I don't think protests are bad in the respect of swaying votes. That goes both ways, you could sway a republican vote just the same as a democratic vote. I just think that some protests seem to embody a more anti-patriot agenda which seems to work adversely with some aspects of what's going on in the world.

 

We've been down this road before, but voicing disgruntlement with an out of line electorate is one of the most patriotic acts that we can do as American citizens.

Straight from the founding fathers.

 

So all the anti-war rallies you see today, how effective do you think they are? And I'm being serious here, not trying to call you out on something.

 

1st, y'all are stating your opinions. Can anyone cite examples?

2nd, I don't care what a politician's political affiliation is, you're not going to speak to him until you threaten his bottom line. Will it affect his reelection?

It can't be denied that protests do that, but not directly. For instance, why would people waste their time protesting the war in Moscow, Idaho? Alternatively, why aren't all protests at the capitol?

They are trying to educate, spread the word, convince. If they can lather up a majority of people, I guarantee that their elected official will know and it will become his leading issue.

Again, though, how many protestors do you think are fully informed about the issue they're fired up about? I don't know all of the details about OEF/OIF, so it's hard for even me to form an opinion. I will tell you though (and I don't think I'm breaking the law by saying this) that I don't support war. Of course if there were no wars, I wouldn't have a job but as a human being, I support war when it's necessary and I hope that if it is the final solution that it ends as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I know that I'm not walking the puzzle palace, I'm not privy to the dialy briefs the president gets, I'm not even in Iraq.

I want us to redeploy too, but it is very obvious to me what the ramifications would be if were to just pull up stakes right now and head home. There would be a huge vacuum. The elections would be for not; I believe the terminology would be coup, or more accurate, extermination of those currently in power.

I wonder what the anti's stance and immediate withdrawal is.

 

By the way, I almost edited all of your responses unintentionally. I need to lose my moderator status solely based on the fact that the 'edit' and 'quote' buttons are too close together.

BTW, I'm on leave!!!!

 

Yeah, I too believe that an immediate withdrawal would be disasterous. And like you said, warriors above all others pray for peace.

As far as where you quoted me I think you may have taken in the wrong way as you didn't post my entire quote. It seemed to me as though he was making the generalization that protest only works for the democratic side. I was just pointing out that a protest has an effect regardless of which party it comes from. You don't see as many conservative protests today because we have a lot of Republicans in charge and I think 1) they have less to disagree with and 2) they have pride issues with protesting against the people they elected. Just my $.02.

 

1,

I know. I think we're probably pretty like-minded on this issue, but I just wanted to highlight how it seems as though many attach a connotation with the concept of protest and demonstration.

Hm, you could almost make the connection from this topic that the conservatives possess all of the real power in America, that or maybe you're correct in saying that even if they were the ones without the clout that they wouldn't lower themselves to demonstrating.

Wow, I'm starting to think of many generalities as to why. None of them are something I'd state publicly because they're just 'what ifs' in my head; not stuff that I know or believe.

 

You said it. And we seem to agree on everything I've noticed on this forum. I wonder why?

 

Separated at birth?

 

DING!!!!!

 

Could this sound any more ignorant? What is patriotism, anyway? Is it going along with your government, not thinking for oneself, and supporting everything regardless of one's own feelings? I don't think so. This country is a democracy (last time I checked, at least ). Therefore, I believe peaceful protests celebrate and uphold the tenets of our nation. To generalize all protestors and group them with the few radicals who do, I'll agree, go a bit too far with their activism and demonstrations is being completely blind to the democratic process and serves as weak grounds, at best, to paint any demonstration, idea, or belief against our governments will or action as 'anti-patriot', 'anti- american,' or 'disrespectful.' Discouraging the people's right to dissent with such generalizations, I see, as much more 'anti-American' and corrosive to our free society and democratic political process.

In summary, if you are going to complain about protestors, do so on a case-by- case basis if you wish to have any solidarity to your argument. I believe the vast majority of those who are 'anti-war' don't even atttend the public protests. Most of the people you get at demonstrations are those who either: have no job and have too much time to complain, or those who are so free thinking and believe so strongly in their cause that they don't care what the general public thinks of them. The militant, blatantly disrespectful, and downright obnoxious picketeers, I beleive, are few and far between, despite the airtime they may get on television and newspapers. This, of course is subjective: meaning what I see as a peaceful protest, you may see as going over the line or 'anti-patriot.' The important things to remember are the type of government we live in, and that showing dissent of our government, regardless of how 'disrespectful some may see it, is a prime example of the freedoms we take for granted, and are apparently fighting for, in the war that you do continue to support (wild guess there, sorry if I read you wrong ). Please don't turn this around and say 'Well, why don't you support the war then, huh?' That would be completely missing my point. [in reality, I would question how much more secure our freedoms are now, as compared to before the OIF.] ... if you do support the war, you should understand the importance of the freedoms we are trying to protect, a chief one being the right to dissent and publicly protest, if one feels compelled to do so.

