those people look so high in the last pic

 

For the simple sake of parity, the same can be said about CNN's liberal left agenda and it's support of Kerry (or whoever is the anti-Bush of the moment).

I really don't want to ge this thread locked, so I'm going to try and steer away from the political and move back to generalizations about protesters. . .

Why does everyone else feel that he or she has the right to speak out on my behalf? I mean, regardless of my political leanings, I really don't want someone out in the street yelling about it AND getting in my way as I try to lead my life. Protesters often cite the line that they are actually defending MY right to free speech by being out in the streets. However, I've found that disagreeing with the crowd will only spark attempts to censor my opinion. Seems a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.

Austblue, I'm not sure who likened Greenpeace to the KKK, or who is advocating increased use of unrenewable natural resources, so I'll just leave that alone. I for one am all for a more environmentally friendly world (I have a degree in Environmental Science ).

ninethreeeleven, you make a very valid point about the point of view of the alleged fighters in Iraq, however, I offer that many (most) of the people fighting the coalition are NOT simply Iraqi citizens fighting to defend their homeland. Instead, there are a number of groups fighting for different reasons. In the case of al Sadr, the group is fighting for control of the country. What they want is power and authority so they may impose their personal agendas as law. The do not want a democratic process, because they would be in the minority. The use of force is their only chance to impose their will upon the rest of the country.

In the case of the jihadists, they too are not fighting to defend their homeland. These individuals are fighting the coalition to promote their Islamic extremist agenda. Again, they are fighting out of a hatred for western ideals, not because they want to free Iraq from an invading force. Many of these people are not even Iraqis, so it is difficult to say that they are defending their homeland.

Finally, there are the few holdouts who are still fighting to repel the advances of coalition forces. So in that respect, you are correct. Some of the fighting does fall within the realm of "defense," though I suspect it is a very small percentage of the overall violence.

Damn, how did I get away from protesters again???

Oh yeah, the google ads on the bottom of this page are great!

And lastly, Jon Stewart is on ABC Nightline right now. I love that guy! He's an alum of my alma matter too! Funny, funny Jon Stewart.

 

happs the kkk thing was on the first page of this thread and not directed at you so Im glad you didn't misinterpret that

Am I the only one that sees the irony in an american criticising another country for fighting against their attackers? You do realise that the US invaded iraq to impose "their" will upon another country right? How is this different? Or are "they" speaking on behalf of the Iraqi people?

This valid opinion is an extremely strong arguement against the rest of your post. Innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed. If Iraq were to invade the US because they felt that Bush was a tyrant do you think that you would stand idly by smiling as you watch foreign tankers bomb your neighbours and family with the justification that they were fighting for your freedom? Or would you be inclined to oppose such a movement on your behalf as you so clearly state as your perogative wrt protestors?

While I may take on board your opinion that "our enemy" is fighting for tyranny and dictatorship, I dont feel that I can agree with it as a blanket statement and it certainly appears hypocritical when you look at the US' opposition movement.

Perhaps iraq also has an electoral college and they are the ones that voted for the US to invade

 

Got it. The first page feels like soooo long ago that I forgot about that post. . .

I think the difference is the basic premise behind the actions. The United States government invaded Iraq to rid the country (and the world) of a perceived threat. Whether or not that threat existed in the first place is definitely not for this thread. . . so I'll leave it alone. Anyway, the idea is to now instill the democratic process within the country of Iraq. The actions taking place now are being done to build a nation, whereas the actions of al Sadr's army are nothing more than attempts to return to despotism. I think that a majority of the Iraqi people still support the idea of a democratic society, not a secular ruling party. So, the actions of these few do NOT speak on behalf of the people of Iraq.

I don't know that you can compare the two situations. There is a big difference between armed conflict and protesting (though certain groups try as hard as they can to blur the lines ). It is difficult to say that the RNC in NYC or the DNC in Boston killed the friends and relatives of any of the protesters. So the question is, do these people have the right to inconvenience everyone else? I guess war is "protesting" to the extreme in a very, very tangential way of looking at it, but I'm not one who sees it that way.

[QUOTE]Perhaps iraq also has an electoral college and they are the ones that voted for the US to invade

 

No man they are the bums that I see off my freeway exit everyday

 

nps happs, I was dragging it further OT so I'll leave it there.

I will offer my own generalisation thats back on topic though, full time uni students can have more than enough time on their hands to get involved in these sort of rallies and protests, I should know, I was full time for my first 3 years and surfed or went to the gym most days between classes.
Another generalisation would be to say that art students live for the stuff but that wouldn't really be fair would it

 

Just coming in from work this morning and a local radio station has a reporter at the convention site. Apparently today the tact of protesting naked has taken over in several small area of the city, but the reporter did note that large groups of protestors this morning were carrying plastic bags full of what appears to be....um.....urine. Unless the new hippie style craze is to carry around your own pee.

I imagine that these are to presumably to lob at someone just exercising their right to take part in the political process. The reporter also noted that most of the anarchist groups are just chanting "F-off, go home, we hate you....." They have every right to dislike whomever they want but what is the point of this "protest"? To swear at people and lob bags of urine does not seem to be much of a peaceful free speech protest as it seems to be just a bunch of immature thugs acting like a-holes.

The mindset seems to be "Let me express my deranged political opinion in any vile form I come up with as long as it allows me to infringe on your right to expreess yours."

 

Especially with the mindset thought!!

You never heard on any protestors at the DNC doing such things. And if the RNC deligates were to throw urine on them, it would cause an uproar in the liberal press. There is such a double standard for liberal protestors, and it really makes me sick. Instead of having crazy protests, why didn't they go to the DNC and show their party positive support.

 

You're absolutely right!

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FoxNews(the worst) all have great websites don't they?

 

Then that would be not voting at all...an informed vote that is.

Out of 290 million people in this country competent enough to be President our only two choices are blue bloods that attended Yale and were miraculously "tapped" to be one of the 15 they choose each year to be Skull and Bones?

No...this isn't setup. Either way we vote we still lose.