Activism Change

INVASION: Milwaukee

Question:

Jeff,  weird article.  You seem to think that the military NEEDs to exist.  Ok, your welcome to your opinion. Are you in the military, if not, why not??

Response:

: Jeff,  weird article.  You seem to think that the military NEEDs to exist. :  Ok, your welcome to your opinion. Are you in the military, if not, why not?? In the same way fire departments and police departments need to exist. It would be nice to declare that fires will never again burn uncontrolled. We can even educate ourselves – "learn not to burn" campaigns etc. But fires will still happen. And to continue with the analogy, fire departments don’t start fires. In fact, when not fighting fires, they do more to prevent fires than any other organization. This is also true of the military serving a democracy. I am not in the military. They probably wouldn’t want me. I doubt I meet the physical standards. I am also not a fireman although I think fire-people serve a noble cause. I am a student of history. I think it’s important to try to understand the present and past environments of those that serve in the military (as well as any other service). Jeff Thorson

Response:

Jeff,  weird article.  You seem to think that the military NEEDs to exist.  Ok, your welcome to your opinion. Are you in the military, if not, why not??

Do you think the Cuban military NEEDs to exist?  If so, WHY…? —           "Read my lips, no new Haitians" – Bill Clinton

Response:

: Jeff,  weird article.  You seem to think that the military NEEDs to exist. :  Ok, your welcome to your opinion. Are you in the military, if not, why not?? : Do you think the Cuban military NEEDs to exist?  If so, WHY…? I assume you want me to say that the Cuban military exists because the US military exists. At a simple level I cannot disagree with you. But both are instruments of their nation’s policies. If both were of the same ideological bent, the reason for a Cuban military to exist would be reduced as well as those of the US. If Canada became belligerent, the US military would reflect that reality. As I support (in general — no blank checks) our national and international policies and believe the US military indeed does serve the people while under the control of our elected officials, I see the need for the military to exist. Now if the policies of the US are the issue, then that is another subject. Is there any nation (and I know, some consider the concept of "a nation" to be the problem — I don’t) that doesn’t have some sort of military? Jeff Thorson

Response:

: Jeff,  weird article.  You seem to think that the military NEEDs to exist. :  Ok, your welcome to your opinion. Are you in the military, if not, why not?? : Do you think the Cuban military NEEDs to exist?  If so, WHY…? I assume you want me to say that the Cuban military exists because the US military exists. At a simple level I cannot disagree with you.

No, that’s not what I "wanted" you to say.  It’s A reason.  An equally valid reason would be because the army of the Dominican Republic exists. But both are instruments of their nation’s policies. If both were of the same ideological bent, the reason for a Cuban military to exist would be reduced as well as those of the US. If Canada became belligerent, the US military would reflect that reality.

China and the USSR were of similar ideological bents, as were Vietnam and China but they still maintained armies and used them against each other. As I support (in general — no blank checks) our national and international policies and believe the US military indeed does serve the people while under the control of our elected officials, I see the need for the military to exist.

You seem to think that I was arguing against the army existing.  Perhaps you got a mistaken impression. —           "Read my lips, no new Haitians" – Bill Clinton

Response:

| News reports stated that the reason they were protesting | was that this exercise "glorified war."  No one denies their | right to protest, (ironic in that is what the Marines are | practicing to protect. Yes I know, I fell for the propaganda. ). | What I am challenging is the basis for their protest. | | I suspect that they wished that the military did not exist. | Waste of time, money etc. If they did not exist then such | a practice would not be needed. | Well, I disagree with your suspicion. I wasn’t there (obviously – I live in Australia), but there are plenty of OTHER reasons they might have wanted to demonstrate: * The SIZE of the US armed forces, rather than just their existence. Given   that defense forces are meant for DEFENCE, and given the number and   military strength of the US’s "enemies, the US armed forces is a little   over-weight. * What they’re used for. Often NOT in a defense of the US or its people,   not for the benefit of the people of the US, and certainly not for the   benefit of the people of the country they’re "defending" against. * The glorification of war. As you said, PR plays an important part. The   more people admire such military actions, the more likely it is that   military actions for reasons other than "defense" can be accepted by   the public. If seeing an American battalion arrive in boats and run up   beaches can stir feelings of nationalism and admiration in people, the   more those people will accept those images when shown on a news report,   REGARDLESS of the reason for their being there. In short, the existence is not the only issue. The probable USE of the forces, and for whose benefit, could well have been the reason for the demonstration. Peter Hunt                |   These are MY views, NOT Digital’s. Networks and Comms (Aust) |   If anyone in Digital reads this, I’ll Digital Equipment Corp.   |   probably get sacked. :-

