Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:01 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36):
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?

One simple answer YES. You are only doing it because it is the "in" fashion thing to do. Those of you who do not support our troops whether you agree or not do not have my support. You are doing this for your own self gratification and not the troops
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:16 pm

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

This guy knows what he talking about, he is over there. He knows what it feels like to see the protesters and he know what it feeels like to feel that people do not support you even though you are losing lives every day for them. I know the feeling it is very discouraging. Thank you for your service and I pray that you will return safetly with your people
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:04 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 43):
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.

I know quite a few people - friends, neighbors and colleagues at work - who oppose the war. Not a single one of them have ever cited concern for the troops as their motive for opposing the war. The motivations I've seen are that they lean pacifist, tired of the money we're spending, isolationist, or hate George Bush. I've not heard a single one say they are against the war because of what is happening to our troops. In contrast, most all of the people I know who still support the war (there are some) cite their concern for the well being of the troops as the main reason they hope the wa ends soon.

Not a scientific study, but what I've encountered.

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 49):
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?

They have every right to protest. But what makes them so special that they get above the fold coverage in the morning paper?

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 49):
It's nice to see the few standing up for what they believe in rather you agree or disagree.

I'd respect them more if I thought they were doing it out of conscience instead of the opportunity to get more publicity for themselves.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:26 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 48):
Jane Fonda for something that occurred over 30 years ago. I guess something is only "old news" when it doesn't fit their agenda.

You weren't there when Hanoi Jane took her famous trip, were you? The lesson is that she in all of her wisdom visited Hanoi to call down our troops and make them feel less than wanted. You would not understand the feelings in those days and what it felt like to have this "madam" go to the head of the enemy country and let down the same people whom she said she was figting for. Today she just wants to get her name back in the papers as she is an older person now and the glory days are gone, so this is her chance to get back the spotlight if only for a few minutes She is old news
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:52 pm

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

possibly a nice beginning, but that demonstration if compared to the anti-Vietnam-rallies of the late 60ies and early 70ies of course was still relatively "small". It is to be remembered that anti-Vietnam-War demonstrations started in 1966 and the war only ended in 1975, 9/NINE years later. And during the reign of Richard Nixon even intensified and got expanded.
-

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
"Rev" redflag 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.

There is NO reason to have "Rev" in marks as Jesse Jackson really IS a reverend. And the redflag is also un-necessary as we all know that you do NOT particularily like him. That you describe Jane Fonda as traitor, apparently in reference to her visit in Hanoi in those times, is rather irrelevant in modern times.
-
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:07 pm

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

people who practically charge whomever is a (draft-) soldiers for decisions of the government are a bit "simple-minded" to put it mildly. And it to me does not even make so much of a difference if it is a professional soldier, as again, the decisions in question are NOT made by soldiers.
-
and it is to be made clear that the US-American intervention in South Vietnam originally was based on military treaties "inherited" from France and Britain AND the point that a member of the SEATO-treaty, the Republic of South Vietnam, was attacked by another country. THAT was the reason why Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy started to send "advisors"/troops to the help of South Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson, originally AGAINST any US-war-engagement in Asia, gradually slipped more and more into that war, without enthusiasm in fact. So when condemning people who made mistakes, we always have to bear in mind that we ourselves in their position might have made absolutely the same b...sh..t ! The Vietnam-matter went wrong as it was badly handled. I in case of Vietnam however do NOT have an ideal solution for what ought to be done in 1966/67 at hand. Simply to give up in favour of NORTH Vietnam indeed would have endangered Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, in this I DO agree with Robert McNamara.
 
JetJock22
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 9):
At their finest, people who vote

At their finest? 9 out of 10 people who vote today couldn't tell you what they had for breakfast 5 minutes ago, let alone what real political beliefs and convictions they have.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:21 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 41):
Hold on just a second. Are you saying that only those who have served have the constitutional right to protest this war?

No, and I so stated. You should re-read the posts above, perhaps this one specifically:

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 read another thread in here on HUMMWVs), or how they should/should not act in a fire fight without the ability to empathize.



Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 41):
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?

Asked, answered immediately above.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 41):
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?

Asked, answered immediately above.

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.

 checkmark 

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???

 checkmark  Just a couple thousand blowhards, that's about it. They'd protest anything given a big enough celebrity in the crowd.

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.

Picture of Jesse Jackson in ANC paper the day after, and a mention of Sharpton and Jackson in the article. It could have been incorrect, however. It is a McClatchy publication. Could have been an honest mistake as well, afterall where Jackson is Sharpton is sure to be close by, if there's media present.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 46):
So say what you like about Fonda, Sarandon, and Jesse Jackson.... but the numbers and trends speak for themselves

The numbers don't "say" anything. Less than a Hundred Thousand people is nothing. Ineffective. Already out of the news. As for Fonda - don't get me started on that traitorous bitch. And Jackson, if there's a camera he's there. Surprised Sheehan wasn't clinging to him like a leach. Sarandon, well - I don't like her stance, but at least she's not whoring herself out.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 46):
Sadly, me and those 100,000 protesters could have told you back in 2003 how badly this war was going to end up.

Sadly, so could a bunch of GIs I know - myself included - because our initial troops strength was WAY too low. I could go on, but I'll let you look up my previous posts - that subject - if you're truly interested. So, don't think for a minute it's just you anti-Iraq-War crowd that had doubts and misgivings. You'd be dead wrong.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 48):
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.

