*** Official Anti War Protestor Thread***SanFrancisco, No Business as Usual....

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
I suppose this goes here:

Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne


The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like"stupid", "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant", "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush
Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to Urban Legends.Com and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney
Earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell
Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator. Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge
Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.)

She is a Fellow of the AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution.

Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula.

In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.

So, who are these pompous, outspoken celebrity critics?
What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their education and background:

Barbra Streisand
Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher
Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen
Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange
Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin
Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts
Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn
Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon
Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner
Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney
Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore
Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker
Completed High School
Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston
Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell
Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofalo
Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman
Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep-seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost,not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his high school diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
5,000 protestors are still blocking traffic downtown.
They claim they'll be protesting as long as there are troops engaging The Iraqi's.....
Once they get tired and/or their parents tell them to come home, it will clear up.
Or they run out of marijuana :)

According to some of the kids I mentor here in Berkeley (12-year-olds mind you), their high school age brothers and sisters know the protests to be one of the prime spots to score free weed ;)

 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
5,000 protestors are still blocking traffic downtown.
They claim they'll be protesting as long as there are troops engaging The Iraqi's.....
Once they get tired and/or their parents tell them to come home, it will clear up.
Or they run out of marijuana :)

According to some of the kids I mentor here in Berkeley (12-year-olds mind you), their high school age brothers and sisters know the protests to be one of the prime spots to score free weed ;)

maybe ashcroft knew what he was doing in that medical marijuana conviction... :eek:
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
That's all propaganda! Everyone knows that Hollywood is run by super-geniuses. That's why they get so much money and that pretty mountain with their name on it. And everyone also knows that DC is really a city full of actors that pretend they have some kind of power. Those people aren't real. Seriously. Think about it. Bush's character was based on a Better Homes & Gardens column in 1946. I have proof. But I can't share it. Sorry. If you google it enough, it will show up. :Q
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Scenario #1: I would love to go into a crowd of anti-war protestors and then punch one of them right in the face. When he drops I'd start kicking the crap out of him, if anyone physically touches me to try to stop me I'll just tell him, "Just because you are bigger and have more people backing you up doesn't mean you can make me stop abusing someone else, quit trying to police me, after all violence is bad right"

Scenario #2: Punch one of the anti-war protestors in the nose, see if he or anyone else punches back or if they try to talk to you "diplomatically". If he doesn't hit back and only talks, then punch him again.....keep doing it until he pysically does something back to you then tell him, "See sometimes you have to fight to get things resolved"
 

nagger

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2001
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
 

Walruslord

Member
Jul 24, 2001
51
0
0
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.



Dude, take a statistics class. Provided they call people randomly (and not because they purchaced cars or something, ala Franklin Roos debacle) it is damn well representative, to a +-3% margin or whatever depending on their methods.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.



Dude, take a statistics class. Provided they call people randomly (and not because they purchaced cars or something, ala Franklin Roos debacle) it is damn well representative, to a +-3% margin or whatever depending on their methods.
What's funnier than that is the known fact that the "Anti-War" people LOVE to use statistics and polls to prove their points.........................that is until the very polls they live by turn against them!;)

 

nagger

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2001
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.

Dude, take a statistics class. Provided they call people randomly (and not because they purchaced cars or something, ala Franklin Roos debacle) it is damn well representative, to a +-3% margin or whatever depending on their methods.

Last time I saw the US had 280 million habitants and 602 adults seem a too small sample to form an impartial poll, IMHO.
 

nagger

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2001
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.


Dude, take a statistics class. Provided they call people randomly (and not because they purchaced cars or something, ala Franklin Roos debacle) it is damn well representative, to a +-3% margin or whatever depending on their methods.
What's funnier than that is the known fact that the "Anti-War" people LOVE to use statistics and polls to prove their points.........................that is until the very polls they live by turn against them!;)

I'm not anti-war, I'm for solving conflicts using non-violence.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

gallup polls today

Do you really think that 602 american adults are representative of the public opinion?
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 602 -- national adults, aged 18+, conducted March 20, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.


Dude, take a statistics class. Provided they call people randomly (and not because they purchaced cars or something, ala Franklin Roos debacle) it is damn well representative, to a +-3% margin or whatever depending on their methods.
What's funnier than that is the known fact that the "Anti-War" people LOVE to use statistics and polls to prove their points.........................that is until the very polls they live by turn against them!;)

I'm not anti-war, I'm for solving conflicts using non-violence.
I believe for the most part, nearly everyone is............................until it becomes obvious those tactics will not work that is.

