# War Protesting in Schools



## JetwingX (Mar 5, 2003)

[Disclaimer] Alright I understand that some people believe that we should go to war with Iraq. I respect your opinion and your are probably going to disagree or possably be offended. This is fair warning but you may still voice your opinion. [/Disclaimer]

ok now that i have that over with i want to share a few stories about war portests during school in my local area.

Several weeks ago students at Petaluma High School cut classes to protest war. every single student that protested was suspended for a week. I personally believe that what the students were doing was not in deservence of a suspension.

Today My high school (El Molino HS) students of all age levels (9-12 grade) went out side to protest the war on Iraq. Most cut class all day, but some (like me) only cut one or two periods to protest. I went out there because i felt that that was the way I could show that I was anti-war. i heard one comment from a teacher saying "This is the 1960's all over again." there wer riot poliece patrolling every half hour even though it never got out of hand. All that we are going to suffer as a punishment is a cut refferal (which for many is going to end up being a detention )

Anyways I want to know what people opinion is on the war on Iraq and school protests.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 5, 2003)

I'm going to show my protest...

I'm going to stay home and watch FOXNEWS all day the first day we go to war... how fun that will be.

Go GW!!


----------



## Ricky (Mar 5, 2003)

My school did a protest.
http://www.gazette.com/popup.php?id=220326
"War is poopy!"


----------



## phatcactus (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *My school did a protest.
> http://www.gazette.com/popup.php?id=220326
> "War is poopy!" *


If that doesn't make Bush change his mind, NOTHING will.  

- Brian


----------



## twister (Mar 5, 2003)

This doesn't have to do with schools but it has to do with going to war.  It's a song called 'Have You Forgotten?'  I heard it for the first time today and gives good reasons on why we should go to war.

Have You Forgotten?


----------



## dixonbm (Mar 5, 2003)

I'll be right there with you, Scott, with Fox News on all day, all night. 

Go Bush!


----------



## quiksan (Mar 5, 2003)

I'm no war monger, but cmon.
deal with it now, or deal with it later.
we already dropped the ball once.  we wouldn't be here today if things had been done then...
just a thought.

i'll be watching the news too...


----------



## ChoMomma (Mar 5, 2003)

Me personally I do support the war.

But then again I think Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to stay in power the last time.  But that is why Jr. is partly doing this for George Sr.

I served for 8 years in the Army, and I've been many places while serving in the Army.  Let me just say this will more than likely be a quick war.  It's not like finding the terrorists, they hide well.  Saddam doesn't do that very well in his palaces.  

Protesting:

Protest till your lungs bleed for all I care.  It's your right and I served 8 years so that you could protest if you felt like it.  We all are allowed to have our opinions and to express them.  I think schools are wrong for punishing students for speaking out against the war.  I do however think students are wrong (highschool and below) for protesting on school grounds during school hours.  Their protest during those hours reflects badly on the school and the control they have over the students they are supposed to be teaching.  

If you are in college, well picket and shout in your school's quad all day long. You are paying for your education, if you want to protest instead of going to school then so be it.  Your choice, your money. 

Now in the case of the man in NY that was arrested in a mall for wearing a t-shirt that said "give peace a chance" well I think that was really f**ked up.  He bought the t-shirt from a vendor at the mall and it's his freedom of speech.  The mall is a defacto public place.  He was not being disorderly or causing a public nuisance.  The mall management is a bunch of facist pricks who should be forced to read the constitution 2000 times on a 1920 x 1080 resolution 15.4" dell laptop screen  hehe.

my .02 cents.  YMMV

** I didn't vote for GW, and I lived in Texas @ Ft. Hood for 4 years while he was gov. of TX.


----------



## edX (Mar 6, 2003)

> But then again I think Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to stay in power the last time.  But that is why Jr. is partly doing this for George Sr.



i don't support the war. not now. i don't think it's fair to confuse the past with the present. i was all for finsihing the job when we started it before. but clearly if Sr had thought that was the right thing to do, he would have done it.