Sorry, as long as someone mentions her name, that's the reaction you'll get from some of us. She's a traitorous bitch that should have been jailed.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 54):
There is NO reason to have "Rev" in marks as Jesse Jackson really IS a reverend. And the redflag is also un-necessary as we all know that you do NOT particularily like him. That you describe Jane Fonda as traitor, apparently in reference to her visit in Hanoi in those times, is rather irrelevant in modern times.

Jesse Jackson's no more a "preacher" than my pet Airedale. He may have earned the title, but he's nothing more than a media attention whore and Jesus, God, or whatever diety he praises is the last thing on his sorry assed mind. Don't kid yourself.

As for Hanoi Jane, the traitor, you'll have to live with my description - or not - I don't care. Modern times my ass, she's a taitor, period. Done.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:32 pm

[

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 57):
As for Hanoi Jane, the traitor, you'll have to live with my description - or not - I don't care. Modern times my ass, she's a taitor, period. Done.

My friend I agree with you totally. Have of these people that are on this forum today weren't even born when this was going on, so they are listening to stories of these "so called" celebs, who at the time only wanted front page coverage to improve their chances of getting a big movie deal. She is a bitch from hell and is not worthy of anyone's respect. I have said my piece for what it is worth. I leave this forum with my total support for our troops, different to those who have no respect for them. Well done you true and faithful servants, I salute you
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
OU812
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:19 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 7):

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.

That's pretty rank NASCARAirforce. However, it demonstrates how biased & callow you are. Also, you forget that the vast majority of the dems voted for the war and were for regime change in Iraq in the 90's as well.

Re. running the US into the ground? With an unemployment rate on 4.6 %. You are the last person to call anyone ignorant.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

NEWS


What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:54 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 57):
she's a taitor, period. Done.

no, by all information available she is/was not a traitor. And "period" in a discussion is not acceptable. Neither is "done".

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 57):
you'll have to live with my description - or not - I don't care

I do NOT live with your description, I simply realize that you get some self-satisfaction out of such rethorics. Enjoy !
-
here something about the topic :
***********************************************
""" To her credit, during a 20/20 television interview sixteen years later in 1988 with Barbara Walters, Jane Fonda apologized for her incredibly bad judgement in going to North Vietnam and allowing herself to be used as a propaganda vehicle.

"I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did," she began. "I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm . . . very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families." """
***************************************************
-
which more or less shows that her visit to North Vietnam was indeed rubbish, but a traitor is something different. Had she been a "traitor" in the real sense, Richard Nixon would have brought her to court for sure
-
and here the most distinguished career of Reverend Jesse Jackson :
-
*************************************
The Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson, President and Founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, is one of America's foremost political figures.

Over the past thirty years, he has played a pivotal role in virtually every movement for empowerment, peace, civil rights, gender equality, and economic and social justice.

Reverend Jackson has been called the "conscience of the nation" and "the great unifier," challenging America to establish just and humane priorities. He is known for bringing people together in common ground across lines of race, class, gender, and belief.

Born on October 8, 1941 in Greenville, South Carolina, Jesse Jackson attended the University of Illinois on a football scholarship and later transferred to North Carolina A&T State University. He attended Chicago Theological Seminary until he joined the Civil Rights Movement full time in 1965.

Reverend Jackson began his activism as a student leader in the sit-in movement and continued as a young organizer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as an assistant to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He went on to direct Operation Breadbasket and subsequently founded People United to Save Humanity (PUSH) in Chicago in 1971. PUSH's goals were economic empowerment and expanding educational and employment opportunities for the disadvantaged and communities of color. In 1984, Reverend Jackson founded the National Rainbow Coalition, a national social justice organization devoted to political empowerment, education and changing public policy. In September 1996, the Rainbow Coalition and Operation PUSH merged into the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition to continue both philosophies and maximize its resources.

Long before national health care, a war on drugs, dialogue with the Soviet Union and negotiations with the Middle East were popular positions, Reverend Jackson advocated them. By virtue of Reverend Jackson's advocacy, South African apartheid and the fight for democracy in Haiti came to the forefront of the national conscience.

Reverend Jackson's two presidential campaigns broke new ground in U.S. politics. His 1984 campaign won 3.5 million votes, registered over one million new voters, and helped the Democratic Party regain control of the Senate in 1986. His 1988 candidacy won seven million votes and registered two million new voters and helped to sweep hundreds of elected officials into office. Additionally, this civil rights leader won a historic victory, coming in first or second in 46 out of 54 contests. His clear progressive agenda and his ability to build an unprecedented coalition inspired millions to join the political process.

As a highly respected world leader, Reverend Jackson has acted many times as an international diplomat in sensitive situations. In 1984, for example, Reverend Jackson secured the release of captured Navy Lieutenant Robert Goodman from Syria, as well as the release of 48 Cuban and Cuban-American prisoners in 1984. He was the first American to bring hostages out of Kuwait and Iraq in 1990.

In 1990, in an impressive victory, Reverend Jackson was elected to the post of U.S. Senator from Washington, D.C., a position also known as "Statehood Senator." The office was created to advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia, which has a population higher than five states yet has no voting representation in Congress.

A hallmark of Reverend Jackson's work has been his commitment to youth. He has visited thousands of high schools, colleges, universities, and correctional facilities encouraging excellence, inspiring hope and challenging young people to award themselves with academic excellence and to stay drug-free. He has also been a major force in the American labor movement�working with unions to organize workers and mediate labor disputes. It is noted, Reverend Jackson has probably walked more picket lines and spoken at more labor rallies than any other national leader.

