Mayor kicks Marines out of the city

[Andy Moynihan]

Keep in mind that when brick throwing at the ordinary guys:

A) You may be tossing one at a fellow Forum member like Andy Moynihan. Are you ready condone violence against even your fellows here?

Hey-advance request to anybody wanting to brick me--very much appreciated if you would either aim for my second-hand ALICE pack, or otherwise hold off till I can afford my helmet. I gotta buy my own uniforms and my own battle-rattle and K-pots don't come cheap

In my case, being as my unit( www.mastateguard.com) cannot be deployed outside Massachusetts, I'm not in quite the same position as the regular Federalized National Guard and regular Army ( many people don't realize the National Guard, while units may have home states, is in fact Federal and has been since WWII, not saying I agree with it, just a statement of fact the absence of which can and has led to misconceptions) . By the time *we* have to actively face combat we're ALL a day late and a buck short.

Why not just join the regular Federal services? Because I tried at 17 and was turned away for, according to their tests, excessive hearing loss. Last January when I attended my first MASG drill I mentioned I had hearing issues up front and we decided we would give it a go and if it became a problem I'd muster out. That was a year ago so I must be doing something right.

But being as our mission, as detailed in the site, is to provide training and support to the regular Guard, and to backfill for them in times of local emergency, of course it's gonna sting me to see this happen to the Marines. I'm not in that uniform for the pay ( which is nothing) or the benefits ( which are none), I'm there to contribute what small amount I can to those who have to go over because I care about them and want them to come home safe, and for the training I do recieve because I want the people *I* care about to be safe. That's it.

With that said---anytime We've had to play "Civilian" or "Enemy" for them, we have used abandoned, usually gov't owned property well away from any civilian population to do so.( Both OPFOR missions I've been any part of have been at what used to be called "Fort" Devens , or at Camp Edwards up the Cape.) While I was, and remain, incensed at the Marines' treatment at the last moment, it must be admitted that there remains much to be said for combat training in environments where no one can watch the exercise who is not participating in it, lest an uninformed someone or a group of uninformed someones should see and misunderstand.

At the end of the day, is this not the reason our very own dojo, dojang, kwoons, schools, clubs and gyms exist to start with?

As regards the Mayor's decision--Not having been present and in possession of all the facts, before I can form an opinion I'd have to know whether it was the neighborhood's decision or the mayor's after the OK had been given.

If the former, I'd be in support of the neighborhood.

If the latter, whether the mayor had the right to do what he did to those Marines will depend on the local laws, and his performance at the next election's polls. But as others have pointed out above for different but related reasons, a thing can be legal, and still be wrong, and that's my gut feeling with only the info given. I've already made it clear in no uncertain terms my disgust at arbitrary refusal of training to those who may be about to need it, so I will dwell no more on that.

B) The military is about much more than Iraq, always has been. Do you really want to hurt those people? Whenever Iraq ends, the lawful and central mission of the military - defending the USA - remains.

Exactly--I rather enjoy the lyrics to the new song "Citizen Soldier" by 3 Doors Down--it makes no mention of the war, it's a tribute to the good qualities and essence of what I believe a soldier should be.


I didn't swear in or put a uniform on for some bull**** abstract like my Flag, my Nation or "Democracy For damnsure I didn't do it for our President at the time.

I chose to volunteer for this way of life for one simple reason: I want the people I care about to be safe. Which included my brothers and sisters in my unit as well as my family, friends and countrymen.

Now I wasn't so naive as to think that I could wave my magic bayonet and magically prevent anything from happening to them specifically, but I guess what I was hoping is that if there IS some kind of higher power pulling strings up there, that maybe it understands fair trade. That if I prepared to face the bad things, maybe they wouldn't have to.



There are participants in this thread with whom I have strongly disagreed- a time or two in quite extreme terms-But when you come right down to it, the WORST thing I can say about those folks is that we don't agree--hardly a hanging offense.

