• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are Protestors Nothing but Bums?

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
this might be stupid and off topic but i keep wondering...

does anyone think its strange that over 100,000 people just happened to have the day off work on Saturday to protest with Sheehan? honestly, im not trying to pose an ignorant and rhetorical question just to flame emotion (like some people have), but it really makes you think. i know if i asked my captain if i could take the day off to protest id probably get a good laugh out of him before he said no. hypothetically, if a survey was taken and a large number of anti-war protesters didnt have jobs, would you take them less seriously?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Most of them don't even believe what they are protesting. They just have nothing better to do really. I have better things to do then go to Washington DC and get arrested.
 

Stobbe

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Romulus, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't think that protestors are bums because they have every right to protest, but the things that people protest about are just plain stupid sometimes! I mean, come on, Cindy Sheehan already talked to the President! Get over it! People die in war, lady, that's a cold, hard fact!!
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Apparently there were folks from all up and down the eastern sea board. 100,000 is a fairly small percentage of the tens of millions who live here. A whole lot of folks only work a m-f week. I mean, they call it the "work week" for a reason. There're about 50mil folks who live within a half day bus ride of DC. 100k is only 0.2% of folks in the area.
Given that most folks are already off on Saturdays and that the 100k is a very small percentage of folks in the area, it doesn't seem at all surprising that this many people would have off on a Saturday.

And, some of us in attendance actually were at work (eg cops, vendors and journos).


CN 3,483,372
DC 563,384
VA 7,386,330
MD 5,508,909
NJ 8,638,396
NY 19,190,115
PN 12,365,455
WV 1,810,354
all from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder how many 'honest' protesters there were.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Huh? What's up with all the prostetor bashing? I am a full-time employee and I get Saturday's off, as do most people who work 9 to 5 during the week. Okay, just say some of these people have jobs where they work over the weekend, I believe as long as they have the vacation time, they don't have to inform their boss of where they are going. That's none of the boss's business.

This is America. If we don't like something, we can protest. I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if there was a decision before the Supreme Court that involved abortion and there were "pro-life" people outside making a big deal. I am sure those protestors would be considered "quality" people in your eyes.

Why do you care what people do in their spare time?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
Huh? What's up with all the prostetor bashing? I am a full-time employee and I get Saturday's off, as do most people who work 9 to 5 during the week. Okay, just say some of these people have jobs where they work over the weekend, I believe as long as they have the vacation time, they don't have to inform their boss of where they are going. That's none of the boss's business.

This is America. If we don't like something, we can protest. I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if there was a decision before the Supreme Court that involved abortion and there were "pro-life" people outside making a big deal. I am sure those protestors would be considered "quality" people in your eyes.

Why do you care what people do in their spare time?

They could at least protest with honestly.

I also get my weekends off. I cleaned my guns on Saturday.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
They could at least protest with honestly.

I also get my weekends off. I cleaned my guns on Saturday.
What does protesting with "honesty" entail? I highly doubt that people would have taken the time to come to DC (as may came from out of state) to protest something they did not believe in. Most protestors feel passionately about their stance. But if you want to call them dishonest because it somehow lessens their credibility and/or importance, you go right ahead.

You cleaned your guns on Saturday? When men talk like that, I usually assume they are (1) uneducated and (2) feel inadequate regarding a part of their body or both.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
What does protesting with "honesty" entail? I highly doubt that people would have taken the time to come to DC (as may came from out of state) to protest something they did not believe in. Most protestors feel passionately about their stance. But if you want to call them dishonest because it somehow lessens their credibility and/or importance, you go right ahead.

You cleaned your guns on Saturday? When men talk like that, I usually assume they are (1) uneducated and (2) feel inadequate regarding a part of their body or both.
I just finished half of my College degree, I work out intensely 6 daya a week, as Marines should, and I went shooting Friday night, but I appreciate your concern with my penis size.;)

Most protesters are full of **** They protest the war. Fine, but to hide under the "Support the Troop" slogan as they do it and having the audacity to think they can speak for the troops who largely want to finish the job is plain "dishonest."
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
I just finished half of my College degree, I work out intensely 6 daya a week, as Marines should, and I went shooting Friday night, but I appreciate your concern with my penis size.;)

Most protesters are full of **** They protest the war. Fine, but to hide under the "Support the Troop" slogan as they do it and having the audacity to think they can speak for the troops who largely want to finish the job is plain "dishonest."
LOL Glad you caught my joke. So the word penis is okay here. Interesting.

