Thank you for your comments Mr. Chaddock. In my opinion, most veterans who have faced combat much prefer peace. So many of our veterans have been known to retire to quiet plots of land or in forested areas. Two examples are General Eisenhower and "Band of Brothers" Major Dick Winters who lived on quiet pastural land near Gettysburg. This group called Veterans for Peace has the right to protest--whether there are any veterans in their ranks.....or not. As Americans, they have the right to protest. If they are veterans, you are correct in saying they have EARNED that right to protest. However, the protests should really be taking place in front of the offices of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and the congressional representatives. I have no problems with COs as long as they are legitimate COs and not using that as an excuse. One of the greatest American military heroes was a CO.....SGT Alvin C York who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor during WW1.

If I was able to attend next Thursday's Veterans Day Parade, I would join you in turning my back on them.

I have yet to know a combat veteran that enjoyed the "action". I have yet to meet a combat veteran that longs for the "good old times" I haven't met many draftees that looked forward to being drafted during a conflict (due to my age groutp that limits me to Nam). I would consider it safe for me to truthfully say that combat veterans. do not want war, they would much rather have peace but that they also realize that sometimes war is the only alternative left.

The above said, I find it ironic that some that either dodged the draft or never participated in a combat situation that they feel entitled to tell those that did that war is hell.

Just a hint, in the movies you see whole bodies flying out of the machine gun nest when a grenade land in it, reality is that if anything flies out they are body parts, yeech. Lots of loose body parts, brain matter, guts, you name it. Please VFP, tell me how horrible war is.

Although I would love to honor those that gave it all i will not attend, I don't know if I can just turn my back and I don't want to be complicit in marring the occasion by playing into their (VFP) ploy.

RiverRat66, well said, thank you.

good letter david.

This vet is turning his back on the whole parade. I've got better things to do that participate in this kind of political nonsense.

Maybe I'll take my dog with me for a hike in the mountains...

I'm just curious, which of these veterans "showed their cowardice by dodging draft, or being conscientious objectors."? If they are veterans, then by definition they didn't "let others make sacrifices for their freedom of speech to protest." Or am I missing something?

If someone sacrifices themselves to protect me, then I am grateful, but please, do not destroy others, without great cause...for me

BTW, the turning of your backs was my idea for the July 4th parade for when the Tea baggers came by. But you can use it here too.

If I go, I won't be turning my back on any veterans. No matter what their beliefs are. It should make all veterans happy that their objective was accomplished by allowing everyone to have their own opinion and demonstrate that. It is, after all, what they put their lives on the line for. Freedom.

How can this issue be continually confused ? The VFP does have some veterans in their ranks. The local group was founded by and is controlled by Vietnam Draft Dodgers. The issue is having Draft Dodgers pose as "veterans" for peace in a Veterans Parade.

When I see the VFP marching in the parade, I'll salute them. Chaddock is childish.

I'll be turning my back. Y_S, is the church you attend studying the Book of John, or are you and your wife studying it independently?

Well, I certainly wouldn't support posing as a veteran when one is not. I wonder if you can turn your backs on certain people in the march and not on others (I'm envisioning some sort of yoga contortion).

Seriously, though, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether or not you fought in the armed forces, you still have the right to speak or not speak if you choose. I think the VFP has the right to march, and y'all have the right to turn your backs on them if you wish. I'm all for peaceful disagreements.

I thought the posters comparing Obama to a witch doctor and a monkey were pretty racist. Maybe that's just me.

And the CodePink photo was a fake. This was pointed out by several conservative blogs two years ago. I guess you missed that:

http://axisofright.com/2007/03/22/code-pinks-in-da-house/

CB: First off, I scrolled further down and yes some of those were racist and had I seen someone flying them, would have asked them to remove them.

Secondly, with regard to that photo. I am not aware of it being faked, but if so, it is only slightly more extreme than many other such activities that were definitely sponsored and supported by VFP and Code Pink types. Take the hanging of a US Soldier in effigy that gained prominence after Cindy Sheehan (Code Pink) and Charlie Brown (VFP supported him heavily) were involved with it.

