The Time for Protest

[Mountain]

IS OVER

Forgive me for this is going to be a rather long post. But I have some thoughts to flesh out.

As many of you may know by reading some of my previous posts. I was not a supporter of going to war when we did and I took what I felt were reasonable measures to express my feelings. I corresponded with the Congressional delegation from my state to express my views. I did this because in my viewpoint entering the war at this time was not the best decision for America. In this context, I view my decisions in what would be best for America. Many of you and I disagreed about this because you felt that war was best for America. That's fine. That is what a democracy is about, citizens expressing differing views to find the path that is best for the country. Depsite my efforts, our elected representatives chose to prosecute this war.

My focal point remains what is best for America. In my view, now that we have chosen war, what is best for America is to successfully and as expeditiosly as possible to win this war. How do we at home help accomplish this? By sujpporting the war.

Dan Rather, who has interviewed Saddam Hussien twice, stated that Hussien's ultimate feeling is that he can survive any challenge and he believes he will survive this conflict as well.
Our strategy is to show overwhelming force and firepower together with popular support within our counrtry to demoralize the Iraqi regime and to let the Iraqi people know that they can feel secure in fighting back against their oppressive regime if they chose to do so. Hussien knows he can't win a war with us head to head. His strategy is to hold out as long as possible and engage in a war of attrition in the hopes that either we will lose our will to prosecute this war, or world public opinion will dissuade us from deposing him.

Therefore, when massive antiwar protests are shown on television happening within the U ited States, it heartens our enemies and gives him hope that his strategy is working. This ultimately prolongs the war and leads to the loss of more lives, which works at cross purposes with what the anti war protesters are trying to accomplish. Protesting leads to the loss of more American lives and this is wrong.

Even if the protestors got their best case scenario and all of the sudden George Bush and Tony Blair were to say, "My bad... You were right all along. We'll just pull our troops out and everything can carry on like it did before." what do you think would happen? Do you think the Arab nations would love us for this? Do you think Saddam Hussein wouldn't be even more likely to support terroism to kill Americans? Do you think this would repair the damage that has been done to our diplomatic realtions with some of our longstading allies? No none of this would happen. The genie is already out of the bottle and we have to make the best of the situation.

In this vein, the press, by reporting on the 8th day that "we don't have enough tropps on the ground," or "the war isn't going as swiftly as we thought" is also heartening Saddam and extending the war. What did people expect? That the war was going to be over the first week? The forces that are loyal to Hussein are going to figtht to the death because they're going to die either way. Do you think the Iraqis would let the people who tortured them live after this war? I think not. Their fate is directly tied to Saddam's.

As for the Iraqi population uprising and overthrowing the government, its not going to happen until it is clear that we will beat Saddam. This is a population that has been oppressed for almost twenty-five years. They also feel betrayed when Saddam was allowed to remain in power in 1991 so they mistrust us. The best way for us to win this war and hold caualites to a minimum is to stay steadfast to the war and to push to use overwhelming force to end it as quickly as possible.

Whew!!! sorry about the length of the post. Feel like I just had a brain enema.

[Cuckoo]

I've always supported the war, but that was a good post Mountain.

[Ben E Lou]

Mountain:

I respect you a ton for that position. It shows your sincerity in wanting what you feel is best for America. Unfortunately, your logic will be lost on some anti-war folks. The fact is that there are many out there who are protesting the war not so much because they think pulling out now would be best for America. (I can't see how ANY rational person could think that...) Many are protesting the war because they are anti-Bush or anti-America. They may not have that overt feeling, but deep down, it is likely the fact of the matter for many.

[Dutch]

Many are protesting the war because they are anti-Bush or anti-America.

True, the upside down McDonalds sign with "WAR" written there, the burning US flags...those are signs that the hate is a little more than "anti-war". Mostly underground communist and extreme left socialist societies at play here.

And yes, it was a solid logical post by Mountain.

[JPhillips]

Mountain: The only place I will really disagree with you regards the press reporting that we don't have enough troops. By all accounts, we really don't have enough troops to assault Baghdad if the Republican Guard continues to fight. Currently we have the 3rd, which is in need of rest and resupply, the 101st Airborne, which is tough but lightly armored, and the Marines, who are still in almost constant fighting along the supply line and unable to form for an assault.

That leaves us two divisions facing at least five Iraqi divisions. Even with our air support and superior tactics and weapons we simply don't have enough troops to risk an assault. We desperately need the 4th and perhaps the 1st armored. The 4th is on the way, but has several days at least before its ready. The 1st hasn't been sent, and probably couldn't arrive with equipment in much less than a month.

This is a very big deal, because it shows that the civilians in charge bet everything on the Iraqis folding. When they didn't, we were left with too few troops to fight to victory soon. I don't doubt that we will eventually win, but every day we wait emboldens the Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world. I have heard reports that some refugees from Jordan are going back to Iraq saying they want to fight against us.

The fault here isn't with the press for reporting what is true, its with the war planners for not providing our soldiers with enough force to get the job done quickly. The lesson from Vietnam is not that the press should be muffled, its that the US has to commit overwhelming force to the battlefield if it wants to win and win quickly.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Mountain:
Many are protesting the war because they are anti-Bush or anti-America. They may not have that overt feeling, but deep down, it is likely the fact of the matter for many.

That's what I hate about this war. Some war supporters look at protestors as "stinking libs" or "Gore backers" when politics are the last thing on some minds. Maybe it's what some of the protestors think but I'm on the bubble about this war and I think I represent the majority of Americans. We're the silent majority that doesn't want to protest the war nor call up the latest popular conservative talkshow host to brag how American we are. We support the troops and hope they stay well, we're not sure about this war but hope the guys in Washington know something we don't, if it starts looking like a bad idea, we won't be surprised as we were wary of it to begin with but politics will be the last thing on our mind.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
That leaves us two divisions facing at least five Iraqi divisions.

Not really disagreeing with your conclusions, but you probably know better than to compare XX with XX.

[JPhillips]

Fritz: Yeah. I don't mean to compare division strengths, but in urban combat our two divisions aren't enough to clear what the Iraqis have.

[Mountain]

So why do we have to assault Baghdad (sp.) and take it brick by brick anyway. Anyone heard of laying siege? If Iraqi forces are willing to pull back into the city and cut themselves off from any supplies then I say let them.

Then we circle them and force them to attack us to brek the siege whcih is an extermely advantageous position for us anyway.

Perhaps when the hunger situation gets bad enough Saddam's own ctizens will rise against him. Now that we've committed to war we must prosecute to OUR best advantage. If this means some suffering by Iraqi civilians so be it. It will be best for the city in the long run because urban combat would completely destroy the city and the civilians will have homes and property still intact when the war ends.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Mountain:

I respect you a ton for that position. It shows your sincerity in wanting what you feel is best for America. Unfortunately, your logic will be lost on some anti-war folks. The fact is that there are many out there who are protesting the war not so much because they think pulling out now would be best for America. (I can't see how ANY rational person could think that...) Many are protesting the war because they are anti-Bush or anti-America. They may not have that overt feeling, but deep down, it is likely the fact of the matter for many.

Then count me as irrational - I think if the US pulled out now because they felt the violence had to end and because we believe that violence should only be a last resort, that it would send a powerful signal and disempower some of the support terrorist groups have been gaining around the world.

And I am no more anti-Bush than I was anti-Gore. As for being anti-America, I've been called that many times on this board, but I tend to believe that someone who is critical of their government is a good citizen not an unpatriotic one.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Then count me as irrational - I think if the US pulled out now because they felt the violence had to end and because we believe that violence should only be a last resort, that it would send a powerful signal and disempower some of the support terrorist groups have been gaining around the world.

That signal would be that we are pussies

edit:

That signal would be that we are weak, that we are indecisive, that we fold easily, that we do not have the moral high ground, that allah was on their side...

it would be like strapping meat to your body and walking into a kennel.

[Ben E Lou]

Well said Fritz.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt
it would send a powerful signal and disempower some of the support terrorist groups have been gaining around the world.

It must be nice living in Fantasy Land.


Exactly what signal would this be sending out?

[JPhillips]

Mountain: A long siege of Baghdad could be a nightmare. They could hold out for months with us taking daily casualties and having nothing to show for it. The longer we sit in Iraq the worse for us. We need to win quickly to stop all of the world wide protests. Thats why I personally am pissed that we didn't have enough troops in place to get the job done ASAP.

[Cuckoo]

Marmel, exactly. This has been cracking me up for weeks. People think that just because they are rational means that terrorists are, that saying "Oops, sorry, let us go home now" will somehow erase the hatred that they feel.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
It must be nice living in Fantasy Land.


Exactly what signal would this be sending out?

I think the pro-war camp is too wedded to the ideas of deterrence and international realism. I think since the cold war, the world has not operated in that environment. The days of countries invading each other because they can are almost gone (something that is a basic assumption of realist politics). Interdependence and multi-polarity are the norms of the new environment.

Against this backdrop, we don't need to prove our strength at every turn (as if anyone doubted it), we don't need to flex our muscles to keep "everyone in line."

We don't live on a playground anymore. We don't need to prove who the bigger bully is. The battle of the future is over the hearts and minds of the world. Right now, we are losing that war. Stopping the war in Iraq won't change things overnight, but it would be a good first step to spreading trust and peace.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I think the pro-war camp is too wedded to ... realism.

there it is in a nutshell

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt
I think the pro-war camp is too wedded to the ideas of deterrence and international realism. I think since the cold war, the world has not operated in that environment. The days of countries invading each other because they can are almost gone (something that is a basic assumption of realist politics). Interdependence and multi-polarity are the norms of the new environment.

Against this backdrop, we don't need to prove our strength at every turn (as if anyone doubted it), we don't need to flex our muscles to keep "everyone in line."

We don't live on a playground anymore. We don't need to prove who the bigger bully is. The battle of the future is over the hearts and minds of the world. Right now, we are losing that war. Stopping the war in Iraq won't change things overnight, but it would be a good first step to spreading trust and peace.

Wouldn't we be risking an awful lot if your assumption is wrong? Is it really worth that risk? The battle for the hearts and minds of the world was lost when we went into Iraq. At this point, we better make the best of it and do our job there as best as possible.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
there it is in a nutshell

Realism is a nice named school of thought, but just because it is called "realism" doesn't mean it is at all realistic. In fact, one of the primary reasons for this war is against realism - realists believe weapons proliferation is a good thing and would generally support Iraq getting the bomb. Loaded terms don't make for good philosophies.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
Wouldn't we be risking an awful lot if your assumption is wrong? Is it really worth that risk? The battle for the hearts and minds of the world was lost when we went into Iraq. At this point, we better make the best of it and do our job there as best as possible.

I think we risk much more with this war. We have no exit plan, no plan for a new leadership, and we have made allies with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey to do it (not like befriending Saddam to get Iran or befriending Bin Laden to fight for us in Afghanistan as we did in the past). We continue to fight short-sighted wars with no idea what is coming tomorow.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Realism is a nice named school of thought, but just because it is called "realism" doesn't mean it is at all realistic. In fact, one of the primary reasons for this war is against realism - realists believe weapons proliferation is a good thing and would generally support Iraq getting the bomb. Loaded terms don't make for good philosophies.

My post had nothing to with schools of thought. I was digging on you about not being realistic.

[Mountain]

Reality check time.

I've said this before but I think it needs repeating. This is not a world of multi-polarity and interdependence. There is no world governement. This is a world where there is one currnet superpower. Us.

The nature of power is to preserve its own power. The United States will do everything we can to preserve the world's status quo as it is right now because these are the conditions that have allowed us to attain this lofty position of power.

This conflict is a residue left over from 1991. Why did we feel the need to "liberate' Kuwait from Iraq? Because we were afraid of a nation unfriednly to the US controlling the oil in the region. The one thing that could cripple this country is our lack of access to cheap energy. Nations have invaded other nations all the time and we don't lobby to piece togerther a world coalition to drive them out.

The reality is that we feel threatened in our position of power and we are tryying to preserve it. Simple as that.

The rest of the world has all of the sudden gotten a rude wakeup call. Our allies, the western European nations, were more than willing to let us foot the majority of the bill to maintain a military and protect them from Communism during the Cold War. Thorughout this time, they cleverly sneered at the U.S. for not having socialized medicine, or having the social safety net system that the European nations develpoed. Well, the term is "guns or butter" we chose guns.

Now all of the other nations realize they don't have the military power to withstand us and opposing us directly would be an economic disater for them. They can't impose economic sanctions against us because their own economies are so intertwined with ours that it would destroy themselves. If they try to build up a militray to oppose us it would also destroy them economically because they have to essentially almost start from scratch. Goodbye nice social safety net programs when you're already taxed at exorbitant rates.

We in the U.S. maintain the largest and most expensive military on earth while taxing our citizens at a relatively paltry rate. We are used to running our country and spending large amounts to maintian our military. Does anyone have any doubts what would happen if we decided to completely gear the nation for a conflict? In terms of our potential, we haven't even scratched the surface of what we could do if we had to. So now the world has a deferred debt to pay if they wish to catch up.

Terrorism is the only cheap way to attempt to combat this and even that is superficial at best. That is reality. We are powerful enough to tell the rest of the world to go to hell and they don't like it and are powerless to stop it.

[Dutch]

The days of countries invading each other because they can are almost gone (something that is a basic assumption of realist politics).

Would you also agree that the day of dictatorships and monarchy's are almost gone too?

It's not a fantasy world you live in John, it's one that simply hasn't developed to the point that you want it to be. Maybe in 100 or 150 years...maybe.

[NoMyths]

Saying that the majority of anti-war protesters are protesting because they hate America is like saying Al Qaida attacked us because they "hate freedom"; same logical fallacy.

On both sides of the debate there are extremists with poorly thought out positions. At the heart of each side of the debate are people with well thought out reasons for supporting the position they've taken. It's crucial to respect the intelligent positions on both sides by addressing the actual arguments, and not trying to make blanket statements about the kind of people that are either pro-war or anti-war.

[Killebrew]

... is now. If we don't then Iraq is just bloc #1 of the Greater USA Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Mountain]

Hate to threadjack my own thread but I was wondering what Camus meant in that statement in John Galt's sig line.

Does it mean people spend/waste energy being normal that they could spend being exceptional, or does it mean that exceptional people haave to spend great energy to be normal to relate to normal people?

[User #2735]

Originally posted by John Galt
We have no exit plan, no plan for a new leadership

No offense, but what makes you think that we don't? Because the strategists haven't invited you to share in their plans? ...or is it because some anti-war talking head told you this was so?

[Bee]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Saying that the majority of anti-war protesters are protesting because they hate America is like saying Al Qaida attacked us because they "hate freedom"; same logical fallacy.

On both sides of the debate there are extremists with poorly thought out positions. At the heart of each side of the debate are people with well thought out reasons for supporting the position they've taken. It's crucial to respect the intelligent positions on both sides by addressing the actual arguments, and not trying to make blanket statements about the kind of people that are either pro-war or anti-war.

Good post.

[NoMyths]

Here's another example of the kind of "good" reasons people are protesting:

===============

From Tom Atlee: http://www.co-intelligence.org/tomatleebio.html

Dear friends,

This is serious and urgent. There is a clear and present danger to
democracy in Oregon which could spread to other states.

Senate Bill 742 proposed by Oregon State Senator Minnis (R-Dist. 25 / Fairview)(Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee) creates the crime of "terrorism" -- punishable by life imprisonment. Senator Minnis defines "terrorism" so broadly that even being present at a demonstration that is in any way "disruptive" could result in life imprisonment.

I have given the relevant sections of the bill below, as well as the
link to the whole bill. I have also provided information from the
American Civil Liberties Union regarding this, including contact
information for the relevant Oregon State Senators.

Ever since laws began to be passed criminalizing "terrorism," I have been concerned that its definition would be expanded to include anything that authorities wished to suppress which could then be subject to extreme punishment, laying the groundwork for serious suppression. It seems that is now happening. It must be energetically nipped in the bud if we are to prevent its spread.

If this law passes in Oregon, it is highly likely that other states
will pass similar laws, especially in the current political climate.

I trust you will act if you feel so moved. Whether you are an Oregon resident or not, you can express your dismay to the Oregon State Senators listed below. If you are an Oregon resident you can, in addition, attend a hearing Monday morning Mar 24 in Salem, OR (specifics below).

Coheartedly,

Tom

PS: The law also sets aside (in terrorism cases) two other Oregon
laws which prevent police from (a) spying on innocent people and
organizations and (b) apprehending people solely for immigration
violations.

===============

Excerpts from the proposed law:

http://pub.das.state.or.us/LEG_BILLS/PDFs/SB742.pdf
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
Senate Bill 742 Sponsored by Senator Minnis

SUMMARY: Creates crime of terrorism. Punishes by life imprisonment.

SECTION 1.

(1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of
Oregon or its inhabitants.

(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person conspires
to do any of the activities described in subsection (1) of this
section.
....
(4)
(a) A person convicted of terrorism shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
(b) When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section, the
court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum of 25
years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison
supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary leave or employment at a forest or work camp....

===============

An opportunity to make your opinions known:

Senate Bill 742

SB 742, introduced by Senator John Minnis (R-Gresham) is set for a hearing before Senate Judiciary (the committee Senator Minnis chairs) on Monday, March 24 at 8:00 a.m. Room 343.

The bill creates the crime of "terrorism" and defines it so broadly
that individuals would be subject to life in prison if any other
participant in the same group intended to disrupt commerce,
transportation, educational, or governmental institutions (such as,
strikes, protests, student food fights).

More importantly, under section 2 it would also allow state and local law enforcement to ignore both ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850 if they are investigating "terrorism".

ORS 181.575 prohibits law enforcement agencies from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious, social views, associations or activities of any person or group unless that information directly relates to a criminal investigation. ORS
181.850 prohibits local law enforcement from using resources to
apprehend people whose only offense is a federal immigration
violation. The law allows state and local law enforcement to contact the INS after they have arrested someone. The law also permits state and local police to request information from the INS that may help solve a criminal case. To allow an exception to ORS 181.575 & ORS 181.850 unravels the protections these laws provide!

For more background on these "181" laws that need protection, please read the "181 Campaign Talking Points." <
http://www.aclu-or.org/issues/terrorism/181/181challenges.html>

To see all the groups supporting protecting the 181 laws, take a look at the 181 Campaign Coalition.


TAKE ACTION NOW!

CALL OR WRITE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY and let them know you OPPOSE SB 742. We've also included the Senate Democratic leadership so you can share your position with them. Here's the contact information:

Senator John Minnis, Chair (R)
District: 25
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1725
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-311, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/minnisj/Senator

Senator Ted Ferrioli (R)
District: 30
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1730
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-217, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ferrioli/Senator

Senator Charles Starr (R)
District: 13
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1713
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-312, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/starrc/

Senator Ginny Burdick, Vice-Chair (D)
District: 18
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1718
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-317, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/burdick/

Senator Charlie Ringo (D)
District: 17
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1717
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE S-314 Salem, OR 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ringo/

Senator Vicki Walker (D)
District: 7
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1707
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-210, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/walker/

Senate Leadership:

Senate President Peter Courtney (D)
District: 11
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1600
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-203, Salem Or 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/senpres

Senator Kate Brown, Democrat Leader
District: 21 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1700
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-323, Salem Or 97301
Capitol Fax:503-986-1080
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/brown/

[Marmel]

NM, please don't spam the FOFC board. We will send our losers to 'you know where' or 'LBOF backwards' if you continue this.

Thanks.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Killebrew
... is now. If we don't then Iraq is just bloc #1 of the Greater USA Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Perhaps you should call or write your congressman and share your concerns.

[NoMyths]

lol Marmel...don't worry, I'm "spamming" the other place with the same information.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Mountain
Hate to threadjack my own thread but I was wondering what Camus meant in that statement in John Galt's sig line.

Does it mean people spend/waste energy being normal that they could spend being exceptional, or does it mean that exceptional people haave to spend great energy to be normal to relate to normal people?

I don't really have time to respond to the main thread, but I at least feel I should reply to a question about my own sig.

I take the quote to mean that people spend an enormous amount of energy just trying to "fit in" and be like everyone else. It is not so much that the energy would be better spent on being exceptional, just that it is sad we spend so much time on something so pointless. I like the quote because I prefer not to be "normal" (whatever that means).

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Fritz
Perhaps you should call or write your congressman and share your concerns.

That would be impossible, as you probably know. I would think most congresspersons would be aware there are protests going on though anyway without keen-eyed citizen tips.

[Marmel]

Never trust a man who posts with 2 different names.

........Especially if he is Canadian.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Killebrew
That would be impossible, as you probably know. I would think most congresspersons would be aware there are protests going on though anyway without keen-eyed citizen tips.

Yes, impossible.

And before you get too PC on us, congressman is fine.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Fritz
Yes, impossible.

And before you get too PC on us, congressman is fine.

Fritz: What is your point, assuming there is one?

Marm: What does trust have to do with this thread?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Fritz: What is your point, assuming there is one?

Just sniping at that Canadian "we."

[JonInMiddleGA]

No Myths -- thanks for the info on the Oregon proposal, I caught a little bit of this last night but didn't get all of it at the time.

I'll definitely be calling MY local legislator, sounds like this Senator Minnis has already done of good bit of the legwork on legislation that I'd work very hard to pass here in Georgia.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Fritz
Just sniping at that Canadian "we."

That "we" = protesters, what this thread is about. It has nothing to do with where I happen to live.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Killebrew
That "we" = protesters, what this thread is about. It has nothing to do with where I happen to live.

Unless I am mistaken, the folks Mountain is talking to (or about) are Americans.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
No Myths -- thanks for the info on the Oregon proposal, I caught a little bit of this last night but didn't get all of it at the time.

I'll definitely be calling MY local legislator, sounds like this Senator Minnis has already done of good bit of the legwork on legislation that I'd work very hard to pass here in Georgia.

Jon -- That's great to hear! Please, do as much as you can to get as many Republican Congressmen as possible to loudly and publicly back such legislation. I wish you nothing but absolute success in affliating as many prominent voices as possible. Thank you in advance.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by AgPete
That's what I hate about this war. Some war supporters look at protestors as "stinking libs" or "Gore backers" when politics are the last thing on some minds. Maybe it's what some of the protestors think but I'm on the bubble about this war and I think I represent the majority of Americans. We're the silent majority that doesn't want to protest the war nor call up the latest popular conservative talkshow host to brag how American we are. We support the troops and hope they stay well, we're not sure about this war but hope the guys in Washington know something we don't, if it starts looking like a bad idea, we won't be surprised as we were wary of it to begin with but politics will be the last thing on our mind.

Good post. I completely agree with you

[aquavit]

Right or wrong, speaking out should always be encouraged. You have to have a dialogue going on or you'll get nowhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Jon -- That's great to hear! Please, do as much as you can to get as many Republican Congressmen as possible to loudly and publicly back such legislation. I wish you nothing but absolute success in affliating as many prominent voices as possible. Thank you in advance.

Psst ... "Congressmen" don't usually get involved in state legislation

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Psst ... "Congressmen" don't usually get involved in state legislation

I know...I'm encouraging you to work not only at the state level, but at the federal one as well.