 

nagger

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2001
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
I'm not anti-war, I'm for solving conflicts using non-violence.


Right.....

yep, that's right.

and as you can see from my profile I'm not from the US, I am from a very small country that had a brutal dictatorship for 48 years and it was toppled in a (semi) peacefull revolution.

it's always possible to solve conflicts using non-violence methods, just look at India's independence.
 

Walruslord

Member
Jul 24, 2001
51
0
0
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
I'm not anti-war, I'm for solving conflicts using non-violence.


Right.....

yep, that's right.

and as you can see from my profile I'm not from the US, I am from a very small country that had a brutal dictatorship for 48 years and it was toppled in a (semi) peacefull revolution.

it's always possible to solve conflicts using non-violence methods, just look at India's independence.


I wish that was a universal truth. All it takes is one guy to not buy into the idea though.....

Btw, I don't particularly think living under a dictatorship for 48 years is a good thing. What if a little violence in the past could have prevented that? Which would you choose? Peace is preferable, but what kind of peace is living under a totalitatian despot?

 

numark

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,005
0
0
Come on, grow up, people. Pretty much this whole thread has been about liberal bashing, advocating violence against the protestors, and stereotyping. I know ten-year-old kids that say things more mature than some of the things that have been said in this thread. Examples just on the front page:

"I'd run them over"
"Some are just plain troublemakers."
"Anti-Bush rallies by ticked off Liberals"
"Bunch of tree hugging hippies"

You don't have to agree with them, you don't even have to like them personally, but to say things like this is just juvenile and disregarding their plain right to voice their opinion even at the risk of getting arrested (or killed, as a few have been in recent protests during clashes with police). Because they create a small discomfort, it's alright for you to advocate running them over and characterizing them as a bunch of tree-hugging hippies? Come on, that's just deplorable. At least they're standing up for their beliefs. You're just trying to run their beliefs down (literally). Contribute something to the conversation, don't just sit here in front of your computer and attack whoever you don't happen to like this week.
 

iwearnosox

Lifer
Oct 26, 2000
16,018
5
0
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: nagger
I'm not anti-war, I'm for solving conflicts using non-violence.


Right.....

yep, that's right.

and as you can see from my profile I'm not from the US, I am from a very small country that had a brutal dictatorship for 48 years and it was toppled in a (semi) peacefull revolution.

it's always possible to solve conflicts using non-violence methods, just look at India's independence.
Maybe because that dictatorship didn't throw your family into a plastic shredder for your views, or just gassed your whole town.

This war is happening, it will not stop until Saddam is caught or killed and Iraq is liberated. There is no demonstration, country or godlike force that will stop it. Once it is over the Iraqi people will know what it's truly like to live without fear of tyranny.


 

Walruslord

Member
Jul 24, 2001
51
0
0
Originally posted by: numark
Come on, grow up, people. Pretty much this whole thread has been about liberal bashing, advocating violence against the protestors, and stereotyping. I know ten-year-old kids that say things more mature than some of the things that have been said in this thread. Examples just on the front page:

"I'd run them over"
"Some are just plain troublemakers."
"Anti-Bush rallies by ticked off Liberals"
"Bunch of tree hugging hippies"

You don't have to agree with them, you don't even have to like them personally, but to say things like this is just juvenile and disregarding their plain right to voice their opinion even at the risk of getting arrested (or killed, as a few have been in recent protests during clashes with police). Because they create a small discomfort, it's alright for you to advocate running them over and characterizing them as a bunch of tree-hugging hippies? Come on, that's just deplorable. At least they're standing up for their beliefs. You're just trying to run their beliefs down (literally). Contribute something to the conversation, don't just sit here in front of your computer and attack whoever you don't happen to like this week.

They have the right to voice their opinion, but they do not have the right to act as if they are speaking for the majority (as they seem to think they are for some reason) or for being disruptive. I am a senior at the University of Washington, I have had to deal with the protests all freaking year, and it is always 100 people at most (out of a school of 50,000 students, profs, workers) being loud, rude, and competely over the top. Prove your point with reasoned discourse and through the political methods the country provides, don't block bridges and throw crud at cops. This isn't Birmingham, and no one is being swayed to your side through your actions, because no one is looking at you with any sense of legitimacy, given how the war is going, and how the people there seem to enjoy our company.

Yes, diplomacy could provide us with peace. It could also provide us with "Peace in Our Time," and I am sure everyone remembers how that went.

 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Originally posted by: Walruslord
Originally posted by: numark
Come on, grow up, people. Pretty much this whole thread has been about liberal bashing, advocating violence against the protestors, and stereotyping. I know ten-year-old kids that say things more mature than some of the things that have been said in this thread. Examples just on the front page:

"I'd run them over"
"Some are just plain troublemakers."
"Anti-Bush rallies by ticked off Liberals"
"Bunch of tree hugging hippies"

You don't have to agree with them, you don't even have to like them personally, but to say things like this is just juvenile and disregarding their plain right to voice their opinion even at the risk of getting arrested (or killed, as a few have been in recent protests during clashes with police). Because they create a small discomfort, it's alright for you to advocate running them over and characterizing them as a bunch of tree-hugging hippies? Come on, that's just deplorable. At least they're standing up for their beliefs. You're just trying to run their beliefs down (literally). Contribute something to the conversation, don't just sit here in front of your computer and attack whoever you don't happen to like this week.


They have the right to voice their opinion, but they do not have the right to act as if they are speaking for the majority (as they seem to think they are for some reason) or for being disruptive. I am a senior at the University of Washington, I have had to deal with the protests all freaking year, and it is always 100 people at most (out of a school of 50,000 students, profs, workers) being loud, rude, and competely over the top. Prove your point with reasoned discourse and through the political methods the country provides, don't block bridges and throw crud at cops. This isn't Birmingham, and no one is being swayed to your side through your actions, because no one is looking at you with any sense of legitimacy, given how the war is going, and how the people there seem to enjoy our company.

Yes, diplomacy could provide us with peace. It could also provide us with "Peace in Our Time," and I am sure everyone remembers how that went.
Good Post!:)

 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
Regardless of who it is... blocking off streets is just stupid. I don't care what you are protesting, if you are being a jerk get over yourself and find a suitable demonstration. What is the difference between the farmer advocate and the anti-war advocates?
Numbers. (and not many at that)
 

nagger

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2001
1,429
0
0

Walruslord,

we only entered into a military dictatorship in 1926 because the military wasn't pleased with the way the republican government was acting and staged a coup, after that the military leaders chose as the Minister of Finance António de Oliveira Salazar who later became THE ruler of Portugal.
Salazar's regime begun to crumble when he fell from a chair and hit his head on the floor, he died a few years later :)

iwearnosox,

read these and go back the the Official War thread:
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
When US turned a blind eye to poison gas
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
yes, just look to chile, and see how the u.s. worked to topple a democratically elected president, to replace him with a military freak name pinochet who kidnapped, tortured, and killed thousands. good guys, bad guys, dont mean a thing to the u.s. government.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
yes, just look to chile, and see how the u.s. worked to topple a democratically elected president, to replace him with a military freak name pinochet who kidnapped, tortured, and killed thousands. good guys, bad guys, dont mean a thing to the u.s. government.

Interesting example drewshin. Now tell us why the US did that, if you can.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: FoBoT
There will be a pro-American/Support the Troops rally/gathering in Kansas City, Missouri on Sunday, Mar 23 from 4-6 pm at the horse fountain on the Plaza i am going to go

There is a "Rally for America" rally on the west steps of the capitol tommorrow (saturday ;) ) at 2:30 pm here in Des Moines Iowa. I am going :D

God Bless America
CkG

Edit - Oh and all you anti-war "___s" you'd best stay away from our peaceful show of support for our Gov't and it's actions in Iraq.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: drewshin
yes, just look to chile, and see how the u.s. worked to topple a democratically elected president, to replace him with a military freak name pinochet who kidnapped, tortured, and killed thousands. good guys, bad guys, dont mean a thing to the u.s. government.

Interesting example drewshin. Now tell us why the US did that, if you can.
IIRC, the US was worried that Allende would turn Chile into a communist power in South America, so they backed Pinochet during the coup and he went on to become one of the most infamous dictators in modern history. The case of Suharto is fairly similar; the US was worried that an independent East Timor would be a "destabilizing" influence in the region so the both blessed and armed Suharto's efforts to bring them back into the fold. End product: 200,000 dead. Nearly 1/3 the population of E. Timor at the outset of the conflict.

The US may mean well, but our track record of reigning things in when they go bad (after we got the ball rolling) is rather poor for the most part.