The fact that I am anti-war does not mean I am anti-American |
| Posted by: pooftee | | I just have to get this off my chest, before I totally flip out. I'm completely tired of being told I am anti-American because I don't support war. The fact that I am an American means I have the right to dissent, and I wish everyone would just understand that. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Search4Truth | | im not anti-american at all also!!
I LOVE AMERICA its the greatest country in the world, with the greatest people in the world
I AM ANTI-BUSH! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | | People who concoct mental equations such as "anti-war = anti-american" are buffoons; try not to let them bother you as they out-number us and there is no escape. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: eletriclady | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Search4Truth
im not anti-american at all also!!
I LOVE AMERICA its the greatest country in the world, with the greatest people in the world
I AM ANTI-BUSH! |
I have a question for you. Do you believe that the president represents the USA and to be against the representative is to go againist the USA? I would hate for our heroes of this war to come home to a Vietnam soldier welcome. Think of how it would be to come home from hell to be spat upon and call a baby killer.
So are we going to be against anti-war and all things that represent war, or anti-enemy and to support are president , troopers and are great U.S.of A!!!!!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | | There are no greater patriots than those who actually take action to defned that in which they believe. People seemed to lose sight of that in their treatment of the Viet vets, and I think this country learned a painfully disheartening lesson, but one to which it to this day may not fully confess. For that reason I do not think we will see a repeat in history in this regard, despite disagreement with Bush Administration's actions. Our troops perform their duty nobly, whether just or injust in the eyes of the people, and our attention should be focused accordingly if we disagree. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zid | | Anyone who is Anti-War should not fall into a category of Anti-American. We have the benefit of having (and voicing) our opinions.
It's unfortunate, that the people of Iraq, do not have the same liberties as we do. It's unfortunate that, at least a small number (if not truly the large majority), must live in constant fear of watching every word they say or face the consequence of imprisonment or death.
It's great to be an American...huh...=) | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rebel | | Not all protestors are anti american. I would say the groups who sponsor and support these protest are un american. The person who said they were anti bush summed it up in a nut shell. most of these people are simply playing partisian politics, and oppose action because they dont like republicans. Now i didnt see all these protestors when clinton bombed kosovo, or iraq, or his brave invasion of hati. I hated bill clinton and i opposed the war in kosovo, since kosovo posed 0 NATA no zip threat to the United States. But i didnt go in the streets in protest. Thats the diffrence between leftist and righties. I am anti war. Most people are anti war. Im anti getting a shot to, but i go get shots when im sick. Simple analogy to figure out. Another thing id get off my chest is, there is no war to protest. Simply hasnt been one fired shot. It is your right to protest anything the government does. it is your right to not support the president, but i simply want to know where you were all at when we got involved with another countries civil war which had nothing to do with the US. Even if you dont belive sadam has these weapons you have to believe he is a greater threat than Malosovich was to our country. Where were you all during that war which killed thousands of innocent serbian civilians? Or perhaps its ok to kill civilians as long as they are white christians? I mean technically once war is declared you dont have a right to protest. Old law called the saditon act, but i dont think anyone would pull that old sucker out, and if they do ill be the first to denounce such actions. The anti war doves before world war 2 protested loudly, but once the shooting started they fell in line behind FDR and gave him their support. Many of you want to try and capture the MARXSIST revolution of the 1960s by protesting a war that has not even started yet. This is not vietnam. You have the right to ptotest peacfully. The minute you throw dog fecies on a soldier though it will end. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. NEVER AGAIN. Thanks | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Search4Truth | | zid,
just because i am anti-bush
doesn't mean i don't support the military
i have strong pity for them, because they are being put in harms way, and risking their lives for an unjustified war
they have nothing to do with this, and by being anti-war
this is the best way we can protect them
I pray this war doesn't happen, so the military can go back to their families
PEACE | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zid | | My reference of "People of Iraq" is just that "THE People of Iraq". The citizens of Iraq, not our military. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rebel | | HAHAHAHA. Did you oppose clintons war that killed thousands of innocent serbians? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rebel | | Like it or not we are at war. The abscence of conflict does not = peace. My argument to you people will be this. EXAMPLES OF CONTAINMENT AND THE ILLUSION OF PEACE. Example 1 Korea 50 years of containment has accomplished what? Example 2. Pretending hitler would just stop if we appeased him enough would prevent war. Result? Millons dead in euorpe. I could go on. Vietnam is not an example of containment, but it is an example of trying to come to a honorable peace with a dictatoral nation. it took all of a few weeks after the sieze fire was signed by Nixon. it took about 60 days for them to take saigon and murder millons of people. Everyone talks about Vietnam. And many people seem to think the story ends with our withdrawl. Its ashame we dont focuss more on the failure of the peace agreement. Ever been to vietnam? Poverty. Oppresive rule. After saigon fell doctors catholics buddhist and even MLF and Viet Cong were lined up in the streets and shot.My favorite part of my trip to saigon was the propoganda films of how they defeated the invaders. Real propoganda bull crap, you guys may appreciate it, probably right up your alley of thinking. And people who honestly believe that sadam hussain does not have chemical and bilogical weapons are im sorry off your rockers. No offense, but you are his useful idiots. He is trying to win the only way he can. he learned from history. that damn vietnam again. He knows he can win the propoganda war, because people simply can not escape the illusion that world peace is possible. He uses you and the UN to maintain his power. he thinks if he can just hold it up long enough that we will stop harassing him. I ask you what good is law that is not enforced? WHy have a UN? why pass 17 resolutions? Makes no sense. A piece of paper a resoulution and a treaty are useless without the authority to back them up. Inspectors are clowns. Blix has been busted trying to put evidence on the back burner. France russia and china are protecting their intrest, and for some reason you oppose one of the only democratically elected governments in the world. I mean the world is full of fake democracies. Ill give you an example of one of our anti war nations. Canada. Canada is not a true democracy. The people do not elect their PM which has more power than our president even has. he is appointed. I really dont buy all your excuses for being anti war. I truly believe its all political, and if a democrat was in office doing this. You people wouldnt say a word. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: skippy | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Rebel
HAHAHAHA. Did you oppose clintons war that killed thousands of innocent serbians? |
Oh boy, let me guess... you're a conservative that thinks in terms of "democrats vs. republicans". Why don't you just think for yourself and not accuse everyone you disagree with of being liberal.
The GOP's attutude really bothers me lately. It seems that they'd rather declare a war on the "left" than terror. Well, maybe you guys should stop trying to fight your fellow American long enough to see what's going on around you.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I can't stand these partisan clones with their prefab arguments.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rebel | | Just because you are an american citzen does not make you my fellow american. Second Im an independent conservative. Third answer the question where were all the actors and hollywood morons when the democrats were waging illegal wars ? Not one of clintons wars was justified not one. All acts of illegal agression. Not one protestor filled the streeets. I rest my case. This prefab argument of . I dont chose a side im a moderate. Is typically aliberal who is afraid to admit it. Im not accusing you of this i dont know youwell enough t o make that assumption. . THank | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Search4Truth | | the reason people oppose this war so strongly, is because it will have drastic negative effects on the entire planet, and will effect everybody
i don't protest wars because i hate republicans
if bush was a democrat, i would be doing the exact same thing
you think people around the world, protest because they hate republicans?
this isn't about politics
this is about the future of the planet, which we all care about
no doubt i want saddam out, but it isn't worth taking out saddam to destabalize the planet, lead up to more wars, and more terrorism
he ain't worth risking all of this
this war is a lose/lose situation
but we will lose more by attacking iraq
PEACE | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zid | | Destablizing the region? Come on now, the Middle East, next to africa, is about the most unstable region. The people, due to their history and hatred for each other, cannot play nice to begin with.
Be it a US backed war to oust Saddam or not....this area was bound to explode at anytime. Maybe it just might come a bit sooner.
Don't blame the "unstability/stability" of the region on this war...the unstability/stability of this region goes far beyond and further back in history. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: skippy | | Also, I think that the prowar types are really antiAmerican. I think a lot of these people just have a morbid fascination with war and want some entertainment at the cost of American lives. Well guys, your football game is going to cost us a lot of respect in this world. A true patriot would want what's best for this country and this war is not what's best. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Caps#1 | | I believe that you are not anti american for opposing the war, you have a right to your opinion. However to all of the peace people I would like to ask if 17 resolutions over a period of more than 12 years isn't giving peace a chance what is? The only exception to my above statement about antiwar people not being antiAmerican is skippy, just look at his statement above and youll know what I am talking about | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Search4Truth | | what about 60 resolutions for Israel CAPS?
i hope you can do math
60 is more then 17 | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Search4Truth
what about 60 resolutions for Israel CAPS?
i hope you can do math
60 is more then 17 |
I've already challenged this facet of your argument: Israel poses no threat to the U.S., but Iraq does. Do you need any further justification on this front? That Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions is yet another EXCUSE for the U.S. to justify action. You cannot justify your argument by saying "Israel is worse than Iraq because they've skimped on more U.N. resolutions" because we really don't give a crap about those resolutions in reality: they are just additional tools to to gain the favor of the U.N. against Iraq in our already-existing case against them.
The U.S. did not just draw up a ledger one day and say "well let's see who's up for the most violations against resolutions today who we can pick on..." - it's a "WAR AGAINST TERRORISM" which "galvanized the nation" and which everyone supported initially to get those mofo's back where it counted, and now when the call to action arrives you sit there mute, crying about the unfairness of it all. You're missing the point, and confusing the issue with all this talk about Israel.
FINE, GREAT: Israel is a political issue that, without dispute, must be addressed. But it is a SEPARATE ISSSUE. Skip it when you're dealing with the topic of Iraq. If you wanted to get to the root of all evil you'd be talking about money and capitolism. Until then, keep your argument focused!
At the same time I implore those in favor of action against Iraq to not use the U.N. resolution violations as your exclusive argument for making a military move: it's just another piece that adds up with the other pieces to a strong case for action against that nation.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nowar | | Iraq = terrorism ????
damn another Fox News fan .......
Don't use the U.N. resolution ?
It's U.S. gov. which started .....
| quote: |
| Israel poses no threat to the U.S., but Iraq does |
Of course Israel will never .....
which one Iraq does ? ...... Al Samoud II missile ???? or U.N. 1441 resolution violation (again) ? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by nowar
Iraq = terrorism ????
damn another Fox News fan .......
|
I don't listen to Fox news, and I try to focus out the hype - I'll agree to do that if you'll agree to try not to pass judgements without substantiation..
| quote: |
which one Iraq does ? ...... Al Samoud II missile ???? or U.N. 1441 resolution violation (again)? |
Absurd. Anyone who thinks Iraq poses a military threat is a dolt. It's not the military threat of the nation that's of concern, it's the terrorism training camps and anti-American semitisms that are delivered into those trainees. Terrorist camps were readily prevalent during the first gulf war with Iraq. There's no question of their existence. Whehter or not there are feeble ties to Al Qaeda is irrelevant; Iraq has strong ties to multiple terrorist sects, and that's what a "war on terrorism" is all about. As such, the terrorists harbored by that nation make Iraq THREAT to the citizens of the U.S. in this, our great war on terrorism, because that is how those terrorists are trained. All this crap about U.N. violations, blah blah blah.. that's just political mumbo-jumbo to get the rest of the world to support the ultimte objective - reform that place to erradicate the terrorist groups since that place has no intention of doing so itself.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nowar | | and you think there is only Iraq, which country will be the next one ? Pakistan ? Bosnia ? Syria ? Saoudi Arabia ? Iran ? Philippines ? North Korea ? (this one I don't think so they are able to respond ...), Soudan ?, and all others "...tan" countries from ex-soviet union ? North Ireland ? Malaysia ? South Africa ? .....
Did you ever asked yourself why there are fanatics muslim which becomes terrorists ?
Why they are anti-american ?
Fight the root cause ....
Ask your great Blair allied why there are about 30% of fanatics islam priests in UK preaching the jihad ?
Why this terrorists always read a paper when they justify their acts ?
Again fight the root cause and don't give Al-Qaeda and others args to recruit more terrorists .... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by nowar
Again fight the root cause and don't give Al-Qaeda and others args to recruit more terrorists .... |
NOW, you'r talking - this is the ultimate argument, IMHO, because it is clear that an invasion of Iraq is merely a treatment of symptoms rather than a cure for the illness.
Absolutely: if the U.S. invades Iraq, without a doubt in my mind Iraq will become a new staging ground for U.S.-sponsored attacks in the middle east, the likes of which the world has never witnessed. And though people may mistake such attacks as a "Holy Crusade" by a "war-monger" because Bush-boy made a pretty poor choice of words one particular day, they should recognize that the people of this country as a single entity hold nothing against the Muslim/Islamic world. It's a strategic move, plain and simple.
That accepted, the question may then be posed, "what is the objective?" - Is it erradication of terrorists in the name of "world peace?" Or is it power and monetary acquisition to firm up an already-strong world-power? Or is it something far more sinister designed to unify the world under the NWO in an accellerated plan, actully designed to erradicate those non-Judeo=Christian systems that stand in our way......?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nowar | | if you read my soooooo long post you would have noticed that I'm talking since 3:00 am  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Caps#1 | | ok, nothing sacred, i know nothing about these resolutions for isreal, and as for fox news, all of you liberals are mad because they tell the truth which happens to contradict what you are saying, too BAD | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: skippy | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by nowar
Iraq = terrorism ????
damn another Fox News fan .......
Don't use the U.N. resolution ?
It's U.S. gov. which started .....
Of course Israel will never .....
which one Iraq does ? ...... Al Samoud II missile ???? or U.N. 1441 resolution violation (again) ? |
That's what I'm saying. I think that Sean has been listening to those Bush speeches a little too hard. There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. However, there are terrorists all over the world including our allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I'd venture to say that Iraq has less terrorists within it's borders than any of our mid east allies.
Sean, you're argument is very weak. Besides, the thought of killing hundreds of thousands of non-terrorists as part of the war on terrorism is horrifying.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: skippy | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Sean Kelly
Iraq has strong ties to multiple terrorist sects |
And like I've said before, almost all of the hijackers came from our ally Saudi Arabia. Some of their money was traced back to the Saudi government. Anybody that has been paying attention knows that Saudi Arabia is the real terrorist factory in the mid east, but we're not willing to give them up as an ally. All the coverage of connections between Al Queda and Saudi Arabia has been swept under the rug and forgotten.
Sean, I'd like to know what measly little terrorist groups are in Iraq and I'd like to see some credible evidence that Saddam is willingly harboring them. Is there an article I can read that's not put out by Fox News or some other right-wing media outlet?
| | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: The fact that I am anti-war does not mean I am anti-American
|