I m/l asked this question on another post, but that post has gotten so long, I'm barely able to open it. So I decided to open this new post.

Specifically I'm referring to his first grade reading lessons in Florida during, and for quite a while after the attacks? Why wasn't he getting his butt in gear when he heard the US was under attack? Why wasn't he at least seeking a safe harbour, knowing that the enemy certainly knew his location (it had been announced in the media for about a week beforehand), and would be thrilled to make him their prize casualty? (He was also less than five minutes from a major airport). What did he know about this attack BEFOREHAND which made him feel so safe and secure at the Florida School?

And anwer me this: why did the DOD hold off on intercepting the jets which nailed the second tower and the Pentagon? (Despite claims to the contrary, the Washington DC Air National Guard's own website tells us that they WERE ready and able to intercept flights to protect Washington DC) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This was primarily directed at Jay, who said he'd follow his government's actions "right or wrong". His response follows: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Why should he terrify the children in the class while he had his staff handling the data collection for him and an aid whispering in his ear. He was still in charge. Surely, you didn't miss that prior to him going airborn. Would you want to terrify your children? -- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), September 30, 2002. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I replied to Jay that perhaps Bu$h could have told the kids that they were going to have a fire drill, and get them out of this prime target area. Jay has yet to reply to this.

But anyhow, I've been reading more and more damning evidence about the Pre$ident'$ actions in regards to the attacks. Would someone PLEASE convince me that this is just a bunch of conspiracy theory bullshit? I don't WANT to believe that our fearle$$ leader would do such a thing. Help!

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Answers

Florida was not a combatant target at that time. And of course standard security protocol for the President was undoubtly being followed.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Jay, I don't believe the Pentagon was a "combatant target" at the time either. Perhaps that's why the Wash. DC Air National Guard didn't bother to launch any fighters?

And if you are half as smart as I think you are, you will know that standard security protocol for the President was ABSOLUTELY NOT being followed. If you can't find the info, I'll gladly look up the facts for you. It's all available on the internet, although as you must know, part of the Bu$h A$hcroft Cheney Rum$feld war on the American population has been to remove as much information from the internet as possible, as rapidly as possible. So maybe it's NOT on line anymore. If you can't find it, let me know.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Come on! Won't somebody tell me I'm just being paranoid? (And convince me)

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2002

Ok, I'll go.......you're just being paranoid! :)

Seriously though, I know how you feel; I have three questions I have asked too that I would really like the answers to. Perhaps there are none, which is an answer by default, is it not?

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2002

Joe, I don't remember Jay saying that he'd support the President, "right or wrong", but I did. I thought I'd explained why, but evidently, I didn't do it too well.

BEFORE the war, protest to your hearts content. Sign petitions, demonstrate, make calls to everyone you can, march on the capital, do whatever you want or can. Hammer down! .

AFTER the war starts, suck it up. Get on board one hundred percent! It doesn't matter WHO the President is (Bush, Alfred E. Newman, Jessie Ventura, it doesn't matter), it doesn't matter WHAT party they're with, it doesn't matter if you think the war is justified, it doesn't matter if you think it's a moral war; nothing matters except that you support the troops in any way you can.

Most of the troops that are sent overseas to fight a war are young men. They're uprooted from their homes, families and friends, most of them have never been away from home before much less to a foreign land. They've had to leave behind everything. They've given up everything that made their life normal, to go fight a war. A war in which most of them have no control over and one in which they have no choice except to be there. If you haven't been in that position, then there's no way you can imagine what it's like. Needless to say, you CRAVE news from home. News from home is so important to the troops that they even deliver mail to the front line troops.

Winning a war has more to it than just who has the most troops, who has the most guns, who has the most planes, who has the best strategist and who has the most bombs. It also has to do with who has the best MORALE. Without morale you lose respect, discipline and confidence. The military recognizes the importance of keeping morale high, that's why they have the USO shows, Red Cross, Stars and Stripes newspaper, Armed Forces Radio, etc. They do everything they can to keep the morale up. Not an easy task.

During WW2 we had Tokyo Rose broadcasting propaganda. "Hey, GI. You wife be sleeping with you neighbor while you over here. Why you no go home?" It didn't matter if what she broadcast was true or not, after a while, it begins to prey on the soldiers mind. It had probably been weeks or months since he'd had news from his wife or family but he was getting news from Tokyo Rose everyday.

During the Korean war, the Koreans would sneak up on a foxhole at night and slit the throat of the guard, leaving the sleeping man alive. He could easily have killed both but it was more demoralizing to only kill one.

During Vietnam, we had Hanoi Hanna. The only problem was that all of her broadcast weren't propaganda. She was basically broadcasting our newscast. Our people saying that the war was immoral, unjust, our soldiers were baby killers, how our returning soldiers were treated, how they were becoming outcast in their own country, how they couldn't get jobs and on and on and on. Do you wonder what effect that had on the morale of our young soldiers and how it affected them in the field? I don't, I know.

When you're sighting in on an enemy and he's sighting in on you, you do not need to have any thoughts in the back of your mind except to be the first to pull the trigger. When you're probing for mines, you don't need to be thinking about the protesters back home. If you think for one minute that these things aren't on their mind, then you'd be wrong. You'd think that the only thing you'd think about is staying alive but it ain't so.

A smaller contingent with high morale can usually overcome a larger force with low moral.

Joe, does that explain why AFTER the war starts that I will support the effort?

EM, does that answer your question of how protesting AFTER the war starts contributes indirectly to the death of our soldiers? If not, then you might want to take these post to a Vet and ask him how detrimental protesters are to the success of a war. WE all know, it's the ones that haven't been involved that can't seem to understand.

Wildman, (repairing hole in wall

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

Wildman, have you ever heard of "The Ships Project"? Members of this project knit and crochet slippers, hats, scarves, gloves, and sew cool-ties for the members of our armed forces currently stationed in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. They ship care packages with these items as well as snacks, cards, and personal care items to ships in the Gulf. Based on my previous anti-war postings it might suprise you to know that I am the Indianapolis co-ordinator for The Ships Project. Another little FYI, my fiance Keith is a 10-year Army veteran, and I currently have a friend stationed on a ship in the Gulf. I can and do support the individual men and women assigned to fight this war, but I cannot and will not support the war itself. I'm not degrading those called to serve, I'm trying to get them back home again as quickly as possible. I'm too young to get the Hanoi Jane comparison, to me she's just Ted Turner's ex-wife. :)

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

Wildman, I understand what you're saying about morale and all. I also agree with what Sherri said, though..

I may end up supporting a war at some point; so far, though I haven't found one I was particularly fond of.

I particularly can't support an immoral war, and we've had plenty of those, imo. I also can't support individual soldiers who outright murder innocent civilians. REmember May Lai (I don't think I even came close to spelling that right, but it's pronounced "mee lie"

By the way, I think if it weren't for the Viet Nam protesters, we'd likely still be over there, with concomittant casualties, atrocities, etc. Protesting is a valid activity, though I certainly agree that we shouldn't dis individual soldiers, sailors, etc, who are actually convinced they are doing the right thing.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

I too understand what you're saying, Jack. Like many of you I'm sure, I had friends who served in Viet Nam. One who came back with 30% of his body burned and a probably life-long terror of fireworks and thunder. Another who tried to hide his memories and took them out on his wife and kids. Another who I spent a wonderful weekend with while he was on leave, who returned to duty and was dead within a week.

These particular individuals didn't feel the way you describe, although I am not inferring one way is right or wrong since we are all different. They supported our campaigning against the war; they wanted it to end as badly as we did, maybe more. As Joe and Sherri indicated, in no way does that mean in our hearts that we do not support the individuals who are fighting, only the fact that we do not believe they should have been sent there in the first place. But I do know what you mean I think. It's most likely all the more difficult to be doing something totally unnatural, like killing, when you doubt yourself whether it has any meaning.

I think Sherri has it right; do something overt to support those poor souls cast in this horrific drama, while simultaneously continuing to do all we can to put a stop to it and bring them home. It's all incredibly depressing, and I weep for the world.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002