Never heard the quote, but I'll study it and get back to you.

Peace is not a good cause ... just wrote it for the amusement.

Anyways, there is a difference between this anti-war protesting (this isn't peace protesting IMO) because people are protesting for no other purpose than to get attention and arrested.

Protesting in D.C. just logically seems like the only place where the attention from protesting would be most effective. So people can't get there after work on a friday, instead they protest at state government buildings or 5th ave. in NYC. We all want peace, no one is out there saying "Damn, I can't wait who we bomb next." Ok, maybe 3 people are thinking that, but I'm not one of them. So there will be peace once this war to liberate the iraqis is over. Why protest such a worthy cause? I'm tired of hearing hippies tell me this is a war for oil, damnit if it was then why isn't Kuwait the 51st state after the war in '91? We got the iraqis out and then left, no free oil fields as a bonus check.

Protest all you want, it isn't helping the cause, I doubt it will impress anyone except hollywood actors. You want a worthy protest, how about protesting the killing of american troops. I'll be there for that one. Oh well, I guess everyone has a different opinion on what they are protesting about, maybe that should be cleared up before the next march during rush hour....


- RUgreek

I think its funny that you said that. Where do you people get your information from. Or are you making a broad, general, sweeping statement about an entire group of people (protesters) based upon the acts of a relative few in the spotlight on national news. I realize people in New York or Chicago have been in the spotlight with their protests but do you realize how many protests occur each and every day in this country? Do you realize how many people are involved in protests daily that cause absolutely NO disturbance at all, where absolutely NO ONE is arrested. In my city there have been protests going on weekly for the last few months and no one has been arrested related to the protests. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that people are protesting just to get attention and get arrested. I don't know how many protesters you actually KNOW, but I know many and EVERY protestor I know is a student or has a job or family and in no way want to get arrested for the fun of it. They have classes are responsiblities they have to get back to after they dedicate a few hours each week to a cause they feel is worthy. In fact one of the most active protestors I know is a lawyer and professor on campus with a family and I know for a fact he is not looking to "jump into the spotlight by being thrown in jail". Most of the protestors I know feel it is important to show that all American's are not behind this war, and it's not because they hate solidiers or are anti-American but they VALUE democracy and want to get the word out that this war in fact is not the right course of action in their opinion. Some may say, well we are in the war now so they should just sit quietly and go with the flow. For that reasoning I leave you with this. Jim Crow segregation was the status quo in the South for years, if the brave protetors of the Civil Rights movement had simply decided to go with the flow many African-American's would not have the basic rights that they have today.

I'm going to say this and I'm not trying to be rude. But please don't let the television fool you. Hundreds of peaceful, non-invasive protests go on daily. The few you hear about on the news are not representative of the whole or even most of the protestors taking to the streets. I said this earlier and I will say this again. I am assuming because you are basing your opinions of protestors on the news that you don't know any personally. I personally know many protestors and they are all students (most of whom work and go to school), people with jobs, and families. I resent the implication that most people protesting are beatnicks and hippies with nothing better to do. They are just people devoted to a cause which they think is worthy, to inform the public that what you see may not be exactly the truth.

Also I am not sure if you are aware of this or not but the American news media has taken on somewhat of a bias as this war effort has begun. I personally believe that in an effort to portray an American society that is totally "gung-ho" about the war effort the media is attempting to portray protestors as abrasive, beatnicks with nothing better to do than lie in the streets. There will always be those in a group who take things too far and go beyond good taste. But these are often represent a minority. I encourage you to take the time to talk with a protestor, perhaps at your University and inform yourself about why they believe what they are doing is important instead of just basing your views off of what you see on television.

Think of it like this. Would you want someone who knows absolutely nothing about being in a sorority to watch a story on the news in which a sorority member beat a pledge and then label ALL sorority women as abusive, power hungry banchees. No, that would be silly and sweeping. And they could use the same excuse, "But I saw it on the news". Just like you don't want to be judged by the actions of a few. Don't judge an entire group of people made up of hundreds of thousands of American citizens based upon the actions of those in a few cities.

Just something to think about.

V

They have fired Silkworm missiles, not SCUD. Wolff Blitzer explicity asked Rumsfeld about SCUD missiles and Rumsfeld said NO.

