"Support the troops" rallies are what really?

[Todd33]

At least anti-war protesters are being honest. They are against something and stating it clearly. The other side is just being pro-Bush in essence, anything they say other than "support the troops" will expose them. Are they pro-war? Are they for extending the war indefinitely? Do they want to send more troops? Would they want a new war if this one ended?

It bugs me that people cannot protest war, which is just about the worse thing mankind can do, without getting protested themselves and being called unpatriotic. Supporting the troops is not the issue, being at war is. I suspect it boils down to politics. One sides sees anti-war as anti-Bush and instead of "Support Bush" signs, they take the cowardly road and use the near meaningless message "Support the Troops" instead.

Where are the "I love war", "Send more troops", "Kill more people" signs?

This was a good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/09/20/AR2005092001739.html

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Todd33
It bugs me that people cannot protest war, which is just about the worse thing mankind can do, without getting protested themselves and being called unpatriotic. Supporting the troops is not the issue, being at war is. I suspect it boils down to politics. One sides sees anti-war as anti-Bush and instead of "Support Bush" signs, they take the cowardly road and use the near meaningless message "Support the Troops" instead.

It doesn't boil down to politics; The left simply chose to politicize it out of porportion in a deliberate attempt to reel in votes. Which failed miserably.

I have no problem with anti-war protesters. But I do have a problem when they start showing up at soldiers' funerals in protest of Iraq and other idiotic "displays of disobedience".

 

[AlricTheMad]

Maybe the anti war protesters couls start sporting sings that said
'Support Our Troop's, Bring them home'
Or
"Support Our Troop's Get them out of Iraq"

Then the opposing Protesters would have to alter tactics a bit.

Oops, NM, another RTFA moment

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

 

[AlricTheMad]

Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

LMAO. If Clinton were president, he would be held to the same standards of stupidity and war mongering for starting a war based on lies, fact.

But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

 

[Pabster]

Or if the liberal media would highlight the achievements rather than focusing day after day on how many died or how many car bombs went off.

But that wouldn't help their candidates, would it?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

You are quite possibly the most naive yet...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

How Many protested Johnson's war? I don't think being against a war has much to do with who is president. How many were against the 1991 Gulf war? I wasn't...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

You are quite possibly the most naive yet...

Yeah, I am naive. LOL. Nice try. Agree to disagree, but I think you are the naive one if you believe the opposite. But fact remains, had Clinton been so stupid and eager to bomb a country without concrete proof and nearly 2000 of our troops had died in the process, I would be just as angry with him as I am at Bush.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Or if the liberal media would highlight the achievements rather than focusing day after day on how many died or how many car bombs went off.

But that wouldn't help their candidates, would it?

Ah, the old liberal media excuse/urban myth. The same liberal media that helped perpetuate the WMD FUD 3 years ago? If you can't participate in the OT, then go away.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

Well considering the Dub's track record in Business and Politics prior to him becoming POTUS we should have expected him to fsck it up. Unfortunately I didn't and I mistakenly initially supported his "Crock in Iraq" That makes me as much at fault as his Apologists. All I can say is that I am sorry, I should have known better. I guess I got caught up in the fear and patriotism the flourished immediately after 9/11 and like most I wasn't thinking clearly.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

Well considering the Dub's track record in Business and Politics prior to him becoming POTUS we should have expected him to fsck it up. Unfortunately I didn't and I mistakenly initially supported his "Crock in Iraq" That makes me as much at fault as his Apologists. All I can say is that I am sorry, I should have known better. I guess I got caught up in the fear and patriotism the flourished immediately after 9/11 and like most I wasn't thinking clearly.

I think you and I were had by the token selection of Powell as the sense of credibility.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

Well considering the Dub's track record in Business and Politics prior to him becoming POTUS we should have expected him to fsck it up. Unfortunately I didn't and I mistakenly initially supported his "Crock in Iraq" That makes me as much at fault as his Apologists. All I can say is that I am sorry, I should have known better. I guess I got caught up in the fear and patriotism the flourished immediately after 9/11 and like most I wasn't thinking clearly.

I think you and I were had by the token selection of Powell as the sense of credibility.

Well to be honest with you I couldn't imagine the Dub and his administration being so inept. Thinking about it maybe they weren't as inept as their apologist try to make them out to be, maybe they were very calculating and played the American Public (including me) for saps.

 

[conjur]

Were we guilty of (*gasp*) having faith in our government?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

You are quite possibly the most naive yet...

Yeah, I am naive. LOL. Nice try. Agree to disagree, but I think you are the naive one if you believe the opposite. But fact remains, had Clinton been so stupid and eager to bomb a country without concrete proof and nearly 2000 of our troops had died in the process, I would be just as angry with him as I am at Bush.

Clinton bombed Iraq many times over his 8 years.
He also comitted troops to Somalia and the Balkans.

Lets also not forget who signed into law taking Saddam out of power a national agenda.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Yeah, I am naive. LOL. Nice try. Agree to disagree, but I think you are the naive one if you believe the opposite. But fact remains, had Clinton been so stupid and eager to bomb a country without concrete proof and nearly 2000 of our troops had died in the process, I would be just as angry with him as I am at Bush.

Clinton bombed Iraq many times over his 8 years.

When the no-fly zone was breached or US aircraft were radar-locked by ground sites.

He also comitted troops to Somalia and the Balkans.

The latter of which being was the moral thing to do, the former ending in a mess as, from what I've read, due to Pentagon complacency/incompetence.

Lets also not forget who signed into law taking Saddam out of power a national agenda.

But not by invading for false reasons.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

Well considering the Dub's track record in Business and Politics prior to him becoming POTUS we should have expected him to fsck it up. Unfortunately I didn't and I mistakenly initially supported his "Crock in Iraq" That makes me as much at fault as his Apologists. All I can say is that I am sorry, I should have known better. I guess I got caught up in the fear and patriotism the flourished immediately after 9/11 and like most I wasn't thinking clearly.

I think you and I were had by the token selection of Powell as the sense of credibility.

Well to be honest with you I couldn't imagine the Dub and his administration being so inept. Thinking about it maybe they weren't as inept as their apologist try to make them out to be, maybe they were very calculating and played the American Public (including me) for saps.

Yes, they were calculating. Bush did what he had to do to get into the ME, because without going into an Arab country and forcibly changing their standard of government, we'd be subject to more of the same ol', same ol' for decades to come. It's no secret the ME was/is badly in need of reform and this, unfortunately, was the only way to speed the process.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

LMAO. If Clinton were president, he would be held to the same standards of stupidity and war mongering for starting a war based on lies, fact.

But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

LOL. <cough>"Mass graves in Kosovo."<cough>

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Todd33
At least anti-war protesters are being honest. They are against something and stating it clearly. The other side is just being pro-Bush in essence, anything they say other than "support the troops" will expose them. Are they pro-war? Are they for extending the war indefinitely? Do they want to send more troops? Would they want a new war if this one ended?

It bugs me that people cannot protest war, which is just about the worse thing mankind can do, without getting protested themselves and being called unpatriotic. Supporting the troops is not the issue, being at war is. I suspect it boils down to politics. One sides sees anti-war as anti-Bush and instead of "Support Bush" signs, they take the cowardly road and use the near meaningless message "Support the Troops" instead.

Where are the "I love war", "Send more troops", "Kill more people" signs?

This was a good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/09/20/AR2005092001739.html

Okay, then explain this quagmire. I "Support our Troops" but am fiercely "Anti-Bush." I recognize the fact that the american people that are serving in the military do not choose to go fight in foreign entanglements but none the less believe it's their duty to serve in our armed forces. I agree with their philosophy that it's every citizen's right to choose what they want to do with their life and if they choose to enlist in the military to pay for college or whatever their reasoning is then who am I to oppose them. They are defending the freedoms that I hold near and dear to me. You don't have to be pro-bush to support our troops.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

LMAO. If Clinton were president, he would be held to the same standards of stupidity and war mongering for starting a war based on lies, fact.

But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

LOL. <cough>"Mass graves in Kosovo."<cough>

Mass graves located and bodies exhumed in Kosovo
http://web.amnesty.org/wire/September2004/Kosovo

Kosovo mass grave uncovered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/473017.stm

Forensic scientists working for the war crimes tribunal have investigated more than 150 mass grave sites in Kosovo since June, when Nato troops moved into the province on the heels of retreating Serb forces.

They have recovered thousands of bodies, but there are hundreds more possible sites to examine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/phot_06.html


http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/ert/kosovo/kosovo2.htm

 

[Todd33]

Saddam was in Kosovo?

I was aiming for a serious discussion, it went off track after reply #3.

 

[DealMonkey]

"Support the troop" rallies are typically organized by those who just can't allow anti-war protestors to do their thing without somehow "answering" or "responding to" the anti-war message with what I perceive as a pro-war/pro-Bush stance. The freepers, some of the biggest offenders in this whole let no anti-war message go unanswered BS, admit to their motivation in their own event schedules. Check it:

September 23 - 26, 2005 Washington, D.C.

FOR ALL ACTIVITIES, PLEASE BRING AMERICAN AND SERVICE FLAGS AND SIGNS BEARING MESSAGES OF SUPPORT FOR AMERICA, OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND ELSEWHERE


FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 - 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. - SUPPORT THE TROOPS RALLY OUTSIDE WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, 7200 GEORGIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. ACROSS FROM THE MAIN GATE, ELDER ST. AND GEORGIA AVE.
Every Friday night for the past five months, members of FreeRepublic.com have held a patriotic gathering in support of our men and women recuperating at Walter Reed. While they believe that ordinarily, demonstrations are out of place at a hospital, they have done so because an antiwar group named Code Pink has been holding antiwar demonstrations at the main gate to Walter Reed on Friday evenings. We believe Code Pink is trying to hurt the morale of our soldiers and their families, so we will be joining the members of FreeRepublic.com in their show of support for our troops and their loved ones.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 - 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. - SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION RALLY BY DEFENDTHEWHITEHOUSE.ORG, RIGHTMARCH AND PROTEST WARRIOR, IN RESPONSE TO ANTIWAR RALLY ON THE ELLIPSE. RALLY BEGINS AT 10AM AT THE UNITED STATES NAVY MEMORIAL AT THE ON PENNSYLVANIA AVE BETWEEN 7TH ST AND 9TH ST NW.
This rally will place participants in close proximity to the antiwar protesters so that the antiwar rallies will not go unanswered by patriotic Americans. Plans for this day are still being formed. You may sign up for a mailing list for information updates on Saturday's events.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 - 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. - PATRIOTIC COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION BY DEFENDTHEWHITEHOUSE.ORG, FREEREPUBLIC.COM AND PROTEST WARRIOR ALONG ANTIWAR PARADE ROUTE THROUGH FEDERAL TRIANGLE (EXACT LOCATION GIVEN AT RALLY.)
After the dueling rallies, we will be lining sections of the antiwar march route to show support for America, our troops and their mission fighting the war on terrorism. There will be police lines separating the two groups to ensure the peace.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 - TIME TBA - ARRIVAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C. OF MOVE AMERICA FORWARD'S ?YOU DON?T SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY!? CROSS-COUNTRY CARAVAN.

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 - Noon to 3 p.m. - OUR MAIN EVENT: RALLY TO HONOR MILITARY FAMILIES ON THE MALL AT 4TH STREET NW (NEAR THE AIR & SPACE MUSEUM) SPONSORED BY MOVE AMERICA FORWARD, RIGHTMARCH.COM, FREEREPUBLIC.COM, PROTEST WARRIOR AND MILITARY FAMILIES VOICE OF VICTORY
This rally is being held to honor military families, their loved ones serving in our armed forces and their mission fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Military family members and those who support them are encouraged to attend to show the nation and the world that they stand firm in their resolve to win the war on terrorism. Speakers will include Gold Star parents, family members of service men and women, veterans and Iraqi citizens. Current and former Members of Congress are being invited to speak. The program for the rally will be regularly updated.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 - All day - MILITARY FAMILY MEMBERS WILL MEET WITH SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR AIDES TO INFORM THEM OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE MISSION OF THEIR LOVED ONES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND AROUND THE WORLD FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM

As you can see in the bolded areas above, the freepers main agenda is to "answer" these anti-war protestors with rallies by the "patriotic freeper peeps." It strikes me as sad and pathetic when you can't let some alternate view be heard without showing up to personally shout them down.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

LMAO. If Clinton were president, he would be held to the same standards of stupidity and war mongering for starting a war based on lies, fact.

But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Text

You were saying?