289 Million Americans Avoid Peace Rallies

Status
Not open for further replies.
We'll see on Wednesday

When the annual Right to Life march takes place. Usually a BIG number of marchers. Let's take note of the coverage and the number estimates.
 
BTW

this is not to draw the abortion debate into this. It's just to note the differential coverage and reports of crowd sizes depending on the political cause.
 
However, at the protest rallies, what we saw on parade was the "Hate America" crowd which has been around since Vietnam. They do not want peace; they want America defeated.
Click to expand...
El Tejon is correct.

I might respect anti-war protesters a LITTLE if more of them appeared to be civilized Americans who were genuinely concerned about the well-being of their country. However, what I see all to often is an inordinate number of enraged, purple-haired dope fiends waving communist flags. I tend to smile when I see this lot, always thinking that if they had been born in some other nations and tried this that they would probably wind up with their pants around their ankles in "Achmed's Gulag". However, in the USA they can pray for their own demise in security and comfort. Ironic, eh? I also have little doubt that if Bill Clinton was in charge of our conflict with Iraq that they would not be on the street, but rather back at the dorm at "Blissninnie U." sniffing more glue and watching reruns of "The Real World".

That said, I think the war with Iraq (and whoever follows) is a question of, "Now or later". I'd just as soon get it over with now before Hussein can obtain a nuke from North Korea or build his own and take out half of the 3rd Mech.

A lot of folks refuse to admit that we live in a treacherous and dangerous world (as it always has been and always will be). I could be wrong, but I think these are the same kinds of people who wind up getting killed at railroad crossings every year: they don't see the danger before it's too late.

You'd think that nearly 3000 murdered Americans would wake them up. Nope. This monumental human propensity for self-delusion never fails to facinate me. But that's just me. When the mullahs manage to detonate a nuke in N.Y. harbor, it probably won't mean any more than 09-11-01. "Hey, it's just one city!" "Why are we invading _________?!"

You'd have to place a small thermonuclear device or a vial of smallpox squarely in their shorts to get their attention. "Gee dear, what are these funny spots all over me?! I can't go to the demonstration looking like THIS!!"

I'm not so worried about what OUR government is going to do to me. I'm worried about what OTHER "governments" are planning to do to me.

Am I paranoid about the Middle East? Perhaps. But I also have a funny feeling that if some of us got the same C.I.A. briefing every day that George Bush gets that we'd be reticent to leave our houses...
 
Thanks for that link to Krauthammer...

That is a good piece.
Rangerover says it well; some folks just won't believe the way the world works...they believe if they 'pray for peace' long and hard enough, it will happen. I don't think any war is a 'good' idea, but there are times when war is a better option than 'unilateral peace'. Is this one of those times?:confused:
 
I think there are a lot of us who remain unconvinced by the case the Administration has made so far. We are not pacifists :D and we're not anti-American and we sure as hell are not pro-Saddam. But two things weigh heavy on my mind at this point:
1. The cost to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines;
2. The aftermath, no matter how conditions inside Iraq turn out. We'll buy a future of anti-American hatred that we can only imagine now.

Having said that, if the President says "Go", then I, and all my family members in the military, will salute and get it on.

FWIW, I think it's critical RIGHT NOW for the President to lay his cards on the table--even if it burns some HUMINT sources in the process--and make the case against Saddam in no uncertain terms. Right. Now.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
2. The aftermath, no matter how conditions inside Iraq turn out. We'll buy a future of anti-American hatred that we can only imagine now.
Click to expand...

Three points:

1. It seems to me that 9/11 and many of the attacks on US interests are the result of CONTEMPT for American half-measures like sending in cruise missles to make it seem as if we're doing something.

2. It's not America's fault that Osama Bin Laden and his followers flipped a gasket because Americans were in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm. OBL is an idle rich boy out trying to prove his worth after doing nothing in his miserable life. he would have just found another excuse to become a terrorist.

3. Does an armed victim buy a future of hatred from the criminal and his family when he defends himself? Perhaps, but the armed victim is still right.
 
About cards on the table...

I have a sneaking suspicion about what is going to happen, based on a combination of historical precedent, wild speculation, and what we know about George W. Bush.

There is a whole cottage industry of underestimating George W. Bush. Which is interesting, since he has had a consistent habit of beating the snot out of his enemies... see Ann Richards, Al Gore, the entire Democratic party, and the Taliban for details. Yet the perception persists that he is a dummy and a lightweight.

That's brilliant. Make your foes underestimate you, then sucker-punch them and come out on top. That's what Bush has done for years on end. His success isn't accidental. It looks accidental because he wants it to. It is obvious that the Bush administration has made little effort to justify its hard-line policy against Iraq, beyond a few platitudes about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. This seems dumb, since he needs public support for a war. Yet is is obviously moving to war and not trying to drum up popular support. The obvious question is... WHY?

By intentionally failing to justify his hard-line policy towards Iraq, Bush has accomplished several things:

1. He has discovered who really backs him and who is just a fair-weather friend (or outright foe), both on the local political scene and abroad.
2. He has created a great deal of doubt and uncertainty about if or when any military action might take place at all. Grudging support of UN inspection efforts only reinforces this.
3. Because of #2, he can move vast military forces into the region, yet still have their eventual use (let alone the timing) seem highly doubtful.
4. Least important, by not divulging clear and convincing evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing, he has protected the sources of that information.

Thus, by not informing the public at large of his specific evidence supporting a hard-line Iraqi policy, he has made several positive accomplishments.

In that light, consider the following scenario...

Seemingly out of the blue, war with Iraq is initiated on a massive scale. Everyone whines about what a warmongering despot Bush is... for a few hours. Then, taking a page out of JFK's playbook, Bush gives the UN a huge "information dump" that removes all doubt as to the justifications for war with Iraq. His political opponents at home and abroad are humiliated and discredited, and the timing of the invasion of Iraq is a complete surprise.

Sound nutty? It might be. Certainly, our resident pinkos will say it is impossible, because Bush is a dummy. Then again, their bottoms are still sore from being beaten by... George W.! Which might tell you something. And as a side note, Powell has actually hinted that such a massive information dump will be taking place in the near future, which may more may not mean anything at all.
 
Sean, I have the utmost respect for President Bush and hope that you have nailed it dead to rights. :D
 
Sean:
Very insightful message. Let's hope you're right.

FWIW, I've never thought he was a dummy of any sort. He may share his father's unfortunate poor oratory skills, but his accomplishments are not those of a dummy.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Check this out... I may not be as nutty as I thought. :evil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,881215,00.html

The "Adlai Stevenson moment" has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba.
Click to expand...
 
By the way, an interesting diplomatic side-note: remember that recent French & German announcement that they were totally opposed to war? The context of that statment was interesting. They invited Colin Powell to a meeting that was claimed to be just about terrorism in general. Then, they blindsided him with the announcement to punk him out after his months of good-faith attempts to negotiate their cooperation over Iraq.

You will notice that, by coincidence ;) , Powell has changed his position to, in effect, "You can get stuffed."
 
Another nutty prediction: war and U.S. occupation of Iraq will reveal that the French, Germans and Russians (the big opponents of war) violated U.N. sanctions against Iraq on a massive scale, and in ways that supported Iraqi weapons programs. This, combined with their quasi-legitimate financial interests in Iraq, are their true motives for opposing war.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Peace protest hijacked by violence
Replies
0
Views
308
2dogs
2
C
  • Locked
Anti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
B9mmHP
B
2
  • Locked
Protesters Fly Iraqi Flag at Texas Capitol
2
Replies
25
Views
975
Silver Bullet
S
2
  • Locked
Anti-war Protestors Threaten Viet Vets with Violence
Replies
5
Views
853
Leatherneck
L
4
  • Locked
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
Replies
1
Views
285
XLMiguel
X
Back
Top