"Peace" Protestors

[Pessimistic]

I'm not protesting myself (never know there may be terrorist reprisals here) but I'm sure they have made a difference.

The US is minding it's manners and realises It needs to act responsibly to match it's rhetoric. If there had been general malaise they might just have been a bit more sloppy themselves.

Similar argument to that used when they said 250,000 troops halped to focus saddams mind on disarmament

 

[Diego]

Originally posted by Lestat
Personally, I don't agree with there methods, and I think that protesting is really a waste of time, however I do agree with there cause.

However, good on em, for doing something that they believe may make a difference.

Its a democracy, they have a right to protest, and good on em for taking up that right.

Whats the alternative myee?? What do you suggest they do to show there govt that they do not approve of its actions??

What, do you think they should resort to violence?? Petitions?? What? I think its quite admirable that they can hold a peaceful protest. Its when it goes violent that I have a problem with it, as we should all. Vandalism is also pushing it I agree.

I think its pretty pathetic all those posters having a go at people protesting for a cause they strongly believe in. If you don't agree with the cause, fair enough. If you don't agree with the methods, then don't go.

I guess you think that Gandhi was a pathetic protester, a lefty organising those million man marches. What a loser hey?

And all those marching against aparthied. What dole bludging losers they were. Sheesh, the nerve of them.



sick and tired of protests?? Whys that? Have you been to any? If not, how can you be sick and tired of them.

Says alot, your sick and tired of protests, however you have no problems with watching bombs fall on Baghdad.

How come your not sick and tired of war???

Oh yeah, and of course all the protesters and dole bludgers and uni students.

Your post shows an accute lack of intelligence, and reality.

oh is that so...


I have been to a few and what I have seen nearly 3/4 who attend these so called peace rallies have more of a beef with the police than they have with the war.

I had one mofo come up and tell me how NSW has turned into a Police state. I asked why is that so? He told me b/c they wont let him and others do what they want in these rallies..and I said "what turn these meets into an avenue for anarchy".

Much to my predicament he threw the "go watch ACA" line at me.

I have been to a few in the past. I have been to anti global ones the two held in Sydney. They have all been a farce bar one. The huge peace protest held in Sydney a month ago. That was special b/c there were all walks off life and the stupid Socialist were outnumbered so there presence was minimal.

As I said these dole bludgers complain about America but then go online, use there Microsoft desktops to log in to hotmail to send each other mail.


I am just sick of the War and everything that comes with it.

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
and what did these dole bludgers and students think they would achieve..?

A day off of school and a day off of looking for (or pretending to look for) work.

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by The Ewok
The tossers were throwing red paint at the Defence Offices in Melbourne today and hurling 'war monger/Hitler' abuse at the Defence workers trying to get into their office

I was dying to have an excuse to go past the parliament house protests, would have been quite hard to avoid yelling abuse at the poor ignorant souls.

 

[myee8]

Originally posted by Lestat
Personally, I don't agree with there methods, and I think that protesting is really a waste of time, however I do agree with there cause.

However, good on em, for doing something that they believe may make a difference.

Its a democracy, they have a right to protest, and good on em for taking up that right.

Whats the alternative myee?? What do you suggest they do to show there govt that they do not approve of its actions??

What, do you think they should resort to violence?? Petitions?? What? I think its quite admirable that they can hold a peaceful protest. Its when it goes violent that I have a problem with it, as we should all. Vandalism is also pushing it I agree.

I think its pretty pathetic all those posters having a go at people protesting for a cause they strongly believe in. If you don't agree with the cause, fair enough. If you don't agree with the methods, then don't go.

I guess you think that Gandhi was a pathetic protester, a lefty organising those million man marches. What a loser hey?

And all those marching against aparthied. What dole bludging losers they were. Sheesh, the nerve of them. ...

How many times do i have do say this? I never said i am having a go at the protesters for their cause, it's how they sometimes protest that gets to me. They can walk and hoot all they want, just do it so it doesn't affect others. You say if i don't agree with their methods then don't go, well that's fine, but all i am saying is that causing public disturbances, destroying governemnt or public property, vandalism, and fighting cops will only serve the alientate others from their cause. If you fail to recognise this, it's not my problem.

Since when did i put people like Gandhi down and say he is a loser? The causes these groups were marching for were done in a tasteful manner devoid of public disturbances, destruction to property, and violence. I've said it to Mantis and i'll say it to you, don't put words in my mouth.

I have been to the city at the times when the protests were on, and have seen how some occur first hand. Plus i have a mates dad who was 'held up' when they had those protesters protesting over the globalisation. These protesters prevented people like my mates dad from going about his employment and he was none too pleased. I deliberately went to get a first hand account of how the protests are like.

I was in the city the day some no war protesters decided to sit in the middle of a busy road in the Perth CBD, which in effect disadvantaged those who were going about their own business. The protesters refused to move, so the building workers took it upon themselves to remove them, and also drove and braked one of their trucks VERY close to them. This was on the news too, so some of you Perth people might remember this. Tell me, how do what they are doing help their cause? Once again it only serves to increase the divide between them and others. If you can't get this around your head, then it's not my problem.

Why are you so simple minded? It's not just "bombs fall on Bagdhad". Saddam is a bit of a tosser, so he has to be removed coz he sure as hell ain't going peacefully. This guy only knows one language: that of the sword. No one wants war, but the sad thing is that that's how the world is today.

 

[Lestat]

Since when did i put people like Gandhi down and say he is a loser? The causes these groups were marching for were done in a tasteful manner devoid of public disturbances, destruction to property, and violence. I've said it to Mantis and i'll say it to you, don't put words in my mouth.

You didn't have to say it. Your opinion on the protestors shows that if you were around during the time of Ghandi, you would of been the first to 'post' about how moronic he was, etc, etc.

Done in a tasteful manner devoid of public disturbances?? Well I don't think the British would of agreed with you. The halt in salt production was definately a 'public' disturbance. More then a million Indians striking off work, and walking to the sea (the one famous march), and you honestly don't think that was a 'public disturbance'??

By mining the salt for themselves, the indian 'protesters' were 'stealing' what the british believed was there property.

So if you fail to see Ghandi's passive resistence as a form of protest, then you've truly got the blinkers on!

These protesters prevented people like my mates dad from going about his employment and he was none too pleased. I deliberately went to get a first hand account of how the protests are like.

Aww. so they were inconvenienced. What a shame.

Now try going to work if your city was being bombed continuously. But thats fine though hey, cause you support the bombing.

I was in the city the day some no war protesters decided to sit in the middle of a busy road in the Perth CBD, which in effect disadvantaged those who were going about their own business.

Oh, so now you were disadvantaged. Those poor Perth businessman hey.

Pity you don't seem to care about the disadvantage done to those Iraqi's, who going about there own business, maybe blown to bits. Or those who cannot even go to work, all because a bunch of people at the other side of the world, decided its time that there country got 'liberated'.

If only you showed concern to all people who are being disadvantaged by this war.

Why are you so simple minded? It's not just "bombs fall on Bagdhad". Saddam is a bit of a tosser, so he has to be removed coz he sure as hell ain't going peacefully.

Simple minded?? Thats big, coming from someone who is following the most simple minded Pres of the USA i think this world has ever seen. Why don't you ask those politicians that you so blindly follow, why are they being so simple minded.

So its as simple as that hey. Saddam is a bit of a tosser (More then a bit by the way), so we should drop bombs on the whole or Iraq (or baghdad), so that he is removed.

Just a hypothetical question Myee. Please answer it ok.

If john Howard was just as bad a dictator as Saddam Hussien. If he did all the attrocities that Saddam did, everything the same.

Then the US decided that they were going to 'liberate' Australia, and began systematically bombing Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide, every night.

Every night while you were about to sleep, you'd hear bombs going off, occasionally one bomb would sound so close. Imagine how afraid you'd be.

Now imagine, one of those bombs hit your neighbours house, killing them instantly and injuring some of your family members.

How would you feel about the US?? Yes its a hypothetical, but please, try to answer it honestly. How would YOU feel? Not how you should feel.

 

[luthor]

Originally posted by Horace
The Vietnam demonstrations in the late 60's turned the tide and eventually led to the withdrawal of Australian troops, and ultimately America from Vietnam. As a consequence many lives that would otherwise have been lost, were saved.

I concede that in a democracy, freedom of speech and indeed, overt protest are perfectly legitimate means of expressing or highlighting one's opinion.

But I wouldn't gat carried away with the "effect" that such actions have on shaping government policy.

You have held up the "Vietnam War" demonstrations as an example, claiming that they "led" to the withdrawal if Australian troops. Not true.

The anti-Vietnam War protesters screamed themselves blue in the face from the mid-sixties to the early 70's but the Government of the day did NOT change its policy.

Australian troops were withdrawn only after the Whitlam government was elected in 1972. One of its main platforms WAS the immediate withdrawal of Australian troops.

As much as the "protest movement" would like to take credit for the ALP's sweeping electoral victory in 1972, it was the SILENT MAJORITY that elected Gough Whitlam. NOT the Anti-War protestors and activists.

"Oh yeah but it was us activists that sparked public awareness" I hear you say.

Also a total fallacy in my opinion.

It was the saturation media coverage, including graphic images of the effects of strafe bombing, use of napalm and agent orange that cystallised opinion against the Vietnam War.

Not the images of unruly, disorderly, screaming activists and protestors Their actions turn the ordinary, true peace loving men and women of the nation completely off. It was true in 1968 and it's still true today.

Protestors and activists suffer from inflated egos and a form of superiority complex. They seem to believe that the "ordinary" citizen is incapable of forming an educated opinion on important issues without having the views of the "protest" movement rammed down their throats.

Far from influencing public opinion to their views, they do their own "cause" damage by their vandallistic actions, their paint-ball throwing , placard waving, direspectful, unlawful and downright rude behaviour.

They should wake up to themselves and let the democratic process take its course.

If the Howard Government's actions are judged by the electorate to be as grossly incompetent as its opponents believe, it will be punished accordingly by the voting public. Just like in 1972.

Howard has said he and his Government will take responsibilty for the decision to commit troops to Iraq.

This is how things should be in a democracy.

Those who believe otherwise should take their protests elsewhere.

 

[Lestat]

I was dying to have an excuse to go past the parliament house protests, would have been quite hard to avoid yelling abuse at the poor ignorant souls.

hehe. Yeah right. Dying for an excuse hey. lol

How bout you show us all how brave you are Estaugh. And next protest, why don't you go and shout abuse at those 'ignorant souls'. Make up an excuse, lets see you put your money where your mouth is.

Such a brave soul you are, typing away at your keyboards.

I wish i could be as brave as you

 

[myee8]

Originally posted by Lestat
You didn't have to say it. Your opinion on the protestors shows that if you were around during the time of Ghandi, you would of been the first to 'post' about how moronic he was, etc, etc.

Done in a tasteful manner devoid of public disturbances?? Well I don't think the British would of agreed with you. The halt in salt production was definately a 'public' disturbance. More then a million Indians striking off work, and walking to the sea (the one famous march), and you honestly don't think that was a 'public disturbance'??

By mining the salt for themselves, the indian 'protesters' were 'stealing' what the british believed was there property.

So if you fail to see Ghandi's passive resistence as a form of protest, then you've truly got the blinkers on!



Aww. so they were inconvenienced. What a shame.

Now try going to work if your city was being bombed continuously. But thats fine though hey, cause you support the bombing.



Oh, so now you were disadvantaged. Those poor Perth businessman hey.

Pity you don't seem to care about the disadvantage done to those Iraqi's, who going about there own business, maybe blown to bits. Or those who cannot even go to work, all because a bunch of people at the other side of the world, decided its time that there country got 'liberated'.

If only you showed concern to all people who are being disadvantaged by this war.



Simple minded?? Thats big, coming from someone who is following the most simple minded Pres of the USA i think this world has ever seen. Why don't you ask those politicians that you so blindly follow, why are they being so simple minded.

So its as simple as that hey. Saddam is a bit of a tosser (More then a bit by the way), so we should drop bombs on the whole or Iraq (or baghdad), so that he is removed.

Just a hypothetical question Myee. Please answer it ok.

If john Howard was just as bad a dictator as Saddam Hussien. If he did all the attrocities that Saddam did, everything the same.

Then the US decided that they were going to 'liberate' Australia, and began systematically bombing Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide, every night.

Every night while you were about to sleep, you'd hear bombs going off, occasionally one bomb would sound so close. Imagine how afraid you'd be.

Now imagine, one of those bombs hit your neighbours house, killing them instantly and injuring some of your family members.

How would you feel about the US?? Yes its a hypothetical, but please, try to answer it honestly. How would YOU feel? Not how you should feel.

Firstly it's not systematic bombing of cities willy nilly. It's targeting certain infrastructure. I don't see the US coalition bombing infrastructure like power plants, water plants, etc as it won't help Iraq afterwards. Secondly, how i would feel is that while i would be unnverved by the bombs, i am thinking there's not much else anyone else can do to liberate us. I would say do your best to not hurt the ones you are trying to free and hurry the hell up! I know some think otherwise, but thas how i feel.

The difference between the Perth and Iraqi buisinessmen is that Perth is not experiencing war, hence the businessmen shouldn't have to expect distubances. The Iraqis on the otherhand are, so they should expect some things. Additionally, regardless of this, those disadvantaged will only serve to have a bad view of these protesters, and it will not help their cause.

By the way with the Gandhi posts, i was not aware of some of these happenings, so i shall give these points to you.

 

[manmountain]

I saw the protest for Aboriginal reconcilliation on TV where almost a million people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Peaceful, well-organised and got plenty of press coverage, hence it was succesful in making its point.

That's how a demonstration should be run.

I believe that probably 95% of peace protesters at the moment would be simply happy to march with their banners, shout out their chants and get their message across. However, there is a minority who think that their disapproval of the war somehow gives them a right to damage property and create a public nuisance.

Any protester who breaks the law in the course of their protest should be be charged and dealt with to the full extent of the law. Although I happen to agree with the current war, I think the peace message is a noble cause and I admire people who stand up for their beliefs. What I don't admire is some loud-mouth uni-student who thinks that because they have a placard and disregard for the rights of other members of the Australian public, they have license to create a public nuisance.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Horace
Fred, now fill me in here, you agree with me that I'm right, ie Hitler invaded Poland, and the US, Britain and Australia have invaded Iraq, both on the pretext of getting rid of oppressive regimes. So wheres the need for some history study?.

The point that is applicable here is whether or not the current action is the most appropriate way to deal with such oppressive regimes. I happen to think that it is a highly inappropriate way to deal with the situation in Iraq, just as what Hitler did to start the 2nd World War was completely inappropriate. (And the word inappropriate is "inappropriately" inadequate to describe the horrors that both of these actions have started.)

May I suggest to you that you have some lessons in logic?

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your point and in fact you are condoning the actions of the Hitler regime?

Whatever the case, may I suggest to you and others who support the use of the young men and women of the Coalition forces who have been sent off to kill and maim and be killed and maimed themselves, why don't you all volunteer to go over and take the places of those who are there against their wishes, are sh*t scared of being killed or maimed for life and let them come home safe.

Of course you won't. You are no different to Bush, Blair and Howard, who are old men who start wars, then send young men to fight them on their behalf. Gutless wonders.

Do us a favour and stop bagging people who are making a legitimate contribution by demonstrating and contributing to democracy.

It seems you have misunderstood my post. To compare the actions of Hitler with the action against Iraq makes no sense.
Hitler invaded Poland basically as a land grab. He wanted access to East Prussia.
The invasion of Iraq is to get rid of Saddam, not to take over the country.

There'd be no chance of me being accepted as a volunteer even if I wanted to - age and health would both be against me. I was, however in the Vietnam ballot and would have gone if my number came out.

No war of any sort is good but sometimes it is necessary.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by Malibu#27
What do you mean by "we" ......


When did I give you permission to speak for me ?

Did you take part in the peace rallies, if you didn't then I wasn't speaking for you, "we" meant other people who take part in the rallies, but then you knew that didn't you.

 

[Horace]

Frosties_Flank, if "you are sick of the war and everything that goes with it" then why tune in.

In my view everyone is entitled to an opinion on the war and a means of expressing that opinion and posting on this board is one such entitlement. Equally in my view the act of participating in demonstrations is a legitimate means of expressing an opinion. However if you do not want to hear about, or see it or read about it, well keep quite clear.

Despite what a lot of others have said on this thread, we owe much to our current way of life to those who were and still are prepared to demonstrate and express opinions which are counter to the government of the day (and for that matter the opposition of the day). Take away debate, discussion, demonstration, whether it be as a result of apathy (highly improbable) or by legislation (much more probable) and the very core of our democratic system is at risk. That is when Dictators of the ilk of Saddam Hussein seize their opportunity and before you know it, it is all too late.

There are lots of things that each of us as individuals get sick of hearing about, yet others thrive on. In a democracy we have to be prepared to accept that others are entitled to a view and an opinion and another theatre of interest, even though we might be bored out of our brains.

On this thread also there have been people who have erroneously suggested that the great moratorium marches of the late 60's had no bearing on ending the Vietnam war. They are categorically incorrect.

