Is it ok to protest against the invasion of Syria?

[lee635]

OK, so no one could say anything bad about the Iraq invasion once troops were "on the ground".

So is it ok with the Fox News types for protesters to voice their opinion about a potential invasion of Syria? I know you'll focus on the fact that these protestors might, Heaven forbid, walk in the street and thereby disrupt traffic or something, but I'm talking about the more fundamental issue of holding up a sign in opposition to a war in Syria.

Is that delicate and ever narrowing window of right-wiing tolerance for pesky protests open at present or did I blink and already miss the free speech window for opposition to the upcoming war with Syria?

Or has a Fox News pundit already come out with some new, even more tortured logic as to why anyone who disagrees with Mr. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld should be arrested for sedition? Maybe since Syria is right there next to Iraq, any protest against the Syrian invasion might endanger soldiers in Iraq or something along those lines?

I like Fox News because they're fair and balanced and they're 100% behind the war.


AP (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030414/D7QDG0SO0.html)
"President Bush and his top officials would not say whether they are considering military action against Iraq's neighbor."

[guest]

Dont we have to invade syria before you can protest it????

[lee635]

Oops, meant for the potpourri forum, sorry.

[Scott Greczkowski]

Then after Siria I would bet Iron is next.

[RichW]

Nope, after Syria, Lebanon will be next. At least it will if the goal is to go after terrorists and places supporting them. This will also finally get even with the bombing of the Marine Barracks there.

Certainly Iran could be one of those. In fact, I believe they are giving safe haven to Bin Laden right now. However, Iran has a much more formidible army than Iraq and has been keeping a low profile.

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski
Then after Siria I would bet Iron is next.

Not sure where Iron is.. Is it bordering Kevlaristan?

;)

So was that original post an attempt at humor? I love how people just poo poo the the complaints of others. "ohhh, just a few people were in the streets" or "just some people standing in front of buildings."

No, they literally blocked traffic. No one could get to work to actually earn a living, no emergency vehicles could pass. But I suppose someone dying because an Ambulance couldn't get there would be collateral damage for anti-war protesters?

Talk about putting yourself on a pedestal.

It has nothing to do with disagreement of anyone. It has to do with your actions. If you break the law while protesting, be a man and deal with the consequences.

You can oppose anything you please.

I encounted a small pro troop rally the other week. They held signs and marched. But unlike the unwashed masses in SF, they actually followed the traffic signals. Can you imagine? They actually walked at the green lights and stopped at the red.

But if you want to protest against invading Syria, you might want to wait until our administration says anything about it, then at least you can accuse them of lying.

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by RichW


Certainly Iran could be one of those. In fact, I believe they are giving safe haven to Bin Laden right now. However, Iran has a much more formidible army than Iraq and has been keeping a low profile.

Actually, I think Iran will be taken from the inside. There are already mass demonstrations and it seems like the people will rise up and do it themselves. The US will probably help the leaders of the opposition; but won't invade.

[RandyAB]

We will not go to war with Iran, like so many on this board have said before, there is already too much civil unrest against the government that administration would not want to do anything to stop it. As for Syria, I have not really heard of anybody talk about a war with them in the Bush administration yet. The only time it gets brought up is when someone from the Left says that that is what Bush is going to do next.

[Mark Holtz]

The diplomatic channels are still open. And, the Arab countries may be more willing to negotiate (unlike George $teinbrenner or Conca$t).

[waydwolf]

    Iran's leaders are grudgingly moving to a more moderate way thanks to disatisfaction of their aging youths who will over time gain enough power to simply overthrow them and they fear going the way of French kings and unlike China, they can't delay it with a massacre.

    Syria is the hands on favorite to be next, but will not likely be real soon. They will watch as Iraq rebuilds, solidifies friendliness with the west, the US, and probably even Israel as least as far as Egypt has.

    They will sh*t bricks as they find Iraq not only no longer an ally but a definite threat.

    Ideally, the new Iraq would join a new coalition to eliminate Syria as a problem. Jordan would not loose any sleep over the loss. With a reformed and better behaved Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and a moderating Iran, the physical support for much of terrorism would be gone.

    Then two fronts: the US AND the rest of the middle east put their hands on the shoulders of the Israelis and Palestinians, shove them into the peace bargaining table, and make them stay until they talk sense.

    And the second one means pushing the Saudis to moderate away from their Wahabbi inanity and their anti-west flirtation or face a combined b*tch-slapping from nations that were once enemies to each other, but are now joined.

 

[lastmanstanding]

lee635,

You are free to protest your heart out. A problem I see is that the next target is not clear, and may not be taken by military action. Now that the US has some credibility in the Middle East, cooperation of previously beligerant nation states should be and already is forthcoming.

Yemen has come around, Iran is making less noise, Syria is being concilliatory on one hand and not so on the other. They don't know what to do.

I guess they might decide not to play nice, and that is Syria's choice, and they might get the idea that the protestors will save them, while they didn't save Iraq.

The Human Shields who fled before the war after learning Saddam expected them to stay near actual targets probably didn't help your cause in the eyes of the Syrians. The Iraqi's carrying the big sign telling the human shields to go home (I presume there were stragglers) hurt all the protestors' credibility. At least what they were protesting was not supported by the free Iraqi people.

Protesting 'not in the name of the Iraqi people', I suppose.

But please, protest away. I really like hunger strikes. Try not eating until Bush leaves the White House in 2008. Sorry, that was mean. It takes courage to support unpopular causes, and that needs to be respected.

Personally, I would give it a few weeks and see what pops up. I suspect the big guns will be given a rest until after 2004. Much of what needs to be done now can be handled covertly. Iraq was the last really big bone to chew.

The war on terror is working, and we are all better off because it is.

[BobMurdoch]

Folks... folks. Do not confuse saber rattling with invasion. Syria is letting high ranking regime leaders into Syria (that's assuming they haven't already taken refuge in the Russian embassy) and the US is trying to stop that.

This country is split 50/50 down the middle and there is an election next year. Don't plan on anything happening until next year at the earliest ASSUMING that Afganistan and Iraq are stable by then.

That will NOT stop the US or the 24 hour nets from trying to insinuate that Syria or Iran is next. Look at the changes in attitude coming out of North Korea now. We just sent 2 aircraft carriers home. All of the threats were all negotiating tactics. (Anyone see "13 Days".... Remember that JFK rep in the war room? "Don't you know what this IS? It's language!")

North Korea thought it could get quick concessions due to our "distraction" with Iraq. Which worked in that we didn't send carriers off their coast and downplayed their provocative actions.

Now that the Patriot 3 was so successful in the war, we insinuate that their missiles that they threatened to lob at LA can be shot down easily, assuming that their propulsion and navigation systems work in the first place. Oh and by the way, WE ininuate that after that first missile is airborne, we have 1000 heading back to solve South Korea's problem once and for all. By the way, no lectures on nuclear winter, radiation fallout moving to South Korea,.etc. I agree. It's all just LANGUAGE. A means to get North Korea to stop using threats as a means to extort aid from us.

We called Iraq's bluff and guess what? 150 dead. Half was by us. And compare the mortality rate of soldiers in peacetime. How many active soldiers die in car accidents within US borders. Out of 250,000 I think you'll find the number fairly high. I acknowledge that it is no consolation to anyone who knows someone who was lost, but in the history of warfare (including the Gulf War) never before has so much been accomplished with so little loss of life. Yes, there were civilian casualties, but how many a year did Saddam kill? I think that number is being shown to be much higher than any believed. War is a nasty business, but a "little revolution every now and then is a good thing". Peace at all costs inspired many bullies around the world to do heinous deeds. I believe this will inspire many would be bullies to curtail their ambitions.

I may be wrong. I may be right. Only time will tell. I only know that I buried a friend who was in the World Trade Center and my wife worked across the street at the World Financial Center the first time they tried to take the building down. The old system wasn't working for me anymore, and I sense that the current tenant of the White House and I agreed.

So everyone take a pill and relax. We are not invading Syria next week because it is just convenient that we have them there ready to go. We are not playing "Risk" here. This is just the first attempt to emphasize the change in the game that has taken place since 9/11. DO look for lots of verbal threats, but also look for lots of backroom deals to defuse those threats.

I personally think that Bush and Blair will have History look favorable upon them. And I'm a Republican that voted for Gore because I thought that a Republican Congress and Democratic was best for the economy, so I am not some FoxNews drone spouting off rhetoric for "my" guys.

My apologies for the rambling rant, but people have been going NUTS over the last few weeks and I had to get this off my chest.

[Mike123abc]

Actually the two aircraft carrier groups being sent home are Pacific based... They will be much closer to N. Korea (one in Japan one in San Diego). We have also been building up our troups in Guam. N. Korea probably wants to really talk more now because they realize that unlike 10 years ago, the US could actually use force.

[lastmanstanding]

BobMurdoch,

How do you think Gore would have handled things after 9/11?

IMHO, the Clintonoids were genuises at handling the press and the Republicans, but that genius did not carry beyond our borders.

I believe Gore said he would not have gone to war in a speach recently, but I don't have any details, and don't want to take things out of context.

[lee635]

Mike123abc, No way the US is going to invade N Korea. They have a real army, like the fifth largest in the world, and lots of ships, tanks, even artillery that can fire on populated S Korean cities. No, Mr. Bush find a "diplomatic resolution" to that crisis...

Yeah, the post was pretty sarcastic, sorry about that -- the wife tore something in her knee and has been a bear for the last week. Anyway, just pointing out that on the one hand you have political correctness and on the other side there's partriotic correctness. ;)

[gcutler]

Originally posted by lee635
Mike123abc, No way the US is going to invade N Korea. They have a real army, like the fifth largest in the world, and lots of ships, tanks, even artillery that can fire on populated S Korean cities...

And another thing is their Fanaticism. Their leader shows up at a military base and it is like Elvis or The Beatles and a bunch of school girls... When they invaded South Korea originally in 1950 by the time they occupied most of peninusula I remember reading they had well over 50% casualties and were ready for more. Most armies would have dispersed with over 50% casualties, but they didn't. Technology wise we can kick their butts, but it would be the closest thing to fighting the Japanese in WWII, where the fanaticsm meant Surrender was not going to happen (kill them or keep them pinned down until they are starving to death)

[Mike123abc]

No, I do not think we will be invading NK. But, we are building up in the area. It is probably a nice show of force for a negotiating advantage. Plus if we start to bomb their nuclear facilities, it helps to have some muscle in the area to keep them quite after we bomb them.

[toenail]

As far as I'm concerned, people can protest to their heart's content. Most of the criticism of protestors I've heard have been threefold. First, a lot of them, in protesting, violate the rights of others by causing traffic jams, destroying property, etc. That is legititmate criticism. Second, many critics simply say that the protestors are just plain wrong. Most Americans believe the war was not simply over oil, but the protestors can't seem to understand this. Again, that is legitimate criticism. Third, some critics believe that the protestors are undermining our troops. Again, there could be SOME truth to this. Vietnam is a perfect example. Except here, the war was over so fast that there wasn't time to undermine anyone! :p

The only illegitimate criticism I've heard of the protests is that they amount to treason. That's going too far. It is not treason to state your opinion, so long as you don't actively undermine the troops, IMHO.

[Bogy]

The percentage of protesters who broke the law was relatively low.
Of course the war wasn't about oil. If it were about oil our military would stand by and watch while schools, universities, and museums were looted and burned, but make sure to rush to and protect the oil ministry building at all costs. Wait a minute, that's what we did...could it be...nahh, President Bush said it wasn't about oil, and we all know he would never try to mislead us. BTW, what was it he was putting up his nose while others were dying in Viet Nam, that he never wants to talk about?

I'm sure the administration will continue to deny that Syria is a potential invasion target, right up until the tanks roll, and then of course it will no longer be patriotically correct to protest.

Reminds me of a huge corporate hog farm that was proposed just outside of Pierre South Dakota, when I was a resident of the state. They were making an application to use Missouri River water, which needed a Federal permit and supporters of the project were telling protesters not to worry about the water permit, there would be many more steps to come that could be protested. Except when the media checked, the water permit was the one and only point at which the project could be stopped. The situation today smells about the same as a hog farm with 300,000 hogs. Believe me, you don't want to live downwind.

[Halfsek]

Let the world know what you think!

<http://www.whichcountryisnext.com/Main.aspx>

[lastmanstanding]

Frankly, these protests had nothing to do with Iraq, fear of killing innocents, or any of the most trumpeted reasons.

There is a Republican in the White House.

That's the only reason they need.

Just war had nothing to do with it, or they would have filled the streets over Kosovo. Death of innocents had nothing to do with it, because Iraqis were dying faster than the war could kill them already.

The people who agitate the protestors feared a victory in Iraq would mean a Bush victory in 2004.

All this business with Just War and Not in My Name was hanging crepe.

Now that they couldn't stop the war or prevent the victory, they have to poison the well by spinning as much negativity as they can muster. Revisionist history even as events are unfolding.

They have a very difficult task ahead of them, and they do not hold the White House, nor the Congress, nor do they have a lock on the media anymore.

And boy, are they worried sick about having to get honest jobs.

Did you read the Susan Sarandon got snubbed at some big Hollywood party. Sources say that she just couldn't believe it. Hah!

[jrjcd]

i vote for taking over the world....

then we can get rid of that euro fiat currency...lol

[RandyAB]

Don't you think that it is time for the Democrats to move on past Iraq and any other country that their is talk about invading. Because as you can see that is the only thing that most Americans agree on that Bush is doing a good job on. If the Democrats were smart they would get over the war, and start talking about economic, educational, medical, and enviornmental...that is where the Bush administration are falling behind.

[Martyva]

No Bush is not and i AM the majority of Americans.:D

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by Martyva
No Bush is not and i AM the majority of Americans.:D

Jack... is that you? ;)

[Martyva]

No but i love your link.

[jrjcd]

i'm only for the takeover of the world because it will create more jobs and all the paperwork will finally look the same-plus, the fcc will be able to restrict the number of shoddy mexican novellas and FINALLY don francisco can become the permanant information minister(since bob has apparently taken himself out of the running)...there are other benefits, of course-the most important being that TEXAS will become the rightful seat of the new world government(as befits the centre of the universe)

HOOK 'EM HORNS and DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

(evil chuckle)