I noticed this comment: "We have among our Granny members both veterans and mothers of service people"

So if one of YOUR kids ends up assigned to recruiting, you'll be sure to protest against them as well. Right?

Protesting against recruiters IS protesting against the military. Most recruiters are themselves, war veterans.

I've also read mulitple alligations of deception but absolutely no specifics.

"We go to recruiting centers less as protesters and more as educators and consumer advocates."

Oh so that explains why the grannies were YELLING at parents of serving Soldiers, Airman, etc.

BTW, stop calling people who speak out against the Grannies "war supporters". We don't have to support the war to find your condescending portrayal of those us who chose to serve insulting.

Semper Fidelis

I didn't realize that we have raging grannies in mountain view. That is awesome!!! I hope they succeed in cutting recruitment. We don't want these government paid liars in our community, preying on our young and vulnerable children as soon as they begin approach the age of 18.

Hey 4l4n,

Let's see, you simultaneously broad brush our troops as "government paid liars" and characterize them as "vulnerable children".

I don't suppose you actually have something intelligent to add? I didn't think so.

Dale,
414 stated that the recruiters are "government paid liars", not the troops. They do lie and they break their promises as soon as they have another vulnerable young adult signed up, and after that the leaders in the armed forces continue to lie and break promises to the troops.

"Go Grannies",

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Recruiters ARE the troops. Saying "they lie" in reference to recruiters is like saying "they have sex with students" in reference to teachers.

So tell me. When one of those "vulnerable young adults" who signed up later get assigned to recruiter duty... You suddenly feel the right to question their integrity can call them liars?

You fail logic.

> Recruiters ARE the troops.

Yes, the worst kind of troops, troops that lie to try to trick other people into becoming troops.

> Saying "they lie" in reference to recruiters is like saying "they have sex with students" in reference to teachers.

A very small percentage of teachers has sex with students, but a very large percentage of recruiters lie to potential recruits.

> When one of those "vulnerable young adults" who signed up later get assigned to recruiter duty... You suddenly feel the right to question their integrity can call them liars?

Absolutely. If they had integrity they wouldn't be working for the military, irresponsibly recruiting often poor and vulnerable young americans to go off and kill people for no good reason. Its not a good lesson for our young adults, they often come back with PTSD from all the traumatic experiences.

"A very small percentage of teachers has sex with students, but a very large percentage of recruiters lie to potential recruits."

Really. What is the percent and what is your source? I'm going to use my psychic powers to determine you don't have one.

"Absolutely. If they had integrity they wouldn't be working for the military"

So basically you just proved this has nothing to do with our troops who get assigned to recruiter duty. You're just anti-military.

"Its not a good lesson for our young adults, they often come back with PTSD from all the traumatic experiences."

You question their integrity and then pretend to care about them. That's rich.

Its true that the recruiters have little integrity, but no one deserves a lifetime of PTSD.

Troll much?

Never.

The Raging Grannies are all idiotic narcissistic leftovers from the Vietnam era. They are the liars and they never gave a damn about our troops. Their behavior only brings shame to themselves.

The Raging Grannies are wonderful. It is the US Government who doesn't give a damn about our troops.

I don't think the above Grannies comments are anti-military. I think they're against killing people for no good reason. Few were anti-military in the 1940s. That's because we struck back against identifiable enemies from specific nations. Today the issues are different. Allegedly, we're striking back against 9/11. But we have no evidence proving Iraq caused 9/11. We do have evidence that terrorism on U.S. soil was countenanced by the FBI in Washington, DC before 9/11 (they were told the suspects who later piloted the planes were being trained, and did nothing about it - so, "We have met the enemy and he is us," as cartoonist Walt Kelly once said). We found no evidence to prove, as Bush claimed, that Iraq had WMDs. Scapegoat Osama Bin Laden, to my knowledge, cannot be hunted down in Iraq, as he's never been there. So what we have done did not recompense 9/11. What we have done is throw a nation into chaos it will take years for it to recover from and, despite what Iraqi and U.S. officials claim, Iraq should be helping itself out of its civil war, not receiving help from an impoverished and indebted U.S. The war we wage now is a bit like going to Iraq in 1942 saying Hitler was there. I'm not anti-military if the issues are clear. I'm against war based on lies.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?