Wisconsin Army Recruiting Center Vandalized

[LarryO1970]

Vandals scrawled an anti-war message on a Milwaukee Army Recruiting Station Wednesday, the day marking five years since the Iraq war began, WTMJ radio reported.

All the windows of the station were busted out, and graffiti that read “War is Offensive” was scrawled on the side of the building. A witness told WTMJ that he saw anti-war slogans written on the windows before they were broken.
The recruiting station is no stranger to such vandalism. Exactly one year ago, police arrested 21 people who reportedly attacked the facility with smoke bombs while throwing paint, WTMJ reported.




... see the crap we Wisconsin Veterans have to deal with from our anti-military neighbors? I guess that is the price we pay for living too close to one of the UW branches and the Liberal professors therein?

This is no less than the Wisconsin answer to Berkeley's attempt to push out the Marines.

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Vandals scrawled an anti-war message on a Milwaukee Army Recruiting Station Wednesday, the day marking five years since the Iraq war began, WTMJ radio reported.

All the windows of the station were busted out, and graffiti that read “War is Offensive” was scrawled on the side of the building. A witness told WTMJ that he saw anti-war slogans written on the windows before they were broken.
The recruiting station is no stranger to such vandalism. Exactly one year ago, police arrested 21 people who reportedly attacked the facility with smoke bombs while throwing paint, WTMJ reported.




... see the crap we Wisconsin Veterans have to deal with from our anti-military neighbors? I guess that is the price we pay for living too close to the University of Wisconsin and the Liberal professors 60's rant?

This is no less than the Wisconsin answer to Berkeley's attempt to push out the Marines.

And that's why I'm a firm believer in coming down on those folks with both boots! Arresting folks doesn't do any good. I recommend a good azz whipping when these folks are caught! There ain't no better way to get someones "mind right", then to stick a size 10D up their butt!

[Seabeescotty]

Alright!! I got some good ol' ten EEE's! I never had a problem goin' thru mud, and used to swim like a duck, just paddlin' along. The people who do this should be invited to move elsewhere. I believe in freedom of speech, but not in destroying property. And if you want to exercise your rights, you oughta be willing to defend them, because anywhere else you'd be shot for it! Pi$$ on them who badmouth my comrades in arms! Talk the talk, but leave the troops alone, they are all that stands between freedom and subjugation.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Alright!! I got some good ol' ten EEE's! I never had a problem goin' thru mud, and used to swim like a duck, just paddlin' along. The people who do this should be invited to move elsewhere. I believe in freedom of speech, but not in destroying property. And if you want to exercise your rights, you oughta be willing to defend them, because anywhere else you'd be shot for it! Pi$$ on them who badmouth my comrades in arms! Talk the talk, but leave the troops alone, they are all that stands between freedom and subjugation.

... yeah, and I love their violence against violence. So fitting...

If they are so against the military (which, apparently they are) maybe they should move to a country that has no military... kinda like Haiti?

[GlockMeister]

Might I ask what neighbors you speak of?

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

Might I ask what neighbors you speak of?

The Liberals in Madison...

[toolman]

I think everyone convicted of this type of crime should have to serve a minimum of three years in the military. Let them experience what true patriots fight for and then they can protest.

[Cyrano]

Personally, I think requiring everyone to do three years in the military is a great idea. It would teach the entitlement-minded kids that think their feces are not odorific some excellent life lessons. I'd also like it if the Merchant Marine was included in the definition of 'military,' so we could have a US-flag fleet again at a price American businesses might be willing to pay, as long as we got the same benefits the Navy and the shallow-water sailors (the Coast Guard) get. But ti won't work for everyone.

