A Pro-us Demonstration?

[Almighty Colin]

"In Seoul, 30,000 pro-U.S. demonstrators jammed a downtown plaza Saturday to support the U.S. troop presence in South Korea and condemn North Korea as a "rabid dog" trying to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
"

[Zebra]

I am sure that North Korea will declare that the South Koreans participating in the pro-US protest were all high on drugs supplied by the Evil Americans.

[cj]

Colin, that's a freaky co-incidence that you posted that ...

I was picking up dinner earlier and there was a radio show on discussing the amount of people who were in the anti war deminstrations ...

they continually make references to how many people protested and that nobody wants a war blah blah in every media piece, and there's a bunch of polls where the options are usually totally loaded like
'do you think war is wrong'
'do you think people should die for politics'
etc

so no one can ever take the 'opposing' view point to 'anti war' because that would be 'pro war' and the only people i know who are pro war are mutt, mike & torone!

i was wondering while i was driving how the opposing viewpoint to 'anti war' could demonstrate the point in a similar way without appearing like a bunch of lunatics ... the image in my head drifted off into a movie i saw once where a bunch of pro-gun lobbyists were marching down the street with their guns and chanting gun poems and rhymes

:P

[Torone]

Originally posted by cj@Mar 1 2003, 06:38 AM
Colin, that's a freaky co-incidence that you posted that ...

I was picking up dinner earlier and there was a radio show on discussing the amount of people who were in the anti war deminstrations ...

they continually make references to how many people protested and that nobody wants a war blah blah in every media piece, and there's a bunch of polls where the options are usually totally loaded like
'do you think war is wrong'
'do you think people should die for politics'
etc

so no one can ever take the 'opposing' view point to 'anti war' because that would be 'pro war' and the only people i know who are pro war are mutt, mike & torone!

i was wondering while i was driving how the opposing viewpoint to 'anti war' could demonstrate the point in a similar way without appearing like a bunch of lunatics ... the image in my head drifted off into a movie i saw once where a bunch of pro-gun lobbyists were marching down the street with their guns and chanting gun poems and rhymes

:P

First, Let's get some things straight...
The demonstrations that claim to be 'anti-war' are actually Anti-American and Anti-Bush. If you do the research, you will find that the organizations behind them are basically Socialist/Communist (ANSWER=Communist Revolutionary Party). Further, Saddam has already admitted that the protests are his first attack on America.

I can't think of anyone who is actually 'pro-war'...but I intend to be at a 'Pro-American' rally today in Houston. Further, there will be many signs there calling on Saddam to disarm and abdicate...

We would rather NOT have to go to war; but believe logic (not me, not CNN), IT IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!

[JR]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 1 2003, 05:33 AM

We would rather NOT have to go to war; but believe logic (not me, not CNN), IT IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!

why is war necessary?
most of the world does not seem to think so.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 1 2003, 08:33 AM
First, Let's get some things straight...
The demonstrations that claim to be 'anti-war' are actually Anti-American and Anti-Bush. If you do the research, you will find that the organizations behind them are basically Socialist/Communist (ANSWER=Communist Revolutionary Party). Further, Saddam has already admitted that the protests are his first attack on America.

I can't think of anyone who is actually 'pro-war'...but I intend to be at a 'Pro-American' rally today in Houston. Further, there will be many signs there calling on Saddam to disarm and abdicate...

We would rather NOT have to go to war; but believe logic (not me, not CNN), IT IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!

Sigh.

One can be opposed to the idea of going to war with Saddam and not be anti-American, Torone. One can be opposed to the political policies of President Bush and still be pro-American, Torone. Being anti-Bush is not being anti-American, Torone - some would argue that it's far from it.

I'm telling you, dude, I think you'd be far more comfortable in Iraq or North Korea. They don't have to put up with the traitorous scum that question the policies of the Beloved Leader.

You better be careful ... the black U.N. stealth 'copters will be monitoring that rally ... h34r:

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 1 2003, 11:34 AM

Sigh.

One can be opposed to the idea of going to war with Saddam and not be anti-American, Torone. šOne can be opposed to the political policies of President Bush and still be pro-American, Torone. šBeing anti-Bush is not being anti-American, Torone - some would argue that it's far from it. š

I'm telling you, dude, I think you'd be far more comfortable in Iraq or North Korea. šThey don't have to put up with the traitorous scum that question the policies of the Beloved Leader.

You better be careful ... the black U.N. stealth 'copters will be monitoring that rally ... h34r:

i for one am really enjoying the irony of all of this right now.

so many people, so pissed off when the very democratic system and first amendment rights they claim are necessary to defend is working against them.

"Boycott France"
"Fuck Germany"
"UN doesn't matter"
"fucking pussy anti-war protesters"

all of them acting within the law. all acting within the framework of the UN. all expressing their opinions just as America "the worlds greatest democracy" professes that they should have the right to do. all of them acting according to the same principles that the USA claims to both embody and defend.




Last edited by JR at Mar 1 2003, 11:45 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by cj@Mar 1 2003, 06:38 AM
Colin, that's a freaky co-incidence that you posted that ...

I was picking up dinner earlier and there was a radio show on discussing the amount of people who were in the anti war deminstrations ...

they continually make references to how many people protested and that nobody wants a war blah blah in every media piece, and there's a bunch of polls where the options are usually totally loaded like
'do you think war is wrong'
'do you think people should die for politics'
etc

so no one can ever take the 'opposing' view point to 'anti war' because that would be 'pro war' and the only people i know who are pro war are mutt, mike & torone!

i was wondering while i was driving how the opposing viewpoint to 'anti war' could demonstrate the point in a similar way without appearing like a bunch of lunatics ... the image in my head drifted off into a movie i saw once where a bunch of pro-gun lobbyists were marching down the street with their guns and chanting gun poems and rhymes

:P

OMG. Too funny, CJ. Just earlier today, I had this EXACT same thought. :-)

[Almighty Colin]

I can't see war as necessary at all. It's a choice. One that could be made or not made.
It may make the world better. It may make the world worse. I bet better but I really don't know.

The world, most of us agree, is better without an Iraqi-lead Saddam. There is a tremendous cost against that though.

Afghanistan, it seems to me, is going to be much better. We'll see about Iraq.

[JR]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 1 2003, 12:17 PM
I can't see war as necessary at all. It's a choice. One that could be made or not made.
It may make the world better. It may make the world worse. I bet better but I really don't know.

The world, most of us agree, is better without an Iraqi-lead Saddam. There is a tremendous cost against that though.

Afghanistan, it seems to me, is going to be much better. We'll see about Iraq.

i am getting increasingly cynical about this whole situation.
Bush tried to make the sale and it looks like few are buying.
oh well. lifes a bitch. democracy means accepting the will of the majority. not the will of the majority as long as they agree with you. people are not saying a tougher stance should not be taken against Saddam. People are saying "why attack him right now". i think thats a valid position.

its kinda sad that a murderous dictator, hiding under a sand dune and rocks, still proves to be a better politician than the last 3 Presidents of the USA.

[Ironhorse]

It should be noted that alot of these demonstrators are not anti-Us or anti-war by default, rather I think alot of poeple see the potential for what's been prophecized as Armageddon, and that's their motivation

But this brings up a question someone raised on another board, with all these anti-Us demonstrations and during Desert Storm, did anyone protest Saddam invading Kuwait? Was it anywhere near in scale?

[cj]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 1 2003, 08:33 AM
First, Let's get some things straight...
The demonstrations that claim to be 'anti-war' are actually Anti-American and Anti-Bush. If you do the research, you will find that the organizations behind them are basically Socialist/Communist (ANSWER=Communist Revolutionary Party). Further, Saddam has already admitted that the protests are his first attack on America.

LMAO

right ....

now lets get some other things *straight*

The protests here in australia were lead by the 'green' party ... (hippy environmentalists who protest about everything) ... you are claiming that they are backed by the communist revolutionary party?! why?!! because you don't agree with what they are trying to say?

phoey

our prime minister in australia accused the protestors of 'showing support for hussein' and 'giving his cause greater strength' ... he got met with a lot of opposition obviously .... I agree that the protests provide support to suddam's cause, but here, its just a bunch of peaceful, sometimes ignorant hippies who don't want to see people blown up with bombs. Doubtful that its the conspiracy you claim .... and if it really is, america is totally fucked anyway so kick back with a budweiser and get ready for the show!

sadam hussain is claiming the protests are an attack on america because he wants the world to fear him and feel he has this much control. Of course he's going to claim he's responsible, the rally's were a RAGING success in making people speak out against a war. why wouldn't he claim responsibility?

>>The demonstrations that claim to be 'anti-war' are actually Anti-American and Anti-Bush.

just because someone doesn't want a war, it doesn't mean they are anti american ... see the thread with subject 'Alex, a letter from america'. These kind of claims make me want to withdraw my australian troops and tell you to deal with it yourself (i'll just go call the prime minister in from the sugar cane fields).

So torone, I'm an america hater if I don't like or respect how your government and country folk have handled this situation?

[PornoDoggy]

Don't be too concerned with Torone, cj ... most AMERICANS don't pass his muster for being American enough.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Mar 1 2003, 04:55 PM
i am getting increasingly cynical about this whole situation.
Bush tried to make the sale and it looks like few are buying.
oh well. lifes a bitch. democracy means accepting the will of the majority. not the will of the majority as long as they agree with you. people are not saying a tougher stance should not be taken against Saddam. People are saying "why attack him right now". i think thats a valid position.

its kinda sad that a murderous dictator, hiding under a sand dune and rocks, still proves to be a better politician than the last 3 Presidents of the USA.

JR, I agree that few seem to be buying. Murderous dictators are often good politicians. Saddam is an excellent one.

Americans don't live in a strict democracy though. I don't know what one would call it really -- maybe a Constitutional Democratic Republic. The will of the people is important but so is the will of the states as evidenced by their representation in congress and the senate; one being proportional to the population of a state, one not. The president is the commander and chief of the armed forces. These are his decisions to make regardless. If we don't like it, we can vote him out. There are measures, if the people and their representatives feel strong enough, to change the situation. If we don't like that, we can change the system.

At any rate, Presidents REGULARLY act against the majority opinion of the public and I think it's really no big deal. It's happened a lot. The public was quite opposed to US involvement in WW I, for example. How about the War of 1812? How about The Spanish/American War? Even after World War I, 70% of Americans thought it had been a bad decision. None of these wars had popular support. I guess one could argue the US would have been better off not in any of them. That's Pat Buchanan's party though. ;-)

I am guessing that if there is a quick conflict, people will forget there was any opposition anyway - either inside or outside of the US. There were protestors during nearly every war this century, There was opposition somewhere to every war this century.

A messy war that doesn't go as planned will be the complete opposite and people will forever remember.

[Torone]

Originally posted by JR+Mar 1 2003, 02:15 PM-->