Where are the anti-war protesters now?

reply to post by purplemer


Good on you for sharing this information.

The only concern I have is the date: the day of/after the bombing. IMHO, at that point it is too late. The train has left the station. While it may feel good, little will come of it I am afraid.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I haven't seen squat coming out of that camp recently. Prior to Iraq, we had plenty of anti-war marches going on all over the country.

Where are they now?

edit on 27-8-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

Oh, you see...now that the Democrats have THEIR people in office, ITS OKAY if there's war. Its okay if there's destruction...just as long as THEIR TEAM is in the driver's seat.

_________________

I've given up hoping that politicians might
have any decency left in themselves.
Politicians listen to corporations not the people.,
but that works both ways, . . .
we need to stop paying the corporations.
besides,
Prepping has taken precedence over protesting.

_________________

Note on the anti-war protests during Vietnam versus today.

We had a draft during Vietnam. The war was personal to Americans as most were on the hook. Today, that is not so. There is no connection between 99% of Americans and the actions of its military. The very idea of combat in a far off place is as alien to them as, well, aliens.

Why should they get upset over it? Protest what? The pain they inflict via proxy on other humans is abstract and therefore easily ignored. On top of it, most have no idea what is going on in the world so the connection becomes even more ephemeral.

Kudos to the posters who were protesters at one time or another. It may not have changed anything but at least you remembered your connection to the actions of your government regardless of your POV on the matter. As a member of your military, I appreciate your effort even though we may see things differently.

reply to post by seabag


I thought it was called "Kinetic Action" now? I can't keep my Newspeak straight, anyone got a program?

reply to post by TDawgRex

oh this is a democrat/republican bias thread

This is what we have been doing

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ABNARTY

Note on the anti-war protests during Vietnam versus today.

We had a draft during Vietnam. The war was personal to Americans as most were on the hook. Today, that is not so. There is no connection between 99% of Americans and the actions of its military. The very idea of combat in a far off place is as alien to them as, well, aliens.

The war on Vietnam was televised too. Every night at dinner time, Walter Cronkite would remind us of it. Personally, I saw the war televised and the resulting protests televised also. The media back then mostly just reported events instead of spinning it one way or another. I think that the protests outside the white house and in the squares around washington held more weight for ending the war than any other single thing. Also colleges held a big sway too.

What are college kids doing today? What is the media doing today?

That is what some would say: The war in Vietnam was "lost" at home. And that is why.

Further: I remember the video of the little girl running from a village that had just been struck by planes using Napalm...


Nowadays the media shows the kids in Syria after the gas attack and uses that to incite us to go to war. If you have been watching the news over the past few days you know what I mean.

In Vietnam blowing children up was a call to cease fire, in Syria it is a call to start hostilities.

reply to post by votan


It's beyond comprehension that a topic like this can exist on a supposed "awakened" forum. There is only one rule in Washington, and the rule is COLLUSION. It's been obvious for a long while, and the Obama presidency has been more proof than should be needed. It's really sad to see honest people fail to come to terms with this FACT.

Not that I'm arguing interference or non-interference either way (SA is definitively not intervening militarily), I'd just be interested in the ethics of either position.

If this dictator in Syria is really using chemical weapons on civilians, and even relatively minor interference can stop that, then is it really moral not to intervene?

I think earlier interference in Rwanda could have saved thousands of people from being chopped to pieces.

Of course one can say: "Why should our soldiers go there, and sort out another mid-East mess?"

One could even be dismissively cruel and say: "Give both sides chemical weapons and let them fight it out. We're tired of seeing Syria on the news already - boring...!"

Which position could lead to blowback?

Either position could be called a conspiracy eventually.

One will one day say that the world allowed another genocide to happen before its eyes.

Another will simply blame whosoever interferes for more imperialism, and when the next dictator replaces this one it may all have seemed like a waste of resources and personnel.

Nevertheless, if using chemical weapons is against global law, then perhaps it is time to start enforcing the law before it sets a major precedent.

Perhaps there's also a cynicism that suspects that if the global powers had really wanted to end this quickly, they would have done so a long time ago.
On the other hand, they could end it now, or at least fairly quickly.

In that sense, what does being anti-war here mean?
Being anti-war here also means prolonging a very cruel war, so it is also pro-war.

If it means championing a dictator that could be very embarrassing for the future anti-war movement, especially when all the needlessly prolonged atrocity narratives truly come out of Syria.

Originally posted by finitedualities
reply to post by votan

 

It's beyond comprehension that a topic like this can exist on a supposed "awakened" forum. There is only one rule in Washington, and the rule is COLLUSION. It's been obvious for a long while, and the Obama presidency has been more proof than should be needed. It's really sad to see honest people fail to come to terms with this FACT.

.. and how do we expect the rest of the world to wake up if we can't even get a forum to do the same hahahahah

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Code Pink

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

oh this is a democrat/republican bias thread

edit on 27-8-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

Not really, though I guess it could be viewed that way.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Code Pink

So...the Code Pink folk are buying into the MSM line. Neo is right, this is the Zimmerman trial on steroids.

There is NO proof on who used these weapons as of yet.

But people are screaming for war. Gimme a break.

Maybe they are all still busy protesting the zimmerman verdict?

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Code Pink

So...the Code Pink folk are buying into the MSM line. Neo is right, this is the Zimmerman trial on steroids.

There is NO proof on who used these weapons as of yet.

But people are screaming for war. Gimme a break.

Uh no... they are simultaneously protesting the Assad regime and US foreign policy...

reply to post by votan


They're too busy trying to feed their families, or too ignorant to notice. On both counts, I grudgingly give a pass, haha. It's really true that you don't realize all this is going on until you WANT to notice. Then you realize it's more or less too late, and the "what's the point" thing comes up again. I'm sure citizens of former world powers felt the same (Rome, Germany, Etc...)

reply to post by Tardacus


It's really disgusting to tie that media mess into politics, but there you go. Just spouting off like they wanted. Aiming at the lowest common denominator for those stars, I see...

This is very important for the sanctity of the entire world.

www.youtube.com...