The few, the dumb....

[Knife]

.....the peacenicks.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81644,00.html

Thursday, March 20, 2003

WASHINGTON — Anti-war leaders urged Americans to show their opposition to U.S. military strikes against Iraq by participating in walkouts and protests nationwide.





"George W. Bush has unleashed an all-out war against Iraq," the International ANSWER coalition said in a statement posted on its Web site Wednesday night shortly after the United States began strikes inside Baghdad. "We join with peace-loving people all over the world in resisting and acting to stop this brutal, illegal and criminal war of aggression."

The Shirts Off Coalition called for a march of resistance and bike race against war in Washington Thursday to bolster its anti-war campaign.

The call for protests, walkouts and marches Thursday followed a day of intense anti-war rallying by people in small towns, big cities and rural outposts decrying war just hours before the United States began its attack.

"I am very ashamed to be an American right now," Lydia Riley, 63, of Washington said Wednesday at a protest in Washington. "There's been nothing but lies and misrepresentations by the Bush administration."

Riley joined about 200 demonstrators, some wearing red dye on their faces and clothes to represent anticipated Iraqi civilian casualties, blocking rush hour traffic as they marched from a park near the White House to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's house in Northwest Washington.

John Parrish, 44, of Silver Spring, Md., called the president's stance on Iraq "absurd."

"Making a pre-emptive strike sets a bad example to the rest of the world," said Parrish. "What if Pakistan did a pre-emptive strike against India? They can say, 'the United States does it, why can't we?"'

Demonstrators were arrested after sitting down on the street in front of the White House and blocking entrances to government buildings in other cities.

Other protests were staged in New York, Boston, Utah, Chicago, Minneapolis, Ohio, Delaware, Maryland, Detroit, Wisconsin, Arkansas and Nevada .

Outside Rumsfeld's house, the crowd pleaded "Show your Face," and held bloodstained baby-size coffins in the air while chanting, "You have blood on your hands."

In Carson City, Nev., hundreds of flag-waving veterans and others gathered outside the state's legislative building to back U.S. military personnel poised to attack Iraq.

"We must not, we cannot, we will not allow the voice of dissent to tear our nation apart again," said Ray Alcorn, a retired U.S. Navy captain who spent seven years as a POW in North Vietnam. "The silent majority must become the vocal majority."

Also Wednesday, following a prayer vigil, 27 protesters were arrested after climbing over a temporary metal fence separating the park from Pennsylvania Avenue.

In New York City, protests in downtown Manhattan Wednesday drew about 300 people.

Calling it a "Code Pink" emergency, nine women wearing nothing but pink masks protested the war against Iraq on Wednesday.

The women, who carried a banner that read "Women of the World Say No War" and with the words "No War" painted in pink on their backs, stopped traffic. The women also had pink paint covering their private parts.

Many of the protests were part of nonviolent anti-war demonstrations around the nation by the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, a coalition of 55 peace groups in the United States.

In Atlanta, about 30 people gathered in heavy rain just before midnight, quietly holding signs that read, "War is not the answer."

In Washington state, several hundred people showed up at peace demonstrations in Seattle and Olympia. Eleven protests were arrested when they refused to leave a mall at closing time.

In Salt Lake City, protests gathered outside the federal building following the initial strike on Baghdad and said they plan to camp out there indefinitely.

In Raleigh, N.C., about 50 people gathered outside the state capital to protest in a chilly rain.

Notice that they want to stop the bad shit from happening to Iraqi's when the US attacks. Where were they when the Iraqi's were dying from Saddam. I hate these assholes. Thank god, they are few (it would appear).

[Stormbringer]

Notice that they want to stop the bad shit from happening to Iraqi's when the US attacks. Where were they when the Iraqi's were dying from Saddam. I hate these assholes. Thank god, they are few (it would appear).

It's that sort of hypocrisy or stupidity which bothers me about these kind of people. They simply want to stop the US from doing anything but never make a peep about how bad Saddam Hussien is.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Fuckers. Don't people learn from history? Anti-war protests during a war just make things worse. Goddamn.

[neoolong]

I have an idea. Why don't they go to Iraq and see what their protest does over there. While there at it they can ask Saddam to please stop doing naughty things.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Now they're getting stupid. We're already at war, and the only thing that can stop it is Saddam's exile. If they don't want ot see the Iraqi children die, then they should tell it to Saddam.

[Zoink]

Its not hypocracy to tell your own elected official how they should be conducting foreign relations. These people aren't citizens of Iraq.

[Knife]

Its not hypocracy to tell your own elected official how they should be conducting foreign relations. These people aren't citizens of Iraq.

Its hypocracy to spout that you are worried about how the US will kill innocent Iraqi's while blatently ignoring how the Iraqi leadership has been killing them for years. They are allowed their opinions, but they are dumb and open to ridicule by the same right they use to spout their bullshit.

[jegs2]

I will go to war when called and fight for their right to protest my existence.