I honestly think that they believe they support our troops because I feel like I support our troops even though I don't support the war. You can argue with me about this, but I know what's in my heart, and I support our troops. Now, I would not tell a soldier/Marine that I don't support the war UNLESS they told me that they don't support it. I have two friends, one who just returned from serving for one year in Iraq, and one who will be going there shortly (who is a Marine), and neither of them support this war, but are still serving their country. One does not have to agree with everything their boss says.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
LOL Glad you caught my joke. So the word penis is okay here. Interesting.

I honestly think that they believe they support our troops because I feel like I support our troops even though I don't support the war. You can argue with me about this, but I know what's in my heart, and I support our troops. Now, I would not tell a soldier/Marine that I don't support the war UNLESS they told me that they don't support it. I have two friends, one who just returned from serving for one year in Iraq, and one who will be going there shortly (who is a Marine), and neither of them support this war, but are still serving their country. One does not have to agree with everything their boss says.
The general sentiment among the Active Duty Marine Corps is a willingness to finish the job. Arguing this will do no good. You believe in what you believe in and I will not understand it. I dismiss these protesters, because we have seen this sort of behavior before at our expense.

There is also the "fickle" factor. These protesters are screaming things like "Support the troop" and "no more death" and such. What never escapes my thoughts with regards to the American people is how quickly they seem to want to put us in harms way and then change their minds. It happened in Vietnam, Somalia, and now with Iraq. It was OK for servicemen to die when it was about WMD, but now that it is about killing Al-Queda insurgents, local Sunni dissenters, and temporarily defending Iraqi's, they now care about our lives? To contradict the "Support the Troop" slogan, they go on to use the deaths of Iraqi civilians (American "victims") as a tool for their protest to voice on "humanity." My question to them, is where was this great voice of humanity when the Iraqi people were suffering the abuses of Saddam? If they really cared about the "innocents" why do they not think that liberating them from Saddam and defending them from Al-Queda insurgency a worthy cause?

I don't buy it. I believe, for the most part, "Support the Troops" is merely PC and they really don't care about the American "victims". They are simply against war and they are frustrated with the situation and individuals like Sheehan are just lashing out while the Democratic Party rides the wave to the election. In the mean time, the average service man is left to figure out what "Support the Troops" even means.

At least with the pro-war folks, they are consistent. One could easily argue that it is the average fickle American that is playing with our lives.

And besides all of this, we will be leaving Iraq sooner than people think.

At least with the pro-war folks, they are consistent. One could easily argue that it is the average fickle American that is playing with our lives.

And besides all of this, we will be leaving Iraq sooner than people think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mate! That's a bit rough. I can't speak for everyone who's against the war, but I definitely care about the Coalition troops. They're good men and women with family and friends and I'd hate for anything to happen to any one of them.

Regarding Iraqi liberation - if they felt that oppressed, don't you think they could have held their own revolution or coup? It's hardly an impossible feat in a country like that, you know.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vergiss said:
Mate! That's a bit rough. I can't speak for everyone who's against the war, but I definitely care about the Coalition troops. They're good men and women with family and friends and I'd hate for anything to happen to any one of them.

Regarding Iraqi liberation - if they felt that oppressed, don't you think they could have held their own revolution or coup? It's hardly an impossible feat in a country like that, you know.

I tried not to make it rough.

You are right. This is some of my problem with that civilization. But I also realize that unlike the protesting in America, protesting in the Middle East against their oppression is considerd a direct dissention against their god and is met with death. In the past, a revolution only meant that the other religious sect was now in charge. Iraq held a more special form of oppression. They were terrorized for over thirty years by the Baathist Party. The day of the "vote" was all I needed to affirm what I witnessed in 2003. They want more than what the rest of the Middle East has.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree that we can't leave the job-half done, because that'd be terribly unfair on the Iraqis. I just despair over how long it's likely to take, and wish we'd never started it in the first place. There are more subtle ways to bring about a regime change.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
The general sentiment among the Active Duty Marine Corps is a willingness to finish the job. Arguing this will do no good. You believe in what you believe in and I will not understand it. I dismiss these protesters, because we have seen this sort of behavior before at our expense.

