Civil Reserve Corps

[aoxamaxoa]

^You are a hack.....

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

Other reports talk about the soldier getting spit on. Regardless of where the spit landed, I think it is completely beneth contempt to do it.

Would you spit at a soldier?

What other reports. That's gossip not news. Would you spit at a citizen protesting the war?

[guido911]

"They were protestors who spat on the ground in anger after exchanging words with each other."

Do you even know who Joshua Sparling is Waterboy? Before you began your moronic defense of a coward protester's free speech rights to spit at, or, near, or in the vicinity of of U.S. soldiers, try doing some research.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006484.htm

Your point that protesters spitting at our soldiers a la returning Viet Nam vets is "speech" is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum--and yes I am including AOX's postings. And Waterboy, you know where you can stick your condescending "shame on you" don't you?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

"They were protestors who spat on the ground in anger after exchanging words with each other."

Do you even know who Joshua Sparling is Waterboy? Before you began your moronic defense of a coward protester's free speech rights to spit at, or, near, or in the vicinity of of U.S. soldiers, try doing some research.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006484.htm

Your point that protesters spitting at our soldiers a la returning Viet Nam vets is "speech" is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum--and yes I am including AOX's postings. And Waterboy, you know where you can stick your condescending "shame on you" don't you?

you guys posted the story, then painted a picture that was innacurate. You're continuuing that spin by including references to Viet Nam protestors some 35 years ago when you were a gleam in someones eyes. I responded to that and it was hardly moronic. I don't care who did the spitting as long as it wasn't on someone (assault). The supreme court upholds that free speech activity. You just called them stupid. Grow up and stop calling people names.

As far as where to put that shame, if you can locate the area, name it correctly and post it here, do so. If you're brave enough to try it, go ahead. Those whose arguments are weak often resort to pottie mouth and bully behavior. If it works for you fine but I won't participate.

[rwarn17588]

Before anyone gets carried away, the stories about Vietnam War soldiers getting spat on after returning home is an urban legend, a myth.

A researcher looked and looked and looked for verifiable instances, and found none. His B.S. antenna went up when he found out that stories like that didn't surface until the 1980s -- years after the war ended, not during.

http://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Image-Memory-Legacy-Vietnam/dp/0814751474

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image

So what happened between pro-war and war protesters (the NY Times reported them spitting on *the ground*, not on each other) is hardly what I would call a repeat of history. There were angry words, but nothing that would be assault.

Although the stupidity of this Iraq War is resembling Vietnam in many ways.

[guido911]

RW:  That's right. Returning vets and on-campus ROTC students were not spit upon because your revisionist sociologist was not spit at or because he says so. Our soldiers were not called "baby killers." They were not afraid to wear their uniform publicly. Oh, and the Holocaust did not happen either. I choose to believe from first hand accounts of my parents and their friends regarding the treatment our returning vets received from douchebag anti-war protesters and not Lembcke. Apparently, the right wing Huffington Post agrees with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/trial-can-the-armys-br_b_27089.html
Oh, and Sparling, he did not just get spit at this past weekend.

One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our  freedoms.    

Waterboy. I am not as young as you apparently think (child of the 60s). As for your "35 years ago comment", all that was missing from the past weekend war protest to remind us of Vietnam was Hanoi Jane. Oh wait, she was there wasn't she.  

[aoxamaxoa]

^IT'S MUCH WORSE TODAY. We retained our rights in those days. There were no shenanigans by those in power who swore to uphold our constitution.


"Report: FBI conducting sweeping Internet wiretaps that mirror warantless NSA surveillance "

"The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed,"

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_FBI_conducting_sweeping_Internet_wiretaps_0130.html

Guess I'm screwed....no fear!

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

RW:  That's right. Returning vets and on-campus ROTC students were not spit upon because your revisionist sociologist was not spit at or because he says so. Our soldiers were not called "baby killers." They were not afraid to wear their uniform publicly. Oh, and the Holocaust did not happen either. I choose to believe from first hand accounts of my parents and their friends regarding the treatment our returning vets received from douchebag anti-war protesters and not Lembcke. Apparently, the right wing Huffington Post agrees with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/trial-can-the-armys-br_b_27089.html
Oh, and Sparling, he did not just get spit at this past weekend.

One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our  freedoms.    

Waterboy. I am not as young as you apparently think (child of the 60s). As for your "35 years ago comment", all that was missing from the past weekend war protest to remind us of Vietnam was Hanoi Jane. Oh wait, she was there wasn't she.  

It's obvious you feel very strongly about protesting. I was an adult in the late 60's and saw it differently than you and yours. The protesting that is widely referred to was often way overblown. When a few real hippies demonstrated at OU in '71 my parents called up and wanted me to come home immediately. The World/Tribune had a huge front page headline about major protests on campus. Apparently the Governor believed it all too. He sent in a dozen or so riot gear prepared vehicles complete with shotguns, shields and headgear. I know, I was in traffic on Lindsey when they screamed into town. I had long hair and tye dye but was no where near hippie status. They scared the bejeezus out of everyone.

When they realized it was a dozen hippies with signs picketing Dale Hall and the ROTC building they relaxed and spent the week at the Holiday Inn occasionally visiting on campus. Hilarious, but these stories were occurring all over the country. I'mm sure it was more exciting at Berkeley or near a military base but basically most of it was bunk.

This is not Viet Nam. This is not Viet Nam protesting. This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake. When you personalize that disagreement by calling them hippies, non patriots, cowards etc. and use anecdotal stories of loonies like Sparling you are ignoring the people.

BTW, I happen to believe that we should send more than 20k additional soldiers over there. We should send twice that and use them to cover our exit safely. Bush trimmed the number to be political I guess.

[aoxamaxoa]

How many did we send over for Desert Shield? Like 350,000 troops?

[iplaw]

"including much of its military"

I keep hearing this, maybe you can point me to where you found the numbers on this.  Webb said it, and it seems to have spread like wildfire, but I can't find anything to substantiate it.

[rwarn17588]

It's from the Military Times, iplaw.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

"including much of its military"

I keep hearing this, maybe you can point me to where you found the numbers on this.  Webb said it, and it seems to have spread like wildfire, but I can't find anything to substantiate it.

There may be exact numbers IP, but I didn't use them. Watching, listening, reading, observing moved me to use the description.

[iplaw]

That article does not state that the military thinks the war was a mistake, which is what the assertion was.

A fair majority thinks the war is not being waged properly, a position which cannot be argued with.  Monumental difference... I would venture a guess that the military would probably be for taking off the gloves and getting with it...

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

That article does not state that the military thinks the war was a mistake, which is what the assertion was.

A fair majority thinks the war is not being waged properly, a position which cannot be argued with.  Monumental difference... I would venture a guess that the military would probably be for taking off the gloves and getting with it...

Once again, I said "thinks the war is a mistake" not was a mistake. The former implying the conduct of the war, the latter implying its reasons for inception. I agree that had the war been handled more successfully, even if the reasons for waging it were wrong, everyone's opinion would have been changed in some way. Probably favorably. Reality is, the entire war is suspect now.

[iplaw]

That's monday morning quarterbacking if I've ever seen it.  I guess it makes it easier for more Democrats to say they voted for it...before they voted against it.

There is no corroborating evidence to justify that the military thinks the reasons for the war were a mistake...waged poorly, sure, but extrapolating that to say that they think the war was a mistake is unfounded.