Rant: Anti-War Protestors are idiots

[Kelly Antilles]

I am not a politician. I detest politics, but this... this really made me mad.


I (okay, my husband had the remote) flipped past the local news last night. A reporter was standing at an intersection where anti-war protesters had been during the day. The report, however, wasn't on the protesters. It was on what these so-called protesters were doing to everyone else. They talked to a woman and her husband who were reservists. She had recieved an email from her cousin who is a marine service over in the Middle East. He had thanked her for her support, because all they are seeing over there has been the protesters. It was hurting him, as well as her since she's a reservist, to see such innane people talking so bad about what they were doing. Also, they spoke to the Naval recruiter whose car had been EGGED earlier in the week. I heard that and went ballistic. I mean, this recruiter has NOTHING to do with what is going on, other than doing her job and serving her country, and these anti-war protesters EGGED her fucking car! Good God, what idiots. These people they are yelling at are only doing their jobs. If they're so angry and childish to egg someone's car, they should go to Washington, DC and egg Bush's car. He's the one in charge. And I feel sorry for our military who have to see this crap on tv every day, stupid idiots being even more stupid as they "protest" them doing their job.

Hey you anti-war nuts! GROW THE FUCK UP!

[Nathan F]

And the news media isn't helping a bit. All they do is push the anti-war protest movement by giving them free publicity by concentrating on them in news reports. We never hear of the hundreds of pro-war rallies that go on every day, usually with a greater attendance than the anti-war rallies.

I guess that they just aren't as 'news worthy'. Sometimes I wonder about our media...

Is it just me, or do they not do more harm than good by reporting things before the commanders in the field even hear them?

[Crown]

There is a difference between protesting agains the WAR and vilifying the service men and women. This line is well obsurved by most people who understand the difference.

[Stormbringer]

There is a difference between protesting agains the WAR and vilifying the service men and women. This line is well obsurved by most people who understand the difference.

Problem is a lot of the prostestors don't in this war and in previous wars. They villify the soldiers and the war they fight.

It's shenanigans like the egging that have cost the anti-war movement any last shred of respect. They come off like idiots at best.

[theski]

Kelly, read my post on going to a pro-america rally.. It was a great time..BTW love the new Avatar..

[Kelly Antilles]

Kelly, read my post on going to a pro-america rally.. It was a great time..BTW love the new Avatar..

Thanks theski. I saw about the rally. I'm glad things went well. Of course, it helps that you're in a city that used to have a huge naval base.

[Ender]

You know, sometimes I wish true capitalistic anarchy coudl work so that the military was it's own company, so that when it came time for those fuckers to call on us to go off and die save their bacon after they egg cars, harass family memebers and pull this shit, we could tell them to go take a long walk off a short pier.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Grow up? People who egg the car of someone who is doing who had nothing to do with the war, and is only doing his job shouldn't grow up: They should evolve.

That's the problem with such protestors: They don't protest the war, they do stuff like that.

[Durandal]

Hey you anti-war nuts! GROW THE FUCK UP!

Hey you pro-war fucks, stop lumping all anti-war people into a single category of "peaceniks" or whatever other derogatory title you care to use today.

Guess what? There are extremists on both sides. I lean toward anti-war, but do you see me running around equating anyone who is pro-war to Nazis or gun nuts? Am I accusing all the pro-war people of masturbating to CNN news stories detailing troop advancements? Am I telling all the pro-war people to get their hands off the shaft of their unregistered firearms? No. Because I recognize that there are perfectly legitimate reasons both for going to war and against it.

You want to play the extremist game? Fine. On the extreme anti-war side, you've got people who are rioting and just not getting the fact that the war has been going on for five days. On the extreme pro-war side, you've got people who eat conservative propaganda up like pigs eat slop and who apparently get off to the idea of our fighting men and women going overseas to risk their lives while cloaking that bloodthirst as "respect" for the armed forces.

Guess what? They're both assholes. One is an impractically abd overly patient naive twit who can't realize that sometimes war is necessary, and the other is a war-mongering fuck who has his trigger finger permanently curled into a firing position.

Both the sides need to grow up.

[Knife]

While true, Drundal, I don't have to sit and watch the rabid pro war fellers on TV nor do I have to deal with bunches of the critters blocking the fucking street, impeading traffic and the such.

[Stormbringer]

Guess what? There are extremists on both sides.

Yes there are. But the anti-war side has by far engaged in worse behaviour as a whole. Anti-war prostests have turned into riots on a number of occasions, vandalising and out right destroying stuff.

[Nathan F]

Hey you anti-war nuts! GROW THE FUCK UP!

Hey you pro-war fucks, stop lumping all anti-war people into a single category of "peaceniks" or whatever other derogatory title you care to use today.

Guess what? There are extremists on both sides. I lean toward anti-war, but do you see me running around equating anyone who is pro-war to Nazis or gun nuts? Am I accusing all the pro-war people of masturbating to CNN news stories detailing troop advancements? Am I telling all the pro-war people to get their hands off the shaft of their unregistered firearms? No. Because I recognize that there are perfectly legitimate reasons both for going to war and against it.

You want to play the extremist game? Fine. On the extreme anti-war side, you've got people who are rioting and just not getting the fact that the war has been going on for five days. On the extreme pro-war side, you've got people who eat conservative propaganda up like pigs eat slop and who apparently get off to the idea of our fighting men and women going overseas to risk their lives while cloaking that bloodthirst as "respect" for the armed forces.

Guess what? They're both assholes. One is an impractically abd overly patient naive twit who can't realize that sometimes war is necessary, and the other is a war-mongering fuck who has his trigger finger permanently curled into a firing position.

Both the sides need to grow up.

Sad thing is, the majority of the anti-war protestors ARE immature like that. Well, all of the ones I have seen interviewed are...

But you are right, not all are deserving of being lumped into a single term, and there are good arguments for both sides of the issue, and there are extreemists on both sides, also.

[K. A. Pital]

There are good arguments on both sides. So don't call anyone who doesn't like American policy an idiot.
Actually I don't think that the French, Germans or Russians are idiots. But neither do I think the pro-war debaters are idiots. They are just supporting the agression. It's not foolish - to my mind, it's just a position, exactly as the opposite.
Mistakes were made on both sides. But I suggest we just close that case. Most of the protestors, as most of the pro-debaters have never been to Iraq, and to America. But I'm lucky to have visited at least Iraq. Puny. I can't understand who could raise his hand at such a weakened, kicked-around in various crises country.
Obviously there's nothing good about the war. It's just killing a weak opponent.
Update: 4/5 of Russia's nation disagrees strongly with the war and wants Hussein to win, 1/5 is supporting or just doesn't give a shit. Same in Germany. Nothing to say about France, but still.
Isn't it strange people want Saddam Hussein to win the war? Something is wrong with the world, particullary the USA, today.

[Sokar]

There are good arguments on both sides. So don't call anyone who doesn't like American policy an idiot.
Actually I don't think that the French, Germans or Russians are idiots. But neither do I think the pro-war debaters are idiots. They are just supporting the agression. It's not foolish - to my mind, it's just a position, exactly as the opposite.
Mistakes were made on both sides. But I suggest we just close that case. Most of the protestors, as most of the pro-debaters have never been to Iraq, and to America. But I'm lucky to have visited at least Iraq. Puny. I can't understand who could raise his hand at such a weakened, kicked-around in various crises country.
Obviously there's nothing good about the war. It's just killing a weak opponent.
Update: 4/5 of Russia's nation disagrees strongly with the war and wants Hussein to win, 1/5 is supporting or just doesn't give a shit. Same in Germany. Nothing to say about France, but still.
Isn't it strange people want Saddam Hussein to win the war? Something is wrong with the world, particullary the USA, today.

Ahhh.....more wonderous logic from the mighty intellect of Stas Bush.....
I support the war, wholeheartedly, however I have no desire to kill the average Iraqi soilder, all I want is Saddams head on a pike, and so do most Iraqi's. I hurt as much for each Iraqi death as the American casualties, as they are fighting a hopeless battle for what , a madman who has threatened their families? Our advice , provided mostly through leaflets, advised the Iraqi's to surrender or, abandon their equipment and go home, we have no intrest in killing thousands of Iraqis, just Saddam , his inner circle and thoes two psychopath kids of his. After thats done we'll help Iraq re-build and create an stronger more prosperous, and most importantly free, Iraq.

4/5ths huh? I demand proof.....show me your data and sample size and we'll see if you have an accurate study.

Any one who wants Saddam to win is a fucking donkey fellating moron. Saddam is possibily the cruelest mad dictator since...well, Stalin and he deserves a nastier death than the one he'll get.....

[SirNitram]

Something is wrong with the world, particullary the USA, today.

Or it could be with Russia. But you're too stupid to admit that's a possibility.

[Enlightenment]

After thats done we'll help Iraq re-build and create an stronger more prosperous, and most importantly free, Iraq.

Nice, laudable goals. But I'm afraid to say that a huge swath of the world's population simply doesn't believe you. That's why you've run into so much opposition to the war in Europe and elsewhere; very little if not nothing to do with any love for Saddam.

Any one who wants Saddam to win is a fucking donkey fellating moron.

Seconded. Supporting that nutcase is quite a bit different from opposing (or mistrusting) the US.

[Darth Wong]

George Bush has accomplished the impossible: he has taken 9/11, an event which brought the whole world onto America's side for the only moment in my memory, and transformed it into the current situation where a majority of the population in entire nations (including Western nations such as France and Germany) hate him so much that they would actually cheer for a sadistic fuckwad like Hussein.

A lot of Americans simply blame the rest of the world for being stupid, ignorant, wrong, unreasonable, etc. But when you look at the way Bush treats people, it becomes more understandable. He makes people FEAR America. They certainly fear him. He comes off as a loose cannon who sabre is permanently set to "rattle". His relations with other countries are locked into the "do what we say or we'll find a way to hurt or maginalize you" mode. In short, he's a bully. Cheering for him is like cheering for a schoolyard bully to beat up an asshole; maybe the asshole deserved it, but what happens if you defy the bully in the future? Will you be next?

He asks the UN for a resolution against Iraq AFTER he already begins moving troops into the area, thus making it quite obvious that it doesn't matter what they say (this caused the international perception that all of the various WMD and breach of resolution claims were just hot air; people perceived him as being hell-bent on war regardless of what happened). His public rhetoric is invariably bellicose and inflexible. He squandered much of his international goodwill within DAYS of 9/11 by proclaiming on the world stage that "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists," which sent a chill down every other nations's collective spine. He is the worst statesman that I have ever seen from any Western nation, and that's why we have this situation.

What we've learned from this is that even a sadistic piece of shit like Saddam Hussein is more adept at international diplomacy than George Bush. And that's just fucking sad.

[K. A. Pital]

Darth Wong
Agree. Exactly the point. People don't have great love for Saddam - they don't like being ignored by Bush. Saddam is of little threat to the whole world. No one seriously fears him. But USA made people fear and feel insecure.

[Stuart Mackey]

George Bush has accomplished the impossible: snip

Yep, and If America continues the rest of the world will end up going against America, just as coalitions have always gone against a perceived hegamon.

[Sokar]

George Bush has accomplished the impossible: snip

Yep, and If America continues the rest of the world will end up going against America, just as coalitions have always gone against a perceived hegamon.

Do it them and see what happens, we control your economies (indirectly) and food stuffs. Im sure if the rest of the world really wants to be shitty we can play just as nasty. We'll just embargo your goods and trade, sieze your US based assets, cut you off to food exports and laugh while you wither on the vine....
Sure it would hurt us as well, quite a bit actually, but it would be a catastrophe for the rest of the world. We have the luxury of holding enough resources to be self sufficient, outside of a need for oil.


This rant brought to you by Evil Sokar

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
Do it them and see what happens, we control your economies (indirectly) and food stuffs. Im sure if the rest of the world really wants to be shitty we can play just as nasty. We'll just embargo your goods and trade, sieze your US based assets, cut you off to food exports and laugh while you wither on the vine....
Sure it would hurt us as well, quite a bit actually, but it would be a catastrophe for the rest of the world. We have the luxury of holding enough resources to be self sufficient, outside of a need for oil.


This rant brought to you by Evil Sokar

If you seriously think America can take the whole world on, you are kidding yourself. Sure it would be nasty, but you would loose in the end.
BTW, NZ is self sufficant in food

[Darth Wong]

Do it them and see what happens, we control your economies (indirectly) and food stuffs. Im sure if the rest of the world really wants to be shitty we can play just as nasty. We'll just embargo your goods and trade, sieze your US based assets, cut you off to food exports and laugh while you wither on the vine....
Sure it would hurt us as well, quite a bit actually, but it would be a catastrophe for the rest of the world. We have the luxury of holding enough resources to be self sufficient, outside of a need for oil.

This rant brought to you by Evil Sokar

In other words:

WORLD: Why do you have to be so confrontational?

U.S.A.: What did you say? I'll kick your ass!

[Sokar]

Id give us 50/50 odds. Our tech edge is huge , with a peace time research base, our manufacturing capacity equals the next ten nations combined plus we have a surplus of both natural resources and foodstuffs. Militarialy we already have the air and sea power to dominate the oceans and smash the merchant shipping of all opposition nations in short order. Add in to that the power projection offered by the current 12 Carrier Battle Groups......
Europe and Russia would be paralyzed by famine , as all England and Continental Europe are dependent on overseas food imports, 60% of which come from the god old US of A. Add in the catastrophic econimic impact of a mass seiezure of all foriegn investments and assets within the continental US , and hell that would be enought to do it right there. Asia's industrial and economic growth are swallowed yearly because they can't get their locals to stop fucking like rabbits , so realistically they are out of the game as well. So who does that leave.....um South America......Africa......riiight......

[K. A. Pital]

Europe and Russia KICK anyone's ass if united.
Imagine German with Russian work together. Oh... And who bragged about the technological superiority?

Sorry: our continent has nothing worse than America.
Edit: Korea also belongs to us, so does China. Wanna kick? Let's see! Your first step as a conqueror?

[Stuart Mackey]

Id give us 50/50 odds. snip.

Your armed forces are a bit irrleivant, you could never conqour the planet, and I dont think you would even bother trying. What counts is economics. Sure America has a huge manufactuiring capability, but, united, so does the rest of the planet, look at how much of your economy is tied up not only with Europe, but also Asia. You only end up shooting yourself in the foot.
And given what started this mini thread hijack, do you seriously expect any presidential canidate to win on a platform of US dominating the planet in a Pax Americana?