Question for Protesters (Peaceful Discussion; no flames allowed! :-) )

[KillarneyRose]

I don't want to start a flame war with this post, mainly because many of the GreekChatters who are most adamently opposed to this war are some of my favorite people I've "met" on here.

It's my feeling that, since war is apparently inevitable, those who opposed it should accept that they were, in effect, overruled. I'm not saying they should embrace the cause, but I don't understand why they would continue to protest something that is a done deal. I don't think additional dissent would do anything to end the war. Rather, it would add to the image the rest of the world must surely have of the U.S. as being fragmented and therefore vulnerable.

Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader was quoted yesterday as saying, "There is a proper time and place for vigorous debate, but now is the time for America to speak with one voice." **

Even Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee was quoted as saying, "Those of us who have questioned the administration's approach...will now be rallying behind the men and women of our armed forces to give them the full support that they deserve."**

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader said, "If our troops are ordered into action, Americans will support courageous men and women in uniform who will bear the burden of that action."**

A quote from middle school history keeps running through my head, but darned if I can remember who said it! "A house divided among itself cannot stand" Lincoln, I think?

We all know that everyone has the right to voice dissenting opinions, but I'm just wondering if to do so would be prudent right now.

Also, do you think anti-war protests hurt the morale of our military men and women? Do you think it is possible to protest the war while at the same time supporting the troops? How can this be done? This is a big thing for me and I'd really love to hear what everyone has to say about it.

Again, I'm giving no flame, so I hope no one gives me any flame I would really love to hear everyone's opinion on this whether you agree with me or not.



Thanks!


**from The Baltimore Sun article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis 3/18/03

[ilovemyglo]

I have always found Plato's the Republic interesting.
In it he basically says all things being equal in a republic, when decision must be made on a subject and it is decided, even if you are a part of the opposing side, you need to rally behind the decision for the great good of the republic.

I have friends over there, a cousin who is a brand new father and has yet to see his son, people that I love, and yet I know that they are there for a reason.

I was watching MTV a few weeks ago and the did a really good True Life about the situation with Iraq and talked to some teenagers and they started in on September 11th and these two teenagers, like 11 and 15 said that the people in the twin towers DESERVED to die! HONESTLY!

SO I find it hard to have pity on people who want innocent men, women and children to die. I know that they do not know any better about America because their media is government controlled and tells them how horrible we are, but seriously!

I don't want the men and women I love over there fighting this battle, but I know it must be done, I know that Saddam will never stop backing Al Queda and attacks against American and it's allies. So if the job must be done, let's get in there, make it fast and do it right. And Saddam should not walk away from this one.

Please bring my Eric Luckett back to me safely!

[33girl]

Tracy, don't know if you heard but there was a big protest Sunday thru Schenley/Flagstaff Hill & down Morewood. Mr. 33 said it was odd to have war protests before it was even certain we were going to war and I said "well, that's when we SHOULD have them, silly."

I think Vietnam era protests were different because so many of those men were drafted. Probably a lot of the guys in the trenches were in total agreement with the protestors. But now with pretty much everyone in the military having gone into it willingly, I don't know how they could NOT take it personally.

Honestly though, if the people actually fighting the war think they're doing what is right, I don't think the protestors will deter them from their mission. A voluntary, trained military is a hell of a lot different than a drafted military and those men deal with people who are against what they do every day.

[Honeykiss1974]

Good question KillarneyRose as I myself have questioned this very thing this morning. When people post " stand behind our troops" or "support our troops", what do they mean? Does that mean that I, as someone who does not support the war, should just be quiet and do not express my opinion? Are they saying that if you are a person that is against the war, you are somehow against the troops too. (That is utterly ridiculous!)
Because that is message that I get.

The average person (with some sense ) knows that military service personnel are doing their job(regardless as to how they themselves may feel about this whole situation). Those men and women are in my prayers everyday. So to me, that is how I support my troops.......with prayer.

On another note:

I just read about the comments from the lead singer of The Dixie Chicks concerning our troops. BOOOO on her !

[librasoul22]

Good topic.

I agree with Honeykiss. You better believe I am supporting our troops. With all of my heart I hope they can do what they are ordered to do with as little trouble as possible.

However, I STILL do not support the REASONING for this war, nor do I support Bush's lies to the American people to try to justify it. I will not silence my views about that, and I still don't feel that is unpatriotic of me. If we must go to war, I certainly hope that it ends swiftly with its purpose met so we can be finished with it. But at the same time, I really don't think it is necessary.

[xo_kathy]

I agree with Librasoul. I do not believe in this war, I do not agree with the "reasons" behind it and I refuse to not state my views because some people view it as unpatriotic. However, I do hope the men and women who have to fight are as safe as possible.

Also, at many war protests the signs say things like "Don't risk the lives of our military" "We support our troops but not our commander in chief" etc. I think the military personel see that and do understand that we are simply stating our opinions freely in a democratic society that they, and many before them, have helped to keep free.

I support, with prayer and hopes for a safe journey home, the men and women of the armed forces. Until the Gulf War my family had a family member participate in every war the U.S has ever been a part of - that includes the Revolutionary! But I do not, and will not out of fear of being 'unpatritoic', support President Bush's decision to begin this war.

[DeltaSigStan]

My only problem is that many protestors, like during the Vietnam era, are giving the soldiers themselves shit for going over there (the term "baby killer" comes to mind). The guys you should you be protesting are, in the words of Tom Berenger in Platoon, "Them politicians fighting this war with one hand tied around their balls". These guys are going and fighting and dying for their country, and for what, to get called a murderer and a complete loser for it by the people he was fighting for?

Well, Vietnam and this current war is stretching the concept of them fighting for "us", but still, these are brave guys who would defend you when someone who's actually a threat to the United States comes after us.

I don't wanna go to war either, and whether I back Bush because of it or not, I will sure support our troops in whatever duty they are called upon.

[sugar and spice]

I want to point out that those of us who are anti-war are usually in no way anti-soldiers. We're pro-soldiers (well, the majority of us are)! We don't want people to die . . . especially our men and women who are putting their lives on the line right now. We just want them all to have a chance to see next year.

I'm in no way anti-soldier nor do I think what they're doing is wrong. If they agree with the war then of course they have a right to be out there fighting, and I respect them for standing up for what they believe in.

As for the rest of it . . . I do think the members of Congress will stand behind the president, and they probably should. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter. Do you actually think that Hussein (or anybody else, for that matter) is going to be like, "Ohhh, well there were Americans protesting the war up until it happened, but now that war has been declared they're all behind the president -- uh oh, they must really all be pro-war now!"? First, I don't think the actions of the American people are going to influence "the other side" one bit. And second, I don't think that "Americans coming together to stand united" make one bit of difference in the long run -- everybody still knows that there are Americans who are anti-war regardless of whether or not they're protesting.

[smiley21]

dont hate me for saying this. i am not trying to start something. there is just one thing that i dont get.
i in no way shape or form support this war. i do like our president. i think he is a good man. i just wish i could understand why he thinks this is necessary.
i know the troops are americans just like us. i do have sympathy for their families. i just cannot say that i support them. they are doing something that i dont agree with. how can i support them? or stand behind them? really, those two are the same thing.
i am just disappointed with this whole situation.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
It's my feeling that, since war is apparently inevitable, those who opposed it should accept that they were, in effect, overruled. I'm not saying they should embrace the cause, but I don't understand why they would continue to protest something that is a done deal. I don't think additional dissent would do anything to end the war. Rather, it would add to the image the rest of the world must surely have of the U.S. as being fragmented and therefore vulnerable.

Rose,

Vietnam was a "done deal" when the protests began. We had been there for years. Had we not had dissenters, we might still be there. (No? Ask the French -- sorry, we're not talking to them are we?)

While there may have been some, I have not yet seen anyone showing the kind of disrespect to members of our military such as was shown during the Vietnam era. Just the opposite, in fact. Remember, I've seen both -- most of you haven't.

I strongly support our men and women in uniform. If I felt that there was absolute proof the alegations against Iraq, I would support this military action.

The campaign by the administration has been clever. The President's speech writers are outstanding. But, when you cut through the rethoric, the proof, for me, is lacking. Purely circumstantial. Lots of propaganda techniques -- bandwagoning, transference, begging the question, name calling -- the whole spectrum.

What has been missing is hard evidence. Or, at least, that's the way it appears to me.

The protests around the world would seem to indicate to me that the evidence has failed to stand up in the court of world opinion.

We are using several UN resolutions to justify an invasion, while it is obvious that the UN does not agree with our course of action. Even many of our NATO allies disagree. Many will say that the UN and NATO have outlived their usefullness. That may be so, but if is, why use the previous resolutions as justification?

What am I missing there? Playing both ends?

I had no problem with the first Mid-East war because Saddam was clearly invading a neighboring country -- I just wish the hell President Bush the first had allowed the military to finish the job. There is no question in my mind that we could have.

Finally, I have no patience with the "Love it or Leave it" argument. In many (most) cases, that's a pat fallback for those who have no real argument. Bandwagonning, again.

The right to criticize goes both ways -- and both sides need to remeber that.

[VirtuousErudite]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
I don't understand why they would continue to protest something that is a done deal.

Although this has nothing to do with the war when I saw this statement I thought about Civil Rights protesters. Jim Crow laws where a done deal when they protested and had been for years. But the men and women continued to protest for a cause they believed was worthy, for what they believed was right in their hearts. I would think the same would go for war protesters. If they truly believe this war is unjust they will continue to protest.

[texas*princess]

I pretty much agree w/ everything KillarneyRose posted.

I do not want to go to war. Like many GC'ers and Americans, I have friends and one family member out there, and I want more than anything for them to just come home.

Sometimes I feel selfish for just wanting them back home.
And I think I feel that way because I know that when they signed up and even now, they are doing it because they want to protect us back home, even though I'm sure they would all like to be home right now.

For that, I support the troops, our allies, and our government 110%

[xo_kathy]

I support the troops, our allies, and our government 110%

Unfortunately, our allies (France, Germany) don't support US. Just a thought...

[KillarneyRose]

Originally posted by xo_kathy
Unfortunately, our allies (France, Germany) don't support US. Just a thought...

I think Texas*Princess is referring to the countries who are allied with us in this action specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong; T*P?

[ilovemyglo]

The only other thing that I think of when reading everyone's posts is I don't agree.

I don't know what kind of proof do you want? Do you really think Saddam is cooperating? How many times is enough that the UN can come down on him and say, "come on now, give the biological weapons and nuclear devices back" to him and him repeatedly disobey the UN and then again they say, "Okay, we really mean it this time, we want whatever you have" so he occasionally throws them a bone.

The UN is a disgrace right now. Any dictator that has the idea that they can store weapons of mass destruction has been proven correct, because obviously what the UN says they do not mean. If they aren't going to stand behind their own policies, I would rather us take care of the situation now than wait until Saddam takes Nerve gases and god only knows what else and uses it on a smaller, weaker country such as Kuwait.

They don't have the resources we do, we can solve this problem before he gets a chance or wait until he PROVES he has these weapons,.... when he uses them on people.