At the end of it, "you guys" are "my guys"--Upnorth, Empty Hands, Michaeledward, wouldn't make a damn difference--if any of you guys were MA residents and Things Went Sideways, and it happened that I was the one who first found you in need of assistance and you and yours were, for whatever reason, out of a house, hungry or thirsty, off comes the bedroll from my ALICE pack, out come my ponchos to make you a tent, and that person can have my MRE and the last damn drop of water from my canteen any day because that's what we DO.

I'd hate to see this current situation become as it was in Vietnam, where the people had legitimate gripes with their government but took it out on the wrong people (troops).

 

[grydth]

I've protested the war several times since it has started and it is always an interesting experience. Once, even, I found myself shunted into a "free speech" zone surrounded by a fence with a net over our head that was so low that we couldn't hold up our signs. We were told by the police that if we tampered with any of the barriers, which included touching them with our signs, we would be arrested. Further, this "zone" was located about as far from the location we were protesting and was actually positioned out of the line of sight that they people we wanted to see it.

This is the state in which dissenting discourse in our country has been reduced. This paltry farce of free speech. How can the people who disagree ever hope to get their voice out into the public when the people that run the show can pull the strings and mechanize the police, the media, and local officials (with promises of increased aid) against it?

What other choices are available for people who are really passionate about stopping this ill-begotten and wasteful war? I don't want to put other people in danger, but I can't see any other way then sheer civil disobedience. I would say that a mass anti-tax movement would work better (Ron Paul). Or maybe a total ban on recruitment in a city or town or school. Anything legal that is going to make it more difficult to propagate this war probably needs to be considered.

What other recourse is there when all other methods are so effectively checkmated? As you have said, soldiers are our children, why should we give any aid to a cause that will get them killed for no benefit for America? Is being against the war and supporting the actions of our military tacit complicity in the war?

I can see the government really liking this hence the slogan "I am against this war, but I support our troops."

Keeping in mind that I am not a big liberal......I would say your first option would be to support Obama with money, letters and vote. He has been against the war since Day 1, you may wish to give the man a chance. Since McCain is pro-war and the Klintons have been bought and paid for with dirty money, I'd say Obama should at least be given a try by the Peace Movement.

Second, recall the anti-corporate actions taken in the days of South Africa...... agitate for divestiture. Instead of targeting our soldiers, pressure city/local/state governments to have nothing to do with these companies. Instead of attacking recruiting offices, how about pressuring government to not rent or sell to Halliburton and its ilk?

As I said, our troops perform an overall mission in protecting our country that is much wider and much different than only Iraq. Much as that conflict may offend you, that is not all, or even most, of what our soldiers do. Urban warfare training is needed for those duties as well.

"Free speech zones" give me the chills... between assaults on your 1st Amendment Rights and mine under the Second Amendment, I say we dare not give either Bush or Hellary any excuses to further erode the Bill of Rights. Violent protests against individual soldiers would give either one an excuse - draped in patriotism, of course.

Civil disobedience need not be violent. Always consider the possible consequences.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Mayor gives US Marines the boot.

It is not like there is history or anything between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Who knows maybe they thought Michigan wanted to take Toledo back.

Sorry I could not refrain.

 

[Makalakumu]

Civil disobedience need not be violent. Always consider the possible consequences.

Sage advice. :asian:

Perhaps my ignorance in the military's other duties colors my opinion, I'll have to make more of an effort to get informed on that.

We are actually in agreement on quite a few points. 1st and 2nd amendment issues, especially.

Where I think we differ is on the gravity of this particulary situation in which our country finds itself.

I'm looking at an empire that is bursting at the seams with spending and doing everything it can to keep people in line so that it can keep lining the pockets of the rich. Your suggestion to protest and or kick these people in their companies out of our communities might work if we were actually informed on what they do. Unfortunately, these matters are not privy to the public record so this makes it espeically difficult. Not to mention, there is no such thing as investigative staff on newspapers anymore...

