Anti-War Rally

[Kat Katraine]

Friday at work, I met a mother from Canada who was headed to the anti war rally in Washington. I thanked her & told her that it was an outrage that over 3000 of our US men & women were dying for a bunch of oil fields. It's sad that oil has become more important than world peace & at the cost of so many young lives. Did anyone from Bulbagarden attend? If so did you feel safe, did you run into any pro war supporters?

 

[Barb]

Didn't attend, but saw parts of it on television. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, both political activists, were speaking at the rally. When Robbins spoke, the crowd broke into shouts of "Impeach Bush!"

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Was I the only one who DIDN'T know this was going to happen? I might have actually feigned meaning to go (no way I could have gone, mostly for monetary reasons, but I would have at least cared about it).

 

[the gadfly]

I didn't join in since I live in Los Angeles.

What's sad is that it won't make any difference. Bush has said he's "the decider" and he's decided we'll send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter.

The only way to reverse that decision is for the House to deny the funding. That won't happen because Representatives will be accused of not supporting the troops.

 

[Argy]

I went to the very tail end of a march. The permit the protest's organizers got from the city was only good for one march up the street, but on the way back the origin site everyone had to be quiet. Then everyone gathered at the origin point and waved to cars (most people waved, but some people flipped us off), and it was announced that we had to leave in 10 minutes or else the police would make us get out.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I didn't join in since I live in Los Angeles.

What's sad is that it won't make any difference. Bush has said he's "the decider" and he's decided we'll send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter.

The only way to reverse that decision is for the House to deny the funding. That won't happen because Representatives will be accused of not supporting the troops.

If they did deny funding, I'd hope that Bush would challenge it on the grounds of Congress trying to take the commander-in-chief's job.

Really, this whole talk about resolutions and protests is all pointless, since as you said Bush already knows exactly how people feel about it.

 

[Zeta]

Whose idea was it to elect Zapp Brannigan?

"I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they got tired of killing them. Show them my medals I won for that."

 

[the gadfly]

If they did deny funding, I'd hope that Bush would challenge it on the grounds of Congress trying to take the commander-in-chief's job.

Congress controls the purse strings according to the United States Constitution. If Congress says there will be no money budgeted for the war, the President, as Commander-in-Chief will have to find a way to conduct the war without funding. End of story.

This is, in fact, what happened during the Viet Nam war. Congress got fed up and started giving the Nixon administration less and less money for the war until it completely cut off funding during the Ford administration.

The question is, will the current Congress start cutting back on funds now or will it wait until there is so much public anger they're forced to do it.

 

[Jeff]

Ah yes, Iraq, the "new Vietnam". Maybe next time I go to DC I'll go to the Vietnam Wall and mourn all 3,000 troops that died in that war...

Has anyone realized that there's no way Bush is going to just pull the troops out, and rightfully so. Saddam is dead, we're winning. So if you really want to end the war, support the war effort and help us win it for good! And as a side note, I swear if one more person says we went to Iraq for oil I'm going to make them pay for my next fill-up.

 

[Zeta]

Has anyone realized that there's no way Bush is going to just pull the troops out, and rightfully so. Saddam is dead, we're winning. So if you really want to end the war, support the war effort and help us win it for good!

According to the President's own studies, it will take 20 years of occupation to stabilize the country. Is that a good use of billions of our country's dollars? I don't think so. Our own economy is already going down the toilet without spending billions and trillions on another country we don't get shit out of.

And there's no "war" to win. It's terrorism. You can't win a war against terrorism or anti-Americanism because you can't use a fist to punch everyone who disagrees with you. A situation with that has to be solved with diplomacy. Not shooting everyone you don't like.

Oh wait, I forgot, if we send enough people to die in the country, we'll activate magical "Freedom Rays", that will turn the place into a mini-America. Which is exactly what the world needs! Of course, how silly of me. That's how we win. Magical freedom rays that make everyone just like us.

And as a side note, I swear if one more person says we went to Iraq for oil I'm going to make them pay for my next fill-up.

Oh wait, we went to Iraq because Saddam did 9/11, right? Or was it for the WMDs that didn't exist? Or maybe it was for oil, but it just happened to not be there when we got there? Or was it just that Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Oh wait, we went to Iraq because Saddam did 9/11, right? Or was it for the WMDs that didn't exist? Or maybe it was for oil, but it just happened to not be there when we got there? Or was it just that Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam?

Saddam stole our Lucky Charms.

Ah yes, Iraq, the "new Vietnam". Maybe next time I go to DC I'll go to the Vietnam Wall and mourn all 3,000 troops that died in that war...

Do I need to break out my list of comparisons?

 

[the gadfly]

Ah yes, Iraq, the "new Vietnam". Maybe next time I go to DC I'll go to the Vietnam Wall and mourn all 3,000 troops that died in that war...

Guess again. Well over 50,000 Americans died in that war. But hey, 3000 dead Americans so far is chump change, right?

Saddam is dead, we're winning.

