Pro-War Protesters?

August 27, 2005 5:54 PM

Are the counter protests today pro-war or something else? Photos coming into the news wires show a mixture of devout Bush loyalty, people erecting giant Ten Commandments and traitor paranoia... and not to forget.. supporting the troops. So is this just a misfire of people who simply hate protestors or do they believe in something besides waving the flag?
posted by DougieZero1982 (67 comments total)

great... i screwed up metafilter.
posted by DougieZero1982 at 5:57 PM on August 27, 2005

If you learn anything from the people from your posts, it's that that blame is easily redirected.

It's not your fault DougieZero, it's the culmination of a lot of issues as to why your post shuts down metafilter.
posted by Balisong at 6:09 PM on August 27, 2005

And these guys are just concerned citizens.

posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:09 PM on August 27, 2005

point of clarification: misfire?
posted by socratic at 6:10 PM on August 27, 2005

There also were some heated moments at the pro-Bush rally when Bush supporters mistakenly identified two people as war protesters. The two walked in with a sign that read "Say No to War — Unless a Democrat is President."

Many Bush supporters only saw the top of the sign and believed the men were war protesters, so they began shouting and chasing the pair out. One man tore up their signs.

When Will Marean of Minneapolis kept repeating that he was on the Bush side, one Bush supporter shook his hand and apologized.

Eesh.
posted by sohcahtoa at 6:11 PM on August 27, 2005

Some people just love DEATH.
posted by caddis at 6:47 PM on August 27, 2005

Here are some really strange pics from today...
posted by DougieZero1982 at 6:48 PM on August 27, 2005

"Bush is Right, You are Wrong." - Ah, nothing like reasoned debate.
posted by iamck at 6:49 PM on August 27, 2005

Its a shame that this niche in society is so anti-Bush and so pro-propaganda. Stop letting MTV News tell you what to believe politically and understand that the people this war was fought against were dedicated to stoping our country and our society. Be thankful that George Bush was here to save us.
posted by Addiction at 6:49 PM on August 27, 2005

MTV?
posted by iamck at 6:55 PM on August 27, 2005

Oh come on. I'm not saying I'd be there with these guys by a long shot but are you seriously expecting reasoned debate from a protest sign? Now I've never been to a pro-Bush rally, or a pro-conservative rally of any kind, but the biggest laughs I've ever had came from the anti-war rallies here in Toronto. Guys playing dress-up, completely incoherent slogans and banners, communists marching with anarchists, unions marching with hippies. Everyone was yelling at everyone else, united in one theme - hatred of George Bush and friends. How is this any different?
posted by loquax at 7:02 PM on August 27, 2005

What are you addicted to addiction? MTV? What do scantily clad kids dancing on the beach have to do with war?
posted by caddis at 7:04 PM on August 27, 2005

"YOU--Cindy--are the one killing OUR sons. AIDING AND ABETTING the enemy." (follow DZ1982's link above)

Funny, I don't remember her ever having encouraged the enemy to kill soldiers.
posted by e40 at 7:09 PM on August 27, 2005

Ten commandments? So that minor detail about "not killing" is convenently ignored?
posted by telstar at 7:17 PM on August 27, 2005

The warlovers make me want to bash my head into the wall for so many reasons, but perhaps the most striking is that they are demanding that the peace activists take down the crosses they've erected to represent the American soldiers who have died so far in this invasion, one of them even going so far a week or two ago as trying to run over the crosses with his pickup truck. They claim to honor the troops, but they will not acknowledge that they are dying? And when a memorial is erected to honor them and to demonstrate the toll the fighting is having on these troops, they attempt to destroy it? These are clearly people in the habit of suppressing the truth internally, and it must be only natural to them to attempt to suppress the truth externally as well.
posted by leapingsheep at 7:21 PM on August 27, 2005

Are the counter protests today pro-war or something else?

I don't know, but the protests weren't necessarily anti-war. There was a lot of "we're getting killed here!" cries that weren't heard in the early days when, presumably, we were going to be doing "better" in the war (ie: more of "them" dying; less of "us").
posted by dreamsign at 7:31 PM on August 27, 2005

What loquax said. In spades....
posted by dhoyt at 7:36 PM on August 27, 2005

Good pics, dhoyt! I like the first one with GW made to look like Hitler and I really liked the banner in the last one.

So is he the anti-christ or just another tin-horn wanna-be dictator? Whadda ya think, dhoyt?
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:43 PM on August 27, 2005

Its a shame that this niche in society is so anti-Bush and so pro-propaganda.

Did you mean that 86% "niche," or some other niche?

... the people this war was fought against were dedicated to stoping our country and our society.

Okay now you're just being funny.
posted by odinsdream at 7:47 PM on August 27, 2005

All the comparisons of Bush to Hitler/the anti-christ/Regan/Stalin/Osama, etc will do no good. They are useless.
Bush is bound and determined to leave all these so-called bad guys in the dust.
He has the power, and the money, and everyone in the country, if not the world, under his thumb.
When he finally decides to show the world his truly great and horrible side, none shall hear his words over the screams as the disenters are slaughtered.
posted by Balisong at 7:54 PM on August 27, 2005

Was that a little too heavy?
posted by Balisong at 7:56 PM on August 27, 2005

Addiction: providing one more bit of evidence that the Bush spin machine is still cranking out the faithful. Anyone who thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11 doesn't get to talk about anyone on the other side being "pro-propaganda".
posted by Hildegarde at 7:56 PM on August 27, 2005

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how I'm personally responsible for the death of a US soldier if I don't cover my vehicle in magnetic ribbons.
posted by Talanvor at 8:00 PM on August 27, 2005

I think it's the same thing those magnetic bracelets do...
posted by wendell at 8:15 PM on August 27, 2005

I think it's the same thing those magnetic bracelets do...
posted by wendell at 8:18 PM on August 27, 2005

oops... metaburp...
posted by wendell at 8:19 PM on August 27, 2005

Addiction, you have only 28 comments in three years, a very low post/day ratio. I think you should try to beat that record!
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:21 PM on August 27, 2005

Yes, please keep fighting amongst yourselves while we take care of business.

Yep. Keep lookin' over there. Waaaay over there.
posted by bhance at 8:23 PM on August 27, 2005

Wait, Optimus, you mean Addiction was serious?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:25 PM on August 27, 2005

Check his post history. He's as crazy as Bevets.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:29 PM on August 27, 2005

Fear and Loathing in Crawford Texas
posted by nervousfritz at 8:38 PM on August 27, 2005

Check his post history. He's as crazy as Bevets.

The Institution only allows internet access once a month. Some months are spent on porn.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:53 PM on August 27, 2005

These are clearly people in the habit of suppressing the truth internally, and it must be only natural to them to attempt to suppress the truth externally as well.

Leapingsheep, i think you have touched on something that speaks to the heart of our current cultural divide. Same thing happened during Vietnam. Well, some of the same arguments for "staying the course." Interesting thing is that so many of us have actually moved past the little arguments ( like not agreeing with the causes of war means a person isn't support the troops) and have gotten right to the point: We are a global community now - well, always have been. It's just that now our typical xenophobia can no longer be denied without massive and very negative unrest here and throughout the world.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.
posted by johnj at 9:13 PM on August 27, 2005

Guys playing dress-up, completely incoherent slogans and banners, communists marching with anarchists, unions marching with hippies.

I avoid most protests for the same reason as I avoid most canvassers -- they sour me to their (sometimes) legitimate causes.
posted by dreamsign at 9:18 PM on August 27, 2005

Enlistment age is now up to 42 for the National Guard. If you're an American who supports this war, sign the fuck up.
posted by bardic at 9:19 PM on August 27, 2005

they sour me to their (sometimes) legitimate causes.

Exactly my point. It goes both ways.
posted by loquax at 9:21 PM on August 27, 2005

Wow, I just assumed that addiction was doing an over-the-top satire. If he's not it raises the question... how does anybody come to such beliefs?
posted by mosch at 9:40 PM on August 27, 2005

All the comparisons of Bush to Hitler/the anti-christ/Regan/Stalin/Osama, etc will do no good. They are useless. Bush is bound and determined to leave all these so-called bad guys in the dust. He has the power, and the money, and everyone in the country, if not the world, under his thumb. When he finally decides to show the world his truly great and horrible side, none shall hear his words over the screams as the disenters are slaughtered.

Was that a little too heavy?

Hmm. It was just kind of frothy blather.

Hitler, Stalin, et al, are 'so-called' bad guys? And Bush is worse than them?

I'm afraid your analysis/outburst is no more convincing than those dopey placards.
posted by dhoyt at 9:49 PM on August 27, 2005

This is a big FWIW because I didn't see any video of the protests, and I don't attend protests...

I can understand why people would want to protest against Sheehan. I don't like that we're in Iraq. I don't like that my brother has to spend time over there instead of being safe at home.

Sheehan lost all credibility with me when I read what Lewisnews quoted her as saying about the way the President spoke:

"in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent,"

People who gripe about the war in Iraq but also say that a Texas accent is disgusting are not the ones who should lead protest movements. Those who read what she said will write off her movement as being led by a snotty elitist.

I also think it is tasteless and troubling to use names or photos of dead servicemembers without the permission of their families. It is true the information is public; when it is reported, it should be in the context of apolitical communication such as a listing in a newspaper or in a monument honoring the dead. I think it is OK to speak their names at a rally where every deceased person's name is read, regardless of whether the rally is politically motivated. But to affix the names to objects is where I would draw the line.

If I lived near Crawford, Texas, I would hold up a sign that says "CINDY SHEEHAN IS AN ELITIST, TACTLESS, HATEFUL WRETCH, AND IF BUSH HAD SOLD US ON IRAQ WITHOUT MENTIONING WMD, SHE MIGHT NOT BE LEADING THIS MOVEMENT, BUT I HOPE THE NEW GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ CAN RULE EFFECTIVELY SO WE CAN BRING THE TROOPS HOME."

Such a position statement would never fit on a protest sign, sadly.
posted by bugmuncher at 10:06 PM on August 27, 2005

Okay, that's a particularly bizarre detail to pick on. I "read what she said", and I can still understand her anger and frustration. I'm not getting "snotty elitist", though.
posted by yhbc at 10:16 PM on August 27, 2005

Apparently "supporting the troops" nowadays also mean "kick their grieving mothers in the teeth."
posted by clevershark at 10:22 PM on August 27, 2005

Sheehan lost all credibility with me when I read what Lewisnews quoted her as saying about the way the President spoke:

That's because Sheehan is a Rove plant, sent to Crawford to make the anti-war movement look bad.

/Kos reader
posted by dhoyt at 10:45 PM on August 27, 2005

" ... or do they believe in something ...

The word belief connotes higher brain functions.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
posted by Relay at 11:05 PM on August 27, 2005

I love the shot of the ~30 year old fat-assed guy with the "footprint of the American chicken" sign.

I'm sure the Marines would take him.
posted by Relay at 11:15 PM on August 27, 2005

Well, when I see one of the Bush clan under the age of 80 in an actually earned uniform...or for that matter, any of the rest of the cabal or their kids...perhaps they'll have some credibility. But you know, when the entire administration is chicken hawks...

It's really easy to be pro war when you're not the one getting shot at, or sent to battle in underarmed or faulty equipment, or when your kids aren't going to come home in a body bag.

As for pro-war protesters...same thing. If you can show me your active duty dog tags, when you face the bombs...by all means, be as pro war as you wanna be. But when you're a suburbanite who has never seen more action than a slow down on the way to Starbucks, STFU.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of the military. There's not a war memorial in this country that doesn't count at least one member of my family on it, going all the way back to the Revolution...and nothing pisses me off more than people who couldn't even load a damn gun, much less face an enemy, claiming that more kids should be put in harm's way without a good reason.

War with a reason...sure, I could get behind it. War for lies? No. War for oil? No. War to fatten Cheney's retirement fund? Not so much, no. War to protect our allies...ya know, if we still had any...sure. War to protect our borders? Absolutely. War to fight off invaders? Yep. War to stop someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...basically to fulfill the human ethical considerations of humanity...sure.

But a propaganda war to prop up an insane draft-dodging chicken hawk regime that our children's children will be funding? No. Not now. Not ever. No.
posted by dejah420 at 11:49 PM on August 27, 2005

You know, military service is not, nor should it be, a partisan enterprise. Iraq might have been completely stupid, but Afghanistan wasn't, nor would it be stupid if North Korea used some device against us, all manner of people would be joining in the effort... To vote Republican?! What? No, if they're young men and women, to fight in the defense of our country! So I hope recruiters aren't looking at the voting records of new recruits, and their drill sergeants might let them know it's bad form to be political in uniform, but that's the point.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:50 PM on August 27, 2005

"These are historic times. This is a time in which the world has an opportunity to change for the better. America is leading the way. America won't relent. We'll stay steadfast. We will not let thugs and assassins shake our will. We will keep our promise to the Iraqi people, and the world will be better off for it".
Remarks by the President at Pancake Breakfast (May 4, 2004)
To desecrate a Pancake Breakfast with such bullshit shows the true character of the man.
posted by Mack Twain at 1:02 AM on August 28, 2005

Support our troops by BRINGING THEM HOME!

ONE THING for which I am grateful to Cindy Sheehan: Those of us against the war now have mulltiple refutations to "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS."

Here are mine:

10. My tax dollars support our troops. They just spend it on booze and prosthetics...

9. Since when was "Get home soon" not support?

8. Maybe "come back real soon now, y'heah" would be better?

7. My troop support is 36C.

6. I'd love our troops if they kept up with Lance Armstrong.

5. I'd support our troops but I can't find them on Google Maps.

4. I support plenty of our troops, thanks to a rash of paternity suits from my stint as a roadie for Blue Oyster Cult.

3. Support? Why, I'm the matchbook cover under the coffee table leg of our troops!

2. I wear Support Our Troop Hose.

1. I support an entire squadron of troopers at the Burning Man encampment.

/tarin
posted by tarintowers at 1:28 AM on August 28, 2005

There is no way to spin invading Iraq as either necessary or successful.

The country failed miserably when it reelected Bush, and we will all pay the consequences, eventually.
posted by joseppi7 at 1:36 AM on August 28, 2005

What does:

/Kos reader

mean?
posted by gsb at 1:44 AM on August 28, 2005

There's an awful lot of anti-Emperor'sNewClothes Syndrome at work here. It must hurt when people point out that your reality leaks like a swiss cheese rowboat.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 2:48 AM on August 28, 2005

As much as I think that the current administration should be impeached for their handling of this war (particularly the disingenuous fear-based initial sales pitch)... I don't think that leaving Iraq faster will help anything.

At this point, we're already well and truly fucked. Iraq is going to have enormous issues for at least a generation, and we're going to have Middle East extremists who hate us because their friend/relative was killed by Americans for a long time.

Given that it's going to suck a lot, for everyone, for a long time... we need to talk to the experts who correctly predicted the reactions, and ask them what we need to do now, and then do whatever it is they say. I sincerely doubt that they'll say "leave right now" or "keep doing things exactly as you are."
posted by mosch at 3:04 AM on August 28, 2005

If you're an American who supports this war, sign the fuck up.

Yes, please do.

Seconding everything dejah420 said. This "support the troops" (meaning support the war) stuff is the same crap I had to read and hear when I was in Vietnam. I said then, and I say now, "You want to support the troops? Let them go home." Those silly magnetic ribbons are an insult.

Bush, Cheney, the whole lot of them are the worst kind of chicken hawks. They sacrifice other people's children, without any thought of sacrificing anything of their own, not even their profits. It's just another business opportunity to them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:50 AM on August 28, 2005

I think strangeleftydoublethink pegged addiction perfectly.

dejah420: :applause:

And I need to quit reading MeFi before I've had my morning coffee. I read "traitor paranoia" as "trailer paranoia" and thought "They're worried about terrorists taking out their mobile homes?"
posted by keptwench at 5:49 AM on August 28, 2005

I know that it's fun to play into polarization. Hell, I think it's part of Bush's plan, but simply calling the anti-Sheehan protestors stupid warmongers (even though some of them very well might be) isn't accomplishing anything. I see them and I try to figure out how they got there. There is a media machine cranking out pro-war propoganda, and people use propoganda because it works. And some of the louder cranks in the anti-war movement send the entirely wrong message to the world at large: that anti-war people are a bunch of anti-American cranks.

Then there's the emotional pull of not wanting to "dishonor," those serving. People have been made to feel that being anti-war somehow does that. It's our job as anti-war people to convince them otherwise, as dejah eloquently does above.

Then there's the fact that well, the Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong Il's of the world have to be dealt with somehow, although indiscriminate unilateral warfare is not the way to do it, but people don't feel right doing nothing. Not to mention the fear generated by 9/11 (which I know Iraq had nothing to do with, but there was a great deal of effort that went into obscuring that fact, and in an atmosphere of understandable fear, people can be manipulated.

I'm probably incoherently rambling here, but I think that simplistic explanations of a complicated situation get us nowhere. I still think reconciliation of this torn nation is possible, but we have to want it.
posted by jonmc at 8:04 AM on August 28, 2005

If "reconciliation of this torn nation is possible," jonmc, I doubt that it is possible under this administration. George Bush et al have done more to polarize this nation than Jane Fonda could have ever hoped.

From his "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" tripe to the smear campaign against anyone who doesn't toe the party line to the right-wing pundits, this administration has pretty much made this place a country filled with fear and loathing.

And don't even get me started on his Christian Coalition minions.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:54 AM on August 28, 2005

I don't deny that, bob, but we need to do our best not to take an equal and opposite reaction, is all I'm saying.
posted by jonmc at 9:50 AM on August 28, 2005

Saying 'we can't leave now' is like saying if you stay on the Titanic for a few more minutes it will be different somehow.

The boats going down, and deciding when to get into a lifeboat has little effect on that.

If we leave Iraq now or 2 months from now or 14 months from now, it's all kind of academic. The place is going down, and there's nothing we can practically do to save it.
posted by Relay at 10:10 AM on August 28, 2005

You're right on that, jonmc. Seems every anti-war protest has a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric but it's hard to keep the two separate--it's awfully hard to be against the Iraq attack and still support George Bush.

I thought that this whole Sheehan thing would consolidate the anti-war group and the support the troops group but it just seems to make it worse. There's got to be some sort of middle ground but I sure can't see it. The pundits (on both sides--Randi Rhodes is as bad as the average right-wing screecher) make it pretty damned difficult to find.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:59 AM on August 28, 2005

Being afraid to polarize America is exactly the wrong idea: Amrica is already polarized, has been for decades if not centuries, and Bush/Cheney Inc. is only making it plainly obvious and obviously worse. What the anti-war movement should be doing is trying to WIN, to drastically change policy and the whole discourse behind it, to end this war of conquest and make further ones impossible. We need to radically change the System, and mealymouthing won't do it.

Especially not since the pro-war right-wing chickenhawks don't respect our attempts at "conciliation" and "moderation": they say things like "stand up for what you believe in" and that an "honorable person" should "go the distance and take the risks". That a lot of them don't practice what they preach or they'd be in uniform in Iraq is beside the point -- they think they're trying to win a point they value and that "playing the game" any other way is for stupid liberal sissies. "If you're not playing to win you're playing to lose, and we can't respect people who do that." By trying to "be nice" we only confirm their view that we're defeatist weaklings, a view that in that case would be correct.

The fact that the available indicators show, at least concerning this war in Iraq, that the "anti-war side" is attracting more fence- sitters and converting pro-war folks shows that WE ARE WINNING. The anti-war movement is now leading by a nose, a touchdown ahead; the last thing we should do now is "moderate" or "conciliate". "Conciliation" would give away every gain we've made and ensure that the chickenhawks will start another war sooner. Instead of playing to lose, we should conciliate the pro-war side AFTER we beat them -- and make sure they know they've lost so we won't have to do all this again anytime soon.

What else is the point? Do we mean what we say, or are we "foolin' around"?

Those who oppose to this strategy the rhetoric of pacifism, who say "it's not about winning or losing", are in a fantasy world. To them I say 'Wake up! Even on "Star Trek" there are winners and losers, even among Vulcans!' Please try to understand that there will be more room for pacifism once we've made less room for wars like this. Peace cannot be begged for, peace must be won.

--

And on preview, leftcoastbob said: "it's awfully hard to be against the Iraq attack and still support George Bush."

Gee, I wonder why THAT is?!?
posted by davy at 12:23 PM on August 28, 2005

Seems every anti-war protest has a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric but it's hard to keep the two separate--it's awfully hard to be against the Iraq attack and still support George Bush.

Be as anti-Bush as you want, but be smart about it. Too much of the rhetoric I hear seems to be attacking the American citizenry, and even if some of it might be on target, it'll fall on deaf ears.
posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on August 28, 2005

What I think might be smart strategically, is to figure out why people let themselves be conned by GW and his cronies. And simplistic explanations like "they're stupid," or "they're just racist," won't do. When we find out what the root causes are, we speak to those causes and then maybe we gain some more allies, which like you said, we need.

We've been swallowing the retro/metro blue/state red state false dichotomy and it ain't helping. It's too us-and-them for my comfort, and those chickens always come home to roost.
posted by jonmc at 12:40 PM on August 28, 2005

jonmc, I'm not saying we should refuse to learn how people get conned by GW and his cronies. We should indeed learn that, so we can counter it. "Know your opponent so you can WIN."

And you're right, it's not just "retro/metro blue state/ red state"; the root cause, as I said, is "the way things are done in America". That's why I say we need radical change. Ending U.S. imperialist wars of robbery and rape would be a good start.
posted by davy at 12:54 PM on August 28, 2005

davy, I'm not arguing with you. When it comes to the war, we're more or less on the same page. I'm just explicating some thoughts I have. If I sound angry sometimes, it's actually frustration with my self for my inability to sommunicate my ideas clearly. As for radical change, I'm not an anarchist, I'm not a Marxist. I just wanna live my life.

We should indeed learn that, so we can counter it. "Know your opponent so you can WIN."

And they way you win in politics is to win as many people as possible to your side, thus creating a critical mass of public opinion. Too much of the anti-war rhetoric I see here (and MeFi is something of a microcosm) is too stuck in that false dichotomy I mentioned.

It takes multiple approaches to communicate the same ideas to different people. This morning me and the mrs. were talking about hybrid cars. I said that they could market them to some people by taking them warm and fuzzy nature boy approach, others by saying "drive a hybrid, so you can tell OPEC to go screw itself!"

Something similar is called for here, if that makes any sense.
posted by jonmc at 1:05 PM on August 28, 2005

The more I think about the exhortation "Support our troops," the more confused I am. Does that mean to just give the guys and gals moral support, or support their mission as well, or both? What is their mission, anyway? I occasionally dip into milblogs and I'll be damned if I can figure out what they're supposed to do other than give the insurgents a handy target to focus on so that the inevitable civil war is indefinitely delayed.
posted by alumshubby at 4:14 PM on August 28, 2005

That's the handy thing about the Support Our Troops b.s. It means absolutely nothing so people can feel good about not really taking a stand on anything of substance. And it's something that people can't really argue against unless they want to sound anti-American and rather churlish.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:13 PM on August 28, 2005

Then there's the emotional pull of not wanting to "dishonor," those serving. People have been made to feel that being anti-war somehow does that. It's our job as anti-war people to convince them otherwise
...
What I think might be smart strategically, is to figure out why people let themselves be conned by GW and his cronies. ... When we find out what the root causes are, we speak to those causes and then maybe we gain some more allies, which like you said, we need.

That's easy.
We gotta take over Fox, all of right wing radio, the Southern Baptists and many evangelical organizations, the 700 Club, The Heritage Foundation and the myriad "think tanks" associated with it, Regnery publishing and all Scaife's other propaganda outlets and then corral the whoring of all politicians towards big money instead of people's votes.

Yeah, no problem. When you wanna start? Like you say, it's complicated. And expensive. And we're 35 years behind the right wing machine that produces these kinds of automatons.
posted by nofundy at 10:23 AM on August 29, 2005