Anti-War Protesters....

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by DZHBrown
Stating how one feels is always acceptable, but screaming and being disruptive is not. That's the "shoved in my face" reference. And the ones who are disrupting people's days by taking up the streets and such are the ones I'm referring to when I say they disrupt lives.

See, but sometimes, that is the only way to get one's point across. Think about the Women's Rights movement. Do you think women got the right to vote because they were calmly voicing their opinion? No. And I am not trying to equate the two, either. What I am saying is that these massive demonstrations have made international news, which does acheive their purpose: showing the president and thw world their collective dissent. Quietly posting to a mesage board, or discussing their opinions with friends over coffee or something doesn't really have the same effect.

I would think that intelligent people around the world already know that not all of America agrees with the war. That's a given. And the President has to do what's right, not what's popular. If he wanted to do something with a political agenda, he wouldn't have ever gone to war.

Okay, would you say that members of Al Quaeda are unintelligent men? If so, you would be discrediting many American institutions of higher learning, because that is where most of them get their education. Being INTELLIGENT has nothing to do with it. It is about PERCEPTION. The members of Al Quaeda are highly intelligent...but they perceive ALL Americans as being evil because of the way that we are portrayed in their culture. The world is seeing America AS A WHOLE right now in a pretty negative light. By protesting in massive numbers across the country, people are showing that not ALL Americans feel the way Bush feels. To me, it is not an attempt to ruin your day. It is an attempt to change the world's perception.

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
So, please post all his "lies" and then refute them with the "truth" so you can educate me.

Kitso
KS 361

You know what, if you want to believe that Bush has never lied about anything then that is fine.

If you think that Bush, the saintly man that he is, has never told America a lie, then I say more power to you.

I respect your right to feel that way.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by DZHBrown

I would think that intelligent people around the world already know that not all of America agrees with the war. That's a given. And the President has to do what's right, not what's popular. If he wanted to do something with a political agenda, he wouldn't have ever gone to war.

But why would you assume that intelligent people would know that? The majority of Americans I've seen have been insulting the French like crazy, despite the fact that it was their LEADER'S decision not to go to war. There must be plenty of French who are pro-war, but do we hear anything about them? No. And therefore it's easy to see how, if there are no protests, the rest of the world might easily assume that all Americans are pro-war. If you were a French cameraman who came to America to film the American anti-war protests and didn't find any, and there was no mention of anyone being anti-war in the news -- how are people from outside of the country expected to know this if it's not shown?

I see plenty of people who assume that, because some of the Iraqis want to be "liberated," that all of them do. The article posted by AlphaGam1019 perfectly illustrates this point. I read an article where, as the bombs were falling, an Iraqi woman was injured, bleeding and screaming, and still as she was being carried away to get her injuries treated, she turned to the reporter and said, "I want to say this: Bush, listen carefully. We love Saddam, and we don't want your 'freedom.' Please, please stop bombing us and our children." So what's right? Do the Iraqis want to be "liberated"? Do they want things to stay as they are? Obviously there are those on both sides of the issue.

The media can find people to support their viewpoints, no matter which viewpoint they want to express. If they wanted to push the idea that the US should kill Saddam, destroy all the oil fields and then build a Disney theme park, they could probably find somebody to support that idea too.

I think there are far too many people who put far too much faith in the media.

Originally posted by librasoul22
You know what, if you want to believe that Bush has never lied about anything then that is fine.

If you think that Bush, the saintly man that he is, has never told America a lie, then I say more power to you.

I respect your right to feel that way.

nice tip-toeing around my challenge.

Seriously, you called the President a liar, support your claim. Hell, you may convince me if you can back it up well enough.

The longer it takes for you to actually prove your point the longer i think that you're just a bitter Democrat who still believes that Bush "stole" the election.

Kitso
KS 361 times i've heard a certain Bible verse that goes along the lines of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[AlphaGam1019]

Here is another article that is similar to the one I posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...919627,00.html

Afraid that the US and Britain will abandon them, the people of Safwan did not touch the portraits and murals of Saddam Hussein hanging everywhere. It was left to the marines to tear them down. It did not mean there was not heartfelt gladness at the marines' arrival. Ajami Saadoun Khlis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of the Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming.
"You just arrived," he said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."

[sugar and spice]

And here's a report on the humanitarian aspects of the war and what the major news networks aren't touching on, or are painfully skewing:

http://www.fair.org/activism/war-kills.html

[AlphaGam1019]

Media Research

[honeychile]

I don't wish to become part of this battle, but I would like to say two things:

1) About respect due to the President, etc: each Secret Service agent carries a "card" that informs others that his/her job is to protect the President (or whomever). It does not say Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton or whomever. The reason is that one should always respect the Office, whether or not you agree or disagree with the person holding that Office. It's one of the first things you learn when working at the White House.