There is also the "fickle" factor. These protesters are screaming things like "Support the troop" and "no more death" and such. What never escapes my thoughts with regards to the American people is how quickly they seem to want to put us in harms way and then change their minds. It happened in Vietnam, Somalia, and now with Iraq. It was OK for servicemen to die when it was about WMD, but now that it is about killing Al-Queda insurgents, local Sunni dissenters, and temporarily defending Iraqi's, they now care about our lives? To contradict the "Support the Troop" slogan, they go on to use the deaths of Iraqi civilians (American "victims") as a tool for their protest to voice on "humanity." My question to them, is where was this great voice of humanity when the Iraqi people were suffering the abuses of Saddam? If they really cared about the "innocents" why do they not think that liberating them from Saddam and defending them from Al-Queda insurgency a worthy cause?

I don't buy it. I believe, for the most part, "Support the Troops" is merely PC and they really don't care about the American "victims". They are simply against war and they are frustrated with the situation and individuals like Sheehan are just lashing out.

At least with the pro-war folks, they are consistent. One could easily argue that it is the average fickle American that is playing with our lives.

And besides all of this, we will be leaving Iraq sooner than people think.
When we thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that could be used against us, sure, we supported the war. Personally, I never thought that, but regardless, Americans believed our president and his adminstration when they warned us of Iraq'a capabilities. But we get out there and there are no WMDs to be found. Huh? So how was Iraq/Saddam Hussein a threat to us?

Frankly, I don't care about the Iraqis and what Saddam was doing to them. I do care about sending our troops to invade a country that wasn't a threat to us to begin with, I truly believe that Bush exaggerated the evidence to support this war. He was talking about going after Saddam Hussein in January 2001--right after he was inaugurated. He hated the guy. After all, Saddam had put out a contract to kill his father. But then September 11th came, and that asshole used the wind from September 11th to push this "war on terorrism" in Iraq. Colin Powell was given a hodge podge of documents from the White House to use for his case for war to the UN. We have insurgents in Iraq NOW because we invaded there. They weren't there before our invasion.

Who is here to protect us here if we get a terrorist attack?

Everything isn't necessarily one way or another. I understand why people say that those of us who do not support the war still support our troops. If you see that things are only the way you see them, that seems small-minded to me.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
When we thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that could be used against us, sure, we supported the war. Personally, I never thought that,
Really? And what led you to that conclusion when everyone else, the US intelligence, the UN inspectors, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Clinton administration, everyone said he did have them. You must have had something really good to lead you to buck the comventional wisdom. What was it?

but regardless, Americans believed our president and his adminstration when they warned us of Iraq'a capabilities.
And every other intelligence agency. And in fact the capabilities were proven along with the desire. The only thing we didn't find were completed weapons and boiling cauldrons of chemical and biological weapons.

But we get out there and there are no WMDs to be found. Huh? So how was Iraq/Saddam Hussein a threat to us?
Read the Kay and Duelfer reports and the Senate Hearing reports and the 9/11 commission reports. His plan was to ge the sanctions ended so he could presue his interest which included producing WMD and furthering his ties with terrorist groups. And he had progressed pretty far into that plan.

Frankly, I don't care about the Iraqis and what Saddam was doing to them.
So much for freedom and liberty for oppressed peoples I guess.

I do care about sending our troops to invade a country that wasn't a threat to us to begin with,
He was not only a threat to us but the entire region and the entire world. Had he been successful in his plan, which he would have been had we not used force to stop him, the entire world would be a much more dangerous place.

I truly believe that Bush exaggerated the evidence to support this war. He was talking about going after Saddam Hussein in January 2001--right after he was inaugurated.
It was the policy of the United States, instituted under the Clinton administration, to remove him. And Bush and his administration only stated what everyone else believed. The fact is we still don't know what happened to all the materials the UN Inspectors said he had. The fact is once the sanctions were lifted he would have been right back into full production of WMD.

