What if they gave a pro-war rally in Davis Square ....

[ron_newman]

... and nobody noticed? Well, almost nobody. The only reason I know it happened (last Saturday, in Statue Park) was this SomervilleJournal.com article.

Comments

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

My heart goes out to those poor bastards serving in Iraq. They're just pawns of a war criminal president and his cohorts, all of whom should be hung by their heels at high noon at the Hague.

I'll be a little more sympathetic to the views of those veterans who conducted the protest that the media only concentrates on the negatives the John McCain goes back to Iraq and walks around the supposedly secure Green Zone without a flack jacket or being escorted by 100 armed soldiers and several helicopters. Maybe then we might allow ourselves to think that things are under control and it's all sunshine and roses in cities like Basra or Fallujah or Tikrit.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

oops, should be "the day John McCain...."

[sly-salkie.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting article.. I just can't wrap my head around it though. One would think that Americans could support the troops while not supporting the war. War and politics are so interwtined that one must seriously examine the ethics of the cause of the war, and the meaning of the war. It's a bad war, rotten from the very start, and we don't want our VERY honorable, dutiful, and noble servicemn wasting their lives and health and the lives of innocent civilians on a rotten cause. To say that servicemen aren't interested in politics is a little frightening-- absolutely focus on the job at hand, but you should know why you're employed to begin with..

And while I utterly hate the media for promoting the nation's view-of-the-day in a greedy quest for ratings, I'm so glad they finally came around to our side. :P

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Most of us are very proud of the job we're doing overseas, in all theaters of operations. Most of us believe that we should be there. Most of us believe that the popular anti-war sentiment runs the gamut from being a popular trend to downright borderline treason.

Most of us don't understand how you can bash our commander at every turn, decry our actions, ignore the fact that we are all volunteers, focus not on the good that we do overseas but only on the negative and hold that up as a primary example of the norm and THEN say that you support us.

I do not speak for every service member, but a majority do echo this sentiment. If you're going to feed the fires of the media propaganda game in your campaign against the president, don't claim to support us and the job we're doing. You're only making our job harder in the end. Do you really believe that the American media and statements like these that are heard around the world don't impact both sides of the war? It's demoralizing to us and it's heartening to those we're fighting against.

support

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Most of the criticism that I've seen has not been directed at the troops (outside of events like Haditha, Camp X-Ray, Abu Graib, etc,) but rather the policy and rationale that forced a military force not sufficiently trained for peacekeeping duties - because that's not what they do, to play policemen in urban environements where they didn't have sufficient support, there was an extreme documented lack of forward planning on the part of Bush, who sent them there - ie any sort of plan for a reconstruction.

I don't think all the retired generals who are pointing out how badly this war has been managed are disloyal, treasonous or trendy. I think they know what they're talking about. Our troops are being pushed past all human endurance; suicides are up, depression is up, and half of the troops surveyed wouldn't report a comrade for hurting or killing a civilian.
There's a reason Gen. Petraeus sent out that open letter. And it's not because "media propaganda" games against the president are making their job harder.

You certainly do not speak for every service member.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

I specifically pointed out that I don't speak for every servicemember and I don't deny that mismnanagement is and has been occurring.

However, the onus is not necessarily on Bush alone. Budget cuts that directly affected training and equipment were rampant prior to his administration, prior to this war. And where were these same voices when we began peacekeeoping missions in Bosnia and Somalia? While not on the same scale, the mindset was very much the same.

Furthermore, you still seem to miss the point that we are an all volunteer force and there are many soldiers, marines and airmen who volunteer to return.

I'm sure that if you look at historical figures, you will find the rate of suicide and depression always rises among servicemembers during times of war. WWII veterans were the ones who coined the term "shell shock" to describe what we now commonly call PTSD and thousands were affected.

Having been there, however, I can tell you that news reports from home and the anti-war sentiment are demoralizing, in spite of the fact that you may ostensibly support the troops.

And you don't speak for every service member either. Keep that in mind too.

Re: support

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

And where were these same voices when we began peacekeeoping missions in Bosnia and Somalia? While not on the same scale, the mindset was very much the same.

There was broad support for Bosnia, less so for Somalia, and plenty of criticism of planning particularly for Somalia. The voices were there, but as you note, given the completely different scale, not as loud.

Furthermore, you still seem to miss the point that we are an all volunteer force and there are many soldiers, marines and airmen who volunteer to return.

Not sure where I'm missing that point at all. Yes, there are many who volunteer to return. There are also many more who have been stop-lossed and their tours of duty repeatedly extended. The figures there are clear and the recommendation from the military's own mental health teams are to extend the interval between deployment or decrease deployment length. Which, politically, is unfortunately unlikely to happen.

I'm sure that if you look at historical figures, you will find the rate of suicide and depression always rises among servicemembers during times of war.

Of course. I don't have figures to do any sort of cross-comparison. My point was simply that even the military's own specialists see a significant problem, both in the effects on the troops, and the current capabilities of the VA et al., to deal with it.

Having been there, however, I can tell you that news reports from home and the anti-war sentiment are demoralizing, in spite of the fact that you may ostensibly support the troops.

Despite acknowledging mismanagement, you again focus on the anti-war sentiment as a primary reason for the demoralization. While it's no surprise that troops fighting an increasingly questioned and unpopular war would be demoralized by hearing the sentiment against the war, you're placing quite a bit of emphasis on public sentiment, and far, far less on clearly demonstrated examples of incompetence, perfidity and mis-management at the highest levels which has direct consequences for the troops.

So we may have to disagree that it is, in fact, quite possible to be a patriot, voice dissent, and still be proud of our soldiers, even if we don't believe in the ends to which they've been deployed.

And you don't speak for every service member either. Keep that in mind too.

I never claimed to.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

I definiely aggree that a VA overhaul and more time between deployments is in order. I never claimed not to. I am aware that this is a many faceted issue. I do not place all demoralization issues squarely on the shoulders of those who voice dissent. However, I don't believe that those who are most vocal are willing to accept any modicum of responsiblity for the effects of their words or actions on the troops they claim to support and your continued defense of that is bearing this out.

So, what, exactly, have you done as a patriotic dissenter? I'm not being facetious in the use of that term either. Of course it's possible to be both. What have you done specifically to show the troops your support besides call for their commander's removal and, more likely than not, their own removal from the AO?

See, that's another thing. I want to know. Those who support the troops if not the war and are quick to defend the differences...

have you volunteered your time at any one of the local VAs? Have you donated money to veterans affairs? Have you spearheaded a movement to provide mental health care to returning veterans and their families in light of the clearly broken system? Have you actively solicited your elected officials to ensure that veterans affairs are more closely looked at in legislation? Have you organized walks, runs, bike rides or charity events for returning veterans or the families of those who returned in a casket? Have you donated time or organized efforts to maintain the veterans memorials in Somerville? Have you attending ceremonies in those memorials or graveyards honoring the dead of all wars?

From what I've seen, "I support the troops" is nothing more than lip service by those who protest the war and the administration to ensure that we don't get the wrong idea. If you support the troops, then support them. Actively support them. i'll be looking for you and others at future veterans events in the community. I'll be looking for you to be on your feet and cheering this Sunday at the parade. I'll be looking for you at the moving of the memorials. I'll be looking for you to contact me to organize fund raisers for the troops and their families. I'll see to it that you are able to rent the function hall at the VFW on my membership rate to stage those fund raisers. I'll be looking for you to start bringing these issues to the fore at future community meetings.

Re: support

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

However, I don't believe that those who are most vocal are willing to accept any modicum of responsiblity for the effects of their words or actions on the troops they claim to support and your continued defense of that is bearing this out.

I acknowledged above that yes, it doesn't surprise me that it affects morale. Personally, I think other factors are much higher on the scale, where we seem to disagree.