Ok, this is just getting funny now. First off, everyone in my life has protesting something at one time or another, actively or by petitions, including myself. I guess I don't have a cool membership card in the National Protestor's Club, but I have proetsted when appropriate.

Civil rights protesting has nothing to do with this anti-war protest. I'm sorry, but it is different, don't clump them together just because they both involve protesting. The civil rights movement took place in America, all over, so that was the place to protest. Civil rights were being violated by certain states and their governments, those were the people to protest. NO state government has any power or control over the conflict in Iraq, so why complain and protest to them? The federal government is the group that should be protested, not the lives of people trying to get to and from work in a busy city during the week. Do it on your own time if you want to make a statement; your rights to assembly and free speech are great, but what about my rights? Do I deserve to suffer from the consequences of a futile demonstration?

So go ahead, keep doing it even though its meaningless and hurts the feelings of our troops in the Gulf. They don't care if you're still supporting them; if you're protesting the war they are disappointed with you.


- RUgreek

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/angry/newburn.gif

Sorry, it got out of hand....:(

[B] Then you should be aware that all protestors don't just protest for attention or to be arrested.

[QUOTE][Civil rights protesting has nothing to do with this anti-war protest. I'm sorry, but it is different, don't clump them together just because they both involve protesting. The civil rights movement took place in America, all over, so that was the place to protest. Civil rights were being violated by certain states and their governments, those were the people to protest. NO state government has any power or control over the conflict in Iraq, so why complain and protest to them? The federal government is the group that should be protested, not the lives of people trying to get to and from work in a busy city during the week. Do it on your own time if you want to make a statement; your rights to assembly and free speech are great, but what about my rights? Do I deserve to suffer from the consequences of a futile demonstration? [QUOTE]

They are both very similar in that people are going against the mainstream ideas and fighting for very unpopular ideas. Many people had the same ideas about civil rights protestors "What are they whining about, Why don't they go back to where they came from if they want rights" that I hear being expoused by people who have problems with protests. So as you can see there are several similarities. It't not an exact analogy but there are definately similarities.

As I stated before don't assume the activities of a few represent the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors who don't block anyone's way to work or stop anyone from doing what they wish to do.

I used the analogy in a previous post. Should I judge you on the actions of all fraternity men?

Quote:

So go ahead, keep doing it even though its meaningless and hurts the feelings of our troops in the Gulf. They don't care if you're still supporting them; if you're protesting the war they are disappointed with you. - RUgreek

-Meaningless to whom? Is it meaningless simply because you don't agree with it. Again I will go back to the Civil Rights movement. Many people believed that the bus boycott was meaningless and would accomplish nothing, and guess what. After months of protest and boycott change did occur. Maybe the protestors feel like if they continue to go on even in the face of adversity things will change because they true believe this war is not the right thing to do for this country.

- Our troops are fighting for democracy supposedly and free speech is a part of democracy.


Anyway, it's Friday night so I will catch this convo. again in the morning. Time to head out. Have a great weekend everyone!!!

It bares repeating
 

I just felt that this post was so great that it should be repeated. Thanks Greekgrrl!

again, i would like to just say that in that one post, i was discussing one group of protestors, and not meaning to group them all in as a whole. and also again, neg news is constant news.....so just as supporters get minimal air time, as do calm and reserved protestors. that is all.....i don't think all ppl who don't agree with this war and protest are "tree-huggers" or "hippies" or anything....there's just better ways to go about things, i think.

and, cloud9, it's not that i don't want to be disturbed or shocked....that's not the point....the point is i don't want our guys over-seas thinking all of america is against them.....the point is, i don't want people to not be able to get to their jobs b/c someone who is outrageous lies down in the middle of the road. the point is, i think ppl can get their points across better by being calm and rational....that is all. i didn't think the point was to disturb anyone......i thought this was about freedom of speech more so than anything.....hmmmm.....maybe not? maybe the point is to shock ppl? i doubt that. i think these people have voices and opinions they want heard, and for whatever reason think being extremely vocal is the way to do it. i just don't think that's the case....
what i think needs to happen is that we all need to show support for our troops.........in my opinion (my opinion, that is all), that's what needs to happen around this country. not die ins, not obnoxious president hating rallies.....b/c our soldiers see that. they see america as not supporting them as well as blaming them for what's going on when all they are doing is what they swore they would do. what i will soon swear to do. so....if you wanna protest the war, great....but also hold a sign saying something positive to the troops. is that so much to ask?

