The cost of war on families

[midnight armadillo]

Article about military families with single parents and how they cope with deployments: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/14/struggle_starts_at_home_front/


The National Guard soldier in the story is a single mom with 13 and 14 year old kids who will be with their aunt for the next 18 months.

Later, when both children were out of the room, Spencer said that she had bought presents for each of their birthdays for the next seven years, bought presents for their future children, and wrote letters to their future spouses, in case she is killed in Iraq. As she spoke, Spencer began to weep.

All those politicians who support this war make me want to vomit.

[UKProPeace]

1. The costs of war on innocent civilians are far higher

Sometimes people forget who the TRUE VICTIMS of war are. Mind you, i'm sure the "mainstream media" will keep pushing articles like this.

[Breeze54]

4. The article is about innocent civilians.

:eyes:

[UKProPeace]

5. No, the article is about someone who enlisted in the National Guard...

...and gaining sympathy for their circumstances, someone who enlists in such a way is NOT an INNOCENT CIVILIAN.

[Breeze54]

6. She enlisted BEFORE 9-11 and HER CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT!!!!

Enlisted in what way??? :shrug:

She enlisted in the National Guard! NOT the regular army! Before 9-11!!

[UKProPeace]

7. The time she enlisted is not the point

....the point is whether she was an INNOCENT CIVILIAN HERSELF....that is what I thought you were saying, apparently, you weren't, and you were saying her children are innocent civilians, that's very true. Their mother however, who this article attempts to gain sympathy for cannot be described as an "INNOCENT CIVILIAN" herself.

That was my point, I hope that you can understand that. If not, then please don't bother replying, i'm not engaging in a flame war with you.

[Breeze54]

8. Obviously the Mom is enlisted, therefore, not a civilian.

Simple deductive reasoning.

Who asked you to engage in a flame war?? This is a discussion board.
Not YOUR discussion board. Grow a thicker skin or clarify before you post.

And part of the point of my post was that she enlisted the NG before the
Afghanistan or Iraq Wars were even thought about. She enlisted during peace time.

[UKProPeace]

9. Oh I do have a thick skin

I thought i'd clarified adequately, but you still came back with the "but she enlisted before 9/11" garbage.

I'll clarify even further for you if you like. You might not like what I say, but it's the truth.

She chose to enlist. She knew exactly what that entailed, or what that might entail, then the media begins to write stories detailing how everyone should feel sorry for the people who made these decisions. I will repeat, she made the decision herself, her decisions affected her children.

Why in many cases like this should these sorts of reports be rammed down people's throats, when the plight of innocent civilians, and victims of aggression are routinely ignored by the media?

Now, if you are to reply, i'd like your honest answers to those questions please. Thank you.

[Breeze54]

10. Because it's not garbage and many soldiers have been stop lossed!

She joined in early 2001. That makes her six year contract now going over into the 7th year.
Usually after the sixth year, people do not continue active duty in the NG, unless they reup.
She didn't reup and I suspect she joined to support her kids, for financial reasons, as the Dad
disappeared 12 years ago. She was re-activated, from what I can glean from the article.

[UKProPeace]

11. So we both agree, she made the decision to join herself.

Thank you, i'm glad we now agree on that. There are other ways of supporting children than joining the National Guard or regular army though, plus what type of support would you be giving to your children if you did get called up and ended up getting killed? Is that really "support"?

As I said in my last message, the mother made the decision herself, and i'm glad you agree with me on that at least.

I shall now leave this thread in peace, and leave you to sympathise with this mother who chose to "support" her children by signing up to something which could end up with them losing their mother.

[Breeze54]

12. There isn't a draft in the USA.

Whom else would decide to join? Of course she decided that.
The National Guard, although they have served in other wars (WWII, Vietnam)
it hasn't been the norm and it was peace time when she joined. Maybe in the
UK, if you have a National Guard, they are thought of as regular army but the
NG in the USA, for a long time has been here to guard home, not a foreign nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Before 9.11 that entailed helping her community

during natural disasters, but I am sure you knew that

By the way, you hate people in uniform, don't you?