Similarly, Y_S, if I had seen CodePink or anyone marching behind such a despicable banner, I would denounce it categorically. (BTW, there seems to be some disagreement within CodePink about their continued opposition to the war in Afghanistan, with some fearing that a premature US pullout would lead to a serious degradation of women's rights in that country. For what it's worth)

I understand what the Pearcy's were trying to say with the hanged effigy, but it was a bit too provocative for my tastes (I would have prefered something like the scene of crosses near the Lafayette BART station). It also would have been nice if Charlie Brown would have been a little more forthcoming about it all.

And I must say, having gone to school in SF, I've seen quite a lot of liberal extremism and intolerance in my life (sometimes it seemed like if you weren't a lesbian communist from Central America, nobody would listen to you). I may make some snarky comments now and again, but I have a lot of sympathy for views from "the other side" (I was a registered Libertarian for quite some time).

I just bristle when I see commentators on the right describe Obama as an America-hating communist (heck, he's not even a good liberal these days) who wants to kill grandma. I also don't want to see this country become a theocracy, no matter the religion. And as far as Cindy Sheehan goes, to me, she's a grieving mom who sometimes hangs around the wrong people.

just my 2c.

I have a freind, a VFP high-profile activist, that is very close to Cindy Sheehan. He wrote me a full page last year telling me about the day he spent with her on the anniversary of her son's death. It is heartbreaking. Losing your son in battle for a worthy cause is one thing, but if his death was caused by the lies and callous recklessness of your own government, it takes on another meaning. I want our soldiers to come home and Cindy's voice to be heard...

Observer: In my opinion, the worst part for Cindy Sheehan is that she has created her own living hell.

There are women who have lost their sons and those men died with honor, the mothers loss is consoled by that honor.

You can look at Iraq as G.W.Bush's lie-driven vengeance against the guy that tried to kill his dad (probably wrong)

or

You can look at Iraq as a strategy to eliminate a breeding ground for terrorism, bring Democracy to a major Islamic country in the Middle East that could bring stability to a region that dearly needs it, an ally adjacent to Iran who is a threat, and add to our list of Arab partners.

Cindy Sheehan sees horror, loss, and suffering.

The other mothers see honor, children going to school, women voting, and Democracy growing its roots in a desert that would never have sustained it before.

One might say "That poor woman is deluding herself"...the important question then is "which one?"

Yoysemite said: "You can look at Iraq as a strategy to eliminate a breeding ground for terrorism," ?

brainwashing

There were nearly zero terrorist breeding grounds in Iraq pre March 20th, 2003. Now there are hundreds. Cheney style machismo is what is going to save America from terrorism right?. Snap out of it.

TomCavallero -

The national VFP membership web page says:

"We welcome all veterans of military service, whether they served overseas or stateside during times of peace and times of war. We also encourage friends, family members and general supporters of the veteran's peace movement to join VFP as an ASSOCIATE MEMBER." (emphasis mine)

Apparently, you define a "veteran" as someone who agrees with your opinions. Everyone else is a "draft dodger."

I'm sorry to say I almost agree with YS on Iraq. But I think he missed the most important reason we went to Iraq. YS listed the public relations reasons we went to Iraq. The real reason was and is that we picked the battleground to fight the war on terror. Being in Iraq kept the war on terror there and not in the US. Where would you have preferred to fight the war? In Auburn or Baghdad? Terrorists all over the middle east were forced to go to Iraq and not come here.

Jon - I agree that we went to Iraq primarily for the reson you cite. Afriend of mine from Israel posed the same fact in the form of a question about five years ago.

reason

"Terrorists all over the middle east were forced to go to Iraq and not come here."

Forced? If they wanted to come here, then us having a war in Iraq is not going to stop them. Face it, you're a sissy and you're scared to death of terrorists.

2049er, and your experience in military strategy came from? And yes, I am scared to death of terrorists as any one with a brain would be. To make it really simple for you. We forced the terrorist to defend their homeland on their turf. We chose the point of attack.