so now we have this rationale for war: 'let's see, we kicked your butt years ago. since then you've slapped that kid next to you a few times, but every time he slaps you back. so you've started eating your wheaties. and your brother hit me hard when i wasn't looking. i think we better kick your ass again just for good measure. not that you've done anything wrong recently but try to maintain your defenses and be related to the wrong guy. i'm pretty sure i'll feel bigger and stronger and safer once we're done.'

why can't we just keep inspecting the hell out of him, and if he wants to start something, we'll finish it. until then i see no reason to endanger others lives - our military's and their innocents. let actions be taken justly, not out of fear. let's not throw the first blow just because we can.

oh, the original post - hey, if that's what you believe then do it. if it's just to be cool and be against authority, it doesn't say much. having met Jet, believe it is the former with him. i can't say that i can believe that is true of all high school students. but i have great respect for those who stand up for their beliefs when it is needed. and i certainly believe a reality check about the horrorific nature of war is sorely needed in thiis country again.


----------



## ChoMomma (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *
> why can't we just keep inspecting the hell out of him, and if he wants to start something, we'll finish it. until then i see no reason to endanger others lives - our military's and their innocents. let actions be taken justly, not out of fear. let's not throw the first blow just because we can.
> 
> *



I agree, we should continue inspections.  Saddam is like a kid testing his teacher to see how much he can get away with before he gets his recess taken away.  

Inspections as long as they continue fully supported and backed by the UN (with threat of force) should continue... cause I'm telling you that somebody is hiding something in his big ass sand box...


----------



## Dusky (Mar 6, 2003)

When I was in middle school, a great number of my schoolmates protested Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 (some laws dealing with illegal immigrants).  I knew some of the people protesting.  I didn't think they were doing it because they felt Proposition 187 was a step backward.  I believe they were doing it for the experience...  the thrill of taking part in a deviant act.

I've only been out of high school for six years, and I already look down on the average high school student.  To me, the average high school student lacks the insight necessary to fully comprehend how war is prejudicial and beneficial.



> I'm going to stay home and watch FOXNEWS all day the first day we go to war... how fun that will be.
> 
> Go GW!!



How is it possible for someone as religious are you are to say something as tactless as the above?  Do children have a say as to what part of the world they are born in?  Your(s) didn't, and neither did those born in Iraq.


----------



## toast (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Dusky:_*I've only been out of high school for six years, and I already look down on the average high school student. To me, the average high school student lacks the insight necessary to fully comprehend how war is prejudicial and beneficial.*



Even a six-years old child is able to understand American foreign policy and hence feel the iniquity of this upcoming war.
It has so *few* equations compared to other conflicts such as Kosovo or most African conflicts, it is so brutally handled and by Saddam, and by GW Bush, it is so caricatural as to show how the UN can be a damn mess... that I'm convinced *even my mother* (47 yrs-old, doesn't watch TV, doesn't keep herself informed at all and doesn't understand a word of politics or internatl. relations) has understood 90% of the whole thing.

My opinion on Iraq and school protests is that here in France, if you miss class to protest against war or to play soccer, teachers consider it the same. Which is quite fair IMHO.
However, if you miss school to watch FoxNews, you may get into trouble


----------



## Cat (Mar 6, 2003)

The only 'punishment' I ever got for protesting was that at the end off the year my parents were informed of the hours I missed due to protest, school occupation etc. BTW those protests were against school reform laws of our own government. During the occupation of our school our principal just advised us to keep it nice and quiet and that in her opinion this wasn't the right way of protesting, by occupying public buildings etc. So we also sent letters to local newspapers explaining our reasons for protesting and demonstrated down in the streets. It was all in all very educative.  You learn how to stand up for your own opinion, how to manifest it, how to partecipate in a public constructive discussion, etc. Most kids first simply run along without understanding anything about it, but they also learn. It's your right to voice your opinion and to protest, but it's also the right of your school to punish you for missing classes...


----------



## Dusky (Mar 6, 2003)

> Even a six-years old child is able to understand American foreign policy and hence feel the iniquity of this upcoming war



I disagree.  This is where I should cite Piaget's theory of cognitive development to prove why I disagree.  Oh, but I won't.  I'm too lazy to go pick up my Educational Psychology book and refresh my memory of it.

I watch the playground while children ages 6 to 10 (11?) have their recess.  Common complaints are in the form of:  "he lost his spot because he got out of the line."  The other child says, "yeah, I got out of line because Mrs. Perez came to me and asked me to do something for her."

This incident took place yesterday, and if I hadn't been there to do something about it, the two students would have gone on and on, pushing each other, and saying "this is my spot", "no, its not", instead of listening to one another, considering each other's reasons for their stance.

The most children can tell you about war is that people are killed, and killing is bad.  Their attitudes can be influenced by those of their teachers, parents, and priests, or whatever applies.


----------



## phatcactus (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twister _
> *This doesn't have to do with schools but it has to do with going to war.  It's a song called 'Have You Forgotten?'  I heard it for the first time today and gives good reasons on why we should go to war.*



It seems to be more about 9/11 and Bin Laden than Iraq.  It doesn't mention Saddam or his nukes or his yummy yummy oil.

I'm no expert, but I thought this war was not about 9/11 or Bin Laden, but about Saddam having things that Bush doesn't want him to have.  Or have I just not been watching enough Foxnews?

- Brian


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 6, 2003)

I can see both sides of this argument and I'm probably one of only a handful of people that is still on the fence on this issue.

Both sides of this political debate are going over the top on this! Bush is going way to FAST and the opposition countries are tip towing around, thinking of any EXCUSE to let a bastard of a man off the hook. Plus take him at his word (who in my opinion is lower than dirt). Remember inspectors inspect and enforcers disarm. So what are the UN people there now?


(Note: UNSCOM (the first UN "inspectors") destroyed way more weapons of mass destruction than the bombing of the Gulf War)

To get back on topic:
IMHO School is for learning. Your own time is to do what you like. Protesting during school should be treated as an absence/skipping school. No more, no less.


----------



## toast (Mar 6, 2003)

*Dusky*, don't take my post too literally !  Will it work with seven-year old children, if not with six ? 

Amen to your last sentences, Satcomer. My exact thoughts.


----------



## acidtuch10 (Mar 6, 2003)

I have seen parents praise, and honor there child when they go to war - or abroad to protect rights of others and ourselves. These parents are proud and will be the first to stand and let one know that there child is in a US service - But never have I heard of a parent standing up and saying how proud they are of someone (child or other) protesting ....


----------



## edX (Mar 6, 2003)

acidtouch - you just don't know the right parents


----------



## acidtuch10 (Mar 6, 2003)

Possiably ---- But 8 yrs in the USMC has let me see both sides.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 6, 2003)

My view is that school is basically a precursor to work.  If I leave without permission, I shouldn't get paid for it.  However, sometimes that is the only way to grab people's attention and I support and RESPECT every student who stood up and protested.  I think in this country we don't respect teenage opionion enough, only teenage spending power. 

For all of you who have said that you will be glued to FOX when the action starts, remember that a lot of innocent people will be killed when those bombs start falling.  There is no such thing as a "smart" bomb, only smart people.


----------



## acidtuch10 (Mar 6, 2003)

My personal opinion, where were the protesters when Saddam was starving and killing his own people. Where were the peace protesters when Marines were being blown to kingdom come at this embassie or on that UN 'peace' mission. Where were the peace protesters when a small boat tootled up to a US warship and blew up killing sailors and destroying property paid for by out tax dollars. On and on...where were the protesters when Pol Pot was killing untold thousands of his own people. Where were the peae protesters when Idi Amin was doing the same? If a system of thought is not applied rationally and equally to all, it is not a rational system but invokes insanity in place of reality. On and on we can go with such examples.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 6, 2003)

So peace protesters alone are responsible for standing up for the rights of the wronged????  That sounds like a pretty off balance approach if you ask me.


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 6, 2003)

ok I accept my punishment for leaving class as I would if I left work to protest. Now I agree the elementry students may not quite know why they are protesting (if they did), but High School kids do have an idea of why they are protesting. Not to do it because it was fun or cool but because we believe that it was wrong.

I thank all of you for your opinions and let the decision continue but please don't let it get out of hand


----------



## Ricky (Mar 6, 2003)

As far as I'm concerned, all of you people who are for the war can go fight in it.  :\


----------



## twister (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by phatcactus _
> *It seems to be more about 9/11 and Bin Laden than Iraq.  It doesn't mention Saddam or his nukes or his yummy yummy oil.
> 
> I'm no expert, but I thought this war was not about 9/11 or Bin Laden, but about Saddam having things that Bush doesn't want him to have.  Or have I just not been watching enough Foxnews?
> ...



My point is we need to stop Saddam before he does something to the same scale as Bid Laden.  If we can prevent a tragedy then we are all better off.


----------



## edX (Mar 6, 2003)

let's prevent one tragedy by causing another. where's the sense, or even logic, in that?


----------



## twister (Mar 7, 2003)

If we're in control I don't think it's going to be a tragedy upon us.  If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again.


----------



## acidtuch10 (Mar 7, 2003)

-= As far as I'm concerned, all of you people who are for the war can go fight in it. :\ =-  


 Been there and done that ---- I spent many days in the middle east, after it was all done we went back as apart of IFOR (now its NFOR) to remove the mines and explosives so that the civilians wouldn't have come in contact with them... Mind you that saddam and others like him planted all these mines in the first place.... but didn't care if a childs leg was blown off... instead we went back and cleared mine fields... And on to the protesting.... why aren't the protestors crying "exile to Saddam" whom has a long history of abuse towards his countrymen? This man kills and maims his fellow Iraqs. Yet we have human shields going there to protect him and to protest the US for wanting to defeat him and bring a regime change to the area. Why didnt anyone protest against Saddam when he release chemical weapon in northern Iraq? Or when his troops kill other ethnic group in his country?

As far as I am concerned these protests are BS  and un-warranted.


----------



## fryke (Mar 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *let's prevent one tragedy by causing another. where's the sense, or even logic, in that?  *



A good friend of mine recently said: "Fighting for peace is like f*!ing for virginity."


----------



## edX (Mar 7, 2003)

> If we're in control I don't think it's going to be a tragedy upon us.



so it only counts if it's our tragedy ? the lives of others don't matter?


----------



## twister (Mar 7, 2003)

I just mean that if we don't do something they will continue to attack us.  I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings.

What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people?  If we back down they won't.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 7, 2003)

I agree that we need to do something, I don't believe that it should entail bombing the hell out of Iraq. 

Somewhere along the line we have forgotten the "walk softly" part of the Monroe Doctrine and I do believe that is what is missing.

I think that bombing Iraq is really a response to our inability to find all of Al Qaeda and bin Laden.  And, trying to link al Qaeda and Saddam would be like trying to find a link between an American Fundamentalist Christian and a Wican.    The two are anethma to one another and even a common enemy is unlikely to bring the two together.   

Sanctions were working and the inspections are slowly achieving their goal.  GW is willing to destroy the UN as well as American relations with some pretty important allies, twist the arms of the weakest allies, bribe those who are on sitting on the fence and probably destroy American good will in the middle east for the next half century and spend somewhere from 50 billion to 200 billion that this country can now ill afford. Why?????????  What possible goal could be so important and if one exists, why aren't we being told.


----------



## Cat (Mar 7, 2003)

> if we don't do something they will continue to attack us


This is an unverified assumption, which is equally used by the terrorists themselves: "If we dont stop the ami's now they'll go on killing our fellow muslims".


> I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings.


 Who sows wind will reap storm. Attacking a country is the best way of provoking a legitimate response attack. 





> What are our other choices?


 France and Germany proposed an alternative. England seems to turn around too. I would like to suggest the following: 
Try to discover the reasons for terrorism and
try to undo the reasons and causes for terrorism, without provoking new attacks. E.g. by using diplomacy instead of force. By eliminating hunger, ignorance and poverty. By supporting the development of democracy in a peaceful way. By setting an example for disarmament and respect for international treaties. In the long run I think this approach will yield better results than bombing and invading.


----------



## toast (Mar 7, 2003)

*twister*: _If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again._

Please explain what "again" #1 and "again" #2 stand for. I must have missed that history class where Iraq invaded USA again and again.

_I just mean that if we don't do something they will continue to attack us._

Continue ? Attack ? Really, I don't see what you mean. Please explain, give me some clues,  I feel some Iraq offensive on the US has supervened and I've just missed it.

_I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings._

Don't you understand both are linked ? Don't you understand that terrorism results of US troops controlling some parts of Middle East ?
Do you think Israeli troops invading Palestinian land has stopped extremist Palestinian terrorism ? Don't you think it has fuelled it ? Can't you see any possible instructive parallel between the US Iraq attack and the Tsahal troops occupying Palestinian ruins ?

(1) Bomb explodes at Tel-Aviv >
(2) Tsahal invades 60% Gaza strip, on same night Sharon makes offensive speech against Al Aqsa martyrs to justify Tsahal moves >
(3) Isr. army kills two Palestinians, one aged 4, while replying to stone throwing from local population >
(4) Palestinian pop. makes dramatical buryal, population angers, some young males move to terrorism
(5) Bomb explodes in Jerusalem one month after. back to stage (1).

(This logic is detailed in Elizabeth Schemla's last report, as published in her last book. E. Schemla is a French grand reporter who has spent years 1995-2001 in Palestinian camps).

_What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people?_

Are you completely paranoid or just affected at some serious point by US propaganda ? You better know this straight: Iraqi army is not invading your continent tomorrow !
Moreover, you could transpose you own words into Saddam's mouth, as an excuse not to disarm. Just imagine the following is from Saddam Hussein:

_I refuse to disarm because US is a permanent threat in Middle East. What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people ?_

As you can see, your logic makes strictly no sense: it's a hawk strategy, a pre-emptive strike lie, and this behaviour is growing more and more unbearable as we learn everyday from Hans Blix reports that Iraq is disarming.

As I'm writing this, France Info radio just annouces that, in three minutes, the 3rd inspectors' report will be finished.

Iraq is disarming. Time for me to add a NO WAR mention in my sig.


----------



## edX (Mar 7, 2003)

is it possible that unprovoked attacks will increase the number of terrorist attacks in this country? i mean, if someone declared war on you, would you not then escalate your attacks on them? besides, we have nothing but speculation linking sadam to terrorism - even in Israel.

we went after bin laden in afghanistan and have only done that half right. i could at least see the correalation there. so now that we can't find our real enemy, let's just attack the next guy we don't agree with? even israel had sadam where they could have finished him off not long ago and they didn't. why the sudden need to do something that has been decided against several times?
Let's deal with the terrorists where they are and not where they possibly come from. Let's continue to make sure they don't successfuly operate in this country or any other.

once more we are calling to 'liberate' a people we don't even know based upon our own fears and cultural norms. does this ring a bell? can you spell V-I-E-T-N-A-M?


----------



## Cat (Mar 7, 2003)

Suddenly I am reminded of the only time I actually liked an american president in a movie (played by Jack Nicholson: guess the movie), because he tried the road of peace and diplomacy right up to his macabre end (and shouted down a hawk general  ). Bad example maybe ... but still.


----------



## twister (Mar 7, 2003)

Ok maybe my views are skewed, but everyones are tpp.  There is no good answer to what we should do.  When i said : "If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again." i ment terrorists in general.  We knew of Bin Laden and his ideas before Sept 11th and yet did nothing.  Look what happened.  Now we ideas that Saddam has weapons of mass distruction and I think we need to work on dis-arming him before he sets them off.  Will he ever do that?  We don't know.  No one does.



> Try to discover the reasons for terrorism and
> try to undo the reasons and causes for terrorism, without provoking new attacks. E.g. by using diplomacy instead of force. By eliminating hunger, ignorance and poverty. By supporting the development of democracy in a peaceful way. By setting an example for disarmament and respect for international treaties. In the long run I think this approach will yield better results than bombing and invading.



good luck with that one. It sounds good but how realistic is it? It'd take houndreds of years to try and then what?  Two single people argue every now and then, how would we be able to hold the world together?  Someone will always disagree.  I'll glady go for it if you figure it out though.

Anyways... these are just my thoughts.  I won't discuss this topic any more because I don't think it would get us anywhere.  I'm all for peace but don't think it's realistic until we get people like Saddam and Bin Ladden out of the way.


----------



## Cat (Mar 7, 2003)

_I'm all for peace but don't think it's realistic until we get people like Saddam and Bin Ladden out of the way._ The only problem being they (arguably rightfully) think the same of Bush.

I know I made a strong and idealistic claim, but if we don''t work towards the realization of ideals, we will never get any closer to them. Reasons for terorism even I can name just here and now are: fear, oppression, ignorance, hunger, poverty, propaganda, fundamentalism (of any kind and religion, including Bushism). Instead of burning up millions in weapons, support development of third-world countries, or the world food programme, or the creation of schools etc. Specifically the US could set an example of respecting treaties by supporting them in the first place, like the non proliferation pact, and the Kyoto protocol. By unilaterally cancelling these and by threatening to make the UN irrelevant by solo - actions ultimately the US actually help and support the policies of "evil" countries. An attack provokes a reaction. if you want to avoid a reaction (terrorism), don't start with giving them a reason and a cause (bombing and invading). Using exactly the same reasons the US give for their actions, Korea could legitimately attack pre-emptively the US themselves.


----------



## edX (Mar 7, 2003)

> _words of wisdom from twister_
> There is no good answer to what we should do.



this i can whole heartedly agree with. but that isn't reason for us to rush to do the greater evil in the name of anything that is good. and at this point, i think that is all most of the world is asking. 

from where i see it, the 3 most dangerous men in the world right now are (in this order)

1) Osama
2) Bush, Jr.
3) Sadam 

none of them are right. they're all very wrong. and you're right - there's no easy answer with what to do about them.


----------



## fryke (Mar 7, 2003)

can only totally agree, Ed. plus: I always wonder where that "we" comes from in this issue. Why is it that US citizens think "they" (the US) have to do something. In my view, it's the UN who has to do something, and we might all agree that Saddam Hussein isn't 'just another friendly neighbour'. But the world has an instrument for issues like that, and that's the UN. And hearing stuff like "We might attack Iraq even without another UN resolution" kinda turns me off.

It should be more like this: "Hello world, we've seen that Mr. Hussein doesn't comply to the UN resolutions of 1991, and we think the UN should act harder in these matters. We, the US would like to help the UN with our troops." The way the US representatives act now in the world is more like: "Hey, dudes, we're going to war. Join us or f?! off. At least get out of our way. Oh, yeah, and we need your countries as bases, because it'd be a bit too much for us to start in our country."

Humour is the last man standing.


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

*Ed*: _besides, we have nothing but speculation linking sadam to terrorism - even in Israel._

Very right. It should be reminded that Iraq is one of the only country in the ME *not* to have an institutional-formed terrorist movement (in simpler words: state terrorism orgs). Syria, Lebanon, Jordania, Palestine (obviously), but also Israel, Egypt

_we went after bin laden in afghanistan and have only done that half right._

Half ?! You certainy meant "third", "quarter" or "fifth", if not "tenth" or "dozenth" (not sure this one exists) !
1) Afghanistan has not recovered from the war (or should I say: US frenzy) from an economic, humanitarian, social and psychological point of view.
2) USA is no more helping Afghanistan to recompose its political institutions, contrarirly to what was promised.
3) AFP/Reuters says two sons of O. Bin Laden have been spotted in Afgh. by Minister of the Interior of Balouchistan (Pakist. province).
> Afgh. has proved fight against terrorism is far more complex than bombing a delimited territory. Plus, it has comforted terrorists that the US are very much powerless against organisations such as Al Qaida.

_Let's deal with the terrorists where they are and not where they possibly come from._

The USA cannot compromise its economic interests (mainly weapons) with Lebanon, Syria and Israel (and those are only examples). 

_once more we are calling to 'liberate' a people we don't even know based upon our own fears and cultural norms. does this ring a bell? can you spell V-I-E-T-N-A-M?_

But there's no communist threat excuse to war in Iraq.


----------