I'm with you as far as those who celebrate troop deaths and wish harm and failure on our military, just out of pure spite. They could all be sent to guantanamo, as far as I'm concerned (including that fat ****** stepping on the flag). But these peoples' words and actions should not at all undermine the beliefs of more resonable dissenters. Although it is easy to group them all together and disregard their message as a whole, that would be committing a grave generalization and would, actually, undermine the freedoms which our country prides itself upon. I hate to say it, but you should see peaceful, respectful protests in the same light as your own military commitment to the country - both are equally represented by the American flag [ducks].

I hope this helps in understanding the other side a little -- please respond if I'm going wrong somewhere in my argument.

 

here's your stumbling block. -just thought I'd point it out.

 

Can't you see how these are contradictory? Why would they have any pride issues if they had less or nothing to disagree with. Your reasoning fails to make sense to me. And as for democracy - both parties can and do participate... One republican did vote against the war initially... It's just a shame that the 'democratic' party is the only one interested in true 'democracy' these days... But yeah, if dems had as much power as the reps do now, and disregarded the opinion of the opposite party while practicing gung-ho pacifism, I'm sure the reps would have no trouble making their dissenting voices heard. But, like you said, I guess we're dealing hypotheticals, so neither of us can truly be correct. It's all speculation.

 

First off, I'd like to make it clear that I greatly respect your devotion to the cause, but, realistically, how long do you think it will take before we could withdraw without leaving a vaccum? Do you really think we can expect to radically change the society and government of a country and remove any traces of the civil strife that has been ingrained for centuries?

I see how up and leaving today might be more dangerous and may be abandoning our cause before 'the job is done,' as probably do many others who would classify themselves as against this war. My worry is how long will it take to 'get the job done'? We aren't building a house here, we are revamping the government, politics, and society of an entire country - and nothing is to say that if we stayed there ten more years, things wouldn't go all to hell immediately after we leave. I just would like for our military to make tamed, realistic, historically aware decisions that don't at all serve the pride of those who initially thought it would be a simpler task than it has turned out to be. I'm not ready to yell 'told ya so!' if we do withdraw 'early' - I'd just like for us to make prudent, practical decisions when it comes to risking the lives of our service men and women.

 

Scoobsport,

I'm not speaking for him but what he's saying is, whether anti-war demonstrators are patriotic or not, when you're a soldier who's doing what he feels is right, and just trying to do your job, you feel like their actions are potentially threatening to your life itself. You feel complete alienation with them. You feel like they are so zealous towards their objective that your wellbeing is lower in importance to them than that of an insect.

Soldiers, no matter what age or rank, are the best representation of the Army, the War, and all of the 'mistakes' that the anti's think that the administration is making. Likewise, as a solder, it's disheartening every time you see how the great sacrifice you're making on behalf of others is at worst chastised, at best completely overlooked.

It would be ignorant and completely unsupportable to generically state that all protesters are not patriotic. That's not what he's saying at all. Generally guys like myself and Salty and 1regu grew up being taught to appreciate America to the point of being willing to sacrifice everything in order to ensure domestic tranquility. That, even though the country and our government aren't perfect by any stretch, that it's about as near to perfect as is possible in contemporary times and considerations.

Then you finally decide that you are willing to join the Army. You bust your butt. whether a lot of character-building, even experience what so few soldiers have...combat. You're proud of what you've done, what you've become, proud fellow soldiers, proud to be one of them.... Then you come home and see all of the bad-mouthing and demonstrations and by people WHO JUST DON'T KNOW, and further who look like they don't have an OUNCE of real character in their body. The type to let the bagboy carry their groceries out to the car for them..

Don't get me wrong. I fully support the right to assemble and to spread your message. I've already said repeatedly that if that right ever seemed to be at issue, I'm willing to give my life or better, ensure some other poor bastard gives his.

It's just that if you're banging pans and saying your chants, it had hopefully be about something that is truly broken, not just something that looks broken to you. How many protesters, or just those who aren't motivated enough to assemble but just love to grumble to and **** off their co-workers; really have done their homework and could fully support their premise that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Sure I know there are more than a few, but I also know there are quite a few more who are just lemmings [hmmm, just like a soldier who enlisted in order to get the college money.]

That wasn't a statement, that was a "....or maybe", not a conclusion. Actually, I was trying to picture various GOP senators at a 'more taxes' rally. I just couldn't.