1,000 Soldiers Call for Withdrawal from Iraq

Marc Cooper of The Nation reports that for the first time since 1969, more than 1,000 soldiers are petitioning the Government to withdraw from war. Then it was Vietnam, this time it's Iraq.

< Happy Birthday to the Bill of Rights | Matt Drudge: Shill for Liberals? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No one gives up their American citizenship... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    ...to join the military. They do voluntarily agree to go when, where, how, and for whatever length of time the military needs them somewhere, but they NEVER surrender their constitutional right to petition their government for redress and to so allege is to deprive them of the protections of the document they swear to uphold, preserve, and defend and for which they lay their lives on the line.

    ...to join the military.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    ...or to stand and fight for their rights. Including their right to speak their mind and protest. If Bush had anywhere close to the integrity these soldiers have he'd give them the Medal of Freedom.

    I taught this to an AF Colonel, my... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    ...squadron commander, when he chewed me out for making what he thought was an inappropriate comment, so I warned him that I was indeed an American first and military man second, and that it he didn't like it and messed with me again I would resign.

    He messed with me again and, since my father died while on active duty, I immediately posted a letter of resignation to Personnel, they balked, but filled in the papers which I then took to the colonel.

    He laughed, threw the papers back and I politely asked to be dismissed. He immediately noted that I wasn't making a fuss about it and wanted to know why.

    I told him that, fortunately, there was a three star General Wing Commander who would be happy to follow AF Regulations and grant my request, and that when the General inquired why the colonel wouldn't sign the letter, that I would let HIM (the colonel) explain his personal animus towards me.

    He signed the letter. I was Honorably discharged within 15 days.


    I am glad you wanted what you got (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    and I am glad you got what you wanted.

    Now, did the Airforce collapsde after you left??


    I grew up in a military family, Bill... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    ...and I watched my father miss the point you just made for my first seventeen years. He could never understand why I would not join or salute him. He still doesn't...

    I salute you, sir.


    De nada. Just did what came naturally - (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    which is what concerns me about the generation following us.

    Will today's shocking BS become the acceptable norm for them?

    I fear for our country.

    Thanx. I was gonna try to make it a little longer today, but from my grammatical errors and word omissions I glean that I have already pushed it too hard.

    G'day, edger, SEO, everybody.


    Will today's shocking BS... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    ...become the acceptable norm for them?

    I hope not. I think it did around the beginning of this, and it took too long for peole to start thinking straight again.


    and I salute your father. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    I doubt you would... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    ...if you knew how much contempt he has for Bush, his policies and wars, and for worldviews like yours.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    Your inability to understand is expected.

    It's ok, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    At least you have Gabe on your side. That should at least double bushs' approval rating, yes? ;-)

    and I salute your father. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    Oh lord...here we go again (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    The only thing stopping me from being turned to dust is the war in Iraq?  Any evidence to share?Sorry, I don't believe you...and I don't scare that easily.  

    How much of a stake do you have in Boeing, Carlysle, and Halliburton anyway?  Those are the only ones left supporting this debacle.

    As for these brave soldiers...rock on!  They must feel more pressure than we do when excercising their rights.

    BTW..Today is the Bill of Rights' birthday, 215 glorious years.  With brave soldiers like this putting the rights protected in the BOR into action, we may just see 215 more.  Sun-God willing.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    Comments like that are better left to the Left.

    Like Malkin, eh Jim?

    Have you served??

    What difference does THAT make? Military service does not confer some special knowledge or status on anyone. If you thing that it does, then a dictatorship is just what you are looking for.

    If you consider that the Shia is Iran, and if you consider that Iran is an absolute enemy and sponsor of terrorism, then if leaned either way, it would be towards the Suni.

    Want a bow for that package, all neat and tidy? Define absolute enemy please, because the "surrender monkeys" are saying we should talk to them. Is that OK with you, Mr. liberal?

    Who has Iran ever invaded?

    Diogenes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be morally significant.

    Discharge (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    If they don't want to follow orders, courts martial and dishonorable discharge should follow.

    I mean if they want to protest, do so. But let them understand and suffer the consquences.

    Yeah lets hold the soldiers (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    responsible, but not the lying rethugs who sent them.



    Petitioning is not disobeying (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by roy on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    aid and comfort (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    Perhaps not, but their actions are directly giving aid and comfort to the enemy and hurting the morale of their fellow service people. Shakesphere said it wonderfully well.

    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

    Shakespeare... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    Now thou art come unto a feast of death.
    (1 Henry VI 4.5.7)

    and whose death?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    Have fun... (none / 0) (#30)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    Calendar of US Military Deaths in Iraq.

    You are purposely obtuse.


    Show some spine (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by roy on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:46:18 PM EST
    Don't hide behind the archaic language, Jim.  Accuse soldiers who disagree with policy of treason.  

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    This is not about their disagreement. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    In my ten years I disagreed many times with policy and actions of my government.

    This about their actions, and the result.

    And if could, I would arrest, charge and try.


    They can only disagree if they don't express it? (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    roy, no, our service people (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    are not kept from complaining. They can call their congress people, write their congress people and visit their congress people. No one will say them nay, you must not.

    But public demonstrations are over the line.

    The military is not a 9 to 5 job. It is truly 24/7 and you agree to follow the rules and the UCMJ.

    Like most things in life, it is not possible to write every thing down. Part of serving is the understanding that you will have the total support of your comrades, and each will follow orders and be there for the others.

    That is what "band of brothers" is about.

    And that is why the charges of "Missing Movement," Cowardice in the face of the enemy" and "Desertion" are so serious.

    So a public display such as this is terrible. It does hurt morale and it does make the enemy happy to know that our troops are being discouraged by their fellow service people. I repeat. Our enemy is not stupid. He can understand and appreciate such things even if the Left in this country cannot.

    You speak of rights. I speak of responsibilities, as did Shakesphere:


    The troops are not props in a play (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by roy on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    The "public demonstration" is to sign a petition.  So I see that you're using the phrase to make people think of marches and strikes and vigils, while you actually mean anything other than private correspondence and conversation.

    Your attitude towards our troops is disgusting.  You say they can disagree and complain, but they should be charged with a crime if they disagree in any useful way.  You want to reduce brave soldiers to puppets, to whom rights are handed out in pittances so you can say they have rights.

    The Left has "Support our Troops, Bring Them Home"

    You have "Support our Troops, Imprison Them for Signing a Petition"

    You "speak of responsibility", but responsibility is a two way street.  Independent of the arguments over strategy, we taxpayers have responsibilities too.  We elect the leaders who send the troops to fight and die.  We have a responsibility, at the bare minimum, not to treat those troops like sh*t.  You complain, justly, when Leftists disrespect the troops, yet here you are advocating that they be imprisoned for acting on that which makes us all Americans.


    Serving (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    ppj, is the eternal hypocrite. He claims to have a special position, which grants him authority on matters of war, because he has made vague claims about being in the vietnam war.

    But those on the ground in Iraq, who certainly know what a fiasco the Bush war is must be jailed and silenced for speaking from their experience. These soldiers know that the Iraq war is folly and a tragedy that one more drop of American blood spilled be spilled.

    To claim a dubious privilege just to try to silence anyone who disagrees with you is bogus. It really falls flat when those who irrefutably have served are also written off, this time as criminals.  


    Signing the petition (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    is an action that is being widely publicized. That makes it a "group" action. Those who have sponsored it will be sure and claim that it represents a "group." It is as much a demonstration as if people were in the street.

    As to your opinion, I wonder how you think that these bad acts by a few do not violate the responsibilities they have to their fellow service members??

    roy, I think you are mostly a libertarin with a leftward bent, thus your focus on "rights." I am a liberal with a focus on national defense, thus I say  responsibilities are very important.

    The issue isn't how we treat these people who are in violation of the most basic relationship of military people, but the fact that they are doing it, and you are defending it.

    I repeat again. They have many very acceptable ways to complain without what they are doing.


    Just the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:09:31 PM EST

    I repeat again. They have many very acceptable ways to complain without what they are doing.
    Repeat all you want. The point the action is to wake-up all the americans. They are telling us to support the troops and bring them home.

