Category talk:Anti-Iraq war Veterans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/051003-letter-to-sen-mccain.htm
Contents |
[edit] don't use see also, add people to category
If you want to add a person to this category, don't put them under 'See also' on the category page. Go to their page, and at the bottom add 'Category:Anti-Iraq war Veterans' enclosed in double brackets. Kalkin 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you're not sure about a veteran's position on the Iraq war, try to research it or don't do anything. This isn't supposed to be a category for anti-Bush or anti-Republican or anti-something the US has done recently veterans, just anti-Iraq War ones. Kalkin 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HUNTER THOMPSON NOT A WAR VET
HE'S NOT. PLEASE REMOVE THIS. YOU ALREADY HAVE HIM UNDER USAF.
[edit] Contradictory
Why do you have people who aren't vets in this category, the article contradicts itself:
"These people ARE ALL MILITARY VETERANS who feel either that the Iraq War was wrong from the beginning, or feel strongly that it is being waged wrongly. In addition to veterans, this list may include immediate family members of individuals who died while in the armed forces, or who were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks."
- I agree. If the category is "veterans" it should only include veterans, not also family and friends of veterans. -Will Beback 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it almost seems like a deliberate attempt to increase the number of people who are agianst the Iraq-War. Is this going to be changed soon, as it is a contemporary issue?
As spokesmen for the deads estates, next of kin have the legal right to speak for the dead. grazon 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what legal system you are talking about. This category is for veterans, not the next of kin of veterans or the estates of veterans. If you want to make that category then go ahead. -Will Beback 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] different standards for "fundamentally-wrong" vets and "waged wrongly" vets
The article already implied that there were different standards for inclusion for those who were opposed to the war from the start, feeling it was fundamentally unjustified, and those who simply are opposed to the way in which it has been fought. (The latter were required to feel this "strongly.") I've tried to clarify that. I think this makes sense, because a limited number of people are opposed to the war wholesale, but almost everyone has at least some criticism of its conduct - even Condoleeza Rice recently said "thousands of mistakes" large and small had been made. Nevertheless criticing the conduct prominently as a veteran is worth mentioning, and is worth relating to fundamental opposition. The solution I'm proposing is to say that if you criticize the conduct you should only be on the list if you've done so in a notable way, become publicly known for doing so. Kalkin 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PAT TILLMAN DOESN'T BELONG HERE!!!
He is an unfortunate casualty of the war, not an anti-Iraq war veteran. Get your facts right!