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of winning. Yes, Saddam is dead. And American soldiers die each and every day even though Saddam is dead.

Do I need to break out my list of comparisons?

Go ahead.

 

[Kat Katraine]

Saddam & WMD's was the excuse Bush used to invade Iraq. It's really all about the oil wells & the Benjamins. Over 3000 dead for Bush's big oil buddies.

 

[Jeff]

Guess again. Well over 50,000 Americans died in that war.

Exactly my point, before people start comparing the two wars they should at least look at that blatant difference.

As for my definition of winning: Saddam is dead, Iraq is now a democracy, and the fight is there and not here. Hmm, I wonder how much people would be against our troops fighting the enemy if the fight was here.

Again, the war has nothing to do with oil, alot of anti-war people gave up that argument a long time ago.

 

[the gadfly]

Exactly my point, before people start comparing the two wars they should at least look at that blatant difference.

Yep, 3,000 troops lost is just chump change against the 57,000 or so troops lost in Viet Nam, right? We lose 3,000 soldiers' lives and we are so much secure against a terrorist act by someone who isn't even in Iraq?

As for my definition of winning: Saddam is dead, Iraq is now a democracy, and the fight is there and not here.

South Viet Nam was a "democracy" and the fight was there and not here.

Hmm, I wonder how much people would be against our troops fighting the enemy if the fight was here.

Probably no one, but the fight isn't here, is it?

How exactly is the current situation that different from Viet Nam?

In Viet Nam, it was a war between the Communist north and the democratic south, which in fact wasn't all that democratic.

In Iraq, it's a war between the Sunni population and the Shia population while the Kurds try to stay out of it.

True, unlike in Viet Nam, where the strife was purely political, the strife in Iraq isn't based on politics. It's based on politics AND religion. Does that make the conflict somewhat more palatable?

And in the midst of it all, you have mostly Christian U.S. soldiers trying to make sense of it. Not to mention they're seen as the latter-day version of the Crusaders by a significant portion of the people they're supposed to be helping.

Oh, by the way, in 1966, before the buildup to half a million troops, what the Bush administration would call a surge, only a few thousand U.S. soldiers had lost their lives in Viet Nam. Thank God we don't have a draft anymore.

Again, the war has nothing to do with oil, alot of anti-war people gave up that argument a long time ago.

But the Bush administration did say oil revenues would help the reconstruction of Iraq. Doesn't seem to have happened yet.

 

[Zeta]

Exactly my point, before people start comparing the two wars they should at least look at that blatant difference.

Right, who cares about 3,000 people? Dying people don't matter unless they're in the TENS of thousands!

As for my definition of winning: Saddam is dead,

Which is causing massive political strife in the area.

Iraq is now a democracy,

For now. And a "democracy" where multiple religious groups are trying to use the voting system to opress whoever disagrees with them.

and the fight is there and not here.

Are you implying Iraq was going to attack us? Because I'd like to see evidence of that for all the supporters going "Doy! We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here!" Right. Because Iraq was planning a massive invasion of the US!

Hmm, I wonder how much people would be against our troops fighting the enemy if the fight was here.

Gee. If someone actually attacked us, that would actually give us grounds for a war. Which we kinda DIDN'T have, so it would make the whole fucking situation drastically different.

Again, the war has nothing to do with oil, alot of anti-war people gave up that argument a long time ago.

OK, I see your point now. We should just attack every country that isn't a democracy because we disagree with alternative forms of government.

Or wait - should we attack every country that has a tyrant? Why aren't we attacking Sudan and North Korea?

Or are we just supposed to be attacking countries Bushy himself doesn't like?

 

[The Big Al]

If they did deny funding, I'd hope that Bush would challenge it on the grounds of Congress trying to take the commander-in-chief's job.

I say cut funding to the contractors. Then Bush would have to admit to hiring mercenaries if he raised a stink about it.

Besides, if Bush's friends aren't getting rich off of the occupation, he'll soon lose interest.

By the way, the congress are the ones who determine where the money goes and why even if it means stepping on the President's feet.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I say cut funding to the contractors. Then Bush would have to admit to hiring mercenaries if he raised a stink about it.

Besides, if Bush's friends aren't getting rich off of the occupation, he'll soon lose interest.

By the way, the congress are the ones who determine where the money goes and why even if it means stepping on the President's feet.

Congress's appropriations shouldn't interfere with the President's ability to manage the troops. While many people may not like the war in Iraq, they have to realize that the President decides where troops go, and if he wants to send them to Iraq, so be it. Now the War Powers Act has made the President somewhat at the whim of Congress, but once the President gets authorization, it's his decision.

 

[The Big Al]

He can send the troops where he wills. But that doesn't mean congress has to approve the funds of it. It called checks and balances.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

He can send the troops where he wills. But that doesn't mean congress has to approve the funds of it. It called checks and balances.

It's also called division of powers. Congress can decide whether to approve funding for new bases, weaponry, etc., but they can't use that power to determine where troops go. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, period.