A Quaker church was spreading information about non-violence at an anti-recruitment booth at a local Florida high school, and what does the FBI do? They send in operatives and wiretaps to monitor their meetings, /obviously in the interests of national security/.
Someone dare me to get anti-recruitment posters approved by the administration for the next time we have army guys visiting. I'd love to hear B-Choch's response.
Anonymous
08:23:47 PM
37 comments:
I'll help!
Anti-recruitment is great, it's your given right.
That said:
It it flat out disrespectful to show blatantly and obnoxiously that you do not support American troops while we are currently engaged in Iraq. Essentially, it's like going up to a teacher and telling her she's an idiot. To her face. What you are planning is not cool, and I think in your heart you also know that this is wrong.
Hmm, thinking about it now, with actually reading the post... I think I will rescind my offer to help. Non-violence, like what the Quakers were doing, I support wholeheartedly. In the case of Iraq, I'm against the war.
But anti-recruitment isn't so great. I know a couple of people who are thinking about joining, seriously thinking about it - life/death consequences, injuries, postmilitary life - and it's one of their biggest motivations.
But what's the problem with giving people all the information they need to make a wise, balanced descision?
Right now they're being told they'll
"travel the world" and get free college. To get specific they're going to get brainwashed for a few months, be given a gun, and then expected to kill people at the risk of being killed. If they're lucky they'll only be -indirectly- aiding murderers (not to sound like a hippy but that's what they are). If people knew all the facts or weren't forced into it for money do you think -anyone- would join the army?
Where's Kerkhof? Someone needs to get him on here.
"Non-violence, like what the Quakers were doing, I support wholeheartedly... But anti-recruitment isn't so great."
But anyway you spin it non-violence -is- inherently anti-recruitment. The government is spending time and taxpayer money to convince kids that violence is okay. Average citizens should be able to spend their time and effort, free from intimidation or censorship, to do the opposite. That's freedom of speech, and that's why wiretaps suck in my book.
The military does things besides conduct violent missions. In other countries, they act as peacekeepers. They provide aid for disaster relief - had they not been deployed in Iraq, the National Guard would have done a lot better job with Katrina.
If there weren't wars going on, there would still be a need for a standing army.
I want to join the army because it's romantic. It provides literary inspiration, opportunity, a chance to see people, places, and things.
It's not a moral deal for me.
Anonymous 1, I call the bad analogy police on you. That is one terrible and disgusting analogy.
Going up to a teacher, as a student, and telling her she's an idiot would be like a soldier going up to his superior and telling him he's an idiot. The latter would be slightly more out of place, but that's acceptable.
What we're doing would be like adults debating whether or not we should force kids to go to school.
That said while a standing army is useful for things other than killing and defense, one of the primary reasons katrina sucked so much is because the dikes broke (which everyone saw coming), most of our national guard (which solves things like that) was stuck in Iraq, and the leader of FEMA is a douchecock who doesn't know shit and was put as the head cause he's a friend of the family.
That said, the war in Iraq is a disgusting event based on lies and deceit, that while it will probably have positive effect in the end I don't believe it's worth all the effort.
The only reason I'm for it is 'cause we gotta finish what we started now that we're so invested.
The army is great for getting into college and traveling the world it's true, but we have a freedom of speech to try and get people not to join just as much as everyone else has a freedom of speech to allow them to.
I want to go to Westpoint, join the Army and serve for 20 years or more. That said most people know who this is so I have to be more polite than I would if I were still anonymous.
I know through most of the history of the United States, Soldiers have not been well respected, and they currently enjoy a good deal of respect and support; people learned from Vietnam.
I don't understand however, why some people are anti-recruitment or anti- army. I quote anonymous #2
"Right now they're being told they'll"travel the world" and get free college. To get specific they're going to get brainwashed for a few months, be given a gun, and then expected to kill people at the risk of being killed. If they're lucky they'll only be -indirectly- aiding murderers (not to sound like a hippy but that's what they are). If people knew all the facts or weren't forced into it for money do you think -anyone- would join the army?"
That opinion, is very offensive to me and to all of the people who have given their lives to preserve this country. Because ultimately, without people willing to fight for the United States, without the armed services, lets face it, there wouldn't be a United States. And further more, without such a strong Armed Forces this country would not enjoy the freedom, affluence and economic power that it does today. Without these "murderers" who are "brainwashed and given a gun" the United States would not be what it is today.