    Of course ppj gets all teary eyed and nostalgic about war, and would hate to see it end. All that glorious death and destruction.  Well wake up ppj, your a$$ is not on the line, you have made no sacrifices, and your cheerleading is not appreciated, by the troops.

    ppj would rather the troops expressed themselves in a way that wouldn't ruin his show, you know something effective like silent prayers, private silent prayers, very very private silent prayers. That is the way real fools protest. Besides what would the enemy think?

    Maybe that they won.


    Over the top (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    I think you are over the top wishing death and destruction on SF and/or LA.

    Comments like that are better left to the Left.

    Also, there are lots of liberals, such as myself, who believe in a strong national defense, yet believe in what was the traditional liberal agenda before the Left stole the name.

    Jim you are NOT a liberal (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:18:48 PM EST
    You are a conservative with a libertarian bent. Words have meaning.

    You may think you are strong on defense, but you consistently vote for Bush-Cheney. And face it, they are the worst thing ever to happen to America's national security. As a consequence you have contributed to the destruction of our security.

    I've never heard a liberal or leftist call for the destruction of Birmingham or Texas. I have heard more than one conservative rightwing nut case call for the destruction of SF, including Bill O'reilly and Malkin.  I'd also point out that Timothy McVeigh was a conservative.  


    Words have meaning? (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    Then when will you admit that you were dead wrong in your comments about Medicare Rx Insurance? The inability to admit a mistake defines a person as much as the mistake itself.

    And I am a conservative? How many conservatives do you know who are for gay rights, women's rights and want the drug laws rationalized amd changed?

    "libertarion bent?" How many libertarions do you know that are for national healthcare and universal military service?

    You write:

    I've never heard a liberal or leftist call for the destruction of Birmingham or Texas.

    As I noted to paperhead, don't do that. As for over the tops comments, among others I give you Ward "Little Eichmams" Churchill.

    about George Galloway.

    but I shall have to concede that even in New York he has the nerve to tell an audience that the atrocities of September 2001 were essentially the fault of the United States itself. That was not his finest moment - and nor was it by any means his lowest one - but I began to see again his essential appeal, which is an utter indifference to embarrassment.

    Russell Shaw

    What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

    I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

    If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

    And I can give you many more. I will also note that the Right, have their "paperhead's." The difference between us is that I condemn both sides.

    No Molly, I am the Liberal. You are the Left. There is a vast difference between us, and it continues to widen.


    I wasn't dead wrong (4.50 / 2) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    I did finally respond to you on medicare. My criticisims of the GOP doughnut hole were valid. Go look for the response and read for yourself.

    You are quoting Russell Shaw out of context.

    I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much... If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?

    Any at all?


    It is clear from the 1st and last sentences that Shaw hopes the US is not attacked. He does wonder if such an attack would change the direction of the country. That is not the same as wishing for an attack. Bad lawyers quote out of context. I enjoy nailing them when they do. Reading is fundamental.

    As for Galloway, you are quoting from Hitichens, who has not been intelletuctually honest in years. I note Hitch doesn't give the exact quote, but rather gives his interpretation of what Hitch says Galloway means. Provide the exact quote and we will review it to see if Hitch's interpretation is correct. I suspect not. In any event, the alleged statement is not advocating the destruction of NYC.

    Churchill questioned "the innocence" of people killed during 9-11. That is not the same as advocating the destruction of NYC.

    If you are going to dispute me, at least try to do so with direct quotes from people actually advocating an attack on a specific US city as have Malkin and Billo have done.

     Your positions on gay rights, women's rights and drug laws are your libertarian ones.

    Lets ask a few questions:

    Did you call, write or otherwise speak out in favor of Health Care in 1993-94? Did you support the Clinton Administration on Health Care at that time?

    Do you feel government has any role in the marketplace? Do you favor market regulation by the government at all- e.g. Federal food health and safty regulations, or federal workplace regulations for health, safety and welfare? Should the government regulate clean air and water standards? Should government regulate business conduct?

    Did you vote for any of the following presidential candidates in the elections they ran:

    LBJ, Hubert Humphry, McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Albert Gore or JFK? If you did not vote for them in any election, did you vote for the Green Party Candidate or did you vote for the Republican candidate instead? As a general proposition, would you have supported FDR's New Deal or not?

    Jim, based upon your past statements, I would guess you are at best  conservative to moderate with some libertarian inclinations. You are not a liberial.


    Soldiers (none / 0) (#1)
    by sedipple on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    Well all the smart ones spoke up. I guess the other 139,000 dont know any better. Fight on.

    Give em time (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    1000 is just the beginning. Bushbag chickened out and hid in the Guard during Vietnam. He is now destroying our all volunteer military. Soon if he keeps it up he will have a truly demoralized military on his hands! It is ironic he who wouldn't fight demands so much from those who do. I guess he will make up for it when his twin daughters sign up a go. Right!  

    Have you served?? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    Disingenous (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    You'd know that if you read his comments. But then, you do know.

    nice trolling, edger (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    Nice troll comment. My comment stands.

    Yeah, whatever. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    Read, Jim. You already know what it says, but read it. again.

    Yes I served (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    What's your point?

    That's right, you have none. So you resort to schoolyard antics. Why don't you just plug your ears and shout "Nah-nah I can't hear you". At least that will keep your hands away from the keyboard.


    So you believe (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    we have 139,000 people fight in Iraq who are stupid??

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    That most of them don't want to be there or are at least beginning to question "the mission".

    Look we played these games 30 years ago while 58,000 Americans ended up dead for another imperial misadventure, followed by the inevitable bloodbaths after our withdrawal which were also directly attributable to our meddling there.

    You can't blame the peons for the hopeless position they have been put in, any more than you can blame "the Left" for the disaster that has resulted from a failed occupation and no viable exit plan. But that will never stop you from trying, will it?

    Who is to blame? Well, here's another echo from the past that we haven't learned from yet...

    "How is the world ruled and led into war? Diplomats lie to journalists and believe those lies when they see them in print."

    - Karl Kraus, Austrian Essayist, 1918


    Actually we do. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    We also have no basis to take one side vs another in this civil war anyway.

    If you consider that the Shia is Iran, and if you consider that Iran is an absolute enemy and sponsor of terrorism, then if leaned either way, it would be towards the Suni.

    Of course this type of real politic was the justification of our assistance to Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran, in which Iraq was our defacto military arm fighting to keep Iran and the Shia from taking over Iraq, Kuwait and SA, not to mention Egypt, Lebanon, etc....

    Yada Yada Yada DA (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:38:57 AM EST
    We have had this discussion before. We used Iraq as a pawn to fight Iran's attempt at taking over the ME because we had neither the troops, technology, or inclination to fight a war at that time.

    For a further example I direct you to WWII and the partnership with the killer Stalin and his Soviet Union..

    Nations do not have friends, they have mutal interests.

    Ta Ta and yada yada


    Mutual Interests (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Like when Reagan's CIA created Bin Laden's army to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, knowing full well that they hated the U.S. just as much as the Soviets.

    We have a long history of sowing dragon's teeth in that part of the world. Then we are shocked, SHOCKED, when they sprout up and bite us in the a$$. But, hey all this messy building democracy stuff keeps a lot of people in business.

    Speaking of whch, how's your portfolio (weighted heavily with "defense" oriented stocks, no doubt) doing these days, Jim?


    Bedwetter's Fantasy (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:58:37 PM EST
    What fun you must have keeping yourself sooooo scared. The world is such a terrifying place, huh paperhead. Obviously you hold a high rank in the 101st keyboard kommandos. Thank you for keeping our economy afloat.... and the makers of fine incontinence panties thank you too.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    I served, dear squeaky. You did not.

    Served? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    If that were true, you learned nothing from it. We are all waiting for some details. Was it combat or boot polisher?

    PPJ (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    We used Iraq as a pawn to fight Iran's attempt at taking over the ME because we had neither the troops, technology, or inclination to fight a war at that time.

    Excuse me, but what evidence do you have that Iran was planning on "taking over" the ME prior to Iraq's pre-emptive, US sponsored invasion?

    1,000 soldiers (none / 0) (#43)
    by diogenes on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    One thousand soldiers out of how many?  
    If one thousand soldiers signed a petition in favor of the death penalty for Saddam I suppose that would be pertinent and important news too.

    I was in the military (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    So I know that, given the threats and intimidation by the officer corps and the rampant brainwashing inherent in that environment, even a small fraction signing such a petition is quite impressive.