• 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.

Support for U.S. troops rally draws a massive... 400

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls...

The "Supporters of our troops" rally at the National Mall today drew a massive... 400 people.

Not 4.000.000, as you would expect,

not 400.000 either,

how about 40.000? NO!

4000? try again

400? BINGO!

BWAAAAA haha haha!

Yes folks, only 400 supporters of our troops were able to be mustered up by the warmonger crowd.

Pathetic isn't it?









http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...raqrally_x.htm

Supporters of Iraq war gather in D.C.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward anti-war demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after a massive protest against the war in Iraq.

"No matter what your ideals are, our sons and daughters are fighting for our freedom," said Marilyn Faatz, who drove from New Jersey to attend the rally. "We are making a mockery out of this. And we need to stand united, but we are not."

About 400 people gathered near a stage on an eastern segment of the mall, a large photo of an American flag serving as a backdrop. Amid banners and signs proclaiming support for U.S. troops, several speakers hailed the effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and denounced those who protest it.

Many demonstrators focused their ire at Cindy Sheehan, the California woman whose protest near President Bush's Texas home last summer galvanized the anti-war movement. Sheehan was among the speakers at Saturday's rally near the Washington Monument on the western part of the mall, an event that attracted an estimated 100,000 people.

"The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty and spreading that around the world," Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, told the crowd. "I frankly don't know what they represent, other than blaming America first."

One sign on the mall read "Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for me" and another "Arrest the traitors"; it listed Sheehan's name first among several people who have spoken against the war.

Melody Vigna, 44, of Linden, Calif., said she wants nothing to do with Sheehan and others at nearby Camp Casey, an anti-war site set up to honor her son, Casey, who was killed in Iraq.

"Our troops are over there fighting for our rights, and if she was in one of those countries she would not be able to do that," Vigna said.

The husband of Sherri Francescon, 24, of Camp Lejeune, N.C., serves in the Marine Corps in Iraq. One of the many military wives who spoke during the rally, Francescon said that the anti-war demonstration had left her frustrated.

"I know how much my husband does and how hard he works, and I feel like they don't even recognize that and give him the respect he deserves," Francescon said. "I want him to know and I want his unit to know that America is behind them, Cindy doesn't speak for us, and that we believe in what they are doing."

Organizers of Sunday's demonstration acknowledged that their rally would be much smaller than the anti-war protest but had hoped that as many as 20,000 people would turn out.

On Saturday, demonstrators opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House in the largest anti-war protest in the nation's capital since the U.S. invasion. The rally stretched through the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the mall.
__________________
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Perhaps because the hard working people who support the war don't see a need to go to Washington and protest and certainly have better things to do than to engage in such silliness.

Sometimes it is best to just stay out of the way and let your opponents just make fools of themselves.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Perhaps because the hard working people who support the war don't see a need to go to Washington and protest and certainly have better things to do than to engage in such silliness.

Sometimes it is best to just stay out of the way and let your opponents just make fools of themselves.




Perhaps the real reason is that those people are to lazy to prepare and plan for a few hours at a rally to honor and show support for our brave troops. Or that r-wing extremists and dittoheads are mostly lacking ambition or purpose

Perhaps the real reason is that those people don't really give a damn about our brave troops dying in Iraq and that the very poorly attended "Support our Troops" rally proved that beyond a doubt.

Perhaps most of you didn't have to work Sunday and are thus jumping on the bandwagon by claiming work as an excuse to shun your support for our troops.

Perhaps the Bush cheerleaders are just that, cheerleaders from afar the battlefield, cowards who will not enlist and support their fellow troops much less attend a rally in their honor.

And finally, perhaps the rally showed that all dittoheads really care about is President Bush and his holding on to power in the White House and that the troops are secondary or an afterthought, and that it's really all about President Bush and lying.

You think?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who cares how many people show up at a "Support US troops" rally? Polls show that between 40-50% of people still want troops in Iraq for whatever reason; are you saying that the number of people who show up at a single rally (which I had never even heard about) is a better indication than national polls? Why would you possibly expect 4 million people to converge on a single spot to support the status quo? People only turn out to demonstrations en masse when they're AGAINST something. In fact, the pro-whatever rallies that attract the most support are usually counter-demonstrations against anti-whatever rallies.

If you think this proves anything you are very much mistaken.

And before you call me a dittohead or a right-wing extremist or a coward, I'm against the war. Not that it matters, as I want nothing to do with your brand of politics. You give bad names to those of us with RATIONAL objections to the war.
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
KidRocks said:
Perhaps the real reason is that those people are to lazy to prepare and plan for a few hours at a rally to honor and show support for our brave troops. Or that r-wing extremists and dittoheads are mostly lacking ambition or purpose

Perhaps the real reason is that those people don't really give a damn about our brave troops dying in Iraq and that the very poorly attended "Support our Troops" rally proved that beyond a doubt.

Perhaps most of you didn't have to work Sunday and are thus jumping on the bandwagon by claiming work as an excuse to shun your support for our troops.

Perhaps the Bush cheerleaders are just that, cheerleaders from afar the battlefield, cowards who will not enlist and support their fellow troops much less attend a rally in their honor.

And finally, perhaps the rally showed that all dittoheads really care about is President Bush and his holding on to power in the White House and that the troops are secondary or an afterthought, and that it's really all about President Bush and lying.

You think?
Supporting the troops cuts both ways. I wonder how many out of that 400 bothered to send a care package to the troops while they were using them as political footballs? I am against the war, but I send one every 3 months, just like clockwork. They deserve that. Everyone who is for AND against the war can show their support, not only in words, but in deed too.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There are some extremists at the anti-war rallies, no doubt about it. However, those extremists currently are expousing the majority view. A solid majority of Americans view the Iraq war as a mistake.

The problem on the pro-war side is that unlike in previous wars, there is no shared sacrifice. There have been no sacrifices asked of anyone other than those who serve and their families. The horrors of war are kept from the American people. No one sees the coffins of those who died in service of their country coming back. The pentagon and the Bush administration have made it a policy to hide the horrors of war as best they can from the American people. They felt like by doing so that they would hold support for the war. That of course was not the case. I think that if people actually saw the horrors of war, saw the coffins coming back, and saw the injured coming back and how many are maimed for life, then its quite possible that we may have had more lasting support for this war than we have. Either way, the realities of war ought to be something that all Americans are exposed to.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KidRocks said:
Perhaps the real reason is that those people are to lazy to prepare and plan for a few hours at a rally to honor and show support for our brave troops. Or that r-wing extremists and dittoheads are mostly lacking ambition or purpose
Perhaps we have jobs to go to on Monday and don't certainly don't need to go and put up silly little signs like the anti-american crowd did or listen to Joan Biaz sing. Perhaps we support our side in more meaningful ways.

Perhaps the real reason is that those people don't really give a damn about our brave troops dying in Iraq and that the very poorly attended "Support our Troops" rally proved that beyond a doubt.
Of course that is just hyperbole and of course those who support the war do give a damn about the troops over there. But your having to assign such invectives to them only leads me to believe you can't support your own arguement on it's merits.

Perhaps most of you didn't have to work Sunday and are thus jumping on the bandwagon by claiming work as an excuse to shun your support for our troops.
Perhaps doing something to really help them more a way to show we support them.

Perhaps the Bush cheerleaders are just that, cheerleaders from afar the battlefield, cowards who will not enlist and support their fellow troops much less attend a rally in their honor.
So 60 year old men are cowards because they won't enlist? Is that a requirement in order for ones point of view to be valid. Perhaps these anti-american protestors should go to Iraq and protest where the war is occuring and get the Iraqi's to demand we leave and convince the soldiers to quite fighting, should they do that in order for their point of view to be valid under this standard you place on the other side?
And finally, perhaps the rally showed that all dittoheads really care about is President Bush and his holding on to power in the White House and that the troops are secondary or an afterthought, and that it's really all about President Bush and lying.

You think?
Not at all since alot of them have sons and daughters over there.............including me.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem on the pro-war side is that unlike in previous wars, there is no shared sacrifice. There have been no sacrifices asked of anyone other than those who serve and their families.
And that sacrifice gives one a higher authority to speak? What exactly are you saying.

The horrors of war are kept from the American people.
Really, so you don't know about the war?


No one sees the coffins of those who died in service of their country coming back.
I think the causulaties, which have been low, are well known and well publisized.


The pentagon and the Bush administration have made it a policy to hide the horrors of war as best they can from the American people.
They don't control where the press goes there, what they report or what pictures they show. But I am amazed that you think you don't know what is going on over there.


They felt like by doing so that they would hold support for the war. That of course was not the case. I think that if people actually saw the horrors of war, saw the coffins coming back, and saw the injured coming back and how many are maimed for life, then its quite possible that we may have had more lasting support for this war than we have. Either way, the realities of war ought to be something that all Americans are exposed to.
And what is it you are hoping that will accomplish, victory for our enemies? You seem to want the government to do things that you believe will lower our morale and our will to fight those who would kill us and aid those who would kill us.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
Supporting the troops cuts both ways. I wonder how many out of that 400 bothered to send a care package to the troops while they were using them as political footballs? I am against the war, but I send one every 3 months, just like clockwork. They deserve that. Everyone who is for AND against the war can show their support, not only in words, but in deed too.
Do you support their mission? Do you hope they are victorious?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
And that sacrifice gives one a higher authority to speak? What exactly are you saying.



Really, so you don't know about the war?




I think the causulaties, which have been low, are well known and well publisized.




They don't control where the press goes there, what they report or what pictures they show. But I am amazed that you think you don't know what is going on over there.




And what is it you are hoping that will accomplish, victory for our enemies? You seem to want the government to do things that you believe will lower our morale and our will to fight those who would kill us and aid those who would kill us.
I am saying that this has been a sanitized war. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe thats a bad thing. I dont know. However, I do know that as a country, we have not been asked to make one sacrifice for the war. So no, what was probably a Republican PR stunt of 400 people for a "pro-war / support the troups" rally really has no moral authority. Its easy to say "I support the war and the president", all you have to do is say it. Agree with Sheehan or not, she did camp out in a ditch for a month in 100 degree heat in front of the President's ranch and she did loose her son in this war? What has the pro-war crowd done other than say they are for the war, for the troops? Nothing. Its not like World War II, when people made do with less and women who never worked before went to work for the effort. They used to say then if you ride alone, you ride with Hitler. Why doesnt the president say that if you ride alone, you ride with the terrorists? If we conserved more, we would not be so beholden to the Middle East. I mean that is just an example of the shared sacrifice that ought to be asked of Americans in a time of war.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying that this has been a sanitized war.
What is "sanitized" about it. We've had imbedded reporters all along. We have daily footage of every explosion that occours. We have a daily listing of every soldier killed over there whether in action or by an accident that could happend anywhere. We have the major networks doing their daily diatribes against the war claiming how horrible we are.

I'm sorry but perhaps you need to pay more attention. Do you have any idea how the news was "managed" during WW2 versus the freedom the press has to report EVERYTHING now?

However, I do know that as a country, we have not been asked to make one sacrifice for the war.
What do you call sending our young men and women there to risk their lives, you insult them by your statement.

So no, what was probably a Republican PR stunt of 400 people for a "pro-war / support the troups" rally really has no moral authority.
A statement for which you have no basis. Offer your proof that it was a Republican PR stunt anymore than the anti-americian rally was a Democrat PR stunt.

Its easy to say "I support the war and the president", all you have to do is say it.
But alot harder to say you don't.

Agree with Sheehan or not, she did camp out in a ditch for a month in 100 degree heat in front of the President's ranch
Which was pretty stupid on her part.

and she did loose her son in this war?
And she has our sympathies, but it gives her no higher standing on the issue.

What has the pro-war crowd done other than say they are for the war, for the troops?
So they should go stand in a ditch and that would make things equal. What folly.

Nothing. Its not like World War II, when people made do with less and women who never worked before went to work for the effort.
So those of us who support the war should do less with what and to what end and women who don't work should go to work and then you'd be happy.

They used to say then if you ride alone, you ride with Hitler. Why doesnt the president say that if you ride alone, you ride with the terrorists
He basically just did that and the left lampooned him for it.

If we conserved more, we would not be so beholden to the Middle East.
If we drill more, if we persue nuclear we won't have to be so beholden, are you willing to make that "sacrifice"?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
What is "sanitized" about it. We've had imbedded reporters all along. We have daily footage of every explosion that occours. We have a daily listing of every soldier killed over there whether in action or by an accident that could happend anywhere. We have the major networks doing their daily diatribes against the war claiming how horrible we are.

I'm sorry but perhaps you need to pay more attention. Do you have any idea how the news was "managed" during WW2 versus the freedom the press has to report EVERYTHING now?



What do you call sending our young men and women there to risk their lives, you insult them by your statement.



A statement for which you have no basis. Offer your proof that it was a Republican PR stunt anymore than the anti-americian rally was a Democrat PR stunt.



But alot harder to say you don't.



Which was pretty stupid on her part.



And she has our sympathies, but it gives her no higher standing on the issue.



So they should go stand in a ditch and that would make things equal. What folly.



So those of us who support the war should do less with what and to what end and women who don't work should go to work and then you'd be happy.



He basically just did that and the left lampooned him for it.



If we drill more, if we persue nuclear we won't have to be so beholden, are you willing to make that "sacrifice"?
OPEC has 70% of the World's oil reserves; we have less than 5%. Our sustained possible domestic oil production peaked 30 years ago and no amount of drilling can possibly make a difference there. You cannot drill your way out of energy independence with numbers like those. Anyone who was around during Vietnam would tell you that this is a sanitized war. You saw a lot more then than you do today.

Of course the people who go over there are making sacrifices. The thing is, most of the people I know that are big on this war, don’t have kids over there and don’t plan on going to Iraq themselves either. If President Bush would have told us 4 years ago, that one of the biggest things we can do to help defeat Middle East terrorism is to carpool, buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and turn the thermostat down a degree or two, I would be will to bet that a large number of Americans would have done just that. Think of the message that we would sent the terrorists if we had done things like that. Think of the resolve that would have conveyed. They see our support for the war as a mile wide and an inch deep and they are absolutely right. It’s fine for the warmongers to send other peoples kids off to fight, but they certainly don’t want to make any sacrifices themselves. Make no mistake about it, this is not a war for oil, but if it were not for oil, we would not be fighting it. Those bumper stickers, Bin Laden loves your SUV, they are absolutely right, he does. Support the troops yellow stickers on the back of gas guzzling SUVs that have never pulled a boat or so much even been in 4 wheel drive, are hypocrisy at the highest. So those radicals who do camp out in 100 degree heat, at least they have some true conviction for their cause. A lot of those on the other side are just a joke, words but nothing else. Nothing but a billboard for the culture of greed and “meism”.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Stinger said:
I'm sorry but perhaps you need to pay more attention. Do you have any idea how the news was "managed" during WW2 versus the freedom the press has to report EVERYTHING now?
This how it was done until the media became global and invaded the military...Smart people knew this was being done all along...Some believe that "war is hell" must be some sort of new revelation because all of those previous wars were so "good & just"...

From Full Metal jacket...

LOCKHART
Joker, I've told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants--Winning
of Hearts and Minds--okay? And combat action that results in a kill--Winning the War. Now you must have seen blood trails ... drag marks?

JOKER
It was raining, sir.

LOCKHART
Well, that's why God passed the law of probability. Now rewrite it and give it a happy ending--say, uh, one kill. Make it a sapper or an officer. Which?

JOKER
Whichever you say.

LOCKHART
Grunts like reading about dead officers.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
OPEC has 70% of the World's oil reserves; we have less than 5%. Our sustained possible domestic oil production peaked 30 years ago and no amount of drilling can possibly make a difference there. You cannot drill your way out of energy independence with numbers like those.
Fact: Known oil reserves go up every year. And we don't have to become indepentdent to put pressure on OPEC, just the threat of cutting their sales will do that job but as long as we have idiots running around crying about ANWAR OPEC can sit back and laught and raise their price. As long as California and Florida refuse to allow offshore drilling OPEC can continue to control the market.. And note I also included nuclear energy into the picture.

Anyone who was around during Vietnam would tell you that this is a sanitized war. You saw a lot more then than you do today.
Well DUH there was a lot more to be seen and yes I was around those days, draft number 327. This is the MOST covered war in our history, if you don't know what is going on over there it is only because you are not paying attention.

Of course the people who go over there are making sacrifices.
And they ARE this country.

The thing is, most of the people I know that are big on this war, don’t have kids over there and don’t plan on going to Iraq themselves either.
So? We don't have many people over there realitive to other conflicts. Would you be happier if we had more people over there so that more people here would have some effect out of it? What is your point? Does having a kid over there give you a higher authority to speak?

If President Bush would have told us 4 years ago, that one of the biggest things we can do to help defeat Middle East terrorism is to carpool, buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and turn the thermostat down a degree or two, I would be will to bet that a large number of Americans would have done just that.
You think that is why the terrorist attacked us? You think carpooling would have made a hill of beans? Shear folly.

Think of the message that we would sent the terrorists if we had done things like that.
Think of the message it would send to the terrorist and potential terrorist if they saw a united front here and overwhelming support for their deaths. Instead they see idiots like Sheehan and listen to appeasors and those without the will to fight and they feel empowered and believe they can defeat and they just might be right.

Think of the resolve that would have conveyed.
:rofl yeah I can see the terrorist over there plotting against us and one runs into the room shouting "The Americans are car pooling the Americans are car pooling! We must give up! All is lost!" Shear folly.

They see our support for the war as a mile wide and an inch deep and they are absolutely right.
Yeah when you see the idiots screaming about Bush LIED, WAR FOR OIL, GET OUT NOW.

It’s fine for the warmongers to send other peoples kids off to fight, but they certainly don’t want to make any sacrifices themselves.
Who are they suppose to send? And they were all volunteers. And quite frankly I believe those who do sent people off to fight war feel the sacrifice of every death. Don't you?

Make no mistake about it, this is not a war for oil, but if it were not for oil, we would not be fighting it.
You don't make sense. But the fact is this is a war about many things. Yes it is about who controls the energy reserves in the middle east, terrorist and dictators or free people. It is about extremist Muslim terrorist who do not want anyone to be free including you. It is about a free an open society in the middle east which effects us all.

So those radicals who do camp out in 100 degree heat, at least they have some true conviction for their cause. A lot of those on the other side are just a joke, words but nothing else. Nothing but a billboard for the culture of greed and “meism”.
So you believe people who camp out in 100 degree to make a point should make our foriegn policy? That is what qualifies them? Why don't they just convince enough people to their viewpoint and then elect people who will carry it out? Seems a lot smarter to me.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying that this has been a sanitized war. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe thats a bad thing. I dont know. However, I do know that as a country, we have not been asked to make one sacrifice for the war. So no, what was probably a Republican PR stunt of 400 people for a "pro-war / support the troups" rally really has no moral authority. Its easy to say "I support the war and the president", all you have to do is say it. Agree with Sheehan or not, she did camp out in a ditch for a month in 100 degree heat in front of the President's ranch and she did loose her son in this war? What has the pro-war crowd done other than say they are for the war, for the troops? Nothing. Its not like World War II, when people made do with less and women who never worked before went to work for the effort. They used to say then if you ride alone, you ride with Hitler. Why doesnt the president say that if you ride alone, you ride with the terrorists? If we conserved more, we would not be so beholden to the Middle East. I mean that is just an example of the shared sacrifice that ought to be asked of Americans in a time of war.
And holding a sign condeming your country it's president and or it's soldiers shows something?

Sheehan statyed in a hotel at night to the best of my knowledge.. So I am still waiting to see or hear exactly what she sacrificed?

Other then hold signs and complain was has the anti war crowd done? Other then bolster the people that are killing soldiers I mean. Other then call US soldiers terrorist and the president hitler and a nazi. The majority of these people are the same ones that will protest anything that occurs. There professional protesters IMO. They aren't going to stand up and fight for anything. They think that everything they enjoy was handed out and nothing had to be fought for.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Calm2Chaos said:
And holding a sign condeming your country it's president and or it's soldiers shows something?

Sheehan statyed in a hotel at night to the best of my knowledge.. So I am still waiting to see or hear exactly what she sacrificed?

Other then hold signs and complain was has the anti war crowd done? Other then bolster the people that are killing soldiers I mean. Other then call US soldiers terrorist and the president hitler and a nazi. The majority of these people are the same ones that will protest anything that occurs. There professional protesters IMO. They aren't going to stand up and fight for anything. They think that everything they enjoy was handed out and nothing had to be fought for.
Her son maybe??:roll:

My whole point is that in every other war we as Americans, the entire country, have been asked to make sacrifices to help the war effort. In this war nothing has been asked of anyone other than the families of those who are serving and those who are serving. Hence my using the phrase support for the war has always been a mile wide and an inch deep.

One of the best things we can do for the war on terrorism is to use less oil from the region. The best way to ensure doing that is for every American to do their best to conserve oil. That means if a fuel efficient vehicle is practical for you, then don't buy a big honking SUV just for the status symbol of it. If you can carpool, do so. If you can turn your thermostat down a degree or two, do so. Sticking a support the troops sticker on your SUV is empty resolve. If you want to scare the hell out of the terrorists and their supporters, make some real changes make some sacrifices show that this generation of Americans is just as resolved as the generation that saved the world in World War II.

Like the Bible says in the Book of James, "Faith without works is empty". That meant of course that its not enough just to say something, you have to actually make changes in the way you live in order for your words to have some meaning. I think Sheehan is a radical, she has views that are well to the left of mine, but she camped out in a ditch in the Texas heat for a month because she believed in something. That is faith with works. Putting a support the troops sticker on an SUV you bought as nothing more than a status symbol and making no sacrifices for the war effort all is empty support. A nation full of blowhard chicken hawks is not support.
 

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
Iraq's hardly a war anymore, is it?
Aren't we just "mopping up" now? I mean major combat operations've been over for almost two and a half years now.

So it doesn't really matter that there are two Americans who disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq for every american who approves. I mean the thing's just about over.

So it doesn't really matter that there are two Americans who think we are spending too much in Iraq for every American who thinks we're spending the right amount and not spending enough. I mean the thing's just about over.

So it doesn't really matter that there are nearly two Americans who are not confident US taxpayer's money will be spent wisely in Iraq for every American who thinks it will be. The thing's quickly drawing to a close.

Just any minute now. Somebody should prob'ly check CNN and see if it's ended while I was posting.

Besides, the electorate are all peons who aren't fit to make the important decisions about how America should conduct itself in the world. That's why Team Bush was justified in their use of other than honest tactics to engender support for the invasion. They had to abandon the just powers of government derived from the consent of the electorate and use some other powers of government that were derived from ... well, somewhere, for our own good because american electorate is merely sheeple led around by their noses by the MSM conspiracy.
In the future, America will be thankful for being misled into an elective war.

Or not.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Her son maybe??:roll:

My whole point is that in every other war we as Americans, the entire country, have been asked to make sacrifices to help the war effort. In this war nothing has been asked of anyone other than the families of those who are serving and those who are serving. Hence my using the phrase support for the war has always been a mile wide and an inch deep.

One of the best things we can do for the war on terrorism is to use less oil from the region. The best way to ensure doing that is for every American to do their best to conserve oil. That means if a fuel efficient vehicle is practical for you, then don't buy a big honking SUV just for the status symbol of it. If you can carpool, do so. If you can turn your thermostat down a degree or two, do so. Sticking a support the troops sticker on your SUV is empty resolve. If you want to scare the hell out of the terrorists and their supporters, make some real changes make some sacrifices show that this generation of Americans is just as resolved as the generation that saved the world in World War II.

Like the Bible says in the Book of James, "Faith without works is empty". That meant of course that its not enough just to say something, you have to actually make changes in the way you live in order for your words to have some meaning. I think Sheehan is a radical, she has views that are well to the left of mine, but she camped out in a ditch in the Texas heat for a month because she believed in something. That is faith with works. Putting a support the troops sticker on an SUV you bought as nothing more than a status symbol and making no sacrifices for the war effort all is empty support. A nation full of blowhard chicken hawks is not support.

Everytime a suicide bomber straps on his explosives, that's "faith with works" I really don't see your point? I see a woman who is in despair, and looking to lash out at someone, too bad it's our brave men and women serving in Iraq. I would like to see our troops come home soon, but I will not tarnish their mission, or question their honor to do so.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Her son maybe??:roll:

My whole point is that in every other war we as Americans, the entire country, have been asked to make sacrifices to help the war effort. In this war nothing has been asked of anyone other than the families of those who are serving and those who are serving. Hence my using the phrase support for the war has always been a mile wide and an inch deep.

One of the best things we can do for the war on terrorism is to use less oil from the region. The best way to ensure doing that is for every American to do their best to conserve oil. That means if a fuel efficient vehicle is practical for you, then don't buy a big honking SUV just for the status symbol of it. If you can carpool, do so. If you can turn your thermostat down a degree or two, do so. Sticking a support the troops sticker on your SUV is empty resolve. If you want to scare the hell out of the terrorists and their supporters, make some real changes make some sacrifices show that this generation of Americans is just as resolved as the generation that saved the world in World War II.

Like the Bible says in the Book of James, "Faith without works is empty". That meant of course that its not enough just to say something, you have to actually make changes in the way you live in order for your words to have some meaning. I think Sheehan is a radical, she has views that are well to the left of mine, but she camped out in a ditch in the Texas heat for a month because she believed in something. That is faith with works. Putting a support the troops sticker on an SUV you bought as nothing more than a status symbol and making no sacrifices for the war effort all is empty support. A nation full of blowhard chicken hawks is not support.
She sacrificed her son? You mean she sent him to iraq? OK i am sorry . I thought that her son volunteered for the millitary then reenlisted. I was unaware that she herself shipped this boy to war.

I didn't think there was anything that she actually sacrificed, her son on the other hand is a different story.

And using less oil has nothing to do with why they hate us and want to kill us. They target woman and children in there own country. How much oil did they use. They targeted innocent men in a work line, were they using a ot of oil. They hate people that disagree with them so they kill them. They hate infidels, so they kill them. If I used no oil... I would still be an infidel. And there holy playbook says that I should die if I am so.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Fact: Known oil reserves go up every year. And we don't have to become indepentdent to put pressure on OPEC, just the threat of cutting their sales will do that job but as long as we have idiots running around crying about ANWAR OPEC can sit back and laught and raise their price. As long as California and Florida refuse to allow offshore drilling OPEC can continue to control the market.. And note I also included nuclear energy into the picture.
Of course we need to become energy independent, but SouthernDemocrat is absolutely right that drilling for oil in the United States will change things a very negligible amount compared to the amount of oil we need.

Nuclear energy, of course, is a good idea and we should have been using it for decades.

For the more short-term future, we can't simply threaten to "cut their sales," because OPEC knows that we need oil. The only way we can truly threaten their sales is by a long-term policy toward energy independence.

Stinger said:
Well DUH there was a lot more to be seen and yes I was around those days, draft number 327. This is the MOST covered war in our history, if you don't know what is going on over there it is only because you are not paying attention.
That's not true. Daily reports of car bombs do not convey the full picture. You can read about a car bomb without seeing the dead bodies and listening to the family members on TV. You can see the name of a dead soldier flash across your screen without knowing anything about him.

The fact is that this war IS extremely sanitized. Many returning soldiers are amazed at the complete indifference (and unawareness) that the United States is at war.

You question why journalists should report more horrors of war, which you claim will lower our morale and aid the insurgents. My answer is BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH. If Americans are to be expected to make an informed decision about the war, they should see it exactly as it is, not as the Bush Administration wishes it was.

The fact is that Americans are extremely wishy-washy. The only reason this war ever got the support of 70% of people in the first place was because they assumed that this war wouldn't affect them at all. Most people simply do not care.

Stinger said:
And they ARE this country.
Last time I checked, this country had 300 million people. There are only about 100,000 in Iraq.

Stinger said:
So? We don't have many people over there realitive to other conflicts. Would you be happier if we had more people over there so that more people here would have some effect out of it? What is your point? Does having a kid over there give you a higher authority to speak?
Well, NOT having a kid over there doesn't necessarily negate one's views if those views are well-informed (which yours are not). However, yes, people with children over there are more likely to see the sacrifices that war requires. It's easy to be a chickenhawk when someone else is doing the killing, dying, worrying, and paying for the war. It's much harder to support any old conflict when you actually have to sacrifice for it.

Stinger said:
You think that is why the terrorist attacked us? You think carpooling would have made a hill of beans? Shear folly.
It's not WHY they attacked us. But oil conservation could certainly prevent future attacks by cutting off the main source of funding to terrorists.

Stinger said:
Think of the message it would send to the terrorist and potential terrorist if they saw a united front here and overwhelming support for their deaths. Instead they see idiots like Sheehan and listen to appeasors and those without the will to fight and they feel empowered and believe they can defeat and they just might be right.
Yeah, God forbid we have freedom of thought in this country. Clearly the best thing for us to do is march in lockstep behind any decision the Bush Administration makes, no matter how stupid.

Oh wait, no it's not.

Stinger said:
:rofl yeah I can see the terrorist over there plotting against us and one runs into the room shouting "The Americans are car pooling the Americans are car pooling! We must give up! All is lost!" Shear folly.
Straw man. Energy conservation is a long-term solution, not a momentous event that will suddenly change the way we deal with terrorism.

Stinger said:
Who are they suppose to send? And they were all volunteers. And quite frankly I believe those who do sent people off to fight war feel the sacrifice of every death. Don't you?
Hell no. You've got to be kidding me. Do you honestly believe that George Bush is as upset by every death in Iraq as the families? Do you honestly believe that he even cares, other than maybe a vague sense that American deaths are bad?

You're living in denial.

Stinger said:
You don't make sense. But the fact is this is a war about many things. Yes it is about who controls the energy reserves in the middle east, terrorist and dictators or free people. It is about extremist Muslim terrorist who do not want anyone to be free including you. It is about a free an open society in the middle east which effects us all.
We're paying a lot more to occupy Iraq than we'd have to pay for energy if we didn't control the oil fields, so that argument doesn't hold.

There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion, so that argument doesn't hold. In fact, that's an argument AGAINST the war since there ARE terrorists there now.

Iraq was a secular state prior to the invasion, so the extremist Muslim argument doesn't hold.

Do you know anything at all about Iraq? It seems as if you just pulled this out of your ass, or more likely, from FOX News.

Stinger said:
So you believe people who camp out in 100 degree to make a point should make our foriegn policy? That is what qualifies them? Why don't they just convince enough people to their viewpoint and then elect people who will carry it out? Seems a lot smarter to me.
That's precisely what they're trying to do by camping out in 100 degree weather.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Calm2Chaos said:
She sacrificed her son? You mean she sent him to iraq? OK i am sorry . I thought that her son volunteered for the millitary then reenlisted. I was unaware that she herself shipped this boy to war.

I didn't think there was anything that she actually sacrificed, her son on the other hand is a different story.

And using less oil has nothing to do with why they hate us and want to kill us. They target woman and children in there own country. How much oil did they use. They targeted innocent men in a work line, were they using a ot of oil. They hate people that disagree with them so they kill them. They hate infidels, so they kill them. If I used no oil... I would still be an infidel. And there holy playbook says that I should die if I am so.
What do you think "they hate us for our freedom"? They hate us because we are there in the Middle East. We would not have to be there so much if we didnt need the oil.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Of course we need to become energy independent, but SouthernDemocrat is absolutely right that drilling for oil in the United States will change things a very negligible amount compared to the amount of oil we need.
I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. The known reserves in ANWAR are enough to offset the Saudi's for estimates between 10 to 15 years. Just the known reserves and as noted known reservers throughout the world go UP every year. That's enough to pressure the middle east supplies.

Nuclear energy, of course, is a good idea and we should have been using it for decades.
As already stated I agree and that would make hydrogen more feasable and put even more pressure on OPEC.

For the more short-term future, we can't simply threaten to "cut their sales," because OPEC knows that we need oil. The only way we can truly threaten their sales is by a long-term policy toward energy independence.
Which everything I had said it geared towards.


That's not true. Daily reports of car bombs do not convey the full picture. You can read about a car bomb without seeing the dead bodies and listening to the family members on TV. You can see the name of a dead soldier flash across your screen without knowing anything about him.
I think we see that and we know who they are, but what purpose does it serve. Why does the left want us to whallow in it?

The fact is that this war IS extremely sanitized. Many returning soldiers are amazed at the complete indifference (and unawareness) that the United States is at war.
What they are amazed at is the misreporting of the good we are doing over there. And this is the most reported war in our history. Go back and look at how WW2 was "sanatized".

You question why journalists should report more horrors of war, which you claim will lower our morale and aid the insurgents. My answer is BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH.
Do YOU believe war is not horrific? News reporters have to tell you it is? But the fact is if it does lower our morale and aid the insurgents do you believe the media should do everything in it's power to do so?

If Americans are to be expected to make an informed decision about the war, they should see it exactly as it is, not as the Bush Administration wishes it was.
So you don't believe you are capable of making an informed decission?

The fact is that Americans are extremely wishy-washy.
You haven't made up your mind?

The only reason this war ever got the support of 70% of people in the first place was because they assumed that this war wouldn't affect them at all. Most people simply do not care.
An assertion without any basis.


Last time I checked, this country had 300 million people. There are only about 100,000 in Iraq.
And they are as much a part of this country as the rest are they not?


Well, NOT having a kid over there doesn't necessarily negate one's views if those views are well-informed (which yours are not).
Oh and where are they lacking and on what basis do you make that assertion?

However, yes, people with children over there are more likely to see the sacrifices that war requires. It's easy to be a chickenhawk when someone else is doing the killing, dying, worrying, and paying for the war.
Well I have a son over there and one to go later this year so I guess my views trump yours.

It's much harder to support any old conflict when you actually have to sacrifice for it.
So I guess my views trump yours since I am having to sacrifice.

It's not WHY they attacked us. But oil conservation could certainly prevent future attacks by cutting off the main source of funding to terrorists.
Which isn'g going to happen anytime soon so waiting is not an option.

Yeah, God forbid we have freedom of thought in this country. Clearly the best thing for us to do is march in lockstep behind any decision the Bush Administration makes, no matter how stupid.
Better than marching lockstep behind the brilliant military strategist Cindy Sheehan.


Hell no. You've got to be kidding me. Do you honestly believe that George Bush is as upset by every death in Iraq as the families? Do you honestly believe that he even cares, other than maybe a vague sense that American deaths are bad?
Yes and you have no evidence otherwise.

You're living in denial.
Your living is a self-serving dream world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
You don't make sense. But the fact is this is a war about many things. Yes it is about who controls the energy reserves in the middle east, terrorist and dictators or free people. It is about extremist Muslim terrorist who do not want anyone to be free including you. It is about a free an open society in the middle east which effects us all.



We're paying a lot more to occupy Iraq than we'd have to pay for energy if we didn't control the oil fields, so that argument doesn't hold.
What doesn't make sense and we do not control the oil fields the Iraqi's do.

There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion, so that argument doesn't hold. In fact, that's an argument AGAINST the war since there ARE terrorists there now.
There most certainly were terrorist there and terrorist training camps and a Secret Police and Intelligence force that developing very close ties with all sorts of terrorist groups. There is no doubt that Saddam was developing alliances with terrorist and supporting terroist causes, mainly attacking the US and assests.

Iraq was a secular state prior to the invasion, so the extremist Muslim argument doesn't hold.
That is a specious point which is belied by the evidence developed by the Senate Hearings and the 9/11 Commission and what we have uncovered in Iraq. He was involved with terrorist because he supported their Muslim causes, he was in it for his own gain and he saw the advantage of working with them.

Do you know anything at all about Iraq? It seems as if you just pulled this out of your ass, or more likely, from FOX News.
Well Fox News is a very good source with some of the most in depth reporting on the subject but the 9/11 commission and the Senate Hearings and the Kay and Duelfer reports all substantiate exactly what I have been saying. Perhaps you listen to a little too much Air America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
So you believe people who camp out in 100 degree to make a point should make our foriegn policy? That is what qualifies them? Why don't they just convince enough people to their viewpoint and then elect people who will carry it out? Seems a lot smarter to me.



That's precisely what they're trying to do by camping out in 100 degree weather.
Oh well that's real convincing. What stupidity.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Considering the polls show little support for the war and little confindence in Bush's leadership of the war, the small turnout isn't a surprise.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,288
Reaction score
13,524
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
scottyz said:
Considering the polls show little support for the war and little confindence in Bush's leadership of the war, the small turnout isn't a surprise.
Yeah, everything else is neither here nor there. 300,000 showed up for the peace rally, 400 showed up for the pro-war rally. There were definitely some radicals among the 300,000 peace demonstrators. However, on this issue, those radicals actually hold the majority view.

I am going to paraphrase something I heard on Sirius, but can you imagine like the speeches at the pro-war rally:

"Bush is the greatest president ever!" non existent crowd..... chirp, chirp chirp

"Ok, God hates fags" a half dozen rednecks...."YEAH He them queers"

"God loves Republicans and loves the war in Iraq" a couple of dozen Fundys and a half dozen rednecks..."Yeah God is a Republican, God loves war, God hates Queers and Liberals!"

"Ok, how many have a son or daughter serving in the war?" one fundy raises her hand and says "My third cousin's son is serving, our family has made many sacrifices. God hates Liberals. God Bless America. Evolution is a lie and Katrina was Gods Punishment for our wicked liberal ways"
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
Do you support their mission? Do you hope they are victorious?
Let me reword your question.

q. Do you support the chickenhawks who sent other peoples' children to die in an unnecessary war?

a. No.
 
Top Bottom