m

part 2.....
 

posted by Honeykiss1974 it's cool, it's cool....i appreciate you can at least see where i am coming from. :) gotta love the heated debate!

posted by VirtuousErudite and i agree with you...to an extent. i think it's having the opposite effect, though. the media is kinda cracked out sometimes....showing so much of one thing, people never get to see the other. so, until the news can show a correct ratio of hostile protestors, to non-hostile protestors, to supporters, it will all be a clusterf*ck in people's minds. ya know? and God knows i love some fox news....but they're bad about not showing all sides, i think.....so msnbc to the rescue!

m

Fox news is the absolutely worst!!!!! I have to stick with CNN.

In my opinion, right now they are. Apparently they don't have important jobs to keep if they are f**king with the rest of the working public that are trying to make a living in this wonderful economy.

No, it's meaningless because it's quite obvious that all the protesting in the world won't change a thing. You or anyone else that protests this war in major cities other than D.C. are not furthering a cause. Go to Washington, do it there where the voice and opinion makes sense. Sheesh, why is this so complicated to explain?

Yea, and why not make a noble use of that free speech and stand behind them for a change. It seems like no matter what kind of situation this is, just for the fact it's "war" people will protest it.

- RUgreek


P.S. I do support peace, so don't label me a war hungry freak, just label me a freak please.;)

The $900,000.00/day is greatly made up of overtime for officers, but don't have access to an actual assessment record.

In response to protesters being labeled. Yes, some people are genuine in their feelings but make no mistake, there are professional protesters and they treat it like a job as well as "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine."

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4220_12.asp
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed concern that antiwar protest rallies scheduled to take place this weekend in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco may employ inflammatory anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements and rhetoric.
...Organizers of the January 18 "National March in Washington to Demand: No War Against Iraq", the San Francisco rally, and other events scheduled for this weekend have previously embraced statements supporting Palestinian terrorism, equating Zionism with Nazism, and calling for the destruction of the Jewish State."

THESE are VERY Interesting exerts-http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:y5wIWValft4J:http://www.aim.org/publications/week...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times came close when he wrote that the March 15 protest was organized by a group which "has drawn criticism from some people inside and out of the anti-war movement because some of its chief organizers are active in radical socialist causes and because it has taken controversial positions on issues not directly related to Iraq."
I’ve got news for Berkowitz. Some of the protesters, including key organizers of the January 18 and March 15 demonstrations in Washington, D.C., are anti-American and communist and apologists for Hussein. I know because I saw and photographed them. I covered both rallies. Photos from the latest rally are on the Accuracy in Media web site. The communist Workers World Party (WWP) ran this event through the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) front group. But the WWP is clever. While ANSWER had its own literature tables at the rally, the WWP had a separate space with posters, books and pamphlets. One pamphlet described the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a legitimate "rebellion." Having two different spaces for ANSWER and the WWP makes it seem as though they are two different groups. It’s simple but effective deception.

Soldiers on the war front have told their families that the well-publicized protests staged by the anti-war movement have been demoralizing to them.

I wish they could find out how many are registered voters, which brings me to another point. EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTEST! Contact your representatives if you are unhappy. They are very sensitive to their constituants/voters.

I posted about a guy who repented of his anti-war views after being a "Peace Shield" in Iraq...here's the article in his own words.

some more thoughts...
 

I'll preface this by saying I'm against this war. Yes, I know US servicemen in Iraq fighting & I support them 100% - especially their safe return. But I don't support the politics that put them there.

• Freeing/liberating the Iraqi people isn't the mission of this war. And if it was, I'd have major issues with that. Why? Because we haven't seen fit to liberate anyone else lately. We didn't aid Afghanastan until we were affected by the Taliban (yes, I realize we put them in power, and as soon as we saw what they were we should have put a stop to them. And we didn't. I must have signed 20 petitions asking the government to step in during the mid-late 1990s. So I know they knew about it). What about Tibet's occupation by the Chinese? We haven't done a thing to liberate them. If we are going to be the World Police, we need to treat everyone equally.
  
