Anti-War "Activists" vs Sick Children.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker
It isn't a sweeping generalization.

Yeah, every anti-war protestor is obviously one who would favor their signs over human lives. Theyre all murderers!!! Of course

Ya know, I could mention how the civilian toll in Iraq is approaching that of Sep11, and how advocatin such a war is almost like advocating a Sep11 in a different country, and how WRONG that is......And then I could make a sweeping generalization on how evil all right-wingers are and call them murderers and then I could get one of my communist friends to come and tell you I'm right.

But I know better.

[Dinner]

Tass: There was no generalization and certainly not any over generalization. The senerio I went over is the exact reason why it is illegal to have protests without a permit and/or to block a public road way.

Many of these people in San Fransisco choice to ignore that law and that is why they were arrested. They felt getting their banner on TV was so important that they willingly & knowningly put the general public at risk to do it. That's not only illegal that is immoral.

There was a designated protesting area. Why didn't they go there? Anwser: because that wouldn't have generated the media coverage these selfish people wanted so they risked peoples' lives.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Ya know, I could mention how the civilian toll in Iraq is approaching that of Sep11, and how advocatin such a war is almost like advocating a Sep11 in a different country, and how WRONG that is......And then I could make a sweeping generalization on how evil all right-wingers are and call them murderers and then I could get one of my communist friends to come and tell you I'm right.

Well that is bullcrap. Face it.. if you didn't support the war, you would like to see Saddam continue on with his atrocities.

A photo for my friend tassy:





More: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

What the hell were you peaceniks thinking?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Tass: There was no generalization and certainly not any over generalization. The senerio I went over

I'm not talking about that I'm talking about other comments such as: Activists=people who cost the city lots of money for no reason.

[oedo]

Fez, Oerdin: since your concern is also my concern I had to get up one more time to propose a bet:
I say: the next three times you don´t get to work(or a destination of your choice) in time because the streets are blocked, the reason will be a simple tailback and not a demonstration. do you accept?

but now, good night, really.

[orange]

Originally posted by Agathon
How much did the war cost, O?

Enough to provide health care to everyone in the United States three times over, I'll bet.

Game, set, match - Leftists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Game, set, match - Leftists.

Not even close. Read my response to this. The amount paid for the war wouldn't ever be used for what SF was going to be using the lost money for. SF doesn't care what wars the federal government goes on, that money isn't going to go to them anyway. Yet the money for police officers' overtimes does indeed go from other projects.

[orange]

If it weren't for the war, no protests would be necessary. It's still the fault of the war.y

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, and if it wasn't for capitalism than no anti-globalization protests would be necessary so capitalism is what caused the loss of money in DC every few years and the loss of money in Seattle a few years back.

Suuuuuure.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
If it weren't for the war, no protests would be necessary. It's still the fault of the war.y

Are you not responsible for your actions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously not, DD... they're leftists!

[Ben Kenobi]

Leftist rightist split?



Oedo: They have a right to peaceably assemble. These 'demonstrations' do not qualify to be demonstrations because of the violence initiated by the protesters.

Agathon: I agree, the money spent on the war should have been used elsewhere, for healthcare etc. The issue of maintaining an army does not come up because it costs more money to fight a war in the first place. Has the war in Iraq justified the costs? No.

However, it makes no sense to pin the costs of the protest on the war. Regardless of the situation, the protesters should be able to control themselves. After all aren't they supposed to be 'anti-war' demonstrators?

[Kuciwalker]

[Lorizael]

Fez the world is not so black and white as that. Being for peace does not imply support for anything but peace. Most leftists agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad person. They simply felt that there were ways other than war to deal with him.

Doesn't much matter now, though, so I just hope the Us does a good job of putting the country back together. Right now, though, Iraq is in worse condition than it was under Saddam. Note that I do not approve of Saddam. I am merely saying that his ironfisted rule was at least stable, whereas the anarchy there now is not in the least bit. There is more starvation now, more crime now, more bad **** all over the place right now.

Hopefully that will change. And I still wish that the US could have killed fewer people. This was supposed to be part of the War on Terrorism. But America killed more people than the terrorists have. And most of the people killed were press-ganged soldiers that didn't want to be there.

As far as the actual debate here goes, stupid leftist protesters that cause disruptions do not invalidate the arguments against the war. They merely point out that some leftist protesters are stupid and disruptive.

And a little fact to consider. The United States now spends more on defense than every other country in the world combined.

And it's spending more on the war and reconstruction. And it's got a huge tax break coming up. And the economy ain't lookin' too grand.

The US government could certainly be doing a lot better to help its own people. This does not mean it doesn't do a good job, though. I'm not against America. Ugh...

[Cyclotron]

I would just like to point out that, having seen the war protests firsthand, the proportion of "violent" or "hateful" people was tiny, and seems to be blown out of proportion by the anti-demonstrators in this thread. Most protests that people feel strongly about contain a few idiots who don't understand the meaning of nonviolent; that's hardly an indictment of the war protesters or proof that they should not be heeded.