Community archive
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
That might even buy her a one-way ticket without anyone else's help.
It's obvious she's lying, however, because if she'd rather live there, she could and would live there. What's stopping her?
by mjd420nova
by tig2
This woman needs to be excused. I no longer have any sympathy whatsoever for her or her causes. I agree with Nova- every time she opens her mouth, she dishonours her son.
Don't like the war? Get in line. No one LIKES the war. But the protests of Vietnam need to stay there and the U.S. focus must remain on supporting the troops doing the job they signed up for. I am unwilling to allow for protests that devalue that service.
She wants out? GO AWAY, I say. She wants to publically diet? Good luck with all that. What she seems to be unwilling to do is stop the self agrandisement and do something constructive. Every military base and public post military group I know of has a "Military Family Assistance" program or "Adopt a Soldier/Sailor" program. And there are hundreds of individuals out there doing fine things to support.
A hunger strike against the war? Like I said- Good luck with all that.
Sure, there are people who truly oppose the war in Iraq. Moreover, there were actually people who opposed the war in Afghanistan directly following 9-11. The [i]"war should be a last resort"[/i] type-people are living in la-la land, if you ask me. After all, surrender is a possible resort before war, and since that's unacceptable, the logical conclusion would suggest that therefore, no, it should not be the "last resort".
Another thing about those who "oppose the war" (in Iraq) is that they don't really have a valid alternative or they don't have the same desired outcome (or both). They're sure vocal about what they're against, but they fail miserably in articulating what they're for; and the [i]"I'm for peace"[/i] crowd haven't a friggin' clue. Sure, I'm for peace, too. But peace on whose terms? And peace at what cost? Questions the peaceniks conveniently overlook.
I wonder if we had people like Cindy (traitor) Sheehan during World War II? (And in my opinion, this war is just as significant.) I'm sure we probably did, but I'm also sure they weren't given the legitimacy in the press she seems to get. I also know that the New York Times and other media publications weren't aiding and abetting the enemy back then like they are now. The problem, I suppose, is that we have different enemies. Theirs is George W. Bush. Mine is those who wish to do harm to the citizens of the United States.
by j.lupo
by faradhi
She has the right to express her opinions about the war and the administration. Just like you have the right to express your opinions.
Our country does not put conditions on freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech as long as you agree with us. It is not freedom of speech as long as you agree the current president. It is not freedom of speech as long as you go along with current policies. It is freedom of speech.
Further, Criticizing the Administration or the War is not a disservice to those in the military. In fact, these people are doing one of the things the people in the military are fighting for. You can oppose the war and still support the military and their families. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
If she was in the airports spitting on service men like what happened in Vietnam, that would be different. If she were yelling at service men calling them baby killers like what happened at Vietnam, that would also be a dishonor. If she were protesting at funerals of the service men and women, that would be a dishonor. If she were protesting a welcome home ceremonies, that would be dishonor. All of the above would be a dishonor to the Military.
Now, if you believe she is disingenuous or wrong. Fine. I personally think this is a woman who was hurt by the loss of her son. So hurt that she lashed out. Then some dirt (including the press) got to her, kept the wound open, and is using her for their own agenda. But that is my personal opinion. I have a just as much right state it as you do to yours as they do to theirs.
Of course she has a right to say whatever she damn well pleases? Who suggested otherwise? Who suggested she doesn't have a "right" to say it?
And why is it that when the content of what someone says is challenged, the usual retort is that she has a right to say it. That's a given. I'm sorry, but to "remind" people of that is just downright silly.
By the way, you have a right to breath, so carry on. Yes, that's a stupid thing to "remind" you of, isn't it? Just like your reminder.
No, you CANNOT oppose the war and still support the military and their families. I believe it's silly to suggest the "war" is wrong, but the people waging that war have your support. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Bank robbery is wrong, but that bank robber has my support. I support the police officer, but everything he's doing is wrong.
Sorry, that bird won't fly.
To make such a silly comment is a lame attempt at having it both ways. Decide on which side of the fence you want to sit, and then plant it.
The next time you see a soldier in uniform, you go up to him (or [i]her[/i], which is a given) and say, thank you for your service to our country, I support you, but I don't support what you're doing. I support you, but I think what you are doing is wrong. Go ahead and say it -- to his face. Most likely, he'll be gracious and acknowledge your right to your opinion. But then ask him to sit down with you so you can buy him a beer.
