Talk to Address Military Recruiters on High School Campuses

Organizers Suggest General Guidelines Be Made Official School Board Policy

Thursday, March 13, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The extent to which military recruiters should be allowed on local high school campuses will be the topic of discussion this Saturday at the Faulkner Gallery.

Santa Barbara Friends Meeting (Quakers), Veterans for Peace, and Santa Barbara High School Social Justice Club representatives are teaming up to spread the word about the impact of military personnel in schools. Current district protocol exists to limit recruiters of all types on the three high school campuses, but event cohosts Santa Barbara High School parent Kate Connell and Vietnam veteran Michael Cervantes hope to turn the guidelines into more detailed and permanent board policy.

Per No Child Left Behind (and tied to federal funding), public high schools must allow the same access to military recruiters as they do for college and career recruiters. School districts can place limits on recruiter campus visits, as long as the same policies apply to all types.

SBUSD protocol states that recruiters must contact schools prior to their visits — limited to twice a year — just like college and career recruiters. (Centralized college and career fairs do not constitute a “visit.”) Further, recruiters from all categories must sign in at the administration office, do not have “unfettered” access to students on campus, and cannot offer awards or gifts in exchange for contact information. Students must approach recruiters if they wish to get in touch with them outside of school.

Prospective employers and military and college recruiters have access to student directory information, including names, addresses, and phone numbers of juniors and seniors unless a parent or guardian (or students 18 years or older) sign a form opting out in the fall.

Connell hopes to spread the word about the “opt-out” form and get the school board to draft a new policy that is more detailed than the current protocol. “It would be a policy across the board,” she said. “It’s very fair.” Connell added that it’s very difficult for people to “quit” the military, and called for more honest information to be presented in schools. According to a flyer to promote Saturday’s event, 90 percent of military recruits sign up while still in high school through the Delayed Entry Program.

“In the last decade, we’ve had two very aggressive wars,” said Cervantes. “It got scary for a lot of parents.”

On Saturday, participating panelists will include Alejandra Rishton, a veteran and former multimedia specialist in the army; Pat Alviso, a member of Military Families Speak Out and mother whose son has been deployed five times; Michelle Cohen, a representative to provide information about military service alternatives; and Rick Jahnkow, a representative from Project YANO (Youth and Non-Military Opportunities). Jahnkow helped draft similar policy in San Diego.

Connell added that the Marines are also planning to attend Saturday’s event.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

As with any other contentious issue (abortion, evolution vs. creation, religion) making sure both sides of the issue are equally represented--like a debate--solves the problem.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good God..

"Per No Child Left Behind (and tied to federal funding), public high schools must allow the same access to military recruiters as they do for college and career recruiters."

Bush's fault.

Time to secede?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see, it's unthinkable that Santa Barbara's students should serve their country in the military. Is that the goal? Sounds very elitist to me. Why should they NOT serve and then others have to serve for them? Freedom is not free.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should the schools restrict access by the military any differently than any other recruiter? If you don't want your kid to interview the military, that's between you and your kid. Don't restrict others' opportunities.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJosedelaGuerra wrote:
"…serve…serve… serve…Freedom is not free."

Perhaps some have not been paying attention for the past 70 years.

In that time "serving" has consisted primarily in murdering millions of yellow and brown people in countries on the other side of the planet.

"It is indisputable fact that the U.S. government has over the past 50 years been responsible for bombing, shooting, burning alive with napalm, blowing up with cluster bombs, burying alive with 500-pound bombs, leveling homes and villages, torturing, assassinating and incarcerating without evidence more innocent civilians in more nations over a longer period of time than any other government on earth today."

According to the outstanding documentation of James Lucas, USA covert and overt criminal wars of aggression caused 20-30 million deaths of human beings (and many multiples more maimed and driven from their homes) in 37 countries since World War II, countries that did not attack us and that posed no threat to us [ ].

In addition, since World War II the USA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 62 governments, the majority of them DEMOCRACIES [ ].

INFOGRAPHIC: USA war crimes since Vietnam

[VIDEO - 05:48] US US leaders JOKE about OBVIOUS War Crimes, war lies, war murders: Arrest them

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJosedelaGuerra, our military is not used at all for our protection of our country. The military's only purpose is to defend and protect private global corporations' resources and infrastructure abroad as well as destabilize regimes unfriendly to those private global corporations and install friendlier regimes at the expense of the populace. That is a very dangerous policy because essentially we have become the police of the world and we override the decisions of local populations. Since our military does not act in the best interest of foreign countries citizens, they act in the best interest of the global corporations which causes hatred toward our country. Sometimes we see this hatred return to us in the form of "blowback". Blowback is defined by the CIA as retaliation from covert operations. Covert operations are defined as intelligence and military operations that are kept secret from the public. 9/11 was blowback, in a sense, because some of the terrorist patsies that were utilized by the intelligence community to attack our country so that they could use it as a pretext to go to war with various middle eastern countries and take away our rights and privacy as citizens were upset with some of our covert overseas operations. The problem is that since these operations are secret there is no visibility and since there is no visibility I don't know if these operations were undertaken on moral grounds or whether they were simply for the benefit of private corporations at the expense of local indigenous populations. But I can take a pretty good guess.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm quite familiar with the various arguments you use to characterize our military. We could debate them. For me. the military is a very honorable institution and good choice for a young person who wants to serve the country this way. Additionally I think the overall record of our young men and women now serving in the military continues to be outstanding --whether it's the occasional humanitarian service or in our wars. I am particularly upset that any fortunate Santa Barbara parent might think their family is too good for national service.

I am for obligatory national service for all our youth in a myriad of choices and possibilities. I think this national service should be required for 18-20 year olds. Take your pick, conservation corps, peace corps, etc etc. I say bring on the recruiters, the more the merrier. This would broaden the horizons of your young people and make them better citizens.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Serving in the military actually hurts our country. I would call it National Dis-service. It is bankrupting the government and they are making more enemies occupying nations overseas. The reason the terrorists said they attacked us on 9/11 is because of our over-reaching empire overseas, not because we were defending our nation militarily.

Beyond hurting our country it is just plain immoral. I would never advise anybody to be apart of our military. As far as thinking we are "too good' to serve in the military, I would say Charles Manson is "too good" to serve in our military.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I certainly wouldn't defend much of what our military has done at the request of our country's leadership, but again you place the burden of the actions of our country's leadership at the feet of our soldiers who are just following orders. Most soldiers join the military out of patriotism and many have died to preserve your right to say many of the foolish things you have said on this website. Without their sacrifice, you would clearly live in a much worse situation right now.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really I think we could get two birds with one stone here and change the name of the Gang Injunction to the Military Service Injunction. If you mess up while you are on the Gang Injunction dream team, you should get a one of two choices: An all expense paid trip to the clink! or a nice tour of duty for a couple years with one of our fine military branches.

There problem solved! No need to canvas the local schools because nation wide is on your side! I actually cannot take credit for this idea, as I think it has been done before and was the norm back in the day.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany wrote:
"I certainly wouldn't defend much of what our military has done at the request of our country's leadership…Most soldiers join the military out of patriotism and many have died to preserve your right to say… you would clearly live in a much worse situation right now."


As the crimes of this country against the world have been going on for nearly 70 years, your excuse that those carrying them out "did it out of patriotism" seems awfully weak to me.

I agree that the politicians are the greater criminals, but regarding "patriotism," it seems used mostly these days to suggest that we ignore crimes against humanity committed by this country, and regarding your suggestion that committing such crimes is acceptable if ordered to do so, you might want to spend a few minutes here…

Nuremberg principles

…or at least note Principle 1:

"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."

I'd also be very interested to know how dying while brutally attacking countries that did not attack us or threaten us preserves our rights to speak freely, or how we would live in a "much worse situation right now" if the USA hadn't murdered 20-30 million people in 37 countries in the past 70 years, or overthrew or attempted to overthrow 62 sovereign governments, most of them democracies.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you're going to quote me John, at least use complete sentences instead of clipping portions of sentences in order to mischaracterize what I said.

