I'm a bit surprised no one has (apparently) brought this up yet:

Mass US protest against Iraq war (BBC)
Fonda, Sarandon among Iraq war protesters (CNN)
Crowds on Both Coasts Protest Iraq War (FOX News)

Opinions? It'd be interesting to see something more in-depth than the usual "Bush is evil!" and "Those actors shut just shut up!" banter.   From an outside perspective, I'm glad to see that a sizeable chunk of "We, the people" has taken their disagreement with the Bush administration to the streets.

On a side note, I love how CNN and FOX are using the exact same article from AP.   

Quoting Aloges (Thread starter): I'm glad to see that a sizeable chunk of "We, the people" has taken their disagreement with the Bush administration to the streets.

    

A sizeable chunk? Less than 100,000 people, by all accounts. A sizeable chunk?

Well, I'm glad the folks protesting have the right to do so, and they can thank the GIs in uniform for that right. Yeah, cliche as that may sound, that's the bottom line.

I know this wasn't a protest against the military - rather against the war. And I find it mildly amusing that the usual suspected were there as well. Sarandon, her old man, and the "Rev"    Jesse Jackson. I'm sure Sharpton was there also - another attention whore with no life. Also bemused to see Hanoi Jane - the traitor - in the crowd. Wonder when she'll send her first check to the insurgency. She could just make it out "Gov't of Iran" and be done with it.

But really, Aloges . . . .a sizeable chunk. Laughable my friend. Less than one hundred thousand people is a pimple on the US population's posterior. OK, they made the news. Not the front page anywhere I've been last couple days, and it's done.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): A sizeable chunk?

I meant that i reference to the size of other protest rallies.  

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): Less than one hundred thousand people is a pimple on the US population's posterior.

Of course it is, but as I said I meant to compare it to the usual couple hundred protestors that assemble.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): A sizeable chunk? I meant that i reference to the size of other protest rallies.

Even then, rather small. Less than 100,000. Not exactly mowing 'em over in DC. Strong showing? I guess. Impressive? Nope.

Any bets a couple hundred showed up just to see the celebs on the potium?   

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3): Any bets a couple hundred showed up just to see the celebs on the potium?

Hey, that was not an NRA convention.  

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): Of course it is, but as I said I meant to compare it to the usual couple hundred protestors that assemble.

Gentlemen, having served in Vietnam and come home to people spitting on me because I was in uniform. I have little or no respect for these so called Anti War protesters, especially the so called "celebs" they just want their names on the headlines. I fought to give them these rights and have no objection to them having their protests, but it brings a flash back to the time I came home and I can't get it out of my mind when I see this sort of thing. So forgive me if I don't give them a standing ovation

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 5): I have little or no respect for these so called Anti War protesters,

While I have a quite critical position on the current Iraq conflict, I have respect for soldiers that risk their lives in their work. I hope and I think that the majority of the protesters shared this feeling.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 5): especially the so called "celebs" they just want their names on the headlines.

About this I agree completely, I don't know the details about this Washington, DC event, but in general people that shout ideas only for being more "famous" are really pathetic and empty.

I guess I will sum up what I read without quoting anyone.

I am glad that there was finally a big protest. It shows the rest of the world that not all Americans are ignorant and support that I.Q. of 50 loser running this country (into the ground) or his illegal war.

I myself would not waste my time at a protest though. Nothing gets accomplished by protesting and many people wasted money flying to Washington. If you had all of America outside the Whitehouse protesting you are not going to change Bush's mind. He is stubborn and an idiot.

I do NOT like what happened during Vietnam. Yes the Vietnam war was bad and should NOT have happened, and protests were fine...

However spitting on soldiers is TERRIBLE. Most of those soldiers that did get spit on were DRAFTED and did not want to be there either.

Protest all you want for this crappy war but don't spit on the soldiers...

As liberal as some of you guys think I may be, I will not tolerate spitting on troops.

If you want to spit on someone, spit on the leaders. Spit on Bush... of course you can guarantee you are going to get your ass kicked by the Secret Service... but for that split second before it would be really funny. However, if you spit on a soldier, you can guarantee you will get your ass kicked by me and most other Americans.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 5): I have little or no respect for these so called Anti War protesters, especially the so called "celebs" they just want their names on the headlines. I fought to give them these rights... yada, yada..

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): Well, I'm glad the folks protesting have the right to do so, and they can thank the GIs in uniform for that right. Yeah, cliche as that may sound, that's the bottom line.

What ridiculous things to say!

Soldiers DO NOT fight ANY values, they fight for their political masters!

Vietnam was nothing more than tring to prop up a corrupt, unpopular, odious regime - that just happened to be pro-American!

Iraq was nothing more than a great political experiment - give 'em democracy, Coke and McDonalds and they'll love us!

There hasn't been a war fought since WWII that was about giving people 'freedom' and 'rights' they have beeen about securing money, polls and political victory for policicians!

I'm sure you are both honerable, brave individuals but so are pretty much all soldiers, including those that fought for the Nazis.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): Well, I'm glad the folks protesting have the right to do so, and they can thank the GIs in uniform for that right. Yeah, cliche as that may sound, that's the bottom line.

It not only sounds cliche, it is cliche. It is also very simplistic.

When it comes to whom to thank for our liberties, the list includes more than GIs. At their finest, people who vote, teachers, volunteers, lawyers, cops, government workers and yes, even protesters make a contribution toward protecting our freedom and keeping our country strong.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 5): Gentlemen, having served in Vietnam and come home to people spitting on me because I was in uniform.

Spitting on soldiers or anyone is completely unacceptable. This behavior is barbaric, and should not have been tolerated.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 5): I fought to give them these rights and have no objection to them having their protests, but it brings a flash back to the time I came home and I can't get it out of my mind when I see this sort of thing.

I'm sorry, but you fought that war because you were told to. This was just a part of Cold War. US involvment in Vietnam has nothing to do with protecting/giving the rights of protesters in DC, unless of course you can prove that Vietnamese were half way through the Pacific on their way to invade US when US attacked them. The war was simply about supporting US's own SOB ruling the country instead of a communist.

Their was a pro life rally last week on the mall that according to some accounts hosted well over 100k. I did not see much about it , guess it does not fit the program.

The anti war protesters serve a valuable purpose. I do not want to live in a country without protesters. Our politicians need to have open dissent and be aware of the opposition.

IMO it is easy to protest this war , it is hard to keep hope and understand the bigger picture. Of course everyone wishes the world was in-fact as vied by the "anti war" folks... but it is not.

Yes I hear the "I fought in Vietnam, Gulf War I, or 2 etc so you could have your right to protest". Unless you are my Grand daddy who fought in WWII, when our country WAS invaded by Japan and was likely to be invaded by Germany who had the means to and could have if the Allies didn't hold them off, anyone fighting past 1945 hasn't been fighting for OUR freedom.

When America was attacked on 9-11. It wasn't the Saudi hijackers that threatened our freedom. It was the U.S. Government who did by signing the Patriot Act, Creating the Dept. of Homeland Security, Warrantless wiretapping and lofting hefty fines on media personnel for so called "offensive" behavior - ie Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge etc. So until the U.S. Soldiers surround the White House and the Capitol, I really don't see any fighting for OUR freedom.

I was reading a recent article in Philadelphia Magazine that talks about the experiences of a writer's best friend who is a Marine serving in Iraq. The writer talks about his friend's father, a Vietnam vet, who has a bumper sticker on the back of his truck that reads "I'll forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive Hitler". Made me laugh for a good minute. Glad to see she's back ranting again.

Mike

A functioning democracy allows protests even in time of war, but the wisdom of such protests is up to each individual to decide.

I agree with those who say that if this war had been conducted during a time of conscription, the protests would be larger and more virulent.

I disagree, however, that the protests make a particularly valid point or that the war was "illegal". If it was "illegal" under international law to act pre-emptively to protection one's national security, then it's not nations like the United States that have to conform to the law, but rather the law that must be changed.

As it happens, what is often called "international law" is hardly cut-and-dried on this and many other matters of import. Like what liberals say of the Constitution, this is one body of law that actually does "evolve", that actually does "live" in accordance with the exigencies of the day.

No law can restrict any country like the United States from exercising its rights of self-defense. Further, who determines whether those rights are reasonable is none other than the United States itself -- not foreign nations.

To the extent that protestors are citing the United States for an "illegal" war, they are simply parroting the simplistic notion that the single largest power on Earth must always defer to the interpretation of law by certain combinations of foreign nations. That is a proposition, in the end, that simply won't fly, because the power of the law in the international realm is simply not what it is in the domestic.

For these and other reasons, many elements of what these protestors appear to support are advanced naively and thus doomed to failure.

William Pitt, K. W. von Metternich, Otto Bismarck, Henry Kissinger, and many of those of experience would agree: When it comes to foreign policy, realpolitik is the name of the game.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 12): Yes I hear the "I fought in Vietnam, Gulf War I, or 2 etc so you could have your right to protest

Until you have done it,you don't know what it is all about. I suggest you keep your remarks to other places where your expertise would be more useful. I know you will resent what I have said, but you know nothing about war until you have stood in their boots and been through the hell that we went through. When you go about insulting people who through no fault of their own ended up somewhere that the didn't want to be in the first palce. Not only have you let us down, but also your grandfather

Quoting CaptLockheed (Reply 8): What ridiculous things to say!

Quoting CaptLockheed (Reply 8): What ridiculous things to say!

You make it sound like we enjoyed what we did and that we were just robots. They were 58,000 young men killed in Vietnam, whether it was right or not. I just love people who have never experienced anything like this know everything about it and have all the answers. Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 10): This was just a part of Cold War. US involvment in Vietnam has nothing to do with protecting/giving the rights of protesters in DC, unless of course you can prove that Vietnamese were half way through the Pacific on their way to invade US when US attacked them. The war was simply about supporting US's own SOB ruling the country instead of a communist

Putting it in Cold War context is right, it seems to me, and as to this, it wasn't just a matter of "which SOB" should lead Vietnam, but whether an entire region should fall to the threat of worldwide Communism. Historically, there were real fears that Communism would spread like a cancer throughout that part of the world, vastly increasing the power of what was seen as Soviet-Chinese dominion over Southeast Asia. Concurrently, the handling of various issues by the French in their former colonies (which gave the name, "French Indo-China" to the area) required the assistance of the United States. Eisenhower and then JFK sent what were deemed to be "military advisors" to Vietnam; the situation was greatly escalated under LBJ.

Lest it be unclear from a reading of your message, one shouldn't pretend that it was out of any imperial ambition that the United States found itself in involved, although "imperialism" was certainly a charge flung at it, primarily by the left. Vietnam did not have anything to offer an advanced industrial republic such as the United States that was worth the lives of 58,000 men and hundreds of thousands more in other casualties. Vietnam was fought so that the United States would not lose the Cold War, and not simply because we didn't like the particular "SOB" that our enemies promoted. In an age of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, to lose sight of the main objectives of the Vietnam War would be to do the diplomats of the day a disservice.

Likewise, the protestors of today have lost sight of the strategic picture. They think only of the harm done, rather than the potential harm that was avoided. They think only of stability rather than change -- unlike their policy in every other respect. Speaking from hindsight, they cast upon it an imputation of motives which they cannot possibly prove.

A prominent general in the Viet Cong once said that the United States could not be defeated on the battlefield; he knew, however, that it could be defeated at home, through a loss of will.

The protests against the Vietnam war contributed greatly to the loss of will.

It is sometimes said that the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten by those in power. It is also true that sometimes the lessons of Vietnam protest are forgotten by those who are out of it, as well.

Quoting Aloges (Thread starter): Opinions? It'd be interesting to see something more in-depth than the usual "Bush is evil!" and "Those actors shut just shut up!" banter.

We were in DC yesterday, and while there were a lot of people (not 100,000 as claimed), it was a pretty calm and almost lifeless affair, compared to some protests I've seen. We were at the National Gallery of Art to see the new Jasper Johns exhibit, and had a good view of the festivities.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):Less than one hundred thousand people is a pimple on the US population's posterior. Of course it is, but as I said I meant to compare it to the usual couple hundred protesters that assemble

By DC standards, it was a pretty low turnout.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 7): I am glad that there was finally a big protest.

Don't get excited, it wasn't all that large.

Quoting Jalto27R (Reply 13): I was reading a recent article in Philadelphia Magazine that talks about the experiences of a writer's best friend who is a Marine serving in Iraq. The writer talks about his friend's father, a Vietnam vet, who has a bumper sticker on the back of his truck that reads "I'll forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive Hitler"

After we left the NGA, we stopped a favorite restaurant on the way home. In the parking lot we saw a car with a bumper sticker that said "Give War a Chance."

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16): A prominent general in the Viet Cong once said that the United States could not be defeated on the battlefield; he knew, however, that it could be defeated at home, through a loss of will.

And Giap was right.

That's what happen in Nam, and that is what the democrats are trying really hard to do now.

Quoting Jalto27R (Reply 13): The writer talks about his friend's father, a Vietnam vet, who has a bumper sticker on the back of his truck that reads "I'll forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive Hitler".

He has it about right, same thing should be said of Sean Penn these days.

Quoting Jalto27R (Reply 13): Glad to see she's back ranting again.

I take it she had a problem with that bumper sticker.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17): After we left the NGA, we stopped a favorite restaurant on the way home. In the parking lot we saw a car with a bumper sticker that said "Give War a Chance."

A most interesting observation, and quite consistent with what has occurred.