In the early years of the Vietnam war, the majority of opinion of Australians was in favour of committing troops to the war. This opinion was based on the "domino" theory, that as each country fell under the force of the advancing "yellow peril" from Communist China, our security was at risk and the "commos" had to be stopped in Indo China. Remember the days of the slogan of "all the way with LBJ". But as time passed and US and Australian troops became bogged down in the jungles of Vietnam, and the casualty toll mounted, people began to question and doubt the strategy.

The peace movement, the anti war movement, the demonstrations graphically brought into the loungerooms of Australian families, via the medium of TV, the huge mistake that Australia had made in becoming involved in a conflict that it had nothing to do with and no rightful place in. The anti war movement and the demonstrations were led by the ALP (Dr. Jim Cairns principally) and gradually they built political support in the late 60s to be able to win the 1972 election, when Whitlam immediately withdrew our troops.

The war did not end in the 60's it ended for Australia after Whitlam pulled the troops out in December 1972. Try telling the families of those young men who lost their lives right up to 1972, that the war ended any earlier.

(Should the current war in Iraq drag on and casualties start to mount, which I very much fear, then I suspect that weight of opinion may well flow back the other way.)

So in my view demonstrators have a real and very important place in defending our freedom and our rights. That does not mean that we all have to agree with every protest and every demonstration, but it also doesn't mean that we should denigrate them in the terms that so many have chosen to do in this forum.

In my view far too many people post on this board and seem to think that by posting in extremely disparaging terms, they are making a point. We would not on balance to talk to one another face to face in such rude and crude terms therefore I suggest that those who cannot express opinions in a reasonable and respectful manner, might choose to refrain from posting at all.

 

[Horace]

I'm sorry Fred, but you are the one who made the comparison between the Coalition invading Iraq to take out an opprecssive regime and Hitler invading Poland to also take out an oppressive regime. Go back and have a look at your original post.

My original post compared the actions of the Coalition in invading another country as no different to Hitler invading another country, in his case. Poland, which culminated in starting the 2nd World War.

What I was saying in my post is that the actions of the Coalition today have the potential to threaten global peace just as Hitlers actions did in the 30s. Further the Coalition has not reacted to a situation like that of 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, instead this time they have acted and invaded first. There is a fundamentally dangerous difference in how the two conflicts have started, with the current conflict having far greater potential to incite other pro-Iraq countries.

Like many others I believe that there were other ways to disarm Iraq and at the very least the disarming should have been under the auspices of the UN.

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by Lestat
hehe. Yeah right. Dying for an excuse hey. lol

How bout you show us all how brave you are Estaugh. And next protest, why don't you go and shout abuse at those 'ignorant souls'. Make up an excuse, lets see you put your money where your mouth is.

Such a brave soul you are, typing away at your keyboards.

I wish i could be as brave as you

Why are they still protesting anyway ?
Its not like they are going to stop the war for a minority of the population.
They just cant hack it that their opinion wasnt the one put into action.

 

[Lestat]

Why are they still protesting anyway ?
Its not like they are going to stop the war for a minority of the population.
They just cant hack it that their opinion wasnt the one put into action.

How old are you again???

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by Lestat
How old are you again???

obviously older than you. You just cant get it into your head can you ? Simply put, 50 % of the population are pro war and that is increasing and I saw tonight that hussein has a bit of a dilemma. As the soldiers on foot move further into Baghdad he will use his chemical and bio weapons only at the last minute and this will prove he had them all along. Knowing the protesters they still wont acknowledge that they do have these weapons.

 

[Horace]

Eastaugh, the argument is not about what weapons Saddam has or hasn't got. No one really knows just what he has got, though I think we are all pretty sure that he does have "weapons of mass destruction". However the Coalition also has "weapons of mass destruction" and from what I can see so far, significantly more potent ones.

The protestors are arguing about the morality and the methods that the coalition are using in disarming Iraq. Invading a country and in the process slaughtering many many innocent civilians, as well as some of the Coalition troops in the process, is in my view and I believe in the view of those who are opposed to this war, an abominable act.

There are some very sinister signs emerging that this will not be over quickly and that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I fear that the casualties on both sides will mount substantially and if this is the case support for Australia's involvement may well waver as time goes by.

At the very least any armed attempt to disarm Iraq should have been under the auspices of the UN, though really in my view there should have been a continuation of the diplomatic efforts while the UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time to do their work.

War is just the absolute last resort yet here we all are involved in taking the lives of poor unfortunate innocent people.

 

[luthor]

Originally posted by Horace
.

At the very least any armed attempt to disarm Iraq should have been under the auspices of the UN, though really in my view there should have been a continuation of the diplomatic efforts while the UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time to do their work.

.

Given more time by whom?

In case you missed it, the only reason the Weapons Inspectors got back into Iraq was because the US, GB and to a lesser extent, Australia camped 250,000 troops and a massive build up of military hardware on Mr Saddam's back door.

The "UN" has no army, air force or navy.

So what was the Co-allition(those actually exerting pressure by making a material contribution) supposed to do?

Sit around for weeks or months on end waiting for Saddam to grudgingly concede a few more crummy Al-Samoud missiles?

While France, Russia, Germany and their mates sit on the sidelines pontificating about keeping the "peace".

Can anyone seriously argue that this "Weapons Inspections" charade would have even got off the ground, had it not been for the PHYSICAL, REAL prescence of a threat.????

Can you???

Can anyone who was or is still in favour of this almighty all-seeing "weapons inspections" caper, explain to me EXACTLY HOW it would have continued IF the US and the Co-allition had withdrawn its prescence from the Persian Gulf??????

It's all very well to sit on the fence bluting platitudes about "more time" when you are not the one who has committed the resources that FORCED more time in the first place.

 

[Horace]

Given more time by the US, Britain and Australia of course.

The UN is able to deploy troops through a system of peacekeeping forces made up of troops from a range of countries. That is an option that was never explored as far as I am aware.

Who is to say that right now France, Russia and Germany might not be thinking of doing a bit more than sitting on the sidelines and actually side with Iraq? Highly improbable, but still not beyond the bounds of possibility and in the case of Russia there is evidence that they are already helping Iraq. Think about that one Luthor and all you other warmongers who just blindly support rushing headlong in without thinking about the possible wider ramifications.

Much less improbable is the potential for a number of Arab countries to become involved on the side of Iraq. The angst in that part of the world is quite frightening. If a few of them join in the fun and games will really begin.

Given that there has been a continuing major military presence by the US in the Persian Gulf since the last Gulf War, I hardly think that they had any intention right now of pulling out and going home.

I am not sitting on the fence, I am absolutely opposed to military action. I deplore the loss of human life, any human life.

I think of my 2 children aged 12 and 7 and think that but for the grace of god, it could be so easily us, the innocents in the firing line. I shudder to think that there might be the equivalent of you bloodthirtsy rednecks sitting on the other side just lusting to send the armies in bombing the cr*p out of my children.

Just for one moment think about what it might be like to be on the other side.

The facts are that Hans Blix and the UN asked for more time as they were making progress. The facts also are that the presence of the US and other allied countries in the Middle East since the last Gulf war has actually policed the situation very effectively.

But really Luthor, here is a chance for you and anyone else who likes the idea of massacring a few Iraqis, put your money where your mouth is and saddle up and head off to Iraq and do a few of the hard yards that you are so happy to have done by the troops who are there now. Go over and kill a few innocents why don't you.

Ha Ha Ha, not on your sweet nelly would you. Thats for others to do and get shot at and maybe die. You are a magical lot you warmongering types.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by eastaugh36
Why are they still protesting anyway ?
Its not like they are going to stop the war for a minority of the population.
They just cant hack it that their opinion wasnt the one put into action.

Because we have a right to.............

There was a minority support for peace when the rallies started about Vietnam - have you worked out what happened to public opinion there yet..........

If your so for the war when are you signing up............

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Because we have a right to.............

There was a minority support for peace when the rallies started about Vietnam - have you worked out what happened to public opinion there yet..........

If your so for the war when are you signing up............

Actually, public opinion seems to be going the other way. Support for action against Iraq in this country is increasing if Newspoll is any guide.

 

[Katthawk]

I have to say that when war started I was really annoyed that people were still protesting. However, now it is not that people are protesting against war, but that they are virtually 'at war' against those who have chosen to see that war was inevitable.

Ironically as someone else said, a peace 'protest'. It is not the overall concept that bothers me but the vitriol that comes out and the utter contempt people hold for the 'warmongers' and 'killers'.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If your so for the war when are you signing up............

He would have to leave the safety of his computer to do that, I doubt he would have the guts.

He is even too gutless to confront the peace marchers face to face.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Rob
Actually, public opinion seems to be going the other way. Support for action against Iraq in this country is increasing if Newspoll is any guide.

It did when our troops first went over to Vietnam as well..........until the realities of war set in.........