I don't give a rat's behind how you feel about a given President. Respect the Office.

2) If one's going to protest, please don't do so while wearing your Greek Letters, for heaven's sake! I've seen two men being arrested while wearing their letters; I'm sure their National Offices are less than thrilled with that publicity.

Why? Because a few years from now, when they are looking for work, they will not be the noble GLO who protested for a noble cause. An arrest is an arrest is an arrest - and unless expunged, will follow them the rest of their lives.

[/soapbox]

honeychile

[sugar and spice]

I'll check it out . . . but I would tend to steer clear of any site that considers its primary purpose to expose "liberal media bias." That makes a complex issue overly simplistic -- to put it simply, it seems pretty clear to me that not all media is liberal. There are papers and television shows that could be considered liberally skewed, of course, but there are just as many that could be considered conservatively skewed. I can assure you the majority of liberals don't consider the mainstream press "liberal," just as the majority of conservatives don't consider the mainstream press "conservative."

Seeing as how it's impossible for any news source to be completely free from political skewing, it seems pretty likely that any media designed to "expose liberal bias" would easily become skewed towards the conservative viewpoint. I like FAIR because I've seen it attack faulty logic by both liberals AND conservatives, not just one or the other, so while it's politically skewed, at least it's not only skewed in one direction.

Still, both sites provide an alternative to mainstream media and give more viewpoints which can only be a good thing.

This would probably go better in the "sources you use for information about war" topic, though.

[Munchkin03]

Relying on a site like that for an "objective" view on the war would be like relying on Focus on the Family or Jerry Falwell or someone like that to offer you reliable information about safer sex and birth control; or like using High Times for an objective view of the dangers of marijuana use. I do not trust the claims of a "conservative media bias", nor do I trust those who claim that the media has a "liberal bias." That is why I read multiple media sources--you can't just trust one. For every person you find who is praising American action, you will find one who wishes the troops would go home and America would mind her own business. Therefore, this anecdotal evidence doesn't sway me one way or the other. I can go to www.indymedia.org and find all the anecdotal evidence I could ever want, but I use other sources (BBC seems to have a view that the US doesn't have about this, even though Britain supports the war right along with the United States) to make my decisions regarding this war.

The Secret Service gets PAID to protect the President. I do not respect Bush; I do not respect his position of authority. I do not have to. It is my right; not my duty, to respect or disrespect the President. There is nothing in any of our lawmaking documents that calls for unquestioning respect for the leader of a nation. Do you think our Founding Fathers really had all that much respect for George III? Think about it.

You know, I'm not sure that protesting is futile right now. Maybe someone who was alive during the Vietnam era can verify this, but wasn't it after the mass protests (the later ones involved veterans and parents of those killed) that mainstream America finally woke up and realized that what we were doing in Vietnam was not right? I know Vietnam and Iraq are different, but there is no harm in using the two as comparisons. Regardless, and it's not because I'm bored and unemployed (believe me, I'm neither), I will be at every single protest I can attend until this war is over and our troops come home.

[AlphaGam1019]

I never claimed my link wasn't biased.

[KappaTarzan]

i think just about everyone is making well thought out, rational statements.. except for ZZ-kai. you just sound like a really ignorant big-headed idiot.


**edited for grammar**

[DZHBrown]

The reason is that one should always respect the Office, whether or not you agree or disagree with the person holding that Office.

Thanks for clarifying that, HoneyChile. That's kind of the point I was trying to get across, but it didn't come out right.

this sums up my feelings about the "anti-war" movement. Directly from the mouth (or pen) of someone who protested Vietnam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1249

AM a former antiwar activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "antiwar" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "antiwar" effort against America’s coming battle with international terrorism.

The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the antiwar activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists.

The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "reeducation camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the socalled antiwar movement of the 1960s.

Kitso
KS 361

[royalpinkastry]

I so happened to be flipping through the television channels this evening and came across a foreign (FRENCH) news program. They showed images of their reporters entering into hospitals where the wounded, the victims of THIS WAR, were located. It brought me to tears because NO ONE deserves to be invaded the way that we are invading IRAQ. There seems to have been no thought for the innocent lives that are there. My heart goes out to those who had to flee their homes because of we, AMERICANS, and our government officials, have chosen to do. But even in a time like this it is even more pressing to pray, pray, pray. It is more pressing to seek God's face and that his will and way be done. Being that we are AT war, it is my prayer that it will END quickly!