Posted on 10/07/2001 8:12:36 PM PDT by LisaFab
Forgive me if someone else has posted this info. I've not yet seen another after-action report on this afternoon's FReep of 'peace' protestors in Union Square park.
We had a small but dedicated group of about 75 FReepers & walk-ups counter-protesting the "Give Peace A Chance" group occupying Union Square park.
I arrived about 2:00 PM and the reception we received from passersby was electric! Horns were honking and we were given the 'thumbs up' sign by 2/3 of those who drove by.
Many took photos and I would like to think that our demonstration was the reason that the peaceniks moved their 'festivities' down the street about 4 blocks.
We could barely hear their inane and monotonous droning as we drowned them out with chants of: "Hey Osama, it's time we bombed ya!" Little did we know at the time that bombs were indeed dropping in Afghanistan.
The indomitable RaceBannon closed the FReep with a hearty 'three cheers' for the NYPD, which was well received by all.
All in all a great day for America.
We're all on the same side here(besides the Blame America First crowd).
Re: The price of doing nothing
I posted this to someone else on another thread. It's too late to re-type so I'll just copy the text to here.
I'm sorry this post is so long, but I've seen your posts on other threads of this topic and you seem to want a response.
The Communist Vietnamese invaded Cambodia about three years after the Communist Cambodian dictator, Pol Pot came into power. After the U.S pulled out of Vietnam and the S. Vietnamese forces were defeated, Pol Pot executed or starved approx. 1 million Cambodians. He was especially intent on weeding out the educated and teachers. The Vietnamese occupation killed many more. China was still supporting Pol Pot guerrilla fighters in the 1980's. Apparently, the "unification" under communism didn't improve too many lives. And, arguably the U.S withdrawal cost quite a few.
No one can predict with any certainty future results in national struggles. A nation can only act on the past behavior of its opponent, its own moral and political beliefs, and the moment. If we attack Afghanistan, lives will be lost. If we don't, lives will be lost. The Taliban regime has attacked us in the past. (The Cole, US embassy, WTC bombing in 93) and our response has been anemic, at best. I cannot state that retaliation will halt all possibility of further attacks. However, limited responses, diplomacy, and emergency aid certainly haven't worked.
Morally, I believe the people of a nation have the right of self-defense. The WTC was not a military target. Since we were not in a declared war with Bin laden or the Taliban, arguably neither was the Pentagon. The Taliban frequently murder and torture women and dissenters. Although any U.S. action may cause innocent deaths, our inaction will certainly do so, if the past is a predictor. No one can say which will cause more. However, the U.S is one of very few nations I know who rebuild the infrastructure and provide aid to civilian population of enemy nations after a war. We still send emergency food and medicine to the Afghani people. We sent the same to Iraq. However, Hussein was not allowing it to be distributed. I have yet to see one example of the Taliban (or a Communist Nation) do the same.
The protestors who are wishing for peace won't receive it, either way. If we allow our enemies to become stronger, that will only allow them to murder more of us and more of their own people. They have stated such in their words and have certainly demonstrated such by their deeds.
The anti-war people have also not offered any credible alternative to war. What can we do? Shut down transportation and make sure no terrorist can ever enter our county again? Not feasible and besides, that would be a violation of civil liberties and profiling as well. I'm sure that would go over well.
What else then? Shouldn't we just give them all our money and let them live like us? Good luck! If giving money, aid, access to U.S. universities, and a free pass to the most successful nation on Earth worked, we should be the most popular people on the planet. Besides, many of the hijackers have been exposed to western civilization for years. They had money, education, food etc. and somehow, it didn't seem to make them happy. Perhaps, they just aren't willing to "Give Peace A Chance".
So what are we left with? To do nothing. Doing nothing is, in itself a course of action. Would allowing the deaths of over 6000 people of many races, nations, sexes, and religions to go unopposed end the brutality? The "peace police" seem to think so. They also thought so when we left Vietnam. Chamberlain thought so when he proposed "peace in our time". The Communist movement thought so when Stalin enacted his "purges". Many Germans thought so when they looked the other way as Jews were taken to "relocation camps". History seems to suggest otherwise.
What the hell are you talking about? Before I launch into an attack, I think you replied to the wrong person, but I thought I would ask you first. Is this intended for our little Frog disruptor
My sign said:
Voting and ceremonies here at Free Republic on October 24, 2001 in honor [choke] of the United Nations 56th Anniversary.
View my profile page for more info…
Obviously either the caller didn't attend or saw double. I estimate 500 at most!
The grandfather of a lost WTC victim was one of their guest speakers. He read a letter his daughter and son-in law sent to President Bush asking we refrain from seeking retaliation -- "Don't do it in the name of New York, or the name of our son'. This does not ease our pain; does not unify us", blah blah blah. He then lead the group in song to the melody was "Down By The Riverside". After hearing the first stanza ("Drop down your hands and swords, down by the riverside, down by the riverside") I left in disgust.
Dfu, surely you can do much better with that melody.
Yesterday was my third freep and the best time I've had at one so far. I don't go to these things under any illusion that we'll ever outnumber the other side--they're a little too good at calling up numbers of people with nothing better to do. I go because I've noticed that many passersby are actually RELIEVED to see us--they get a look on their face that says "Wow, there ARE sane people here after all, maybe the world has not gone completely crazy."
I spent too many years in this town being "polite" in response to far-left rudeness (that's how I was raised, to be "polite" to jackasses in social situations), but no more. I don't worry about offending them anymore. They SHOULD be offended on a regular basis. And reminded that they really are on the fringe.
The park was crowded, but the NPR caller was being deceptive. There's been one of those impromptu "memorials" in Union Square since the night after the attacks on the WTC, and it's grown daily (it has also been co-opted by antiwar sentiments to the point where it sickens me). That memorial attracts many visitors, as do the shops around the square.
STILL, even with all that going on yesterday, the crowd in the square was in the hundreds, not the thousands, and they were not all there for the peace rally! The peaceniks marched around the square singing at one point, and my estimate of their number was between 300-400. 12,000 would have been a sea of people that would have closed traffic for their march to Bryant Park or times Square or wherever they ended up. That didn't happen--it looked they all fit on the sidewalk!
No love on top of the WTC for sick and perverted peace punks.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Let's see...in your '60s style, doped up version of reality, it's okay for anti-americans to wave signs, but not Pro-Americans? No dissent is allowed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.