I can guess anonymous 2 that you don't want to join the Armed Services, well then don't try to stop others who understand that we do need people to serve and who are willing to step up to the task.
Now, whether anti-recruitment should be allowed ornot, I don't know and I don't care. It's everyone's right to protest and what I will serve and possibly die for in order to protect. I don't understand why people would protest in order to destroy the thing that protects them, but it is their right, and if this was the kind of country that would prohibit it I would not serve.
So Anonymous 2, I know the facts, and I want to Join. Yes, i'll accept that you and people like you will call me a murderer, while they enjoy the freedoms and priviledge that I will give up in order to preserve theirs.
Original Poster, I dare you. Go protest the people that have put their lives on the line in order to protect your right to protest. If you can look them in the eye without flinching at the gross inequity that you are committing, think about the oath that all of them swore
" I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegience to the same"
Do you have the courage to take that oath? to swear your life to protecting your rights and those of your fellow citizens? Everyone in the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines has sworn that oath, willingly and without mental reservation, before they were "brainwashed". So, I dare you, go exercise your rights.
-Kerkhof
p.s. Original Poster, Cite your sources. Pchis, is it the National Guard or FEMA? It's Michael Brown.
The funny thing Peter, is that I agree with you.
The army is a useful thing when used well, I just don't like our current situation and I don't like the implication that someone's freedom of speech (which by the way a bunch of soldiers died for) should be restricted because they want to protest people joining the army.
-Chisnell
p.s. "Pchis, is it the National Guard or FEMA? It's Michael Brown."
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I think I totally missed that, care to elaborate?
hell yeah kerkhof! you said what i was trying to say, only much better!
Is murder in the name of liberty justified?
Is economic affluence and political liberties at home a justified end for bullying, violence, and torture abroad?
Who are we to punish citizens of the United States for murdering a child or a husband, and then when once Bubba gets out of jail we send him off to Afganistan to knock off a couple rag-heads.
What right do we have to fire a cruise missle into forgiegn territory without clear consent from it's governemnt (killing dozens of innocent citizens) in the aims of murdering a sigle individual who disagrees with the United States?
Must the tree of liberty really be watered with the blood of the innocent?
That's your call I guess, but I think that no military endeavor outside US soil is justified. I could never -ever- bring myself to kill another human being in cold blood.
So when you're in Iran a decade from now with a gun to the head of one of your fellow men, you kindly tell him that his life antithetical to your own, and for your family to have a TV, three cars, and cheap gas he needs to have his brain splattered across the sidewalk. You tell him that. I'm sure he'll understand.
The purpose of government is to protects its citizens. The incident that the above poster is speaking of, with the cruise missiles, was when President Clinton bombed an al quaeda training camp that Osama bin Laden was reported to have been residing in. Bin Laden did not merely "disagree" with the United states at that point he had bombed multiple embassies. All of those attacks resulted in many American casulties, Al quaeda later bombed the USS Cole before September 11th. So not only had he vowed total destruction against the "Great Satan" he had backed it up with multiple terrorist attacks. The multiple cruise missile strikes were justified, so was the invasion of afghanistan. If you care to remember over 6,000 INNOCENT American citizens died in the world trade towers. Both of those military actions are direct actions to protect the United States from people who are doing their best to attack the U.S.
Was World War 2 justified, that was a war outside of U.S. soil, against a genoicidal madman, and to preserve democracy in Europe and here?
The United States, no matter how much we would like to, cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. This has been shown at great cost December 6th 1941 and September 11th 2001. We ARE a superpower, atleast for the next 50 years, and we need act accordingly.
I would not kill a man to allow my family to have 3 cars and a TV. I would kill a man who has pledged to kill my family and take away my freedoms.
I challenge you to read the first 10 amendments, then go through the day and count each time you exercise or depend on one of them. Those laws, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, a fair trial, due process, no cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of religion. Maybe then you'll appreciate them.
In Iran there are "God Squads" men and women in trucks who patrol the streets to catch and punish any women who's veils are the wrong length or color, or who's nails are painted, or who look to boldly, or who walk with a man who is not their husband. There is no due process in Iran, no freedom of speech, no rights at all.
The Chinese exchange students who visited our school last year did not know about Tianamen square, they thought it had not happened. In China all pro-western websites are banned. They don't have freedom of speech or due process either.
