's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Would you go to a anti war protest?(30 posts)

Would you go to a anti war protest?jrm
Feb 12, 2003 1:06 PM
if you were against the prospect of war? I'm just throwing this out flame retardant suit is at the cleaners and I'm out of marshmellows...
YES nmBigburlymtnman
Feb 12, 2003 1:30 PM
This guy tried and couldn'tmoneyman
Feb 12, 2003 1:42 PM
Guess that he wasn't correct enough. You'll have to register to read it, but its free.

And if you want more information on the upstanding organization that is A.N.S.W.E.R., just take a look here. Note the "coalition" tab, and see who signed it. Lots of surprises. Certainly all kinds of credibility, don't you think?

I did - in 1970McAndrus
Feb 12, 2003 1:48 PM
It was while I was in the service, no less. A rally in 1970 in Central Park in New York. The political speechifying was just plain weird but I wanted to see Jane Fonda. She was a real cutey.
I did - in 1970OldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 1:52 PM
Me too -- although I waited till I wasOldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 1:54 PM
discharged. Went straight to my local Vietnam Veterans Aganst the War chapter and signed up.
Is that when you were called YoungEdScott? nmCaptain Morgan
Feb 12, 2003 2:10 PM
protests are stupidDougSloan
Feb 12, 2003 2:15 PM
We all certainly know the only way to influence our leaders' foreign policy views is on internet forums.

Doug, you've finally disappointed me...cory
Feb 12, 2003 3:32 PM
I was getting ready to rip you for a stupid statement, and it turned out you were building up to a joke. Unless you're serious, and then of course I apologize...
But to answer the original question: I went to protests in the '60s AFTER I GOT HOME FROM VIETNAM and WEARING MY GREEN BERET, and I'll go to them again. But I've lost the beret.
Feb 12, 2003 3:45 PM
I thought the self-deprecating humor was obvious. Hard to be funny on the internet, though, without lots of these: :-)

Amazing how many of us became peaceniks. nmOldEdScott
Feb 13, 2003 5:05 AM
not memohair_chair
Feb 12, 2003 2:28 PM
All the anti-war protests I've seen lately have turned into anti-Bush/anti-Republican rants and endless idiotic statements like "no blood for oil." I have a hard time calling these events anti-war protests, because they aren't really about the war. The message seems to be lost.
Feb 12, 2003 2:37 PM
I hate crowds (though that may not be a problem in this case), and Jane Fonda isn't much to look at anymore.

I am ready and willing to be convinced otherwise on this issue, but my sense is that protest gatherings don't necessarily do much. Ultimately, I guess it is a chicken vs. egg issue. Did mass protests of racial segregation create a critical mass of public support? Or were they a product of public support that can be credited to the undeniable justness of their cause? Did protests turn the tide of American sentiment toward the Vietman War, or were they a reflection of sentiment created by deteriorating circumstances (some shown on TV)?

And what about the "Million Man March", the "Million Mom March", and the current anti-war movement? The results of the former two pretty much speak for themseleves. They were media stunts that attempted to give false gravity to movements that most Americans (for better or worse) don't support, and still don't.

For the most part, American's support the war. They say that this support is contingent upon UN participation, but that's just PC baloney. Most American's have few qualms about gambling the lives of innocent Iraqi's on the pipe dream of a terrorism free future. Most Americans don't even recognize the concept of an innocent Iraqi at this point. No protest is going to change that, much less one full of post-hippie burnouts sporting "No War in Iraq" signs in one hand, a "Legalize Pot" signs in the other hand and "Free Mumia" T-Shirts. The current anti-war movement reflects a principle that most Americans simply don't recognize.

If the war goes well (i.e. few American casualties, no WMD, no leveled civilian neighborhoods) there won't be protest (and arguably, no need for it). If the war goes poorly (i.e. significant American casualties, widespread deprivation of non-combatant Iraqis or any other reminder of what war is actually about) the anti-war movement will gain momentum. The war of public opinion won't be won based on the notion that war is wrong, that Bush is a jerk or that its about Oil. Most Americans think that War is entertainment, like Bush and don't want to change their energy intensive lifestyle. Public opinion will only change if a significant number of people decide that this war is not turning out the way they hoped it would.
This, frankly is what disturbs me the most....sn69
Feb 12, 2003 2:45 PM
"Most Americans think that War is entertainment, like Bush and don't want to change their energy intensive lifestyle."

If this happens, rest assured that it will be broadcast live. ...And the ratings will soar. War, it seems, has become distilled into FLIR imagery of precision munitions giuding effortlessly into air conditioning shafts and onto bridge abuttments.

I wonder how the American people might feel today if they had to watch something like Tet in real-time.
agreeDuane Gran
Feb 12, 2003 2:57 PM
I'm disturbed by it too, and it is one of the reasons I'm opposed to reality-tv shows (which, by the way, rarely reflect reality).

In general, I'm sick of the media being fixated on disaster and trauma. This goes back even before 9/11 when they trumped up the stories about shark attacks and gossip about Conditt. Sometimes I feel like the media is in collusion to keep Americans constantly on edge about our safety. Either that, or we might be a nation of worry-worts. ;)
I've said it beforesn69
Feb 12, 2003 3:03 PM
I'll say it again.

Don Henley. "Dirty Laundry"


(And I'm not a Don Henley/Eagles fan.),
Sting: Hope the Russians Love Their Children TooDougSloan
Feb 12, 2003 3:52 PM
Does Saddam love *his* children? He had 2 sons-in-law killed. Hmm. (I guess it only makes sense if you know the Sting song.)

Sting: Hope the Russians Love Their Children Toosn69
Feb 12, 2003 4:07 PM
I know the song well, although I tend to think "Invisible Sun" is more apropos to the world today.

the innocentDougSloan
Feb 12, 2003 3:01 PM
I think people perfectly know that not all Iraqi citizens are to be condemned with the leadership. The reality is, though, that when a dangerous leader surrounds himself with innocent citizens, what do you do?

Analogously, if again terrorists hijack a plane full of American citizens and aim it at New York, do we shoot down the plane?

I disagree.czardonic
Feb 12, 2003 3:36 PM
Most Americans assume that all Muslims are de-facto "Islamo-fascist" who are lax in their opposition to terrorism and have a natural and implacable enmity towards freedom in general and America in particular.

What to do when a dangerous leader surrounds himself with innocent citizens? Tough call. You do what you have to do and hope that you kill as few of the victims as possible.

I'd say your analogy is only partly apt. Saddam has the plane. However, it is not aimed at New York, or even in the air, and any citizens inside are Iraqi, not American. In your case, the terrible but inevitable answer is to shoot it down. But in the more accurate case the answer is to surround the plane on the tarmac, prevent it from taking off, negotiate for a peaceful surrender and only go in shooting if it looks like the hijacker is going to kill more hostages than the will die during the "rescue". You don't just blow up the plane.
Didn't we already do that?Captain Morgan
Feb 12, 2003 6:28 PM
1. "surround the plane on the tarmac" (Gulf War, Middle East military presence)
2. "prevent it from taking off" (no-fly zones, agreements with Iraq to eliminate WMD)
3. "negotiate for a peaceful surrender" (numerous U.N. resolutions)
4. "only go in shooting if it looks like the hijacker is going to kill more hostages than the will die during the "rescue"." (this is a point of contention between us)
We bungled part 3.czardonic
Feb 12, 2003 6:47 PM
In exchange for surrendering his guns and promising to remain grounded, we let the hijacker keep the plane and the hostages.
Please be specificmoneyman
Feb 13, 2003 7:12 AM
And cite your sources to verify the statement that "Most Americans assume that all Muslims are de-facto 'Islamo-fascist' who are lax in their opposition to terrorism and have a natural and implacable enmity towards freedom in general and America in particular." I would be very interested to read that.

Just my impression. . .czardonic
Feb 13, 2003 10:32 AM
. . .based on what I have seen in the media and even on this board. That being said, I'd love to be proved wrong. What is your opinion on Islam vis-a-vis terrorism and their attitude towards the U.S.?
My opinionmoneyman
Feb 13, 2003 12:06 PM
I don't look at all of Islam as a terrorist support group anymore than I look at all Protestants as reactionary Bible thumpers. Some are, and they seem to get all the attention.

Islamic attitude towards the US would be impossible to categorize, as there are so many Muslims in the world, in different places and with differing attitudes.

I do not like the use of "all" or "most" without some verification. When statements using those terms are made, I believe their credibility is to be seriously questioned.

Yes, we shoot it downPaulCL
Feb 13, 2003 8:19 AM
Heck, the orders were out there on 9/11 to do just that.

It is for the greater good - sounds like a Star Trek line. I wouldn't want that desicion.
Sure! Just let me bring my M-14 assault rifle.Sintesi
Feb 12, 2003 3:13 PM
I'll get those sad-sack, non-voting hippy punks right where they live! In the gut with a high velocity .22 caliber firearm! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! I'll give them something to protest about. Bunch of crybaby sonsabitches.
Pssst....the M-14 is 7.62, not .22. ;-)~sn69
Feb 12, 2003 3:14 PM
That's what I meant. I was just tired. nmSintesi
Feb 12, 2003 3:33 PM
I would, but....wookieontherun
Feb 12, 2003 6:17 PM
I wont go to an ANSWER rally. Poorly run, bad coalition building. I am very anti-war, but their coalition is rediculous. Essentially ANSWER has allowed groups to openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel and refuses to let anyone dissent from that view. It's totally rediculous for a group who stands against racism to call for the destruction of a Jewish state.