# How quickly we forget (antiwar protesters) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660 "2003-01-19T18:22:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/81 "2003-01-20T22:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phlosphr \* > \*\*I agree with you **Futile**. > Unfortunately, emotive supposition is what quite a few people lean on when talking about things they know little to nothing about. It is an unfortunate dramatic pulse to debating things when not looking at someone in the face, trust _me_ **Futile** had I been sitting across from **photo** when he said it, I’d certainly look at him like -\> :dubious: \*\* That’s fine Phlosphr, I’d still have said it even if I was looking you in the eye. I’d even admit to not being the most informed person in America with regard to the Iraq situation, but what I have read and heard doesn’t instill much confidence. So far the administration hasn’t said anything that makes me think an attack on Iraq is justified currently, and plenty to suggest they’re just fishing for justification. Was it yesterday that Rumsfeld said that the reason why UN inspectors haven’t found anything could be proof that Iraq is being uncooperative? Okay, sure it could be, but it could also mean there’s nothing to find. Right? Hmmm? Or have they already ruled that out? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/82 "2003-01-20T22:22:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > \*\*It was Saddam that was firing scuds at American’s - but I guess you don’t call that an attack \*\* No, I do not call that an attack nor would anyone else who speaks English. Iraq attacked Kuwait, _not_ the United States. It was the United States who then attacked Iraq and Iraq was defending itself from a US attack. Iraq did not attack the US any more than you could be said to be attacking a man when he attacked you and you are defending yourself. To say Iraq attacked the US is ridiculous. Their wish would have been that the USA would have not intervened and they would not have to defend themselves. > [@](#): > > Cet animal est trés méchant, > Quand on l’ataque il se defend. > > This animal is very evil, > When attacked it will defend itself. I forget who said it. The circumstances are now very different. Iraq has not invaded any other country. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/83 "2003-01-20T22:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > Nonsense. > > While I agree that a large percentage of the protestors are naive chumps, IMO, they are in the right this time. Bush has a hardon to declare war on Iraq despite a) there being no connection to 9/11, b) insufficient evidence that Saddam has amassed WMDs, and b) no military provocation by Iraq. Moreover, the Bush regime has demonstrated a brzen hypocrisy in continung negotiations with North Korea, an insane dictatorship that not only has nuclear weapons but the means to deploy them, yet seems determined to make war on Iraq, a nation that has no nukes and is too far away to attack us. Well I vascillate on my opinion on this one. I hardly think that the is anything wrong with anti-war protests REGARDLESS of how justified the war may be. A healthy dialogue is always important. However I am not sure if I am for or against a war in Iraq, though I lean toward the ‘against’ side. However I have a couple problems with what you have said. a) Yeah this is correct. b) the evidence is not so much his possession of WMD, but more his lack of compliance. As far as North Korea goes, I think that consistency is foreign policy is one of the worst mistakes one can make. They are different countries, different politics and different situations. North Korea would storm across the DMZ and raze Seoul. Not to mention we believe that they might actually ALREADY have nuclear weapons. This makes the stakes with North Korea higher, and makes it much more logical that we go the diplomatic route, especially considering our diplomatic route in this case is more of a concession to South Korea, Japan and China than it is to North Korea. In otherwords I think consistency is a REALLY bad idea. Which seems to be North Korea’s strategy in developing nukes. > [@](#): > > In addition, the Bush regime has no game plan, no strategy to win the war, to take out Saddam (the putative goal) or what to do after the war is won (if it is). I’d need a cite on this. > [@](#): > > If we are going to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi noncombatants, we damned sure better do it to accomplish the task this time. I have a sinking feeling that Iraq is the Arabic word for Vietnam. I don’t think that this will happen, because I don’t think that support for Saddam is strong enough to cause a resistance to the level of the VietCong. Not to mention the lack of jungle fighting. Iraq’s military is in hopeless disrepair. And without the guerilla fanatics in Vietnam there won’t be the same level of resistance. IMO. This article outlines what the author believes to be the US strategy in Iraq, I have seen this sort of idea bandied about, and I think it’s very logical. It also outlines very well, why I think that we shouldn’t go to war with Iraq. [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle\_East/EA04Ak01.html](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA04Ak01.html) More or less, I think that the destabilization of the world’s oil production caused by this, while benefitting the United States, will not benefit the world as a whole. I think that we NEED Russia to have more economic strength and can be a force for stability in the region. I think that a price war between OPEC states will be detrimental because it will cause more instability and increase the amount of disillusioned within these nations, and more specifically, their governments will be more sympathetic to the fundamentalists, and less toward us. In otherwords we should be promoting stability in the region even if it lessens the amount of direct control we can excercise over world oil markets. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/84 "2003-01-20T22:47:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\*That’s like blaming the fire alarm for causing the fire. Vietnam-era protests did not cause the US to lose that war-that was done by the military establishment that did not learn the lessons of Dien Bien Phu. \*\* ::minor hijack:: I think that’s not completely correct. We had the military might to win in Vietnam. We simply didn’t use it. While I have no interest in placing blame, I think it’s an accurate observation that in this, the first televised war, public perception played a large part, and led to political interference in military matters. Had the public been more supportive, things might have gone differently. I don’t blame the protesters for this (other than Hanoi Jane,) but rather our leaders. If our leaders are going to prosecute an unpopular war they still owe it to the soldiers fighting and the country itself to fight that war to win, rather than let the unpopularity lead to half measures. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/85 "2003-01-20T22:59:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*No, I do not call that an attack nor would anyone else who speaks English. Iraq attacked Kuwait, _not_ the United States. It was the United States who then attacked Iraq and Iraq was defending itself from a US attack. Iraq did not attack the US any more than you could be said to be attacking a man when he attacked you and you are defending yourself. To say Iraq attacked the US is ridiculous. Their wish would have been that the USA would have not intervened and they would not have to defend themselves.I forget who said it. > > The circumstances are now very different. Iraq has not invaded any other country. \*\* And what would you call the scud attacks on Israel? They were never in the coalition, never helped and did not even retaliate. How would shooting scuds at Israel be construed as defending itself? No, America was not attacked, but America’s interests was threatened. Saddam was not content with kuwait. Their military was poised to keep right on going to Saudi Arabia had not the US intervened. Why do you think the Sauds agreed to “infidels” on Holy land? It was in the interest of America and the rest of the world that Saddam not be allowed to control 75% of the worlds oil. Given what he did to Kuwaiti oil feilds when he retreated, its a good thing Iraq was stopped before expanding out of Kuwait. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/86 "2003-01-20T23:27:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*This may be a mistake but I will try a metaphor. > > A known suicide bomber was stopped by the police in the middle of a mall parking lot before he could blow himself up and his targets. He is told to strip and remove all of his bombs from his body or he will be shot dead. > > Bomber reacts by taking off some bombs and tosses them on the ground but he also takes out some bombs and puts them in his pocket (sometimes behind his back) > > The police agains calls for the bomber to strip and remove all of his bombs. By this time people in the mall are watching as are city officials. > > The bomber drops a few more items, but refuses to strip. It was against his religion and does not want to appear naked in public. The people watching see all the bombs on the ground and figure no one could possiblely have anymore than whats on the ground. They start shouting “he’s clean” “let him go” > > A bomb expert approaches the bomber and starts frisking him. At first the bomber allows it but when the expert starts to search his back or his privates, he is pushed away ad the expert withdraws. The bomber is still moving items on his person around. The police can see this with their high powered telescopes but the people only see a man fidgeting in the middle of the parking lot with a lot of guns trained at him. The chant even more loudly “he is clean … let him go!” > > After “fidgeting” for quite a while, the bomber says he has had enuf and wants to go to the mall. The police yell he is under arrest and to stay where he is until another experts checks him out. The man refuses and starts walking towards the mall. The police yells “halt or we will shoot” the people yell “if you shoot him that would be murder” the city officials cant decide what to do. > > \*\*\*The police is privy to information that may not be evident or even divulged to the people watching. the person in charge of the police should be given a certain leeway as to how to do his job, the bomber is not cooperating as is legally required. The people who are protesting for the bomber are the same people being threatened by him. > > Should a debate ensue as to whether or not to shoot the bomber while he inches towards the people? Should the debate hold police action until it is resolved? > > Should the people decide on what to do next even tho they may not be fully informed. Is the information that the police have accurate? Should the police NOT shoot if the information is not totally accurate? Should we fire the police official at the scene? \*\* You are right, it was a mistake. When discussing the possibility of a war with Iraq why not stick to Hussein and Iraq? What does a hypothetical suicide bomber add to the argument? You postulate a contrived scenario of _imminent_ peril which I don’t see in the Hussein case. Hussein has violated the UN requirements agreed to after the Gulf War. The UN is taking action to correct that. Those actions apparently don’t satisfy you. I haven’t yet seen any evidence that the threat is so immedieate as to require a rush to war without allowing any public discussion as to that need and active protests if leadership is thought to be unresponsive. If the public is, as you imply, not fully informed the correction is to inform us. Telling us to sit down, shut up and “trust us” isn’t the way this nation is supposed to work. After all, by the principles to which everyone gives at least lip service, GW, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, _et al_ are supposed to be serving us. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/87 "2003-01-20T23:31:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*And what would you call the scud attacks on Israel? They were never in the coalition, never helped and did not even retaliate. How would shooting scuds at Israel be construed as defending itself? > > No, America was not attacked, but America’s interests was threatened. Saddam was not content with kuwait. Their military was poised to keep right on going to Saudi Arabia had not the US intervened. Why do you think the Sauds agreed to “infidels” on Holy land? It was in the interest of America and the rest of the world that Saddam not be allowed to control 75% of the worlds oil. Given what he did to Kuwaiti oil feilds when he retreated, its a good thing Iraq was stopped before expanding out of Kuwait. \*\* That’s all fine and well. The point is that **America was not attacked** and there is simply no risk that Iraq will attack America “again”. So, why don’t we wait until they attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia before attacking them? Chances are that Saddam has learnt the lesson the first time around and would not attack anybody knowing the US would come to their aid. As I have said, I am not entirely pro or con. If the international community and the UN decide attacking is the only way to resolve this issue, then fine. But it is not good for the US to attack unilaterally. Oh, and I am sure you have plenty of evidence showing Iraq intended to invade Saudi Arabia. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/88 "2003-01-21T00:11:17Z")
I regard anti-war protestors the way i regard anti-nuke power protestors of the 60s and 70s. They had a purpose which is to keep the powers-that-be honest. But we cannot give the protestor so much credance and power that it hampers the ability for the powers-that-be to do their jobs effectively. Case in point, we havent built a nuclear reactor in decades and its time for us to dismantle some of our older ones … in the middle of a power shortage. Shortsightedness courtesy of flower power. I trust the bush administration to do the right thing, whether it be war or diplomatic resolution. However, Bush should be held accountable for his decisions and he had better have a damn good reason explained to the public should he decide on going to war alone. and he had better win. I am under the assumption that I do not have all the facts. Bush does and I trust he knows what he’s doing. Those that dont trust him can continue to keep him honest but dont have to get in his way. Explaining how Bush got information from the enemy while that same enemy is listening isnt a good way to conduct a war. Questioning the commander and chief at a time of war isnt a good way either. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/89 "2003-01-21T00:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\* Those that dont trust him can continue to keep him honest but dont have to get in his way. Questioning the commander and chief at a time of war isnt a good way either. \*\* So if we think he is don’t something wrong we should let him continue to do it. Why? To allow him to finish what we believe to be wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/90 "2003-01-21T00:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*So, you are espousing censorship? What “protections” are you claiming beyond the First Amendment principles of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly? Are you saying that those “protections” should be removed _[because_ the statements are debateable? How are they to be debated if you prohibit debate? \*\* No, I am not espousing censorship and probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘protections’ since that implies Constitutional ones. Merely wondering why bother espousing the view that all of this UN business is just a pretext and “Iraq is no threat to the US”, when there is plenty of evidence that says SH is a threat to a lot of people, maybe not one that can reach NY or Chicago w/missiles but still a threat. If you want to insist certain things are lies here, :::shrugs:::, but there’s not much debate in that either. It implies that our leader is just as evil as SH is, nothing else would explain the actions - then _of course_ you’re going to protest the actions. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by sailor_ > **Oh, and I am sure you have plenty of evidence showing Iraq intended to invade Saudi Arabia.** If we don’t produce evidence, does that prove it’s another “lie?” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/91 "2003-01-21T00:37:24Z")
Blown and Injected, your idea of when freedom of speech becomes inappropriate is chilling. Why don’t you value the First Ammendment? It seems very unAmerican not to. I thought you supported our country! Apparently you do NOT support the Bill of Rights. Do you just see the United States as borders on a map and a rah-rah attitude? Or is it the principles and the people who hold to those principles? Beagle said: > [@](#): > > Keeping him [bin Laden] on the run and defensive until we can kill him seems like it’s going fine so far. Do you think that the government has accomplished what it set out to do to Osama bin Laden? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/92 "2003-01-21T03:49:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > I regard anti-war protestors the way i regard anti-nuke power protestors of the 60s and 70s. They had a purpose which is to keep the powers-that-be honest. But we cannot give the protestor so much credance and power that it hampers the ability for the powers-that-be to do their jobs effectively. Case in point, we havent built a nuclear reactor in decades and its time for us to dismantle some of our older ones … in the middle of a power shortage. Shortsightedness courtesy of flower power. Ah, would you care to justify your assertion that the fact that we haven’t built nuclear power plants recently has anything to do with protesters. I believe it has to do with something called “economics”. Now, you can argue that in a nation with less subsidy for fossil fuels (e.g., as exists in France), there would be better economic incentives to build nuclear power plants. But, I don’t believe fossil fuel subsidies came out of “flower power.” I kind of love it when conservatives attribute such power to liberal protest movements (at the same time as other conservatives in this thread are saying protest is futile)…Whatever! > [@](#): > > Questioning the commander and chief at a time of war isnt a good way either. Oh, I see, on September 12th, 2001 we as Americans were supposed to just say, “Well, let’s give up this silly democracy thing for the sake of national unity. Just let us know when this ill-defined war is over so we can get back to having a democracy again.” By the way, it would help me trust Bush and company a little more if he lied with a little less regularity. For example, I may not know if he is lying about what intelligence he has on Iraq but I know for a fact that he is lying and deceiving on his tax cut plans, so why should I believe that he is not going to lie on things where it is even harder for us to know whether or not he is lying or not? ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/93 "2003-01-21T06:35:01Z")
It is hopeless i’m gonna be sorry when I say AGAIN: I told you so:rollyeyes: ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/94 "2003-01-21T07:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > It is hopeless What is hopeless? > [@](#): > > i’m gonna be sorry when I say AGAIN: I told you so:rollyeyes: You told us what? 😕 …consider me confused… ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/95 "2003-01-21T07:20:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > distracting from issues such as corporate governance, erosions of civil liberties, the economy, and the many blunders of Dubya > > Oh yeah, Abe, save your BS liberal rant for your own thread - didn’t anybody notice that the economy went south during the last two years of the Clinton admn? I’m not comparing Dubya to Clinton, and I am not saying Clinton didn’t have his problems. But I am amused to see you employ once again the knee-jerk mark of antagonistic ignorance. You may not have realized, but all you are doing is regaling us with quite risible nonsense. What’s “hopeless” here is the attitude you bring to a forum for debate. You are clearly not here to debate or demonstrate your assertions, but simply to make rather foolish proclamations that run counter to reality, which you try to support with mockery once posters such as Tom shred them apart. If you hope to persuade legions of readers to your little political fantasy world using such an approach, you have a painful uphill struggle ahead of you. If you just want to convince everyone that you do not know what you are talking about, you have accomplished your objective a number of times over. In fact, you accomplished that objective way back with your OP. Now stop posting rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/96 "2003-01-21T08:01:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > There is that nasty lie again. I ask you to think twice about calling me a liar, **Brutus**. Especially in light of the last thread you and I were involved in. > [@](#): > > For the last time (from me, at least), the fight against Al Queda and conventional military operations are two separate types of activities. The former is a secretive activity, with few, if any, visible and reportable news blurbs. The latter is visible, involves tanks and CNN camera crews, etc. And what did I say if not exactly that? Here are my words: “The struggle against terrorists will take years and is bound to be a painful, complex, and secretive affair that will yield “only” safety.” In fact I will refer you to the rest of that post you thought was a “nasty lie”. Note also the often public progress made by many countries around the world in the war on terrorism; with other nations producing visible results, the US is by no means alone in this struggle–in fact, I would say the US is no longer on the front line of the war against terror. What’s happened with Dubya is that he has laboured hard to shift the focus of American concern from legitimate targets in the war on terrorism (as I said earlier, al Qaeda, etc.) to illegitimate targets (Iraq, who hasn’t been a serious threat to any nation in over a decade and who actually opposes al Qaeda and similar fundamentalist efforts). Do you have a valid explanation why Bush would employ so many questionable tactics (including, as others have mentioned, lying) to defocus the war on terror until it’s blurry enough that a nation not involved in terrorism becomes “the enemy”? That’s not shadow warfare, it’s covenient warfare. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/97 "2003-01-21T17:50:10Z")
Abe, who is Dubya? Don’t give me a bunch of bull - your bias is clear - you only see what you want to see ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/98 "2003-01-21T17:56:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > \*\*This is not just for you Lissa: > Not contradictory or hypocritical, just that I am able to control my emotions for an issue that is more important/bigger than my desire to throw a tantrum about something that I personally might disagree with or dislike. . . > > All the flapin’ is not going to change the situation, so don’t give me the that is why I protest - I do care about those things crap. > \*\* If all people thought like you, we’d still be saluting the British flag, women would be unable to vote, and blacks would be drinking from seperate water fountains. Like it or not, protest is what made this country the place it is today. > [@](#): > > It is hopeless. I’m beginning to agree. Your circular “logic” and determined disgust for the freedom to protest makes it so. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/99 "2003-01-21T18:28:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\*If all people thought like you, we’d still be saluting the British flag, women would be unable to vote, and blacks would be drinking from seperate water fountains. > > Like it or not, protest is what made this country the place it is today. > > I’m beginning to agree. Your circular “logic” and determined disgust for the freedom to protest makes it so. \*\* Just shows that you are not capable of thinking about anything other than your own feelings. I would be one of the first to take up arms. - shows what you know about me - but this is not about you and me - get over it! It took more than protests to free this country from the British, it took war. War was a last resort to the wrongs. Do you believe Saddam is not wrong to fail to comply with the UN resolutions? Don’t you get it!?! There is a time and place for everything! You should have been protesting the UN resolutions before this started. Now the people we sent to the ME need our united support ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660/100 "2003-01-21T18:53:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > \*\* I would be one of the first to take up arms. \*\* Well, why don’t you? Now’s your chance because it sounds to me like you think we are in imminent danger. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-quickly-we-forget-antiwar-protesters/149660.md?page=6)