Hundreds of thousands protest Iraq war

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

joyfulgirl

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
16,690
London
0924-01.jpg


San Francisco
0924-04.jpg


Los Angeles
0924-05.jpg


Washington
r1123866861.jpg
 
This is exactly what Al Zarqawi and the terrorist in Iraq want to see.
 
STING2 said:
This is exactly what Al Zarqawi and the terrorist in Iraq want to see.

People excercizing their rights? They should be allowed to protest...

Although....the signs I have been seeing lead me to believe there is a lot of crack being smoked.
 
Dreadsox said:


People excercizing their rights? They should be allowed to protest...

Although....the signs I have been seeing lead me to believe there is a lot of crack being smoked.

My statement had nothing to do with whether one should be allowed to protest or not.

Just as in Vietnam, one of the primary goals of insurgents/terrorist is to move public opinion into being against the war, because this eventually leads to the withdrawal of US troops and the oportunity to pursue and achieve their goals unhindered by the US military. The insurgents and terrorist can't win unless the US military withdraws prior to building a stable government and Iraqi military. The insurgents and terrorist know that if the can negatively effect public opinion in the United States through their actions in Iraq, they have a chance to force an early US military withdrawal from Iraq.

So back to may main point, the protest rally's above are indeed what they want to see and certainly gives them something to celebrate and be more hopeful about. The terrorist/insurgents can't drive out the US military from Iraq by themselves, their only hope is to negatively effect US public opinion to degree that a majority of the US public demands a withdrawal.
 
So do you recommend that people who have a legitimate grievance against the governement forgo their constitutional rights?
 
Dreadsox said:
So do you recommend that people who have a legitimate grievance against the governement forgo their constitutional rights?

I'm not recommending anyone forgo their constitutional rights. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I simply stated that, "This is exactly what Al Zarqawi and the terrorist in Iraq want to see". They want to create enough negative US public opinion to force a premature US withdrawal from Iraq because it would give them a chance of achieving their ultimate goals in Iraq.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


:rolleyes:

Yeah I'm sure they really care.

They care about getting the US military out of Iraq. They definitely care about any sign of increased negative public opinion in the United States because they know while they have failed to get the US military out of Iraq, influencing US public opinion at home to withdraw could accomplish their goal.
 
I happen to be all about letting them do what they have to do. Any rational person viewing the signs I saw today is more likely to be pushed back to center and be more supportive of the troops.

I think the terrorists will have succeeded when the quality of the protester has improved.....
 
STING2 said:


They care about getting the US military out of Iraq. They definitely care about any sign of increased negative public opinion in the United States because they know while they have failed to get the US military out of Iraq, influencing US public opinion at home to withdraw could accomplish their goal.

I just don't see the insurgents sitting around the table and saying oh that's great did you see on TV that people are protesting the war. That's great that means Bush will pull out.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I just don't see the insurgents sitting around the table and saying oh that's great did you see on TV that people are protesting the war. That's great that means Bush will pull out.

The insurgents can see the media outlets and have no problem chopping people's heads off and reciting speeches directed against the American public while they show off a decaptitated head on video and then make sure it gets delivered to a media outlet. They closely watch what happens around the world through the internet. Bombings and other actions are often organized in such a way as to get the best chance of capturing the media spotlight in foreign countries with troops on the ground. The terrorist knew they had a shot of getting Spain to completely withdraw by bombing the Madrid Subway prior to the election and terrorizing the Spanish public to vote for the minority party that wanted to withdraw from Iraq. Prior to the bombing the Spanish government was headed toward a victory. The bombings in Madrid created a political shift to the left and the election of a government that withdrew its troops from Iraq.

Al Zarqawi in fact made an audio tape after a large Armored Marine Personal Carrier hit an IED killing 14 of the Marines inside it, back in August. In the audio tape, he promises the American people that he will kill more of its troops if Bush does not withdraw the troops.

In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese after the 1968 TET offensive saw how powerful their actions in the war effected US Public opinion back home and knew if they could negatively effect US Public opinion back home, they could force the US military to withdraw which would allow them to take over the South.

The enemies of the United States know, that if they can negatively effect US Public opinion to a high enough level, they can force the United States military out of any part of the world because the US public will demand it. This factor is more powerful than any weapon the terrorist can get their hands on.
 