No thanks, he'll say. He'll have better things to do. And that will tell you what he really thinks about the silly, "support the troops, but opposes the war" sentiment. It's crap.
by rob mekel
If a freedom of ... is proclaimed there can not be any conditions whereby this freedom stops, other then dishonoring/insulting any one.
Most of these insults are made right on the person and not on the general rule. That is why some of us do feel attacked if any one speaks up not to their believes and take the speakers opinion as an personal attack on them.
I for one, at least I hope, can have a big argument with some one but do like the peer very much and have drink and a talk at the pool in the backyard of the house (his/hers or mine, that is if I had a pool, do have some fine drinks tho)
Rob
The people who cussed and abused and criticized and threatened and spat upon the returning Vietnam soldiers are the same people (or same kind of people) who "support the troops, but oppose the war" today. They're simply trying to atone for past sins. But if anything, they're backwards.
Many, if not most, of the GIs returning from Vietnam were DRAFTED. They didn't have a choice but to go, and they received the brunt of the abuse. Today, however, ALL of the soldiers are there BY CHOICE.
They support the ones who choose to serve, but they opposed the ones who did not choose to serve. How stupid is that logic.
You said that you believe the press is using her to advance their own agenda. I agree.
And I'm glad you agree with me (by definition) that the press DOES have an agenda, and that the press DOES advance that agenda, and it's not to merely "inform".
by tonythetiger
by j.lupo
typical. I believe in supporting our troops. I am opposed to all war, but I learned a long time ago that the opposite of war is not peace. Peace is the ideal, the dream we strive toward. It is a vision and goal that we all want in our own way.
The problem is that we all have a different vision of what that is. Shouldn't we all have the same vision? (read heavy sarcasm)
Diversity breeds conflict. Now not all conflict is bad. There are two types positive conflict and negative conflict. I think of one as motivating and solution oriented while the other is demotivating and crippling.
by maecuff
Doesn't she have a right to say what she wants??
by tig2
That you have a RIGHT to say as much.
The fact that I agree has nothing to do with it.
*shaking my head*
by faradhi
I support my sister in law when she goes into Iraq. I make sure that she knows that I am proud of what she does. I watched her dog and did whatever else she needed because she could not while deployed. My wife made sure that her bills are paid. That is SUPPORT.
I support my neighbor's family who is in Iraq now. I made repairs on his house that he could not do because he was deployed. I have repaired lawn mowers for his wife so she did not have to buy a new one. That is support. I make sure that his wife knows that she only needs to ask for my help and we will do what we can.
I make sure that his sons know that I am proud to know his father and that his father is doing a wonderful and honorable thing.
I do not agree with the war. I do support the military not just with my words but with my actions.
Edited for typos
by faradhi
I was challenging the statement that her verbal opposition to the war is a disservice to those in the military.
I know you disagree. You are wrong. I give you that right.
First, your opinion that is at odds with mine, doesn't make it wrong, but only different. But I'm content to agree to disagree.
Second, you are wrong in suggesting that you "give me" any "right" to anything. You have no such power to "give" such a thing. It's something I inherently have. (I know, your wording was a bit off.)
by faradhi
I do not disagree that Shehan is being used by those who have an agenda against the war, including the prees. I find them dispicable. Let the woman heal.
Where you are wrong (and you will say I am wrong) is that her speaking out is a Dishonor to her son or the military.
As with almost every discussion on which we are opposed, we have to agree to disagree.
You are correct I can not GIVE you the right to be wrong. This is a right where I will admit that I exercise frequently. Just not in this case. :D
by faradhi
What I do see this https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=197375&messageID=2056578.
But what do you do except post on a board and question those who disagree with your opinion?
Well, I served for six years, and at a time when we were spat upon, called names, and threatened.
What do I do today? Well I support the troops AND I support the cause for which they serve. And I've personally expressed my thanks. Here's another way I do it.
I live in an area with a lot of GIs. Often times when I see a GI, in uniform, with his (or her) family in a restaurant, I'll give the restaurant manager somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 (more or less, depending on the restaurant and number of people), and ask that manager to tell the GI that someone else paid for their dinner with thanks. I've probably spent more than the $500 I offered to the traitor to go to Venezuela.
by faradhi
by wingedmonkey
I can not write as well as you do Mawell and an not even close to being as intelligent.
