Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
...
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
...
Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.
"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."
An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.
"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.
Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.
"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."
The pro-military demonstrators were met by anti-war protesters who had camped out overnight, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown late in the day when the City Council is to discuss whether to revoke its previous vote.
....
Kriss Worthington, a progressive Berkeley activist and council member for 11 years, believes the council overreached.
"The inflammatory language in the City Council item is really outrageous -- not just to right-wing people, but to mainstream liberal people and even to some peace activists who have said they're insulted that the city would have such language," Worthington said.
He said Berkeley owes an apology to the military and to the peace movement "for having such embarrassing language allegedly trying to promote peace."
...
The City Council is to meet at 7 p.m. PT on whether to take back its previous measure urging the Marine recruiters to leave town.
"If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders," the measure says.
It went on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."
Ever since the council measure, protesters with the anti-war group Code Pink have camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war.
not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders
I applaud this move.
Oh my god, somebody's protesting a military organisation, alert the 60s
Please, pray tell, why you would applaud this.
certain people harassing other people who are trying to get certain other people to sign up to maybe die. In your country.
Please, pray tell, why you would applaud this.
Because I hate your freedom.
He's in Britain.
What do you guys think of this? While I am not pro-war, I believe Berkeley is making a huge mistake doing this - if you don't want to join the Marines, don't walk in there! People have a choice! You can't just BAN people and institutions you don't like! While it is highly unlikely that this could lead to bans of other places - if some town decided to ban all gay bars, for example- that shouldn't be justification for this. You can't bend the rules one time and expect no one else to do the same - but worse. I'm especially shocked at the wording encouraging and giving protestors a free pass to basically harass Marines. Does this include preventing Marines from entering their workplace? What about people who DO want to join? What defines nonviolent means? What happens when someone -a protester or a Marine- snaps and retaliates?
Let's hear your thoughts, we need a good discussion.
"Ur Doin It Wrong"
FIGHT WAR
Recruitment offices aren't exactly innocent though, keep that in mind. If they EVER get a lead, they will hound the person to the end of the earth to try and get a commitment out of them. My sister's boyfriend went to an information session by the Marines at his high school, and the recruiter got a copy of the school's phonebook and called him constantly for the next two years, showed up at his house and after school at the theater, and basically made life hell. They threatened to change phone numbers and bring the police into it and the guys finally backed off.
Banning people and institutions a government or council dislikes happens all the time. This ranges from brothels to drug dealers to polluting industries, and just those people governments decide they don't want in their country. Most countries will only allow people to be within their borders for very limited amounts of time on tourist visas and they ban them from remaining longer, and there are vast amounts of the world's population they simply wouldn't allow to enter the country at all. Berkeley has simply done what councils and governments do all the time, which is to decide that this organisation's activities are detrimental to their area and not allowed them to operate there anymore.
Was the US wrong to join in World War I, just because nobody attacked it?
Should the US enter into a war against Germany in WWII? Remember, Germany never attacked the US prior to them joining the war.
Korea?
What about Vietnam?
Should we have gone into Afghanistan in the '80s?
Kuwait in '91?
Bosnia?
The US was in Korea as part of a UN force including troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Phillipines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and the UK, and medical staff from Denmark, Italy, Norway and Sweden.
History is fun. You should try it someday.
khar's responses
World War I was not a territorail conflict, it was a simple conflict between two countires that blew up thanks to alliances.
Have you ever heard of a country called French IndoChina? Shortly after WWII, there was an uprising fueled by a small faction fo the Communist party in that country. The US had a small contingent of soldiers there as suport for the French army in the late 50's. It was JFK, the greatest democrat of modern times, that escalated the conflict. It was the US Congress who caused it to become the fuck-up it is now seen as, because they did not allow the military to fight a REAL war. By the Way, French IndoChina is now called Vietnam.
How does a country in the midst of a Civil War band together and defeat one of the World's Superpowers? These people didn't even have proper weapons. How did they win? The US went in, trained them and armed them.
For Bosnia, I want you to tell that to my History professor, who was the commander of a Spec. Ops. group that was in that country from '93 to '96, and they . He stayed with families, barely scrapping by, all over the country.
The US was in Korea as part of a UN force including troops from TL;DR EVERYBODY WHO IS NOW IN NATO AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE
There is a BIG difference between Brothels (a place with sells sex, which is illegal) and the Marine Corp
The UN and NATO don't make a military move without the US spearheading it. Korea? US spearheading. Kuwait? US spearheading.
World War I was not a territorail conflict, it was a simple conflict between two countires that blew up thanks to alliances.
Have you ever heard of a country called French IndoChina?
It was the US Congress who caused it to become the fuck-up it is now seen as, because they did not allow the military to fight a REAL war.
These people didn't even have proper weapons. How did they win? The US went in, trained them and armed them.
For Bosnia, I want you to tell that to my History professor, who was the commander of a Spec. Ops. group that was in that country from '93 to '96, and they . He stayed with families, barely scrapping by, all over the country.
flamewar (http://www.moondoggieent.com/games/flamewar.html)
That just means you fail at being an authority figure, Mr Hocking.
Reading back to your first post dissy, it is unclear why you you brought up the pro/anti-war issue other than to pick a fight.
...and your testicles only grew to their current gargantuan size when you were 17?
You get harassed by the armed forces just by turning 18 if you're male. Recruitment offices don't have to be involved at all. The government wants blood. Still can't be banning people.
I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.
So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.
So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.Are you trolling today?
Are you trolling today?
WHOOPS!
Are you trolling today?
Your mother trolls every day IRL.
Because she is a troll.
So I guess now, when the Chinese finally storm the shores of California...Quote from: US Armed ForcesWHOOPS!
I think there should be a band called Berkeley and the Marines.
That download doesn't work, Mr Hocking.Sorry to dredge up this off-topic bit again, but is the download working now? I just switched it to a new host.
The recruiting office wasn't even an enlistment center; it was an officer selection office, so all they were doing was processing college graduates who wanted to be officers, not actively recruiting 17 year old kids from local high schools.
The whole 'Semper Fi' act is probably a little over the top, but let's face it; every OTHER city in the country lets recruiters operate, and they all get federal funding (or could if they lobbied hard enough for it, whatever). Congress needs to be able to register its displeasure somehow, and from what general opinions I've their displeasure mirrors the majority of their constituents, which is a (admittedly sometimes rare) good thing.
A lot of their recruiting tactics are underhanded and big on bullshit, though. Two of them more or less burst into my high-school band class two years ago and started talking about how we should all join the army band because "no one in the band gets sent overseas, seriously." My dad's a retired Colonel, and when I went home, I questioned him about that, and his response was "Shit. What? Those are always the first people to go overseas. They're not doing any important work; they're dispensable."They don't see much combat, though. My best friend from high school's an official Army bassist (whatever the fuck that is) and he mostly just hooks up with other musicians in the service to play and waits until he gets his money.
This isn't really what it's about though. The problem isn't just dodgy tactics being used by the US armed forces to recruit people, it's what they do once they're in the armed forces that people are so against.Militaries are a necessity in our world. If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in. This is an unfortunate fact of our global society. If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it. I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war. I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason. I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent. But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them. You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)
Perhaps Congress should look into why people are so appalled with the activities of their own country's armed forces that they wish to remove recruitment centres instead of withdrawing funding from unrelated activities as an act of revenge.I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war. You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...). Still, I stand by my opinion.
Also the marines there were classic jarheads... dumb as a stump.Hey, I resemble that remark.
Sorry usmcnavgeek, but I have run into too many USMC grunts that were unbearably dumb or annoying to respect the current generation of grunts. However a few ex-marines I have talked to were really cool.
On protesting the military/recruiters:You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...
Protesters are people that can't find anything better to do.
The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.
If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.There are plenty of countries that have a military and end up getting rolled in on anyways. Also, if a military is for defence against enemies who want to take your stuff, why does the US need such a big one? Democratic Peace Theory implies that Canada will never attack, and Mexico probably not, so who do you have to fear? Apart from the Aleutians and Hawaii, no part of US soil has been touched by a war since the nineteenth century.
Militaries are a necessity in our world. If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in. This is an unfortunate fact of our global society. If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it. I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war. I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason. I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent. But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them. You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)
I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war. You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...). Still, I stand by my opinion.
People say its a right to be able to protest the military... a cornerstone for EVERY successful country? Then they can fend for themselves.
Personally, I have no faith in governments ever listening to me, which is why I don't vote.
The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.
You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.
There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...
I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.
Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong.
Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.
So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...
Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.
No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong.
I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.I also agree with this point. I just don't see much protesting as useful. More like people holding onto an era in the US that did basically nothing.
It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.
It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.
No way man. The problem is that poor people don't want money.
Threads about religion & politics are undesireable in this forum because they are two topics that make Jeph angry/set off his depression. He has specifically asked us to kill these kinds of topics, especially if they are veering into argumentative or "DOOOOM!" modes.
JazzyJoe, what economic class would you say you belonged to?
So, you live with your parents.I am working my way up the ladder. I just promised myself I wouldn't end up at a desk when I was about 12. Hence... military...
And you can't personally be bothered to work your way up the economic ladder the hard way.
Interesting.
You get out of prison, you've got no money, you've got nowhere to live because you could never get on the property ladder**, you can't get a loan because you've got a criminal record, you can't get a decent job, your only viable solution, really, is to commit more crimes.
I hope I won't need to repeat this again.Wow, for a guy who's only been here a week you sure are acting like you own the place.
Switchblade... JhockingIt's kind of ironic listing us among your examples of maturity. If you want to know why it's ironic, well, it was a long time ago.
If Jeph doesn't like it, he shouldn't read it.