Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
My Links
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Watts Up With That?
Internet Haganah
Jihad Watch
Ponder the Maunder
The Dissident Frogman
Barking-Moonbat EWS
Just Barking Mad!
The Malaria Clock
Project Valour-IT
Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...
10 Myths of Islam
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital |
| 08.25.05 (9:08 am) [edit] |
|
Marc Morano Senior Staff Writer Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton." The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House. Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq. Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well. Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19. "I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added. According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle. One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie." Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added. On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital. But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families. "I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace. Assholes. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1347570.html" title="http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1347570.html" target="_blank"http://www.crosswalk.com/news... |
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 09.15.05 (9:18 am)
While it's easy to formulate arguments against the war, this is the wrong way to protest. I don't think most liberals would support this.
Both sides agree that national defense is an important part of government. The disagreement is over the justness of this war. However, it's not the job of a soldier to decide what battles to fight.
It's reasonable for a person to have strong moral objections to fighting in a war, and I have no problem with a soldier who comes to that conclusion. However, if he decides it for a particular war instead of for war in general, that's a political choice and not a proper one for a soldier to make. A soldier must defer to the Commander in Chief, whether he agrees with the justification or not. That being said, if we agree that a military is necessary, it is rarely wrong to expect a soldier to have responsibility for a war. In extreme cases, such as Nazi Germany, it would be understandable to assign culpability to a soldier. However, unless there are clear issues of violations of the Geneva convention or other equally accepted domestic or international law, we must respect the soldier who is doing his job, no matter what we think of the war.
These protesters are very misguided. If they truly support the soldiers, and truly don't believe that they should be "maimed for [the] lies" of the administration, then they should protest the administration, not the hospital and certainly not the soldiers.