• The US doesn't have a history of preemptive war. The minute we decided to attack Iraq, we set the precedent that it's OK to attack unprovoked. Because while I believe (I didn't say KNOW, I said believe) Iraq probably has all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, I also don't believe (again, I didn't say KNOW) we had any reason to think they were heading towards us anytime soon. (I can't shake the feeling that maybe part of this, at least, is just George W. finishing what daddy started).
  
• I don't like the fact that all of our family & friends are giving their lives for this war. Everyone says they are protecting our freedoms. Did you feel your freedoms were threatened prior to the war? I didn't. And I still don't. I don't mean to belittle what our servicemen & women do... they are absolutely answering the call of duty. One of the reasons I don't join in the protests is respect for our soldiers.
  
• I think just about everyone in America (and many other parts of the world) agrees that Saddam=bad. I'd sure like to know what our plan is after we eliminate his entire regime. Because Bush promised (paraphrased) not to enter into conflicts where we had to set up completely new regimes of government (end paraphrase). Not that it's bad, but it's a definate drain on our resources. And how do we know the best form of government for a completely different culture. There will be many Iraqi civillians hurt and killed in this war. Many more will suffer (injuries, hunger, death, lack of housing, etc.) in the aftermath. I would feel better about the current situation if I thought that America could address any of these issues properly, but I don't. And what happens if we put another "taliban" type government in place as we did before? Or another dictator?

Those are my big issues with this war. That being said, I would like to agree with the pro-war side on the following:

• Many of the protestors really don't have a clue what they are talking about. Although some do- mainly the organizers and a few of the more "seasoned" adults. (The other reason I'm not joining any of them.)-I will say all of the protests I've seen have remained civil, thankfully. And I see many as I work downtown across from the state federal building.
• No, this war isn't about oil. That's an aside if anything.
• Saddam=bad. Something needs to be done. I would have liked UN approval at the least & don't understand the hesitation, other than the MONEY factor (who's selling & buying what from whom, etc.)
• Bush & his administration are privy to a lot more information than any of us. If I had all of the facts, I might be the #1 supporter, who knows. But I do believe that some information needs to remain at the highest level, at least until the war is resolved, for safety & security reasons.

So my anti-war beliefs are based solely on my knowledge & value system- just like anyone elses. Those are my reasons for choosing not to support the war. Debate with me all you like-I'm open to other viewpoints. :)

OH- and I wanted to adress this, even though it's small hijack:
Actually, ethanol fuel is very well developed. When I purchased my used car I was discussing with my step-dad (a huge car guy that works for Summit Racing dealing with cars and car parts) the pros/cons of hybrid cars. I had intended to buy one in about year, but due to other circumstances was forced to make my car purchase early. (Resulting in the purchase of a cheaper, non-hybrid card). While he's not a fan of hybrid cars, he did tell me I can convert my car to run on ethanol fuel for less than $200. The problem then would be finding the fuel. He also told me that in Iowa all of the state police cars currently run on ethanol.

I really believe that we as a country & global community need to seriously consider alternate sources of fuel. So I was really happy to hear about this. OK- that's the end of my thread hijack ;)

Silver Turtle, you know what is so interesting? It seems like most of us share the same internal questions and fears. I have the same thoughts as you and others rolling around my mind and it seems most of us are trying to deal with the same issues. I guess it's a matter of HOW we deal rather than IF we deal with this situation. Similar to so many issues in life, just higher stakes.

Side bar-I am from a family of farmers-corn to be exact. We have several hundred acres in Kansas. While ethanol as a fuel is viable, as you indicated, it is hard to come by. It also costs slightly more at the pump than regular gas...or at least it did prior to now. I will also admit that the oil companies are a detriment to the further development, usage and availability.

AlphaGam1019-I too have heard those interviews. I keep them in mind when I start to question if we're doing the right thing.
I wish there would have been an easier way...