Sting do you think Bush is going to change his mind? Do you honestly think insurgents really believe they have a better chance of the US pulling out now that they've seen this?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Sting do you think Bush is going to change his mind? Do you honestly think insurgents really believe they have a better chance of the US pulling out now that they've seen this?

Bush is not going to be President forever and Lyndon Johnson was forced into doing things he would never have done politically, after the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War turned US public opinion against the war. The American Public will ultimately decide in the long run, if the United States will pull out of Iraq before it accomplishes its mission or not.

I absolutely believe the insurgents feel their strategy is working when they see protest like this. The insurgents don't have the military capability to drive out the US military. Not even close. The only chance they have is to survive and cause enough terror to convince the US Public to bring US troops home. Its not something they believe will happen overnight. They have to create enough negative opinion in the US Public that the war was "mistake", "not worth it", "immoral" etc, so that the Public will demand a premature pullout.
 
STING2 said:


Bush is not going to be President forever and Lyndon Johnson was forced into doing things he would never have done politically, after the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War turned US public opinion against the war. The American Public will ultimately decide in the long run, if the United States will pull out of Iraq before it accomplishes its mission or not.


The mission was to bring democracy to Iraq, or have we forgot? This will happen(hopefully), if it lasts no one knows.

There is no way we will eliminate terrorism with this war. None what so ever. By no means does that mean they win.

It's scare tactics and rhetoric that say "this is exactly what they want to hear".

And yes you are right the American public WILL decide, and they should.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


The mission was to bring democracy to Iraq, or have we forgot? This will happen(hopefully), if it lasts no one knows.

There is no way we will eliminate terrorism with this war. None what so ever. By no means does that mean they win.

It's scare tactics and rhetoric that say "this is exactly what they want to hear".

And yes you are right the American public WILL decide, and they should.

Its not scare tactics or rhetoric to say "that this is exactly what the insurgents want to see". Insurgent victory in Iraq is dependent upon a premature US military pullout which will only happen if enough American people turn negatively against the war. There is simply no other way the terrorist and insurgents in Iraq can win, unless the US military pulls out.

No one has ever stated that terrorism would be eliminated through this or any other war. The mission in Iraq was to remove Saddam because he had become an intolerable threat to global security, and to replace his regime with a government that would be respectful of its neighbors and would not attempt to invade them and seize or sabotage their energy resources as Saddam had done. The best chance of achieving that long term post Saddam goal is by helping to develop a stable democracy in Iraq.

Withdrawing prematurely before Iraq has a stable government and military to stand on its own would indeed be a victory for the terrorist and insurgents and is indeed what they want to see happen. The only way it will happen though, is if the American people let it happen by supporting a premature withdrawal. To that end, all terrorist actions in Iraq have the goal to some degree, of negatively effecting US Public opinion in regards to Iraq.
 
There is a coalition though. If the people of the United States should decide that it is time to leave, then the coalition should fill in until the objective is achieved.
 
Dreadsox said:
There is a coalition though. If the people of the United States should decide that it is time to leave, then the coalition should fill in until the objective is achieved.

Can't say I agree with this, Dread. I'm neither politician nor historian nor war theorist, but I was opposed to the war from the outset and I sincerely doubt that the coalition would "fill in" if we decided to skip town; moreover, I'm not sure they have any real obligation to do so.

That would in fact be about the worst solution I could think of: walk away from the mess that our government decided to start and leave a coalition of troops of a few other nations to try to stanch the bleeding. It wouldn't solve the problem of young men and women dying. They'd be British or Polish or Latvian ones instead, that's all. A solution that involves passing the buck is no solution at all.
 
Dreadsox said:
I happen to be all about letting them do what they have to do. Any rational person viewing the signs I saw today is more likely to be pushed back to center and be more supportive of the troops.

I think the terrorists will have succeeded when the quality of the protester has improved.....

I think I can find this exact quote from you on the demonstration before the war.:wink:

I can't think of many of the signs I don't agree with. I've read many of the interviews with normal US citizens and some nut cases. Most were quite eloguent, middle of the road types. I especially liked the ones "war criminal". If my hubby hadn't made me decide between a hotel in DC for one in Pittsburgh for a particular concert, I'd have loved to be there.
 
i was there. it was very mainstream. the most offensive signs were from the anti-demonstration demonstraters.

i'd argue that the insurgents don't like this; they need the US in Iraq -- it's the best way to recruit more suicide bombers.

i don't think we can pull out right away, but what we're doing clearly isn't working.
 
pax said:


Can't say I agree with this, Dread. I'm neither politician nor historian nor war theorist, but I was opposed to the war from the outset and I sincerely doubt that the coalition would "fill in" if we decided to skip town; moreover, I'm not sure they have any real obligation to do so.