And you clearly have no clue what military service is all about. Sure, there are many conflicts that our leadership has decided to engage in that are travesties, but laying these mistakes on the individual dogfaces that died for your right to dishonor their memory with your ignorance of history makes you lower than the scum of the earth.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany wrote:
"If you're going to quote me John, at least use complete sentences instead of clipping portions of sentences in order to mischaracterize what I said."

This is standard practice in excerpting, and done for clarity and in respect for the time of those reading, to separate out the relevant portion of what one is responding to from a larger passage. If you claim I mischaracterized what you wrote, then enumerate what you claim I mischaracterized.

Botany wrote:
"Sure, there are many conflicts that our leadership has decided to engage in that are travesties…"

Name ONE, since World War II, that is not a travesty.

Botany wrote:
"…individual…that died for your right…"

Setting aside the fact that these rights you speak of are disappearing at a faster and faster rate, since World War II, no US serviceperson has died for any rights of mine or the rights of any other US citizen; they've died to support the petrodollar and US corporations.

Since World War II, the only enemies this country has had are enemies it has deliberately created for the purpose of enriching the military-industrial complex — i.e. transferring wealth from the people to the .1% elite.

The USA empire doesn't exist to benefit the citizenry. An empire is basically a structure which disadvantages the periphery, for the benefit of the core.  Americans, the former middle class, specifically, are being moved onto the periphery.


“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

— Hermann Goering, Nazi leader

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree DonJose that a 1 or 2 year national service requirement would be great, whether within the military or not.
Agree with you here, JT, when you quote from Nuremburg Trials principles: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." Thus, once we get the Senate's report on CIA suppressing the REAL torture we inflicted, ca. 2004-6, then Pres. Geo. Bush should be liable to punishment, no? And Obama as well when he ordered a US citizen - AlAwlaki- assassinated by air as well as three others? Yes, we are an empire, and here in SB we all live at the golden core, but many of us fear we're being moved to the periphery... but of course.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan wrote:
"...then Pres. Geo. Bush should be liable to punishment, no? And Obama as well when he ordered a US citizen - AlAwlaki- assassinated by air as well as three others?"

Yes, I certainly agree; in fact, I've stated in another discussion here that, by international law, every US president at least since Eisenhower has been a war criminal — though some (Kennedy, Carter) less than others (Bush, Obama) — and should have been imprisoned.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hah, I had no idea DrDan was pro-slavery, I guess it figures. Conscription is slavery, period.

Botany, you keep saying the soldiers are doing things that they aren't doing. They haven't done ANYTHING to keep me free, in fact everything they have done has helped enslave humanity even more. They are hurting our country and the entire world. There is no reason to water it down or make it seem like something it isn't. If individual soldiers don't know that's what they are doing then somebody needs to tell them so they can stop. They are an army for the banks. Every country in the world, with the exception of a small handful, who will always be painted as enemies, has a central bank that counterfeits money. They may get loans from the IMF and put their country into debt, building infrastructure and raising armies they don't need just so they can enslave everybody into debt.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then when the debt can't be paid by these countries, the bankers come to the leaders of the country who they probably helped install and say, 'hey, uh, you guys owe us a bunch of interest on crap you didn't need to buy, but remember I gave you $200 million to help get all of that passed through your legislature? Well, the debt has come due and since you can't pay.....I think we are going to take a few thousands acres of oil fields and build an oil pipeline through some indigenous land.. you're going to have to kick the people who have lived there for thousands of years out of there..even though the money we loaned you was counterfeited to begin with so we really don't deserve anything....but we're banks, that's what we do!!'

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then if the leader of the country refuses to give up the land or pay back the debts that, again, were counterfeited, the banks use OUR MILITARY that we pay for with our tax dollars and invade them and install a new leader. Or they send in the CIA and fund a violent uprising by an extremist group to change leaders. Then the media makes the leader of said country out to be a horrible person, even though we probably helped fund and install them at one point, and then they lie to us about why we are attacking them.

This is a pattern with pretty much every conflict our country is ever involved with, and all you hear from CNN, MSNBC and Fox are lies, war propaganda.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 1:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Honestly it would be better if they let the gangs come to the high schools to setup tables and recruit than allowing the military.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 1:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt, so it would be better to have our kids be gang bangers and murder each other rather than go to the places which the elected officials (whom you have a responsibility to elect) send troops to? Weird you are setting one person's life above another in a really twisted way there. Talking about lies and propaganda, did you read the little teaser this "panel" wrote in order to entice people to this event? Load of garbage. If you are concerned about rape and sexual assault, maybe you should think twice about letting your kid go to a prestigious research university. In theory, if we stopped recruiting young people and given war isn't an old man's game, then we what? Wouldn't have a military to fight all these "money grabbing" wars for the industrial military complex? That is exactly how history has told us things go when a government needs troops right? No? What's next then? Everyone burns draft cards and refuses to go right? Nope... Time to live in the world we live in and find real answers to your complaints. Perhaps, run for office and make sure we don't go to war...... No that's the hard way to do things isn't it? Easy to take pop shots at young people making choices for themselves and gnashing the teeth over the New world order, Koch brothers, McDonalds, Walmart, Prisons, and who ever else is part of your evil empire map.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Psst, hey kid,
Want to be cannon fodder for Dick Cheney?
Want to go thousands of miles from home and be involved in wars based 100% on lies? Want to operate a joystick and murder innocent civilians and kids? Want PTSD? Want to help Halliburton, Bechtel, Raytheon, and Exxon make more dozens of billion$ in blood money?

Rinconer (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Got the t-shirt Rinconer... You know what I'm looking at after serving as an infantryman in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan? I'm looking at an awesome way to pay for UCSB's high tuition, life long friends from the army, pride that can't be shaken by these types of ridiculous tin foil hat statements, and an appreciation for what the world is outside of your nice and comfortable bubble. Inflammatory and psuedo-revolutionary rhetoric from your types is as hollow as it gets.. If you'd been there along side me in all these "murders" that the quakers are alleging are going on then your argument might be based in a position worth listening to. Otherwise you played a newspaper version of the kindergarten game "telephone," and your righteous indignation is boring.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I highly respect your service redspool, and all you gained from the military. However, again with respect, you were used; we have wasted humans and money and our national honor on these crazed adventures: Rinconer nailed it.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks DrDan. I'll still have to disagree. I made my decisions and I stand by them. The military didn't use me, I freely enlisted. You should consider how much you don't know about any one of the conflicts we are engaged in. I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say that; it is hard to stay abreast of information that we as the general public are rarely even privy to. You can come out and say these wars are pointless etc etc. but honestly what do you know other than the sensationalized stories that filter back to the news businesses that make coin on your viewership? The answer is, a very small picture. Did you know 2 million girls have gone to school in Afghanistan since the war? In another time, we might have entertained the argument that the war was worth freeing the women and the oppressed alone, never mind any other reasons we went there. I carried rice, schoolbooks, pens and pencils, helped build police stations, we paved their only highway and set up airports. If your position is, screw everyone else in the world who have it bad, well then I guess we don't have anything to talk about. Please don't run away with this as if I'm saying that someone who's family member died unnecessarily in the war should be grateful (Afghan or American), what I am after is that you consider how biased some of these previous statements have been. Some Syrians would beg on their knees in front of you for American military intervention, they're living in squalor having run from their homes. To you, these evil Dick Cheney schemes are all awful machinations etc etc.. to someone else they might be the difference between getting your head chopped off in a soccer stadium and going to school for the first time.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read carefully what you have, redspool. My info sources include books, some foreign press (esp. British and German news), dialogues with former soldiers I know who were also there (and in Vietnam and in Iraq). Those girls you write about -- "In another time, we might have entertained the argument that the war was worth freeing the women and the oppressed alone" -- many are now being driven out of those schools, and the THREE CUPS OF TEA guy has already been outed as a fraud. But deeper: you really think using the feminism angle means that WE have the wisdom and moral superiority to "free" other peoples in other lands? We have this godlike omniscience? Pshaw! These wars were about faulty views of American security, and Bush stated that these were the reasons (however wrong about Saddam having nukes), not for humanitarian reasons. There are plenty of NGOs for that.
Because you were there does not necessarily mean you yourself saw more than "a very small picture" yourself. I do honor your service and your idealism, but your self-serving reasoning is mostly fallacious.
You would have us intervene in Syria -- OMG, sheer idiocy. You'd probably like to go with Sen. McCain and his bellicose statements about supporting Ukraine and moving our assets forward (we have a lot at Grafenwoehr and Ramstein -- I once had a security clearance, low-grade). You believe our leaders have the wisdom and the resources to do these things? My young students will be paying for these stupid moves by Bush and Cheney for decades; the veterans who were killed paid with their lives; the 30,000 maimed veterans pay with diminished lives... and you are ready to intervene again? Read some history, dig a lot deeper, you have been overwhelmed with conventional thinking.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That was a nice story redspool. The wars we enter into though aren't all about imposing our will, morals or policing other countries. The gulf war was to free a sovereign country that was invaded by Iraq. The Kuwaitis were being raped and murdered wholesale by the Iraqis. Of course people like John and Loon will say it was all about the petrodollar$. That's total hogwash. Also remember that was an international effort, not a war waged by the US alone.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