That said,
I can and have opposed this current war as an active duty member and as the spouse of my wife who did a tour in Iraq.
But I still support the President of the United States, my wife and the casualties that come back banged up and missing body parts. Even the greenest E-1 has the right to say, "I do not want to do that. I do not believe that I should do that." But then he turns around and fullfills the mission he has been given.
As a matter of fact, its Boot Camp doctrine that you do not have to agree with what you are doing. You still do it. But you are not required to agree with it. You can even protest peacefully as long as you do not wear your uniform or try to represent you personal opinions as being those of the service, command, millitary.
Having an opinion and being able to express it, as an individual is one of the many things my 20 years of service stood for.
For you to say that you cannot oppose the war and support the millitary and their families at the same time is:
1) Your opinion.
2) A made up rule that you are attempting to force on others.
by rob mekel
As I read the posts of faradhi, he is not attacking you on the content and on what you are saying about it. He, and I hope I read that correctly, is just spelling out that there can't be bounds on freedom of...statements.
So do try too not take it personal.
----
On the "support the troops, but opposes the war"
You can't be serious on "support the troops, so be happy with the war" can you?
It would get a shooting bunch, wouldn't it.
And yes you are right that I can't support troops that are shooting just for the likings of shooting. But can you, support troops just for the likings of shooting?
And on the war in Iraq, yes I'm for it as long as it stay's on getting the terrorists and not go on about economics or ... Stay with the reason that you started it for and keep it to that. Be helpfull to get a country organized and get the hell out of there as soon as it's done.
Rob
by faradhi
Both my neighbor and my sister-in-law know my feelings of the war in Iraq.
They understand what you cannot. Opposing The POLICY that has them in Iraq does not mean I oppose their actions in trying to execute that policy. They do not get to choose the policy. I understand that.
by tonythetiger
by faradhi
I support you and thank you. If there is anything I can do for you while you are putting your life on the line, you only need to ask. I am sorry you have to go.
That is what I would say and have said.
by j.lupo
Though the reason she is all those things isn't her rhetoric, it is the way in which she does it. Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, etc are over their fighting. They get the news and see her, how demoralizing is that? Her son died doing what he believed in, and she belittles that by her comments.
Yes she is grieving, yes she is lashing out, yes she needs help to deal with her grief. However, we need to keep our troops focused, motivated, and cared for. How do you deal with what they have to if you hear and read all that is coming out of the media?
Question: How many of you have written a letter "To some soldier". I have for all those that are over there and don't have any mail. I trie to write one at least once every other week. Just so they know we are still (or at least I am still) supporting them. I don't like the war, the killing, etc. But they are doing what they can to give us the freedom we have now. I will not put them down for that. They have a hard enough job.
by tronman
You are very noble to write letters to soldiers in the field. My mom has done so to. To my discredit, I have not-although I have personally met and thanked people who've come back from Iraq. They deserve it. But..
We are not over there protecting freedom, at least not mine and yours. The people who actually attacked us, remember them..? Are mostly still free and still spending those American dollars they've been getting since at least the Reagan era. Remember the Bin Laden family are very powerful in Arabia and the terror camps they made were, in fact, funded in the 80s by American dollars because they were against our enemy du jour at the time, Iran. This usually causes die-hard conservatives to start frothing uncontrollably when you bring this up. Truth hurts. Anyway, why are the actual masterminds of the terror attacks still at large? Why did Bush PERSONALLY SIGN the order to break the air travel ban, two days after 9/11, for the purpose of spriting out of the USA, Bin Laden's sister and family? Wouldn't it have made sense to at least detain them for questioning? They were the only leverage we had, and Bush personally made sure we lost it ASAP.
This was a mistake. We were lied to, and our patriotism and fear was used against us to shephard us into a war we don't want-and now we are occupying this country that doesn't want us there, and we don't know what to do with it. Face it-this situation is a giant mess. We should be getting out of there within a year, I think its doable. But to really fix things, would require a re-drawing of the borders to essentially fix what the British did to the region after World War I, when Iraq's borders were mostly drawn up, throwing multiple factions who hate each other into the same pot.
And, NO, we are not safer or more secure. One look at the photo of all those messed up prisoners coming from Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo-with missing legs etc.-and you can see the seeds of the propaganda we've given the terrorists to do what they do best-make more terrorists for 10 or 15 years hence. The cycle of war doesn't end till we chose to end it, and we sure didn't chose to do so here. We've made many more enemies than friends, and we'll pay for it within my lifetime, of that I have no doubt.
by j.lupo
You readily believe all that the media says about Abu Ghirab and Guantanomo, but you don't hear about the soldier that saved a school, or the soldier that lost his life saving a young man from a landmine. You don't hear about the good we are doing. Does the few things of bad that get out really mean we are so wrong everywhere else? Do you think these things didn't happen in other wars? Do you think WWII we were wrong then too?
Is fighting for freedom and protection of our people only right when it happens on our land?
Look, I am not saying we have a perfect government, people, civilization, etc. We are all human and we make mistakes. However, I support the troops over there. I don't know that I was lied to about the situation. I haven't seen good or bad that convinces me completely either way.
What I do know is what I read from the responses to my letters. What I read from the children in Iraq that respond to letters that are sent by some of the organizations I belong to. We are working to rebuild their infrastructure then they can take over. Did we topple Saddam for the right reasons? I don't know and really I don't care. However, we cannot leave things as they are.
If you are angry over things that have happened, how did you feel after 9/11? Didn't you want to lash out at someone? What makes you think the soldiers didn't feel anger and hurt and frustration. I am not saying that the bad things should have happened, I am not saying they are right. I am saying war is horrible and everyone hurts from it.
I still support our troops who fight to protect us and give us freedom. It is not a magic wand with instant access. Terrorism is a completely different type of war and one we have to learn new ways to combat.
I hope my position is much clearer now.
by onbliss
...do you think that is really going to be possible? Turkey would not like a separate nation for Kurds. Iran might itself have a mixed reaction. On one part it might want a separate Shiaite neigbhour, but on the other hand it would worry about its Balochs who would want to get with the Baolchs in Pakistan. The Shiaites in Iraq are mostly Arabs, but in Iran they are Persians. That is another factor Iran will be considering.
The moment, borders are redrawn into separate countries, other countries in the region will be forced to step in - for good or bad.
by j.lupo
by rob mekel
And right you are.
Rob
by wingedmonkey
I have talked with wounded vets regarding these same issues. Some do think like you do Maxwell, but not all of them. I know vets who did their tours, lost an arm and a leg and do not beleive this war is just or right. But, if they still had the capability to go back, they would do so.
Yes, members of the millitary do carry out acts, obligations and missions that they do not personally beleive in.
You do not have to beleive in a war to beleive in your country.
You do not have to beleive that the man is right to belive in the office of the President of the United States.
But all that aside, I geuss what is really rubbing me the wrong way is not the issue of who beleives and who doesn't, who supports and who doesn't, its your statements Maxwell that appear to be aimed at taking aways a person's right to have an opinion and to voice that opinion.
Saying that a person's opinion is stupid, bullcr@p, idiocy, fine say away. Heap all the negative comments that you want, but to say a person can't have an opinion or beleive the way that they do, that to me, is oppresive.
by jamesrl
My father in law served in the British, then Canadian Army, worked at NATO etc.
He opposes the war in Iraq vehemently. As do many of his fellow officers both active and retired (up to and including Generals) in the Armies of Canada, the US and Britain.
He does and always will support the troops. He doesn't blame the enlisted man for the policies determined by politicians. The enlisted do not get to chose where they go and what they do, and it doesn't matter whether they are drafted or volunteers.
I suggest if you went up to him and told him you thought he was full of crap, he'd slug ya.
You might hate the law, but support the police officer who enforces it - he/she didn't write the law.
What about conservatives like Pat Buchanan - he opposed the war - does he dishonour the troops by doing so? Not in my opinion.
What about Murtha - do you think that decorated Vet dishonours troops by opposing the war?
I support the war in Afghanistan, not the one in Iraq. But as you know, as I have said many times, my opposition was to invading and the timing and casuality in the first place. Once you are in, you are in for as long as it takes, and pulling out too soon is just as wrong, as it will lead to a civil war with more widespread civilian death and destruction.
