Damned anti-war protestors

[mrskippy]

First off I think the anti-war protestors are completely off base. They want diplomacy. They want the United Nations to decide, not their own government. Two problems with that:

- Diplomacy has failed. Iraq has violated terms of its cease fire and UN resolutions for 12 years. And now we see they do indeed have Scud missiles, even after admitting they don't. What else does Iraq have it says it doesn't?

- This is the United States of America. We are a sovereign nation, free to make our own decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. should leave the United Nations and close the NYC headquarters. We should never allow other countries to decide for us. And to support that, is very anti-American.

My feeling is that Saddam is (or should it be was now?) a threat to the World. His regime has maimed his own people. He has invaded Kuwait. He has harbored and supported terrorists. He has lied.

I've heard protestors say we should wait until he attacks first. That's a dangerous proposition. We were lucky after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Israel was lucky after the Arabs attacked it in 1973. But what was to stop the Chinese or Russians from giving Saddam a nuclear-tipped ICBM. No doubt he'd hurl that thing at Washington. Than what? Just to let Saddam go would be foolish. Eventually, he would only grow in power and put the West and our own nation in serious jeopardy.

Than these protestors claim to be against violence. Let they take to the streets, start fights, vandalize newsracks, smash up cars, confront motorists, and worse yet try to attack police. What hypocrites.

These protestors wonder why it is against the law to have a die-in in the middle of the busiest street in town or chain together in the middle of the road.

The answer?

Doing that puts the city at risk. It only helps the enemy. Imagine, during the protests on Market Street in San Francisco, that a terrorist launched a chemical attack against BART, blew up or flew a plain into a tall building. How would emergency crews get through when these protestors were disrputing things?

In S.F. people couldn't get to work, the bridges were blocked, people couldn't get to job interviews or important meetings, and the city was other was "taken over" by the protestors ... as if they themselves were at war.

These protestors need to shut up. And if they insist on protesting, do it in places that aren't as disruptive (parks, squares, a stadium, etc.) to daily life. They are only making themselves look bad and defeating their message.

I just wish they'd start throwing these protestors behind bars and doing more to control them. They aren't protesting. They are causing civil disturbance and uprisings -- which is not legal or protected by the First Amendment.

Of course, I'm in the pro-war, pro-troops camp. Most of those people rallying in support are obedient. They do it on sidewalks or in those places I mentioned above. A great example is the pro-war rally in Clarksville, TN near Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division.

[GoldenEagle]

The one problem I had with the anti-war protests was the burning of flags in Seattle. I dont see how this an expression of speech and it justs insutls the troops who are fighting under that flag.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
The one problem I had with the anti-war protests was the burning of flags in Seattle. I dont see how this an expression of speech and it justs insutls the troops who are fighting under that flag.

I've always felt that flag burning is one thing that shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment.

[ISiddiqui]

I think flag burning SHOULD be protected, but I agree with you that blocking traffic and things of that nature hurts the anti-war message and they really are causing a disturbance which isn't protected. Hell, say whatever you want, but don't block traffic and cause harm to others, who have nothing to do with your message.

[sachmo71]

Yeah, they should shut up or be thrown in jail. In America, if you aren't popular, you should be quiet.

[ahbrady]

My biggest problem is just as you said they are protesting war and violence, but are guilty of violence themselves. I'm for the war, but I respect people's decisions to be against it and even protest against it. But can they not see that it is just ignorant to behave violently when that is the very thing they are protesting? I just don't get that at all.

[sachmo71]

You guys don't really believe that everyone who goes to a protest is non-violent, do you? The more people you gather in one place, the greater the chance that some idiot who thinks with his fists is going to show up and do something stupid. Also, is it possible that there are people who have no intentions other than to cause trouble are showing up to protests just because it is an excuse to get out and damage things? You cannot condem a whole group just because a few thugs decide that this would be a great chance to go out and cause trouble. I understand that just their existance bothers many of you who are in full support of the war, but don't let that cloud your common sense. It's just going to cause you to become more upset. Let your fellow Americans have their say, and let the police handle those who choose not to obey the laws of the land.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by mrskippy
First off I think the anti-war protestors are completely off base. They want diplomacy. They want the United Nations to decide, not their own government. Two problems with that:

- Diplomacy has failed. Iraq has violated terms of its cease fire and UN resolutions for 12 years. And now we see they do indeed have Scud missiles, even after admitting they don't. What else does Iraq have it says it doesn't?

- This is the United States of America. We are a sovereign nation, free to make our own decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. should leave the United Nations and close the NYC headquarters. We should never allow other countries to decide for us. And to support that, is very anti-American.

Let me point out a flaw in your logic. You say we have a legitimate excuse to attack Iraq because they've failed to follow the laws of the U.N. and international community. But then you tell us who cares about the U.N. because the U.S. is a sovereign nation that can do whatever the hell it pleases. Going with your logic, shouldn't Iraq be able to do whatever the hell it pleases too? If they want to ignore weapons inspectors, they can, they don't need other countries to make decisions for them. You can't have it both ways and while it's obvious that the U.S. isn't planning on supplying terrorists with WMD anytime soon, you have to recognize the double-standard we seem to have in international politics that pushes us away from everyone. We supplied Iraq and helped build their powerful military in the 70's and 80's, yet we're the ones that say we need to take them out now. No wonder the world thinks we're a hypocrite. Now more than ever, we really need brilliant leaders in our country that can put themselves in another country's shoes.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by AgPete

Let me point out a flaw in your logic. You say we have a legitimate excuse to attack Iraq because they've failed to follow the laws of the U.N. and international community. But then you tell us who cares about the U.N. because the U.S. is a sovereign nation that can do whatever the hell it pleases. Going with your logic, shouldn't Iraq be able to do whatever the hell it pleases too?

I love seeing a good, sound, logical argument... no matter the side.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I love seeing a good, sound, logical argument... no matter the side.

I love seeing a good, topless, midget in grass skirts... no matter the size.

[MJ4H]

Finally, someone said what I was thinking! Which way to the grass-skirted midgets please?

[STK]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
The one problem I had with the anti-war protests was the burning of flags in Seattle. I dont see how this an expression of speech and it justs insutls the troops who are fighting under that flag.

Bah. Seattle consists of thousands upon thousands of hippies, most of which are drug addicts. It is expected.

[superbama]

Originally posted by STK
Bah. Seattle consists of thousands upon thousands of hippies, most of which are drug addicts. It is expected.

True, True

Very wealthy but hippied and hopelessly addicted to the smack.

[ACStrider]

AgPete, you raise a good point about logical consistancy, but I think it breaks down under close examination. The fact is that Iraq's existance is dependant upon UN compliance, and we are not. For them the choice is abide by the UN resolution or revert back to war (the resolution following the first Gulf War wasn't a peace treaty, it was technically a cease-fire dependant upon compliance with the weapons inspections process and disarmament). For us the basis is our own national interest and security first and foremost. In the case of Iraq, we decided to go first to the UN, and when that failed, took it on ourselves and those supporting us to finish the job. It does create room for hypocracy, but if seeking national interest apart from the UN is hypocritical then every nation in the UN is hypocritical.