[Zoink]

Its hypocracy to spout that you are worried about how the US will kill innocent Iraqi's while blatently ignoring how the Iraqi leadership has been killing them for years. They are allowed their opinions, but they are dumb and open to ridicule by the same right they use to spout their bullshit.

They are worried about Americans killing innocent Iraqi civilians; they are americans. Its like complaining about health care in the U.S., but not worrying about it in France.

If you want to talk about hypocracy.... where were the "warmongers" and the U.S. gov't during the Rwanda crisis. The answer for the US gov't was: lobbying the UN not to intervene. But....

Arguments like this are false dilemnas, they attack the validity of your criticism for this war by linking them to your actions on another war. They do nothing to actually address the issue of whether this war now is valid. Worst case scenerio is that said persons were ignorant or wrong in their view of another crisis... but that doesn't mean they can't be right on this particular one.

[Stravo]

If you want to talk about hypocracy.... where were the "warmongers" and the U.S. gov't during the Rwanda crisis. The answer for the US gov't was: lobbying the UN not to intervene. But....

So Called Warmongers were smart enough not to get involved in Rawanda for many reasons:

1. NO INTEREST - what VITAL US interest was there to commit troops and material to Rawanda, a crisis that did not:
a)Threaten the US in ANY way.
b)Offer any substantive return on a US investment of lives and money
c)Was over before we could have gotten involved.

2. COULD NOT GET TO - Just WHERE would the US have deployed troops from. Last time I checked Rawanda was a landlocked nation so that nixes our naval assets. We would have to fly over several sovereign nations to get there in the first place, set up and then try to stop something THAT ALREADY HAPPENED. What do you people think that US troops appear magically over a battle field???

3. WAS A MOOT POINT -- As mentioned previously, the slaughter was over in 2-3 weeks. It was a conflict between tribes and there is a hatred there as ancient as the hatred now going on between the Palestinians and Israelis. So do you really want to stick someone's son or daughter into that meatgrinder? For what? Did our adventure in Somalia not to teach us about deploying troops where we had no true interests? What do you tell the moms and dads of troops killed trying to stop tribal warfare that's been goin on for millennia in Africa???

I am SICK AND TIRED od peaceniks and their ilk trotting out this fucking tired and dying horse as a prime example of hyposcrisy yet not being able to address a SINGLE POINT as to WHY we should have gotten involved in Rawanda in the first place. We so called Hawks have ad nauseum outlined why we are in Iraq.

[Colonel Olrik]

Ah AAAHH AAHHHH!!!!!!!!

I absolutely must tell this story!

Today I went to work with a Gant shirt, which has an U.S flag well visible in the front.

When I went out to lunch, a man approached me and asked me if I had no shame.

I asked him then what the fuck was he talking about.

It turns out, I was guilty of supporting oil thirsty warmongers, who were kiling thousands of innocent people.

I honestly became speechless for a moment, due to the amount of stupidity. Then, I said "you're sad. Have a very nice day" and moved on, leaving the idiot standing there.

[Zoink]

I am SICK AND TIRED od peaceniks and their ilk trotting out this fucking tired and dying horse as a prime example of hyposcrisy yet not being able to address a SINGLE POINT as to WHY we should have gotten involved in Rawanda in the first place. We so called Hawks have ad nauseum outlined why we are in Iraq.

Yes! That's why I'm sick and tired of warmongers bringing out the "where were you when Iraq killed its own people".... answer: its not the same situation.

yet not being able to address a SINGLE POINT as to WHY we should have gotten involved in Rawanda in the first place.

1 million dead people = genocide. Members of the UN are required to intervene in any country were genocide is occuring, by in the least the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" to which the US is a signature member. The U.S. played semantics by trying to label it "acts of genocide" instead of "genocide".... until everybody was dead, then they allowed troops in to clean up the mess.

[Knife]

They are worried about Americans killing innocent Iraqi civilians; they are americans. Its like complaining about health care in the U.S., but not worrying about it in France.

They are using the Iraqi people to make a political statement. Pure and simple. They pretend to care about the well being of the Iraqi people as if they have always cared, but they are ONLY doing it because the US is intervening.

If you want to talk about hypocracy.... where were the "warmongers" and the U.S. gov't during the Rwanda crisis. The answer for the US gov't was: lobbying the UN not to intervene. But....

.
Actually, I would have agreed if Clinton would have done something. However, as Stravo has pointed out, what exactly could we have done.

Arguments like this are false dilemnas, they attack the validity of your criticism for this war by linking them to your actions on another war. They do nothing to actually address the issue of whether this war now is valid. Worst case scenerio is that said persons were ignorant or wrong in their view of another crisis... but that doesn't mean they can't be right on this particular one.

If there is a false dilemna fallacy in there, it is on the protestors side. They are pretending (I am sure some actually care) to care for the Iraqi peoples well being and are worried that the US will cause harm to women and children yet have been silent for a decade about those same people being starved and killed by Iraqi SS. They are doing it as a political statement, a statement about who is in the Whitehouse and NOT about the plight of the Iraqi people. It is a false dilemna to say that the US is the cause of their pain and suffering and protest against the administration, while we are trying to eliminate (for our own reasons) the source of the death and destruction that the protestors are so worried about.

[Stravo]

1 million dead people = genocide. Members of the UN are required to intervene in any country were genocide is occuring, by in the least the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" to which the US is a signature member. The U.S. played semantics by trying to label it "acts of genocide" instead of "genocide".... until everybody was dead, then they allowed troops in to clean up the mess.

Did you address a SINGLE point, just one of the above? HOW COULD WE DEPLOY??????? Do you want us to use Trek trasnporters to get troops there???

It was OVER, what did you want us to do when we arrived, help bury the bodies??????????


In Iraq the attrociuties are STILL GOING ON and have been for YEARS. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE There.

Stop arguing emotion and argue logically. Thats how nations and powers go to war and assert their power. You have not addressed a single point other than trotting out Rawanda, slapping genocide on it and ignoring the fact that no other great power wanterd to touch it either. So I guess we're all guilty of watching a genocide occur that we could not stop and had no vital interests at stake...oh woe is me.

[Montcalm]

I think the peacenicks should go to Iraq wearing red shirts

[Zoink]

Actually, I would have agreed if Clinton would have done something. However, as Stravo has pointed out, what exactly could we have done.

Allow the several thousand battle-hardened peacekeepers from Ghana to intervene. Ghana, along with several other African countries knew of the upcoming genocide, and prepared troops to intervene. However, invasion would have been an act of war in an already trouble continent, so they needed the Security Council to approve of intervention (so they'd be intervening on behalf of the UN)... but the U.S. (along with the security council) didn't want another Somalia. After the genocide had been completed, and pictures started flooding the news networks, the US changed position (as did the other security council members), labelled it genocide and allowed the Ghanese troops into Rwanda.

[HemlockGrey]

Protestors in Washington angrily decried the recent bombing of antiaircraft guns today, calling them "Unexcusable acts of aggression" and "Needless destuction of Iraqi infrastructure", and pointing out that soldiers may have died in the attack...

[Lord Pounder]

War Protests are a fuckign waste of time and the people at them are usually useless students protesting against whatever goverment is in charge because they are ungrateful fucks. I do not tar all students with the same brush BTW.

What is protesting in a city centre gonna prove. Is Bubba gonna get the report and decide "Oh gee well 100,000 odd greasy assholes think i'm wrong, i'm gonna take their view over hundreds of Army Intelligence operatives who actually know whats happening and have proivided the evidence and call off the troops"

[theski]

Peacenicks stage VOMIT Protest... When ya think it can't get any fucking weirder.. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... eaving.DTL only in Frisco,,

[Joe]

If nothing else it would be fun to watch, just to see hundreds of people simultaneously inducing vomiting.

[Durandal]

While I'm not exactly all for this war, I see little point in protesting it. It's already happening, and there isn't much anyone can do about it. The only thing to do now is support the soldiers, because they're fighting a war, whether it's unjust or not.

[Frank Hipper]

If nothing else it would be fun to watch, just to see hundreds of people simultaneously inducing vomiting.

Being a sympathetic puker, I would be compelled to join them no matter my feelings on the issue at hand. It makes me want to puke just thinking about it....

[Stormbringer]

Allow the several thousand battle-hardened peacekeepers from Ghana to intervene. Ghana, along with several other African countries knew of the upcoming genocide, and prepared troops to intervene. However, invasion would have been an act of war in an already trouble continent, so they needed the Security Council to approve of intervention (so they'd be intervening on behalf of the UN)... but the U.S. (along with the security council) didn't want another Somalia. After the genocide had been completed, and pictures started flooding the news networks, the US changed position (as did the other security council members), labelled it genocide and allowed the Ghanese troops into Rwanda.

Well, what'd you expect? Us to say go ahead and roll on in? It was a powder keg of a situation and we were wary of that. It's tough prying apart centuries old hatreds and especially centuries old hatreds in Africa. The UN had to be careful. In hindsight we should have allowed them to go in but it was a mess and could easily have exploded into yet another war. Finally the UN troops in anyway.

Iraq is in this case it's an ongoing, clearcut easily solved situation as opposed to the quagmire that is every African war.

[Next of Kin]

Where were they when the Iraqi's were dying from Saddam.

I know! I remember during the 80s when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north. But he was considered a valued ally and a strategic parnter then.

[Joe]

Where were they when the Iraqi's were dying from Saddam.

I know! I remember during the 80s when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north. But he was considered a valued ally and a strategic parnter then.

Because he seemed like an at least slightly better alternative than the Iranian ayatollahs at the time. It's not like he was our handpicked dictator. Trying to find a good leader to support in the Middle East is like trying to go through a bunch of pieces of shit and picking out the one that stinks the least.