That would in fact be about the worst solution I could think of: walk away from the mess that our government decided to start and leave a coalition of troops of a few other nations to try to stanch the bleeding. It wouldn't solve the problem of young men and women dying. They'd be British or Polish or Latvian ones instead, that's all. A solution that involves passing the buck is no solution at all.

See my PM.....:wink:
 
Irvine511 said:
i was there. it was very mainstream. the most offensive signs were from the anti-demonstration demonstraters.

I really do not want this to deteriorate into postings of signs....which I am ready to do....

There were offensive signs on both sides....

Why does it have to deteriorate into whose signs were more offensive?

Aren't we capable of more in here?
 
Dreadsox said:
There is a coalition though. If the people of the United States should decide that it is time to leave, then the coalition should fill in until the objective is achieved.

is there a punch line

to this joke?
 
STING2 said:
This is exactly what Al Zarqawi and the terrorist in Iraq want to see.

are you bullshiting me?

seriously, you're real name is brett isn't it.

it absolutely infuriates me to read such narrowminded, black and white comments like this.

this is exactly why my stomach can't stand posting here. some of you simply haven't the slightest clue.
 
I think if the US announced it was pulling out of Iraq you'd hear a collective "YES!!!" from the other Coalition members, then a race to see who could actually get out first. The British and Australians will probably come to blows over runway use or something, they are that determined to get the fuck out of there. I guarantee that at the first moment the Coalition countries can leave with their dignity in place, they'll be running. It seems that the British and Australians are egging each other on to do so right now, but neither have the balls to make the first move against the US, and neither want to be seen as the first of the original 3 to back out.
 
Zoomerang96 said:


are you bullshiting me?

seriously, you're real name is brett isn't it.

it absolutely infuriates me to read such narrowminded, black and white comments like this.

this is exactly why my stomach can't stand posting here. some of you simply haven't the slightest clue.

Is this generally what you say to most people you disagree with?
 
STING2 said:


Is this generally what you say to most people you disagree with?

well considering i spend all my time speaking with people who rationalize their standpoints with various information outlets, as opposed to someone who clearly is none other than ari fleischer himself, no, this is not how i speak to others.

it is incomprehensible to read what you have to say over and over again, year after year...i like to think that i fail to make sense when i try my hardest, but your incessant posting of the same viewpoint over and over again without any moderation or reconsideration of the very facts that contradict nearly everything that you say is so baffling it makes me nearly vomit.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
well considering i spend all my time speaking with people who rationalize their standpoints with various information outlets, as opposed to someone who clearly is none other than ari fleischer himself, no, this is not how i speak to others.

it is incomprehensible to read what you have to say over and over again, year after year...i like to think that i fail to make sense when i try my hardest, but your incessant posting of the same viewpoint over and over again without any moderation or reconsideration of the very facts that contradict nearly everything that you say is so baffling it makes me nearly vomit.


Why do you hate America.

You must be a damn Communist or something.

Regards,

Brett
 
financeguy said:



Why do you hate America.

You must be a damn Communist or something.

Regards,

Brett

yeah, a communist. i'm so commy, i'm a capitalist pig who en7oys watching tv with a bigscreen, after driving home from my 200,000 k a year 7ob in my imported mclaren...

:sexywink:

not that that's true or anything, but if i had the chance i'd be all over that!
 
Zoomerang96 said:


well considering i spend all my time speaking with people who rationalize their standpoints with various information outlets, as opposed to someone who clearly is none other than ari fleischer himself, no, this is not how i speak to others.

it is incomprehensible to read what you have to say over and over again, year after year...i like to think that i fail to make sense when i try my hardest, but your incessant posting of the same viewpoint over and over again without any moderation or reconsideration of the very facts that contradict nearly everything that you say is so baffling it makes me nearly vomit.

Then why do you even bother to read what I have to say?

I'd love to here all these "facts" that supposedly contradict everything I have to say.
 
Back
Top Bottom