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.
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
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Presidents Johnson and Nixon's papers, recordings and other historical documents show that they were clearly obsessed with the peace movement -- to the point of ordering the FBI to carry out leagally questionable investigations (wire taps,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.
|