Keeping our society free from those who would destroy it is worth killing terrorists for.
p.s. It's against army regs to enlist convicted murderers. So bubba wont be able to be sent to afghanistan and knock off a couple ragheads.
Mostly this is aimed at the anonymous second above me, and organized by question/topic.
1.) Murder in the name of liberty is certainly justified, when the alternative is oppression and death, at least to me. Maybe you see that coin differently.
2.) Our political freedoms and the economic affluence enjoyed by a small fraction of the population have little to do with the justification of the treatment our military uses towards its enemies abroad.
If someone attacks you, intending to take your life, and the lives of your friends, do you (a) take his gun and send him on his way, (b) ask him nicely to tell you where his buddies are so you can go square things up with them, (c) settle your differences over tea and crumpets, or (d) imprison him for his actions and interrogate him for information that could save future casualties?
My answer would tend to be (d), personally, unless, of course, we're fighting against a high-society ladies' book club, in which case I'd have to go with (c).
3.) Last I checked, most murderers in America receive a few decades, if not life, in prison, or the death penalty. By the time they are released, they are both too old for active duty in our military, and are also undesireable for inclusion in a fighting unit, given their status as dangerous felons. Your point, therefore, is completely invalid.
4.) This is, perhaps, one of the few fairly valid points I see in your argument. However, the local government of the region to which you make pointed reference has yet to openly condemn and refute the actions of the US. Until they come out and say that they absolutely had no idea it was coming, that there were in no manner talks with American officials, it is inconceivable to believe that the action was not, at the very least, mildly supported in certain factions of said government.
5.) Stop quoting Hoffman/Tisdale & Jefferson. It doesn't help your case.
6.) And that's why you probably never will have to. Military service in the USA is in no imminent danger of a draft for duty. Unless you change your mind, you never have to worry about dealing with the rest of the world. You get to stay happy and safe in America behind your computer, inside your house, reaping the benefits of others' decisions.
7.) Since when do enlisted men earn enough to support extraneous vehicles, large homes, and the like? Anyway, in affirmation of the directly previous anonymous, Iran has many serious human rights issues, all of which justify an intervention of some sort, at least in my eyes.
Regardless, the wars we have abroad are not centered on a grab for oil, a want for land, etc.
We may or may not, as a country, receive certain benefits in economic transactions with Middle Eastern countries, per our status in a select few. However, you can hardly argue that America's foreign policy and military directives are focused, or based solely on, economic gain.
I've got a couple instances outlined hereafter that perhaps will prove interesting to you.
In case you missed the last few decades, there's this neat place called Korea, sort of near China. America has been heavily invested in maintaining the borders secured for the South Korean democratic government. Sure, we benefit from having them around, but you can hardly argue that it would be appropriate to wihtdraw and let their various neighbors have their way.
Back in the 90's, under Clinton, the American military fought to secure the freedom of a little country called Kuwait. Now, Kuwait had been invaded by a nasty guy called Saddam Hussein. He wanted oil, and he wanted increased access to the Persian Gulf. Our military promptly ejected him from his holdings, and put in place certain amounts of security to ensure such an incident was prevented in the future. We're still invested there. Would it be a good idea to pull out? Sure, if you have a fetish that involves watching a region be destroyed by warring factions. Same goes for Iraq, no matter what you may feel about the initial onset of the conflict.
The world would be a very different place without American foreign military actions. Would it be better? That's hard to say for sure. Should we simply withdraw our troops, slash the enlistment capacity, and return to an isolationist mindset? No, that's not an option.
This was way to long, for certain. No matter, I'm more bored than I should be at 12:30 in the morning.
If I said anything dead wrong, post it, let's discuss :-)
"The incident that the above poster is speaking of, with the cruise missiles, was when President Clinton bombed an al quaeda training camp that Osama bin Laden was reported to have been residing in."
I was acutally referring to the attack inside Pakistan only last month (excuse me it was a hellfire missile) which killed 17 innocent people. The status of the actual target is still unknown and it is presumed he is in hiding.
As for 9/11, currently we've killed over 40,000 civilians and soldiers in Iraq alone elcluding other "war on terror" casualties. Fair trade? How many will it take?
"I would kill a man who has pledged to kill my family and take away my freedoms."
I know a regular Iraqi civilian protesting the occupation or Iraqi soldier trying to protect his -own- family and interests from invaders hasn't said anything even remotely similar. Yet, will that keep him from becoming yet another casualty?
Besides, who are we to judge another religion or form of government when there are everday citizens (not just leaders and fanatics) willing to fight to the end to protect it? How dare we presume our system is so infinitely superior that we will use deadly force and break every moral code to try and destroy their way of life and enforce our own. No wonder the rest of the world calls us arrogant.
"Last I checked, most murderers in America receive a few decades"
The semantics of the bubba case have nothing to do with the issue. The fact that we punish people severely for killing in America but then sanction, no, encourage it overseas; that's the real problem. If killing for your ideals is okay then why can't I bomb abortion clinics? Why can't I kill teachers who give me bad grades? It's becasue you have to respect everyone else's opinions, whether you disagree or not. Violence certainly won't help, and this policy shouldn't stop at our borders.
We tell every kid in elementary school that violence isn't the answer and then bribe him in high school to join the violence brigade. Fundamental disconnect anyone?
"Military service in the USA is in no imminent danger of a draft for duty."
This doesn't change the fact that countless youths are being duped or forced into the army for money, t-shirts, or "skill training" that they think they can't get anywhere else.
"you can hardly argue that it would be appropriate to wihtdraw and let their various neighbors have their way."
So it would have been perfectly reasonable for France to have invaded during the Mexican American war and fought the US to protect Mexico and set up a monarchy there with econmic ties at our expense? Even better, what if France had seen England's awful treatment of the colonies, invaded, and then expected us to establish another monarchy like everybody else. One country, just becasue they have the guns, is never allowed to make policy descisions for another nation. If the Iraqi really had a problem why not let them revolt on their own when they were ready? Why else would we spend billions to revolt for them prematurely unless it was done for personal gain?
Phew. That's enough for one night. Tomorrow then?
Tomorrow, it is.
You seem to have lost most of your marbles, and I need something to do tomorrow night ;-)
darn, i'm going out of town, next week then.
Hmm, I'd just like to argue some of your points anonymous:
"Besides, who are we to judge another religion or form of government when there are everday citizens (not just leaders and fanatics) willing to fight to the end to protect it? How dare we presume our system is so infinitely superior that we will use deadly force and break every moral code to try and destroy their way of life and enforce our own. No wonder the rest of the world calls us arrogant."
I'm sorry, but our system is better, it's WAY better than their system. First they were a bunch of tribes wandering around killing each other over religious differences. Sure that kept their population down, but we don't like people killing eachother. Then Britain, the country that fucked everyone up during colonization came in and said "hey, these barbarians are killing each other...let's establish a king." And so they did, and eventually in the name of the people a savior named Saddam Hussein brought down the king and ruled the country. He wasn't such a nice guy, but he did keep those militant religious freaks down. He did all the killing, and no one fucked with him. Now we're just trying to improve it one step further, we're brining about the American dream. As you can see the current satus of the militants killing each other is exactly what would happen if we were to pull out now, and that's why we have to stay there until we can establish a stable society. The Russians tried for years in certain countries and failed, and I doubt this will be a simple task, but maybe we can do it.
I was against going in and I think the reasons for the war were ridiculous and I still don't know what the hell the people behind it were thinking. But now that we are there we're going to try our best to fix their society with our better one, and peaceful democracy is better than whatever the hell they've had before. This doesn't mean we'll drastically change their other customs, we're not out to make them exactly like us.
"We tell every kid in elementary school that violence isn't the answer and then bribe him in high school to join the violence brigade. Fundamental disconnect anyone?"
Actually that makes a lot of sense. To tell the truth, the army doesn't want really violent people at all. Sure they force them into the army mindset and basically rewire them into trained fighters, but that's the whole point. They can be used for violence, and they are exceptionally good at it, but all the rest of us who are taught that war is not the way are the ones holding the remote control.
"If the Iraqi really had a problem why not let them revolt on their own when they were ready?"
Because revolts against such a dictatorship as Hussein had is ridiculously hard. It would probably result in more blood than what we're spilling. He was powerful enough to stop most religious infighting, and that's a pretty iron hold.
"Why else would we spend billions to revolt for them prematurely unless it was done for personal gain?"
I agree with this. I hate the war and I hate that the European countries who fucked up the world a lot more than we did (yet they bitch at us for being barbarians) are not helping us fix their problems.
Even though I hate it, we can't say it's bad for reasons it isn't bad and we should evaluate (now that we are at war and have been for quite a while) as to what possible benefits we can glean from this.
That was typed out pretty quickly, sorry if it sucks and/or doesn't make sense guys.
Time for homework yay!
I still say the only reason I'd join the army is because it's a romantic, esoteric gesture.
Also, a Whitman excerpt:
"O to resume the joys of the soldier!
TO feel the presence of a brave commanding officer--to feel his sympathy!
To behold his calmness--to be warm'd in the rays of his smile!
To go to battle--to hear the bugles play and the drums beat!
To hear the crash of artillery--to see the glittering of the bayonets and musket-barrels in the sun!
To see men fall and die and not complain!
To taste the savage taste of blood--to be so devilish!
To gloat so over the wounds and deaths of the enemy."
From "A Song of Joys"
Mmm, Whitman.
"I still say the only reason I'd join the army is because it's a romantic, esoteric gesture."
If you think the soldiering life will get you plenty of poetic material you're absolutely right.
http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Dulce.html
As for that romantic thing...I fail to see the romance in being blown to pieces by a car bomb and never seeing your family again. If that's your idea of romance I can't wait to see what your honeymoon is like. :)
I'm sorry, but our system is better, it's WAY better than their system."
But how do you know for certain? Have you lived in Iraq? People there are disgusted by our women's clothing, our materialism, our godlessness. Us forcing these ideas on the east through rampant globalization is why they attacked us in the first place. Now we're speeding up the process of assimilation but with guns and missiles this time. How dare we presume.
If our system is so perfect why do we abandon the elderly nursing homes to die lonely and afraid? Why do little girls get pregnant in their early teens, get STDs, and then abort their children? No system is perfect. How dare we judge.
I hope you don't mind when we're invaded by Communist China two decades from now and have our bordello of consumerism, waste, and sin replaced by a healthy communist dictatorship.
I think it's very romantic. You're being "blown to bits" for a cause. It's a cosmic gesture to life--men, destroying men.
I love it.
Also, the poem you listed, it's normally terrible poetry in my opinion, evaluated just for the style. But! because the person presumably had those experiences it becomes real, not pretentious, a representation of life.
Look at "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Great poetry on the insidious attraction of war.
I think you're vastly misled if you believe the China of today will be the China of tomorrow, much less two decades in the future, much less that it is still the tightly controlled communist society of two decades ago.
Think about twenty years in the history of any nation, especially those in the developed world. In today's modern times, it's difficult to believe culture and government will not change across such a vast time period, especially in rapidly advancing nations such as China.
As to religous/social persecution vs. STDs and abotions:
You've got to be out of your mind if you really think its a one for one substitution.
Option 1: Living in a country where daily you can be exiled or killed for such "minor" infractions as speaking your mind, advocating women's rights, or suggesting freedoms of speech and press.
Option 2: Living in a culture where tolerance is abundant; laws are built by the people, for the people; and freedom is allowed to the point where people must take responsibility for their own actions, instead of leaning on a government for punishment and intolerance.
I'm inclined to go with Option 2. Sure, our society isn't perfect, as you pointed out, but I prefer not to have to worry about persecution in my daily life.
However, your decision is your own. I respect that. I just want you to understand what it is you advocate, before you go blindly asserting a hardcore stance.
Think about life with the constant threat of danger to your life and family. Tour Iraq, visit Iran. Heck, get yourself kidnapped and have your life bargained with against the US government. You clearly don't yet understand the nature of that which you suggest.
On another note, I've got to agree with the previous sentiments. Soldering makes a wonderful stereotypical romantic inspiration.
"I think it's very romantic. You're being "blown to bits" for a cause. It's a cosmic gesture to life--men, destroying men.
I love it."
This is disgusting. If you truly think carnage and destruction are artistic or admirable then I think a little pain, loss, and disillusionment would do you good. Join the army by all means, go straight to the front lines for god's sake, and we'll see how many poems you're writing when you get back (assuming you do).
"I think you're vastly misled if you believe the China of today will be the China of tomorrow"
My point was merely that China would probably feel it there duty to invade the United States and spread their ideals of communism and control (which in their minds are clearly the superior form of government). If you think it's okay for us to go around spreading our own personal dogma then you should have no problem with the Chinese doing the exact same, two decades from now or even tomorrow. If not then it's clear that we shouldn't be doing the same thing. I'm sure there are people in Iraq who disagree with our government as strongly as most of us disagree with controlling communist dictatorships. What right do we have to rewrite their government for them? None.
The social contract is between the people and their rulers, and the choice to tear it up and beginning again fall on those same groups (not between the Iraqi people and the United States and certainly not between the US and Iraq's oil reserves).
"I just want you to understand what it is you advocate"
I merely advocate tolerance, humility, and peace. We've been building a bloated military industrial complex since WWI and now it's calling the shots rather than politicians or the american people. ("We've got all these subs and unmanned fighters lying around, we've got to use them -somewhere-!")
We need to understand that our form of capitalist democracy isn't the end-all-be-all of the universe and our neighbors across the world certainly aren't savages who hate babies and Christmas just because of their differences. Would the world really be that great of a place if everywhere were exactly like the United States?
We aren't Team America: World Police, we aren't magical liberators replacing tyranny with candy and beer wherever we go. We're invaders, we're occupiers, and we're bullies with ulterior motives, and there is nothing admirable about joining a military that supports these ideals of violence and arrogance.
(Wow, reading back through this was really trippy. I guess there's nothing like lack of sleep, and anonymity to radicalize a guy.)
Appologies to all of those who are offended.
"We're invaders, we're occupiers, and we're bullies with ulterior motives"
I still don't know as you've convinced me that this is a bad thing. The only bad thing I can see about the war is that it hurts America's economy by draining money and increasing debt.
Also, to the previous poster: "go straight to the front lines for god's sake, and we'll see how many poems you're writing when you get back (assuming you do)."
Err, isn't this what I said I meant to do? Thanks for the advice?
"We aren't Team America: World Police, we aren't magical liberators replacing tyranny with candy and beer wherever we go. We're invaders, we're occupiers, and we're bullies with ulterior motives, and there is nothing admirable about joining a military that supports these ideals of violence and arrogance."
On the other hand, if we had had this personality when hitler was being appeased, we could've saved a few million people and a huge muslim vs jew conflict.
That analogy draws so many conclusions that aren't correct haha I love it.
But anyways, I wouldn't say we're world police till we invade somewhere else.
"On the other hand, if we had had this personality when hitler was being appeased, we could've saved a few million people and a huge muslim vs jew conflict."
And if hitler himslef had never had this personality, WWII would have never even happened. And what with illegal wiretaps, racial profiling, and continuing military buildup we might be the next hitler for all we know.
"But anyways, I wouldn't say we're world police till we invade somewhere else."
No fear, we've still got China, North Korea, and Iran waiting in the wings. Even Russia's been getting a little big for there britches lately.
What the hell are you talking about, S/He Who Posted "No fear, we've still got China, North Korea, and Iran waiting in the wings. Even Russia's been getting a little big for there britches lately."
I'm one of the worst people that I know at military strategy, and even I know that invading China or Russia would be one of the dumbest ideas ever. Especially Russia. I think we've learned our lesson well from the two european dictators (now, if only we were the Mongols, then I might say something different...)
I realize that you probably weren't being completely serious in every single word that you said (what fun is an argument if you don't exaggerate a little?), but that comment amused me almost as much as the comment about Happy China replacing our corrupt bordello of a society. I had to add some sort of pointless comment.
"I realize that you probably weren't being completely serious in every single word that you said"
Yay, somebody gets it!
sigh, i missed the great debate.
I hope it's OK to comment even though I'm not a teen and haven't been for almost 40 years. I am a Quaker, though, and I found this blog entry because I was looking for blogs that mention Quakers.
I am not goint to debate non-violence and pacifism, but I would like to say something about counter-recruitment:
First, it is not anti-soldier or anti-American to tell the other side of the story about military service: the side that recruiters won't tell. I don't think learning the facts will keep anyone from joining who really understands what military service is and wants to embrace it. But it might give second thoughts to people who fail to take the recruiters' sales ptich with a grain of salt.
Second, whether you agree with it or not, counter-recruitment is an exercise of free speech and is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Exercising free speech is not unpatriotic.
Thirdly, this whole discussion started because a counter-recruitment effort was monitored by the FBI. Again, whether you agree with it or not, free speech is free speech. You don't have to be pacifist or anti-recruitment to believe that it is wrong for the government to be snooping on people who exercise their constitutional rights.
If any of you are interested in more information about counter-recruitment maybe some of the groups listed here would be useful.
- - Rich Accetta-Evans
Brooklyn Quaker
Post a Comment