A renowned orator, Reverend Jackson has received numerous honors for his work in human and civil rights and for nonviolent social change. In 1991, the U.S. Post Office put his likeness on a pictorial postal cancellation, only the second living person to receive such an honor. He has been on the Gallup List of Ten Most Respected Americans for the past ten years. He has also received the prestigious NAACP Spingarn Award, in addition to honors from hundreds of grassroots and community organizations from coast to coast. Reverend Jackson has been awarded more than 40 honorary doctorate degrees, and frequently lectures at Howard, Yale, Princeton, Morehouse, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and Hampton Universities, among others.
***********************************
source: http://www.tgsrm.org/Jackson.html

-
-----------------------------------------------
he may not always be right, but he is a great man for sure  yes 
-

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 58):
She is a bitch from hell

I remember that she in those days was described as "cheap", while nobody gave her the "honour" to be "from hell" . Attention whore ? Whore maybe, but also Richard Nixon was an "attention whore", so what ? it in case of actors and of politicians is part of the job
-
-

Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
you forget that the vast majority of the dems voted for the war and were for regime change in Iraq in the 90's as well.

careful please ! To describe other A-netters or accuse them of being "callous" goes into "flamebaiting" and is hardly objective. More important however is that many people, not only in the USA, in 2003 had at least some understanding for an action to remove Saddam Hussein al-Takriti from power. The "vast majority" of then was in favour of THIS action. The present problems are a result of the severe MIS-management committed by GW Bush and his cronies AFTER the military intervention.
-
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2740
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:03 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 57):

No, and I so stated. You should re-read the posts above, perhaps this one specifically:

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 read another thread in here on HUMMWVs), or how they should/should not act in a fire fight without the ability to empathize.

I read that. Unlike some here, I actually read the entire thread prior to commenting on individual posts. Perhaps you should reread your post that I have quoted below. You didn't say anything about Staff Sgt. McKee having earned the right to tell soldiers how they should fight or how they should or should not act in a fire fight. You said that "She (Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee) EARNED her right to protest" with the strong inference that she did so simply because she has served in the military. I've never served day 1 in the military yet I ace'd my SAT's, earned a degree in criminal justice at the University of Michigan and have instructed at half a dozen or so police academies since starting my career in law enforcement almost a quarter century ago. I consider myself pretty well educated. Oh yeah, I'm also a citizen of the United States. Yet, from what you posted in reply 31, it appears that I haven't EARNED my right to protest simply because I've never served in the military.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 31):
It goes without saying at SHE is entitled to an educated opinion. At least she EARNED her right to protest.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 60):
no, by all information available she is/was not a traitor.

Not sure what text you are reading from but you must have picked it up in the fiction section. If anyone in the past 50 years should have been charged with treason it should have been Hanoi Jane.

Protesting a war is one thing. Providing aid and comfort, along with great photo ops on Charlie's guns, is treason.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 60):
And "period" in a discussion is not acceptable. Neither is "done".

You try telling that to a Vietnam Vets face over here regarding her and see how quickly you find yourself picking your butt up of the ground. As for ANCFlyer using it I'm fine with it because there is no middle ground on Fonda. She is a traitor pure and simple.

Period. End of discussion. Next topic.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 62):
And "period" in a discussion is not acceptable. Neither is "done".
--
You try telling that to a Vietnam Vets face over here regarding her and see how quickly you find yourself picking your butt up of the ground.

-
It does NOT matter WHO is talking. To use expressions like Khalas/Basta/Period/Done just at will in a discussion simply canNOT be accepted. That you equal US-Vietnam-veterans to street-thugs is NOT exactly a nice defence anyway.
-

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 62):
Providing aid and comfort, along with great photo ops on Charlie's guns, is treason.

that of course is a serious allegation. Do you want to say that she delivered the North Vietnamese military information they would NOT have had without her ?? While everything is possible I have some problem to believe it. You might elaborate on this however.
-

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 62):
Period. End of discussion. Next topic.

and exactly such is rubbish and unacceptable ! even if you possibly feel a "hero"
-
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2458
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:41 am

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 am really curious how many of those people driving around with the yellow ribbons on their cars do, or how many of these Hawkish and Chickenhawk politicians do too.

What have the pro war members of the Republican party done for the troops besides send them there? I don't see the Bush twins fighting there. Many of these pro war guys have never served in the military themselves or found ways out of the draft like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh... the list goes on and on...

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/politicans_platoon/

Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
That's pretty rank NASCARAirforce. However, it demonstrates how biased & callow you are. Also, you forget that the vast majority of the dems voted for the war and were for regime change in Iraq in the 90's as well.

the Dems are 50% of the problem with this country. I never said that I supported them either.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
Re. running the US into the ground? With an unemployment rate on 4.6 %. You are the last person to call anyone ignorant.

Can you find me where you got the 4.6%, because the last report I heard was 7.8% on the news.

As for running the U.S. into the ground - yes

the unemployment rate even if it is 4.6% doesn't mean that people have the quality jobs that they once had. My father worked a great job, it didn't pay a lot but it offered great benefits since he worked for a County job. He gets a nice pension, he gets great medical, health and other benefits till he dies. This job does not offer the same benefits anymore. He is lucky that he didn't get his benefits and pension cut like many other companies - Airlines, automotive etc.

Where I grew up - that would be Detroit, the unemployment rate is much higher, close to double digits. It is not just automotive that is losing out, so is Pfizer as they lay off 2,000 research jobs up there. If unemployment is low, it is because new Walmarts have opened up, so these people who were once making $50-60K are now making $8 an hour to just make ends meet.

What happens when you call to get your computer repaired on the phone? Are you talking to a computer repair specialist in America anymore? Most likely not. The same is happening when I call for my credit cards. Jobs are being outsourced overseas and down to Mexico. Part of the problem with jobs being sent to Mexico - ie automotives is NAFTA, which Clinton signed. NAFTA started running things down the tube even in the 1990s for the Detroit area.

I went slightly on a tangent about NAFTA, but back to Bush running the U.S. into the ground.

The U.S. Image is being run into the ground by Bush mainly due to his illegal war. Right after 9-11, countries and their citizens around the world were supporting us, ready to do whatever they could to help us. Now these countries could care less about us and view us as evil. You don't have to look far to see that, just read the boards here. There wasn't this anti American stuff before we invaded and occupied Iraq. I know some of the "hawkish" or should I say "Chickenhawkish" members on this board would say "f*** what the rest of the world thinks. we are the great USA!!!" Hell at one time I used to say that too. The point is, we need our allies. Had we all been working together much better, I am willing to wager Osama Bin Ladin would have been caught by now. The rest of the world really no longer cares about our war on terror, because it has gotten to the point where we are doing it alone since we isolated ourselves away from everyone else.

The U.S. image is being run into the ground also by Bush because he has hired incompetent advisor after advisor. How many of his cabinet members are original? How many jumped off the derailing train such as Powell, Ashcroft, Ridge etc. Or the ones who get fired reveal how disorganized the Bush administration is - ie Michael Brown. The image of us as a superpower has been run into the ground due to the buffoonery of Rumsfeld and other leaders in handling Iraq. It is a stalemate erupting into a civil war. It wasn't quickly handled like George Sr handled the first Iraq War where the mission was accomplished quickly and painlessly with few allied lives lost. Instead we have scandel after scandel - more terrorism than ever in a nation, where terrorism didn't really exist before we got there... Abu Grab (not sure about the spelling, but you know what I mean) the stuff that went on in those prisons without Bush and Rumsfeld coming out and condemning it right away tarnished our image.

The country is sliding towards a police state type situation almost similar to Nazi Germany when people would tattle tail on other people to the government. Just ask any aircraft spotter who had regular ordinary people look at them weird and then contact the cops. Domestic wiretapping, paranoia, more censorship in the media (ask Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, Mancow Muller, Bob and Tom radio show and even ABC after the Janet Jackson fiasco during the superbowl). The Patriot Act, which is as far from being a Patriot as possible. Creating the Dept. of Homeland Security and putting FEMA under it - look at what happened in Katrina. When have you heard of 1000+ people dying in a hurricane in modern times in America?

Do I need to mention more? Apparently all but 28% think that this country is heading in the wrong direction, which are Bush's approval ratings.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63):
To use expressions like Khalas/Basta/Period/Done just at will in a discussion simply canNOT be accepted.

Whatever. Perhaps we have failed Debate 101 but I've seen some threads on here where you have been less than accepting of dissenting opinions and have cut off people in the same type of manner.

Hello Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle. You can call him black.

If you don't like the way ANCFlyer ends a discussion then don't enter one with him. It's all quite simple.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63):
That you equal US-Vietnam-veterans to street-thugs is NOT exactly a nice defence anyway.

I'm not equating them to street thugs but rather dealing with reality of the attitude towards her byt the people she hurt the most. You talk to almost any Vietnam Vet and ask them who would leave a room alive if it was just the vet and her in it and I can guarant-damn-tee you what the answer will be.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63):
that of course is a serious allegation. Do you want to say that she delivered the North Vietnamese military information they would NOT have had without her ??

Providing aid and comfort doesn't always include military information. Money that was raised because of her involvement led to the deaths of US servicemen. Propaganda from the VC showing her hanging out with their soldiers and smiling while sitting on top of a big gun is yet another. She is a traitor to the USA and sadly was given a pass thus setting a poor example. She should have gone the way of Axis Sally or the many women who were Tokyo Rose.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 65):
Money that was raised because of her involvement led to the deaths of US servicemen. Propaganda from the VC showing her hanging out with their soldiers and smiling while sitting on top of a big gun

A) the money according to the reports was given to humanitarian purposes and not to the North Vietnamese armed forces
B) hanging out with North Vietnamese soldiers and smiling while sitting on top of a big gun may not exactly be sensible and intelligent, but legally not treason
-
you could as well argue that her endeavour to stop the War in Vietnam secured the survival of many US servicemen .
-

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 65):
some threads on here where you have been less than accepting of dissenting opinions

-
may be

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 65):
have cut off people in the same type of manner.

I do NOT recall to have "cut off" anybody
-
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:07 am

For those of you who seem to think that [fewer than] one hundred thousand demonstrators against the war is a "sizable chunk" and other such phrases let me offer you some perspective.

Somewhere around THREE MILLION visit Las Vegas in a typical month.

They travel just as far as your demonstrators did. For Las Vegas. To drink. To gamble. To see some shows.

There is your groundswell of public opinion in action.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:20 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 67):
Somewhere around THREE MILLION visit Las Vegas in a typical month.
--
They travel just as far as your demonstrators did. For Las Vegas. To drink. To gamble. To see some shows.
--
There is your groundswell of public opinion in action.

-
there always are more people interested in enjoyment than in politics. Your assumption that all those people who go to Las Vegas are in favour GWB's Iraq politics however is a bit extreme.
-
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 66):
the money according to the reports was given to humanitarian purposes and not to the North Vietnamese armed forces

If you believe all those reports then I have some wonderful waterfront property to sell you in Arizona.

Just like the Iraq Oil for Aid program was abused you can be assured that Charlie got their hands on their fair share of the money for non-humanitarian needs.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 66):
you could as well argue that her endeavour to stop the War in Vietnam secured the survival of many US servicemen .

Her actions did nothing to bring those troops back home despite what you may think. If anything it led to the deaths of many of them at the hands of the VC because they felt emboldened by the defection of Fonda to their cause and for all intensive purposes disregarding any safety of the troops.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:23 am

This is what I'm picking up here. If you've never "experienced" it, or earned your stripes, you have no business protesting against it.

Wow, in the next thread where someone goes on about promiscuity or gay marriage I'm gonna have a DOOZY of a question to toss out. Thanks guys, you've made my life a whole lot easier.
International Homo of Mystery
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2458
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 67):
Somewhere around THREE MILLION visit Las Vegas in a typical month.

They travel just as far as your demonstrators did. For Las Vegas. To drink. To gamble. To see some shows.

There is your groundswell of public opinion in action.

that doesn't make sense.

I am against the war big time. But 99 out of 100 times you ask me would I rather go to Vegas or a protest, I am going to tell you Vegas.

There are a lot of people in this country who are against the war. I don't know where you have been lately, but most of America does NOT support the war, and as you seen most of America was not at the protest.

Does most of America really want to waste time going to a protest, standing outside in the cold for hours, spending money for a flight, trying to find an available hotel that is miles away from the protest, on their own for food etc, not having enough bathrooms around all for a president who high tails it to Crawford Texas every time a war protest comes to town? Nothing is accomplished in a protest unless you are a major celeb.

Yes I would rather go to Vegas. It is much warmer there. I can find a hotel probably for cheaper and much easier. I don't have more than 20 ft to walk to get to the gambling tables, and I will get offered free drinks and maybe I can even win some money.

so I am not seeing what the point of this whole comparison to Vegas is otherwise
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 43):
You forgot the "IMO" in front of that statement. Unless you can provide some facts to back it up.

No I didn't.

I know everything. Didn't you get the memo?  Wink

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???



Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 43):
I don't know and I am guessing you don't either.

Actually, I try and do as much as possible for my brothers-in-arms. It's very important to me.

I figured out last year that 10% of my annual pay was donated to foundations designed to help soldiers. (But to be perfectly honest - I don't make a huge amount of money... so admittedly I can't donate a huge sum of money.) But I try and support these groups whenever I have the chance, specifically - The Fisher House Foundation. (www.fisherhouse.org)

All of my pay in Iraq has been tax free... so I was able to donate more than usual last year. Unfortunately when I return home, I will began to pay taxes again, and I won't be able to donate as much this year.

And I lost one of my best friends here in Iraq... and I do a few things for his widowed wife. But I'd rather not talk about that.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 64):
I am really curious how many of those people driving around with the yellow ribbons on their cars do, or how many of these Hawkish and Chickenhawk politicians do too.

What have the pro war members of the Republican party done for the troops besides send them there? I don't see the Bush twins fighting there. Many of these pro war guys have never served in the military themselves or found ways out of the draft like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh... the list goes on and on...

Bingo. Here is the perfect example.

He makes it perfectly clear... this is not about the troops. This is not about bringing our troops home, before another one dies.

This is about politics.  Yeah sure

And both sides - Republicans and Democrats - are guilty of this! On both sides of the spectrum, here on ANET and at that protest, people claim to have the troops' best interest in mind. It's bullshit.  redflag 

Because as NASCAR just clearly showed us - this is about bashing your political opponents. This is a political war. Which is FINE! But just be honest about it! Both sides need to stop spewing the tired line of "We have the troops' best interests in mind.!" Because they don't. Their goal is to damage their political opponents, and unfortunately many of them feel comfortable using the names of dead soldiers, as weapons in their battle. It's absolutely disgusting.

If you honestly care about the welfare of the troops, you would do the things I listed earlier in the discussions. Things that would actually make a difference in their lives. And your political party would never be a factor.  no 

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:42 am

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 72):
that doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. 3 million people per month equals 100K per day. The same amount who apparently traveled to Washington, DC for the protest. Impressive number, I'd say. There were also protests in other major cities that day. Did you stop to wonder why Sheehan wasn't vilified in this thread yet? It's because she was leading the protest in L.A. instead.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:44 am

Lets face it, protesting in Jan in DC is not going to bring out ultra large crowds..
Just got an email from my nephew in Iraq(second tour) ..let me share some of it.. "his unit has bee under attack guarding Iraqi police stations constantly, when the shit hits the fan the Iraqi police and soldiers are nowhere to be found..last week driving back to their encampment, their humvee was hit by an IED. It took out the front wheels and left front corner of the truck..second time he was hit by an IED"

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 61):
it appears that I haven't EARNED my right to protest simply because I've never served in the military.

1. you don't have to EARN your right to protest and 2) the shit you do for us everyday makes up for the lack of military service..you have my respect.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:49 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 69):
there always are more people interested in enjoyment than in politics. Your assumption that all those people who go to Las Vegas are in favour GWB's Iraq politics however is a bit extreme.

Your conclusion regarding what I meant is stunningly off-point.

Here it is: We all have 24 hours in a day. We all have a finite amount of disposable money after food shelter and clothing are provided. So, along comes THE BIG ANTI-WAR WEEKEND in Washington DC. This is IT!!!!! This is the one! Demonstrations without celebrities are pretty pointless - not enough TV coverage. So what do all these Americans of conscience do? Well, they mostly don't go to Washngton DC.

What we actually DO says a million times more about us than what we SAY.
So, what did we actually do? 299,900,000 out of 300,000,000 stayed home.
That is 3.3333 to the negative fourth of us attended.

Groundswell.
vox populi

I'm not suggesting (and only a fool would) that the roughly three quarters of a million in Las Vegas instead of Washington DC on that one and particular weekend "support GWB" or some such nonsense. I am stating categorically the axiomatic truth that they did not give a rats ass about the anti-war demonstration.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
PanAmOldDC8
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:25 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:50 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 73):
If you honestly care about the welfare of the troops, you would do the things I listed earlier in the discussions. Things that would actually make a difference in their lives. And your political party would never be a factor.

Thank you for bringing focus back to this thread. As I have said in a previous post I admire what you are doing and know what you are going thru. Gentlemen as much as I have read things on this discussion that have upset me greatly. The matter is very simple let us support our troops and get them home with honour and dignity that was not afforded me on my return
To: Itsjust me. I would like to apologise for my comment in post 68, the remark on my part was uncalled for and I do not agree with your statements however my reply was inappropriate. I hope that you take this in the spirit in which it is given
I would recommend that we now lock this thread as it has become a political boxing match, no one will win and someone nose will be put out of joint
Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 77):
The matter is very simple let us support our troops and get them home with honour and dignity that was not afforded me on my return

I'll second this statement..
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 70):
the money according to the reports was given to humanitarian purposes and not to the North Vietnamese armed forces
--
If you believe all those reports then I have some wonderful waterfront property to sell you in Arizona.
--
Just like the Iraq Oil for Aid program was abused you can be assured that Charlie got their hands on their fair share of the money for non-humanitarian needs.

the point is whether anybody can prove that she donated money to the North Vietnamese armed forces. She said it was for humanitarian purposes and so said the North Vietnamese. Prove the contrary !
-

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 70):
waterfront property to sell you in Arizona.

you for sure mean the Hotel Arizona, as shown here :

full info : http://www.adria.net/hotelarizona/arizonade.html
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 71):
This is what I'm picking up here. If you've never "experienced" it, or earned your stripes, you have no business protesting against it.

I don't think anyone us suggesting that. If they are, they are wrong!

What is clear is this: If you have never served in the military your opinions regarding MILITARY decisions, like how exactly to carry out operations in Iraq are worth a lot less than those who have served.

True in any discipline, proffession or field.

The "troop surge" while it does have political ramifications, is essentially a military, operational decision.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 80):
regarding MILITARY decisions, like how exactly to carry out operations in Iraq

-
you have to bear in mind that the problem often far more is the POLITICAL decisions. And it very often is decisions long AFTER the original start.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 72):
standing outside in the cold for hours,

Oh those poor, poor people!

I guess [in your view] the Iraqis can just go on dying until the weather gets better in Washington.

Going to Las Vegas is a wonderful test of the attitude of the average American. It stips away all the bull, all the pretense, all the excuses and rhetoric. They actuall DID that. They actually took a trip comparable to going to Washington for the ONE AND ONLY big, scheduled anti-war rally complete with celebrities but instead they put their money on a ticket to Las Vegas.

You are never likely to see a bigger truth that that in your whole life! They did what they believed in.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 73):
"We have the troops' best interests in mind.!"

Earlier in this thread I asked you to source this. War protesting is a lot more complex than a few bumper sticker moments. "Bring the troops home" isn't exclusive to having your best interest in mind, as it also has to do with the best interests of the country as a whole and the best interest for the field of operation. Not that your safe return isn't thought of as well, because it is.

Back in the days of conscription, the meaning of "bring the troops home!" may very well have been different, but I keep getting reminded that these days you folks wanted into the armed forces, and were willing to go anywhere the president sent you at anytime without question.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 83):
Back in the days of conscription, thernmeaning of "bring the troops home!" may very well have been different,rnbut I keep getting reminded that these days you folks wanted into thernarmed forces, and were willing to go anywhere the president sent you atrnanytime without question.

You're absolutely right, different era, different meaning..For example whenever my nephew complains about the situation he finds himself in Iraq, I think about the choices, his father attempted to point him towards the Coast Guard, but we all make choices, and didn't we know everything when we were 18?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 83):
War protesting is a lot more complex than a few bumper sticker moments. "Bring the troops home" isn't exclusive to having your best interest in mind, as it also has to do with the best interests of the country as a whole and the best interest for the field of operation.

That's great, westy. That's what they should be saying! If you're against the war, then I'd rather you make an educated argument why you're against it, instead of using a tired line simply because it scores you political points.

And it's very insulting to listen to people -- both pro and anti war -- claim they're fighting on behalf of the troops, when their actions prove otherwise.

And a few people here on ANET have already proven that this has more to do with politics, than it does with the lives of soldiers. AND LIKE I SAID - that's fine! But just be honest and admit it!

All I am saying is this: Do not invoke the honor of soldiers in the war zone, to use as a hammer in your political wars back home.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 71):
This is what I'm picking up here. If you've never "experienced" it, or earned your stripes, you have no business protesting against it.

I don't care if people have enough free time to march on Washington. That's their constitutional right. Every citizen has the right to support or protest this war.

However, I do get upset when people - who have never served in the military - criticize the individual tactics we use. And Thorben highlighted this in a previous thread - he didn't know the first thing about convoy operations - yet that didn't stop him from spouting off at the mouth with criticism.

And that is a huge problem. If you don't know the first thing about the tactics we use, and WHY we use them... how can you possibly make an educated argument against them??? And this is where I'd rather civilians simply shut up and let us do what we do best.

Criticize the war, by all means. But please, don't stick your nose in the tactics we use, especially if you have no prior experience. Surely you can agree with that, westy?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:30 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 84):
complains about the situation he finds himself in Iraq

-
soldiers involved in whatever kind of war have it with General MacArthur who said that """" War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. """ so that the present situation of endless "war-activities" certainly make many feeling pissed off. We can criticize this or that or the contrary, the trouble is to say what NOW ought to be done. It is like being stuck with your car in deep snow. You no longer get forward but you also do not get backward.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 75):
Lets face it, protesting in Jan in DC is not going to bring out ultra large crowds..

Actually, it was a very mild day in DC - I believe the temps were in the 50's and it was a nice sunny day.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
All I am saying is this: Do not invoke the honor of soldiers in the war zone, to use as a hammer in your political wars back home.

 checkmark 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:40 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
And a few people here on ANET have already proven that this has more to do with politics, than it does with the lives of soldiers

Things have to do EVERYTHING with politics, and almost nothing with the lives of the soldiers, and almost nothing with the lives of the civilians affected !

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
in the tactics we use

the point is NOT your tactics as such, but the EFFECTS of your "tactics", and the impression it leaves with the civilians on the place, who are NOT interested in your tactics and your tactical considerations, but need their cars repaired
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 87):
Actually, it was a very mild day in DC - I believe the temps were in the 50's and it was a nice sunny day.

I'm a whimp, been in Phoenix to long..50's a little chilly.  cold 

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
All I am saying is this: Do not invoke the honor of soldiers in the war zone, to use as a hammer in your political wars back home.

Soldiers as usual are just pawns in this mess, the decision makers need to make the decisions on what is best for America, and not personal agendas!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 88):
Things have to do EVERYTHING with politics, and almost nothing with the lives of the soldiers, and almost nothing with the lives of the civilians affected !

Man, I feel like I am repeating myself here.  Yeah sure

I don't have a problem with your little political wars and debates on ANET. But don't use soldiers as tools to fight that war. That's all I am saying, because it smacks of dishonesty and insincerity.

Do you understand, yet?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 66):
A) the money according to the reports was given to humanitarian purposes and not to the North Vietnamese armed forces
B) hanging out with North Vietnamese soldiers and smiling while sitting on top of a big gun may not exactly be sensible and intelligent, but legally not treason

You believe in the tooth fairy as well?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:04 am

Since, as I've mentioned, my "litmus test" as to the merits of any protest relates to whether it is substantively justified, I am heartened by the fact that OU812 has demonstrated that, when it comes to mainstream media coverage in the United States, the grounds for such protest are colored by what I believe are the biases of the protestors themselves against the Administration.

The following quotes, among others, provided by OU812, are instructive:

Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source



Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source



Quoting OU812 (Reply 59):
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

Thus, it is clear that even back in the 1990's, it was believed by the United States government, whether under the Clinton or the current Administration, respectively, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The tenor of most of these protests historically shows that they are inordinately biased against the Administration in the sloganeering that typically occurs:

"Bush Lied, People Died!"
"No Blood for Oil!"

The premises of these protests, moreover, are centered around supposed "justifications" described by leftist sites such as MoveOn.org, which often cite the Administration for "lying" to the American people, or going after Iraq for the sake of oil interests alone. For years, this has been the rationale against the liberation of Iraq, and yet, for like amount of years, there has been a complete absence of any explanation for why it is that the Clinton Administration believed in the same things that the current one does concerning Iraq's possession and intention to use weapons of mass destruction. President Bush did not "lie" any more than President Clinton did about this issue, and yet this is not generally admitted; quite to the contrary, the Administration alone is made to look like the malevolent warmonger. Such "reasoning" discourages me from taking these protests seriously, because the lack of impartiality and the probable introduction of spurious factors, such as the loss of will, so strongly recommend against them.

The mainstream news media in the United States, with the exception of Fox News and a few others, after supporting our liberation of Iraq, has now largely taken the side of those who are cynical of our motives. I cannot tell you how often I find it incredible how Jack Cafferty's repeated commentaries each day on CNN's Wolf Blitzer-hosted news program rail against the United States' actions in Iraq, and in this regard, against the Administration in particular. His personal bias, it seems to me, is evident in these observations. Likewise, a steady drumbeat of unbridled criticism elsewhere, in places such as MSNBC, the New York Times, and other influential outlets, unalloyed by any consideration of the actions of the previous Administration and thus of the actual truth of the matter as it appeared to exist, serves primarily to discredit those who cover the news more than it serves to provide it.

No less a luminary, as it were, than Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently chastised an audience by telling them that, as Secretary of State, she could only deal with issues in real time -- not in retrospect. Information is often lacking, all available choices are sometimes unpalatable, and decisions are often highly imperfect because of the dilemmas thereby posed. This Administration is given no leeway for the imperfection that Secretary Albright so strongly cautioned necessarily existed.

It is sad that political protests are often poor substitutes for rational discussion, and unfortuately, I find that the recent anti-war protests are no more than that, and run-of-the-mill, to boot.
What's fair is fair.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:17 am

Quoting OU812 (Reply 93):

 redflag   redflag  TOTALLY off topic. This is about the anti-war protests. Not a show case for the current economic success in the US. Take it to a new thread.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:42 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):

However, I do get upset when people - who have never served in the military - criticize the individual tactics we use. And Thorben highlighted this in a previous thread - he didn't know the first thing about convoy operations - yet that didn't stop him from spouting off at the mouth with criticism.



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
Criticize the war, by all means. But please, don't stick your nose in the tactics we use, especially if you have no prior experience. Surely you can agree with that, westy?

We're basically on the same page in this regard, if you recall my post in that thread. "Tactics" can be interpreted broadly, though--if it was your tactic to play bumper cars as you moved through traffic, I'm not gonna have a single thing to say about it because it's not my butt on the line, it's yours. But if "tactic" includes invading Iran or Syria to cut off supply lines, that's an entirely different deal. Perhaps we can put something like the latter into "strategy".

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 85):
All I am saying is this: Do not invoke the honor of soldiers in the war zone, to use as a hammer in your political wars back home.

I agree, and as I've said, I haven't seen it happen. If you have, please point it out. I really am trying to discover how you arrived at this point of view that that's what's happening in the war protests. It may simply be something that's just outside my field of view, or something completely different.
International Homo of Mystery
 
OU812
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:19 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 94):
TOTALLY off topic

UH,
I don't entirely agree. And why didn't you red flag the person I was responding to? It is relevant since this thread is about the Iraq war/Bush administration & I chose to counter another a-netter's arguments which were regarding the Bush economy.

AerospaceFan,
Nicely done. IMHO, I feel the main stream media have done more harm then good. Freedom of speech exists in this nation. However, what the vast majority of the media are doing is irresponsible & thwarting our efforts. Their constant bashing of our troops and efforts have only emboldened our enemies, making our troops jobs that much more damgerous, difficult and prolonging the war.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting OU812 (Reply 96):
the vast majority of the media are doing is irresponsible & thwarting our efforts. Their constant bashing of our troops and efforts have only emboldened our enemies, making our troops jobs that much more damgerous, difficult and prolonging the war.

- most "thwarting efforts" is not the media but the government
- bashing of the troops simply is wrong, as the mistake is NOT with them
- US-media, except CNN, is NOT seen in the Middle East, and so has NOT "emboldened" your enemies. They watch el-Jazeera and listen to BBC .
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:56 am

Quoting OU812 (Reply 96):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 94):
TOTALLY off topic

UH,
I don't entirely agree. And why didn't you red flag the person I was responding to? It is relevant since this thread is about the Iraq war/Bush administration & I chose to counter another a-netter's arguments which were regarding the Bush economy.

I agree, totally off-topic. OU812, you went back 29 replies to #64, that was in rebuttal to your points in reply #59 that had replied to reply #7, which had NOTHING to do with where you wanted to take this thread. The tangent you were going off onto about the unemployment rate didn't belong in a thread on the anti-war protests, unless it was directly relevant to wartime employment, which it wasn't.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:59 am

Thank you, OU812. Your quotes were the inspiration for my message.

In matters of import and history, logic, reason, and good judgment must rule. Passion is often one of the greatest enemies of rational acts, though it need not be so.

One can be passionate about our troops, and yet understand the counsel of reason. In fact, it is arguable that one must be none other than so. One can be passionate about a political position, and also find in that passion the motive to act vigorously; but to do so one must still understand that blind passion often does more harm than good.

The great Roman orator Seneca once wrote:

(Excerpt)

Quote:
[I. 7. 1] Although anger be contrary to nature, may it not be right to adopt it, because it has often been useful? It rouses and incites the spirit, and without it bravery performs no splendid deed in war -- unless it supplies the flame, unless it acts as a goad to spur on brave men and send them into danger. Therefore some think that the best course is to control anger, not to banish it, and by removing its excesses to confine it within beneficial bounds, keeping, however, that part without which, action will be inert and the mind's force and energy broken.

[I. 7.2] In the first place, it is easier to exclude harmful passions than to rule them, and to deny them admittance than, after they have been admitted, to control them; for when they have established themselves in possession, they are stronger than their ruler and do not permit themselves to be restrained or reduced.

[I. 7. 3] In the second place, Reason herself, to whom the reins of power have been entrusted, remains mistress only so long as she is kept apart from the passions: if once she mingles with them and is contaminated, she becomes unable to hold back those whom she might have cleared from her path. For when once the mind has been aroused and shaken, it becomes the slave of the disturbing agent.

Or, perhaps more succinctly: "Passion without reason is blind. Reason without passion is dead." Both are needed, but the excess of one will almost surely come before a fall.

See:

http://www.praxeology.net/seneca2.htm (source of Seneca quote).

http://www.candleinthedark.com/spinoza.html (source of the last quote).
What's fair is fair.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:10 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 99):
passionate about our troops

people outside your country do NOT care about your troops. What rather matters are real facts :
> the religious minorities in Iraq like the Christians were much better off under Saddam than now
> women could work and could attend universities and were not forced to wear either scarves or even weils
> the country in many ways was liberal secular open-minded
> beer and wine was widely available
> unemployment was low
> safety of people on the streets was quite good
> religious zealots had no influence onto daily life
-
all this has gone down the drain now, thanks to that GWB-invented "democracy"
 
OU812
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:19 am

RE: Anti-War Protests In Washington, DC

Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:12 am

AeroWesty,
FYI, Your post is 100% irrelevant since it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Care to discuss this matter or be a total political hack? And again, why didn't you criticize NASCARAirforce's reply, the one which I countered?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 99):
One can be passionate about our troops, and yet understand the counsel of reason. In fact, it is arguable that one must be none other than so. One can be passionate about a political position, and also find in that passion the motive to act vigorously; but to do so one must still understand that blind passion often does more harm than good.

Many of the people that were involved in this protest [i.e. Sean Penn and others] live in such a bubble that they are completely disconnected from reality. I am baffled to why so many in Hollywood are so way way out there?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An767, flyingwaeldar, Kiwirob, stratosphere and 70 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos