The Tide Is Turning

[Bravus]

100,000 at the anti-war rally in DC and 400 at the pro-war one. Encouraging.

[Dr. Shane]

However one has to consider that conservative activists tend to write letters and not attend protests. Also, the "pro-war" or "anti-terrorit" protest was more in reaction to the anti-war protest and was not as well organized. Even among those that support the war effort, like myself, many do not find the idea spending their weekend protesting as a barrel of fun. Plus, we don't need to. After all we support what is going on. Those that are against the war have a much greater need to be heard.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is a look at another presepective.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters don't be a group of unthinking lemmings. It's not pretty," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. The anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Anti-War Protest

[Robert]

Jesus would rather die than to kill....We should take lessons....Wasn't He the One who said, "Blessed be the peace makers?" Yes, I think He was....

[Bravus]

I get all those factors, Shane, but 400:100,000 (some estimates are higher) is pretty convincing, even given all that.

I guess the other thing is that I read lots of the interview comments from the people at the pro-war demo and they seemed unable to 'get' the concept that it's possible to support the troops without supporting the war. Their consistent claim was that to protest against the war is to disrespect the troops. I disagree - saying that the troops have been put in harm's way for bad reasons is part of supporting the troops. And, unlike Vietnam, the troops themselves are not being demonised even by those who strongly oppose the war.

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

100,000 at the anti-war rally in DC and 400 at the pro-war one. Encouraging.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Just before the war started (Feb 2003) we had 150,000 people at the anti-war rally in Melbourne and there was no such thing as a pro-war rally. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

One of the TV channels showed a parody of an "international news" program at the time (they called it CNNNN) and it depicted a "war rally." Long-haired hippies with guitars singing "Give War A Chance", holding banners that said "War Not Peace", lighting candles, etc...

aldona

[Bravus]

*whisper*i know but this is america*whisper*

[Dr. Shane]

Ask someone who is against the war how they support the troops. The best answer I have gotten is that they will not spit on them when they return. While that may be thought of as being kind by some; I would hope they wouldn't spit on those they don't support - like their city's rival football team.

To me, supporting the troops means going to the USO website and donating money, helping family members left behind, writng them letters and sending care packages. Just saying "I support the troops" while carrying a sign that says "F*** The War" seems a little empty to many.

Most of the public did support this war at the beginning. The head of the CIA said the WMD case against them was a "slam dunk" and Russia's President had warned President Bush of a chemical attack Saddam was planning on the US using terrorists. Most Americans agreed that action needed to be taken.

However most Americans think the Administration should have planned for the insurgency and believe more Iraqi troops should have been trained in faster and our troop levels should not be nearly what they are now - two years after the invation. Support for the war has been dwindling not because the public questions our reasons for going in but rather because of the way the war has been managed.

Is that a fair critism? Perhaps it is. I certainly am not happy with the way things have went. Yet how can one plan for a war? Wars by definition are unpredictable. The enemy never gives their opponant their battle plan up front so propper preperations can be made. I think criticising the lack of training Iraqi troops is quite legitimate. That is something the insurgants have little impact on and is taking way too long.

[lazarus]

The recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicates that the tide is turning.

59% think the invasion was a mistake.

Let me save some time. I'll give the usual responses that right wingers give when a poll doesn't agree with what they wish were true:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls are biased.

It didn't ask the right type questions.

Oh polls say what you what ever you want them to say.

The sample was too small.

I don't believe in polls anyway.

[Dr. Shane]

That figure doesn't surprise me at all. I am surprised it isn't higher. Most believe it was a mistake for the reasons I stated. If the insurgency had been dealt with better and the Iraqi Army had been trained in quickly so that the US would have already been out by now, I am sure the numbers would be quite different.

Luckly for the Iraqi people, President Bush doesn't govern by the polls. He will keep us there until the Iraqis can secure the nation themselves. God speed.

[Neil D]

Saw the news tonight, a rareity....I caught part of a report that the State Department sent some state official over to Iraq and she listen and attempted to respond to the Iraqi's...The report said she repeatly answered the question as to when we were leaving and that the Iraqis think that George Bush is more of a threat than Bin Ladin..

Oh, and I can support my troops even if I don't agree with the war. I can send supplies, and I can send letters and I can organize rallys to send things over to the troops, but that still doesn't mean that I agree with my leadership. We need real leadership, and a real leader....Our current leadership is deficient.

[Dr. Shane]

We have leadership. Our leadship is rock solid and hard as nails. While many do not like the direction he is leading, he makes decisions, follows through and gets others to follow. I am amazed that we still have as many allies in Iraq with us as we do. We started off with over 30 and have only lost a few through all the bumps and bruises we have had. But President Bush has to accomplish something big before next year's elections if the Republicans are going to keep control. Iraq has to look a lot different a year from now than it does today.

[lazarus]

From the downing street memo:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action"

Even our most solid ally was aware that this military action in Iraq was not what it was presented to be. If you understand British politics you will know that Blair took the political discision side with the USA partly because of his domestic political agenda as much as anything else.

Most countries understood that removing Saddam was not a priority in the war on terror. They believed that Hussein did perhaps have weapons but that war was not the only option.

Bush watches polls just like any other president. Don't believe the hype! Why did respond to the aftermath of Katrina the way he did? Mark my words if Bush's numbers hit the 30's they will look for ways to dump Iraq and leave them to their own devices in order to maintain a majority in the Senate.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

We have leadership.

---

Duh, yeah! Leadership that most americans disaprove of.

Quote:

---

Our leadship is rock solid and hard as nails. While many do not like the direction he is leading, he makes decisions, follows through and gets others to follow

---

Either that or he is gutting america...We have a VP who is getting paid by Haliburton with no bid contracts, both home and in Iraq. We have no leadership in Iraq, despite what you say about his stubborness to stay, and despite the fact that those we have 'liberated' say that Bush is a bigger threat to peace than Bin Laudin. We have leadership that places those who are inadequat for the job, unlike some past presidents who put qualified people in the job.

Quote:

---

I am amazed that we still have as many allies in Iraq with us as we do. We started off with over 30 and have only lost a few through all the bumps and bruises we have had.

---

Well, I am not so sure that they are not being paid off in some way...Concider our loss of the airbase in the USSR a month or so ago. They never saw the material wealth and they kicked us out.

Quote:

---

But President Bush has to accomplish something big before next year's elections if the Republicans are going to keep control. Iraq has to look a lot different a year from now than it does today.

---

With our deficit so huge, and our PR ruined, and our domestics cities in shambles, our infrastructure a mess, both in roads and in domestic policies, tell me oh, clarvoyant one, what do you see?

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

*whisper*i know but this is america*whisper*

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, I know...I wanted to see how long it would take for our American friends to come around to the rest of the world's way of thinking.

Oh, I forgot...only the US is right, everybody else is out of step... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

aldona

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

We have leadership. Our leadship is rock solid and hard as nails. While many do not like the direction he is leading, he makes decisions, follows through and gets others to follow.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That's probably what the citizens of Germany were saying under Hitler in the 1930's and 40's. Or the Russians under Stalin. (There...one example each from the right and left, so nobody can accuse me of being biased. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif" alt="" />)

Just because a leader is strong, hard and decisive does not make him right.

aldona

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Our leadship is rock solid and hard as nails.

---

[tic] And as thick as two short planks... [/tic]

Graeme

[jasd]

QR window:

Good freekin’ Grrrrr! It’s like I’m reading rushes from the ‘Worker’s Party’ rag!

“Say it ain’t so, Joe.”

[Bravus]

heh: I did one of those political quizes the other day and it decided I was a socialist. mind you, it was calibrated on American scales, so that probably means I'm a centrist in most of the rest of the world and Bill O'Reilly in Scandinavia!

[jasd]

>>...and Bill O'Reilly in Scandinavia!<<

and if O'Reilly's in Scandinavia, prurient allegations aside,

I'm to the moon!

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

From the downing street memo:

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

For those that like hearsay that means something. Others have a higher standard.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We have a VP who is getting paid by Haliburton

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Slander is recorded on the books of heaven.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I am not so sure that they are not being paid off in some way

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Why is it that the economic ties the US has with both those that agree with us (i.e. UK, Japan) and those that disagree with us (i.e. France, Germany) is considered to be a bribe and yet they have no problem with the secret bribes Saddam was paying nations on the UN Security Council? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That's probably what the citizens of Germany were saying under Hitler

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Why is it that the Left cannot stop comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler? Either they don't know who Hitler was or are blinded by a strong, negetive emotion toward Bush that that some consider to be inflamatory language.

[Bravus]

Someone might be able to set me straight on the earthly laws - not so sure about the heavenly ones in this case - but I believe truth is a defense in slander cases:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We have a VP who is getting paid by Haliburton

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Slander is recorded on the books of heaven.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Cheney is still, as far as I know, receiving bonuses and other payments from Halliburton. He claims to have no involvement in the day to day business of the company, and I guess we have to believe him on that, but it's definitely not slanderous to say he is paid by Halliburton.

[Dr. Shane]

Please show me evidence that Chenney is recieving anything from Haliburton.

When Chenney accepted Bush's invitation to be his vice-presidencial canidate the Left went crazy about a conflict of interest that would exist because of Chenney's retirement from Haliburton. So, as I recall the news' story, Chenney accepted a lump settlement from Halliburton and sold all his stock. That happened even before the election! So it wasn't a "If-elected-I'll-do-this" promise. Later when the stock dropped the same left-wingers tried to make up a story about insider trading.

As far as I know, there is no credible evidence of Chenney getting any pay-offs from Haliburton since he has been vice Presicent. That said, however, he was the president of Haliburton (and former Secretary of Defense) when President Bill Clinton gave Haliburton no-bid contracts.