
In fact, I just recently read that Obama's cuts to the defense budget have already slowed economic growth by half a percent, and companies such as Lockheed Martin continue to lay off employees. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:00:22 PM | Flyguy,
I think Ike saw it growing during his presidency and realized as president and even Commander In Chief he had no power to stop it or change based on what he needed as commander in chief.
And hence his warning about it..Something else to keep in mind I wonder if he decided against using the bully pulpit of the office because he was scared he'd be assassinated? So he chose to mention when he was leaving office.
After all it wasn't long after Kennedy gave his speech about secret societies, and let it be known he was going after the federal reserve and was going to pull advisors out of Vietnam that he was killed. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:34:53 PM |
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, mercenaries have outnumbered troops in presence and in death tolls. Part of the "beauty" of privatizing oil wars is reduced costs via VA benefits, and and ability to distance the official US stance when things go bad.
why not? the same concept worked way back in the 17th century for Queen Elizabeth I ..
"what??? the British Navy attack your ships? nooooo, those are"pirates" and not under MY control!"
it's all about "plausible deniabilty", right? | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 7:55:53 PM |
After all it wasn't long after Kennedy gave his speech about secret societies, and let it be known he was going after the federal reserve and was going to pull advisors out of Vietnam
Can you cite me to that speech--date, place, and audience ? I've heard a lot of President Kennedy's speeches, but I don't recall that one. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 9:11:41 PM | The speech I refer to is from April 27 1961, in part of the speech to newspaper owners Kennedy talked about secret societies. While the speech was vague in terms of what secret society he was referring to he definitely gave a heads up to them that he wasn't playing ball. Of course many folks actually believe it was a threat to the CIA since this speech was right after the bay of pigs invasion and if you look back through historically some of the things JFK said about the CIA you know there was no love lost. Of course then you can also look at executive order 11110 that JFK signed that directed the treasury department to print silver certificates or notes backed by the silver that was held by the US government. This executive order bypassed the federal reserve and the silver certificates that were produced were interest free. Kennedy signed the EO in June 63 and he was dead in Nov 63.
Also after Kennedy was killed no more certificates were issued and the ones in circulation were taken out until they were all out of circulation.
JFK was a popular president because he took on powerful entities such as the CIA and the federal reserve, among them. Everyone has their own beliefs who was responsible for his death but I don't know hardly anyone that believes the official stories created by the US government. it would be interesting to wonder what the country would have been like if he had lived. We would have exited Vietnam by 65 as was his plan and this according to some experts could have shortly thereafter ended the cold war. For sure if that would have happened it is conceivable that our debt would not be close to where it is today considering what we spent during the cold war. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:44:57 PM | Msg 54
Read a little about why silver certificates were taken out of circulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Certificate
And Kennedy started the movement of Military advisers into Vietnam. You see the USA didn't honor the part of armistice calling for elections agreed upon when the Vietnamese kicked France out. You see America was paraniod about the spread of Communism.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kennedy_vietnam.htm | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/9/2012 6:55:31 AM | so what's your point they made silver certificates redeemable only in federal reserve notes which is my point exactly. The fed didn't want US notes available only the money they printed...
I know all about Vietnam.. Kennedy made it no secret he was pulling advisors out of Vietnam. He was actually negotiating with Khrushchev about it.
I notice it doesn't mention that after Kennedy made it clear he was pulling advisors out of vietnam and set a timetable for withdraw he was killed as soon as LBJ was president the US went from 20,000 troops in VN to quickly over a quarter of a million and we know how that turned out.
What it really amounted to was it was going to cut into the CIA's drug operations and partnership in golden triangle heroin with organized crime families in this country who were shipping it in and giving the CIA a cut of the profits for their off the books money. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/9/2012 8:32:00 AM | msg#56
Take your history back to WW2 and Vietnam. After the war the French were not in charge, but wanted Vietnam back. Read about USA involvement with Vietnam from WW2. In the end these people had a right to what they fought for, and today its so.
As personal comment, nothing is new under the sun. All countries since beginning of time have made deals to advance their own, even if it meant misfortune and death to others. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/9/2012 12:25:30 PM |
[I]n part of the speech to newspaper owners Kennedy talked about secret societies. While the speech was vague in terms of what secret society he was referring to he definitely gave a heads up to them that he wasn't playing ball.
President Kennedy spoke at the Waldorf-Astoria that day--only ten days after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The New York Times had prepared a front-page story about the planned invasion, but at the urging of James Reston, chief the paper's Washington bureau and Kennedy's personal friend, it had not run the story. That was the background.
I listened to the speech carefully, and he mentioned secrets societies only once, in passing. That was in the context of his remarks about how America has always recognized that in general, the benefits of open information to a free society outweigh the benefits of secrecy. And so, we've always disfavored secrecy, in whatever form, and believed in as free a press as possible.
He said this in leading up to the main theme of his speech. And that was an appeal to the newspaper owners to give thoughtful consideration to his suggestion that in the cold war, just as had been true in open wars, there was a need for the press to be responsible and consider our national security in what it chose to publish. Kennedy was affirming the freedom of the press in the U.S. while suggesting there was still a need for responsibility. He was reminding the owners that loose lips may sink ships in a cold war as well as in a hot one. | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/9/2012 7:50:04 PM |
To be accurate, or "fair," declarations of war seem to be a thing of the past. The U.S. hasn't declared war since 1941. Fussing about it now, some dozen conflicts later, is functionally specious as an argument.
Yeah, and in the case of Iraq I hear so many calling it "Bush's War" and attributing everything to just him. He just changed the phase of the war. US/UK had been at war with Iraq since 1990. Drove the Iraqis from Kuwait and then basically implemented siege warfare on an entire country. Clinton maintained it with bombings, no fly zones, encouraging Kurdish separtism, hoping for civil war and sanctions. Bush 2 organized the invasion. How should one separate the Bush2 approach vs the Clinton approach? I.e. : Should you continue to starve the population and keep them oppressed? Or go in remove the 'problem' and get the country going again? | |
|
| Fighting for our freedom
Posted: 7/10/2012 6:53:04 AM | “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.” -George W. Bush, before becoming president and doing exactly what he promised not to.
Does anyone honestly think, that if Bush and company had not used the 935 lies that led to the Iraq attack, and instead were honest about the motives and ultimate costs, including our banckruptcy and broken military, that the American people would have consented to nation building there? Would we as a people have consented to kill a million innocent people, wound millions more, poison millions more with DU, cause 3/4ths of a million of our own troops to suffer permanent physical and psychological damage if we were presented with the need to stop Iraq from selling it's oil in Euros, or that a secret society called PNAC had an agenda for domination of the oil fields, or to enhance Israeli power in the region? We have evil puppet dictators installed all over the world, but unless they have resources we covet, we generally let them have at it. Gulf war 1 was a pretextual war, the sanctions killed a half million, mostly kids, and Gulf War 2 was a total fraud.
"Why of course the people don't want war... Naturally... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering | |
|
|
|
|
Page
2
of
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
|
|
Home
login 