One example I remember was when I was the Second Officer in the old Sea-Land St. Louis. We were on what we called a "no deposit, no return" run, where we ran from Rotterdam out to the Persian Gulf in high summer, a lousy run where not only did you get little port time, and most of that in ports where the Arabs declared you "unwelcome foreign vistors" (the modern term for "infidel bastards") and restrict you to the ship - I had one Saudi Army private draw down on me when I went down on the dock to read the ship's draft one night because he thought I was profaning Arabic soil or something - and consequently didn't get the best class of crewmen. We got able-bodied seamen who were newly qualified in that rate, ordinary seamen who were on their first jobs, and the same in the Engine Department. The ship never touched at an American port, hence the nickname of that kind of assignment; the Articles were for six months and jail might have been more comfortable. Add a captain who was slightly nutty into the mix, and the St. Louis wasn't a happy ship.

We were shorthanded, so the Bosun was filling in for an AB on my watch. My ordinary seaman was a greasy little gangbanger with an attitude of "Don't nobody mess with me, 'cause I'm a [fill in the gang name] and I'm tough." He acted as if the rules didn't apply to him and like the officers should be afraid of him because he'd been in a gang before a judge got him into a program that sent him to us. As someone who'd been shot at in Africa and had had to deal with pirates in Africa and India, I wan't impressed, and neither was the Bosun who had been going to sea for thirty years.

One night, this clown showed up for his stint as the bow lookout toting a boom box. He set it down and turned it on and started dancing, happy as a clam. Bos was on the wheel. I couldn't beleive what I was seeing, so I asked him to give me the helm for a minute and tell me what he saw on the bow. He put my binoculars on it, and didn't believe it etiher. I got on the phone to the bow and ordered the gangsta to lay up to the bridge on the double and bring his boom box with him. When he got there, I ordered him to put the suitcased-sized thing into a corner where it would be out of my way, took him out on the bridge wing and ripped him a new one. I explained his duties as a lookout to him in words of one syllable, and pointed out they also involved using his ears. I told him that after watch he could come and get his boom box, and if I ever saw it again I'd heave it overboard.

"You can't talk to me like that! I'm a [gang member]!"

"Not out here, you aren't. You're a green as grass ordinary seaman with a job to do. Now get back up to the bow and do your job; and if you even think about threatening anyone on this ship again, I'll have you logged, thrown in the brig and get the Coast Guard to yank your seaman's papers! Move it!"

Bos had seen the whole thing. He said, "Mate, after I'm relieved on the wheel I'm supposed to relieve the bow lookout. Would you mind if I made sure the kid didn't get lost coming back to be standby man?"

"Not at all. He might listen to you more than to me."

When I saw the gangsta in daylight next morning, he had a black eye and a swollen mouth and was walking gingerly. I observed to Bos, who had bruised knuckles, "It gets awfully dark at night at sea. Sometimes you can't see your hand in front of your face. Or, perhaps, the hand that belted you in the chops and punched you in the eye, or the shoe that drove your balls up between your shoulder blades?" Bos smiled and said, "We had a talk. I had to reason with him a little."

It would be nice if this sea story ended with the gangsta learning his lesson and learning to be a good seaman, but it doesn't. He continued to work, sullenly and with a chip on his shoulder, doing a poor job. The Chief Mate requested a report from me on his performance and any deficiencies in him I had observed. He got another from the Bosun. The Mate called him up to his office and ripped him a new one too. It didn't help. And one afternoon when we were performin a difficult three-hour-long docking in Dharan in 120 degree heat and murderous glare off the water (I had the bow gang and got sunburned eyes from that glare right through my sunglasses and had to soak my eyes three times a day in a boric acid opthamalogic solution for a week), the gangsta just got fed up and walked off the bow. The Old Man logged him and fired him on the spot, and he ended up back in the States without a penny to his name because he had to pay his own way home. And he lost his papers to boot - the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.

But most kids would learn their lesson fast in the military. it might be the first time in their lives Mommy and Daddy couldn't intervene for them, so they would realize they had to make it on their own. After three years of yes sir, no sir, no excuse sir, they would have the discipline and mindset to get something more than a reinforcement of their sense of entitlement out of college or technical school. It would force them to grow up, and they might even realize their potential. I can't see this as a bad thing.

[Pred]

This country has seen war for over 5 years now(longer then WW1 or WW2), Bush has an approval rating of 31%, our economy is on the verge of going in the crapper. Read a report yesterday about Dick Cheney being told that according to recent polls, 2/3 of the country is against the war. His reply, "So?". I don't blame the military for being at war. To do is so is so idiotic it's not even funny. The military answers to Bush, they don't just make this stuff up as they go for the fun of it. I see some very very dark days ahead for this country and it's people.

[jmp8927]

Personally, I think requiring everyone to do three years in the military is a great idea

Yeah I guess the right to decide that for oneself isn't important and can be given up. Seriously. That's ridiculous.

[Seabeescotty]

Pred, the approval rating of the two houses of congress is about half that of Bush, and guess who's in charge?

[Pred]

Oh I'm not singling one person or party out. Our entire government needs replaced. Not a single person on this board can truly state that they trust our elected officials to do whats best for us. The Dems took control and said they would deal with gas prices, get the troops out of Iraq, and deal with our border issue. So far, I haven't seen much headway on any of the three.

[Cyrano]

pred, I do agree with you about the gummint. While I try to pick the ones I think will do a good job for the country, all too often I wind up having to pick the lesser of two evils because neither one is worth voting FOR. In a case like that, I follow Admiral Dan Gallery's rule of voting against the incumbent; he had a theory that the trick to keeping Washington from spinning out of control is to vote the bastards out before they can get both trotters in the public trough.

About 25 years back, there was a book (it might have been The Book of Lists, but I'm not sure) that had a long section of how every government then in place worked according to its constitution, and how it really worked; that is, who had the real power and pulled the strings. In the section on the United States, it was pointed out that the Republicans and the Democrats of that time were in reality one big party, with window dressing differences on diversionary issues like abortion, entitlement programs, the environment and such. The strings were pulled by the major banks and corporations and a very few, very rich individuals who manipulated the government for their benefit, not the people's benefit. It was suggested that what was needed was a real, viable 'third party' that would throw both sets of bums out and see about fixing up the most egregious offenses the Democrats and the Republicans had committed.

The thing is, except at the local level and not much there, that 'third party' has failed to materialize as a viable political force. Libertarians and Greens are viewed as kooks, the Right to Life/Conservative parties (which in their ideologies are about one step removed from the Nazis, IMHO) are seen as a mortal danger to our civil rights, and all of the others claiming to be independent of the Big Two are built around some charismatic (using the term very advisedly) individual, like Joseph "I'm a Poor Loser" Lieberman or Ross "Vote for Me Because I'm Different and Rich" Poirot with no program other than wanting to be elected "and then you'l see sumpin!"

At this time, if a party with good, readily implementable ideas about really reforming the tax code so you could do your taxes with fourth grade math and no tax advisor; sound, implementable ideas about alternative energy; really dealing with the illegal immigrant problem; workable fixes for the economy; a way to get the Iraqi government to take over fighting so the Yanks could concentrate on restoring the infrastructure (and getting the private contractors out of the country) and filling just an advisory role; and finding a way to help the people affected by the subprime lending mess and not just the banks and brokerages who didn't realize what they were buying into even though they are supposed to be trained to look for the booby traps in that kind of a deal; and find a way to keep jobs in America instead of outsourcing them to some Third World country to the benefit of management and not the labor force, were to emerge, it would be taken very seriously by the American people. But I don't see that on the political landscape. No one wants to say the hard facts and outline the hard work it requires to tackle any of these. The people are conditioned to instant gratification and sweet solutions, and none of the problems we have now are fixable that way.

You could make taxes fairer by losing 90% of the IRS and going to either a flat tax on everybody, including (oh most specifically including!) companies and corporations; or on dumping the income tax altogether and replacing it with a 'consumption tax' at the cash register. People could not bitch that the fatcats are not paying their fair share if everyone is paying the same, say, 10% of their gross income to the feds. I don't know if this would have a positive or negative impact on the revenue stream - I suspect positive - but it sure would take the worry out of getting your taxes done. Taxing at point of purchase would be even fairer. You are taxed only on what you buy. You live a lush life, you pay more for it. Live a simple life, pay less. It's such a dumb idea, it's brilliant.

There are sources of alternative energy that work right now. The only problem with wind power is political, not technical. People don't want the wind turbines where they have to look at them in their view - the Kennedy Clan and Walter Cronkite have been fighting Cape Wind for a decade over the offshore wind farm they want to put up off Nantucket because they don't want their summerhouse views spoiled, for instance - and it would require a capital outlay that would take about 10 years to pay back. But it would be clean power, and after the initial payoff, it would be free power.

Water power would be as easy. Many towns used to have small hydroplants to supply juice to the town. These were rendered 'obsolete' by the rise of long distance transmission lines, but in lots of places they are still there, mothballed or disused. Reactivate them and put them back into service. Again, it's free power, or nearly so. The Chinese have been working on low velocity bucket turbines that can be put into any stream of a certain depth, 4 feet I think, to generate power for a few houses or a single small business. We have lots of small streams in this country. Look at it this way: down by New Orleans, the Mississippi is a mighty river a couple of miles wide, moving hundreds of thousands of gallons per second at any given point. Up at its source, it's just a bunch of itty-bitty streams. But it's those itty-bitty streams that form the river. It's all the same water. We could do the same with electricity. Yes, we'd need capital investment, but it would pay for itself quickly and then we'd not need to import nearly as much oil for our electrical plants, or rape the land for coal the way we are now. The ripple effect of this change includes positive invironmental impacts as well.

My harsh plan for dealing with the illegals coming in has been outlined elsewhere on this forum. For the ones already here, deport them and make it clear of the risk in running the new border defenses. The bigger problem is the 'legacy kids,' the children of illegals born here. They are dual citizens, but legally American under current law even if their parents are illegals. I would handle the problem in a grim way. The older ones would get a choice: be fostered by relatives or the foster care system until they reach the age of 18, at which point they are on their own; or leave with their parents. At 18, declare their citizenship; pick either their parents' country, or America. If America, they 'come home' at US government expense to make their own way. If their parents' nationality, they are no longer our problem. The younger kids just get deported with their parents. It's not fair, but it was their parents who caused the problem, not the American government.

The really controversial part of my solution would require a law change. Change the law so the children of illegals are not 'native born Americans.' This is against every tradition of ours in the matter of citizenship. I know this. But it would slam the door on the legal loophole that lets their parents jump the queue for permanent residency. (Note: has anyone seen the statistics on what percentage of parents of legacy kids go on to become US citizens? I haven't.) The Irish did this in 2003 because they were being overrun by immigrants and they felt their country and culture was at risk from them. Little heed was taken of that legal change here at that time. I believe we should look at it now.

This is not the 19th Century. We don't have an empty continent to absorb the tired, poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free (in the immortal words of Emma Lazarus) any more. We can barely take care of our own. We have to reevaluate our immigration policies, but one thing that should not even need considering is coddling the illegals who break our law to come here.

The problem in Iraq is a military problem. Give it back to the military to solve. Get the private contractors with their bloated contracts that are not getting the job done out of the theater of operations. And work to build up the country to stand on its own two feet, as Arthur MacArthur did in the Phillipines, as Lucius Clay did in ruined Germany, as Douglas MacArthur did in a Japan bombed flat. Just don't expect it to happen in five minutes. It took ten years to rebuild West Germany and Japan as viable nations after the fighting ended. It took forty years to build the Phillipines as a democracy, from the village level to the national level. It can be done, but it requires commitment of a kind I am not sure the U.S. government is willing to make any more. That is something else that would have to be worked out.

As for the economy, step one would be to abrogate NAFTA. It's an idea that just does not work. It neither lifts the other nations nor frees up markets. When you have a program that is a failure, you shut it down. When you have treaties that don't work they way they were supposed to, you must do the same. As for the rest, all I know is the bailout of the subprime mess has two parts. First is to find some way to get the people who bought into the bad loans to be shifted from variable to fixed rate mortgages. The banks and brokerages who got greedy and came up with the idea of making loans to people who were in no way qualified for home loans need to feel that sting. Not enough to drive them under, but enough for them to have to own up to their fault. Yes, they should make some profit from their loans. But make it a very little profit, so they don't do that again.

The historical solution to keeping jobs here is tariffs that make it cheaper to produce here than import from abroad. I am not sure this is a viable solution in a global economy. What I am sure of is the Wal-Mart tactic of making name brand companies offers they can't refuse and then screwing them up the ass to force them to shift production abroad cannot be allowed to stand. I regret that the laws on treason don't cover that kind of activity, for that is how I see those tactics. A solution must be found, however, if we the American People are to even hold on to what we have, much less improve out situations. I am certain there is one out there. I'm just not astute enough or knowledgable enough in economics and capitalism to see it.

And now the hard thing. To do any of this, taxes must be raised. No one likes raising taxes. But thanks to the idiocy of George Bush and the Congress fighting the Iraq War "on the cuff," we are heading into the same situation George Washington and the First Congress found themselves in 1789, and for the same reason. Although you don't hear it much any more, there used to be a saying in America, 'not worth a continental.' It referred to the Continental Dollars issued by the Continental Congress to finance the Revolution. They weren't worth the paper they were printed on. It took thirty years of hard work to pay off the debts incurred in gaining our freedom by the Congress and the government, and it was a long while before American money was taken at face value rather than as its value as gold or silver.

When I was a kid, schools were still encouraging schoolchildren to buy Savings Stamps. When you got a certain amount of them, you traded in your booklet of stamps on a Savings Bond. And do you know where the money raised that way went? To pay for the debts we piled up fighting World War II. And that war had been over for 15 years by then! Yes, the government had raised taxes during the war, but the sums involved in fighting that war were so vast we could not pay for it as we went, the way we had the Spanish-American War and World War I.

If we don't want to saddle the next three generations of Americans with an almost insurmountable debt, we have to attack the problem now. We need to reinstitute the Savings Stamps program, or something like it. We need to pay off as much of the principal debt as we can now. I hate asking the American people to pay for the stupidity of a small coterie of their leaders, but unlike certain South American countries, we just can't walk out on our debts and expect to be forgiven. And that means taxes have to be raised, and that raise must be earmarked ONLY for that goal.

Do you see a third party willing to state those hard facts out loud to the American people? To be honest with them about what it would take to really solve the problems we are looking at? What we would need to do to solve those problems? I don't. And it's a lead pipe cinch the Dumocrats and the Republiclowns aren't going to come out and say it. No party that told the people that much truth would have a prayer of getting into office.

So, the most we can do is put "Darth Vader for President. I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils!" bumper stickers on our cars, and voting against the incumbents at every opportunity. And in the case of the Presidency, looking hard at the candidates and deciding which makes your teeth ache less.

Frankly, there are times when I think we need to do what William Shakespeare said in Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II: kill all the lawyers, and then pass a law saying lawyers may not serve in government in any save legal capacities like attorney general. It might at least get us a government of people who have had to work for a living again.

[Mooseman684]

I'm Mad as Hell too,
Some M@Th$%F*&$@R threw red paint all over a soldier Memorial Statue in Anchorage Yesterday, they poured it over his Helmet turning it Red and then slung it all over the rest of him...They did it in the middle of the night the Cowards...I hope they Catch them and publish the Names...

Rich

[Pred]

There are so many ways things could turn bad in this country right now. This being one of them.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Pred

There are so many ways things could turn bad in this country right now. This being one of them.

Yeah... the people expressing their views through violence against the military when they should be voting the bums in Washington out.

Idiots (meaning college kids) these days have no idea where their freedoms came from... and will disgrace anything to make a point without any knowledge thereof.

... this is why I hate where I live, too many limousine liberals and the flock that follows.

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

I'm Mad as Hell too,
Some M@Th$%F*&$@R threw red paint all over a soldier Memorial Statue in Anchorage Yesterday, they poured it over his Helmet turning it Red and then slung it all over the rest of him...They did it in the middle of the night the Cowards...I hope they Catch them and publish the Names...

Rich

I agree... that is just as disrespectful as throwing red paint on or vandalizing Veterans' homes...

Watch this... they will be college kids.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Pred

Oh I'm not singling one person or party out. Our entire government needs replaced. Not a single person on this board can truly state that they trust our elected officials to do whats best for us. The Dems took control and said they would deal with gas prices, get the troops out of Iraq, and deal with our border issue. So far, I haven't seen much headway on any of the three.

+1

Originally Posted by Cyrano

Personally, I think requiring everyone to do three years in the military is a great idea. It would teach the entitlement-minded kids that think their feces are not odorific some excellent life lessons. I'd also like it if the Merchant Marine was included in the definition of 'military,' so we could have a US-flag fleet again at a price American businesses might be willing to pay, as long as we got the same benefits the Navy and the shallow-water sailors (the Coast Guard) get. But ti won't work for everyone.

But most kids would learn their lesson fast in the military. it might be the first time in their lives Mommy and Daddy couldn't intervene for them, so they would realize they had to make it on their own. After three years of yes sir, no sir, no excuse sir, they would have the discipline and mindset to get something more than a reinforcement of their sense of entitlement out of college or technical school. It would force them to grow up, and they might even realize their potential. I can't see this as a bad thing.

+1 on this -- I think like Cyrano said it would be great at instilling discipline in our next generation, remind them of their obligations, and make us cautious as to whom we elect because they can send our son/daughter off to war. (had a previous posting about this in a type of peacetime draft). Unfortunately, our military is a pragmatic instrument of policy and the all-volunteer force we have works very very well. Screwing around with this could hurt our military even though it might be good for the country. It's worth thinking about though.

[Coeloptera]

*Sigh*, jerks and losers, all of them.

How is any of this the fault of the soldiers? If the military life is for you, then go and be great, I say. It's the idiots and scheming in our government that cause the sorts of problems we're experiencing right now, and an ignorant, inattentive populace that lets them.

Vandalizing a recruitment center accomplishes exactly nothing constructive. The military sure as hell isn't going to be scared off by that and, as I said, they don't make the decision to go to war. They just go when called and do their duty.

Now mind you, some better internal controls might be merited to keep stuff like Haditha and Abu Ghraib from happening too often, but that's really more of an issue of oversight and internal measures of policing their own. It is, not to be too harsh-sounding, detail work, nothing more.

- Coeloptera

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Pred, the approval rating of the two houses of congress is about half that of Bush, and guess who's in charge?

There's a basic difference in those approval ratings, Scotty. The one against the president is laid on him personally. The one against Congress is kind of vaguely generic, against the institution as a whole, but not against each and every member.

People don't have that low an opinion of the ones actually representing them, or they'd be voted out in a heartbeat. It's all those other clowns they're p.o.'d at...

[toolman]

Originally Posted by troy2000

There's a basic difference in those approval ratings, Scotty. The one against the president is laid on him personally. The one against Congress is kind of vaguely generic, against the institution as a whole, but not against each and every member.
People don't have that low an opinion of the ones actually representing them, or they'd be voted out in a heartbeat. It's all those other clowns they're p.o.'d at...

That's what I find so ironic about public opinion: Congress and the Senate basically control everything, but it's the guy sitting in the cushy chair who takes all of the blame. Oh well, as long as American Idol isn't cancelled we'll all be fine!