• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Why is this war so unpopular?

Biggles of 266

1st Level Red Feather
Joined
Apr 26, 2001
Messages
1,126
Points
36
This is an important question which I can't remember seeing anywhere in the news. I read a lot of it on the net, including opinion pieces and editorials, but nobody has asked WHY millions are turning up in the streets.

Why do you think this war is so heavily protested?

Biggles
 
Maybe the idea of the US as a big, bad soulless aggressor (whether it is, indeed, or not) has finally come to fruition. Globally.

I, for one, am only worried aboot civilian casualties, but SoDamInsane and his inhuman regime definitely has to go. The day-to-day citizens in Iraq need now to enjoy their place in the sun, as it is long overdue.

Cheers.😀
 
IS the war unpopular? Let's get serious.

Your question doesn't specify whether you mean that you feel the war is unpopular domestically, abroad, or both. Let me take these one at a time.

Worldwide:
The rest of the world knows that America will attack eventually, regardless of world opinion. Since anyone who supports America in this endeavor will expose themselves to terrorist attacks such as those of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the USS Cole & many American embassies, foreign countries have nothing to gain from supporting America & everything to lose. Therefore, they'll publicly condemn the war and pretend to be neutral until America wins. After that, I expect that our "allies" will pretend that they supported us all along.

Domestically:
Bear in mind that opposing Bush has been popular for quite some time because of the way that he was elected. Also bear in mind an ugly truth about Americans: we're not serious people.

Think about this: people complain often in America about the high price of gas, high auto insurance rates, high mechanics' bills, parking shortages, air pollution from exhaust, and traffic jams. But if someone suggests public transportation, bicycling, or walking (instead of driving), they're treated as if they were crazy. There are many ads on TV talking about how drug $ supports terrorism--and it does. However, no one talks about the countries we buy our oil from--most of which are Middle Eastern countries that are supportive of many terrorist groups against the United States. How much of the $ to fill the gas tanks is ending up in terrorists' hands?

The war is just one of the many things Americans aren't serious about.

We pay extra welfare $ for promiscuity.

We pay millions of $ for the department of homeland security--you remember them, the guys who recommend securing your house with duct tape?

We go to McDonald's by the millions for our food, and then sue them for making us fat.

We let homeless people urinate in front of office buildings & live in public parks, and call them crazy--while we avoid those same parks, paid for with taxes from working people.

We elect congressmen who used to be lawyers (whom we don't trust) to write our laws, and pay them with taxes which they get to set.

We know politicians from our two major parties lie to us, and represent the lobbies at the expense of the voters--yet we donate millions to them every year and won't elect independent candidates, or candidates from other parties.

Finally, we believe everything we read on the Internet and everything we see on reality TV, but we won't read the newspaper, watch the news or keep informed about anything. Something might think we're intelligent, and that we think we're better than they are.

No, we're not serious people. We complain about our problems in this country, sure, but actually do something about them? Not our responsibility.

Hussein hates us. He calls America the Great Satan. Iraq has stockpiled anthrax, nerve gas and other weapons for the last 12 years. Hussein likes al Qaeda, because they hate America. The UN passes resolution after resolution telling him to stop, but he won't. That's a problem.

American troops can stop him from killing people, and helping terrorists kill people. Everybody knows America can stop him--America, the UN, even Iraq. What nobody wants to hear is how--w/weapons, and that means *gasp* war. Nobody wants to hear that there will be war w/Iraq someday whether America attacks or not. Everybody wants peace w/Iraq--except Hussein. Hussein wants time to build on Irag's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Everybody knows what will happen if America attacks. Iraq will lose. What no one knows is what will happen if America DOESN'T attack, and Hussein continues his strategy. I, for one, don't want to know what Hussein will do left to his own devices. Iraq doesn't have the protests we have, because they're *gasp again* ILLEGAL in Iraq!

No, the war's not really all that unpopular--except to Hussein and the terrorists. The Americans protesting the war over here aren't protesting an unpopular war; they're protesting to be popular--it's more socially accepted, not to mention easier, than being informed.
 
I spoke to my senior history teacher (he lives a few miles from me and we were good friends) and he told me that this is "just like 1967" when they had mass protests of the Vietnam war

He went on to say that just like the hippies of the 60s, they really did not know **what** they were protesting for, they just wanted to protest so they can "go along with the crowd".

That's just his opinion.
 
Hippies?

**ANOTHER INSULT UNDER MODERATION REVIEW**.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol lol lol lol lol ok guys I agree with you on all points but if you keep making the mods edit your posts then only one side's opinion gets shown, THE WRONG SIDE so lets keep it semi-civil for OUR sakes.
 
All war SHOULD be unpopular. We shouldn't HAVE to blow someone to bits and devastate a country just to make them play nice with the rest of the world. Protesting is fine, but when push comes to shove, it is the Governments that will make the decision of whether or not there will be a war.

At that point we need to show support and maintain a united front, whether or not we want a war.


*My only 2 cents*
 
Possibly because the US could well be

less secure rather than more secure after the war. A preemptive attack on a Muslim country invites recruitment for terrorist organizations. A more proactive strategy would be look for opportunities to attenuate the poverty in these countries that breed terrorists, a philosophy born of despairation and deprivation. If Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, he has made no overt effort to use them on the United States or Israel. We have a tough case to make to do what we are doing. This is why this war is unpopular.

Rook
 
heavy?

I'm not so sure this is heavily protested as much as it's just the people who are protesting are getting a great amount of coverage by the media. Besides, no one publically lines the streets lobbying FOR war, so it's not like we have anything to compare the protests to either! 🙂
 
venray1 said:
All war SHOULD be unpopular. We shouldn't HAVE to blow someone to bits and devastate a country just to make them play nice with the rest of the world. Protesting is fine, but when push comes to shove, it is the Governments that will make the decision of whether or not there will be a war.

At that point we need to show support and maintain a united front, whether or not we want a war.

Venray, I wish all countries (including those led by dictators) would "play nice" (not words I would've chosen, but OK...) I wish I knew what else we could do, short of war, to resolve this tension. UN resolutions haven't worked. Economic sanctions have accomplished nothing save making Iraqis suffer. The peace treaty Hussein signed (under duress, I'll admit) after the '91 war called for Hussein to disarm, which he hasn't done yet. Hussein promised to do it again today, to which Hans Blix wondered why Hussein hadn't already done so. I wish I believed that this time would be different than the last 12 yrs, but I don't.

As for "all war should be unpopular"--I'm glad you weren't making that case in Hitler's day. Agonizing as wars are, there ARE times when they're necessary. Is this one of them? I think so, but I'm not sure. Bush seems sure--which is what scares many people.

The last sentence confuses me...😕 by "united front", do you mean unite behind Bush & troops during the war, or unite with the protestors to attempt to prevent it?
 
Missed my point entirely...We should be able to live in a world without war...in the event that war becomes necessary we must support those that make the decision to wage it..they are the leaders we put nto power (and please let's not go with the I didnt put them there argument people)and we have to show a "united front" and support our leaders. If not, then the enemy has already won.......

As far as Hitler goes, again ..my point is that war SHOULD be unpopular, because it should be unnecessary..I never said that it was unnecessary.....Hitler,Saddam,Osama...the conditions should not exist that allow this type to flourish and take power over others...
 
A European Point of View

Why is this war so unpopular ,
well a lot of Europeans ,including me and my friens ,doubt about reasons Bush gave the world let me explain it to you :

1.) Today the Bush Administration tealls us that S.Hussein has Massdestruction Weapons and he would us it against people and what could happenes.

But in Fact S.Hussein already used such weapons ,biological and chemical weapon, in 1988,1989 and 1991 against a Tribe ,the kurdes,in Northern Iraq and Saddam nearly was be able to finish a genoicide.His army committed crimes against humanity and swept thousands of kurdes away.
But no one gave a damn... about the kurdes ,neither USA or Europe.

2.) If you look when Bushs rhetorik against Irag started,it was around the 11.september 1 Year after the Terrible Assault in New York,
it seemed so after he wasn't be able to catch Osama Bin Laden or destroy the El Quaida Bush needed someone or something to show to the americans that the administration is doing something.

3.) Maybe the biggest reason is ,look who helped Saddam Hussein to claim the Power in Iraq und who supported him with Massdestrucion weapons in the Golf war.The father of Bush and a Guy called Mr.Rumsfeld...........

Don't get me wrong for me Saddam Hussein and his terror regime must be disarmed and swept away,but in my opinion it had to be done sooner.
 
what I said was not insulting

all I said was Ticklemaster's college professor friend didn't know what a hippie was. Hippies did not protest the Vietnam War in 1967. Hippies were artists and very apoltical. Just because a guy had long hair in 1967, or a girl wore her hair like Joan Baez and went barefoot all the time, didn't make anyone a hippie. To lump the New Left and the hippes together is an injustice for both groups. Most hippies didn't care about the war because they wouldn't have been asked to fight it. Sex and drugs and rock & roll were all their brains and bodies needed.

My post was not insulting. I was merely trying to clarify a popular misconception among the pro-war conservatives and mainstream media of 1967 as to what a hippie really was.
 
A question I need too ask

Would protesting really do anything about it? When was the last time a protest really made a difference? I'm not reflecting upon my opinion as I am merley asking an honest question.
 
Regarding 46&2's q...

For an example of a successful protest, I recommend reading Bridge Across Forever by Richard Bach. (No relation.) One of the author's many adventures was the protest of the logging of nonregenerative timber on federal land, a practice which was stopped after two years of organized legal action against the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the United States federal government.

While this wasn't a protest against a war, the author's wife (who is one of the characters) was a Viet Nam war protestor. She describes the elements necessary for a successful protest: no threats or emotional appeals. Threats against the federal government will only guaranteed military action. (Ask any one who was at Kent State during the protests there that resulted in the shooting of four protestors by the National Guard.) Emotional appeals mean nothing to the federal government. To create changes within the federal government, a protest doesn't need marching in the streets, sit-ins, or posing for the cameras. What gets the government's attention is legal action. When the protestors know the law better than federal government, and when they can sue the federal government and win, then and only then do they have a chance.

Sure, it's hard to do, but it's still much simpler than eliminating world hunger and hoping it'll eliminate the need for war.
 
the moderators are extremely biased politically and it would be hard to do that shinning. In fact if we could i think we should petition them to stop acting like the deparment of homeland militarization. but this post will probably be deleated by them for saying this.

all i said in this threat was that the kids high school teacher, not they kid, must not be that smart. thats a valid point to make. whereas i have seen and im sure you have seen also right wing people making openly racist remarks towrds people of middle eastern decent and get away with it, im sure the moderators just laugh.

i can personally see a reason for editing for racism and physical threats but i would complain if there werent.

dear mr moderators,
stop overeacting, or at least stop being biased
 
Waste of text...

I guess reasonable warnings will be ineffective with some posters. You've been given a lot of leeway, spies, but our patience is not limitless. Feel free to post your "examples" of the biased flaming statements that were left unmoderated, including links to them, of course. We've heard this song before... :sowrong: Q
 
August,

Given my posts here on forum, and my moderation, please describe my politics and their bias.

Myriads
 
ikcawon

Maybe this reply will clarify some things.

On your first point, I don't quite get what you're trying to say. We know that Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction.That is the whole point....he has used them in the past,and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't use them again.
If there was no regard for the Kurds,explain why efforts were made to feed,shelter, and protect them after the Gulf War.If any effort had been made earlier to rectify the situation,there would have been more screams of "US imperialism" from Europe and the middle east,just
as there are now.

Your second point is missing some information.Iraq has been trouble since the Gulf War,firing at coalition aircraft dozens of times.
They have also violated 12...12....of the UN's resolutions that Europe holds so dear,but seems unwilling to do anything to enforce.
This is one of the reasons that many have contempt for the UN.

What I'm saying is that Hussein has been an ongoing problem,who has been poorly "managed".The evidence that points to Iraqi support of terrorism is just the last straw.Europe is screaming about it as it is,so you could imagine the reaction if the US had done something earlier.

Your third point has some major misunderstandings,so let's keep pointing the finger:

The Scud missiles used by Iraq were made in Russia.
The radar used by Iraq was made in France.
The Mig jets and helicopters Iraq uses were made in Russia.
Today, the centrifuges used in Iraqi chemical and nuclear processing were made in Germany.
For years,French politicians had no problems showing their support for Iraq.
What is obvious here is that all 3 of these countries are in Europe.
What else is obvious is that all 3 of them are doing the most bitching about the US and the war plans.One has to wonder what other
involvements might be disturbed by this war.

People might as well stuff all the "you built him" bullshit:there's plenty of blame to go around.

On your last point,I have to agree. The US and UK should have gone ahead and did Hussein in in 1991.
 
Re: Regarding 46&2's q...

RichardAuc said:
For an example of a successful protest, I recommend reading Bridge Across Forever by Richard Bach. (No relation.) One of the author's many adventures was the protest of the logging of nonregenerative timber on federal land, a practice which was stopped after two years of organized legal action against the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the United States federal government.

While this wasn't a protest against a war, the author's wife (who is one of the characters) was a Viet Nam war protestor. She describes the elements necessary for a successful protest: no threats or emotional appeals. Threats against the federal government will only guaranteed military action. (Ask any one who was at Kent State during the protests there that resulted in the shooting of four protestors by the National Guard.) Emotional appeals mean nothing to the federal government. To create changes within the federal government, a protest doesn't need marching in the streets, sit-ins, or posing for the cameras. What gets the government's attention is legal action. When the protestors know the law better than federal government, and when they can sue the federal government and win, then and only then do they have a chance.

Sure, it's hard to do, but it's still much simpler than eliminating world hunger and hoping it'll eliminate the need for war.

Thank you! I'll definitley look into it.
 
What's New

2/22/2025
Visit Clips4Sale for the webs largest selection of fetish clips in one site!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top