Thursday, August 25, 2005

Anti-War Protestors, Beware

Sorry for all the political posts lately, but it seems like there's a growing discontent - and desperation - that is happening behind the scenes in our country.

It saddens me to read that the American Legion has advocated "an end to all public protests and media events against the war," and worse, to use "whatever means necessary to ensure the united backing of the Americna people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."

There's two things wrong with this. First, being against the war is not the opposite of supporting our troops. We're not spitting on soldiers when the come home. Quite the contrary - when my former classmates and friends come back alive, it helps me sleep better at night. There are at least two people currently in Iraq that I count as friends, and one more that could be in Iraq or Afghanistan - I haven't heard from since before the war, so I have no idea where he is, and his unit is the kind that moves around quite a bit.

These are guys I know, guys who signed up in the military thinking they were going to protect the United States. That's exactly what we did in Afghanistan, but Iraq - no way. And two of those current soldiers have told me that it's a fucking waste. There's a former soldier in my office who feels exactly the same way. The sense of betrayal is plain sickening.

So guess what, Republicans: I'm the one supporting the troops. Your blind obedience to your President is what's hurting them and betraying their trust. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

The second thing is that the freedom to protest in a peaceful manner is exactly the kind of freedom those soldiers are putting their asses on the line to protect. One of the good things that has come out of Haliburton's $60 billion in contracts (AKA the Iraq war) is that the Iraqi people are now free to express their minds in ways that they could not under Saddam, because they were threatened with violence should they publically gather and speak out against the government.

Have we given them that ability, only to have it taken away from us in exchange for some twisted view of patriotism?

Whether it's from a private group or the government itself, if I cannot publically assemble and speak a view contrary to that of the current administration, then we might as well put down our guns, because the war is fucking over.

And our Mission is Not Accomplished.

2 comments:

Jason said...

"BTW, wasn't Hussein in blatant violation of the armistace that ended the Gulf War?"

Probably. Hussien was a douchebag, pure and simple, but there are a half-dozen other douchebag dictators out there who should be removed too.

Artillery MKV said...

TO paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who are willing to give up their freedom to gain security deserve neither."

Can't attribute the quote (brain dead this morning), but it goes: "the price of liberty is blood." Usually used to justify American wars. What it also justifies is that to be truly free we must be vulnerable. We will be attacked, but when we are truly free we absorb our attackers into the gelatinous mass that is the American Dream.
I'd rather face imminent danger than have the government revoke my basic rights as outlined in the constitution.
Here's a test to apply when reviewing laws that affect personal rights: "if this law was in effect at the dawn of our country would the Boston Tea Party have been possible?"

(yes, that was under British rule, but the founding fathers crafted the constitution such that such a protest would be legal. [ok, not the proerty damge] Under current law those patriot men would be in jail as terrorists.)

Food for thought.