[UKProPeace]

17. "Before 9/11" she still knew there was a possibility of being called up....

and considering very recent history, it was hardly beyond the realms of possibility that the US regime would launch another act of aggression, or can't you see that?

You're point about "hating people in uniform" is complete and utter crap. I don't hate firemen and women, ambulance workers, doctors and nurses, etc....you see they sign up to help people, not to kill people, or potentially kill people, including those INNOCENT CIVILIANS you appear to be ignoring (Perhaps on purpose - keep it up if it helps your conscience, mine's clear).

I don't particularly hate this woman, I think it's a very selfish act to claim to be "supporting your children" by joining the forces when you know there is a chance you could get called up.

I admire one particular relative of mine who was married before WW2 (that's before 1939), but they refused to have children until the war had ended as they didn't want their children to lose a parent. Now that is a very unselfish act and something to be admired in my book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Not to war outside the US

the last time the Guards were activated was WW II and that was a good reason, world war and all that

Sorry

But the guard is there to protect you and me in case of natural disaster or foreign invasion

It is USUALLY not deployed to foreign entanglements, not even during Vietnam, why do you think our coward in chief hid in the Texas Air Guard? Not that he finished that commitment either

By the way, this war has also seen the deployment of Local Regiments in the UK, the first time since... WW II

[Breeze54]

27. SHE didn't say she joined to "support her children" !

I suggested that that MIGHT be why she joined.

Why don't you actually read the article? :shrug:

[UKProPeace]

28. I did read the article, and that part was a direct response to your suggestion eom

[Breeze54]

29. I said it. She didn't say it.

[UKProPeace]

30. I know! That's what I just said FFS eom

[Lars39]

25. Those in the National Guard are being abused by being sent anywhere

except within the United States. Their service was meant to be within US borders, not in any other country.

[babylonsister]

2. That's beyond sad; this whole situation is beyond sad. And those

that could put an end to it are all on vacation. :(

[Breeze54]

3. This article, "Struggle starts at home front"; and this war on Iraq is just gut wrenching.

Actual title of article-->

Struggle starts at home front

For military families and those who help, separation takes toll

By Anna Badkhen, Globe Correspondent | August 14, 2007

SHIRLEY --

To prepare for her yearlong combat tour in Iraq, Massachusetts National Guard Sergeant Rebekah Spencer
packed her body armor, her M16 rifle, and her 9mm pistol; bought tapes to help her study Arabic, and
stocked up on dark chocolate she knew she was going to crave. Then came the hardest part. Spencer, one
in an unparalleled wave of single parents going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, moved her children,
Sarah, 14, and Adam, 13, across town into the four-bedroom house of her older sister, Elizabeth Flagg.

snip-->

Spencer, a strawberry blonde with a quick smile, joined the National Guard in early 2001, and her
deployment with the 65th Public Affairs Operation Center of the Massachusetts Army National Guard is
her first combat tour overseas. She separated from her children's father 12 years ago, and he plays
no role in the teenagers' upbringing.

""I know that they'll be OK, that she loves them," Spencer said about Flagg, wiping away tears.
But Flagg said she never would be able to take her sister's place in the teenagers' lives.

"I might not have known that they were crying themselves to sleep" during Spencer's 2001 absence, Flagg said.
She looked puzzled. "I'm a different person from my sister, I'm not warm and fuzzy. I might have missed it."

-----------


Finding out that tidbit of information, as you're leaving, must be extremely stressful and upsetting.

[HeraldSquare212]

13. Sick of these stories, too

She joined up and she made the war possible. I'll feel sorry for the kids in harms way in Iraq.

[Breeze54]

14. You're blaming her for the war?

:crazy:

You are a complete idiot.

[UKProPeace]

18. It's called enabling...

I believe a poster called "FriendlyAnarchist" has posted a possible solution for those who do not wish to be enablers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Again you are blaming a Specialist for the war

you want to charge somebody for enagling I have better targets

How bout Raytheon? GE? The GOP, who'd rather send others than serve?

You are choosing the wrong target

[Breeze54]

31. No, It's called STOP LOSS!

Look it up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. So a Naitonal Guard Specialist made the decition to go to war

do me a favor, if you are robbed, don't call 9.11... obviously you hate anybody in uniform

[UKProPeace]

20. Do me a favour, don't ever claim to be outraged when US troops murder innocent Iraqis

....You along with others obviously don't care.....now, get back to your enabling.

[MissB]

22. m'kay then.

Enjoy your stay here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Oh I care

just don't blame the wrong people for it

I blame those who give the orders

I blame those who can rightfully be charged under the Geneva Protocols

Just spent ten years of my enabling life enforcing the Geneva Conventions, so I can tell the difference... you can't

[UKProPeace]

26. Ok 1 question

A troop is charged with murdering an innocent Iraqi, who do you blame?

a - The Bush Regime

b - The Republicans

c - Enablers who provide excuses for the media to pour out reports about those poor soldiers and their families who are still alive while ignoring stories about INNOCENT CIVILIANS in Iraq who have died, and showing sympathy for them?

d - The person who carried out the murder?

e - The murderers immediate superiors?

f - All of them?

You want to know what my answer would be?

F

Or do you not believe enablers are part of the problem?

[nadinbrzezinski]

First off under the US Justice System that person

is innocent until found guilty

Now

Lets ask some more questions?

Did the troop kill a person in self defense? Aka was fire received? In which case under ANY miliary logic, that was justified and I will blame those who sent the troop to that hell

Did the troop receive an ilegal order and he is an E-4 or bellow? Just as Camp Guards after Nubermber walked that troop will walk, under the Nuremberg Principles. Nobody wanted a recruit questioning every order. Under US UCMJ that troop can still be charged though... and I wish they were a little more severy punished assuming this shooting happened wilfully, against orders, or procedure.

But ultimately, those responsible for those troops being there are the people giving the orders, again the Nuremberg Principle... in fact give me some time and I can prove that the current bush administration fits the standards of at least indictments one to three of Nuremberg, a little more time, number four fits too, harder to prove that's all.

Now if you are an O-1 or E-5 and above, you are and can be tried under the Nuremberg Principles for war crimes that you directly participated in, or that you gave orders for, or had direct knoweldge off and failed to report to your chain or ICRC representatives as a last resort

I hate to point this to you, but if I load an armed troop into my ambulance, I can rightly so be shot at, no problem...

In fact, it is not as black and white as you think it is.

And troops cannot willy nilly just disobey deployment orders... that is called a mutiny and in time of war leads to a nice wall with a firing squad.

[UKProPeace]

33. My question wasn't on a point of law, or numerous points of law

It was asking who would you personally think was responsible. Or, in other words, your own principles. And, just for the record, I don't personally believe that it is "no problem" or "right" (as you put it) to shoot at ambulance workers if they are loading people onto an ambulance.

I'm, not a lawyer, neither do I play with semantics, I am speaking here on personal opinion (you and Breeze might have heard of principles and morals perhaps?), NOT the actual word of the law.

[Breeze54]

34. You should start your own thread on the topic.

It's not a black and white issue. There are many shades of gray.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Sorry, bad habit of enforcing the ACTUAL conventions

and working IN THE FIELD

1.- If I load an armed person into my ambulance I am transporting combatants and under the Conventions I have no neutrality, so I can be shot at, no problem... it is legal. In fact, I have been shot at after one of my people did exactly that.

2.- My opinioon is colored by YEARS of working in the field

3.- Those who are guilty of this fiasco should ideally face the docket at the Hague, won't happen, but they should... and it won't happen since the US is NOt a signatory to the International Court, and lets be honest, who is going to send these idiots to the docket?

4.- I will not blame a Specialist E-3 for obeying deployment orders. The orders are legal under a multitude of statues, both national and international

5.- My opinion is INFORMED by experience

Yours is informed by emotion... two very different things.

[MissB]

24. I can't imagine how difficult that must be.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.