PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American

These peacenick protestors who can't explain why they are against a war saying:

The fact is, they are ANTI-BUSH FIRST, ANTI-AMERICAN SECOND, and protesting the war just gives them a reason to publicaly oppose Bush.

I recently called in a local talk radio show where the host was debating to protestors. They had no arguments, just platitudes. I asked them if they weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. I asked them if they voted for Bush, of course they did not. They "bristeled" at the question because they were flushed out.

Bottom line, the "protestors" are mainly Gore voters and Nadar voters who want to protest Bush. The war gives them that vehivle to protest. If protestors were polled, 99% would have to admit they they did not vote for Bush. If the anti-war movement had any good reasons to oppose war they would be more like 50%-50% voting for Bush.

CONCLUSION: what we have here is anti-Bush, anti-American protestors. Ask them if they voted for Bush and find out for yourself.

Friendly advice: turn off your CAPS LOCK. It doesn't make your arguments more persuasive, it makes you look like an emotional hysterical nutcase (and that's not what you are, right?).

[I asked you how you knew that the civilians will "feel the brunt" of our war - whether you are privy to our war plans] DO YOU HAVE ANY WAR EXPERIENCE? IF SO, HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW WAR IS FOUGHT?

Why are you trying to change to subject? I'll ask again: what makes you think our war plans involve targeting civilians and making them "feel the brunt", rather than the opposite (bending over backwards to try to minimize civilian casualties)? Are you privy to our leaders' war plans?

[we are going to fight against the regime, not the people] NO, WE ARE NOT. WE WILL WAGE WAR WITH HIS SOLIDERS AND HIS CIVILIANS, NOT WITH HIM.

With all due respect, says who? Yes, surely we will fight against his soldiers (well, the ones who fight back); that's war. But you are saying that we will "wage war" with "civilians". That is ridiculous. Where did you get that idea?

HE, AS HAVE ALL RECENT LEADERS, WILL LIVE IN SAFETY AND COMFORT WHILE HIS PEOPLE DIE AROUND HIM.

We'll see, won't we. Anyway, why don't you do us all (and yourself) a favor and save your hand-wringing and whining for when (and if) that time comes that we've slaughtered millions of civilians. You're protesting supposed mass civilian deaths before the war has even started, as if you already know how that this is how it's going to turn out. It's unseemly and foolish.

echos of his father; starting a war and not finishing it

Let me get this straight, you disapprove that Bush I didn't "finish" the war, but you don't want Bush II to even fight at all. Strange. Seems to me that if you were consistent you'd be saying "I hope Bush II does it right this time". What gives?

[you think assassination's a piece of cake, I think it's not] IF YOU ARE A NATIONAL LEADER (BUSH), AND YOU AUTHORIZE THE ASSASSINATION OF ANOTHER NATIONAL LEADER (HUSSEIN), YOU EFFECTIVELY OPEN YOUSELF UP TO BE A TARGET [...]

Funny. So, right now, Bush isn't a target at all. No one would ever try to lay a hand on him. Only if he "authorized" an assassination would assassins spring up against him.

That is a peculiar thing to believe. Especially given that Hussein actually did try to assassinate Bush I, apparently. Didn't Hussein get the memo that he's not allowed to try to assassinate a leader unless that leader "authorizes" an assassination first?

Anyway, we're off track here. You're still talking as if assassinating a paranoid foreign leader like Hussein - with his bodyguards and doubles and multiple palaces and underground bunkers - is a freakin' piece of cake. All Bush would have to do would be to "authorize" it, and Hussein'd be dead, boom. So easy! Therefore Bush is bloodthirsty because he would rather send soldiers than just dash off this Easy, Simple "assassinate Hussein" memo.

Again, these are very peculiar things which you believe. At this point all I can do is marvel at how good you are at flappin' your gums about how gosh darn easy it'd be to just bump off Hussein. Yes, you're quite the talker all right. Tell you what, hot-shot, if it's so all-fired easy, whyn'cha go assassinate the guy yerself? Go ahead, I give you permission. I'll chip in twenty bucks for the effort. That should be enough, after all, assassinating Hussein is just so, so easy.

Or so you say. Prove it!

[If the war is relatively painless...] GREAT GOD! ARE YOU KIDDING?

Not at all. And don't call me God.

Have you been to war?

No.

With the first bullet fired 'military doctrine' SUCKS! War becomes a crap shoot for politicians and 'military doctrine' changes with the stakes.

I think you are confusing 'military doctrine' with 'battle plans'. The doctrine I'm referring to is the far more precisely targeted means of attack that our technology now affords us. Infrastructure and hardware are far more important targets than ever before simply because we can eliminate them far more efficiently than ever before. Troops alone with small arms are nearly meaningless when facing todays U.S. military. You can whine all you want that Hussein's soldiers will fight and die and he won't but that is war. Soldiers aren't civilians, soldiers do the fighting and dying. That will always be so.

You claim that there were big civilian casualties in Gulf War I but I don't believe that is true. It is their country and Hussein is their leader so they have a price to pay too. No country would do more than we would to focus our force where it belongs, on the military opposition. The Iraqi's won't or can't deal with Saddam. That's how the chips fall.

We went after only military targets during the Gulf War, but do you know how many civilians died? Do you have any idea how much the civilian population of Bagdad suffered from that war? How many continued to die due to health and safety facilities destroyed?

No. Please provide some verified information to back up your claims. This is Free Republic not IRC Chat.

But Hussein lived. He suffered not at all.

You're gonna make me cry. Health and safety facilities? Blow that BS out your you-know-what. Saddam has spent literally BILLIONS on his palaces, never mind his weapons programs. Talk to him about civilian suffering in Iraq.

First Bush proclaimed Hussein 'had to go', we had to get rid of him - - 2nd Bush proclaimed that 'Iraq needs a regime change' (meaning, Hussein can stay, but he must step down) - - 3rd - and NOW - Bush proclaims that we must 'disarm him' (meaning, Hussein can stay in power, but he must surrender his weapons) Which of those goals are you referring to?

You have such a two dimensional mind I doubt that you can grasp how flawed your reasoning is. In #2 and #3 you ASSUME that Hussein will be allowed to stay. 1, 2 and 3 are one and the same, just different ways of saying it at different times in answer to different questions that have been posed to the Bush administration.

You had better get a grip on yourself. This country is on the razor's edge, ready to break out into civil war on one of several fronts. That in addition to the so called "War on Terror" which is a much needed stand against external foes who are many and determined. Yeah, war SUCKS! But sometimes no choice is given. No choice a free human being would accept. I think you are getting different mileage.

After decades of leisurely equivocating what's up and what's down the clock has run out. The time to decide what is right and wrong is ... NOW!

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.