Peace Protesters
- Thread starter Warron
- Start date
S
swingdancer
Guest
I agree -- the question is poorly worded, and it would be better to ask whether people think protests are impacting troop morale.
Great idea! I sent a note to the guy that submitted the question and he gave the green light to change it. Make sure you re-vote!
As a protester of the Vietnam War with CALCAV, I can attest to the fact that protesters have absolutely no effect on the troops or government policy. I mean come on, public opinion for the Iraqi war is in the 60s and 70s. That will hardly make President Bush change his mind about the war even if there are a thousand radicals in the front lawn protesting. Vietnam protests had more of an effect due to the more divisive nature of the war's popularity. Approval for the Vietnam war was comparatively low, which is not the case in this war. Anyway, I say that our troops keep on keeping on (I watched this movie Joe Dirt last night it was absolutely hilarious) and overthrow the violent and oppressive Iraqi regime.
According to my son, it disgusts them and makes them sad that they're fighting for the right for these people to do this. They're okay fighting for our way of life - but they'd like to exclude the "peace" protestors from it. 
To nobodys surprise, there were protestors today in DC. They attempted to disrupt the metro system and block the Key Bridge, a leading artery into DC from Northern Virginia. My commute was long and arduous and only caused further resentment for protestors.
I got off my train in Rosslyn because I had to use the bathroom and the train was moving quite slowly. When I was getting back on the train, there were protestors on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one.
An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and when a young (20ish) female protestor offered her a pamphlet, she politely declined. The young protestor put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a guesture of friendship and, in a very soft voice, said, "Ma'am, don't you care about the children of Iraq?"
The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my first husband died in France during World War II so that you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth your country. And if you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ### and open it."
I'm glad to report that loud applause broke out among the onlookers and the young protestor was at a total loss for words.
I got off my train in Rosslyn because I had to use the bathroom and the train was moving quite slowly. When I was getting back on the train, there were protestors on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one.
An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and when a young (20ish) female protestor offered her a pamphlet, she politely declined. The young protestor put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a guesture of friendship and, in a very soft voice, said, "Ma'am, don't you care about the children of Iraq?"
The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my first husband died in France during World War II so that you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth your country. And if you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ### and open it."
I'm glad to report that loud applause broke out among the onlookers and the young protestor was at a total loss for words.
Go Granny, go Granny, go Granny, GO!
C
ChristineM
Guest
Peace Protestors
I think that they do affect the troops! I am part of the group, not the protestors, and I find it very disturbing. Thank God it is not as bad as Vietnam! We fight for our country, to protect our country and for the right to say whatever you want to without retribution! The protestors obviously take this for granted. I haven't heard of any other ideas for resolution. Ok, so let's say the war is wrong , but then what do we do?????? I haven't heard the protestors offer any solutions. All they can do is point out what they think is wrong. They need to go back to smoking their pot and shut up!
I think that they do affect the troops! I am part of the group, not the protestors, and I find it very disturbing. Thank God it is not as bad as Vietnam! We fight for our country, to protect our country and for the right to say whatever you want to without retribution! The protestors obviously take this for granted. I haven't heard of any other ideas for resolution. Ok, so let's say the war is wrong , but then what do we do?????? I haven't heard the protestors offer any solutions. All they can do is point out what they think is wrong. They need to go back to smoking their pot and shut up!
F
Flo
Guest
Originally posted by vraiblonde
According to my son, it disgusts them and makes them sad that they're fighting for the right for these people to do this. They're okay fighting for our way of life - but they'd like to exclude the "peace" protestors from it.
Being a Viet Nam Vet, it disgusts me to see the people doing this. I remember when I came home how worried I was to wear my uniform from the airport to my home because of the stories that we had heard about soldiers being spit on and having things thrown at them. However I also remember my parents and friends telling me how proud they were of us that served and the big "Welcome Home" that I received.
With all the emotions that a person in the military deals with, such as; Can I pull the trigger? Is today the day I take one? Is this war the right thing to do? Do I have the suport of my family and friends? ....... is it any wonder that Kent State happened?
I look at the pictures of the 18, 19 and 20 year olds that have paid the ultimate price so these idiots can have the right to protest and the feelings, emotions and tears come back again.
I wish that I could be there to help these kids,,,,, I would go in a second......God Bless you troops,,,,Be safe and come home soon
This is more like it..
Sad that this won't pass
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists
Reuters
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; 9:02 PM
By Lee Douglas
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.
The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.
Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.
The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.
"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.
Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.
"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."
The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.
Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.
"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.
Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations.
Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.
"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.
Sad that this won't pass
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists
Reuters
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; 9:02 PM
By Lee Douglas
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.
The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.
Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.
The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.
"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.
Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.
"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."
The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.
Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.
"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.
Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations.
Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.
"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.
citysherry
I Need a Beer
I'm not sad it wont pass. This bill in its present state is way too broad. Remember, we live in the land of the free. BTW, I'm personally greatful for your prior military service
S
Shanobi
Guest
"Freetard" checking in...
Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly....Disrupt free assembly? Terrorism? Unfortunately this reds exactly like the Patriot Act that was passed in 2001...Here is a clear example of liberty traded for security. But ask yourself, can we really prevent domestic terrorism? And will this war prevent future terrorism?
Anyway, my baby brother is in the 3rd Infantry inside Baghdad right now and I am firecly against this war. I think a lot of us support our troops but do not support US foreign policy. We will all support out troops becasue their our sons and daughters and moms and dads. Not all of us support the heads of state that we think unnecessarily sent our family to fight for some abstract cause. Hell, we didn't even elect our heads of state.
What we need to do is HONESTLY ask ourselves: will this war prevent future terrorism? Will we honestly find the WMD that we went in there to find? Is our family's lives worth the end result?
After Iraq, who's next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? American protesters?
keep up the good fight
Shanobi
Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly....Disrupt free assembly? Terrorism? Unfortunately this reds exactly like the Patriot Act that was passed in 2001...Here is a clear example of liberty traded for security. But ask yourself, can we really prevent domestic terrorism? And will this war prevent future terrorism?
Anyway, my baby brother is in the 3rd Infantry inside Baghdad right now and I am firecly against this war. I think a lot of us support our troops but do not support US foreign policy. We will all support out troops becasue their our sons and daughters and moms and dads. Not all of us support the heads of state that we think unnecessarily sent our family to fight for some abstract cause. Hell, we didn't even elect our heads of state.
What we need to do is HONESTLY ask ourselves: will this war prevent future terrorism? Will we honestly find the WMD that we went in there to find? Is our family's lives worth the end result?
After Iraq, who's next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? American protesters?
keep up the good fight
Shanobi