redspool wrote:
"Did you know 2 million girls have gone to school in Afghanistan since the war? "

Whether true or not, are you seriously suggesting this as an excuse for brutally invading a sovereign country that did not attack us and posed no threat to us? How many thousands of innocent civilians have we murdered in Afghanistan, and how many multiples of that number have we maimed and driven from their homes?

Perhaps the rule of law means nothing to you, but according to international law, because the brutal US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal, then all participants are war criminals.

Here are the Nuremberg principles:

I excerpted Principle 1 at March 14, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. above; perhaps I should have excerpted Principle 4 instead:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

"This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'"."

redspool wrote:
"You should consider how much you don't know about any one of the conflicts we are engaged in. "

A weak and useless argument. So enlighten us:

Of the 37 conflicts the USA has initiated or gotten engaged in since World War II, listed here [ ], resulting in the deaths of 20-30 million human beings, and multiples more maimed and made homeless, enlighten us with something we "don't know" and name ONE that was not a travesty.

And of the 62 governments of sovereign nations the USA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow since World War II, *most of them democracies*, enlighten us with the reasons for overthrowing these democracies that we "don't know."

These conflicts and violent overthrows of elected governments have been for two purposes only:

(1) to support the petrodollar, which enriches .1% of the US population at the expense of 99.9%

(2) to enrich criminal transnational banks and corporations, many of which are not even based in the US

Regarding the violent overthrows of elected governments, and what many "don't know" about these conflicts, here's some timely information:

'UKRAINE: meet Lois Capps' & John McCain's Neo-Nazi friends & employers of terrorist snipers who murdered nearly 100 civilians'

(the link directly above is to a local post that includes links to more than 20 sources of information regarding the Ukraine conflict from the independent media — i.e. NOT the US establishment media, 90% of which is now controlled by just six transnational corporations [ ] )

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd just like to say that redspool is a breath of fresh air on this oh so normal example of an Independent Commentary page. Dr. Dan I know you and you don't know what you're talking about. In any case, as I said earlier, 'Freedom ain't Free.' Thank God for our volunteer military. I'd argue all these presumptions about 'what the wars were about' tales here, but it's so sterile and cliche ridden that I'd rather not put my head in this mud. I think I'll just post some recent pictures of Afghan girls and women instead. See you in a few....

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spout on Dr. Dan, the page is open.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whew lots of crazy to respond to here. Okay from the top: DrDan I am not suggesting we go to war anywhere so do me a favor and keep your attempted extrapolations to a minimum and just ask. What I tried to convey, is that there is a whole lot of good that came out of this and many wars, whether or not that statement hurts your feelings is irrelevant, see modern medicine. The reason I pointed that out is not to vindicate anyone of responsibility but to deal with the reality we face right now. If pointing fingers is what makes you happy, rock on. We MAY have invaded Iraq on false pretenses, the reports and intel that are seen at the highest levels contain information you won't get a whiff of until you're long buried, and again if that is unsatisfying because you can't argue what you don't know about, I'm sorry. In regards to my "picture" of what is happening, my knowledge is source material and yours is at best secondary or tertiary. Though I will readily admit that I don't understand the wars in their totality or all the reasons that we do things. I don't know you, so I can't say that you haven't gone out and thoroughly interviewed many of the troops and helped piece together your views that way, but I'm doubting it. NGO's are not designed nor should they be expected to risk their lives in order to make other people's better. Some of them certainly do risk their lives and to their credit do great work, but if the peace corps wants my kid to go to Liberia to build houses with anything short of an Army division in tow, they have another thing coming. Moving on to what I would have us do etc.. I made no suggestions about what we should or should not do, that is what you people seem to think you are qualified to do. What I did, was ask you to consider the views of people who would disagree with you, ie. the Syrian gassed by Assad or the Afghan kids trying to get an education and leave the stone age. If it is your stance, as I said before, that we shouldn't intervene militarily for our perceived interests or help anyone outside of our borders then I don't have an argument for you.... that's where we have met a wall that cannot be broken down. Now, I'm doing my best to be polite but I think after three comments we are dancing on the edge of impropriety. I have not told you why we went to war, I have said you don't understand all that the war is or what it has wrought. Look at arguments that make sense and you can prove. Then we can talk about what to do to fix whatever problems you think exist. If your answer to the "evil chaney empire" is to stop military recruiting at high schools then you really are misguided.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Tieber, unlike DrDan here, you can't manage to make an opening argument without ad hominem attacks, so I'll go ahead and send it back at you with the assumption you and I won't get anywhere. When I said, "Consider how much you don't know," you played your lame hand by being insulted by that and reacting like an angry pseudo-intellectual teenager. How in the world, could a statement asking you to think about what you don't know be a weak and useless argument? If you don't know what you are talking about the argument is over before it began. What is useless is your response, based in the fact that you have no first hand knowledge, you're sending me yahoo links to prove a point, and you've started at square one unable to admit either A) you have all the information or B) you don't have all the information. If you have all the information and held a cabinet position, then excuse me, I apologize. If not, how about you begin with, this is what I believe to be true and this is why.
In regards to international law, I would simply laugh in your face. Talk about a misnomer... If international law mattered or existed we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the UN or NATO mattered, Crimea wouldn't be invaded and huge swathes of Africa wouldn't be hell on earth. Those laws are followed when they are politically expedient, period. We don't even enforce laws we have in this country and you want to whine about international law? For something to be a law we collectively have to agree that we recognize it as such and we don't, so there isn't much else to say about that.
I'd caution you also not to mistake what we did and are doing in Afghanistan for what we did and are doing in Iraq. If you'll notice, I haven't run my mouth about Iraq as I wasn't deployed there. Though I read quite a bit of news, I don't pretend to be an authority here on the internet or anywhere else.

Your petrodollar rant I won't bother with. The Illuminati and evil white men stroking their money stacks don't keep me awake at night.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

redspool wrote:
"...Crimea wouldn't be invaded..."

Crimea hasn't been invaded.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell that the Ukraine.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Websters disagrees John... you are striking out bud.

to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force

: to enter (a place) in large numbers

: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ukraine has been invaded by Russia in the Crimea region after a dummy no alternative election.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Russia has had a long-standing agreement with Ukraine to post up to 25,000 military personnel, as well as its entire Black Sea fleet, in Crimea for many years.

There has been some movement of these personnel within Crimea, but no evidence that the number of 25,000 has been exceeded, or that the movements have violated the agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

There has also been Russian military movements in Russian territory east of Ukraine, as well as some western mobilization west of Ukraine.

US plans to overthrow Ukraine have been in existence since at least 1997. Documentation is irrefutable that the violent overthrow of the Ukraine government by neo-Nazi thugs was accomplished by the usual suspects: John Kerry's assistant secretary of state (and former chief foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney), Victoria Nuland, in collusion with the US ambassador to Ukraine, the CIA, Blackwater (whatever its current name is) and other US-funded mercenary groups, the US State Department and US NGOs it finances, such as USAID, the so-called National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and others.