I've said quite enough...for now. Time to sit back and let this discussion resume. I can hear my own youthful words and remember the feelings and ideology I felt in the aftermath of Viet Nam. Though we may differ in our views, I am so proud that this issue (as others) is important enough to ignite passion.

A letter from a soldier
 

I just thought this puts things in a different perspective. Please do not jump my case for putting it here.

For all the free people that still protest.

You're welcome. We protect you and you are protected by the best. Your voice is strong and loud but who will fight for you? No one standing in your crowd.
We are your fathers, brothers and sons wearing the boots and carrying guns. We are the ones that leave all we own
to make sure your future is carved in stone.We are the ones who fight and die.
We may not be able to save the world,
Well, at least we try.
We walked the paths to where we are at and we want no choice other than that. So when you rally your group to complain, take a look in the back of your brain.
In order for that flag you love to fly, wars must be fought and young men must die.We came here to fight for the ones we hold dear.
If that's not respected, we would rather stay here.
So please stop yelling, put down your signs, and pray for those behind enemy lines.When the conflict is over and all is well, be thankful that we chose to go through hell.

Corporal Joshua Miles and all the boys from
3rd Battalion 2nd Marines, Kuwait

I'm not going to jump on your case :) but I do want to point out some flaws. Once again, that makes things way too simplistic.

A couple days ago I saw a rally: Veterans Against War in Iraq. To assume that every soldier is for this war is ludicrous. There are plenty of veterans that aren't, and I'd be willing to bet that there are more than a handful of soldiers over there in Iraq right now that don't agree with the war. But they're doing it because that's their job.

By referring to the soldiers "as fathers, brothers and sons," he left out a very valuable faction of soldiers -- what about the women? A side issue, I know, but I thought it was disrespectful.

I agree that sometimes wars must be fought in order for America to retain its power -- IF our country is being threatened, then wars are justified. This one, in my opinion, was not, because we weren't being threatened.

And it completely ignores the fact that there are many out there who are both protesting AND praying for our troops. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Silver Turtle -- thank you for posting that. I agree with all your anti-war points, and to an extent with some of your pro-war ones. I think there are quite a few protesters out there who DON'T have a clue what they're talking about politically (although I don't think they're in any way the majority -- as usual, the stupider and more extreme you are, the more likely it is that you'll get publicity) . . . but I think that should be okay if they feel in their hearts that war in this case is wrong. Hey, there are plenty of people who are pro-war for the simple fact that they feel it's right, and nobody's questioning them.

I do think oil is AN issue, and anybody who claims it isn't would have to be blind, but it is definitely a side issue . . . I do think Bush has somewhat better intentions than that in leading us into this war, and I don't think he'd start a war solely for the sake of oil.

AlphaGam1019 -- we discussed those interviews (or similar ones, maybe) earlier in this thread. Basically, while they may be true, they are by no means universally true, and thus don't serve as very good evidence. Surely there are people in Iraq who want to be liberated. There are also clearly many who don't, or who don't care, or who would prefer not to risk their lives for the sake of freedom.

From this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2895849.stm

a soldier says: "We always had the idea that everyone in this area hated Saddam. Clearly, there are a number who don't." I'm not sure what sparked this response, but it seems obvious that they had found some people who didn't want to be "liberated." I also heard a quote from another woman, who, after being significantly injured by one of the bombs, was being dragged off to get medical attention. Bloody and crying, she screamed to the reporter: "Bush, listen carefully! We don't want your liberation . . . we all love Saddam."

Not exactly what our government has been telling us.

I'm so happy that I can rest my fingers and let Sugar & Spice and SilverTurtle type for me!

Great posts, ladies! You are the type of anti-war people I like to associate myself with!

On a sidenote: the "dead in the street" protest here in NYC, annoying, yes, but come on, it's NYC, we do everything over the top here!!! ;)

Sheesh, because, with all respect, you're wrong.

Congressmen and Senators spend a lot of time in their home districts. Local politicians and other interest groups are there, too. As are other special interest groups and important voices.

And again, respectfully, protests do make a difference. I'm sorry you weren't around during the Vietnam era or you would understand better, I think.

