END THE US OCCUPATION OF IRAQ - 10/25 DC Protest

[2tuff]

Saturday October 25th, 2003
11am @ The Washington Monument
http://www.internationalanswer.org

[revaluation]

[funkyfreshdc]

no 'rudebwoy shuffle' guestlist for u

[vixenfoxxy]

Could there just be a general "bush and his policies are positively assinine" protest that includes the iraq issue? Our foreign policy is such a clusterfuck lately ...oh wait, likewise with domestic policy :eyeroll:





OT: the "need phish tickets" sign totally cracked me up

[revaluation]

Originally posted by vixenfoxxy
Could there just be a general "bush and his policies are positively assinine" protest that includes the iraq issue? Our foreign policy is such a clusterfuck lately ...oh wait, likewise with domestic policy :eyeroll:

hey that's politics. at least this protest is advocationg binging them home. That's a consistent postition. I can't deal with people who say they "support the troops, but not the war". If you're not supporting the war, the mission, or the reasons for being over there, then what exactly are you "supporting" by supporting the troops?

OT: the "need phish tickets" sign totally cracked me up

ya that got me too.

[djbuster]

Originally posted by revaluation
If you're not supporting the war, the mission, or the reasons for being over there....

what are those?

[jamiroguy1]

Who would have known that Bryan was such the neo-con right winger.

Oh, and since when did war end slavery. Whoever made that sign needs to check their history. I saw this quote once..."Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

[sauvee88]

I'm in support of isolationism.... Fuck the rest of the world

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by sauvee88
I'm in support of isolationism.... Fuck the rest of the world

[revaluation]

Originally posted by djbuster
what are those?

that's not the point. i mean, i could go into a bunch of of the administration's decisions which I may or may not agree with and then we could go on all day debating them ad nauseum....blah, blah, blah

But the point was that either you support the war, the troops, the mission (whatever that may be) or you don't. I don't think its unpatriotic to say that you don't support the war, but the politicians are just...well, playing politics. You can't have it both ways. I just want people to be consistent. They ought to just say it like it is, either you're for it or against it.

[raver_mania]

Originally posted by revaluation
I don't think its unpatriotic to say that you don't support the war, [/B]

If only other people see that too...

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by revaluation
...I don't think its unpatriotic to say that you don't support the war, but the politicians are just...well, playing politics. You can't have it both ways. I just want people to be consistent. They ought to just say it like it is, either you're for it or against it...

I don't think it's a matter of you either support the war or don't. Supporting the troops means what? Giving them a big pat on the back when they come back from Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever their stationed, right? Ok, I don't think anyone wants to call them baby killers like vietnam... They are just following orders. But what's George Bush's excuse?

[revaluation]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1
Who would have known that Bryan was such the neo-con right winger.

Oh, and since when did war end slavery. Whoever made that sign needs to check their history. I saw this quote once..."Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

haha...there's that word again.

just so we're all clear: the media tosses around "neo-con" like it means "war mongering cowboy", and no doubt that's what most of you think it is. well it's not.

prior to the late 70's most conservatives were isolationists at heart. Unless directly (and I mean direct as in Peral Harbor direct) involved with the business of some foreign nation, we should keep our nose out of everyone else's business and let them fight, pillage, proliferate, and whatever else their tyrranical little heart desired. There was movement in the late 70's with the conservatives that began to realize that as our ever increasing standard as the premier super power grew, the US was always involved regardless of where or what the situation(either through negpotiations, treaties, aid, or muscle). Our Vietnam hangover didn't help any. That being the case (as it surely is today) we figured that since we were going to end up paying the bill for it in the end, we might as well get involved in the initial deliberations. So, that's why we send troops and money and arbiters off to foreign nations to get involved in shit that we prolly shouldn't be getting involved in.

Now, the libs have always felt this way, except when THEY want to send our troops off to die it's only for insignificant nations fighting insignificant civil wars...but "we've got to do SOMETHING!" Whatever.

So if I'm a neo-con, let's get something straight. I think the United States has an obligation to promote peace throughout the world. And while this promotion should not include invading countries who are embattled in civil wars (Somalia, Liberia, etc) that do not have direct US interests (and yes oil is an interest - you try getting to work in the morning without oil), it should include ridding the world of regimes, organizations, factions, and militants that pose a threat to the security of the world.

And no, there isn't room for a pluralistic arguement. Yes, you have the right to practice whatever you want and run your culture however you want...fine. But you cannot include as part of that culture the mass murder of those you see as 'infidels'.

That being said, I find the "bring the troops home" argument to worthy of respect. I just happen to disagree with it.

[kken]

omg this is turning into buzz's political forum... STOP THE MADNESS!!!

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by kken
omg this is turning into buzz's political forum... STOP THE MADNESS!!!

So how 'bout dem Cowboys!