Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (2465)	1/20/2003 8:42:39 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

Military voices of dissent Friday, 17 January, 2003, 11:04 GMT By Steve Schifferes BBC News Online Washington correspondent news.bbc.co.uk Opposition to a possible war in Iraq has come from an unlikely source - the US military itself. As anti-war forces are gathering for a major demonstration on Saturday in Washington, a group of parents of the soldiers currently being deployed in the Gulf have decided to speak out against the drive for war. One son will by flying casualties to medical ships They have been joined by organisations representing Gulf War veterans, who are particularly concerned about the problem of chemical and biological warfare casualties among servicemen. The anti-war former soldiers hope to replicate the success of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in the l960s, who were a crucial part of the anti-war coalition that helped end US involvement in that war. The organisations are new and small. But they could bring a new element to the anti-Iraq war movement. If they influence US troops in the field, that could be a worry for the Pentagon. Activists on Vietnam Nancy Lessin, one of founders of Military Families Speak Out has a stepson, Joe, in the marines. He is deployed in Kuwait as an Arab language specialist. This war isn't worth the life of one American soldier Charles Sheehan-Miles, former tank crewman, 24th Infantry, Gulf War She is a union activist from Jamaica Plain near Boston, Massachusetts who was previously active in opposing the Vietnam War. Her voice breaking, Ms Lessin told News Online she hoped her stepson would not face combat, nor would he have to take part in killing others. She said that opposition to an unjust war was patriotic. And she said that if Iraq's main export was olive oil, we wouldn't be facing the possibility of war. The horrors of war Briggs Seakins from Maine served as a dismount mechanised infantryman with the 3rd Armoured Division in the 1991 Gulf War. He told the BBC that it was the experience of the war - and his concern that he was taking part in the slaughter of innocents - that has led him to take his anti-war stance. He says that at the time, supporting his fellow soldiers took priority. But having seen the refugees and the frightened conscript soldiers from Iraq, he would not take part in war again. So far there are no members of these organisations who are also active members of the military. But the organisers believe that there is considerable hidden support for their views. Jeff McKenzie, another member of Military Families Speak Out, is an anti-war activist from New York state. His son, Jeremy, is an Army captain who flies medical evacuation helicopters and is currently being deployed to the Gulf. He said he encountered sympathy with his views among some of the soldiers when he visited his son in Fort Benning, Georgia, especially those who were nearing the end of their tours of duty. His own anti-war views were forged after the events of 11 September, and he took part in anti-nuclear marches. He says the war in Iraq is about settling old scores and controlling oil, and it would not be in America's interest. Gulf War veterans Many of the military activists, former Gulf War veterans, are warning that any conflict will be more costly, in terms of casualties and disabilities, than anyone is prepared for. And as the coalition seeks to represent the views of some 44 million veterans, the Veterans for Common Sense (VFCS) have taken a moderate stance on the war, calling for a halt to the war until diplomacy has been given a chance rather than opposing it outright. They have also called for more evidence and broader support from the Allies before launching a "vindictive" strike. "This war isn't worth the life of one American soldier," said Charlie Sheehan-Miles, a former tank crewman in the Gulf who is one of the founders of VFCS. "This week thousands of US soldiers are deploying to Kuwait to fight a war on our behalf. They go because it is their job, and their mission to protect us. It is now our mission to protect them."

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (2465)	1/20/2003 1:51:49 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Excellent posted interview, George! I was very struck by the below comment: >>>If the US attempts to invade and occupy Iraq, I believe that they will find that the people are prepared to defend their country. Not for Saddam Hussein, but out of love for their country and hatred of their enemy. Even young children understand that their brother?s and sister?s die from very treatable diseases because of US sanctions.<<< You have to think that these people also must consider what it'd be like living under a US-occupation, especially given most Iraqi people don't believe Americans understand them, especially their culture. Also noteworthy is the fact that the historical understandings of the Iraqi people are quite different than the historical understandings of the American people. And if you wonder how aware we are of history, how many of you realize it was only 400 years or so ago that we realized that the earth goes around the sun. But this fact didn't hurt a bit when our US leaders determined it a wise policy to spread nuclear materials to last 10,000 years around the earth. I'll conclude with this: I just don't know why people who don't know don't know. They should at least know they dont' know, but they don't. It's truly boggling.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (2465)	1/20/2003 2:13:52 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

>>>The 1990 US led campaign in Iraq was largely fought in the desert, however with no noticeable reinforcements deployed around the Iraqi borders, one can only assume that Saddam Hussein may be planning a guerilla war in highly populated areas to resist his ?superior? enemy.<<< If Iraq chooses solely to defend Baghdad, short of using nuclear weapons, there is no easy way--without killing--let's use media peace demonstrator count numbers!--tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens in urban combat. Of course, using nukes would kill more. Should either of the above happen, does anyone really want the US to look good only in the eyes of the Republican rightwing of this country? And if a prolonged seige happens and one lasting months on end, I submit there's no public relations specialist or propaganda expert capable of defending such a condition. Again, the US would only look good in the eyes of the Republican rightwing of this country. Meanwhile, if the UN inspections process is to have any creedence, as most in the Western world would like, then it'll take several months to thoroughly inspect Iraq. Meanwhile, whose paying for the US and British build-up now in wait? Thus, the questoin: How prudent actually was it for both Bush and Blair to commit such a large force so early? In this scenario, Blair will be forced to cave in and withdraw much of the British military, under pressure from his people. But in America? Well, Bush only looks to the rightwing Republicans so our forces will stay waiting for a tinderbox incidence and one such that's likely to create the condition described in the earlier part of this post.