Posts Tagged ‘military’

Back in Aug of 2009 I ran this chart of Vietnam vets against the war on Google news in a story of how Vietnam vets against the war decided not to back up Cindy Sheehan’s protest against the Obama administration:

Funny how they dropped off the radar in Jan of 2009.

I was reminded of that story when I saw this:

Several factors — war fatigue; a deep, lingering recession; and the presence of a Democratic president they helped elect — have drained the energy from organizations that led the fight against the Iraq war. Some of the most influential anti-war activist groups that once summoned half a million people to march against the Iraq war and the policies of former President George W. Bush are straining to raise the money and attention to fight what they see as Obama’s military entrenchment in Afghanistan.
“We don’t have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore,” lamented Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink, one of the anti-war movement’s most visible organizations. emphasis mine

Politico seems to be confused by this. If they had been paying attention a year ago they would not be so surprised. Have they given the anti war much attention in print themselves? Or perhaps they might remember this famous line:

If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition’s arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation.

George Bush is no longer president, those who oppose him politically who provided finances and manpower and media coverage in an attempt to bring him down will absolutely not do the same with Barack Obama.

BTW I figured I’d update my check of Vietnam Vets against the war on Google News since last year.

Vietnam vets against the war updated graph

A blip, we have a blip! Is it a press release, is it a march, is it a national event, no? What can that one blip be?

This is defiantly NOT the time to get out of politics. Some people feel threatened by the Tea Party movement. While I don’t subscribe too many of their viewpoints, I welcome them to the political fray. Their movement is probably the best thing to happen in politics since the Vietnam Vets against the War staged a million person demonstration in West Potomac Park in March of 1973.

One mention in a side article on the tea party in February. That’s it?

Don’t despair Cindy, Medina, it takes time to create true believers. Come November 2012 I’m sure many on the left who decided that American Military power is not something to protest will suddenly come around. Rest assured that you will have all the support and manpower George Soros and the Democratic party can buy.

…did the La Times decide that the story of the Nick Popaditch cartoon was a story because Rep Bob Filner joined the voices disproving it? Would they have ignored it as “right wing noise” otherwise?

Either way Michelle is right about the end result:

But instead of calling on the cartoonist to be fired, perhaps he deserves thanks — thanks for inadvertently creating an opportunity for the rest of us. It’s a moment not merely to complain about a boneheaded media slap, but to spread the word about Nick Popaditch.

Works for me. Lets see what happens on Memeorandum with this.

Remember that it isn’t a question of what is best for the military, it’s the best way to get us to stop fighting.

He is excoriating people who have people who are not serving and has no risk, that is a point, but when it comes down to it all they are talking about is exit strategy, not a victory strategy.

Listen to what they are saying this morning, change the date and it would be Iran before the surge.

Barnicle is calling the draft a wonderful “vibrant” thing for the youth and Joe Conason is talking about it to get rid of unemployment.

How many of these people were fans of the draft before these wars? How many were against the draft in the 70’s.

So we have them pushing a draft, defeat is Afghanistan isn’t a bug, it’s a feature!

Update: Mika suggested a camera on every casket, lets use dead US troops as political props, if she is not ashamed of herself she ought to be.

Update 2: American Glob notices that this isn’t confined to Morning Joe and gets a well deserved Instalanche for his trouble. My deeper thoughts on the draft from several years ago are buried deep in here.

I’ve teased supporters of this president in the past because he has been unwilling to address items such as “don’t ask don’t tell”, but I’ve never devoted a piece to my opinion on the subject so here goes…

My opinion on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a variation of Lincoln statement on slavery.

Our goal should be having the strongest most efficient military in the world. We need a military strong enough to reassure our friends and to give our foes pause. I am in favor of anything that supports that goal.

If we can meet this goal by officially allowing homosexuals to serve in the military openly, I would support it.

If we can do it by banning homosexuals from military service openly I would support it.

And if we could do it allowing homosexuals to serve openly in some capacity but not in others I would support that too.

Our enemies are trying to kill us, they are not going to wait to ask who we pick up in bars before they try. The most efficient military possible is in the interest of everyone of any race creed color or sexual orientation. My only interest when it comes to the military is its ability to fight and win.

I’m not a soldier, I will likely never be a soldier the people who can answer this will be our soldiers and those willing to serve. Not me.

I will say this to the two sides of the argument:

You might remember that according to Ken Burns Masterpiece The Civil War 85% of American Blacks in the north of military age served in the Union army. They understood what the war was about. Given the beliefs of Radical Islam, I think that Gay Americans would be highly motivated to serve to fight against a fundamentalist Islamic foe that wants them dead and would not be inclined to oppose it.

on the other hand…

We also have an all volunteer military, if the numbers of homosexual recruits are insufficient to make up for the number of straight recruits who would be unwilling to serve with them to the point where it hurts our ability to fight then the needs of the service have to be the priority.

What do you think and why?