With that being said, historically, unpopular wars have been stopped because the populace has turned on the military. In the ancient world, this was especially common and has extended into the twentieth century. The tactic has been to reduce morale to a point where people don't want to fight for worthless causes...and then the whole thing falls apart.

If another way existed to stop this thing before it ruined our country, I would take it. The easy way out is to move...

 

[grydth]

Sage advice. :asian:

Perhaps my ignorance in the military's other duties colors my opinion, I'll have to make more of an effort to get informed on that.

We are actually in agreement on quite a few points. 1st and 2nd amendment issues, especially.

Where I think we differ is on the gravity of this particulary situation in which our country finds itself.

I'm looking at an empire that is bursting at the seams with spending and doing everything it can to keep people in line so that it can keep lining the pockets of the rich. Your suggestion to protest and or kick these people in their companies out of our communities might work if we were actually informed on what they do. Unfortunately, these matters are not privy to the public record so this makes it espeically difficult. Not to mention, there is no such thing as investigative staff on newspapers anymore...

With that being said, historically, unpopular wars have been stopped because the populace has turned on the military. In the ancient world, this was especially common and has extended into the twentieth century. The tactic has been to reduce morale to a point where people don't want to fight for worthless causes...and then the whole thing falls apart.

If another way existed to stop this thing before it ruined our country, I would take it. The easy way out is to move...

The potential problems with a civil war or large scale military-civilian fighting are many and serious. The prime risk I see in the present is the imposition of a police state. The Bush-Klinton Dark Ages have already seen erosions of basic liberties.... they'd love to take the rest.

Another risk would be the dissolution of the country itself along a number of already existing fault lines. This is why I - no liberal - am giving Obama a hard look. His stands on issues I mostly do not agree with, but I think the nation is most in need of a positive leadership figure, a unifier instead of a divider, a corrupter and a hater.

You cannot selectively destroy military morale. The effects may last decades. If the troops lose the overall will to fight, who defends the nation from those who'd like to see us all dead?

Name me a country that presents a viable place to resettle.

Reports show even the Berkeley City Council now having a change of heart.... they see you can oppose the War but support the troops.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm very glad we continued this thread from the point where it seemed there were two camps at loggerheads.

It would seem that actually those of us who have been actively building arguments and describing positions have pretty much the same core view of what the problem is ... we just differ a touch on how to go about finding an answer.

I can well sympathise with the view that not wanting to put the invested troops in undue danger - they are, as has been said, someone's sons and daughters and I, tree-hugging hippy that I am, think that almost every human life has value.

Is there a case for taking the view that it's a justifiable path to take actions which, in the short term, add to the threat to the soldiers in the field but, ultimately, lead to getting them all out of harms way?

 

[Makalakumu]

The potential problems with a civil war or large scale military-civilian fighting are many and serious. The prime risk I see in the present is the imposition of a police state. The Bush-Klinton Dark Ages have already seen erosions of basic liberties.... they'd love to take the rest.

Another risk would be the dissolution of the country itself along a number of already existing fault lines. This is why I - no liberal - am giving Obama a hard look. His stands on issues I mostly do not agree with, but I think the nation is most in need of a positive leadership figure, a unifier instead of a divider, a corrupter and a hater.

You cannot selectively destroy military morale. The effects may last decades. If the troops lose the overall will to fight, who defends the nation from those who'd like to see us all dead?

I agree with you regarding the precarious state of affairs that our country has reached. There are so many fault lines that could break that I'm concerned about the future of my home.

As far as a leader goes, I want to see someone who will protect our civil liberties. Who will respect the constitution. Who will restore the military to its proper role as protector of this country.

I AM a liberal and I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul believes, but I believe that he would be the best person to lead our country right now. I know he doesn't have much of a chance, but the reforms he talks about are the only ones that anyone is saying that make any sense.

He's not charismatic like Obama, but I really respect his passion for liberty and the constitution. We need to stop treating this document like a doormat.

As far as the troops go, I think that the longer they stay in Iraq, fighting a war that cannot really be won, one that isn't supposed to be won, the more their morale will be destroyed anyways. If Obama is president and makes good on his pleadge to get our troops out of Iraq, that would be great. If not, I think our soldiers are in for a hard and sad slog no matter what.

Name me a country that presents a viable place to resettle.

Check your PMs.

Reports show even the Berkeley City Council now having a change of heart.... they see you can oppose the War but support the troops.

I question this. I am wary of this slogan because it gets tossed out with no real logical basis. People treat it as if its a forgone conclusion. Yet, I think I made a salient point earlier. If you are against the war and the democracy you depend on in order to exert your will is broken and you support our troops, isn't that tacit support of the war?

People don't want to accept the proposition in the middle of the above thesis, but I think that if we look at the state of our leaders, our voting procedures, and the media we can conclude that it really is broken...or at the very least sinking fast.

Thoughts?

 

[Makalakumu]

Is there a case for taking the view that it's a justifiable path to take actions which, in the short term, add to the threat to the soldiers in the field but, ultimately, lead to getting them all out of harms way?

I honestly hope it never gets there. History shows us that popular uprisings agaisnt unpopular wars are common, however. It could happen here.

 

[grydth]

I'm very glad we continued this thread from the point where it seemed there were two camps at loggerheads.

It would seem that actually those of us who have been actively building arguments and describing positions have pretty much the same core view of what the problem is ... we just differ a touch on how to go about finding an answer.

I can well sympathise with the view that not wanting to put the invested troops in undue danger - they are, as has been said, someone's sons and daughters and I, tree-hugging hippy that I am, think that almost every human life has value.

Is there a case for taking the view that it's a justifiable path to take actions which, in the short term, add to the threat to the soldiers in the field but, ultimately, lead to getting them all out of harms way?

The last paragraph is very dangerous ground indeed.

I can well understand and respect those many people who believe strongly that the Iraq war is wrong. But, to intentionally add to the threat to our own soldiers requires some troubling judgments....

We've heard many negative things about the USA, but how about the nature of monsters you'd be helping? How can people of conscience ever justify making common cause with the likes of al-Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah? These entities are the epitome of pure evil, their murderous misdeeds as stomach turning as anything I have ever read of. How could anyone ever justify helping them kill an American soldier or Marine? Maybe I'm just "ignorant", but in my view there can never be justification for that.

Also, those "actions" being debated are a Pandora's Box. Most of the harm to the American Army from what was done to soldiers lasted long past the end of the Viet Nam war. Lifetime enemies were made; societal fissures persisted at least a generation. Many veterans remain bitter over being attacked, while the political and corporate actors lived in safety and splendor. Morale and recruiting were damaged long after that war ended.

Iraq, like Viet Nam, is not the main mission or the main reason of and for our armed forces. Note Andy's post about what his unit does. Ready to give that up. or be responsible for those guys' death. I'm not.

 

[Sukerkin]

From what I've read here, Grydth I'd never dare to call you 'ignorant'.

My question was a hypothetical one, shaped to draw discussion and should not necessarily be taken to be an indication of my actual thoughts on the matter (bear in mind my accompanying 'every life is precious' statements).

As to the long term effects on the veterans of the Viet Nam war, well we have at least two of them here at MT that I can think of off the top of my head - is it significant that neither have posted here?

 

[newGuy12]

If it had been British Royal Marines I could have understood it, towns visited by them are usually left with their maidens deflowered, the towns bars drunk dry and a lot of very satisfied women and unhappy men.
No not joking!
We have specially built areas specially for urban fighting called Fibuas (Fghting in in-built areas), out on the training ranges, we've had them for over 40 years. other service people volunteer to be the towns people and they can riot, use civil disobedience or whatever is necessary for training.
I think the British service personnel lead the way in urban fighting as we had so much practice in Northern Ireland.

Well, then, that's good news! Good for the Englanders! And you would hope that the US would have as much sense. But no!

The Marines are elite, and no joke. The "powers that be" -- all of them, the military minds AND the local politicians -- should know that the Marines should choose a place where people are not put off by gunfire and shouting and so on. I know little, but I know that the term Devil Dog was not given on a whim, they are called that for a freaking reason. Some neighborhoods can't stand a lot of rowdy combat training, so choose a neighborhood that can stand it. Its a big country here, with many different little communities. Choose one of them that is suitable, but not this one.

Why does this seem so simple to me? Am I missing something?

 

[grydth]

From what I've read here, Grydth I'd never dare to call you 'ignorant'.

My question was a hypothetical one, shaped to draw discussion and should not necessarily be taken to be an indication of my actual thoughts on the matter (bear in mind my accompanying 'every life is precious' statements).

As to the long term effects on the veterans of the Viet Nam war, well we have at least two of them here at MT that I can think of off the top of my head - is it significant that neither have posted here?

I know you were not advocating violence or name calling.

Friends of mine were spit on and (falsely) called baby killers by leftwing protesters .... while from the other side, the 'establishment' corporations and media made it seem that the war and the loss of it were somehow the veterans' fault. Small wonder the vets don't want to revisit that. It is a national disgrace how those veterans were treated.

When we question whether soldiers are ever deployed untrained, ill equiped and unsupported, well there are many stomach turning tales from that conflict.

I served in the Army well after that war, but the damage to the military structure was still evident all over.

To me, when is it justified to interfere with our soldiers' training or to take acts that put them in peril? Never. Never again.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't disagree with your points there at all and appreciate your insights into the long term effects of 'Nam in the American military structure.

I can see why, given your background, that your feelings run the way they do on this and why you will never concur that putting your fellow serviceman in additional danger is justified.

I don't denigrate you for that, I fully understand it and will not try to change your mind.

 

[Makalakumu]

If the Military Industrial Complex is hell bent on pushing this war in order to fill its coffers even if its bankrupts this country and there is no democratic way to stop it, what does a person do?

No wants to make common cause with our enemies, but I think that everyone would stand up if they realized that we really were on the brink of something that could sink the future of this country.

So what do we do? Other then a mass uprising where the populace roots these elite *******s out of their shiny mansions and sharpens the guillotines, I can't think of much. These people have insulated themselves well and are effectively untouchable.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Gonna be totally honest with you, I don't see a way out of it, I just hope come time things kick off I've learned enough of what I need to to keep the people I care about as safe as I can do anything about. *shrug*

 

[CoryKS]

The "powers that be" -- all of them, the military minds AND the local politicians -- should know that the Marines should choose a place where people are not put off by gunfire and shouting and so on. I know little, but I know that the term Devil Dog was not given on a whim, they are called that for a freaking reason. Some neighborhoods can't stand a lot of rowdy combat training, so choose a neighborhood that can stand it.

I still don't see how this disqualifies Toledo.

 

[grydth]

Gonna be totally honest with you, I don't see a way out of it, I just hope come time things kick off I've learned enough of what I need to to keep the people I care about as safe as I can do anything about. *shrug*

There may be a way out of it, and that's why I am looking hard at supporting Obama even though I agree very little with him on the issues. Very little.

The guy is preaching national unity and a limit to corporate ownership of the government. I view Hellary, and to a lesser extent McCain, as essentially divisive figures. Individuals like Mayor F here only encourage us turning on each other. Once that starts, and the backlash commences, there is very litle hope.

 

[arnisador]

It was relocated (at least in part) to Indianapolis. The city has been largely supportive, but not without exception.

 

[Sukerkin]

The protest in the streets may have been small but the verbage in the posts was as shocking to me as it was revealing of just how far things have strayed.

I could only shake my head at some of the things I read which were put there by residents of a nation that trumpets itself as democratic. If they don't see the destructive path the voiced attitudes place their feet upon ...

 

[FieldDiscipline]

"We do not want to promote war," said protester Mary Heins, 66, Indianapolis. "You're giving tacit approval to war when you bring in the military to practice in our midst."

Clown.