He hated the guy.
Oh how petty.

We have insurgents in Iraq NOW because we invaded there. They weren't there before our invasion.
And we had Alqaeda and Hamas and others there before and we would have had more of them there had we not removed Saddam. Where do you think the Taliban and Alqaeda would have run to from Afghanistan if Saddam was still in power? Iraq.

Who is here to protect us here if we get a terrorist attack?
The same people who would be protecting us if we weren't in Iraq.

Everything isn't necessarily one way or another. I understand why people say that those of us who do not support the war still support our troops. If you see that things are only the way you see them, that seems small-minded to me.
Do you want our soldiers to win or do you want them to lose? That is the telling point as to whether you support them.
 

taxpayer

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
When we thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that could be used against us, sure, we supported the war. Personally, I never thought that, but regardless, Americans believed our president and his adminstration when they warned us of Iraq'a capabilities. But we get out there and there are no WMDs to be found. Huh? So how was Iraq/Saddam Hussein a threat to us?

Frankly, I don't care about the Iraqis and what Saddam was doing to them. I do care about sending our troops to invade a country that wasn't a threat to us to begin with, I truly believe that Bush exaggerated the evidence to support this war. He was talking about going after Saddam Hussein in January 2001--right after he was inaugurated. He hated the guy. After all, Saddam had put out a contract to kill his father. But then September 11th came, and that asshole used the wind from September 11th to push this "war on terorrism" in Iraq. Colin Powell was given a hodge podge of documents from the White House to use for his case for war to the UN. We have insurgents in Iraq NOW because we invaded there. They weren't there before our invasion.

Who is here to protect us here if we get a terrorist attack?

Everything isn't necessarily one way or another. I understand why people say that those of us who do not support the war still support our troops. If you see that things are only the way you see them, that seems small-minded to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BINGO<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Although this thread has become yet another debate over the justification of our little adventure in modern colonialism in Iraq, I wanted to make a few comments about the original topic of the thread.

The first fallacy is that a large percentage of the people present at any particular protest either know or care a great deal about what they are protesting. A large percentage of them are the idealistic young, who would protest oxygen if they believed it was part of the status quo. A percentage are aging hippies trying to recapture the (imagined) relevance of their own youth. A percentage are party and lobby operatives who are there to swell body counts and make sure it plays well in the media. A percentage are just interested bystanders out to see what all the fuss is about, and to enjoy a day's free entertainment. And of course, there is an actual percentage of informed, active, dissidents who are genuinely there to "change the world".

Incidentally, can anyone name one thing that has been changed by peaceful demonstration? I think it is mostly a way for the powerless to feel empowered, and a way for the impotent to feel as if they have a voice. Then again, that is what liberalism is all about - sensation and perception. As long as it makes you feel better and assuages your guilt, it must be the right thing to do.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Uh, mate? Does the name "Gandhi" mean anything to you?

*waits for a certain forum member to appear*
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GySgt said:
The general sentiment among the Active Duty Marine Corps is a willingness to finish the job.
Good, because that is what they are paid to do.

It is possible for the troops to do the best job they can without actually believing in the mission themselves, so it is possible for people to support the troops without supporting the actual war.

Aren't they supposed to be fighting for democracy? If Americans are not supposed to protest, what are your (and my) troops dying for?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vergiss said:
I agree that we can't leave the job-half done, because that'd be terribly unfair on the Iraqis. I just despair over how long it's likely to take, and wish we'd never started it in the first place. There are more subtle ways to bring about a regime change.

Yeah, but those subtle ways are what people cry about when they point out our foriegn policies.

Because of the way units are being moved around, equipment is being shifted, the Iraqi military coming online, and other factors, you'll see huge movements out of country by the end of next year. Possibly by the end of the summer....That's right, I said it.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
When we thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that could be used against us, sure, we supported the war. Personally, I never thought that, but regardless, Americans believed our president and his adminstration when they warned us of Iraq'a capabilities. But we get out there and there are no WMDs to be found. Huh? So how was Iraq/Saddam Hussein a threat to us?

Frankly, I don't care about the Iraqis and what Saddam was doing to them. I do care about sending our troops to invade a country that wasn't a threat to us to begin with, I truly believe that Bush exaggerated the evidence to support this war. He was talking about going after Saddam Hussein in January 2001--right after he was inaugurated. He hated the guy. After all, Saddam had put out a contract to kill his father. But then September 11th came, and that asshole used the wind from September 11th to push this "war on terorrism" in Iraq. Colin Powell was given a hodge podge of documents from the White House to use for his case for war to the UN. We have insurgents in Iraq NOW because we invaded there. They weren't there before our invasion.

Who is here to protect us here if we get a terrorist attack?

Everything isn't necessarily one way or another. I understand why people say that those of us who do not support the war still support our troops. If you see that things are only the way you see them, that seems small-minded to me.

You, at least, would be an "honest" protester.

I hate to break this to you, but we will not protect you from a terrorist attack in America. Terrorist will not mobilize and sail across the ocean and cross the border and attack. They will drop an airplane, they will set off a bomb, they will commence to opening up a rifle in a crown...etc. The only way to defend America from terrorism is to take the fight there. At least in Iraq, Al-Queda is coming to us where we can fight them. We gutted them in Afghanistan and still they have legions of fighters. This would be more of that failing civilization throughout the Middle East I was talking about where Al-Queda and their affiliates have millions and millions of supporters. They explain away their lack of opportunity that their blaspemous form of religion has offered them by using us as an enemy. They kill for their god and nothing more. You strip away their facade of politics and they will still kill for their god. There is over thirty years of proof to back this up. There is also the spread of this terror, which is obvious to anyone that will look at it. Fighting this is what will save you from a terrorist attack in America.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So what's a "dishonest" protester? I don't recall you providing an answer anywhere.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
walrus said:
Although this thread has become yet another debate over the justification of our little adventure in modern colonialism in Iraq, I wanted to make a few comments about the original topic of the thread.

The first fallacy is that a large percentage of the people present at any particular protest either know or care a great deal about what they are protesting. A large percentage of them are the idealistic young, who would protest oxygen if they believed it was part of the status quo. A percentage are aging hippies trying to recapture the (imagined) relevance of their own youth. A percentage are party and lobby operatives who are there to swell body counts and make sure it plays well in the media. A percentage are just interested bystanders out to see what all the fuss is about, and to enjoy a day's free entertainment. And of course, there is an actual percentage of informed, active, dissidents who are genuinely there to "change the world".

Incidentally, can anyone name one thing that has been changed by peaceful demonstration? I think it is mostly a way for the powerless to feel empowered, and a way for the impotent to feel as if they have a voice. Then again, that is what liberalism is all about - sensation and perception. As long as it makes you feel better and assuages your guilt, it must be the right thing to do.
In the highly profound words of 'taxpayer' and his eloquent manner in which he expresses himself......"BINGO"
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Naughty Nurse said:
Good, because that is what they are paid to do.

It is possible for the troops to do the best job they can without actually believing in the mission themselves, so it is possible for people to support the troops without supporting the actual war.

Aren't they supposed to be fighting for democracy? If Americans are not supposed to protest, what are your (and my) troops dying for?

I don't have a problem with their wishes to protest. I don't like the manner in which they do it. They use deceit, lies, exxagerations, and dishonor.

How many web sites can you find that claim Iraqi civilian deaths due to American intervention" ranging from 100,000 to 30,000 to 10,000 to 200,000...etc. Is this honorable protesting?

How many times have we heard the term "Support the Troop" followed up by "how many more Iraqi civilians have to die?" Is this honorable protesting?

How many exxagerated stories have been created since the few isolated facts of prisoner abuse for which the nasty National Guard participants have been and are being punished? Is this honorable protesting?

How many times have we heard about the poor American "victims" in Iraq being used as a reason for protest when we heard nothing of the poor Saddam "Victims" before? Is this honorable protesting?

I may disagree with aps views of things and she may disagree to see the issues in the Middle East that I see, but at least her integrity and honor is solid. She knows why she is protesting and she is honest about it. How many liars participated this weekend?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom