Supporting the troops

CSM

Senior Member
Jul 7, 2004
6,907
708
48
Northeast US
Boston Globe
June 15, 2005

7 Arrested At Army Birthday Celebration

Antiwar protesters clash with police

By Megan Tench, Globe Staff

CAMBRIDGE -- Antiwar protests and angry confrontations with police led to seven arrests on Cambridge Common yesterday as the city attempted to celebrate the 230th birthday of the US Army.

What started as a peaceful march by more than 100 sign-waving antiwar demonstrators quickly heated up after a group of protesters refused to move away from the stage and onto a grassy area designated by police. After several warnings, police lined up shoulder to shoulder, shoving some members of the group back behind jersey barriers and arresting others who refused to budge.

''They didn't have to push me," said 70-year-old Judy Summersby. ''They kept saying 'We have our orders,' and one woman out there called me trash."

Cambridge Police Commissioner Ronnie Watson defended the police action, saying that the demonstrators were physically in the way of the ceremony.

The protests outraged some spectators who brought children to the event.

''They are just ignorant, and they don't know what they are doing," said Brigit Smith, whose husband, Sergeant First Class Paul Smith of Tampa, was killed in Iraq in April 2003. He was the first soldier awarded the Medal of Honor in the Iraq war for his courage in the Battle of Bagdad Airport. The couple's 11-year-old son, David, led the Pledge of Allegiance yesterday afternoon to a backdrop of boos and sneers.

''They really made me upset," said Brigit Smith, after the ceremony. At one point during the celebration and protest, Smith crouched down to yell at a woman resisting arrest.

''I just got so mad, I couldn't help it," she said. ''My husband loved his comrades, and he loved the Army."

Cambridge has been a city known for its fierce liberalism and antiwar protests. But Cambridge Common was the site where 230 years ago many servicemen came together when the Continental Congress formally established the Army, organizers pointed out. On July 3, 1775, General George Washington arrived on Cambridge Common and took command of the newly formed Continental Army.

Yesterday, the grassy lawn was filled with Army exhibits, including live reenactments of different periods and uniforms in Army history.

Children from the Peabody Elementary School and elsewhere happily climbed in and out of camouflaged military vehicles, donning Army helmets, and acting as though they were armed soldiers. Some shook hands with service members stationed at the exhibits, and others watched in awe as parachutists leaped out of UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters overhead.

Still, the birthday celebration was overshadowed by mostly middle-age protesters chanting, ''Shame," and sporadic arrests. Meanwhile, a few 20-somethings marched around the common dressed as dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians with party hats, bullet wounds, and fake blood running down their faces.

Aligned with the demonstrators was Councilor Marjorie Decker, who called the event a veiled attempt at captivating youngsters as the Army copes with recruitment woes.

Decker, who also serves as the city's vice mayor, said she was deeply suspicious of the Army's motives, adding that members of the City Council did not know the event was happening until last week. ''There was no communication in the City Council to decide if this was an appropriate time to hold a celebration," she said.

The event was sponsored by the Massachusetts National Guard, the US Army, and the City of Cambridge.

US Undersecretary of the Army Raymond DuBois, the day's keynote speaker, said he was unmoved by the loud jeers. ''I am a Vietnam veteran, so I'm kind of used to this," he said.

''We recruit 365 days of the year," he said after his speech. ''There is only one birthday."


and that, my friends, is how some support the troops!
 
CSM said:
Boston Globe
June 15, 2005

7 Arrested At Army Birthday Celebration

Antiwar protesters clash with police

By Megan Tench, Globe Staff

CAMBRIDGE -- Antiwar protests and angry confrontations with police led to seven arrests on Cambridge Common yesterday as the city attempted to celebrate the 230th birthday of the US Army.

What started as a peaceful march by more than 100 sign-waving antiwar demonstrators quickly heated up after a group of protesters refused to move away from the stage and onto a grassy area designated by police. After several warnings, police lined up shoulder to shoulder, shoving some members of the group back behind jersey barriers and arresting others who refused to budge.

''They didn't have to push me," said 70-year-old Judy Summersby. ''They kept saying 'We have our orders,' and one woman out there called me trash."


Looks like the thin veneer of false patriotism and "support" for the troops is wearing off. The damned libs are too stupid or too lazy to direct their protest at the proper target, that being the administration which made the decision to send the troops. So, like their moronic, dope smoking, LSD dropping, unwashed predecessors of the '70s, they opt to take out their frustrations on the military.

These pigs care nothing for the country and they care even less about the impact of their misguided stupidity on the very people who risk their lives to defend us all from terrorism.

And a personal note to Judy Summersby - lady, you ARE trash.
 
The children of the protestors of the 60's and 70's are merely picking up where their parents left off....no big surprise here.
 
CSM said:
The children of the protestors of the 60's and 70's are merely picking up where their parents left off....no big surprise here.

Agent orange + hippy chick = modern liberal ?

Seriously, kudos to the local law (many NG's or AR's) and the Soldiers in attendence for not busting heads.

Reminds me of holding formation just before our unit went to Iraq. Every friday it was the same brief. "Do Not, Do Not, Do Not, whip the ass of any dope smoking idiot protester. I know you can kick his ass, you have nothing to prove." At which point the Platoon Sergeant was told to sound liberty at his discretion.

Funny part, was that I was the one who actually stepped out of my vehicle in San Diego to confront a hippyfreaknoid waving a Camo=Butcher sign. I confiscated his sign and left.

Happy Birthday Soldiers, annnnnnnnd mannnnnnnnny moooooooore.
 
Tne best way to support the troops is to bring them all home, where they can no longer be shot at and placed in imminent danger.
 
Gabriella84 said:
Tne best way to support the troops is to bring them all home, where they can no longer be shot at and placed in imminent danger.
And before we go, wipe out the ME?
 
Gabriella84 said:
Tne best way to support the troops is to bring them all home, where they can no longer be shot at and placed in imminent danger.
Thanks for your expert opinion.

While we are at it, why dont we just disband the entire US military?
 
Gabriella84 said:
Tne best way to support the troops is to bring them all home, where they can no longer be shot at and placed in imminent danger.

So if we bring the troops home now, before their mission of stabilizing Iraq is complete, then what? Do we leave Iraq teetering on the edge, between democracy and terror-driven anarchy? Is that the legacy of the 1700 American dead taht you want to create? I think it would be much wiser for us to stay until Iraq's government is stable and its armed forces are able to defend its borders from terrorists and hostile neighbors (like Iran).
 
gop_jeff said:
So if we bring the troops home now, before their mission of stabilizing Iraq is complete, then what? Do we leave Iraq teetering on the edge, between democracy and terror-driven anarchy? Is that the legacy of the 1700 American dead that you want to create? I think it would be much wiser for us to stay until Iraq's government is stable and its armed forces are able to defend its borders from terrorists and hostile neighbors (like Iran).

If Iraq is "free," and has "trained militia," then it should be able to defend itself. Iraq's government will NEVER be stable. It will NEVER be able to defend its borders from terrorists and hostile neighbors.
The Middle East has been unstable for centuries. There is, and always will be, continuing turmoil. Religious conflicts are like that.
No matter when U.S. forces leave, the result will be the same. If Iraq is going to relapse into turmoil, better to do with 1700 dead than 17,000.

Also, most conversative Republicans have zero respect for the average Iraqi citizen. There are some who would like them vaporized, or at least show little remorse when they are slaughtered on a daily basis.
The time the GOP cares about the average Iraqi is when the subject of troop withdrawals is brought up. That is when the country needs to be protected from "terrorism." Otherwise, you don't care.
 
Gabriella84 said:
Tne best way to support the troops is to bring them all home, where they can no longer be shot at and placed in imminent danger.


just curious, but isn't that thier job?

what is the purpose of an army if not to be shot at and shoot others?
 
Gabriella84 said:
If Iraq is "free," and has "trained militia," then it should be able to defend itself. Iraq's government will NEVER be stable. It will NEVER be able to defend its borders from terrorists and hostile neighbors.
The Middle East has been unstable for centuries. There is, and always will be, continuing turmoil. Religious conflicts are like that.
No matter when U.S. forces leave, the result will be the same. If Iraq is going to relapse into turmoil, better to do with 1700 dead than 17,000.

Also, most conversative Republicans have zero respect for the average Iraqi citizen. There are some who would like them vaporized, or at least show little remorse when they are slaughtered on a daily basis.
The time the GOP cares about the average Iraqi is when the subject of troop withdrawals is brought up. That is when the country needs to be protected from "terrorism." Otherwise, you don't care.
You really are 21 aren't you?
If not, ya got me fooled, cuz like a snot nose kid you don't have a clue. :lame2:
 
what is the purpose of an army if not to be shot at and shoot others?

Umm....Ok, you got me on that one. What is the use of having a military if we don't use them? If the U.S. was not at war with someone, a lot of military people would be out of work.
That is a very plausible reason why the U.S. needs to be at war with someone at all times, whatever the cost.
 
Gabriella84 said:
Umm....Ok, you got me on that one. What is the use of having a military if we don't use them? If the U.S. was not at war with someone, a lot of military people would be out of work.
That is a very plausible reason why the U.S. needs to be at war with someone at all times, whatever the cost.

We could use them to oppress the peacefull, loving, tolerant members of the much maligned muslim faith all over the world.

Wow I actually typed that and my fingers didn't fall off.

Yo Gabby, you sound oppressed. Come party with me and my boys. We will change your whole outlook.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
pegwinn said:
We could use them to oppress the peacefull, loving, tolerant members of the much maligned muslim faith all over the world.

Wow I actually typed that and my fingers didn't fall off.

Yo Gabby, you sound oppressed. Come party with me and my boys. We will change your whole outlook.

WOOHOO!

That made me laugh out loud and now everyone is looking at me funny!
 
Gabriella84 said:
Umm....Ok, you got me on that one. What is the use of having a military if we don't use them? If the U.S. was not at war with someone, a lot of military people would be out of work.
That is a very plausible reason why the U.S. needs to be at war with someone at all times, whatever the cost.

they were full employed during the 8 years of apeasment
 

Forum List

Back
Top