So then, please, do enlighten me. If one disagrees with current policy, mismanagement, etc, how should it to be voiced to avoid appearing "trendy" or dodging responsibility, etc. and so on? Your opinion seems to leave no room for dissent or disagreement - you say you agree with me that it's possible to be a patriotic dissenter, but have repeatedly castigated those who dissent. What exactly are those who oppose the war - for moral, pragmatic, and patriotic reasons, supposed to do?

We've made donations, sent stuff to troops, and supported those in our extended family and friends who are stationed elsewhere. When there's a parade through our town, we're out in chairs.

So yes, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

Even so, for anybody else who doesn't have a connection with the military, through family or friends, or anybody else, non-participation in direct support doesn't void their right to speak up when they see those in power wasting the lives of our nation's soldiers. If talk counts as "demoralizing the troops" then it surely can count as supporting them.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

I have castigated those who dissent with that caveat and do nothing to back that caveat up. I stand by that. I don't believe for one moment that you have to know or be somehow connected to a servicemember before you do something to support the troops.

If we all took that attitude, my time and money would not be donated to causes such as cancer or AIDS research. After all, I amnot at all personally affected by either disease.

If you oppose war and are active in your opposition, that's your right. If you are an active opponent of war and also purportedly support the troops but are not at all active in your support of the troops, it certainly does seem like nothing more than lip service, doesn't it?

Re: support

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

I have castigated those who dissent with that caveat and do nothing to back that caveat up. I stand by that.

Your initial statement seems far more sweeping:
If you're going to feed the fires of the media propaganda game in your campaign against the president, don't claim to support us and the job we're doing.
Have you amended that position? Otherwise, it still sounds like in your mind, dissent is incompatible with supporting the troops. Criticizing Bush != tearing down the military.

I don't believe for one moment that you have to know or be somehow connected to a servicemember before you do something to support the troops.

Neither do I, and that wasn't my point.

If you are an active opponent of war and also purportedly support the troops but are not at all active in your support of the troops, it certainly does seem like nothing more than lip service, doesn't it?

Depends. Some of this hinges on what you mean by "active in opposition."

If one's active opposition to the war is pretty much just talk, then one's support can also be talk - there's no real imbalance there that I see. It's all lip service, if you will -- all in the realm of debate and philosophy, which is where most people who don't happen to be connected in some way reside. If one's just arguing against the war, but not engaged "on the ground", as it were, against it (going to rallies, signing petitions, whatever), "support for the troops" can be equally philosophical.

Many people who are against the war have been careful to draw lines to cast blame where it is rightfully due, rather than to demonize the military, questioning the rationale and planning that led to their deployment in the first place. To dismiss that as completely worthless because it isn't direct action, is, I think, mistaken.

Now, clearly, if someone's going to anti-war rallies, and claiming to support the troops, then it's reasonable to ask just what that 'support' is, other than talk, given that their other activities are not simply talk. So there, we find some ground for agreement.

But in the end, I still stand by my statement:
Non-participation in direct support doesn't void their right to speak up when they see those in power wasting the lives of our nation's soldiers..

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Have you amended that position? Otherwise, it still sounds like in your mind, dissent is incompatible with supporting the troops. Criticizing Bush != tearing down the military.

I thought about this only after I posted the last. 1. It's what I get for trying to work and think at the same time. 2. I'm admittedly not the best when it comes to written debate.

No, I haven't fully amended my position. You've raised some excellent points - but let me attempt to articulate my original stance a bit better. BTW, if this gets cut off and posted mid-sentence, it's because we're in the middle of exercises at work and I may have to suddenly dash.

An anti-war stance typically denotes anti-war voting. It was sweeping cuts in the defense budget in the 90s that had a large hand in leaving us ill trained and ill equipped. Both sides of the house were responsible at the time.

