Bring Them Home (824 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: 0.09 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by _Q_ (View user info) at 2005-10-11 15:23:23 EDT
Since my last post stemming from the activities of the good folks at http://www.TurnYourBackOnBush.org was so popular and well received, I thought I'd post this interesting initiative that I just got news about.
Basically, there is a movement afoot that would prevent the Governor of Massachusetts from sending any more National Guard troops to Iraq. Yes, it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the war effort, but the organizers of the movement want it to be put forth to a vote in every state, thereby making it illegal for the government to send National Guard troops to Iraq, period.
Not too shabby if you consider that they should be on home soil anyways. Not only does America gain it's National Guard back, it sends a very strong message to the administration in office that it does not agree with it's policies.
This is a chance for every American who said "'Iraq' isn't my fault" to do something about it, if they feel that it is wrong. Living in a democratic society means that you should have some power to control the direction your leaders are taking you, right? Well, someone is finally trying to do SOMETHING about it, so now is as good a chance as any to start.
I find this interesting because the implications of this being successful stretch much further than this particular conflict, or any sort of rift America might be experiencing over Bush Jr (or BJ, as I like to call him) holding office. It would basically be setting a precendence that allowed the people to have some control in matters of the wars their coutnry is involved in (to a degree).
Anyways, the most I can do to support this is to pass it on to people who have the power of the vote in America.
If you're still interested, read on.
~Q~
---
Dear Backers,
We're working on a new campaign, and if its successful it will mean that for the first time in American history, voters will be able to use the ballot box to put an end to a war.
You can learn about the campaign at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org.
Keeping the National Guard at home where we need them
The goal of this campaign is to place a binding initiative on the Massachusetts ballot to prevent the Governor from sending any more National Guard troops to Iraq. A yes vote on this initiative will not only stop future deployments of the National Guard to Iraq, but will also send a very strong message to our elected leaders that we want them to end the war and bring all of our troops home.
Beyond Massachusetts
If we can get this issue on the ballot in Massachusetts, there are plans to expand the campaign to some of the other 23 states that allow ballot initiatives of this kind. Kicking this campaign off with a bang in Massachusetts is an essential first step before it can move forward, and you can help us make it happen.
Is it legal?
The HomeFromIraqNow.org initiative was crafted by constitutional law experts who have litigated past National Guard cases on behalf of the state of Massachusetts and was certified as constitutional by the Attorney General of Massachusetts. The binding initiative requires the governor to exercise his authority to refuse to send more National Guard troops to Iraq.
But to get it on the ballot, the campaign needs to collect 100,000 signatures of Massachusetts voters by November 15. For those of you who don't live in Massachusetts, there's still plenty that you can do to make this campaign a success.
Here are some things you can do right now:
1. Spread the word
Getting the word out on this campaign is essential. During Turn Your Back on Bush, it was our email list that spread the word early, getting the word out to tens of thousands of people. And that led to better media coverage, which lead to an even greater audience. But without that first step, we would never have received as much attention as we did. So lets do it again! Pass the word to everyone you know, and encourage groups you're part of to email a notice about it to their email lists as well. Encourage your favorite bloggers to write about it, and if you have a website, post one of our banners or buttons. You can find them, and other ideas on how to spread the word, at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org/spreadtheword.shtml.
2. If you live in Massachusetts, send in your signature
You can download the petition right now at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org, print it, sign it, get everyone who lives with you to sign it, and mail it back to us.
3. Volunteer to collect signatures
You can sign up to volunteer at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org/volunteer.shtml, and you can download the petition as well as a guide to collecting signatures. And if you're a member of a political, religious or community organization, you can get them involved as well. If you live near Massachusetts, please consider visiting the state for a day with your friends to collect signatures.
4. Give
Right now, we're paying campaign expenses out of our own pockets. To get the word out and to reach our goal of collecting 100,000 signatures, we're going to need to hire organizers, make copies, and pay for phone calls and mailings. You can make a contribution at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org/contribution.shtml.
So please visit the campaign website at http://www.HomeFromIraqNow.org now and help get this campaign moving! And while you're there, sign up for the email list there to get regular updates - we'll be updating you on this list occasionally, but that's the best way to keep informed about this campaign.
Thanks again for your support,
Jet, Nick, Emilie, and the Turn Your Back on Bush Team
PS. Thanks to all of you that supported our work on the Bring Them Home Now Tour! The tour website is still up (it's at http://www.BringThemHomeNowTour.org), and there are lots of reports from the road for anyone who missed the tour.
User Reviews
Submitted by MrWillard (user info) at 2005-10-12 03:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist here...
Lets assume that the federal government was soley responsible for 9/11, which is the whole shitstorm that caused us to go into Afganistan and eventually Iraq.
Lets assume that John Kerry and George Bush are cousins. Additionally, lets assume that their "Skull and Cross Bones" society exists to rule the world and meets yearly to dictate what will happen in the world.
(I'm not going to post links; this stuff is all over the internet)
Assuming all of that is true (which I'm not sure of one way or the other), do you really think that even if every citizen of that state voted not to activate any more National Guard, that it would really mean shit.
If Bush wants National Guard to finish his daddy's busniess, he's going to get the National Guard. Weither he cuts funding to the state, or passes a new law that allows him to get around the democratic process, he'll do it.
More realistically, it wouldn't be that hard for a propagandist machine like the federal government to label the movement as "fringe" or "treasonous", and make it go away. For you media theorists, look up "Agenda Setting Theory"
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-10-12 01:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Democracy as the general of armies?
That happened once before y'know? It's what ruined ancient Greece.
Not that you shouldn't voice your opinions as loudly as you can, but the people should have no place in the directions of battle. This is why you have leaders in the first place, so that when not everyone agrees on a subject they can take charge. If you take that away from them, you've got executive anarchy. And a house divided against itself.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-10-11 20:42:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Just tell me one thing...
Is this a big (proverbial? metaphorical?) 'Fuck You' aimed at GW and the federal government?
If so, I'm in!
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-10-11 20:37:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I want to agree yet Godchicken makes a good point.
I live in Massachusetts. I'm going to have to go back and really read this.
Submitted by sideshow (user info) at 2005-10-11 18:55:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love you Q!
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2005-10-11 18:53:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
George Bush deserves assasination, and possibly some rape.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-10-11 17:34:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, and btw, I read in the fron tpage of the Union-Tribune today that, as of now, more NG and Reserves have been killed than regular Army troops.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2005-10-11 17:22:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by RydinJ (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:14:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, thats all I want is to be here EVERY YEAR for the rest of my life instead of the bi Yearly scedule us Active Duty Soldiers are on.. Yes makes perfect sense....
And another note regarding NG and Reserve.... 42 ID, sure u civilans and alot of us military fucks alike will make fun of them and their patch... But I have read up on some of the things this "Faggy" NG unit has gone through, and after this tour I will be proud to wear that combat patch on one of my uniforms, for being NG they sure have done alot. AND BTW, 42 ID which is a Reserve unit, are the leaders of the current OIF III taskforce, so I think they have handled this rotation rather well.
--
Well said.
A sincere thanks for serving your country, while shlubs like me sit behind a desk all day.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-10-11 17:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
GodChicken,
Obviously if something like this went to public debate and then a vote, it would be up to your public to decide.
I just think it's interesting because a lot of Americans seem to be upset with the way things are being handled, but aren't doing shit about it. Like I said in the post, at least this is a starting point to get more involved.
Deciding whether or not something like this should pass is entirely up to your people.
I believe the motion is to prevent any more NG troops being sent over, so they wouldn't be pulling anyone out.. just preventing more people from serving overseas.
Can anyone answer this? If a member of the NG wanted to serve in Iraq, could they enlist in the military and be sent over? Or is the NG already part of the military? Not sure how it's set up...
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-10-11 17:01:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jack, I'm not telling anyone that they should support this... I'm merely trying to make more people aware of the movement so they can decide for themselves.
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea to have troops dedicated to protecting your own soil for times of crisis... but then again I don't pay that much attention to how much of your military is actually overseas right now, or even what percentage of your national guard is in Iraq. Really, I am just trying to create awareness of the movement, that's all.
Indo, I don't work overseas. All of my emo bitching on that post is unfounded, and isn't fair to Americans. I can't realistically point to the citizens of the US as the source of why I dislike western culture. I understand why you're upset with me about that... sorry.
RydinJ, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:35:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Declaring war on a state of mind would be rather amusing....
I hereby declare war on stupid!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:26:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this "time of war" talk only applies to declared wars. And good luck getting Congress to do that now....
----------------
i am not sure about that either. And I don't think they would declare a war on Iraq, but on terror...or maybe declare a state of emergency. I could very well be wrong here, but I think the Fed govt could do something to prevent this, even if it is sinking to the level of cutting certain funding to MA.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:16:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:57:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
The US Supreme Court has ruled [Perpich, 496 U.S. at 351, n. 24] that if a proposed foreign deployment of the National Guard were to impair the Guard's ability to respond to domestic public safety or security emergencies - conditions that clearly prevail today - then the US constitution authorizes a governor to refuse a presidential request to deploy the Guard abroad.
-----------------------------------
Guess it might be legal.
I am not sure this changes in a time of war though.
-------
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this "time of war" talk only applies to declared wars. And good luck getting Congress to do that now....
Submitted by RydinJ (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, thats all I want is to be here EVERY YEAR for the rest of my life instead of the bi Yearly scedule us Active Duty Soldiers are on.. Yes makes perfect sense....
And another note regarding NG and Reserve.... 42 ID, sure u civilans and alot of us military fucks alike will make fun of them and their patch... But I have read up on some of the things this "Faggy" NG unit has gone through, and after this tour I will be proud to wear that combat patch on one of my uniforms, for being NG they sure have done alot. AND BTW, 42 ID which is a Reserve unit, are the leaders of the current OIF III taskforce, so I think they have handled this rotation rather well.
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:12:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jack, I know you're the resident King of the Republicans here, but seriously...
I'm quite aware of all the shit that went down in NO and surrounding areas. My fine city has been completely assraped by the refugees that have decided they need to drag down the property values by never leaving. The are hurricane katrina panhandlers on every corner.
My purpose was not to start up a moral and ethical debate on who's at fault for that whole mess. My head hurts far too much for me to bother, but I would gladly debate you on it tomorrow, possibly, when I've had a chance to take a nap. As liberal as I tend to be, I think you'd be shocked at my views on the subject. No, my intention was to correct Jonny's assumption that that petition had anything at all to do with utilising the national guard here at home.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:08:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2005-10-11 16:03:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:53:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
Katrina's aftermath wouldn't have been so bad if we'd had some nat'l guard to send down to help. But we really didn't, because they're all busy occupying Iraq.
--
If I hadn't been wearing Depends when I was reading this things would have been real messy.
Take the time to read this. It is a comprehensive and fascinating article showing what a clusterfuck Louisiana and New Orleans are.
When you're done, you won't be so quick to judge the Federal gov't.
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:57:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The US Supreme Court has ruled [Perpich, 496 U.S. at 351, n. 24] that if a proposed foreign deployment of the National Guard were to impair the Guard's ability to respond to domestic public safety or security emergencies - conditions that clearly prevail today - then the US constitution authorizes a governor to refuse a presidential request to deploy the Guard abroad.
-----------------------------------
Guess it might be legal.
I am not sure this changes in a time of war though.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:55:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:53:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
um... Jonny... this has nothing to do with deploying national guard troops within america. It's to keep the government from being able to send the people who are supposed to be in reserve, protecting us when the other arms of the military are deployed, from being shipped overseas.
Katrina's aftermath wouldn't have been so bad if we'd had some nat'l guard to send down to help. But we really didn't, because they're all busy occupying Iraq.
-------------------------
Yes it does. It is saying that state govt's can decide if they want to deploy national guardsmen out of the stste.
Katrina's aftermath wouldn't have been so bad if the Gov, and mayor weren't fucktards and had followed the plan that they sgined into place the year before.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:53:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I"M NOT RAEDING ALL TAHT1111111111jwnd
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:53:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
um... Jonny... this has nothing to do with deploying national guard troops within america. It's to keep the government from being able to send the people who are supposed to be in reserve, protecting us when the other arms of the military are deployed, from being shipped overseas.
Katrina's aftermath wouldn't have been so bad if we'd had some nat'l guard to send down to help. But we really didn't, because they're all busy occupying Iraq.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
while I encourage your efforts, I can't support this.
We're there now for better or worse, and sabotaging the military in this manner is not going to help to extract us from there, it will only put more stress on the active duty forces.
We're going to die to allow a bunch of thankless peasants exercise their right of self-determination, and that is the only way it will happen.
Look back in history to the early 90's and see what happened to Somalia after we pulled out.
We had to go back, and a lot more innocent people died than was necessary.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:39:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Do I post what policies Canada should follow?
Jesus.
Until you exercise a vote down here, keep your opinion to yourself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:30:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
So, when Boston gets hit by a hurricane, I can tell Governnor Schwartzenegger "Ehh, don't send any National Guard troops to help out - I don't approve of their liberal policies."
---------------------------------
Nevermind the shaky legal ground this is on. I am 99.9% sure that a state governor can't refuse to send national guardsmen if congress and the pres want them to go.
by the way, are you working overseas? From your whining here it sounded that way http://www.ubersite.com/m/76419#1625359
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:37:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The feds control the purse strings. Mass. couldn't last a month without federal cash to keep the libs afloat in their social programs. Not a bad idea, it just wouldn't work.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-10-11 15:30:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So, when Boston gets hit by a hurricane, I can tell Governnor Schwartzenegger "Ehh, don't send any National Guard troops to help out - I don't approve of their liberal policies."