People are quick to point out that many protesters are looking for media coverage. Of course they are. What better way to get their message out. Is there something wrong with that? Really? Well, what about the daily press briefings and presidential speechs? Don't you suspect that they're held for the very same reasons?

Both sides use the media. Skillfully.

Many people believe that the real beginning of the end of that war came when CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite (at that time voted the most trusted man in America), began to question the reasons for that war (some of which weren't terribly different from the ones for this one) after carefully ballancing the protests against the politicians claims.

Presidents Johnson and Nixon's papers, recordings and other historical documents show that they were clearly obsessed with the peace movement -- to the point of ordering the FBI to carry out leagally questionable investigations (wire taps, infiltrating organizations, checking IRS records, etc.) of protesters. Talk about a loss of individual rights!

The real difference I see is the deeply unfortunate dislike, disdain, disrespect and even hatred for the troops coming back from Vietnam is missing in this case. It seems to me that the peace protesters, for the most part, are holding the political administration responsible, while still expressing support for the serving troops. (And yes, when you search your intellect, you know that there is a difference between protesting the cause and the troops)

While I still see a serious lack of hard evidence for the alleged reasons we're fighting, I'm not in any position to take issue with protestors on either side of this debate. And again, it is their Constitutional right to protest -- it's as simple as that, really in the long run.



PS to JAM -- having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, my wife also grew up on a corn farm.

Quick question, how do protestors "support the troops"? I see them saying something to the extent of "we don't support this government, but we support the troops."

I want to know whether activities similar to tupperware parties are held by protestors in which they protest during the day (along with feel the need to tell me they have a right to disrupt my day and vandalize property on my campus and other areas I frequent) and then group together to prepare care packages and visit the families of those in the armed forces to ask them if they need anything.

Now let's get something straight here. I'm not saying you can't be against this war and still support the troops. My roommate is against this war, does not protest, prepares care packages, etc. I have yet to see a large movement by protestors against this war that actually support the troops.

-Rudey
--Similarly, if I say my mother is the Queen of England, it does not mean she is.

ALSO having nothing to do with this topic-
Delt Alum, it never ceases to amaze me how our lives are so similar!

I feel so sick after reading this article. I wasn't sure where to post it but I think it's appropriate here. Read this if you have a couple of minutes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83002,00.html

Yes, say what you want to say. This is a free country and its ok. But to wish death and destruction on ANYONE (no matter what side), is unimaginable to me.:mad: :(

This was answered threads ago. :rolleyes: To avoid being redundate, a search will produce what you're looking for.

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...support+troops

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...support+troops

Just a few to get you started........

This story is all over the news here in NYC. This professor made some of the most shocking and offensive statements that I have read or heard from any of the protestors. Ever since Prof. De Genova's comments, the anti-war protests in NYC have stopped from what I can see. At least the news coverage has stopped if not the protests themselves. It's as if his comments showed the protestors that their behavior is not only anti-war but also anti-troops and anti-military. His comments were not only insensitive but boardering on sedition.

I agree with Rudey. I have said it before. If you support our troops but not the war, you can volunteer to help a family that has a relative in the military, donate blood, or send letters and care packages.

It seems that you (and Rudey) have answered his question in part. In addition, a local TV station here is collecting funds, which are matched by United Way for families here who have service members on active duty. Some might also babysit or cook meals. I'll bet there are others.

Protesting is a time honored American tradition -- to before the American Revolution.

I would not take part in anti-war protests in this particular situation -- but if I chose to, it would not necessarily diminish my support -- or opportunities to support -- any single or group of soldiers.

With respect, feeling that it would is as myopic as some of the harsher protesters themselves.

I like the cute little smiley face you made. I guess if you have lazy eye, you can still rock it with some guys. But if it's not working, smack your head against the wall and your eyes will line up straight again.

If you read my post, you would understand that I was talking about a large group movement and NOT individual action (ie the entire last paragraph). I brought up the case of my roommate as an individual. I want to know the names of such groups. I have yet to see even any group on my campus that is virulently antiwar have a meeting to prepare care packages. If these groups exist, I would like to know their names because I'd be much more impressed.

-Rudey
--Just a few words "to get you started........"

I know, its hard for you to not act like a dumbass, but maybe instead of ATTEMPTING to be a smart-ass, you could actually clink on those links (or do a SEARCH) and perhaps you would discover the answer to your question.

-Honeykiss1974
--Just a few words "to get YOU started........"

I just checked out those links Honeykiss. Thanks. Apparently, you are not supposed to send unsolicited care packages.

I know :( Really (for those that are religious) the only thing you can send (besides letters, email, etc.) are prayers. :)

I checked out those links before and I checked them out again. Still nothing. So, please since you've already gotten redundant by telling me to check out those links why don't you just tell me what large organized antiwar movements do to support the troops.

-Rudey

Hmmmm...

How about the Catholic Church? The Pope has been outspoken against the war, but there still are Chaplains, etc. with the troops.

1. The catholic church's pope is expressing his belief. This is the belief of a figurehead and not all Catholics/priests/other units in the church. Similarly, to say Spain is pro-war would be twisting things a bit.

2. The primary function of the church is not to organize anti-war protests. In fact, its anti-war sentiments are hard to quantify...just what does the church do to be anti-war? How does this compare with other groups? etc.

3. Those chaplains were in the military before the war started. What does this say about them? With or without the war, they are there. Regardless of their audience being soldiers, they will be there. They are not simply serving the military but a much broader group. Thus I see no expressed support for the troops.

-Rudey
--I'm open to you going into this in more detail though.

Rudey - this site might interest you. http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/homepage.php

I'm not real sure that Catholics (which I am not one of) would agree that the Pope is a fugurehead. Last I heard, he does still set church doctrine and is it's final authority. He's not a basically powerless monarch. In fact, he doesn't really have to answer to the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests or anyone else for that matter. He answers to God.

And, to follow your logic, haven't you just created a circular argument for yourself?

To wit:

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and is anti-war, but it's OK for Catholics not to be, and potentially to participate in pro-war rallys.

The President is the head of the United States and is pro-war, but it's not OK for Americans not to be, and participate in anti-war rallys?

By the way, the United States is a democracy -- the Catholic Church isn't.

The "church" (meaning religion globally in the US) has a long history of protest. In fact, I am an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church, USA, which is a Protestant denomination. The root word for Protestant is protest. During the struggle for Civil Rights and the Vietnam Anti-War movement, many memebers of the clergy were outspoken in their protests, organized and led marches and participated in many other ways. And many went to jail for their (peaceful) civil disobedience.

You do bring up an interesting point, though. I don't know whether Catholic Chaplains become Priests and are assigned to the military, or if they join the Army/Navy/Marines/AF, etc. My suspicion is that they are ordained first, and the military part follows. If they are ordained first, I think your third point is invalid.

Now this is what I call a GREAT debate, point-counter point!

BTW, the Pope is considered the final word on laws of God and laws of the Catholic Church. His stance on the war is not one to which Catholics are bound.

Also the debate is done in a civil manner. Kudos to everyone.

In regards to the figurehead remark. I could totally be wrong. I'm not catholic and it would be wrong for me to claim that. I didn't realize that if the Pope says something everoyne must follow. Is this true? Can someone confirm?

In regards to your second point, I didn't say that it's not OK for Americans to protest the war. So I don't see a circular argument.

And in regards to the last comment about the chaplains, they are still serving people and I would gather that they would be there regardless if you replaced the word "military" with any other group that would have catholics in it. I don't see how this point can become invalid if they are ordained and then join the military. I see what they're doing as sort of their "job"...they are there to support Catholics. Am I wrong about this?

-Rudey
--And wouldn't the church in some sense be a democracy if the pope is elected by the cardinals?

In a way yes, it sort of like Singapore where the party leaders choose the next prime minister, or maybe China. Not that I'm comparing the Catholic church to China or Singapore. It's democratic, but not representative democracy.

An interesting point . . . but I think it really depends on what the Pope's anti-war stance is based on. For example, if he cites a Biblical passage that claims that war is wrong, then wouldn't his view on the war carry over into the religious views that he supposedly is the final word on? But if his stance is based on politics, not religion, then I don't think it would matter.

I've only read one article on the Pope's stance on the war, so I don't remember what exactly he said about it. Can anybody else enlighten us?