Are Anti-war Demonstrators Unpatriotic?

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Prior to the engagement of hostilities, not necessarily. After the war begins? Yes, I think you could say that.

We have a somewhat unique situation here. If Iraqi citizens believe that the U.S. lacks resolve, they will be reluctant to turn on their Iraqi tormentors. Since these Iraqis aren?t knowledgeable enough to understand the nuances of American culture, these anti-war demonstrators are seen as an indication of a lack of resolve on the part of the U.S.

This prolongs the war. This causes the death of more American servicemen. Working toward that end is not all that patriotic. IMO
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,601
247
63
"the bunker"
imo

imo

one third are legit,anti this war....don`t think the case has been made for such drastic measures...believe it could have been handled much differently...are honest and sincere and make a formidable case for their position...

one third are anti-every war whacko`s...peaceniks that wouldn`t lift a finger to defend their country under any circumstances...and every other communist and socialist group that sees this as an opportunity to further their own agenda....

one third are people that are staunch democrats and extreme left leaning politocos that are probably (in their heart of hearts)hoping this war is an abysmal failure....so bush can be made to look badly...they are still fighting the election battle...and will be until they cease drawing breath....
 

TheShrimp

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 15, 2002
1,138
0
0
53
Turfgrass -- I'll supply an actual quote here. I think it's quite relevant to what you're saying. It's from a guy having a conversation with Hermann Goerring.


We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."


I'll make this part easy for you: yes, I cited a Nazi.

But that's not the point -- the point is that he was a prominent leader of his national party he recognized a manner to bring the citizenry to the administration's way of thinking -- by instilling fear and questioning people's patriotism.

As for the "tell them they're being attacked" part, just what do you think the purpose of the "Homeland Security Level" is all about? Code yellow. Code orange. Code red. Are you actually doing anything different rather than just feel a bit more worried every time they trot that thing out and ratchet it up a notch? Keeping an eye out on that van parked in front of the post office?

Don't be surprised if the day after we topple Saddam if they crank that thing back down. "See what we did for you. We turned the homeland security level from orange to blue. And you thught America wouldn't be safer after this invasion?"

Good points, weasel.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,601
247
63
"the bunker"
another example...of the press` shortsightedness

another example...of the press` shortsightedness

This war is an abject and utter failure. What everyone thought would be a quick, decisive victory has turned into an embarrassing series of reversals. The enemy, -- a ragtag, badly-fed collection of hotheads and fanatics ? has failed to be shocked and awed by the most magnificent military machine ever fielded. Their dogged resistance has shown us the futility of the idea that a nation of millions could ever be subjugated and administered, no matter what obscene price we are willing to pay in blood and money.

The President of the United States is a buffoon, an idiot, a man barely able to speak the English language. His vice president is a little-seen, widely despised enigma and his chief military advisor a wild-eyed warmonger. Only his Secretary of State offers any hope of redemption, for he at least is a reasonable, well-educated man, a man most thought would have made a far, far better choice for Chief Executive.

We must face the fact that we had no business forcing this unjust war on a people who simply want to be left alone. It has damaged our international relationships beyond any measure, and has proven to be illegal, immoral and nothing less than a monumental mistake that will take generations to rectify. We can never hope to subdue and remake an entire nation of millions. All we will do is alienate them further. So we must bring this war to an immediate end, and make a solemn promise to history that we will never launch another war of aggression and preemption again, so help us God.






So spoke the American press. The time was the summer of 1864.

Everyone thought the Rebels would be whipped at Bull Run, and that the Confederacy would collapse within a few days or hours of such a defeat. No one expected the common Southern man to fight so tenaciously, a man who owned no slaves and who in fact despised the rich fire-eaters who had taken them to war.

Lincoln was widely considered a bumpkin, a gorilla, an uncouth backwoods hick who by some miracle of political compromise had made it to the White House. Secretary of War Stanton had assumed near-dictatorial powers and was also roundly despised. Only Secretary of State William Seward, a well-spoken, intelligent Easterner and a former Presidential candidate, seemed fit to hold office.

After three interminable and unbelievably bloody years of conflict, many in the Northern press had long ago become convinced that there was no hope of winning the far, and far less of winning the peace that followed. After nearly forty months of battle and maneuver, after seeing endless hopes dashed in spectacular failure, after watching the magnificent Army of the Potomac again and again whipped and humiliated by a far smaller, under-fed, under-equipped force, the New York newspapers and many, many others were calling for an immediate end to this parade of failures.

It took them forty months and hundreds of thousands killed to reach that point. Today, many news outlets have reached a similar conclusion after ten days and less than fifty combat fatalities.

Ahhh. Progress.

wrong thread...sorry
 
Last edited:

JT

Degenerate
Forum Member
Mar 28, 2000
3,597
81
48
61
Ventura, Ca.
You seem a rather bright fellow GW but that last post comparing the naysayers to the Civil War is rather silly. HUGE difference. Many Iraqis that we thought would open their arms to us are resisting us. Arabs are looking at this as a Holy War and we have created ourselves a Vietnam in which we will NEVER win over the hearts and minds. Dropping cluster bombs and killing civilians isn't going to make that happen. Guess you can say I am in your first third and I am not your typical liberal either. As for those who think peace protesters and anti-war people should be tried for treason among other things personally I think those who support doing those things should get their a**es out of my country for betraying the principles and freedom that is supposed to exist here.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top