English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am retired from the US Army and I fully support people who protest the War in Iraq. That means for 20 years I did my job right. America is still free and Americans have the right to say what the f*ck they want when the fuc@ they want to say it. My only gripe is if Americans really want to protest, they should do it the right way. The president does not listen to people waving signs and yelling at his limo as it goes by (leave him alone, he's busy.) The president acts and re-acts to actions. So if Americans really wanted to protest the War in Iraq they should get their asses on a plane, fly to Iraq, stand OUTSIDE the Coalition Forces base camps, and wave their banners and scream at the military convoys as they go out on patrols and missions. Once the insurgents and terrorists have killed most of the American protestors, the President would be forced to do something. So again, my question is why are the Americans Protesting the War in Iraq going about it in the wrong manner.

2007-03-02 04:32:57 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

People in government do listen as the protest get louder and larger. Vietnam is a good example of this, people that protest vote, pure and simple. Going to Iraq would serve very little purpose for this movement and would hamper those that cannot afford the plane ticket.

2007-03-08 00:02:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You are right. This kind of protesting is adolescent and allows the media to avoid the real protest that I am sure will register at the next presedential election. I don't think the polls are reflecting this but middle America is starting to wake up to the body bags and to the mutilation, both mental and physical, of the young and strong. You might say that this is the price of war and it is only the bleeding hearts that make your enemies grow bolder. But this war is not like wars you have fought where there was a moral rationalization. It is not like Vietnam when at least there was the bogeyman - Communism. It was justified by a lie, ( ie. the so-called weapons of mass destruction,) a very premature declaration of victory, ( which only the present administration and their cronies believe may still be possible,) and part of the fallout has been the Patriot Act which has erased many of the freedoms that average Americans have fought and died for. Also, most fair minded Americans must be losing faith in a government which supports intelligence gathering of a very dubious nature i.e. abduction of foreign nationals, any foreign nationals, to secret locations in Europe for the purpose of sic. 'interrogation.' Take for example the gentleman from Egypt who was abducted in this way, taken to a so-called 'interrogation' camp located some where in out-of-the-way Romania, where he was incarcerated for 3 months. After that he was released and was discovered wandering aimlessly some Romanian road. Still, he lived to tell the story to the press.

When middle Americans feel that their government is not acting in their name and not protecting the ideals that make a great country great they won't be yelling at his limo. They will be protesting with their cheque books and their votes. They will be looking for a candidate who can take their country out of the biggest public relations fiasco in the history of American politics.

2007-03-10 00:52:37 · answer #2 · answered by John M 7 · 0 1

I too am retired Army, but unlike you I suppport the Constitutional Right of the Protesters to seek redress of grievances from thier ELECTED OFFICIALS. They are protesting the actions of the President and the Congress not those of the troops. I'm surprised you don't get that.

My problem with protesters is that a lot of cowards use these protests as a justification of thier unwillingness to serve. That's why people like Kerry and Gore who actually served in Vietnam have more credibility than those who avoided going.
There were plenty in the Army who avoided Vietnam Service, Germany was full of senior NCOs who managed to stay tour after tour while guys like me were 21 year old E-6s in Vietnam.

2007-03-10 02:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Many of the "protesters" include the homeless and job-less who are being paid to stand around waving their posters and banners. Most of them will turn around and wave banners for the opposite side of the issue on the next afternoon,providing they are paid.

The same is true of "To The Editor" letters in the local papers.

The political winds blow in all directions and include chaff and trash. Sorting out the real articles is a problem and it is simpler to lump everything together and publicize it as fact.

Yet, surprising as it is, a very large percentage of the people fall into the "silent majority" class who do and say nothing until it is time to vote. These are the people who win elections.

2007-03-09 01:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Been there 4 · 0 0

What Coalition forces? You mean the couple of thousand soldiers that are preparing to split? You start off pretty good but fade when you ask us not to "bother" the pres., I'm thinking American civilians flying over to Iraq would only complicate my son's efforts to complete his, uh, er, Presidents mission. Kill protesters........destroy rights my son is fighting for?

If...I say...If, you are in fact a retired soldier, from any branch of the service, get to a V.A. hospital as soon as possible to get the treatment you deserve.

By wishing death to ANY of your American brothers and sisters you disgrace yourself and your fellow Soldiers.

2007-03-08 03:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by twostories 4 · 1 0

Political situations are very complicated. Saddam replaced into evil and committed genocide and he don't have been in potential. the situation that irks me is for all the valid reasons to eliminate him from potential have been skipped over and fake ones with buzz words have been used. individually, if Bush have been given on television and mentioned he replaced into removing Saddam because of the fact he replaced into ravenous his u . s ., exploiting the undesirable by way of drugs, persevering along with his genocide earlier sanctions, and different evils against those he "leads"...nicely i do no longer think of we would have the political chop up we've in the u . s . a . at the instant. we would additionally in all possibility have extra international help and tips, oddly adequate yet even from Muslim international places considering the fact that Saddam replaced into Christian and oppressed many Muslims. I help the troops thoroughly, however the justifications they have been sent their have been undesirable at terrific....it incredibly is senseless thinking Saddam tried to commit genocide as many times as he would desire to. so some distance as delight in spite of the undeniable fact that? No, no longer at thinking conflict. It skill all different ordinary procedures to end the situation failed. you're taking delight in fending off conflict no longer coming up it.

2016-12-14 08:58:40 · answer #6 · answered by unck 4 · 0 0

Because their opposition is not to the war in Iraq, it is to the USA.

2007-03-02 07:12:26 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1 1

Thank You for your service and I really like your idea.
Lets set up a collection to send all of them over there.

2007-03-07 23:06:00 · answer #8 · answered by tnlongyrs 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers