Should anti-war protesters participate in Veterans Day Parade?

Lisa: I am torn also, but come down on the side of their being allowed in the parade. The freedom of their speech is what their service was all about, and you might be surprised how many of the veterans are against war. Our church had a doctor who served patching up GI's from D-Day to the end of the war near the front, and he would have been one of the lead marchers!

Yes they should as long as they are peaceful and not typical of some of those groups. And, spectators have a right to express their opinions.

I am all for freedom of speech but a parade honoring veterans is marred by protesters not honoring our service people.

I think it would be equitable only if neo-Nazis and KKK members (...no, I don't agree with anything these hateful groups stand for...) are allowed to peacefully participate in Rainbow Coalition-type parades, or if far-right groups are allowed to peacefully participate in San Francisco's gay rights parades. I know these are extreme examples, but if it's about freedom of speech, it must apply to all, not just select groups.

It would be interesting to compare the reactions of the participants and spectators from one parade to the other. I'll bet the veteran's spectators will voice some opinions but remain civil, as might the Rainbow Coalition, but the San Francisco parade might predictably turn into a near riot. However, I've been wrong before...

Extending Lisa's solution, let the protestors follow the end of the parade, and those spectators who want to stay and cheer them on can do so. I'll bet they'd have a small audience (which is probably why the protest group wouldn't agree to that scenario).

NO NO NO NO HELL NO!!!!!!!!Veterans Day Parade is to HONOR not to protest them!!!!!!!!! I get upset just thinking about it.. I would have a BIG problem seeing protesters at the parade....It would NOT be a good idea people might get physical/violent..I would want to kick some ass...just my opinion..Thanks.

It just amazes me how the far right has managed to frame the debate so that "supporting veterans" = supporting war. If you want to support our veterans, help see that they get the medical and mental health care they need when they come back wounded and maimed from this needless war. If you truly support our troops, you should call for bringing them home. As for protests at the parade, or in the parade, they didn't fight and risk their lives for the "right" to sit down and shut up.

I would be opposed to this because the pro-war people will likely attack the peace people.

Let us keep in mind the peace people are also comprise of veterens who fought with "honor".

Mike your assumptions are wrong, vets are also opposed to the war
as well.

This is a volunteer army that is quite different from Vietnam.Men and women who have served in Iraq and now want to protest the war... that is why the war on terrorism is so important so that we may live peacefully where everyone can speak their mind and pursue their dreams. God bless the special men and women who take on this selfless effort for all our sakes. I encourage the anti-war veterans to march because it only proves how important this battle is and they should be cheered as veterans because they have served for all of us. I find it discouraging but not as un acceptable as those that bomb recruitment buildings or protesr at funerals.

Boy, assumptions run rampant, good thing we have this sort of discussion.

We do have soldiers who ALSO volunteered in Bush's war policy that now oppose what is going on.

Sad that many of our kids died and are still dieing under false pretext.

Our government also researched Iraqi archives which concurs Sadam had no connection with Al Caida.

I don't care who marches as long as everyone knows the truth. Let's not be quik to believe what we are spoon fed through our corrupted government and media.

I don't like war as I don't think any of us do but unfortunately we are in one and our service people deserve to be honored. The peace protesters are not going to get anywhere protesting in a parade in Fresno. I never see a military officer without stopping to thank them for their service and the sacrifices of them and their families. I would love to have all of they home but I dont forsee that happening anytime soon and they need to know that all of us back home are standing behind them. We will be back there again or somewhere else after they attack us again and they will.

With, "There is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" as a foundation for protesting the war, it's worth looking up some data on Saddam's Iraq...

1) meetings between ranking Iraqi "diplomats" and Al Qaeda members & connections prior to some major attacks such as the USS Cole and 9/11;

2) payments made to suicide bombers who have harmed & killed Americans;

3) contrary to recent reports, State Department data showing other terror organizations that have been historically supported by the former Iraqi regime;

4) an empty airliner and 3-car train used for terror training, located in Iraq.

Although a blatant, open connection may not exist, there is plenty of data showing that indirect connections did exist. Sort of like when Kofi Anan claimed he knew nothing about the violation of UN sanctions against Iraq by a couple of European countries while his son ran a profiteering scam. This allowed Kofi to state that he was not involved. Yeah, right.

In the same way, Saddam was able to indirectly funnel funding and support, not only to Al Qaeda, but other terrorist organizations. Post-9/11, he even publicly declared that he would raise his funding for suicide bombers' families from $10,000 to $25,000.

Don't believe me? Go to these links I found through the Bee many months ago:

www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200407211107.asp

www.husseinandterror.com/

Although a staunch supporter for the invasion of Iraq back in '03, I've been open-minded enough to hear arguments against it. I now doubt the rationale behind the invasion, and I wonder if we've stepped into some sort of gang-style beef over whose turf Iraq really is. So I challenge those who oppose this war to check these references with the same open-mindedness I had. The jounalist has as much credibility as any anti-war writer, and backs up his presumptions with verifiable data.

Only history will tell if this war was truly justified. It doesn't look too optimistic at this point, but in our microwave, instant messaging world, a quick solution to the persistent threat of terrorism doesn't exist. ...Unless surrender is an option.

Very few advocates of peace are "peaceful" when they gather. Just watch a C-SPAN coverage of an anti war demonstration - anger, obscenities and crude behavior.

....Fran, doesn't anger, obscenity, and crude behavior describe the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq? You pro-genocide Americans are rapidly approaching Pol Pot's numbers.

"Only history will tell" what does that mean? I hear that from the Bush bully pulpit as well. Is that to infer the facts we have NOW are not credible?

Just Google: "Saddam no connection with Al Caida".

You will find volumes of credible sources.

Maybe we are getting off track, but the protesters have a right to voice an opinion especially if our government blatently lied to us.

People doing unlawful acts durring a protest, march, etc... should be arrested.

The soldiers are not the issue they did not have a choice to fight they were directed by you know who.

I read the links provided but cherry picking articles to substantiate your claim does not help your case, justification, opinion (I'm not sure how serious you are on this).

The overwhelming conclussions I mentioned above have been made of no connection.

The links you provided were dated 2004 and 2006.

I found sources dating back to a few weeks by the U.S. Government contradicting a connection leading up to the war on Iraq.

Regarding the following statements in other posts:

"Only history will tell"--When Europe erupted in the 1930's, we initially didn't get involved, and when we did, there were plenty of people who thought we didn't need to be there because it wasn't our country's problem. History now shows otherwise. HISTORY shows that Saddam ordered the mass execution of hundreds of thousands. HISTORY shows that Saddam invaded Kuwait and taunted the rest of the world afterwards, including giving the intentional appearance that he possessed WMD's and was willing to invade neighboring countries again.

"People doing unlawful acts durring a protest, march, etc... should be arrested"--Last year in Portland protestors assaulted a cop and defecated on an American flag. Assault and going to the bathroom in public are not legal, yet no one was arrested despite video of the protesters being available. I doubt the anti-war vets will get out of hand, but you can't always count on the police to arrest people, especially when the law breakers will turn around and sue the cops for brutality or violating their freedom of assembly and speech!

The soldiers are not the issue they did not have a choice to fight they were directed by you know who"--In today's volunteer military, you have a choice to fight & risk your life or not by signing up. You sign dozens of forms clarifying that you understand you're joining a military organization whose purpose is to defend the country with the lives of the members; you're not just committing to gainful employment.

"...cherry picking..."--irrelevent; did Saddam pay suicide bombers's families? YES. Did Saddam encourage and harbor terrorists? YES. Was there an empty jumbo jet and train for the purpose of teaching terrorist tactics? YES. Do those facts alone show significant "support" of terrorism? YES! Also, just because it's on the 'net doesn't make it credible. Anyone with a little multimedia knowledge can present a very credible-sounding case that has very little substantiated evidence. There is a hefty list of references on the husseinandterror link that even includes the opposition's opinion (Albright and Cohen). That's precisely why I "cherry picked" that particular site; it shows a great degree of documentation and support for Murdock's arguments.

"...your case, justification, opinion (I'm not sure how serious you are on this)"--choice C, "opinion." That's what this site is all about. Upon review of these postings and others elsewhere, I find it disappointing how so many discussion room participants have to resort to name-calling and emotionally loaded statements to express themselves (reference the above entry calling Fran B a "pro-genocide American" and comparing ANY person who isn't protesting the war to Pol Pot). I notice a lot more of that coming from liberal bloggers than from conservative bloggers. Just like any other argument, when people run out of factual statements, they resort to insults. Problem is, in our Jerry Springer / Greek theater society, too many people see unanswered insults as a forensic victory.

Summary: My OPINION (which really doesn't matter a hill o' beans in the end) is that the anti-war protesters should stage their own rally, and let veterans be honored properly. They willingly put their lives on the line so we can sit in the comfort and safety of our homes spewing typed arguments at each other. If protesters disagree with Bush and the Iraqi war, find a different forum other than a veterans' parade to voice an opinion.

1930's invasions of countries in Europe showed clear aggressor states, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on the U.S. we had clear allies and clear enemys.

The bombers of 9/11 were not Iraqi's. Not trained in Iraqi camps, not funded by Iraqi's, not related in any remote way to Iraq.

The US funded and trained death squads in South America for years are we "terrorists"? No, of course not we are the good guys? To be more politically correct it is in our self interest.

We did not go to war against Iraq because of "mass executions" by Sadam. If so the U.S. would sadly be partially to blame because our US made Chemical agents that were used in the mass killings of Iraqi Kurds. The US knew Sadam was killing Kurds and did not act on it at the time.

Let's not forget what government helped build Sadam's military complex, and it wasnt the Russians. We also helped build Iran's military durring the 10 year war between Iraq and Iran.

Practically at a snap of a finger our government can declare any state an ememy after years of collaboration.

We did justifyably kick Sadam out of Kuwait under Herbert Walker Bush, with an end game strategy.

Terrorism is such a loose term used against whom ever is against our U.S. interests. It is simply another way to promote an endless stradegy of Bush's war doctrine of preemption against assumed agressor states.

The war on Iraq was a preemptive strategy with so-called "smoking gun" evidence later now proved to be false. I believe after five years that we are headed in the wrong direction. One of the litmus tests showing the wrong direction is the "Coalition of the willing" with many of the Countries pulling out or leaving a dwindling number of soldiers to help support our soldiers.

Finding Sadam's WMD's is a joke remember the RTCA Dinner?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dii3mzMQ3SQ&feature=related

Our President was joking about WMD's and our soldiers were getting killed to find them.

Now we have found that Sadam did not have WMD's and our US government also concluded this fact.

I am sure everyone values the safety and well being of our soldiers.

I simply do not believe Bush's policies have taken us in the right direction, not in the eyes of crediblility to our citizens or the international community. To date I believe "history" shows that we are not headed in the right direction, and we should not sacrifice anymore soldiers especially given that our President can make joke about it.

I have read many off the cuff partisan remarks on both sides. This should not be a partisan issue and I do not believe it is.

I would have respect for the President if he would simply say this is a stategic move to protect our U.S. oil interests, but that would be a tough sell to the American people, and more difficult constitutionally.

They just played on the American peoples' emotions after 9/11, and it worked. The media failed us and bought into this whole charade.

I read in a previous post: "They willingly put their lives on the line so we can sit in the comfort and safety of our homes spewing typed arguments at each other"
What does this mean? If everyone goes to fight they have a right to have a differences of opinion?

Well anyway soldiers have come from fighting in Iraq and share similar views and opinions.

Veterans Against the Iraq War:
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org/

All march lawfully to educate especially because of the ignorance on subject (from both sides).

This can be done respectfully.