Response:

   If the size of the military is appropriate for the defensive requirements of the country, then yes, you would like the military to be well trained. But training a battalion ISN’T justified when the training is costly (to the public), and the battalion is, realistically, not needed, given that there are 10,000 other battalions also being trained.

Dude, could I please have some of what you are smoking?  We don’t have anywhere near 10,000 battalions.  You are off by orders of magnitude. Anyway, could you please tell us how large a military we do need since you are so informed on the subject?  Please tell us what objectives your slimmed down military would have.  

Response:

        [ stuff deleted ] | | : * The SIZE of the US armed forces, rather than just their existence. Given | :   that defense forces are meant for DEFENCE, and given the number and | :   military strength of the US’s "enemies, the US armed forces is a little | :   over-weight. | | True — but I believe the US military is on a "slim fast" plan. | By some measures, the US military will be soon smaller than pre Pearl | Harbor levels – A definite milestone/sore spot. | | But whatever their number, don’t we "want them to be the best that | they can be"? — and therefore the practice is justified?   |         If the size of the military is appropriate for the defensive requirements of the country, then yes, you would like the military to be well trained. But training a battalion ISN’T justified when the training is costly (to the public), and the battalion is, realistically, not needed, given that there are 10,000 other battalions also being trained.         After all, it’s public money being spent, and the public money might better serve the US people by providing for the poverty-stricken, for example. | : * What they’re used for. Often NOT in a defense of the US or its people, | :   not for the benefit of the people of the US, and certainly not for the | :   benefit of the people of the country they’re "defending" against. | | But that’s too general. There is a broad spectrum of force use. From | domestic hurricane relief to Somalia to rescuing US nationals trapped by civil | wars to full scale events like Desert Storm and Vietnam.         Unfortunately, it now tends to work the other way; the US government tries to find ways to use its defense force, in order to justify its size. This can have real benefits, but I feel uneasy about a government with a large defense force, looking for opportunities to use it.         That aside, despite the uses you may applaud, there are still uses which you may protest about, and they alone justify the protest. | [To protest] | the military is like protesting Digital’s computers — both can be used | poorly. But let’s prosecute the abuser, not the supplier of the service. Why would anyone want to protest Digital computers? :- Seriously, though, your analogy is not quite perfect. If Digital computers were being used for some dastardly purpose, it WOULDN’T make sense to protest about the computers, but this situation isn’t the same. If a company buys some computers, and doesn’t like their performance or the way they do things, then they have every justification in complaining to the computer company, and complain loudly. They paid for the computers. So, the public have every right to protest about the nature of the defense force to the government if they don’t like how they’re used. The public, after all, paid for the defense force. One of the ways to complain is by public demonstration – this shows that a large number of people feel the same way. | : * The glorification of war. As you said, PR plays an important part. The | :   more people admire such military actions, the more likely it is that | :   military actions for reasons other than "defense" can be accepted by | :   the public. If seeing an American battalion arrive in boats and run up | :   beaches can stir feelings of nationalism and admiration in people, the | :   more those people will accept those images when shown on a news report, | :   REGARDLESS of the reason for their being there. | | Landing just before the 4th of July (US Independence Day) is part of this. | | But I feel it is more useful than just mere PR.         I accept your point about the necessity for appropriate training. However I also think that it’s a problem that PR regarding military actions often involves such emotive images, instead of discussing and justifying the need for a military action at all.         This comes back to the point of protesting not the training, but the reasons for it. (ie. the military action(s) that they’re being trained FOR.)         All this is getting a little off the track, and into territory in which we’ll have to agree to disagree. My main point was that it may have been the NATURE, rather than the EXISTENCE, of the defense force which was being protested.         From your description of the protest, it sounds like it was a very spur-of-the-moment thing, and therefore may have been misdirected. However, the possible reasons for the protest are no less significant, or no less justified, because of that. — Peter Hunt                |   These are MY opinions, NOT Digital’s. Networks and Comms (Aust) |   If anyone in Digital reads this, Digital Equipment Corp.   |   I’ll probably get sacked :-

Response:

| : * The SIZE of the US armed forces, rather than just their existence. Given | :   that defense forces are meant for DEFENCE, and given the number and | :   military strength of the US’s "enemies, the US armed forces is a little | :   over-weight. | | True — but I believe the US military is on a "slim fast" plan. | By some measures, the US military will be soon smaller than pre Pearl | Harbor levels – A definite milestone/sore spot. That may be true, but military spending is still increasing, despite a decreasing need for defence. At least, "defence" in the traditional sense. | But whatever their number, don’t we "want them to be the best that | they can be"? — and therefore the practice is justified?   If the defense force is an appropriate size, then yes, they should be as well trained as possible. But using public funds to run an oversized defense force isn’t in the interests of the people of the United States, in my opinion. It’s certainly not in the interests of Americans who are poverty-stricken. Bigger ISN’T better, if the increase in size is both costly and unnecessary. | : * What they’re used for. Often NOT in a defense of the US or its people, | :   not for the benefit of the people of the US, and certainly not for the | :   benefit of the people of the country they’re "defending" against. | | But that’s too general. There is a broad spectrum of force use. From | domestic hurricane relief to Somalia to rescuing US nationals trapped by civil | wars to full scale events like Desert Storm and Vietnam. Trouble is, though, that it often works the other way; the US find ways to USE the defense force, to try to justify its size. But I take your point. However, despite the military uses I may applaud, there are other uses I would protest about (which is what we’re talking about, after all). | To protest | the military is like protesting Digital’s computers — both can be used | poorly. But let’s prosecute the abuser, not the supplier of the service. Why would anyone want to protest about Digital computers? :- Seriously, though, your analogy isn’t quite perfect. The public protesting about Digital computers because they are (say) used for some dastardly purpose DOESN’T make much sense – you SHOULD protest to the company who bought the computers. However, the closest analogy to the issue of defense is if a company pays DEC for computers which perform badly or differently to how the company thinks they should. The company then has EVERY right to protest about the nature of the computers they bought, and complain loudly, to Digital. They paid for the computers, after all. Well, if the defense force is too big, and is used for purposes which taxpayers don’t think are appropriate, the taxpayers should protest about the nature of the defense force to the government. They paid for the defense force, after all. One way to do this is by public protest, as this shows that a significant NUMBER of taxpayers feel the same way. | Landing just before the 4th of July (US Independence Day) is part of this. | | But I feel it is more useful than just mere PR. Yes, you’re probably right. But I think that it IS a problem that military PR usually takes the form of emotive images, rather than of critical discussion of the NEED for a military action at all. But all this is getting off the track (and into territory where we’ll just have to agree to disagree). My main point was that the NATURE rather than the EXISTENCE of the defence force might have been the cause for protest. From your description of the protest, it sounds like it was a spur- of-the-moment thing, so it may have been misdirected. However, I believe that the possible REASONS for the protest are no less important, or no less justified, because of that. — Peter Hunt                |   These are MY opinions, NOT Digital’s Networks and Comms (Aust) |   If anyone in Digital reads this, Digital Equipment Corp.   |   I’ll probably get sacked :-

Response:

: | News reports stated that the reason they were protesting : | was that this exercise "glorified war."  No one denies their : | right to protest, (ironic in that is what the Marines are : | practicing to protect. Yes I know, I fell for the propaganda. ). : | What I am challenging is the basis for their protest. : | : | I suspect that they wished that the military did not exist. : | Waste of time, money etc. If they did not exist then such : | a practice would not be needed. : | : Well, I disagree with your suspicion. I wasn’t there (obviously – I live : in Australia), but there are plenty of OTHER reasons they might have : wanted to demonstrate: : * The SIZE of the US armed forces, rather than just their existence. Given :   that defense forces are meant for DEFENCE, and given the number and :   military strength of the US’s "enemies, the US armed forces is a little :   over-weight. True — but I believe the US military is on a "slim fast" plan. By some measures, the US military will be soon smaller than pre Pearl Harbor levels – A definite milestone/sore spot. But whatever their number, don’t we "want them to be the best that they can be"? — and therefore the practice is justified?   : * What they’re used for. Often NOT in a defense of the US or its people, :   not for the benefit of the people of the US, and certainly not for the :   benefit of the people of the country they’re "defending" against. But that’s too general. There is a broad spectrum of force use. From domestic hurricane relief to Somalia to rescuing US nationals trapped by civil wars to full scale events like Desert Storm and Vietnam. To protest the military is like protesting Digital’s computers — both can be used poorly. But let’s prosecute the abuser, not the supplier of the service. A side note. Speculation in the US is that NATO will be history with in a year. This further reduces the need for higher force levels. : * The glorification of war. As you said, PR plays an important part. The :   more people admire such military actions, the more likely it is that :   military actions for reasons other than "defense" can be accepted by :   the public. If seeing an American battalion arrive in boats and run up :   beaches can stir feelings of nationalism and admiration in people, the :   more those people will accept those images when shown on a news report, :   REGARDLESS of the reason for their being there. Landing just before the 4th of July (US Independence Day) is part of this. But I feel it is more useful than just mere PR. An important reason the US is not involved in the Bosnia conflict is capability. The US citizen needs not only to understand the political differences between the gulf and Bosnia but also the military challenges. Vietnam is our best/worst example of overestimating the capability of the military. I believe that was because those in control did not have a feel for how the military operates. : In short, the existence is not the only issue. The probable USE of the : forces, and for whose benefit, could well have been the reason for the : demonstration. Thanks for responding. I am still so new at this that I am tickled pink that I am communicating with the "world" via this medium. Jeff Thorson

Response:

On Saturday July 3, the local Marine reserve unit made a practice landing from Lake Michigan on to a popular public beach. The landing was launched from a navy ship and consisted of "Seals" followed by 5 tracked vehicles. In fact the whole scene reminded me of the reports on the initial landings in Somalia. The beach was roped off and during the exercise. My estimate of the number of people watching was about 2500. After the landing the public was invited down on to the beach to inspect the equipment. Now the issue. Also present was some number of protesters/activists. During the exercise, one of them ran on to the beach and was tackled by several people. I assume he was arrested. News reports stated that the reason they were protesting was that this exercise "glorified war."  No one denies their right to protest, (ironic in that is what the Marines are practicing to protect. Yes I know, I fell for the propaganda. ). What I am challenging is the basis for their protest. I suspect that they wished that the military did not exist. Waste of time, money etc. If they did not exist then such a practice would not be needed. Most of us wish that the military did not NEED to exist. But the need is there, and probably will be there in the future. Until the causes of war: ignorance, injustice, inequality and want are eliminated, the military needs to exist and therefore needs practice. Why on a public beach? No doubt, the First Marine Public Relations Battalion had landed in Milwaukee — even before the seals. But again as long as they exist, we need to see and understand their position as much we can. Jeff Thorson

Response:

Filed under: Protest Demonstration

Related Posts

• # we don't want our loved ones who died in 9/11 used as an excuse to start war
• wasted time...
• [Fwd: DCF Cartoon - another child is dead - murdered in kiddie jails foster home incarceration....]
• French Students Dare to Struggle--and Win
• A Year Ago Today
• Giuliani Quotes: resource for media and activists
• N.Y.: Thousands Demand Justice For Louima
• Ontario Teachers End Protest Strike
• Anti-war protest in Los Angeles went down great! Laura Bush showed up.
• U.S. Rulers Turn INS Into Biggest Cop Force