On the issue of whether the protests are appropriate, you have received unanimous (by the real definition of that word, not t_j's) agreement. You are the one who chose to lie, mislead, or exaggerate in your thread title. This IS the D&D and since there is nothing to argue about in the article, you brought the criticism on yourself. Try to be a bit more intellectually honest and it probably won't happen again.
They are taunting, there is no doubt about that. The question is whether they are taunting the troops or the administration. On that, I don't see any doubt at all either, but then I'm not blinded by the right.
Basso, the message was not ignored. Nearly everyone agreed the protestors were doing something distasteful. That won't get a lot of replies because we are all pretty much in agreement, thus there is little to debate or discuss. You aren't just the messenger when you title your thread with a title that is dishonest. At that point you are someone spreading divisive propoganda that isn't true. If you can't handle the heat of being criticized then don't post inaccurate thread titles.
There is nothing in the article to suggest that the intent of the protest was to taunt or in any other way insult or do damage to the troops. You stated it as fact and that was a lie. But the more important point is that it was just one more thread in support of your uber-lie -- that protestors are anti-troops. That's not subjective at all. You can subjectively argue that the protests do damage to the troops, sure. You'd be in the rarified company of TJ, texxx and a tiny sliver of Americans with that argument, but it wouldn't be a lie. What is a lie, and a blatant one, is that that is the aim of the protestors. You repeat this lie over and over again, it is not subjective, and it is unconscionable. Shame on you.
Anti-war protesters taunt wounded soldiers _____________ Congrats Basso ~ resorting to outright lies - a new low for you.
get over yourself- these protestors are taunting the troops. it's implicit in there choice of arguements and their choice of venue. that is objective truth. yes, in a subjective sense i agree w/ some others on the board that many of the protests harm the war effort. i don't necessarily agree that the sheeham spectacle, which is generally just pathetic, in the true sense of that word, falls in that class, but certainly much else that passes of anti-war, anti-bush "criticism" qualifies. i've said it before, and it still pertains, if you truely want to support the troops, wish tem success in their mission. no matter how much you might wish to make it so for the damage it would do to bush, this is not vietnam. let history judge whether we were right to invade- we're there now, and it's critical for all who love freedom that we succeed. i'd like to think you fall in that camp.
It certainly isn't in their arguments which are that the wounded from Iraq are being ignored, and that they received those wounds and didn't need to. That isn't taunting anyone. The venue is tasteless but certainly not a taunt to the Troops.
America does not agree with you. Poll: Many Back Right to Protest Iraq War http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050826/ap_on_re_us/iraq_ap_ipsos_poll WASHINGTON - An overwhelming number of people say critics of the Iraq war should be free to voice their objections — a rare example of widespread agreement about a conflict that has divided the nation along partisan lines. Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush's Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it's OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict. ...
No, they are not and no matter how much you crow that they are, they are taunting the LEADERSHIP, not the troops.
Oh, gosh. Here I go. I can be so stupid. Here I go. Yes, sure, in this case you were talking about certain protestors. Duh. Are you pretending you weren't trying to make a broader point about the anti-war movement? Of course you are. You always are. I like how the "taunting" has gone from subjective to objective in one post by the way. Nice one. By focusing on the subjective issue (and losing argument in the court of public opinion) of whether or not protesting harms the troops, you are willfully dodging your uber-lie -- that protestors are purposefully anti-troops. Further, you repeat another old lie -- that war opponents want the troops to fail. They don't and you won't find one single example of someone saying that in any of the thousands upon thousands of posts on this board, even while there are myriad examples of you insinuating it. Another lie: war opponents wish to make Iraq another Vietnam. We don't. We want to avoid another Vietnam. Another one: Our feelings about the war are rooted primarily in the damage it would cause Bush. Bullsh*t. We oppose Bush because of his policies (like a clear majority of the country these days), not the other way around. Most hilariously, you finish off by saying you hope I fall in the crowd of people that love freedom. How generous coming from a guy who already said I was anti-freedom. Shame on you.
"Enlist here and die for Halliburton." that, when carried in a sign outside a military hospital, is certainly taunting those who were wounded, perhaps mortally so, fighting in iraq.
That is definitely taunting no bid contracts to Haliburton and the lack of rationale for the war in Iraq. It in no way taunts the troops.
In your ever so humble opinion. In my ever so humble opinion, they're merely telling the truth. Questions?
Basso, dude, you are way off on your assesment man. C'Mon, admit your just jumping at the Hannitization of all NonWar supporters as being troop/america haters. As a former Vet, if I came out of walter reed, and seen this gagle of peeps. Id probably let them know they are in bad taste being there. Then Id tell them to keep up the good message, just move it somewhere else. I still find it appalling that Three Draft dodgers, and war hiders like Rove/Bush/Cheney are touted as the military guys. Thats fooking hilarious.
