"Support the troops" rallies are what really?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: 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.
Freepers do lack the ability to form together in large numbers, though. All that Kool-Aid has made them more lethargic. Their recent appearances have been quite lacking in number.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: 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?

Saved me some time of looking this up :)
There were a couple of other quotes from Clinton as well, in regards to wmd's. Also, as someone else pointed out, Clinton was the one making US policy of regime change in Iraq.

Clinton was fooled by the PNAC'ians as well, as was old Ronnie. But after 9/11 and with Bush in office, they really got their chance to get to Saddam, something Bush Sr. did not do during Gulf War I, much to the frustration of PNAC.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Freepers do lack the ability to form together in large numbers, though. All that Kool-Aid has made them more lethargic. Their recent appearances have been quite lacking in number.
I know, I know. They tend more towards "keyboard activism" than anything substantial. It seems quite apparent to me at least that many of the freepers have drifted over our way -- probably due to Google searches on some of their "pet issues" that point to ATP&N.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
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.

So you really want to argue that the mainstream media isn't heavily tilted to the left?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 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
What did Clinton tell us? There were as many as 100,000 mass graves in Kosovo because of "ethnic cleansing."

Yet the truth is turning up a few scattered here and there, contain tens or hundreds of people, some or many of which were a result of the war itself.

There doesn't appear to have been any sort of mass "ethnic cleansing" going on there, contrary to what we were told.

I mean, there have been a few chemical weapons discovered in Iraq too. Does the small quantities found therefore substantiate the case for massive WMDs in Iraq?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What are they? Anti-Bush/Pro-Bin Laden/Liberal Love Fests

:thumbsup:

Nothing more than a liberal circle jerk. Seems to be par for the course here.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: 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?


And Clinton started a war and commited thousands of our troops for which 2000 US troops died in the process? You were saying? Nice try and comparing like you usually do, and as usual you failed.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
At least anti-war protesters are being honest. They are against something and stating it clearly.

Ever been to an anti-war rally? I have. It's quite interesting to see the agendas on display.

yup

When will you be honest that their target is Bush?

anti-war?

Oh really?


:laugh: talk about blind ignorance.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: conjur
Freepers do lack the ability to form together in large numbers, though. All that Kool-Aid has made them more lethargic. Their recent appearances have been quite lacking in number.
I know, I know. They tend more towards "keyboard activism" than anything substantial. It seems quite apparent to me at least that many of the freepers have drifted over our way -- probably due to Google searches on some of their "pet issues" that point to ATP&N.
A likely reason to explain the recent influx of the Freeper types.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What are they? Anti-Bush/Pro-Bin Laden/Liberal Love Fests

:thumbsup:

Nothing more than a liberal circle jerk. Seems to be par for the course here.

And nothing more than right wing fluffers. Seems part for the course here.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
And 2000 US troops died in the process? You were saying? Nice try and comparing like you usually do, and as usual you failed.

No, you failed. As usual.

So it is OK for Clinton to use/quote bad (or "inaccurate") intelligence, but when Bush does it, the sky is falling?

Your partisan colors show very brightly. Thanks for playing.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
And 2000 US troops died in the process? You were saying? Nice try and comparing like you usually do, and as usual you failed.

No, you failed. As usual.

So it is OK for Clinton to use/quote bad (or "inaccurate") intelligence, but when Bush does it, the sky is falling?

Your partisan colors show very brightly. Thanks for playing.


Proof that intel was bad when the strikes occurred? Proof that you need to commit thousand of ground troops for years in order to take out some targets?

You were saying? He swings... he misses... No where did Clinton insist nor try and sell to the world that Iraq HAD WMDs nor did he commit us to a war. Nor did he commit thousands of troops. Coordinated strikes with an exit plan, something your boy knows nothing about. Had Bush used our Air Force to strike strategic targets instead of decimating an entire country, their inhabitants, and their infrastructure, and sacrificed thousands of lives in the process, this apples to oranges comparison might hold water. As it stands, it's bone dry.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
You apparently glossed over this:
They have recovered thousands of bodies, but there are hundreds more possible sites to examine.
Yeah, for a long time there were hundreds more "possible" hiding places to look for WMDs in Iraq as well.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You apparently glossed over this:
They have recovered thousands of bodies, but there are hundreds more possible sites to examine.
Yeah, for a long time there were hundreds more "possible" hiding places to look for WMDs in Iraq as well.
What's the difference in the two scenarios? Hmmm?

Let's see:

1) thousands of bodies were recovered from the mass graves
2) WMDs were recovered from the possible hiding places.



Oh wait! #2 NEVER happened!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You apparently glossed over this:
They have recovered thousands of bodies, but there are hundreds more possible sites to examine.
Yeah, for a long time there were hundreds more "possible" hiding places to look for WMDs in Iraq as well.
What's the difference in the two scenarios? Hmmm?

Let's see:

1) thousands of bodies were recovered from the mass graves
2) WMDs were recovered from the possible hiding places.



Oh wait! #2 NEVER happened!
Don't you remember the chemical shells that were found?

Well geez, we found some. Not as many as Bush claimed, but some were found. So I guess that settles it then, huh? There were WMDs in Iraq just like there were mass graves in Kosovo, even if they were a result of the war and not ethnic cleansing. And even if it was a few thousand people and not 100,00o like Clinton claimed.

Man you're so patently dishonest it's not even funny conjur.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Thousands of bodies, TLC. thousands. Let me repeat: thousands.


That equals two antiquated shells and a couple dozen EMPTY shells?



I don't recall the "100,000" claim but, if made, does sound like an exaggeration. However, an action was made to stop an atrocity. It's the opposite of what happened in March 2003 in which a new atrocity was created.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Thousands of bodies, TLC. thousands. Let me repeat: thousands.


That equals two antiquated shells and a couple dozen EMPTY shells?



I don't recall the "100,000" claim but, if made, does sound like an exaggeration. However, an action was made to stop an atrocity. It's the opposite of what happened in March 2003 in which a new atrocity was created.
A few thousand, as I already stated previously, and many are suspected of being casualities during and after the war itself, not because of "ethnic cleansing." Do you even read your own links?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Pabster


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".

Like these nuts!
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Proof that intel was bad when the strikes occurred?

I think that's been proven.

No where did Clinton insist nor try and sell to the world that Iraq HAD WMDs

ROFLMAO. Nah, just a few speeches here and there.


No one is saying Clinton invaded Iraq as Bush did. I'm not supporting the current war in Iraq, nor have I ever, nor have I ever voted for Bush. But you have made some really dumbass statements here. You have completely pack-peddled away from the original statements you made. Maybe you should read back through this thread, starting with your first post.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
WTF does Clinton have to do with anything, especially this thread? Is Clinton the fall back if people have nothing to say?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF does Clinton have to do with anything, especially this thread? Is Clinton the fall back if people have nothing to say?

Yes...with certain posteres more than others. I think there are several candidates in this thread for using my new "RightyPostEngine" program that posts in every thread on P&N with some combination of "Clinton", "Liberal Media" and "Liberal circle jerk". Imagine the time posters like Pabster could save. Instead of tediously typing the same old crap in every single thread, they could just set the script to run while they do whatever it is conservatives do with their time. For the poster requiring more customization, you can add your own phrases like "hate America", "pro-terrorist" and whatever other idiot sound bites have recently been heard from Sean Hannity.

Actually, I'm not so sure this isn't what goes on right now. I think the FreeRepublic folks might have beat me to the market.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
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?

I would still be opposed to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Looking back, I was completely opposed to all of Clinton's military actions that put American troops on the ground in hostile countries. Firing a few cruise missles at Iraq was bad enough, but landing troops in Rwanda to be slaughtered was a very bad idea.

I only support defensive wars. We haven't had anything that comes close in 60 years....
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
i guess supporting the troops is simply too much for you, huh? well its no surprise, many radical leftists hate this country, hate who they are, hate anything right or moral and they hate the military with a passion. many of them are on the side of terrorists. not saying you are, but many radical leftists who are whacked out are.

supporting troops is not the same as supporting the GOP. think for a second. many soldiers come from families which vote Democratic.

i think we need to have anti-war protests as well in order to balance things out but to say that support the troops rallies are really "I love war", "Kill more people" or even "Support Bush" rallies is just being partisan flamethrower.

but you should know a thing or two about that