No reasonable nation truly desires war, but sometimes war is thrust in various ways upon it -- as, for example, foisted upon it because of the reasonable apprehension of dire consequences in its absence. The United States did not foresee the magnitude of the civil strife in Iraq today, but this does not mean that its actions in liberating Iraq were indefensible. Far from it. Civil strife in Iraq exists not because the United States wanted it to, but because we wanted to protect against the possibility of future harm to ourselves and, in the aftermath, there were "bad actors" that used the resulting strife to advance their own interests. The test here -- if any -- is not so much reasonable foreseeability, but justifiable self defense, but even were it otherwise, the fact that the consequences of our liberation of Iraq have been harmful is, in any event, the result of supervening causes. The fault for what is occurring, therefore, cannot logically or in any other reasonable way extend to the United States or its allies. Rather, it can only be attributed to the actual instigators of that strife, pure and simple.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18): And Giap was right. That's what happen in Nam, and that is what the democrats are trying really hard to do now.

I find myself in agreement, and it is sad that Congress is led today by those who are either too blind or cynical to allow them to act differently. I do not wish ill for the Democrats; I do not wish ill for the protestors. But this will not prevent me from objecting to their efforts to lead this nation, once again, down the precipice of any ignominious failure, merely for the sake of their own gain.

Every American who owns a television already knows that the next President of the US is going to campaign largely on being opposed to prolonging the Iraq war, be they Republican or Democrat.

What I find grotesque about these demonstrations is that the participants already know it is going to end as soon as it possibly can. They are just posing at being concerned human beings to further some personal agenda, to give their do-nothing existence some veneer of purpose.

True for the celebrities. True for the nobodies.

And who will benefit?

1. The Democratic party, who will always have Dubya to blame for starting it in the first place, no matter how badly they screw up the aftermath.

2. The insurgents in Iraq and anyone else in the world who needs a base for terrorism because the last cop left on the beat (the US) will certainly not go back into Iraq and Europe and the UN cannot even muster the courage to take on a few camel-mounted thugs in Darfur.

Who will NOT benefit?

1. The ordinary people of Iraq, who will be left in the tender care of the strongest entity on the scene - the insurgents whose first response to any disagreement is murder.

2. The soldiers who served honorably and well. While they might not be spat upon like those returning from Vietnam, they will suffer the greater insult of having the cause for which their comrades fell, declared less-than-honorable - just like the revised history of Vietnam.

There is no honor in participating in these protests. None! If you believe the rhetoric of your signs and banners where the hell were you for the last three years? We know the answer to that from Jane Fonda. She announced last year that she would be protesting the war after her book tour. Glad to know the protesters have their priorities figured out.

The cause is as empty as the political expedient of mouthing the words "I support our troops." while doing your utmost to undermine all efforts at salvaging anything worthwhile from the efforts of our armed forces.

If shame falls upon him who "started" this war then just as surely it falls upon those who prevent any useful result.

There's a protest about something every week in Washington. It's part of the scenery.

This also is pretty far from the first anti-war protest. There were anti-war protests going on before the war even started.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 12): So until the U.S. Soldiers surround the White House and the Capitol, I really don't see any fighting for OUR freedom.

Ah the wonderfully compact world of people who think reality ends at the coast.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Reply 8): There hasn't been a war fought since WWII that was about giving people 'freedom' and 'rights' they have beeen about securing money, polls and political victory for policicians!

Did you forget about Desert Storm? Or do Kuwaitis not count as people?

Quoting CaptLockheed (Reply 8): I'm sure you are both honerable, brave individuals but so are pretty much all soldiers, including those that fought for the Nazis.

Thread has been Godwin'd

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20): 2. The soldiers who served honorably and well. While they might not be spat upon like those returning from Vietnam, they will suffer the greater insult of having the cause for which their comrades fell, declared less-than-honorable - just like the revised history of Vietnam.

It took us Vietnam Vets years to finally come and say we were proud to serve our country, before that we were treated as second class citizens. I don't want this for the young men and women that serve in Iraq. Although I may not agree with how the war has been managed. I support the troops and the jobs they are doing and I will stand up to anyone who dares to say any different. I know what those young people are going through and they have my full backing and until the war is over I will continue to do so. Let all those who disagree with me, insult me and do whatever they want as I have already been through that, when they have the guts to do what these people are doing then and only then will they have my respect.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 9): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): Well, I'm glad the folks protesting have the right to do so, and they can thank the GIs in uniform for that right. Yeah, cliche as that may sound, that's the bottom line. It not only sounds cliche, it is cliche. It is also very simplistic.

Cliche? Simplistic? call it what ever yoiu want to call it. It's the spot on truth. It's a good bet your local Milkman or Dry cleaner didn't win and maintain your freedoms . . . like it or not, it's the GI Joes and GI Janes that have done that.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Reply 8): What ridiculous things to say! Soldiers DO NOT fight ANY values, they fight for their political masters!

Never been a soldier have you . . . I don't expect you to understand. having seen some of your other posts here, I know you won't.

Now this really frosts me. Apparently the Capitol Police were told to let protesters deface the capitol grounds, and not to arrest anyone. WTF is wrong with their leadership?

Quote: Anti-war protesters spray paint Capitol building By Jackie Kucinich Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill. According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. "They were the commanders on the scene," one source said, who requested anonymity. "It was disgusting." .... Yet, the sources who talked to The Hill were furious that protesters were not stopped before reaching the Capitol. "To get that close to the Capitol building, that is ridiculous," the second source said. "[Police] were told not to arrest anyone." The second source added that police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/Th...s/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24): pparently the Capitol Police were told to let protesters deface the capitol grounds, and not to arrest anyone.

Petty vandelism doesn't help their cause.

But it shows what a bunch of nitwits they are.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24): WTF is wrong with their leadership?

They are democrats what you you expect. They are probably trying to relive their drug nubbed lost years during the sixties.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20):

Excellent post sir.

I think the right to protest is another reason why our country is great, but I don't think people should protest just to protest. I do not approve of the way President Bush has handled this war but I wouldn't protest. I think it sends the wrong message to our Troops. It's important we hold the President accountable for his actions but look at it from a Solder's point of view.

Anyway the most crucial point that these protesters have to remember is why they can protest in the first place. It's because of the brave men and women risking their lives for our freedom. People who think differently are being shortsighted and ignorant, and are taking advantage of what every Man and Woman who has fought for our country gave us.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18): That's what happen in Nam, and that is what the democrats are trying really hard to do now.

There's some truth to that saying however you have to look at the current leadership and ask why people have doubts about this War.

Dave

[Edited 2007-01-29 01:44:47]

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24): WTF is wrong with their leadership? They are democrats what you you expect. They are probably trying to relive their drug nubbed lost years during the sixties.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24): police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols.

Chief Morse and Deputy Chief Nichols are Democrats? You know this, how?

Why is it that those of you here who are anti anti-war protests only bring to light that Hollywood types spoke at the event in D.C.? If you had bothered to read the quoted articles, you would have read that military personnel commented as well. For example, "Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.".

As for the 'low turnout' some of you saw this as being, let's not forget that a number of those attending the protest traveled some pretty significant distances to do so. I dare say, some of you here wouldn't take the time to walk across the street to voice your opposition to something you felt strongly against yet there were some who traveled 23 hours by bus to do so. You thump your chests and say how great it is that the men and women in the military have protected our right to freedom of speech and in the same breath, you mock those who exercise that very right. I'd say that has hypocrisy written all over it.

Breaking news!

John Kerry throws medals over Whitehouse fence

Just two weeks after throwing a towel into Democratic headquarters and six weeks after allegedly throwing his hat into a ring at the same location Senator John Kerry threw somebody's medals over the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania.

The story and film at eleven.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): For example, "Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.".

As a veteran I say they are a disgrace, to all those who serve their Nation and to their unit and should leave the Armed Forces immediately. They have no right being in something they do not support. In the old days they would have ben shot for treason

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): dare say, some of you here wouldn't take the time to walk across the street to voice your opposition to something you felt strongly against yet there were some who traveled 23 hours

Hooray Hooray for them, am I supposed to stand and thank them

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 29): Just two weeks after throwing a towel into Democratic headquarters and six weeks after allegedly throwing his hat into a ring at the same location Senator John Kerry threw somebody's medals over the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania

He did that once before, with his faked medals. I have no respect for him and never will, his claim to fame is that he can lie well

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): Why is it that those of you here who are anti anti-war protests only bring to light that Hollywood types spoke at the event in D.C.? If you had bothered to read the quoted articles, you would have read that military personnel commented as well. For example, "Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.".

I read it. It goes without saying at SHE is entitled to an educated opinion. At least she EARNED her right to protest. Hopefully she was smart enough not to show up in Uniform. If she did, she can be prosecuted for it. Boy wouldn't THAT Sarandon and company to bitch about.

Tell me in that light, what educated opinion might Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Susan Sarandon or any of those others have. Jackson and Sharpton show up whereever they can get the sorry asses on the front page, and the only experience Jackson has with a gun came form his days with the Black Panthers. Sharpton, hell he's probably packin' if he's smart. None other than that. And Hanoi Jane, the Communist Traitor bitch, the only opinion Hanoi Jane's sorry ass has is what it feels like to sit on an NVA AA Gun.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 31): I read it. It goes without saying at SHE is entitled to an educated opinion. At least she EARNED her right to protest.

I think that's another reason why I wouldn't protest the War. I don't feel I've earned my right to. Due to a disorder I have, I can't join the Military so I feel like a coward sometimes being here at home as opposed to fighting in Iraq.

I know every American has the right to protest, but it's just a personal decision of mine.

Overall if it makes my opinion less valid because I haven't served then so be it, that's something I have to accept and have to remember.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 32): I think that's another reason why I wouldn't protest the War. I don't feel I've earned my right to. Due to a disorder I have, I can't join the Military so I feel like a coward sometimes being here at home as opposed to fighting in Iraq.

I disagree.

On several counts.

First. Not your fault you're medically unqualified. That does not make you a coward.

Second. If you weren't medically unqualified, your right to protest would still not be voided. The difference between you and some of the people in DC recently is that you would serve if you could. I'll make the wager here and now, that most of those wouldn't if they could have, and would run if required to serve.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 32): Overall if it makes my opinion less valid because I haven't served then so be it, that's something I have to accept and have to remember.

Your opinion - for or against - isn't any more or less valid than anyone elses. It would be less valid would be if you tell soldiers how they should fight, what terrible assholes they are (please another thread in here on HUMMWVs), or how they should/should not act in a fire fight without the ability to empathize.

I don't tell doctors how to operate, and they don't need to tell me how write a speeding ticket. That's the analogy.

In this country of ours, no one needs to earn a right to protest lawfully and peacefully. Anyone who wants to protest our policies is able to do so merely by virtue of being in this country, as long such protests are conducted lawfully and peacefully.

Mass action has power, but it also has its analytical limits. The fact that anyone can protest anything within the extremely generous limits of the law is a valuable right conferred upon all of us here in this country, but by the same token, considered precisely as a right equally available to anyone in this country, the mere fact of protest may mean absolutely nothing regarding its value, because if something is so common that anyone can do it, it's not necessarily a big deal just because it's done.

A protest's value, therefore, must be determined by other means. Does what is called upon by a protest make sense? If it does, then the protest clearly has more value than protests that don't.

In this case, the protests against the war don't have great value or merit to me, because they don't make a whole lot of sense. They make a little sense, perhaps, but only a little, and therefore they are only a little bit meritorious.

I'm certainly not impressed by the mere fact that protests are occurring.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 33): First. Not your fault you're medically unqualified. That does not make you a coward. Second. If you weren't medically unqualified, your right to protest would still not be voided. The difference between you and some of the people in DC recently is that you would serve if you could. I'll make the wager here and now, that most of those wouldn't if they could have, and would run if required to serve.

I know but still it's just something inside me that makes me feel that way. I can't explain it, I just feel guilty. I know I can't blame myself but I don't know, just the personal way I feel.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 33): Your opinion - for or against - isn't any more or less valid than anyone elses. It would be less valid would be if you tell soldiers how they should fight, what terrible assholes they are (please another thread in here on HUMMWVs), or how they should/should not act in a fire fight without the ability to empathize. I don't tell doctors how to operate, and they don't need to tell me how write a speeding ticket. That's the analogy

Very true and that's what makes this country great. You're exactly right and I totally missed getting that point across when I posted before. I should pull an ASF and go edit it haha. But yeah I've learned it's okay to give your opinion but it's not okay to be critical of others when you have no idea of what they're going through (in most situations). Well since it's Airliners.net why not make this analogy. I wouldn't tell a pilot how to fly (I'll leave it to the kids in Civ-Av) because even though I have a lot of aviation knowledge there is nothing like real world experience.

Dave

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16): Historically, there were real fears that Communism would spread like a cancer throughout that part of the world

In the same sense that we had real fears that Saddam had WMD's? Let's face it, those fears were unfounded. Give me all the lines you want about hindsight being 20/20, but in both cases our foresight wasn't nearly what it should have been.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 9): When it comes to whom to thank for our liberties, the list includes more than GIs. At their finest, people who vote, teachers, volunteers, lawyers, cops, government workers and yes, even protesters make a contribution toward protecting our freedom and keeping our country strong.

Amen to that. I can't remember who it was, but there was some famous figure who observed that if Americans ever lose their fundamental rights and freedoms, it will not be because someone came and took them by force, but because the people gave them up willingly. In today's world, we maintain our rights more by exercising them than by any military measure.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20): What I find grotesque about these demonstrations is that the participants already know it is going to end as soon as it possibly can.

Totally wrong. US involvement in Iraq could end within a month, if that decision was made. What I think you mean is that it is going to end as soon as it reaches the point where our president has a reasonable degree of certainty that the whole place won't go to hell when we leave. Unfortunately, I and a good portion of anti-war protestors do not believe that that degree of stability is achievable.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 30): They have no right being in something they do not support.

Last I checked, the government won't just let you leave, even if you have had a genuine change of heart about the war you have been told to fight.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 22): when they have the guts to do what these people are doing then and only then will they have my respect.

So you refuse to respect me because I have the guts to stick to my conviction that the killing and destruction that is war is inherently wrong?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20): If you believe the rhetoric of your signs and banners where the hell were you for the last three years?

What TV news network have you been watching? There have been anti-war protests since well before the war began.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 30): He did that once before, with his faked medals. I have no respect for him and never will, his claim to fame is that he can lie well

At least he didn't have his daddy help him take cuts in line for the national guard so he could get out of the war and then go AWOL from the guard for a year.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 32): I know every American has the right to protest, but it's just a personal decision of mine.

I personally think protests are a waste of time and money. Does anything get accomplished that the protesters are protesting against? If I knew that a protest would change Bush's mind to end the war right now, then maybe I would go to one... but if everybody in America marched on Washington and several of Bush's cabinet said it was time to end the War, Bush still wouldn't end the war. That is how stubborn he is. So why waste time protesting?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36): In the same sense that we had real fears that Saddam had WMD's? Let's face it, those fears were unfounded. Give me all the lines you want about hindsight being 20/20, but in both cases our foresight wasn't nearly what it should have been.

How were those fears unfounded? Didn't Vietnam become Communist? Didn't China assist and/or control the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war?

Didn't Laos and Cambodia become Communist?

How would you have "foreseen" any differently, given what was known in 1954?

See also:

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/DominoTheory.html

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36): Give me all the lines you want about hindsight being 20/20, but in both cases our foresight wasn't nearly what it should have been.

Quite agree. Any of here with a modicum of common sense have already concurred on both accounts. Hindsight is in fact 20/20 AND our foresight on the issue simply sucked.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36): What I think you mean is that it is going to end as soon as it reaches the point where our president has a reasonable degree of certainty that the whole place won't go to hell when we leave.

That's exactly what he just said here:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36): Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20): What I find grotesque about these demonstrations is that the participants already know it is going to end as soon as it possibly can.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 37): Does anything get accomplished that the protesters are protesting against?

Nope. But Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson get back on the front page for a day, and Hanoi Jane can relive her past . . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 39): Nope. But Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson get back on the front page for a day, and Hanoi Jane can relive her past . . .

I can agree with you on that. I really doubt many of these celebs could care about what is going on in Iraq. Do they really care about our dying troops? Dying Iraqi babies? the National debt that this nation is running up? Or how our economy is screwed up due to this? Jesse Jackson just wants to be in a popularity contest. When does Jesse Jackson help the average black man who faces racial troubles every day? If it isn't making national headlines, he isn't interested.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 30): Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): dare say, some of you here wouldn't take the time to walk across the street to voice your opposition to something you felt strongly against yet there were some who traveled 23 hours Hooray Hooray for them, am I supposed to stand and thank them

Sure, if you so desire. If not, that's fine, too. But do not mock or belittle them simply because they happen to have an opposing view to yours and have chosen to make it known.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 31): I read it. It goes without saying at SHE is entitled to an educated opinion. At least she EARNED her right to protest.

Hold on just a second. Are you saying that only those who have served have the constitutional right to protest this war?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 31): Tell me in that light, what educated opinion might Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Susan Sarandon or any of those others have.

For argument's sake, let's substitute those 3 names with John Doe, Jack Doe, and Jane Doe. Again, is it your opinion that because they have not served in the military, they are not entitled to exercise their right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression? We share the same personal feelings about the 3 people you mentioned - they are media whores. However, that being said, being a media whore does not supersede your rights as an American. Or, are you saying it does?

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 30): As a veteran I say they are a disgrace, to all those who serve their Nation and to their unit and should leave the Armed Forces immediately.

They'd probably like to but due to the mandatory extended tours of duty, they can't.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 30): In the old days they would have ben shot for treason

Are these the same "old days" when women couldn't smoke in public and couldn't vote and for a few dollars we could own our personal slaves? Are those the old days you're referring to?

Well gee.... I am so glad to see so many people have enough free time in their carefree lives to be pissed away.  

I swear to god, if I hear another protester invoke, "We're doing it for all of the fallen soldiers!" I am going to throw up.   

90% of those people don't give a rat's ass about the troops. And the only time they think about the troops is when it suits their political agenda. How many in the anti-war crowd - the ones who say we should pull out of Iraq before another soldier dies - do anything else for the troops... besides bitching of course.

Seriously, how many of these protesters donate money to organizations who help injured soldiers? How many of these protesters have sent care packages to soldiers overseas? How many of these protesters have taken the time to go welcome home troops returning from the war zone? How many of these people have bothered talking directly to the soldiers to get their opinions???

It seems to me, a lot of people at that rally... and even a few here on anet... don't really give a shit about the troops. Because if they did - they would be doing the things I just listed.

Until I see more people doing those things... I'm going to continue calling 'bullshit' every time I hear one of them invoke the name of dead soldiers.

-UH60

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): 90% of those people don't give a rat's ass about the troops.

You forgot the "IMO" in front of that statement. Unless you can provide some facts to back it up.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): Seriously, how many of these protesters donate money to organizations who help injured soldiers? How many of these protesters have sent care packages to soldiers overseas? How many of these protesters have taken the time to go welcome home troops returning from the war zone? How many of these people have bothered talking directly to the soldiers to get their opinions???

I don't know and I am guessing you don't either.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): It seems to me, a lot of people at that rally... and even a few here on anet... don't really give a shit about the troops. Because if they did - they would be doing the things I just listed.

It's quite possible they/we are and haven't seen fit to personally notify you.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): 90% of those people don't give a rat's ass about the troops. And the only time they think about the troops is when it suits their political agenda. How many in the anti-war crowd - the ones who say we should pull out of Iraq before another soldier dies - do anything else for the troops... besides bitching of course.

I would wager not very many.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): I swear to god, if I hear another protester invoke, "We're doing it for all of the fallen soldiers!" I am going to throw up.

I read all the associated articles, along with a few others, and didn't once read that. I read about them chanting to bring the troops home, however.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44): I would wager not very many.

Oh that's right, when it comes to humanitarian efforts liberals are do-nothing "bleeding hearts", and when someone spray paints graffiti on the Capitol, it's because the cops are suddenly drug-addled 60's rejects. I'm trying to follow this logic the best I can.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 39): Al Sharpton

I just did a word count, and found 5 original references to Al Sharpton being at the demonstration (not including where his name was quoted in a reply). He wasn't on the speaker list, he wasn't in the news, and by all indications, he was nowhere near DC during the demonstration. Perhaps my research was faulty, but I couldn't place him there.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): But really, Aloges . . . .a sizeable chunk. Laughable my friend. Less than one hundred thousand people is a pimple on the US population's posterior. OK, they made the news. Not the front page anywhere I've been last couple days, and it's done.

Doesnt even matter how many people are there ANC. Most people in the US agree now that we're in trouble- and more importantly, most people in the nation agree that this Administration is only bringing the US into more dangerous territory. If you dont want to listen to a few protesters in Washington, then perhaps you will listen to every single poll that has been taken in recent weeks / months. So say what you like about Fonda, Sarandon, and Jesse Jackson.... but the numbers and trends speak for themselves  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-08-gallup-poll_x.htm

Bush's approval ratings are at an all time low, at 26 percent (!), (as they should be), and few people support his frankly idiotic and disastrous idea to send more troops to Iraq. Sadly, me and those 100,000 protesters could have told you back in 2003 how badly this war was going to end up. But no one wanted to listen... no, no, you wanted to gobble up propaganda and falsified evidence of WMD and ties with al-Qaeda. When the world goes up in smoke (and believe me its already starting to catch fire), I will know who to blame.

-AA777

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44): I would wager not very many.

I'll take that bet L-188. Now, seeing as you made the wager, prove me wrong.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 45): I just did a word count, and found 5 original references to Al Sharpton being at the demonstration (not including where his name was quoted in a reply). He wasn't on the speaker list, he wasn't in the news, and by all indications, he was nowhere near DC during the demonstration. Perhaps my research was faulty, but I couldn't place him there.

That's an interesting observation. I will only add that I find it ironic that the same people here who wave the "old news" or "beating a dead horse" flag are the same people trashing Jane Fonda for something that occurred over 30 years ago. I guess something is only "old news" when it doesn't fit their agenda.

Celebrities are Americans also, right? Why when they get up to protest something people tell them to go sit down? Don't they have rights in this country as well?

It's nice to see the few standing up for what they believe in rahter you agree or disagree.

On a side note, I appreciate every soldier who DEFENDS are country and has to go off fighting in a war. I do not support this war because I have yet to see any reason for it other than trying to bring democracy to people in another country, who at first said country had weapons of mass destruction, which said weapons haven't been found last time I watched the news. I have yet to see how this particular war is defending us just yet.

I can't stand how people try to turn a person who might be not for a particular war into not supporting the troops and making them some low life American.


Can someone give me a history lesson? Here is the question my good neighbors: Which particular wars were fought to give Americans basic civil rights in this country? Was the Vietnam and the present war fought/being fought for us to maintain our basic human rights?

[Edited 2007-01-29 10:35:49]