Now if we attacked Saudi Arabia - where most of the terrorists of 9/11 were from and where most of the funding for the terrorist activities still comes from today, then I'd be on board with it. Or even Syria would have made more sense. Of course Afghanistan should have been the place where we ***draw*** the terrorist into. Most of them were there already. It doesn't take any experience in military strategy to know that attacking a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11 so that it ***draws***? the terrorists into that country so we can fight them there instead of here is a rationalization that scared people would make... and your rationalization for attacking Iraq is the fifth or sixth irrational rationalization I've heard coming out of the GOP brainwashing propaganda machine.

2049er - "Forced" in that Muslims cannot tolerate infidels occupying their "holy ground."

You guys just keep digging bigger holes.

Lantbarney said "Muslims cannot tolerate infidels "

Right, we're giving Muslims a good reason to be terrorists. Excellent logic and rationalizations.

2049er - are you really that clueless? Muslim extremists do not need a good reason to be terrorists. They just are. They have an agenda and will find a reason to be terrorists. We will fight them on our soil, or theirs. I prefer doing as much of the fighting on their soil as possible, rather than on ours.

If you understand the situation so well, please tell me why muslims are involved in every worldwide conflict, and justify their involvement.

2049er: There's no reasoning with people who have bought the specious argument about fighting them over there so we won't have to here..and just watch, they'll attempt to justify such BS by saying something like; "Well, there haven't been any attacks in the US since the beginning of the Iraq war". I guess they figure since we bought the WMD line at first & when that didn't pan out, then now we'll buy this "fighting them over there" crap-load. The terrorists are here and fortunately their attempts have been foiled before any attack has materialized. In fact, it has been argued many times that our engaging in this war has made us more vulnerable than before.

Lant, the Palestinians are fighting for their land. Actually they are resisting the occupiers as they don't have the power to fight their oppressors. We missed the chance to have an open dialogue with their elected leaders Hamas. The PLO is a tool of the west just as the leaders we try to push off in IRAQ and Afghanistan. Bringing democracy to a region that is as unstable as the Mideast is a joke. We'll put a dictator there, watch

Israel is a democracy.

I want to jump in here. Is my history messed up? As I remember it, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we came to their defense. We kicked the Iraqis out and told them to behave. They wouldn't behave, so we invaded. I stated it simply, but I think it is simple. I don't remember the war being much about terrorism at the time. It was about WMD's. Yeah, I know, Bush lied. Whatever!!!

2049er: "Sissy, scareed to death of terrorists"? How many Americans need to die before you wake up? They are killing us-Americans. They can't tolerate Infidels. It has nothing to do with what we did or do, Its how we live our life. Basically, our support of the great nation of Israel.

ChuxxR: The Palestinians are fighting for Isreal's land-Isreal. You guys are funny, talking about GOP brainwashing, then say "The PLO is a tool of the west". Please don't accuse anyone of believing in crazy conspiricies after that one.

CCR, wow you really believe what you said is true. There is a large amount of Kuwaiti that still call themselves Iraqi. We made up the country. Ignoring the fact that we have imposed brutal dictators is way out of line. The nation building done in the name of the west hasn't won as many friends at is has created enemies. Israel was bombed into existence by the Zionist. In the process many, many, many Palestinians were either killed or forced off their land. No! I don't believe that God spoke to their ancestors and gave them the land. That doesn't count. Israel never intended to share power with their brothers the Palestinians. BTW the PLO wasn't elected, Hamas was.

Sorry you guys. I went way off topic.

chuxx - when it comes to the palestinians and Israel, you are out to lunch.

hey, how about the peaceful Muslim psycho at Ft. Hood?

ChuxxR: For some reason I have never heard any of the information you are stating. What dictator? Kuwaiti's calling themselves Iraqis? If Kuwait was still part of Iraq, why did Iraq invade militarily? Still yet, why did the Iraq military kill so many people, innocent and helpless? And you don't think we should have gone in there? We, the U.S.A., has been the world's police dept. for a long time.

By the way, I do believe God gave Israel to the Jews. And more recently, I believe it was the United Nations that gave that land to Israel. Surprisingly, I don't support the U.S.A.'s invovlement in the U.N. but that one decision was a good one.

Tthree years or so ago in Auburn, one of the VFP cretins knocked the hat off an elderly American Legion veteran prior to the start of the Veterans Day parade. VFP has been aggressively insulting to veterans and has even gone to Sacramento to shout at and demean valiant young people who've just reported for enlistment. After I wrote a letter to the editor critical of VFP, one of their members invited me to come see they wouldn't be so peaceful toward me if I showed up at one of their meetings.

Interesting philosophy they have. Do anything they can to insult, demean, and diminish the service of real veterans when the majority of VFP never served a day. Yes they have a few veterans in their ranks. But they also demand we allow their counterfeit-veteran protesters to march in the Veteran's Day parade with real veterans?

Just the fact they're fellow travelers with Code Pink should tell you plenty.

Yes, they have the right to voice their disagreement. But marching in the parade with non-vets, for the purpose of creating controversy and demonstrating against the service of those who've done their duty and are still true to their country?

All VFP should see is everybody's back.

lantbarney - The Mormon Church was founded by a gifted opportunist who announced that "I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words "Either the Al-Koran [sic] or the sword." Remember the Mountain Meadows Massacre? "Christians" do not need a good reason to be terrorists.

skeptic - what is it with you and the Mormon church? Have you been entertaining missionaries? Why the " " around Christians in your last sentence? I am not defending the Mormon church, and would never defend Mr. Smith, but I am curious about your obsession.

lant, God told me that I own the land of Palestine which includes the terrorist state of Zion. I want them to both to share the land equally and without prejudice.

Wait. What's that God? OK I'll tell him. God says I own your house.

chuxx, it was not God that spoke to you. He has already given the land to Israel and will not change His mind, so the contrived land of palestine will have to do without. Do not listen to lying spirits.

The Arabs and Jews will actually have peace some day. Some already do, in Christ.

Skeptic; I don't see Christians strapping explosives on their kids and purposely sending them in among civilians to blow themselves up. Later, the terrorists' Mom and Dads mourn the fact their young son or daughter wasn't wearing a nuke so they could kill more Jews. I don't see Christians of any stripe using mentally disabled women to walk bombs into a crowded market. Or kidnapping people and threatening to murder entire families unless they drive a bomb into the biggest concentration of people they can find. I don't see Christians murdering other Christians because they don't believe quite the same or hold the same extremist views.

You own the land of Palestine? Well, by all means just waltz right on over there and explain the errors of their ways to the Palestinians. In detail. Just walk into a coffee shop in The West Bank or Gaza and tell them you've got some very important information and would sure like to meet that there Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri fella.

I'll wait for you here. Good luck.You won't have to tell me how you make out. The video the terrorists release will vividly tell the story of your last seconds of life.

(And I'm still turning my back on VFP. They have no credibility at all.)

lant The Zionist created the first terrorist and the first suicide bomber. Religious zealotry is the problem on all sides.

My claim to Palestine is as valid as all others. What about the house?

I wish the Veterans Day parade was free from politics. Same with the 4th of July.

In 1948 the UN with the urging of Great Britain and the US took land from Jordan and created the State of Israel. They did not take land from the Palestinians. Palestine did not exist as a state at that time.

Chuxx -

Prior to 1948, many Jews had settled in the area that is once again Israel. They purchased mostly undesireable land from absentee Arab owners, drained swamps, irrigated desert, and made the land desireable and productive. More Arabs began moving into the lands to work for the Jews, because they could maintain a higher standard of living than in the surrounding Arab nations.

Prior to 1948, Arabs conspired with Hitler in an attempt to erradicate Jews from the planet. Instead of succeeding, they played into God's plan to rebirth the nation of Israel.

Lant, by "absentee Arab owners" you mean murdered and disenfranchised Palestinians, right? Jon says "took" and you say "purchased".

Stolen by any other means. The Palestinians, if given the same support as the Zionist, could have made the land productive. Their war against the Palestinians is economic as well.

So who are the Zionist conspiring with now? For their holocaust against the Palestinians, the UN condemns them.

Chuck, Read the UN resolution. The UN in 1948 took land from the State of Jordan with Jordan's approval and formed the State of Israel. Palestine was not a Nation at that time. The underlying politics were quite anti-semitic. Great Britain and the US wanted to reduce the number of Jews in their countries. Remember thousands of Jews fled Europe during WWII and went to the US and Great Britain. Jews have been in the geographic area know as Israel for over 5000 years.

chuxx - your question demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge. Wealthy absentee Arab land owners were only too happy to sell what they considered worthless land. Do a little research.

