FiremanRyan
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 283
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Chico, CA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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?
GySgt said:They could at least protest with honestly.
I also get my weekends off. I cleaned my guns on Saturday.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------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.
GySgt said:The general sentiment among the Active Duty Marine Corps is a willingness to finish the job.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?