Horseshit. Bush acted in a manner counter to the best interests of the people of the United Staters and not just in a manner contrary to my feeble wishes. We were never in danger from Iraq, there was never any tie between the WTC attack and Iraq. To argue otherwise is to make a damned fool claim.
What planet are you on? Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11th attacks. Zero. Get over that before your head implodes.
As for Rummy, sure he doesn’t give a crap about what we think, but our representatives might. And the pubbies want to keep the White House after Bush leaves. Maybe a near-permanent presence in Iraq ain’t so good for the polls. Maybe all that money for the war’s cuttin into their pork. Whatever, squeaky wheels get greased, eventually.
So, you think we should just sit back and watch Bush get people killed, forever ? What kind of solution is that ? Also, what about the Iraqis we’re killing; are they just inanimate objects, something we need to smash to get the oil they inconsiderately dare to live on top of ?
Neither will complaining. If this was prior to going over there I’d be with you. But now the pros and cons of protesting simply make it a more attractive occurence for our enemy than for us. If you think that estimation is wrong, tell me why.
“On the altar of his ego and greed”, Oh please… Look everyone knows you hate Bush. We get it! As has been pointed out to you before, it gets old and detracts from the issue at hand.
Right. “Bush acted”, past tense. I do not agree with much of the rest of your post, but that is not what this thread is about. Your desire to replay history, correctly or not, does not change the reality of our men and women are over there right now and people are trying to kill them. Tell me, at this point in time, what do you think the odds are of Bush being swayed by another protest and bring the troops home?
Possibly. But possibly, you underestimate the value of the country standing behind the war actions of it’s President.
I never said or implied they did, because I don’t think they had anything to do with it.
I guess the question is, to what degree does protesting encourage or otherwise help the enemy, and to what degree do you think that protesting will be successful in ending the war and bringing our troops home?
So you think doing nothing will magically make Bush change his mind ? Protests might influence the rest of the government; despite what he might wish, Bush is not God-King of America.
The “issue at hand” is protesting against what he is doing; of course his character matters. If it doesn’t matter, why are you bringing up his refusal to listen to dissent ?
The Iraqis are trying to kill them because they are invaders or because they are infidels and easy targets; either way doing nothing like you suggest will solve nothing. I also notice you still haven’t said one word about the Iraqis who are dying at our hands.
When he’s engaged in an act of greed, aggression and stupidity, it makes Americans look like greedy, brutal idiots. You may think that’s valuable, I don’t.
:dubious: And what exactly is the value of the country standing behind the war actions of its president?
Alright, what’s the value? As I said, it’s not going to change any insurgent’s mind.
The question is not whether another protest will make Bush reverse course. It’s cumulative, and it’s more about demonstrating that there is more opposition to this war than ever. It seems to me that the administration discusses the ‘timetable’ for bringing troops home and continually overstates the readiness of the Iraqi army as an attempt to mitigate public dissatisfaction. Public unhappines with the war - with the way the justifications and predictions of a smooth victory turned out to be wrong, and with the lack of planning on so many levels - have had a major effect on public discourse, and that’s a good thing. Pretending that this was not a mistake would not solve anything.
Personally, I have not been to any protests since the war started. Not because of any of this ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’ junk, but because the protests immediately shifted to “bring the troops home now!” which, as much as I didn’t want them to be there, struck me as a really bad idea.
Then why did you bring it up?
Well, the US invaded Iraq. Some people who hated the US fought. Others grew to hate the US, and fought. Some who either hated or grew to hate the US were recruited from elsewhere, and are now fighting. I think their main beef is the US demolished an Arab nation filled with Muslims, and they seem fairly intent on fighting so long as Americans are there. Blaming the attacks on what non-combattants half-a-world away seems ridiculous. The Taliban are still fighting in Afghanistan, yet there has been little or no protest of that conflict in the US, even despite some recent American affronts to Islamic sensibilities. I have to wonder myself how the impact of American protesters would compare to, say, the abuses of Abu Ghraib, or the defilement of bodies by burning. Our troops are obviously lacking good leadership. Far more lethal than a few peaceniks on another continent, if you ask me.
What are the odds that GW will act to get out of Iraq if no one protests? The administration has already altered its mode of action with regard to N. Korea and Iran because of having gotten their tit in a wringer in Iraq. And GW’s stubboness, though nearly total, will not stand up against an aroused Congress whose members are susceptible to popular pressure.
Strange as the idea may seem, the President is titled the Executive because his function is to carry out, or execute, the will of the Congress. I don’t think GW would get the idea even if he were surrounded by protestors, but Congress will, sooner or later.
And by the way, I don’t publicly protest by getting out into the street. I’m just sick of hearing that people who do are endangering our troops lives. Going to war is what really endangers the lives of troops and I don’t think that public protests add much to that existing endangerment.
He was responding to your comment that “NO Americans would be getting killed if we never set foot in the place to begin with.” I guess he didn’t think you were talking about Americans in Iraq.
No. As I’ve stated earlier I think there are other ways, more effective though not as high-profile that can be done. Here’s one idea. There are 435 congressmen, right. For instance, what if everyone in each of their districts wrote and faxed him and emailed him letters every single day for one year. And then you did the same to the 100 Senators. If half the country is behind you, that means that the 435 congressmen will each receive, what, 230,000 letters a year? That’s over 600 a day, every day. Will it work? I think better than another protest. And it doesn’t have the downside of encouraging the enemy.
You think they wouldn’t find out about it?
I’ve still seen no serious response to this encouragement thing. How does protest encourage them? What would be happening if there were no protests?
The same as if there are protests.
I agree. See my last post.
I understand. But what if it does? Should that point not be brought up?
I think you’re right. I just wouldn’t want to add to it at all.
Only if you separate the protests themselves from the larger changes in public opinion that have happened in the last two years.
Please answer the questions I asked and that BrainGlutton asked.
Um, protests of the Iraq War made the Guinenss Book of Records for largest protest movement in history. Between 6 and 10 million people worldwide protested on Feb. 15 and 16, 2003.
But the war was more popular here than it was in Europe or anywhere else. If you look at that entry, the biggest protests aren’t in the US. Three million in Rome, two million in London, 500,000 in Florence… there was never anything that large here. Maybe if you picked one day and added up all of the major cities, it’d be close to two million.
If you meant “in the United States”, you should have said so. In any case, there were also very large protests in the US, I seem to recall.