Anyone sincerely interested in knowing what is actually happening in Ukraine, rather than simply parroting what they hear from the establishment media, can access a wealth of information from independent media sources (as well as seven images, a Ted Rall political cartoon, and a 53-second video ;-) ) at this recent post at the Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition:

Only 14% of US citizens support further involvement in Ukraine [ ], and the Neo-Nazi thugs currently running Ukraine (photos and descriptions can be found at the link above) have already called for terrorist attacks to be launched within Russia itself [ ].

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We need to fire this professor.

As Noam Chomsky said, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." Please know that this is not to show support for Pro-Life. This is to show support for our freedom of speech, our laws, and justice.

Labman22 (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, I'll ignore that you went on an irrelevant tangent.. no problem. Come on though man, you are citing a yahoo group and a blog... Not only that but you go to your yahoo group and click on the link to see what your 14% statistic is about and that goes to another blog which links to a YouGov poll who has different numbers than you are reporting. That's just lazy my friend.... and embarrassing. I can make you a blog that cites itself and say anything I like with some pictures attached, if it fits your preferred narrative are you going to believe it? Ugh.... these are the people organizing "panels" to discuss barring military recruitment from high schools.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" are citing a yahoo group and a blog..."

You are incorrect, and not just because you confuse a Yahoo Group, which simply provides the means to post information, with a blog, or infer either is relevant.

The reason I refer to that link, which I trust is clear to more careful readers, is that it includes about 20 articles from *independent* media.

The establishment media, 90% of which in the US is now controlled by six transnational corporations, has always pushed war; surely few have already forgotten Judith Miller's craven lies at the NYT leading up to the Iraq War, and many others. Then there's the decades-long campaign to demonize Iran, which hasn't attacked anyone in 250 years, by a country that has attacked 37 countries in just the past 65 or so years, and overthrew or attempted to overthrow about 60.

As occurred with Syria (though the US still funds and supports Al Quada and other terrorists, mercenaries, thugs, and cannibals there), hopefully cooler heads than the clowns and criminals in D.C. will prevail in Ukraine as well.

But the propaganda campaign from the establishment media that has, once again, bamboozled so many, means that Washington still benefits by creating a scary boogeyman to distract the American people from our real problems and create justification for massive spending by the military-industrial complex.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee JohnTieber sounds like one of those fifth column guys I've read about. I'm glad we have the second amendment. Keep your powder dry redspool. I hope you look at those pictures of Afghanistan I posted and I hope they give you a feeling of accomplishment for your service.

Now that we've been watching Ukraine. Keep your eyes on Moldavia and the Baltic States. Putin has a 'dream' too.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I always do DonJose. It's great seeing those women doing things they wouldn't have dared to a few years back.

John.... be intellectually responsible enough to admit when you are called on your shananigans or lose any credibility you might have left.

I said you cited a yahoo group: That says yahoo group in the link and is in fact... a yahoo group.

Then I mentioned you cited a blog: Let me draw your attention to the word BLOG in the link and on the website.

Now John, please click on the link to the, "14% of Americans" statement you made in order to validate... something?? Once you have clicked on that, in the first sentence of the ANTIWAR.BLOG article is a link, please click on that.

Now we are at: if you followed directions.

If you'd go ahead and read what the statistics are on there, you will find that you are indeed too lazy to check your own citations and are regurgitating from someone's blog.
By the way, YouGov only polls those of us fortunate enough to have the internet and that care to take polls. Also, its chairman is a Conservative Party MP in Britain (likely one of your bogeymen).

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think what Dr.Dan and a few of the other commenters are trying to point out is simply the fact that U.S. no longer can be the world's policeman, a shopworn term I know.
In theory at least, there are international organizations, regional alliances and other mechanisms to deal with perceived injustices in most parts of the world.
Yes, the U.S. belongs to some of those but should not be expected to assume a leadership role in every global event.
Some who still believe in the misguided notion of American exceptionalism or the outright war mongers such as the Senator from Arizona would likely disagree.
Granted these organizations are typically unwilling or unable to do much and that often leads to tragic consequences for innocent people.
It is indeed sad that Afghan women and girls are treated miserably, not allowed to get an education and have few if any rights in the rather brutal and misogynistic tribal cultures of the region.
Sad too is their likely fate when the U.S. and the so-called coalition forces withdraw in the next year. I suspect that in a few years' time, it will be as though they (the US and other forces) were never there.
The other point being (gently) raised is that a military tour or a government posting of any sort in a region, war-torn or otherwise, doesn't necessarily make one an expert in that region by dint of experience. This is not to deny that such a person would have unique and valid experiences to relate.

Finally, and briefly, into the rabbit hole of Ukraine. There seem to be thugs enough on both sides, but it's still not our issue.
While I could not support the present leadership in the Kremlin, there's no denying that most people in Crimea consider themselves to be "Russian."
Crimea was "given" to Ukraine when the latter was part of the USSR by a Soviet leader of Ukrainian origin.
One of the Kremlin's points in the present scenario is that this situation is not so very different from that of Kosovo in the 90s when the U.S./UN "intervened" to protect a specific ethnic population. These are all, I believe, points to be considered, but they are somewhat under-reported in much of the media.

zappa (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For any sincerely interested in what is going on in Ukraine, I had meant to include a sentence or two regarding the Crimea referendum in my comment at March 17, 2014 at 4:18 p.m.

Here's an excerpt from independent media:

Crimean ‘Check’ on Western Machinations in Ukraine
Finian Cunningham / Dandelion Salad

"The Crimean referendum would seem to be irreproachable from a legal point of view. It was conducted in a fully constitutional manner, with the parliament taking all the required steps to convene the poll. More than 130 international observers from some 23 countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Austria, have reportedly confirmed that the voting procedure was in compliance with recognized standards."


IMF Plans Massive Austerity for Ukraine [though not, of course, Crimea]
Brandon Turbeville / Activist Post

Media’s Reporting on Ukraine as Terrible as It Was on Iraq
Washington's Blog

95.7% of Crimeans Give The Finger To The White House Tyrant
Paul Craig Roberts *

* Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate.

I particularly include the Paul Craig Roberts article, because he has written extensively on Ukraine for more than a month. One can get a good idea of what's going on there simply by skimming the titles from his 'Articles' page here:

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is a reasonable post zappa. If you'll check back, I never claimed to be an expert but I will certainly stand in front of people who have never been there and say there is a lot I understand that they don't and likely can't.

I appreciate that you are willing to acknowledge the ineptitude of our international organizations. If you foresee a time in which the US government gives power beyond those vested by the constitution to a global entity, then we might see a day in which the UN or NATO power is legitimate. Until then the UN Security council for instance, has no teeth and many people like it that way.

I understand completely a libertarian type of attitude in which people wish we minded our own business. As attractive as that is, globalization is rolling, international trade is a monster, and the reality is we aren't going back into the box.

Something I cannot condone is that we fall into a position in which the affluent countries of the world are subject to a type of bystander effect for long enough that any given instance of suffering no longer makes the airwaves, and thereby no longer exists. So who is going to do things around the world if not its only superpower?

If there is a country who is better lead and able to do so, then we aught to provide them the resources to do so. OR we sit out... and I will understand that position and respect it, though I personally can't justify inaction.

This has all gone far afield from the original subject which is all this bigotry towards the military and recruitment in our schools. I read this article and even had one of those people ask me to support the event so I created this profile to challenge bigots like John here with their ridiculous statistics and rhetoric.

The military and the people it recruits are NOT the people YOU elected or failed to elect to office. Take responsibility for your own failures as a citizen before you point fingers where they don't belong. Is it prudent advice to treat the cause rather than a symptom?

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

your head's already in the mud, Don Jose, & oooh, "I know you", too. What does THAT mean?
You display your ignorance when you write "Thank God for our volunteer military." Hate to tell you, we haven't had a volunteer army for decades; and oh, that's a pretty deep line "Freedom ain't free", did you come with it by yourself?
Tieber's eating your lunch, redspool, try reading more of his refs. Russia has had an obsession with its Black Sea access (potential, if Turkey lets their fleet through Dardanelles) for centuries, and they have actual military bases in Crimea. Of course what they're doing is wrong, but don't go all John McCain on us and recommend pushing NATO troops east.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It was Washington that financed and organized the overthrow of the elected Ukraine government, using well organized and well armed neo-nazis to intimidate the unarmed police and ruling party, thus clearing the way for Washington to set up an unelected government of its well-paid stooges."

I'd like to see proof for that. I am aware that neo-con Victoria Nuland was hoping for a pro-Western govt in Ukraine - but I doubt very much that neo-nazis were financed by the West. Obama has hesitated to support other "freedom" movements elsewhere - I'd like to see real proof and real facts that he did so in Ukraine. Besides, Paul Craig Roberts' writing is nothing but long, emotional diatribes.

There are some in Crimea who do not want to be part of Russia (the voting numbers are a bit fishy), and the deposed Russian-puppet Ukrainian president was a financial disaster for the Ukraine - lived the life of luxury and was responsible for the massive debt of the Ukraine, and for that alone he should have been disqualified.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me refer you to his blog posts and inaccurate statistical claims DrDan.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an article that debunks the neo-nazis in Ukraine propaganda.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

while often suspect, Wikipedia on education in Afghanistan is depressing, and over 3 years 2006 - 2009 almost 450 teachers and students were killed; the number of teachers is far too low for the schools, only 80% have graduated from high redspool, our intervention there has NOT helped the education of boys or of girls. Your citing this as a reason for intervention is not valid, and we are about to leave there, anyway (that idiot Karzai won't sign an extension for us), so all our heroic efforts (i mean it) have not helped. Aren't you justifying yourself a lot?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again... not really the subject DrDan. I never said we went to Afghanistan in order to educate the children. I'm saying because we went to Afghanistan we are educating children.

Piss poor schools and teachers are still schools and teachers.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is another debunking of the neo-nazis.

I believe the US has involved itself in unnecessary wars over the decades, and for that reason was pleased to see that Obama, who wanted to change the war mindset, was elected. He has extracted the US from Iraq, not gotten involved in Syria, supported minimal involvement in Libya, and is getting the US out of Afghanistan (after a doubtful support of the generals "surge" in that country) . We would have been in far worse straits had McCain been elected. (Funnily, Yahoo, a place of weird comments, was almost 100% against the latest statements by McCain about Russia masquerading as a country.) But the neo-cons have charged Obama with being weak because he did no saber-rattling over Crimea, completely forgetting that Georgia was invaded by Russia, during the admin of the "strong" Bush.

I do not believe that the US supported the uprising in Ukraine and have yet to see any factual evidence to prove those assertions. And all of the trashing of Obama by the neo-cons only helps adversaries. I heard a question today by a puzzled viewer - why are the right always calling Obama communist and socialist, when they express their admiration for the "strong" Putin. It is because they are blinded by hatred for Obama, which Paul Craig Roberts appears to have as well.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great Tabatha, but what do you think about ^^^ these bigots and their hatred for the military and recruiters? -The article-

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)


I wonder what purpose it serves to "debunk the Neo-Nazis."

If you prefer, how about:

The clowns and criminals in Washington and the EU had no idea what they were getting into, and now Neo-Nazis, out of their control, form a large portion of the unconstitutional rump government of Ukraine.

I.e. some may not be aware that these are not just street thugs, but have now become highly placed government officials, and it's not so much relevant that the US and the EU supported them then, than that they're certainly supporting them now.

This article, which was the basis of my 12 March post [ ] shows six of them (one, Oleh Tyahnybok, pictured with his good buddy John McCain), and describes their positions in the current unconstitutional Ukraine government:

Who’s Who in Ukraine’s New “Semi-fascist” Government: Meet the People the U.S. and EU are Supporting

The three images in this post show Tyahnybok with both John McCain and Victoria "f**k the EU" Nuland (former chief foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney). The middle image (*not photoshopped*) shows him performing the official Neo-Nazi party salute
upon being elected party leader:

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy is still on about his blog posts after looking like an absolute clown with some of his earlier citations. Yahoo groups and blog posts are not reputable and neither is Here is their own disclaimer in regards to articles: Disclaimer

The views expressed in Global Research articles are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles. Global Research reserves the right to remove articles from the website.

Here is rational wiki's evaluation:
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order. Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11, vaccines, genetic modification, Zionism, HAARP, global warming, and David Kelly. Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.

Basically John, since you can't run with the big dogs.... you make stuff up.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate it when you point out one country's misdeeds suddenly you get "Well the US did this and the US does that" as if either excused the other. Most Ukranians including many in Crimea do not want to be enslaved to Russia again, and that's what my friends in
Ukraine tell me.
The US did not set up the situation in Ukraine; it's been part of Putin's own agenda all along:

It's Putin and his cronies who are the Fascists. How do Putin's defenders defend his human rights record?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Setting aside your continued puerile remarks directed at me personally, I no longer expect you to grasp the concept that Yahoo Groups is simply a place that hosts posts, and that therefore attacking articles because they happen to be linked from a Yahoo Groups post makes about as much sense as denigrating a source because it can be accessed via a Google search.

But you might want to be aware that, in general, attempts to denigrate a source, rather than the facts themselves, are widely considered to be weak and ineffective.

Note at the top of Graham's colorful Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid near the bottom of this page...

…you'll find:

'explicitly refutes the central point'

The central point of my most recent comment prior to this one that you are apparently attempting to refute is that Neo-Nazi thugs are now in very key positions of the violently installed and unconstitutional rump government of Ukraine.

If you are attempting to refute that these six people are now in these key positions, then you must do much better than simply criticizing the site an article regarding that information happens to be posted on.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right..... so now thanks to Mr. Graham's triangle we don't need reputable sources or "evidence" to make claims that people should believe. Okay John, even though you set the ad hominem tone, I'll ease off as it is bothering you. Your central points are based in false premises and wasting time refuting nonsense is what I've been doing all night so don't expect that to stop.
What you are saying to me is as laughable as this: Middle earth didn't just come out of a man's imagination... dwarves, dragons, the one-ring are all based in fact. Just because you can't prove they existed today doesn't mean they never did.
-Don't attack the reputability of my source John, debate with me about the central point, that Frodo really did make the journey.

-You mysteriously go silent after your arguments are shown to be null and you go off in some crazy direction after latching on to some small part of another's argument. For instance, this Crimea bit. Remember how you made up statistics and your sources were blatantly incorrect? Then we decided to run down a long series of diatribes about Crimea because that suited you better. You've got the wrong guy John, I am not going to let you attack the military with made up and biased crap. There are legitimate sources and complaints you could have used but the clowns who put this panel together decided to disregard their due diligence to the truth and went with rhetoric. I am assuming you are with them, so you get to hear it.

Not Flying.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I very strongly suspect that, regarding Afghanistan, most US military personnel would much rather remodel schools than blow children and wedding parties to pieces by operating a joystick in a cubicle at an airbase in Nevada, I've been perplexed by the suggestion in this discussion that because not everything the US military has done in Afghanistan is destructive, then the violent, unprovoked invasion and occupation of that country, that neither attacked us nor was any threat to us, is not a violation of international law and thus a war crime.

For anyone interested, here is an excerpt from an article that, interestingly, just came through my RSS feeds a few minutes ago:

"In 2001, the United States was told that Afghanistan would be bombed for revenge. But since revenge is barbaric and vile, and since the criminals being punished were already dead, and since most of the people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11 and wished no part in any war, it was helpful to add another motivation. Afghanistan would also be bombed, we were told, for women’s rights — rights that had indeed been devastated following U.S. efforts to provoke the Soviet Union and then arm religious fanatics against it. Five weeks into the bombing, Laura Bush, the U.S. “first lady,” proclaimed: “Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.”

"Of course, when U.S. special forces burst into a home and shot pregnant women, and then dug the bullets out with their knives in order to blame the murders on the women’s husbands, the goal was not the advancement of women’s rights. But the war had nothing to do with that in reality. The U.S. empowered the warlords of the Northern Alliance, whom the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) denounced as “brethren-in-creed of the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

"RAWA reported: “The war in Afghanistan has removed the Taliban, which so far does appear to be an improvement for women in certain limited parts of the country. In other areas, the incidence of rape and forced marriage is on the rise again, and most women continue to wear the burqa out of fear for their safety.” After over a decade [i.e. the longest war in US history] of U.S./NATO "liberation," Afghanistan remains one of the worst places to be a woman or to become a mother. Child marriage, rape in marriage, and prosecution of rape victims for adultery remain legal and accepted. It was in this context that Amnesty International put up big posters on bus stops in Chicago during a NATO meeting, reading — without intended irony: “Human rights for women and girls in Afghanistan. NATO keep the progress going!”"

Excerpt above is from:

'From Helen to Hillary'

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, you are doing it again.... unrelated tangents, though this time you are a little closer to the mark. If you'll reread you might find that no one provided you the opening for this argument, no one justified the war. What I am and have been discussing is the good that servicemen/women are doing there and objecting to the panel's bigoted attacks upon these people based on your opinions of what a few have done.

Stop and examine your own first paragraph, the only thing you said that is not your opinion or speculation is that you are perplexed. Everything else is arguable. Unprovoked, no threat, and your apparent credentials in international law, are all propaganda and rhetoric that you simply cannot prove with all the blogs and opinion pieces in the world. You can't get off the ground.... I realize a platform for your insanity is exactly what you want but sorry we can't let this type of stuff continue to go unchecked in public space, it is damaging. We will continue this dance apparently John because as I already said, you won't get away with dragging veteran's names through the mud. You don't get to condemn past or future servicemen to dishonor based on you having decided that we are all war criminals.
-I take that back... You do get to do that. You'll just be made to look a fool each time.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I certainly appreciate redspool's cool! And he's so right to point out that the article we are supposed to be commenting on concerns the question of whether or not Santa Barbara's young people should be exposed to American Military Recruiters...(by the way, these military recruiters are often young soldiers on their second enlistment who must choose between being a recruiter or a trainer). I've stated my position which is that students should be exposed to as many different sorts of recruiters as possible and I offered the hope that students might eventually face mandatory national service for two years in a such service as for example, the peace corps, military, conservation corps, etc.

Just a couple of words on the commentary. John Tieber is a kind of person with arguments we've all heard before and I must say someone like him might think about moving to another country before he busts a vein in a paroxysm of misguided national hatred. Dr. Dan lays out other elements of the pious informed know it all. Please excuse my annoyed ad-hominem remarks that I've just made. But sometimes it's easy to jump from misguided absurd arguments to a recognized archetype. One response from me for Dr. Dans riff on the quality of teachers in Afghanistan, one that would oh so easily dismiss their enormous progress and our soldiers' accomplishments...My question is: Would Dr. Dan disallow homeschooling in the United of the fastest growing areas of educational reform? I'm for keeping our efforts going in Afghanistan. I'd even defend the author of 'Three Cups of Tea'....

I'm done. Thanks again to redspool for his service to his country and his hard work here taking the time to respond in detail to these other arguments.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From March 17, 2014 at 2:51 p.m:

" If international law mattered or existed we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the UN or NATO mattered…"

Certainly the UN is concerned with international law, but NATO is a western military alliance, so I doubt anyone knowledgeable would associate it with international law, especially considering that, since 1991, when the Soviet Union disbanded, NATO has had no purpose.

But rather than disbanding, NATO has become a criminal organization; in addition to surrounding Russia, breaching an agreement between the US and Russia, it has brutally attacked countries that attacked no one, much less a NATO country, in the guise of "humanitarian intervention," such as Libya which, notwithstanding the shortcomings of its leader was, prior to the US and NATO criminally bombing it nearly back to the stone age, the most technologically and culturally advanced country in Africa.

This article just came through my RSS feeds; genuine participants here may find the discussion of NATO in relation to Ukraine interesting.

The first few paragraphs below are from:

Disband NATO!
Jacob G. Hornberger

"In a recent New York Times op-ed, John McCain, the man who hoped to be president, said that...Crimea has nothing to do with NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

"Oh? Well, now, let’s see how McCain would be responding if the shoe were on the other foot.

"Let’s assume that when the Cold War ended, the United States disbanded NATO. That, of course, wouldn’t have been too illogical given that NATO was brought into existence to protect Western Europe from Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Since the Soviet Union was dismantled with the Cold War’s end, there was certainly no reason to keep NATO in existence.

"Let’s assume that Russia, on other hand, decided to keep the Warsaw Pact in existence, albeit with new members. Let’s assume that ever since 1990, the reconstituted Warsaw Pact expanded into the Western Hemisphere with such new members as Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Let’s also assume that Russia proposed a Warsaw Pact anti-missile system in Cuba, purely as a defensive measure.

"Oh, let’s have one more assumption. Let’s assume that Russia instigated protests in Mexico against the violence of the U.S-instigated drug war. Those protests, let us say, have resulted in the recent ouster of the democratically elected president of Mexico and in the installation of a pro-Moscow unelected regime.

"I ask you: What would John McCain and his merry band of U.S. conservative and neoconservative interventionists be saying about this chain of events? Would they be sitting silently by or even praising the actions of the Warsaw Pact? Would they be embracing Russia as a friend and ally?..."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would I have the temerity to "disallow home schooling in America?" Some of the homeschooling programs are great and appropriate for certain students, others are a joke. I did not denigrate the teachers in Afghanistan, I noted there are not enough and, unfortunately, many do not have a significant education themselves.
While I accept military recruiters on college campuses, they are best kept off high school campuses.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to be clear redspool, YOU brought up the fighting for women in Afghanistan angle: "Did you know 2 million girls have gone to school in Afghanistan since the war?" You have offered no other rationale for our invasion there, which is not only ending but Karzai is kicking us out, girls won't be increasing, we've just put them in more danger when the Taliban get rid of Karzai.
I am not anti-military, I voluntarily served in ROTC, I got through Ft. Benning boot camp, but we are enveloped in what Ike called the MILITARY-industrial don't seem to understand this.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan wrote:
"While I accept military recruiters on college campuses, they are best kept off high school campuses."

During the time I ran 'Not In Our Name - Santa Barbara' in the eight months leading up to the Iraq War, I became familiar with this issue while working closely with 'Veterans for Peace - Santa Barbara.'

But I don't recall this distinction — makes very good sense.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Educating the Afghan school children... What could go wrong??

WAS available at this link:

"From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts

23 March 2002
Washington Post

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."

The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders. "

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What do you think you weirdos are accomplishing with these huge unrelated diatribes with unreliable sources or your crazy speculation?

DrDan for the probably ninth time... I have INTENTIONALLY made no effort to justify or rationalize our wars ANYWHERE. I'm beginning to think you all are thick rather than sipping the cool aid. AGAIN, I have brought up the positive things that John here and you don't like to talk about because it doesn't help the veteran for peace narrative. You hate the idea that something good might come of our being in Afghanistan and want to squash that concept entirely.

What about this is difficult? We went to war there... now kids go to school. I did not say we went to put them on school buses, stay with me boss.

John.... the answer may be no, but do you think that at some point when you've dodged arguments and been so erratic in your diatribes that you think you might be doing damage to your own cause?

I'll tell you one thing... you won't catch me anywhere near a veterans for peace function if you are the kind of person running things. Evidence for what you believe is being delivered not by any sort of scholarly article, not by someone reputable, but by people crazier than Rush Limbaugh and farther left than Trotsky.

DrDan..... forgive me if I don't give a single **** about you volunteering for ROTC if that is as far as that went. If you went ahead and served as an officer or enlisted, different story.