Jon, thanks for the history lesson. I don't know why the entire world was antisemtic but I agree it was part of the reason for the creation of Zion. The Zionist bombed their way into existence in the face of the prophecies. Remember, Zion was supposed to be created when the "Messiah" appeared. Othodox Jews fought long and hard against Zion.

Lant, which "Wealthy absentee Arab land owners"? You won't be able to tell me because the story simply isn't true. This story has been around since the Arabs/Jews were brothers.

"The boundaries of Palestine have varied throughout history.[19][20] Prior to its being named Palestine, Ancient Egyptian texts (c. 14 century BCE) called the entire coastal area along the Mediterranean Sea between modern Egypt and Turkey R-t-n-u (conventionally Retjenu). Retjenu was subdivided into three regions and the southern region, Djahy, shared approximately the same boundaries as Canaan, or modern-day Israel and the Palestinian territories, though including also Syria." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Okay, chuxx. Let's see what the context from Wiki is.

The name "Palestine" is the cognate of an ancient word meaning "Philistines" or "Land of the Philistines". The earliest known mention is thought to be in Ancient Egyptian texts of the temple at Medinet Habu which record a people called the P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset) among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign. The Hebrew name Peleshet - usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible to denote the southern coastal region that was inhabited by the Philistines to the west of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.

The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu in his Annals. In the 5th century BCE, Herodotus wrote in Ancient Greek of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" (whence Palaestina, whence Palestine).

According to Moshe Sharon, Palaestina was commonly used to refer to the coastal region, and shortly thereafter, the whole of the area inland to the west of the Jordan River. The latter extension occurred when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century CE, renamed "Provincia Judea" (Iudaea Province; originally derived from the name "Judah") to "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.

Do you get it? "The latter extension occurred when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century CE.>." Judea was never called Palestine before then.

chuxx - while you are at it, read about "Jewish land purchase in Palestine" in Wiki, since you seem to respect their research.

Sorry to interrupt your Israel\Palestine debate - but to get back on the topic of Veterans Day - Armistice Day, originally proclaimed in 1919 by President Wilson to observe the end of WWI was later (1938) made a legal annual holiday by Congress to be "a day to be dedicated TO THE CAUSE OF WORLD PEACE and to be thereafter celebrated and known as 'Armistice Day" [emphasis mine]. In 1953, Al King, a Kansas shoe store owner pushed to have Armistice Day celebrate all veterans and President Eisenhower signed it into law in 1954, at which time "Veteran's Day" became the common name for the holiday. Given that the day was originally dedicated to "the cause of world peace" and later made to include ALL veterans, I really don't see the problem with Veterans For Peace members marching in a parade. (I'm also not sure how marching down the street with other veterans, high school bands, etc. is a protest, but I respect the right of others to see this differently and protest themselves by turning their back on the vets). Therefore, it is my sincere hope that this year's Auburn parade will indeed be peaceful and honor all veterans - those who are pro-war and those who are not. The above citation is from Wikipedia.

"David (according to the rabbis) paid the Jebusites the full value of the city, collecting the money from among all the Israelite tribes, so that the city became their common property[35]" wiki. So which version is correct? Israeli's bought the land is a story that has been told for over 5,000 years. Just because it is repeated over and over again does not make it true.

"Israelites were simply an emergent subculture in Canaanite society." Judaism is a religion not a race.

Lant, I'm curious. Do you believe that man lived with the dinosaurs? How old is the earth?

Is this a conversation about the Auburn Veterans Day Parade or the Chuxx and David religous\history debate? For people who claim to want politics out of the celebration, this thread does not seem to support that claim.

yeah, OK I got caught up. Sorry.

Today is the Marine Corps 234th birthday.

Semper Fi

good point bookliz. I laughed when I went back to see how we got sidetracked.

chuxx - ask me in person. I'll be at the parade tomorrow.

OK Lant but If I see you t the parade I will shake your hand. If not enjoy the parade.