The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 I'm very curious to get your feedback on this. Seems to me that an anti-war veteran is to you what a ganged banged porn star is to a feminist: Iraq Vet Calls on Antiwar Movement to Press President-Elect Obama for Immediate Withdrawal from IraqIn the wake of Barack Obama becoming the forty-fourth president of the United States, we speak with Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, a member of Iraq Veteran Against the War. Sgt. Chiroux served in the Army until being honorably discharged last year after over four years of service, including in Afghanistan, where Obama has pledged to escalate the war. [includes rush transcript] Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, Served in the Army until being honorably discharged last year after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Rush Transcript This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, More... AMY GOODMAN: I want to end by bringing in a veteran. In the early stages of the presidential race nearly two years ago, the war in Iraq was one of the leading issues of the campaign. Barack Obama, of course, billed himself as an antiwar candidate, but there were none perhaps more critical on the issue of war than Iraq Vets Against the War, and we’re joined by one of them now. They marched on the Democratic National Convention in August. They marched on the last debate in Hofstra. And one of the leaders of those marches joins us right now. He is Sergeant Matthis Chiroux. He served in the Army, refused to deploy to Iraq. And now, after the Hofstra protest, where you were arrested—is that right? SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Yes. Yes, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, you face court-martial for not deploying. SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I do. October 15th, at the final presidential debate, the vets turned out to really force the issue that our—you know, our leaders are not hearing from us, and we’ve been put on the back burner in this election. We were responded to by police on horseback who actually trampled an Iraq vet, a very close friend of mine, Nick Morgan, and Barack Obama has yet to condemn that. He has yet to condemn the trampling on the sidewalk of Nick Morgan. AMY GOODMAN: They broke his cheekbone. He was also arrested. SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Right, he was. And so, I’m very excited about what an Obama candidacy—or Obama presidency, the kind of racial unity it can bring, but I’m worried that people in this country believe he is truly going to be an antiwar president, and he’s not. He’s very far away from that. He’s got plans to leave troops in Iraq. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan, go into Pakistan. It will be very interesting. I will be demanding court-martial. The Army is prosecuting me for misconduct, for refusing to deploy to Iraq last June; this was announced to me about a week ago. And I— AMY GOODMAN: You did you that very publicly in Washington. SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I did. I did that after Winter Solider on the Hill in Congress. And this January, I will probably be going to court-martial over my refusal to deploy to Iraq. The Army is trying to downgrade my service and take away my benefits for that choice. And it will be interesting to see how that goes down under an Obama presidency. AMY GOODMAN: You served in Afghanistan? SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I did, Amy, for a short time in 2005, but, however, they ordered me to go to Iraq this year in 2008. And I said no. It’s not—it’s unconstitutional. The occupation of Iraq violates Article VI, Section II of the US Constitution. And Obama, it will be interesting to see if he’s ready to back service members. I mean, he’s spoken about the war and occupation of Iraq in the past as being at very least dumb, at worst illegal, and it will be interesting to see if he’s—you know, if he is ready to support folks who are refusing to go to Iraq, because they don’t think the Constitution permits it. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Lacewell, what do you think are the prospects? MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Well, I mean, I want to just suggest that the question here is whether or not Barack Obama will see a 53 percent popular vote, a substantial margin in the Electoral College, as a mandate that allows him some freedom to make choices without feeling that he’s got to sort of bring in the conservative wing, or whether or not he will see his mandate as fundamentally a mandate for running in the center, because he said we’re going to have a new kind of politics. So I think it has a great deal to do with how Obama sees what the nature of this particular mandate is, what the prospects are. AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, do you think there is more of an opening to make your point? SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I’m not exactly sure. I do hope when the Obama supporters of this country who voted for him, specifically because they believed he was going to be an antiwar candidate, when they find out that that is not, in fact, the case, I hope they will be motivated to rejoin the antiwar movement in this country and support people like myself refusing to deploy to an occupation that clearly violates our Constitution and international laws. And, you know, I have hope. I’m inspired by Barack Obama’s journey from senator to president. But it is our responsibility as the people not to assume that one man is going to do the job. If we want to see peace, the people need to get out and make that a reality. And they’re going to do that by supporting service members refusing to deploy to Iraq. They’re going to do that by opposing Barack Obama’s narrative of Afghanistan as somehow being good. And, you know, they’re going to do that by standing up and being heard, getting out there, participating. We’ve seen the antiwar movement’s ranks shrink, because so many of these people have gone to campaign for Obama. And I’m looking forward to, now that the election is over, maybe some of those people are going to start moving back in. And when they realize that we have a candidate who wants to actually leave troops in Iraq, that will catalyze some activism. AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Tomorrow, an international roundtable in response to this global election. Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, thanks for joining us. We’ll link to your website at Iraq Veterans Against the War. Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton University and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
scribo Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 I will respond to the full post in a moment, but I will say that any combat veteran comes home more an anti-war than anybody. I hate war. I've seen it up close and personal. It is terrible. But it is necessary to protect our way of life. So I believe it is worth enduring.
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 I will respond to the full post in a moment, but I will say that any combat veteran comes home more an anti-war than anybody. I hate war. I've seen it up close and personal. It is terrible. But it is necessary to protect our way of life. So I believe it is worth enduring. If that's the case, then I withdraw my analogy.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 But it is necessary to protect our way of life. From nonexistent WMD's?
scribo Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Everyone has the right to their opinion. I love the freedoms I have, and I have no problem with others exercising the same freedoms. I've met Chiroux. I've talked to him several times. I respect his service in Afghanistan. I respect him for standing up for what he feels is right even though he is aware that he is illegally disobeying legal orders. But his arguements are not supported by facts. he claims his problems with the war in Iraq stem from "stories" he heard from soldiers who served in Iraq. The biggest problem there is that he cannot recant one story that can be corroborated by anyone or any evidence. I believe he is lying about or embellishing what he believes he heard. I do not respect that, at all. Why would he do that? Not just out of cowardice, but rather out of a desire for attention and to stay out of combat. The fact is that he took an oath, signed a contract and accepted payment and then didn't follow through with what he pledged to do. So he should have to repay the benefits he received. He likes to play up the fact he was a poor kid who did poorly in a southern school. I find it fascinating that liberals like to say military men and women are uneducated but then hold up people like Chiroux as examples of those intelligent enough to see the war as unconstitutional. I for one hope the "surrender in Iraq" movement keeps Chiroux and his ilk in front of the cameras. That will make it easier for those of us who know this mission is critical to get our points across.
scribo Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 From nonexistent WMD's? I need to get going, so I don't have time to debate this tonight. But the short answer is no. Rather, from the takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 I need to get going, so I don't have time to debate this tonight. But the short answer is no. Rather, from the takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda. Who were never there until we arrived.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Who were never there until we arrived. Maybe we went there to draw them to our military and keep them occupied. Haven't seen too many of them attacking buildings in the US since we've been there.
Boomer860 Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 From nonexistent WMD's? Iraq ignored 17 UN resolutions for inspections. And Sadaam had used chemicals on his own citizens. If he had let the inspecctors in maybe the war would not have started, unless he was in the process of developing them. The only mistake Bush made was listening to Rumsfeld instead of his military commanders. What would you have done?
mead107 Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Maybe we went there to draw them to our military and keep them occupied. Haven't seen too many of them attacking buildings in the US since we've been there. You may have something .
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 Maybe we went there to draw them to our military and keep them occupied. Haven't seen too many of them attacking buildings in the US since we've been there. This is one of the most retarded agruments, and I cringe everytime I hear it. If terrorism, like drug use, was a daily occurence her in the US, then I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was a weekly occurence, then I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was monthly occurence, I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was a yearly occurence, then I'd say we've make significant strides in fighting the war on terror. I'm reminded of Chris Rocks' routine about father's doing everyday father things being beacons of the paternal community when in fact they're just doing their job. The history of our country would suggest that it doesn't require a war to go 7 years wihtout a violent terrorist attack- at the hands of non-Americans- on American soil.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 This is one of the most retarded agruments, and I cringe everytime I hear it. If terrorism, like drug use, was a daily occurence her in the US, then I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was a weekly occurence, then I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was monthly occurence, I'd say yes, we're winning the war on terror. If terrorism was a yearly occurence, then I'd say we've make significant strides in fighting the war on terror. I'm reminded of Chris Rocks' routine about father's doing everyday father things being beacons of the paternal community when in fact they're just doing their job. The history of our country would suggest that it doesn't require a war to go 7 years wihtout a violent terrorist attack- at the hands of non-Americans- on American soil. So because it was not a regular occurance you completely dismiss the possibility that maybe our country may have actually done something to prevent a repeat or any occurrance of terrorism?
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 So because it was not a regular occurance you completely dismiss the possibility that maybe our country may have actually done something to prevent a repeat or any occurrance of terrorism? Not at all what I said. That's a bold inference.
Adam Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 I need to get going, so I don't have time to debate this tonight. But the short answer is no. Rather, from the takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda. They were pretty safe from Al Queda before we changed that.....I hated Saddam as much as the next guy, but so did Al Queda.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Not at all what I said. That's a bold inference. Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq?
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq? No. I don't agree with that because I never agreed with Bush's declaraition that "they'll follow us here." I think it gives WAY too much creedence to potentially dangerous cells. It's well documented that Bush ignored warning signs prior to 9/11 and that it could have all been avoided. Therefor, no, I don't think we had to go to Iraq to "keep them there." I think it's way easier, way cheaper, and way less violent to protect our own borders by keeping them from getting HERE. You can call me an un-American, or a tinfoil hat conspiracist but I strongly deny that terrorists as we define them were soley responsible for 9/11. And no, I didn't arrive to this conclusion because of watching some videos on the internet. One of my degrees is in international relations and for my senior seminar, in a 8 person class, under the tutelage of a highly regarded, oft published professor we studied the events of 9/11 for almost an entire semester. Way too many things went wrong/fishy on that day to assume that third-world terrorists suddenly hatched this incredibly elaborate, well coordinated scheme. This is something that is being studied at great length both here and in the academic realms throughout the world, but to question what you were told by your President puts you on the fringe, these days.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq? No, and if you give the idea just a few minutes of open minded consideration you'll agree. Who are Al-Queida? Do they wear a uniform so you know who they are? Do they carry terrorist id cards? Are they all in Iraq or for that matter even all in the Middle East? Do they have a central command, or even a military command structure? Are they organized into squads, platoons, companies and battalions? Can you pin them down and keep them contained in a neighborhood, a city, or a country? If the answer to any of the above questions is a resounding no (in your mind) then the idiocy of the idea that we kept them too buzy over there, to attack us over here, should be clear. TMCM(SS/SW) USN Ret.
jkx2 Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq? How many years between the first world Trade Center bombing and 9-11, count um'? Iraq has done nothing in keeping this country safe from another attack on our soil.
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 How many years between the first world Trade Center bombing and 9-11, count um'? Iraq has done nothing in keeping this country safe from another attack on our soil. It's only kicked the beehive. Aside from the first world Trade Center and 911- has there been any other "foreign" non-military attacks on modern America?
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 No. I don't agree with that because I never agreed with Bush's declaraition that "they'll follow us here." I think it gives WAY too much creedence to potentially dangerous cells. It's well documented that Bush ignored warning signs prior to 9/11 and that it could have all been avoided. Therefor, no, I don't think we had to go to Iraq to "keep them there." I think it's way easier, way cheaper, and way less violent to protect our own borders by keeping them from getting HERE. You can call me an un-American, or a tinfoil hat conspiracist but I strongly deny that terrorists as we define them were soley responsible for 9/11. And no, I didn't arrive to this conclusion because of watching some videos on the internet. One of my degrees is in international relations and for my senior seminar, in a 8 person class, under the tutelage of a highly regarded, oft published professor we studied the events of 9/11 for almost an entire semester. Way too many things went wrong/fishy on that day to assume that third-world terrorists suddenly hatched this incredibly elaborate, well coordinated scheme. This is something that is being studied at great length both here and in the academic realms throughout the world, but to question what you were told by your President puts you on the fringe, these days. So by thinking it's an inside job you lose all credibility on this discussion.
Recommended Posts