I've tried to bring some rationality to this, but it gets no where because you people are hell bent on insulting the memory of a lot of men and women in bigoted and ignorant fashion. So lets continue while I check back during my studies and I will continue to wreck your stupid commentary. When one of you wants to act an adult and talk about real concerns or perhaps...... a legitimate reason for banning recruiters from our high schools. You can be sure, I'll engage respectfully.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Beginning at March 17, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. and continuing through March 18, 2014 at 12:47 p.m., extracting from a number of comments, at least some of which might best be characterized as a torrent of Gish Gallop, redspool wrote:

"John Tieber…you played your lame hand…reacting like an angry pseudo-intellectual teenager…John... you are striking out bud…John…John.... your shananigans …Now John…you are indeed too lazy…I created this profile to challenge bigots like John here…This guy is still on about his blog posts after looking like an absolute clown with some of his earlier citations…Basically John, since you can't run with the big dogs…Okay John…the reputability of my source John…You've got the wrong guy John…John, you are doing it again.... I realize a platform for your insanity is exactly what you want…We will continue this dance apparently John…John..."

As I have zero interest in developing oddly personalized relationships with disembodied online entities (as I am myself here, so no one should misconstrue that I am criticizing anyone's choice of a pseudo-anonymous login), like many others I find it very peculiar when these disembodied entities interject my first name into their comments in a way that serves no useful or positive purpose, and that many participants consider creepy when done incessantly.

I'm confident that adult participants here, even setting aside the puerile ad hominems, recognize redspool's infatuation with me personally, including incessantly spattering his or her comments no less than 13 times with the first name of someone he or she does not know, as a substitute for an inability (perhaps leavened with a substantial helping of cognitive dissonance) to effectively refute my assertions, most of which I've documented at length.

And even though he or she reveals at March 17, 2014 at 7:33 p.m., and excerpted above, that he or she considers his or her purpose here is to "challenge bigots like John," I still find the persistence and intensity of this preoccupation with me personally the oddest fixation I've ever encountered in an online discussion.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I can't resist. Let's all do a couple of thought experiments. Roll back the history clock in your minds and take us back in Afghanistan to say, Spring 2002, and as it turns out, the Americans have decided to do nothing after 9/11. What do you think would have happened? Try not to take the easy way out and talk about how we'd all be rich and happy and equality would reign amongst us. Give a little thought to the Afghans under the rule of Mullah Omar and an open training base policy for Al Qaeda.

Thought experiment #2. Saddam is still in power. Roll back the clock to say the same period, Spring of 2002. Where would we be now? have to give some thought to the Kurds, and the Shiites. You can throw in Israel or the Palestinians if you want. What would have happened if we'd left Saddam absolutely alone to do his thing?

I look forward to reading your modified history scenarios. Where would we be if none of this had happened. (Congress by the way voted for the wars). So let's say now, that they didn't. What do you see in your magic mirrors?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you say "do nothing" after 9/11, does that mean no DHS, no change in airport security procedures, no investigation of further al Qaeda presence in the USA?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't like my infatuation with you John? That's unfortunate because I was getting the impression we were going to be speaking a lot. If you'd rather be addressed by something else, change your name. Were you expecting a Mr. Tieber or some such? I've yet to see commentary worthy of a respectful Sir or Mr.

You haven't managed to hold an argument yet, you are literally sitting at your computer and copy and pasting blog articles. When you see a word that you have an article or conspiracy theory about you write or copy an essays worth of useless information about it and throw it up here regardless of its irrelevance. Now after playing your game two or three times, I'll admit I am getting irritated.

Tell me why recruiters shouldn't be allowed on campus without any NWO conspiracy garbage and we may be able to have a conversation.

Though first, you should take the time to watch 24 men receiving the Medal of Honor as it is on right now.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From March 17, 2014 at 2:51 p.m., someone wrote, regarding the petrodollar:
"The Illuminati and evil white men stroking their money stacks don't keep me awake at night."

I'm 100% confident that nearly all but one, of the participants here, are familiar with the concept of the petrodollar, as it is one of the most common and frequently discussed concepts in geo-finance.

Those who are not familiar with the concept — yet who also do not automatically assume that a concept unfamiliar to them must have something to do with "the Illuminati and evil white men stroking their money stacks" — are most likely sufficiently computer-proficient to access the Wikipedia entry with a click or two.


Pertinent to parts of this discussion, here is an excerpt from 'Petrodollar warfare,' linked from the link above:

"The United States dollar is the de facto world currency. Accordingly, almost all oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1] According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and ostensibly supports the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than supposedly they otherwise would be able to.

"As a result, the U.S. government, according to this theory, can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than most other countries can. The theory points out that a stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap (although the country's exports become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world)."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, why are you talking about your conspiracy theory when the subject is recruiters on high school campuses?

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sadly, though recent polls show them to be a diminishing minority, millions of USA citizens are still bamboozled on a daily basis by the establishment media, 90% of which is now controlled by just six transnational corporations [ ], corporations that derive much of their profits from fear-mongering, war-mongering, and the wars themselves.

Those sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware that the concept of USA exceptionalism (see bottom) has been widely and repeatedly debunked might be interested to know that a Win/Gallup International global survey that has been conducted every year since 1977 has, at the end of 2013, once again found that the world sees the biggest threat to peace as the USA.

A total of 65,000 people were polled, in 65 countries.

The USA tops the list by a HUGE margin, with 24% of the world choosing the USA as the biggest threat to world peace.

The results can be viewed, in chart form, here:

'Gallup Poll: World Agrees, US Empire is Biggest Threat to World Peace'


From Wikipedia [ ] :

Exceptionalism is the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^^^Conspiracy Theory # 20

You might be able to find a blog to inform you why you don't like the military and its recruiters if you look hard.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Redspool: I think Tieber has a screw loose....just sayin'.... hope he won't be talking at the school board meeting...I hope the Independent will report on what happens at the meeting.

Botany:...the new history scenarios are open to what you want to say....I can imagine that DHS, Airline Security, and NSA would probably happen anyway and maybe more attacks here, don't you think? Or do you think everything would be hunky dory if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan? Please also try to consider what would have happened to the people of Afghanistan.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan then the vast majority of the world's heroin supply probably wouldn't be coming from Afghanistan today since the Taliban had nearly eradicated the poppy fields before our military took over. The US troops help protect the opium supply there because the global intelligence agencies make extra money for their covert operations that they have a difficult time funding through congresses and such since there is so little transparency. Global banks make a lot of money from laundering drug money and in fact depend on it. The reason why drugs are illegal is primarily so that these groups can have a monopoly on their sales and distribution. They oversee the smaller cartels and help make sure that the cartels that are cooperating and paying their cuts are able to deliver and that the competing cartels end up going out of business, so to speak.

They wouldn't have been able to build their oil pipeline if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan. Nor would they now control the very resource-rich region:

A lot more innocent Afghans would be alive today if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan.

There would be fewer people who hate America because our military occupies and invades their countries, killing their family and friends.

Al Qaeda (Al-CIA-duh) is a terrorist organization run and controlled by global intelligence agencies. They use them as patsies in order to create incidents such as 9/11 so that they have an excuse to use military force to change the landscape of the Middle East for their benefit.

Last of all, advocating war is immoral and just plain evil.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." in case you didn't know.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where did you learn all of the CIA/NSA government secrets loonpt? They hand over the files or did you get it all from youtube? I'm impressed....

So all the poppy fields that the DEA and our troops have burned or the heroin that I personally have seized, that was all diversionary. I'm starting to see the light.........

Recruiters? Good excuse? Any of you? Didn't think so.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJose, No kidding my friend.. This is taking me back as I watch the digital version of Larry, Curly, and Moe post these essays on the independent commentary section.'s own disclaimer says they aren't responsible for the accuracy of any of their articles that they let people post hah. Real vote of confidence.

I've got a plan for DrDan (poet and didn't know it) loonypt and old John; you guys pool your collective brain cell and blend your Orwell / Dan Brown / Machiavelli type stories together into one big conglomerate with a super villain. Get a little character development going, maybe hire a screen writer, and BAM you all could buy the independent and print your own propaganda all day. Hell, if you do as well as Batman you might be able to do battle with the NWO or shadow ninja government yourselves. I'll even buy a copy off the books so Uncle Sam doesn't use the tax to oppress something okay?

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you're ignoring your studies significantly, red, and you write falsely stating I have ever been "insulting the memory of a lot of men and women " -- I reread my posts. So, red herring, since you have nothing else. Keep self-justifying, we all do it, man.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well you are the least of the offenders DrDan I'll give you that. If you are on board with the veterans are all war criminals bit... then I've been correctly stating your posture. I surely am ignoring some studies but I'm telling myself that these breaks every 30 minutes or so are helping. I guess we will see.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So all the poppy fields that the DEA and our troops have burned or the heroin that I personally have seized, that was all diversionary. I'm starting to see the light........."

I guess they missed a payment to someone. You were like the muscle for the mob, destroying all of their stuff because they fell behind on their payments. Great job.

Afghanistan's poppy farmers plant record opium crop, UN report says (2013)

"Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan."

Obviously I don't do my research on wikipedia, I've been studying the source material for years. But don't think you can get away with merely saying that wikipedia can be inaccurate when it is in fact filled with source material and links. This is merely a place to get you started. But this has been prevalent for decades, since at least the 70s if not much earlier. It's really sad that most people turn a blind eye.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe I missed it again, Opium on the rise = CIA/NSA/Mi6/KGB Spymaster conspiracy right? It was the part in between that I had trouble with loon... The part that the Ninja Government likely wouldn't report to wikipedia or its sources. Have you checked if those poppies are Monsanto patented yet?

You're welcome.... I know you just became aroused.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonspit, when fascism comes to Amerikka it will be wrapped in a flag and a crescent--like our Muslim president. No wait, he can't be a Muslim if he's for women's and gay rights, he's a liberal, no, he's a Muslim, dammit, it's somebody's fault!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Conspiracy....everywhere you look, right loonpt? CIA, Blowback. Heroin and Oil. And here I thought the big land use problem was the Amazon, Hamburgers, and the Methane Blowback of loaded cow farts. What will happen to the land under our new mandate for pot cultivation? Did you know there are even luxury automobiles smuggled through Spin Boldak, Afghanistan too! Who's behind that? The answer is human nature.

How do you make an Afghan farmer stay on the farm and grow wheat when opium pays so well? That's the question.

In Loonpt's world everybody in the world is manipulated, trapped in these under appreciated, under-researched, conspiracy plots and we the manipulating Americans--so ill-informed are yes, the final cause, the true evil ones--the dim witted capitalist manipulators--financed by the Koch brothers and those oil loving right wing politicians who use the military as their instrument of control. And if No One here really understands or knows about this secret manipulated universe, then it's you, our small virtuous co-hort of well-informed saviors here who will, because of deep research, enlighten us as to what you have finally understood: THE answer (along with Steven Colbert of course). Call me not Ismael but Loonpt... Freud or someone else might call this paranoia....and I can even hear Bob Dylan singing in the wind, 'you don't know what's happening, do you Mr. Jones.'

But back to basics, you feel that part of saving the world, besides you informing us of these vast plots, is keeping our Santa Barbara high school kids, our best and brightest, out of the clutches of the evil evil 24 year old instrumentality of the vast conspiracy who has come to seduce our kids into a life of cannon fodder and killing, death and destruction. Time to quote Orwell: "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Freedom isn't free. Would if be possible that some of our kids might like to join our safety and protection co-hort? Let the recruiters talk about their experiences to our kids. It's called transparency in a democratic society.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This David Swanson piece, regarding a 2010 Army War College report (linked from the source) just posted today:

'Army Makes Case Against Enlisting'


"...This is the highest honor the Army could give these groups, including Quaker House, the Mennonite Central Committee, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans For Peace, and Courage to Resist. Activists often disbelieve in the effectiveness of their own work until the government admits it explicitly. Well, here is that admission. And counter-recruitment activists really do seem to appreciate it.

"...But who really should be reading this excellent report is potential recruits..

"A Veterans For Peace video [ ]...“begins with video from the United States Army Recruiting Command, where a recruiter comments that, ‘just because you get deployed doesn’t mean you will end up in the Middle East or Iraq’ – followed quickly by an applicant saying, ‘if I were to get mobilized, it wouldn’t be a whole big ordeal’.

"These comments are quickly retorted by a Soldier who had been severely injured in an improvised explosive device in Iraq, his mother providing an overview of her son’s injuries.

Next, a Marine veteran of Vietnam addresses the invincibility of being a Marine ending as soon as one engages in combat, and that ‘all of the myths and lies’ that a recruit has been told are ‘over’.

"…there is an excerpt from a U.S. Army Recruiting Command video of a recruit talking about joining for the educational benefits. Several veterans then discuss the smoking mirrors [sic] associated with educational benefits. There is a claim that ‘on average the Montgomery GI Bill will only cover 1/2 the cost of a public college and 1/5 the cost of a private college’. Further, they communicate a message that Soldiers in the Reserve Components of the U.S. Army are prevented from using education benefits due to repeated deployments. And, by the time a Soldier completes two and three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are in no shape to go to college.

"…The video shows a statistic that ‘the VA estimates on any given night 200,000 veterans are homeless’. The video includes an interview of a former Recruiter, who indicates that he was trained to cover up one-time drug offenses, and to do what it takes to enlist applicants into the service. The video shows a statistic that ‘the Government Accounting Office reports 6,600 complaints of recruiting wrongdoing during a one year period.’...Further, this contract binds the recruit, but not the United States government. There is a comment that ‘since the start of the Iraq War the Army has extended the enlistment of more than 50,000 troops through “stop loss”‘.”…

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Brilliant Don Jose. That just about encapsulates this dude's every waking moment.

John you're back! Good... I'm bored.

So let's summarize, your argument against recruiters is that some people have a bad time during a war. That's to the point without an essay of b.s. Are you familiar with correlation and causation discrepancies? Or anecdotal evidence? Or that you didn't actually verbalize an argument but instead are doing what JohnTieber does and puts a list of quotes and dubious statistics in front of you hoping you'll form some argument for him?

The flyer for why recruiters shouldn't be allowed on campus was more of your bull John, and not an actual thesis or argument. I deleted the email so don't quote me exactly here, but there were things like:
-70% of service members were engaged in direct combat
-There were X number of sexual assaults

John, you realize I can provide you with "scary" statistics that are equally dubious about everyday life right?

If you could provide me that flyer I'd love to break it down. Let's assume the percentage was 70, as I can't remember how high it was.
The argument this wannabe policy is formed around is a statistic that was intentionally presented in a misleading manner. How much of the Navy is on the ground in Afghanistan? How about the Air Force? Coastguard? It's a rough 10 supply soldiers to each combat soldier in the Army. So forgive me if my senses are screaming, you all are liars. A less misleading version might have been something like, 70% of infantryman claim to have been shot at directly. That is believable.

Use your own words and articulate an argument. Use legitimate and reputable sources. Address the shortcomings in your argument and explain how they are overcome.

If you fail to do this.... you are just spewing propaganda.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At March 19, 2014 at 6:58 a.m. DonJosedelaGuerra wrote, again:
"Freedom isn't free."

You can repeat this silly catchphrase as often as you like but it won't turn back the clock to the early 1950s, prior to all the brutal, illegal wars of aggression instigated by the USA, and which, not coincidentally, many metrics indicate is when the USA peaked economically, culturally, and as a true power deserving of worldwide respect.

But this hackneyed slogan can be rebutted in so many ways that I don't need to repeat what I wrote — at March 14, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. — the first time you suggested it as somehow being meaningful in the past 60 years or so.

And so, regarding "Freedom isn't free":

'10 Reasons the U.S. is No Longer The Land Of the Free'
Jonathan Turley

Excerpts (paragraph headers):

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Indefinite detention

Arbitrary justice

Warrantless searches

Secret evidence

War crimes

Secret court

Immunity from judicial review

Continual monitoring of citizens

Extraordinary renditions

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is what I thought John. Take some time and think out an argument for yourself and bring it to us. Nobody cares about conspiracies or other people's blogs. Even those don't make sense. Freedom isn't free: because, arbitrary justice and secret court. Freedom isn't free because powers are being abused? That statement still doesn't make sense as a thought but at least it is coherent. That is how you start.

Try again. I'll wait.

redspool (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: