Protest this

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
It kills me that these protesters are so damn dramatic. I am a US service member that has to sit out this war in Iraq. I was able to fight in the first Gulf War, but now I'm guarding a base. We recently had protesters assembling at out gates and with the help of the State police, were able to quell any ideas they may have had to become violent. I have to thank the protesters and anti-protesters, too - things were kept civil.

The rule of law in this country is so well established. This permits people to peacefully assemble, right? It also generally prevents anyone who disagrees with the anti-war minority, to harm them. It just sort of affirms the general safety and political freedom that our citizens enjoy. I went to the Balkans and it was impressed upon me that our primary interest was to have the country develop an effective rule of law that its citizens trusted. I think that's what we're going to ultimately do in Iraq, too. As far as the human cost, IMO less civilians will ultimately die after we've finished our mission there. It will be at least a generation to reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing, democratic Islamic country in the mideast. But the rewards greatly outweigh the initial cost (money, U.S. lives, Iraqi civilians, etc...) I have not yet seen an effective demonstration against what's occured in the Congo for the last 4 years. The more I think about it, the anti-war movement is a poorly thought out, reactonary stance against a republican administration. I dunno were I was going, but just some thoughts...perhaps more cogent ones will follow.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Are you allowed to guard the base? Fire some tear gas grenades at them! :evil: Or get some mace, it get some sense it them.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
Truth be told, we and a number of jack-booted thugs (hehe The State Police all dressed up in riot gear and cute puppies straining at their choke collars for pats) were hidden from view. The regular uniformed Staties had made a visible 'Stay away' cordon, but we were the 'no-sh!t' statement backing them up if such events were warranted. Fortunately the protesters palyed nice, 'cause we were gonna club 'em like baby seals! (Joke)
 

Yax

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2003
2,866
0
0
Originally posted by: keird

... reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing, democratic Islamic country in the mideast. But the rewards greatly outweigh the initial cost (money, U.S. lives, Iraqi civilians, etc...) I have not yet seen an effective demonstration against what's occured in the Congo for the last 4 years. The more I think about it, the anti-war movement is a poorly thought out, reactonary stance against a republican administration. I dunno were I was going, but just some thoughts...perhaps more cogent ones will follow.

Well put. My beef is not with a Republican government, its with Pres. Bush not willing to admit that we want to reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing country. Instead of just telling it like it is, he comes up with all these other lines. Oh, they're with terrorists, they're storing weapons of mass murder, blah blah blah. I can't believe the number of people who fall for the lines that Pres Bush is dishing out when the fact is: we want to stabalize their nation to help benefit the world. Bush is simply playing on people's emotions. Fear: weapons of mass murder. Anger: Terrorism. Hatred: Saddam killed his own people. When will he admit the real reason. I'm all for the war. I want to see these benefits too. I just don't want a president who'll avoid stating that fact.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
If we wanted to go to war merely for oil, we would have already overaken venezuela.
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
My beef is not with a Republican government, its with Pres. Bush not willing to admit that we want to reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing country. Instead of just telling it like it is, he comes up with all these other lines.

Spare me. Why would we spend billions on this war so we could then buy oil from them? If we wanted the oil that badly we would have just seized some of Kuwait's or Iraq's oil fields during the first war or we would simply take it from Alaska...not spend billions on war and risk ill will in the international community.

But surely I'm wrong, look at all the oil we gained from Afghanistan
rolleye.gif
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
If we wanted to go to war merely for oil, we would have already overaken venezuela.
Nah...we'd b!tch-slap that Saudi prince ;)
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
I've actually protested about the millions of lives lost in the Congo a couple of times with a local Human Rights group at my college. No one even knew what we were talking about. Its a shame. If people were educated about what goes on in the world, there would be a lot more political activism.
 

FuZoR

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2001
4,422
1
0
yeah... but how many people even know what is happening in Africa...

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: keird
It kills me that these protesters are so damn dramatic. I am a US service member that has to sit out this war in Iraq. I was able to fight in the first Gulf War, but now I'm guarding a base. We recently had protesters assembling at out gates and with the help of the State police, were able to quell any ideas they may have had to become violent. I have to thank the protesters and anti-protesters, too - things were kept civil.

The rule of law in this country is so well established. This permits people to peacefully assemble, right? It also generally prevents anyone who disagrees with the anti-war minority, to harm them. It just sort of affirms the general safety and political freedom that our citizens enjoy. I went to the Balkans and it was impressed upon me that our primary interest was to have the country develop an effective rule of law that its citizens trusted. I think that's what we're going to ultimately do in Iraq, too. As far as the human cost, IMO less civilians will ultimately die after we've finished our mission there. It will be at least a generation to reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing, democratic Islamic country in the mideast. But the rewards greatly outweigh the initial cost (money, U.S. lives, Iraqi civilians, etc...) I have not yet seen an effective demonstration against what's occured in the Congo for the last 4 years. The more I think about it, the anti-war movement is a poorly thought out, reactonary stance against a republican administration. I dunno were I was going, but just some thoughts...perhaps more cogent ones will follow.

I agree that there are other issues that should be addressed, but OTOH the War on Iraq is something that directly affects the lives of Americans. Americans lives are directly at risk in this war and the American people have the most power in affecting the US government in this situation. Certainly many "peace protestors" have a beef against Bush, but is this really any different than Republicans beef with Clinton?
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
Sandorski,

In reply: You bring me back to a day when Clinton was in office and was addressing the Balkans. There was supposed to be that big 'Peace Dividend'. Well, the peace dividend is peace, not extra funds. The left wanted to draw down on the military, the right wanted to lessen our military's commitments overseas. I'm a conservative and contend the left was correct for all the wrong reasons (but that's hind sight). Our delay cost a massive loss of civilians lives. Further, doing a strict air campaign was really fighting a war on the cheap (resource wise and politically). The draw down on military numbers probably helped the impetus to modernize to a lighter more lethal force. This force is something I think we're seing now. The stabalization of the Balkans probably staved off a larger war. Though, when I was there a year ago they still wanted to kill eachother - it'l take a couple more generations in peace. Was the reletive peace the Balkans currently enjoy worth it? Was it worth it in terms of lives, resources and will? Yeah, I think so. Is Iraq worth it? Yep, I think so, too. Afganastan? Dunno yet. Was Somolia? Nope. From friends that were there, and what I've read... Somolians had their chance at democracy and wasted it. I personally don't think their culture could handle it. It was rife with tribal differences and a culture of corruption. Can the Congo be stabalized? I don't think it can in my lifetime. But the situation on my mind is whether or not Iraqi's can suspend their tribal biases for their only shot for democracy. I'm getting away from the topic. Sorry. To sum it up, I think that protesting the war, and the reasons given for this war is not constructive when the nation has committed itself. Political infighting just doesn't address the issue at hand. The right wing during the Balkans and elements of the left now.

The definition of war is changing another nation's will.
 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
Originally posted by: keird
Sandorski,

The definition of war is changing another nation's will.

I think that is the best quote I have seen in a long time. Although I consider my self a conservative independent, I am all for anything that helps keep the US safe. I may have been skeptical with Bush before the war (if evidence of WMD was available) but I did agree with the statement that Iraq is a supporter of Terrorism. Hamas is one example. Saddam publicly gave thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, if that is not supporting terrorism I don?t know what is. As for the Iraq - bin laden link, there is not a clear one. Bin laden HATES Saddam (he actually wanted to be the force to go in and kill him before the first golf war, but the Saudis would not let him, which was one of the main reasons he now hates the US) but Bin ladden will accept help, money and weapons if it will result in American deaths. The same is true for Saddam. The point about going to war just for oil is without any logical basis. Sure we will benefit from BUYING oil from them after, but notice the word BUYING. The US getting oil from them is mutually beneficial.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for your service and this great post.
 

swifty3

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
392
0
0
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
If we wanted to go to war merely for oil, we would have already overaken venezuela.

Venezuela is an even bigger mess than Iraq. And they don't have the second largest oil reserves on the planet, or a regime that can be overthrown for "humanitarian reasons" (reasons that sould have prompted the US to intervene in Rwanda where over a million people died in purging and civil war) or be overthrown for "weapons of mass destruction" which have yet to be found.
 

elzmaddy

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
479
0
0
It will be at least a generation to reap the rewards of a stable, oil-producing, democratic Islamic country in the mideast. But the rewards greatly outweigh the initial cost (money, U.S. lives, Iraqi civilians, etc...)
Whats the chance this best-case scenario will come to be? And notice how the rewards are so far off in the future. If the rewards don't come, if there's still instability, poverty, famine it probably won't matter since we'd forget all about Iraq by that time.
 

steell

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2001
1,569
0
76
Originally posted by: Wheezer
keird..thank you for your service

And for civil posts that are clear and concise :D

(And right on target IMNSHO):wine: