what protest is "OK"?

[nostatic]

I wanted to try and get away from the vitriol in the other thread, and the insistence on painting lunatic fringe and honest americans against the war with the same brush.

Let's assume that the following neocon premise is correct:

Protesting in the US leads to increased deaths of US troops abroad. It does this by any number of mechanisms, including strengthening of the insurgent's resolve (resulting in longer operation period for US troops) and/or demoralizing US troops leading to poorer performance.

So if that is the case, then what is a US citizen supposed to do if they oppose the war? Some might believe that if they don't protest, the war effort will continue unabated, leading to increased casualties. If they do protest it will similarly lead to increased casualties. So what is the "proper" course of action?

I ask this in all seriousness, because it seems to me that the neocon position would prescribe inaction by the masses. What I keep hearing is that one must back the administration in order to back the troops, etc. What is allowable dissent?

[HardDrive]

Quietly expressing your views to your pastor.

[Mulhollanddose]

Protests that are honest...The current demonstrations are not.

[nostatic]

you mean honest like photoshop?

[Mulhollanddose]

The photoshop is more honest than the protest itself...You see what I mean?

[Dan Mc Intyre]

And I suppose you feel that your photochop job is honest depiction of what is happening in that photo? Where is your honesty?

[scottmandue]

Photoshop is kewl

[dd74]

Evidentially, one is not supposed to protest at all - based on the premise being correct.

Fortunately, the premise is not correct, and protesting brings to the forefront to Bush that there is not just his own school of thought when it comes to Iraq.

Protesting demoralizing the troops - possibly - but enough to make those troops lose a war - well, if loud voices can be the determination between winning and losing a war, that says little for our soldiers.

I've heard that in Iraq, dissension is increasing among the troops themselves, and that it has nothing to do with what they hear from home. They (the troops) are sick and tired of this war.

In this argument, the neocon knows that truly, what is feared with Iraq is not worth committing nearly two thousand lives toward. But as their commitment to Bush hazes and convolute what is right and wrong, their belief in the Iraq War grows increasingly tenuous. I believe neocons fear the protesters might push them over the edge by telling them something that they cannot admit to themselves - that the war indeed is wrong.

[bryanthompson]

This is not a photoshop:


Here are answer's ten reasons for protesting on the 24th:

1) More than 100,000 Iraqis have died since March 20, 2003, when Bush began the invasion and bombing of Iraq. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have died and more than 30,000 have been evacuated from Iraq with severe wounds or serious illnesses.

2) Bush lied to the people about the reasons for war: Iraq had no connection to September 11, Iraq had no nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction - and Bush knew it. Iraq id not pose a "grave and imminent danger" to the United States.

3) The Bush administration does pose a grave and imminent danger to any country or people's movement that dares to follow an independent path from the United States: Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Korea, Philippines and more.

4) The real U.S. military budget is now over $500 billion - more than all other countries in the world put together - in the name of "national security." But when the security of the people of New Orleans and the entire Gulf region was ripped to shreds by Hurricane Katrina, the racist, anti-poor Bush administration did almost nothing for days.

5) The Bush administration advocates the right to carry out so-called preemptive war; that is, a war of aggression against any country in the world.

6) The Bush administration is building new nuclear weapons and has announced a military doctrine allowing for first strike nuclear attacks against non-nuclear powers. The U.S. has 10,000 nuclear weapons today.

7) The war in Iraq costs $250 million a day. The Bush administration is proposing to cut $15 billion in education, housing, healthcare and other essential services.

8) The U.S. spends $15 million every day to support Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and to carry out non-stop aggression against the Palestinian people in the territories seized since 1967 and in the borders of historic Palestine.

9) The Bush administration carried out the coup and kidnapping of Haiti's democratically-elected government on March 29, 2004.

10) Every person should have the right to a job, decent housing, healthcare and education, but the resources that could provide for those basic rights is instead spent on militarism. Join us on Sept. 24 to say: "Money for People's Needs, Not for War!"

Their first point is the only legitimate one. They are against war, and they think we shouldn't fight, ever.

[Halm]

Nostatic, that is a great question. Part of the issue may be recognizing the difference between the lunatic fringe and honest Americans. IMHO the fringe elements receive the same media coverage as honest Americans. So when honest Americans do protest they become guilty by association with the wacko’s. Conversely, IMHO the victories we are achieving in Iraq are not covered enough. Again a great question to which I don't have an answer.

Also a sincere question. I see the term neocon used frequently by liberals on the BB. What is a neocon, compared to a conservative, and libertarian?

[jyl]

I think the fact that the majority of the American population now disapproves of the war is probably encouraging the Iraqi insurgency leadership to some degree.

I think, however, the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgency's motivation comes from the simple fact of Western troops occupying muslim soil and Western soldiers holding Muslim prisoners. And I think the vast majority of the missteps in the war are due to poor execution by the US government, including failure to commit enough troops to the occupation, failure to quickly and effectively spend reconstruction funds, failure to understand Iraqi ethnic and religious politics.

If you disagree, I would like to see a link to a Defense Department or CIA or other credible report that cites domestic US dissent as a significant cause of what is going wrong with the war in Iraq or of US troop casualities. I've never seen any such evidence.

Oh, by the way, forged photos and old pics from the 1960s don't count as evidence, at least to thinking people.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Halm
What is a neocon, compared to a conservative, and libertarian?

Neocon = a redefined conservative with a viewpoint (albeit lately a defensive viewpoint) that America can do no wrong.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

How about this:

Vote.

[creaturecat]

FWIW - this is not a war - Iraq has not declared war on the US - this is an illegal occupation. - one should feel proud to demonstrate - regardless of the right wing rhetoric.

[bryanthompson]

okay, how about this one.

If al Qaeda were to lead a protest against the USA, how would it look any different than the one being held today?

[Halm]

Originally posted by dd74
Protesting demoralizing the troops - possibly - but enough to make those troops lose a war - well, if loud voices can be the determination between winning and losing a war, that says little for our soldiers.

I've heard that in Iraq, dissension is increasing among the troops themselves, and that it has nothing to do with what they hear from home. They (the troops) are sick and tired of this war.

To help me put your comments in context, were you ever in the active military?

[Dan Mc Intyre]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
okay, how about this one.

If al Qaeda were to lead a protest against the USA, how would it look any different than the one being held today?

My guess it that it would be a little more violent is all.

[nostatic]

"vote" is one honest answer. but what is the next step beyond that? you can write your representative. but how about if that gets you no traction?

fwiw my guy in iraq doesn't indicate that the troops are demoralized by the protests, and similarly they are not sick of the war, but rather would like to be home with their families (totally understandable). most are there to "do their job" and serve honorably.

but there are some that are not happy to be there, and see little reason for their work. usually these are older officers and reservists who were called up and plucked out of their lives. they still are over there serving, but there are some questions.

as for the intelligence community, i've never had a spook tell me that protest in the us seriously affect our operations overseas. that isn't what drives them. domestic effect, yes.

[Dan Mc Intyre]

Originally posted by Halm
To help me put your comments in context, were you ever in the active military?

I was. USMC 1975/78. Pretty much the civilians didn't care for us at the time. But we didn't really care. We all hung around with each other anyway.

What was the real moral killer for us were the 'Nam guys. They hated being in and didn't give a **** about anything except their discharges. And at the time, the Marines were getting rid of those guys as fast as they could.

That was much worse for me than anything a civilian ever said about me.

Dan

[bryanthompson]

You seem hellbent on starting a revolution, nostatus.

"your guy in Iraq" - that's the source of your anecdotal evidence? If I get 'a guy in Iraq' to say the opposite, will you moveonplease.org ?