You seem to want to make these things into US and them. With me or against me. Cindy Sheehan or George Bush. It isn't that simple.
James
by tronman
It isn't that simple. Nothing ever is. Look at the jumble of history that made Iraq what it is today, from WWI to OPEC (Of which Saddam was one of the original architects) to our invasion. Not to mention the thousands of years of history preceding that..
I really don't think Bush had the foresight to realize what he was getting into-his father did and said as much in his book when asked why he didn't 'finish the job' in Iraq the first time. He said he didn't want to open that can of worms, and he was right.
I had the good fortune to bicycle with a guy who is a doctor, and was a medic in the very first unit that invaded Iraq. He did two tours. He said what I kinda thought, that we over here will never really know how messed up it is over there (he used a more colorful word, which I'll leave off this public forum..) and overall, he wasn't hyped on us being there, or why we went, or the guy who sent us there. Our shop upgraded his wheelset for free on the bike he bought from us.
Yeah, things look pretty good in the green zone, but it is pretty much a civil war in the rest of the country, one that wasn't happening before we went in, and one which will now continue after we leave. We probably will be leaving in a few years, as the war gets increasingly unpopular and expensive (oh yeah, there is the matter of that nine billion a month we're spending on this deal, isn't there..) and I don't know what makes us think we can bring peace over there by invading and taking over a country to plant new leadership which is friendly to our oil interests. That is what this is about in the end.
All wars come down to a battle for resources, sooner or later.
....that's where I draw the line. And when the opposition to the war is actually costing lives of those fighting it, or making it harder for them to achieve their objective, that's where I draw the line. The New York Times, for example, is actually helping the enemy. (My enemy, not theirs -- their enemy is GWB.) And today, I see the rabid war opposition as being harmful to the troops achieving their stated objective.
Murtha is a senile idiot, decorated veteran or not, simply playing politics. Besides, I could call your "decorated veteran" and raise you dozens more. (A little poker lingo, there.) Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, I don't believe he's senile.
Do I see this as black and white, as you might suggest? Well yea, I probably do. But it's not a GWB versus Cindy Sheehan. It's Islamo-Fascism against us. I think people like you fail to see the bigger picture, at least the picture I see. I admit, I'm probably in the minority. And I think people like you, and much of the world, are making a HUGE mistake, not unlike the mistake they made in 1936.
And if your father-in-law wanted to slug me for saying as much, well, I'd either take it like a man or maybe slug him back. It would depend on the circumstances.
by jamesrl
How is opposition to the war aiding the enemy - give me specifics?
I don't understand how Cindy is giving aide and comfort to the enemy. Jane Fonda perhaps did in Vietnam as she was used as propoganda. Do I think the average new "jihadi" joined the fight in Iraq because of Cindy Sheehan?
I'm am in no way, by the way, condoning my father in laws attitude - in many ways he is as black and white about it as you. He served honourably for 30 years. He is protective of people who were under his command.
I don't agree with every Buchanan says. But I understand his point on the war. But he too is pretty practical about the fact that its a moot point - the US is already involved.
By the way in 1936 (and right up till december 1941) some American heroes like Lindburgh were against the US entering the war. I think he made a huge mistake. I respect him as an aviator, as a an expert on foreign policy he was very very naive - he almost moved to Germany at one point.
I feel the same way about Cindy. I respect the fact that she lost a son and is greiving. But she is NOT coming to the table with reasoned rational debate, like a Pat Buchanan.
James
by jamesrl
My perspective on Al Qaeda and Iraq;
I know we disgaree here, but from my reading, Al Qaeda's only activity in Iraq prior to invasion was a small cell in the northern krudish areas that Saddam could not send forces into. Saddam was a check against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Now that Saddam is gone, Al Qaeda has inserted itself into the situation. Now that thats happened, it would be a shame for the US to leave if Al Qaeda was still capable of gaining power or even sharing power in Iraq.
Those congress critters are voting on military appropriations to pay for the cost of running the war today. They have to, or they are endangering the lives of the troops. Thats not totally inconsistent with suggesting the US make plans to leave. Nixon won the election in 68 promising to leave Vietnam, but he still advocated and committed to some agressive campaigns to try and force the Viet Cong to the table under favourable circumstances.
This is not to suggest in any way that some congrescritters aren't trying to have their cake and eat it too. I wouldn't suggest that ANY politician in any party in any country isn't capable of that.
James
by jdclyde
Cindy and her half hearted protest, or the press that GLEEFULLY jump all over any an every negative thing?
Is it the people that attack anyone that uses THEIR freedom of speech to talk against what this "grieving mother" is saying?
Is it the people that publicly attack Colter for her comments, that then turn around and blindly defend Shehan?
As far as the media and the very rabid left are concerned, it is only a select few who actually deserve this thing called freedom of speech it seems.
by mjwx
They use the news platform to spout their politics (which I have little interest in hearing). Whist at first I did sympathise with the mother who lost her son (who wouldn?t?) this it too far.
It was neverbusted or TJ who suggested to me that the gossip was a far better way to get the "skinny" as he called it which I am assuming means "an idea of what?s going on" (skinny in this context is not a commonly used term in my neck of the woods). It?s sad that idle gossip has become more reliable than news services. This may also explain why I don?t read the paper much these days.
What (some) Americans need to remember is that I'm not leftist (by the American spectrum) I'm foreign which means some of my ideas and perceptions are going to be different to what you may consider norm. I think once the shock of us being different has worn off we make quiet a lot of sense.
As I said about the particular lady in question, she is just using this to spout her politics and get attention, it?s sad that people are still biting. I do consider a good protest a good thing but this is going way, way too far. But then again I see this kind of activity (political posturing/advertising) going on everywhere, there are even those here on TR and I am not mentioning names, who are extremely critical (some may even say hypocritical) of politics which are not their own.
by mjwx
only when you see no distinction between military actions and political actions.
Whist it is well known and widely accepted that war is the extension of politics, military and politics are not interchangeable but instead completely separate concepts.
Both are methods of extending/using/gaining power, and I think this is where you get confused on the issue. They may be used to get similar goals but their methods of implementation are worlds apart. Think of oil and water as an analogy, whist both are liquids they are not interchangeable, you can?t drink oil and you can?t run your car on water. By the same token the military cannot run a civilian population outside the conditions of an occupation, this is why (as I understand it) your constitution bans the active deployment of military forces on US soil.
And vice versa max, a politician cannot be expected to run a military outfit. Look at Hitler for example, he personally took to interfering with the German military (good thing for us allies, mate) He forced the Luftwaffe to produce the ME 262 as a bomber not a fighter which cut its speed by 200 MPH and it maneuverability by 1 third (bomber crews are eternally grateful for this f*ck up). He ordered the vermacht to hold at all costs which lead to the slaughtering of many of Germanys finest units on the eastern front (most of the elite units never made it to D-Day). When a man who knows little about war becomes a war leader, grievous errors are made.
Another point I would like to make is that I can easily bring myself to hate Hitler, Himler and the rest of those goose stepping morons but I can?t bring myself to hate the average German soldier any more than I can bring myself to hate an ANZAC soldier. The same is true of most Iraqi?s. What you often forget max is that most if not all of the Iraqi's that coalition forces fought were not terrorists or tyrants but average soldiers, who have mothers and wives/girlfriends just like American soldiers. Politicians fight for such noble causes as "glory" and "freedom". A soldier only fights for his life. I have the same courtesy that you expect for a US Iraqi war veteran for his Iraqi counterpart.
I see a gap between politicians and soldiers, so I do not under any circumstances hold an American serviceman in any way accountable of the incompetence of the American president. A soldier has earned my respect, Bush has earned my ire.
So you as long as there is a division between military and politics I can support troops and question motivations for the war in Iraq. If military and civilian governments are not separate then you are essentially living under the occupation of your own military.
My opinion of the lady in question (of this discussion) is down under JD's post titled "who does the biggest disservice". I haven?t written it yet so I can?t provide a link.
Now max, I am certain you have all manner of names to call me so please, go ahead. My recent discussion with neverbusted kinda put a light on, I have ever so recently vowed not to take part in flame wars (or at least to reduce my part in them). I have said my piece, good day.
by tig2
There are many- VERY many that do as much and more.
I am an ex-Navy wife. Ten years. Marriage failed, primarily because of the detachment time. See, in the Navy, you don't just activate when the cr@p hits the fan, you spend an average of 6 months every year at sea. Could be more, could be less.
During Gulf One, we had some pretty serious issues when the ship finally deployed. People who thought that they could take care of allotments and wills after the ship came home from a five day det suddenly couldn't get that stuff done quick enough or at all. Women who had been working because hubby was around enough to provide part time child care had to quit those jobs as they had to be full time mothers and full time child care was either non existant or too expensive.
Feeding that family became somewhat problematic- women that lost the extra income stream suddenly discovered what it was paying for. Paying rent was equally problematic- that allotment thing. Couples who were engaged but had not gotten married? She didn't exist as far as the Navy was concerned. And getting hubby to send money home required that they be in range to send a telegram money order or purchase one on the ship and snail mail it- average lag time? 6 weeks.
I do today what I did then. Even though I have been divorced from the Navy for ten years, I KNOW intimately what the deployed family goes through. Yeah- we have the requisite ribbons on the car. A flag in EVERY window, and my pink ribbon. We fly the flag every day and keep a light on it at night. But we also work with the Military Family Assistance organisation to provide emergency loans to suddenly deployed families, Food Shelf and groceries to families that just can't swing it this month because the budget was written for gas prices a buck and more less than they are now, or his pay pre deployment was higher and trying to manage to military pay is nearly impossible.
I don't do any of this alone. Virtually everyone in my community gets involved in one form or another. Our local Legion does constant funding drives and they always make goal. Calls for volunteers always result in more people than needed.
I heard a Congressional Medal of Honour winner say something that struck me this morning. In his words, "No matter how you feel about the war, it is critcal that you support the people that fight it." I agree.
I refuse to discuss my opinion of the war. That is not material. What IS important is that I stand up and do whatever I can to support the troops. I am not alone, nor am I one of few.
by j.lupo
I am not sure how this fits into what was said, but I agree with you. Everyone wants their own space for their beliefs, but there is only so much space to go around. Thus, the fighting continues.
Redrawing borders is not an answer, however, learning to coexist is. The problem is that there are those that do not wish to coexist. Look at Hamas and Israel. I say Hamas because they have vowed to destroy Israel and all Jews. That is thier belief. There are palastinians that have made suggestions for peace so that they can have a homeland, but Hamas will not hear of it. They want Israel gone and take everything.
I just will never understand such hatred.
by j.lupo
I don't have family in the military now, but my Uncles were in and I have many friends who have family in the military. I also have friends who serve and I will tell you, I support them with everything I can possible do.
I am sure we all have our 9/11 stories, for me, I was working on a government contract that day. I was on a conference call with people at the Pentagon about our project. The next thing I knew the line went dead. That was the last time I ever spoke to them. They died. They were in the area where the Pentagon was hit. :( :(
I have relatives in NY who worked at WTC I and II. I couldn't reach them for days. They found a way out - thank the powers that be. But 3 days of not knowing was very difficult. The lives lost. All the lives, not just those I knew. Sensless killing. I can't understand it and the hate that went into it.
I support the troops because they are doing what they have to, what they signed up to do if necessary, and so much more. Are there a few bad apples, of course, but that goes anywhere. It is important to support those people that do what we cannot or are unwilling to do.
I don't believe I could ever shoot a gun and kill someone, not even to save my own life. Just isn't in me. So I support those that somehow do that and remain sane (I guess). If I can write a letter and give them a venue to talk, so be it. If I can supply a meal to a military family, so be it, if I can see that they have clothes or transportation, so be it.
I certainly can NEVER do enough to repay them for what they give to me.
by faradhi
I grew up in a Naval Family. I remember my mother working two jobs and still barely making enough to feed me and my four siblings. I remember the Community support in places like Jacksonville and San Diego. I also remember the trouble my mother had finding a job in Virgina Beach. I remember my parents having to send us to catholic school (thank the lord for the catholic church's support) because of the way public schools treated children of naval personnel. Granted a lot has changed since then. I still remember.
As for my comment that Max is one of the few that support military families. There are many who support military families in a very real way. I continue to support military families because I do remember how it was.
However compared to the general population and outside military towns, those that actively support the troops are few. I was talking about those who just fly a flag occasionally and tie a ribbon on their car and do NOTHING else. Then they say they support the troops. Those were the ones I was speaking of.
You and all others that support military families in a real and tangible way are the few.
Edited for typos and clarity... i hope...
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending