Ok, my bad. Would you feel better if I stated that a significant minority of Americans are opposed to the war (much in the same way that a significant minority of Americans managed to get our lunatic in chief in office)? :rolleyes:
Actually, that is exactly what you should have said if you don’t want to look like a lying idiot. What is up with the :rolleyes:? You admit that you were wrong and then you roll your eyes at the people that pointed that out. Maybe you aren’t really cut out for this message board.
I’m not clear on the effect you intended to create with the “rolleyes” symbol.
There’s a huge difference between “no one supports the war” and “a significant minority of Americans are opposed to the war.” I grant you that rolleyes might be deserved if I took “no one” literally, and tried to refute it by pointing out two or three names of people that were in favor of the war; “no one” is clearly hyperbole. But it at least implies a majority, and since that doesn’t exist, you had no business using the exaggeration.
Perhaps you meant to direct the rolleyes not at me, but at the second part of your assertion - that only a significant minority of Americans voted for Mr. Bush, and yet he is our President.
But if that’s so, you are hoist by your own rhetorical petard. You suggest that the voice of the significant minority should be heeded with regard to the war, but disregarded when it comes to choosing the President. Why is the signifcant minority’s view so persuasive now, but a subject of rolling eyes when applied to November of 2000?
- Rick
They protesters represent what democracy is all about, and their protests are an example of what our troops are (according to some) fighting for.
But I’ll be happy to join a flame about their deliberately blocking traffic, as has occurred in several places. That has no effect on the decisionmakers who don’t even notice; it only pisses off people who’d otherwise be inclined to support them.
:Sigh:
The pro-war mob isn’t happy just to have their way and get a chance to bomb Iraq. Now they want the rest of us to stop our opposition to the war just because a few stupid cunts like Sinful feel that we have no “common decency.”
Well, fuck you, you ignorant slimebag piece of pustule-ridden dog’s intestine. If you’re so fucking gung-ho for war, then sit in front of the TV with your Coors and your American flag and clap every time a bomb hits Baghdad.
What? You don’t enjoy enjoy watching people get killed? You don’t like being stereotyped as a warmonger? Well, join the club, maggot. We anti-war people don’t like being painted as hating the US troops, because its not true.
As i’ve pointed out on more than one thread already, i find it interesting that those of us who have spent months opposing the war because we don’t like seeing people injured and killed are now being accused by shit-for-brain pieces of crap like the OP of presenting a bad image for “our men and women out there.”
If the anti-war protestors had been successful, and/or if the US had actually fulfilled its obligations and listened to the Security Council, there would be none of “our men and women out there” to worry about. You can support the war all you want - that’s your right - but if you want me to stop opposing it just because my opposition makes you feel uncomfortable and is not “common decency,” then you can take a flying fuck at a rolling pus-ridden donut.
Whew!! Amen carrot.
Just because some people disagree with some or all of the decision made regarding this war does NOT make them “unpatriotic” or unAmerican.
We can be very stong Americans, VERY patriotic, support our men and women and STILL think the prez is an idiot and made bad choice. SHEESH!!! Nobody calls someone who disagrees with policy changes regarding tax laws, or disagrees with the prez’s decision regarding other issues “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic”, why is this different?
I’m still undecided but leaning toward “why is this necessary”?
In other words, with all of our technology, why couldn’t we have done this without a huge war and bombing another country? We couldn’t have sent in a crack “hunt down Saddam and Kill him” SWAT team?
*DISCLAIMER I have little knowledge and understanding of war and it’s politics and strategies, so am waiting til I have more info before completely deciding, but it’s looking that way for me too. And I’m NOT unAmerican!!!
From here.
Charles Eliot Norton - 1827-1908
1898 - from his address “True Patriotism” delivered at Harvard University
I have not been able to find the the full text online, but I think it is very interesting with the current world events.
Look, I admit that I overstated my position to prove a point. I rolled my eyes because I felt that it was obvious that I was doing so and petty for a big deal to be made of it. I have already surrendered my soul to the conservatives. So should I cut off a pinkie and send it to you guys, or do you want my penis?
Oh, and Shagnasty a hearty Fuck You for suggesting that I don’t belong here.
A good read, I recommend it, especially with the state of world affairs.
Oh, and since this is the pit, Fuck you Sinful, you are an idiot!
Woo-hoo My Hundreth post!!! And I actually used swear words in it, another first!
Thanks for not flying completely off the handle, as so many have done in so many related threads on this subject.
I can’t speak for all protesters, but it’s evident that a certain number may be characterized as those who would protest any action by Bush. I mean, just listen to one of the Pacifica Radio outlets sometime; they deserve a hearty :rolleyes: for much of the polemic they claim to run as ‘journalism’. That said, there are many more, myself included, who would like to see a little more “sincerity and consistency” from the administration concerning our supposed reasons for invading Iraq.
Anyway, I think the analogy about China and Tibet is an interesting one. The current administration states that it is selflessly liberating the Iraqi people from the yoke of an oppressor. Tibet has been under just such a yoke since at least the late '50’s, yet the administration (and administrations before it) have done essentially nothing about it. Should we not, indeed, be pursuing regime change in China, or any other country where we find the leadership odious to some degree, if the reasons our administration gives for invading Iraq are sincerely expressed?
And Sinful, I was indeed speaking directly to you. I simply don’t find all that great a difference between demanding that protestors “shut the fuck up for a month” and wishing that they not be permitted to speak.
I’ve tended to stay out of the recent Bush-related pro/anti threads because of the hot tempers involved. I think that was probably a good plan. I now return to my previous semi-silence.
…If France hadn’t turned coat in the middle for monitary reasons…
Ifs/buts, candy/nuts…Kinda pointless now, init?
And again we see the common myth being perpetrated by ignoramuses and obfuscators: to wit, the idea that France is the only nation opposed to the US action.
If you would bother to get your head out of your ass long enough to take a look around, you’d see plenty of other countries opposed to this ill-advised operation, including some permanaent and temporary members of the UN Security Council.
As long as anti-war protesters don’t block traffic or vomit all over the place, I have no problem with them. Nerely voicing their dissent is in no way harmful to the war or to the military. If we do not protect freedom of speech, then what the fuck are we defending?
Although I did have a genuinely evil thought watching the bombing of Baghdad today. . .
. . . I wondered if the human shields were enjoying their front row seats.
I wish I knew the answer to that. Especially since, as noted, this has been through various administrations of all types. It’s not evil Republicans, evil Democrats, or any other common characteristic I can see. Nor does any other country seem especially upset about it. I don’t know if regime change is the answer, or what. Amnesty International I believe has sometimes had an effect on getting some individuals released, but my understanding is that it is a very deep and pervasive issue. But certainly I have seen no mass demonstrations of any kind protesting it.
We’re waging war for monetary (and political) reasons; isn’t turnabout fair play?
I wish someone would explain that to me. I keep hearing “No Blood For Oil,” but IIRC we didn’t take any oil wells the last time, so why would we do so now? Moreover, the war started because Saddam would not adhere to the inspection regimen laid down by UN resolutions. If Saddam had allowed full weapons inspections and demonstrated that he had no WMDs, Bush would not have been able to pull this war off.
How exactly is the US supposed to making money from this war?
Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean the rest of us care about what you have to say. Now that’s great that you think your being active and all. I know that toking up a joint and standing around waving signs and chanting slogans is really hard and useful work. But do you really think that Bush or any of his cabinet will view you as anything but a fringe element of society representing a small minority of people?
I say go ahead and grab your Berkinstocks, a clever placard, and your bongos. No one’s listening to you.
msmith357: why is it necessary to stereotype those that disagree? Sure, there are idiots, but you’re not coming across as any better if labelling all protestors was your intention.
Please keep in mind that this is a wild theory, but this is the only thing that I can think of that fits the facts. I stress again, that this is just a guess.
How the war is for financial gain: So, we go in and remove the regime. So far so good. Naturally, we want to be good global citizens and help reconstruct. And really, it is only fair that some proceeds from the sale of the oil (now in the hands of a democratic regime) go to help pay for this and for the war itself, right? And as long as we are at it, shouldn’t we send over consultants from corporate interests to help get contracts to rebuild the reservoirs/roads/power plants and so forth. It seems to me that there could be a lot of money involved here.
Keep in mind that this seems insufficient reason to start a war, but that one I just can’t figure out.