The same mindset is prevailing right now in those that are adopting an anti-war stance. The idea that we cut funding, at least in part, because we don't agree with the war, we don't agree with the president etc. goes directly against the idea of giving the troops the tools and training that they need right now or supporting them in their endeavors. More funds are needed, but so is better management and direction of those funds.

Voting to recall all troops, right now, has been largely perceived by those serving as forcing them to fail and not complete the mission. Again, what sort of support is that? It, iontentionally or not, marginalizes their successes by offering a blanket statement that there have been none and it tells them that they haven't done the job. No one wants to be there indefinitely, but even leaders who are outspoken against the way that the war has been handled will agree that an immediate withdrawal will only exacerbate the situation overseas.

We are not peacekeepers, this is true. We are tired. This is also true. But we are mission driven. We are warriors, trained killers. When anti-war sentiment deadlocks legislation that could help us, when it creates a climate of persistent negativity, when it paints the picture of us as unsuccessful in even the smallest of efforts, when the smallest negative is hyped over the largest success which is brushed aside, that is simply not support. When the enemy "knows" that the sympathies of the general public lie more with them than with their own leader, it only serves to invigorate their efforts.

I hope that makes a little more sense.

If one's active opposition to the war is pretty much just talk, then one's support can also be talk - there's no real imbalance there that I see.

I can certainly concede this point.

Now, clearly, if someone's going to anti-war rallies, and claiming to support the troops, then it's reasonable to ask just what that 'support' is, other than talk, given that their other activities are not simply talk. So there, we find some ground for agreement. This ground for agreement makes me happy. Perhaps if more activists who claim to support the troops divided their time and activism between the two (i.e. rallies against the war and any number of community oriented or grass-roots events that directly support the troops, particularly in their own communities), the perception would be very different.

Many people who are against the war have been careful to draw lines to cast blame where it is rightfully due, rather than to demonize the military, questioning the rationale and planning that led to their deployment in the first place. To dismiss that as completely worthless because it isn't direct action, is, I think, mistaken. Many have, yes. Unfortunately, many haven't either and there is an extreme movement that is wholly against the military and does demonize them out there. Irrelevant to this conversation, but worth noting.

I can where you are coming from on this, to a point, as well.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Sorry. *I can SEE where you are coming from.

Re: support

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

I want to thank both you and enochs_fable for such a civil, intelligent, enlightening debate. Somerville can be an echo chamber -- and in the United States in general, it's easy to find an echo chamber for your beliefs and ignore other perspectives.

And you have a good point, about "support the troops" being more than just talk. Talk is valid, talk does make change, but concrete actions are needed as well. That goes for any cause one cares about. Talk can be distancing; we can forget the daily importance of whatever it is we're talking about.

My stepbrother is serving in Afghanistan, and of course I care about him and want him to come home safely (along with the rest of our troops there and elsewhere), but honestly, he's my only connection to the active-duty military and I don't even know him well. So have I actively done anything to show my support for the individuals involved in what I think is a rotten, pointless war? No, you're right, I haven't. I think I'll pack up a box of books this week.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Thank you. And <;j user="enoucs_fable"> too. Since my best friend moved away, I rarely get to engage in this kind of discussion.

I am local. I am here. I am an active member of the Dilboy Post in Davis Square. If anyone is interested in action, regardless of your feelings about the war, I will be here to help organize events, fund raisers and political action.

Some things to consider when thinking about action:

1. We have many mental health professionals in this community. How about creating some sort of hotline where returning troops and indeed, veterans of all wars, can ring in with questions, issues and so on? It could be set up much like the AIDS hotline - anonymous if necessary. Not only is the mental health system for the troops overwhelmed and underfunded, but there is a stigma in the military culture surrounding seeking help for PTSD and other traumas that the war brings up.

2. Fund raising walks, runs, dinners, shows, rallies or bike rides. Money can be earmarked for the followig: Helping local veterans in need; helping the families of local veterans who have been wounded or KIA; setting up a fund for service members who need to come home mid-tour on emergency leave (usually granted for death in the family or dire illness of an immediate family member such as spouse or child) but can't afford the cost of the ticket home. This actually happened to two people I was deployed with. The cost of airfare out of the middle east is outrageous. I ended up donating half a month's pay to one and it still wasn't enough.

3. Bringing veterans issues to the floor of community meetings. The mayor and Mr. Senesi (the currently appointed Veterans Affairs officer for Somerville) have been widely ignoring the VFW (an entity that has donated time, money and space to support the community and the families and veterans of the state). I can't attend as I live just over the line in Medford, but I can certainly talk to the officers of the post to see what is most pressing. the issue was touched on at a post meeting last night and re-kindled my motivation for this.

I am happy to assist, donate time, work to get the space, whatever needs to be done to help spearhead anyone of these things and more if anyone else thinks of any - whether you are directly impacted by a friend or family member serving overseas or not. Support isn't relegated to those who are affected in this way.

Re: support

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

Even a letter to him would be something, and I'm sure he'd really appreciate it - it's a connection to home. That's one down-side to an all-volunteer military - they've become ever more segregated from the rest of society, particularly in the northeast.

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Amen. A friend of mine, when I was overseas, sent me a post card a day. Often, there was only a quick note or joke on the back, but it made my day every day.

Some troops have e-mail access and I was one of them, but I'll tell you, nothing beat something in themail...to hold on to, so to speak.

Re: support

[babstaah.livejournal.com]

A few of the many organizations that you can contribute to in order to support our troops: http://www.anysoldier.com/, http://www.treatanysoldier.com/, http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/index.aspx, http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/index.html

Re: support

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I hope that this can be a start for some who don't know where else to do so.

I'd like to see a lot more local action too. If you're interested, please let me know.

[babstaah.livejournal.com]

It's impossible for one person to speak for all people but I do know several service men that have come back from Iraq and they all support their mission and the war. Although from my perspective it seems pretty clear that the Iraqis are incapable of living in relative peace unless it is under the thumb of a cruel despot and democracy will never work.

[ron_newman]

The British troops ('redcoats') stationed in Massachusetts in the 1770s were fine and honorable men, but as time went on, their continued presence here came to be resented by the local population. Ultimately they had to leave. Aren't our troops in Iraq in a similar situation?

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

I'm not advocating at all for an eternal stay in Iraq and I don't believe that I even mentioned such a thing in my comment, but if you want to cite that example, wouldn't Korea be a better one? When did the Korean war end? The South Koreans are increasingly resenting our presence there. It's been...50 some odd years now. Where's the call to remove our troops? Why aren't more people focused on getting us home from there? It's almost a guarantee that every active duty airman and sailor will spend at least one year in Korea, with reserve and guard forces rotating out on 30 to 120-day tours (usually voluntary in those cases, but still...). That's one year away from home, family and friends. One year in a militarized zone.

And it's been a long, long occupation.

[ron_newman]

I'd be happy to bring them all home too. All of the money we are spending on occupying foreign countries could be much better spent at home, on things like the Green Line extension, bringing our school systems up to Brookline-Newton standards, etc.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

LOL! I have no doubt that the federal government would wholeheartedly agree and cut a check for at least 1/4 of the defense budget in saved funds so that Somerville could do just that. : D

[xuth.livejournal.com]

I think you're misunderstanding the scale of the monies spent on Iraq. We're spending over $100 billion per year on top of "normal" military spending for the Iraq war. With Massachusetts' "share" of just the $100 billion we could bring the average spending per student in MA to the same level as Brookline or Newton.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

I think you're taking my response a hair too seriously.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

no. I really don't think so. Not unless you're going to say that we shouldn't be taking any of the other things you said in this posting seriously. You suggested that someone's ideas for the money were ridiculous based because the costs were absurdly high and I was merely pointing out that what we are spending on Iraq is certainly just as absurd because it would be able to cover those absurd expenses.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for trying to interject a little humor into an otherwise serious discussion with many people. I didn't take ron's comment seriously because it didn't appear that it was anything other than a little bit lighthearted itself. If I misinterpreted it (a lot does get lost in translation when typing), then I apologize whole heartedly and retract my statement.

[ron_newman]

It was somewhat lighthearted but it was also serious. I consider the money spent on war in Iraq to be 100% wasteful (not to mention the lost and broken lives, both ours and theirs). I would like all of the money for the war cut off, forcing the immediate withdrawal of all troops.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

It was somewhat lighthearted but also serious. ::whew:: I wasn't completely off the mark then.

I would like all of the money for the war cut off, forcing the immediate withdrawal of all troops.

I think we both know by now that we will never come to an agreement on this point.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

Actually, your redcoats example isn't historically accurate. In the 18th century, the rank-and-file soldier was looked down on by their officers, countrymen, and the people fighting against them.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Ron Newman is never inaccurate. The man is a walking library, for chrissake. ; )

[sly-salkie.livejournal.com]

I've always, always, always been anti-war, and it's really hard for me to figure out whether I'm more anti-war or anti-death, because they are often synonymous, but not always. For example, I can't figure out if I approve of war if the intent is to save people from greater death and destruction. The Iraq war was very confusing for anti-war liberals for this reason, and continues to be.

I have been against Bush for a long time, because of the war and because of, oh, just about every other issue, from the environment to stem cells.

And you have a point about the media, definitely. It was a semi-joke, though I am still glad the mainstream media wants to see the war over, because it means they are reporting opinions that I share (a self-centered perspective), but that's sort of the problem: the media SHOULD be unbiased, not opinionated. I get my news from NPR and nowhere else now, because the rest is kind of... sensationalist crap.

While I don't want to make anyone's job in Iraq harder, and I don't want to demoralize anyone, I do want the servicemen to be home. It is precisely BECAUSE you are volunteers that I want it to stop. I feel like some very heroic people were used by a corrupt administration. It doesn't mean people shouldn't be proud of a job they are doing overseas. I know the American military is doing its very best to make things better for foreign civilians, something that can't be said for every war.

[disblfsuspender.livejournal.com]

I was really happy to read an actual debate about this stuff that didn't devolve into people shouting past each other. Reading this exchange brought a a few things to mind that are maybe useful for trying to think and talk about this mess:

Most of us don't understand how you can bash our commander at every turn, decry our actions, ignore the fact that we are all volunteers

From the standpoint of active-duty military, I can understand this point of view, because it is part of the job description. Loyalty to and trust in chain of command is professionalism in a military context, and when you join up, you in many ways sign away your right to criticize publicly and some of your rights as a citizen for the duration. However, in doing that, you are placing your trust in the system to work and to use your service justly and competently. That system is more than just a Commander in Chief, it's a whole democracy, and when the Commander in Chief makes mistakes(and all of them will... the office certainly doesn't confer infallibility on anyone) it's the job of the democracy to try to pressure him to correct them. Soldiers and citizens both have a role to play in an effective wartime democracy. In fact, a big part of the advantage of democracies in wartime is that there is the potential for course correction and collective problem-solving, as opposed to unchanging dictatorial fiat. Commanders in Chief without any accountability tend to do stupid things, like attacking Russia as winter is about to set in, or, in my view on the current war, persisting in a strategy that is plainly not working and with goals that are vague and likely unobtainable. A good democracy should help prevent or correct such follies. I thought this editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502032.html) from the Post the other day was a good example that illustrated and respected the importance of both roles: the author's son was doing his duty as a soldier, and he was doing what he felt was his duty as a citizen.

focus not on the good that we do overseas but only on the negative and hold that up as a primary example of the norm and THEN say that you support us.

As a liberal trying to argue for getting out of this war, I've had a pretty big problem all around with the insertion of the troops into the debate and the use of them/you as a political football by all sides. To me, this should be about the war, and whether it is succeeding, and if not(and obviously I think it's not), what we should do about it. What the troops think should be pretty immaterial, in fact is supposed to be, as per military professionalism above. As soon as we start trying to speak for the troops, we get into dangerous territory, because what right does anyone on the homefront have to speak for you? We haven't seen or experienced what you have and we have only fragmentary and anecdotal evidence of how you feel about things. Obviously we can tell that you/they are in a very tough situation and being asked to do an almost impossible job, and humane concern for your welfare plays a part in our motivation: if we think you are being kept over there with no clear mission and no signs of a willingness to change by the administration, that's going to play a big role in our moral reasoning. Again, in many ways I view it as our job as citizens to protect the military from misuse, and to do right by that trust you place in us as a country when you volunteer. But, I don't think that supporting or speaking for the troops should be our argument, because it's got all that other baggage and presumption attached. Problem is, the Right have been more than eager to use the troops as rhetorical human shields against any and all substantiative debate or questioning of policies or strategy, so we haven't had much choice but to engage them on that level. I really wish that hadn't been the case, and that the debates on the war had been about how the war was actually going and whether it was actually justified or made us more secure, etc.

[turil.livejournal.com]

And what really do people mean when they say that they support the troops? It's such an empty sentiment, it seems. I would say that all compassionate folks support the troops in that they want them to be safe and heathy. But I would hope people would want that for everyone, not just people waging war.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

You know, for those in the community at large who claim to support the troops, if nt the war, I would ask what you've done for Somerville's veteran community.

I would ask where issues surrounding returning veterans and your support of the agencies in town that are designed for them are. I never see veterans affairs issues in the community meetings posted here.

Most people in Davis and Somerville are aware that there is a VFW post behind the Winter Hill Bank, but do you know that it's not just a function hall and a bar? It is and has been an active supporter of many community and political functions in Somerville and in Davis Square, but it is currently being overlooked and slighted by both the mayor and his appointed veterans affairs officer (whose credentials, by the way, are currently under investigation by the state).

If more people who claim to support the troops actually involved the veterans of your community, their affairs and their issues in you civic and community meetings and political affairs, perhaps a better understanding of each "side" could be reached by all.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

and for those who want to be involved in supporting the folks currently overseas, books for soldiers (http://www.booksforsoldiers.com) (and sailors, marines, airmen, and even coasties).

(it looks like the site is having issues at the moment, but it's a site that takes specific requests for books, movies, snacks, etc, from servicemembers and puts them in a place where volunteers can fill those requests.)

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

hellgirl.....you go girl!
You have brought up some excellent points. My question is, if you 'oppose the war but support the troops', why must you be so vocal? Why can't you oppose the war by writing to the president or to your congressman or senator? You will have voiced your opposition to someone who can actually do something to affect the outcome, and you will not have demoralized the troops by having headlines splashed across the newspapers (most of which are seen in Iraq). I think that the media enjoys the public protests because it validates their opinion (and the comment was so true about the bias in the media). Had I known that there was a pro-war rally (a misleading term, for sure, because noone is 'pro-war'), I would have attended. That's what those in Iraq need to see to feel like they are doing something worthwhile. And by the way, there have been no more 9/11-type attacks on American soil. If you don't think the war has had an impact, I feel that you're mistaken.
And you're right when you say that the VFW posts are forgotten and ignored. I hope that hellgirl will work to make them more visible. If you post information concerning the posts on this and other sites, perhaps we can make a change. There are others like myself out here who would be happy to help. Let's figure out what we can do to have the most impact, and start right now!

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I never got this comment. Sorry for the delay in response. If you're interested in supporting efforts at the post, I'll certainly keep you apprised of endeavors that come out of our meetings - both political and community oriented. Feel free to e-mail me at any time. : )

If you are or were in the military or have a direct family member who was, you can join as an associate (unless, of course, you are a veteran of a foreign war, in which case, you can join as a full member).

And, had I known about the rally, I would have attended too.