100,000 including Fonda and Sarandon protest

[Leafless]

Movie stars fueling unpatriotic actions.

They fail to acknowledge what is at stake.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_t..._sarandon_.html

[guyser]

Movie stars fueling unpatriotic actions.

They fail to acknowledge what is at stake.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_t..._sarandon_.html

Movie stars and three of my American friends...yup .

Unpatriotic, ya think? Guess you have never heard of the right to free speech.

[BubberMiley]

I think allowing soldiers to die to save face over a terrible mistake is the most unpatriotic act of all.

[Catchme]

Movie stars fueling unpatriotic actions.

They fail to acknowledge what is at stake.

Unpatriotic, ya think? Guess you have never heard of the right to free speech.

Isn't it interesting how free speech, and dissent against bad government actions, is now un-patriotic?

That is what is really at stake!

[B. Max]

Movie stars fueling unpatriotic actions.

They fail to acknowledge what is at stake.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_t..._sarandon_.html

It's kinda a who's who of America's enemies from within. Since there was no tank for Fonda to climb on they should have strapped a homicide bomb on her.

[geoffrey]

The fact of the matter is that today, January 28th, the United States is in Iraq and if it leaves on the 29th, many hundreds of thousands more will die.

I personally don't give a shit about the last 3 years up to the point, these leftist loonies have to start looking at the current situation at hand. I was against the invasion of Iraq initially, but now I strongly support US involvement... Iraq will degenerate further into the biggest mess we've seen since Rwanda if the US (preferably other countries too) aren't there.

So ya, Ms. Fonda, your asking for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of additional Iraqi's to push your political agenda.

I still don't know why Ms. Fonda was never prosecuted for treason (well, actually I do know why, it'd be a disaster with all those hippies in a fit).

In Vietnam, Fonda was photographed seated on an anti-aircraft battery used against American aircrews.[11] She also participated in several radio broadcasts on behalf of the Communist regime, asking US aircrews to consider the consequences of their actions.

Having her at your protest in my opinion lessens your crediability.

Was Sheehan there too?

I just don't understand how little these people realise about the situation, and how reckless they are with situation in Iraq. Abandoning the Iraqi's would be reflected in history much like the UN's ignorance of Rwanda... possibly with a bigger death toll.

[Riverwind]

The fact of the matter is that today, January 28th, the United States is in Iraq and if it leaves on the 29th, many hundreds of thousands more will die.

Right. Bush and the neo-cons have been completely wrong about everything related to the Iraq invasion from the beginning. Why should anyone believe their predictions of a Rwanda like breakdown anymore than their predictions of WMD?

The fact is American troops are a catalyst for violence and are likely hurting more than they help. The sooner they get out the sooner Iraqis can figure out what kind of country they want. Iraq we never stabilize as long as US troops are there.

I just don't understand how little these people realise about the situation, and how reckless they are with situation in Iraq. Abandoning the Iraqi's would be reflected in history much like the UN's ignorance of Rwanda... possibly with a bigger death toll.

I don't understand the ignorance of the war mongers. They have been wrong about everything else - what makes them think they have a chance of being right on this one?

[geoffrey]

Right. Bush and the neo-cons have been completely wrong about everything related to the Iraq invasion from the beginning. Why should anyone believe their predictions of a Rwanda like breakdown anymore than their predictions of WMD?

The fact is American troops are a catalyst for violence and are likely hurting more than they help. The sooner they get out the sooner Iraqis can figure out what kind of country they want. Iraq we never stabilize as long as US troops are there.

Because that's my prediction and not Bush's.

The American troops as a fact of matter is all that's holding togethers a fragile, but democratic, regime. The country that the militarized Sunni terrorists will get is another of oppression of Shiites and the Kurds. That's simply not acceptable.

I don't understand the ignorance of the war mongers. They have been wrong about everything else - what makes them think they have a chance of being right on this one?

When the police leave town, shit hits the fan. I don't see why this wouldn't apply in Iraq. The government could not possibly maintain whatever remaining semblance of order remains on it's own. Do you realise what your thinking has created in Somalia?

[Riverwind]

The American troops as a fact of matter is all that's holding togethers a fragile, but democratic, regime. The country that the militarized Sunni terrorists will get is another of oppression of Shiites and the Kurds. That's simply not acceptable.

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. There is a lot of evidence that the presence of US troops increases tensions because the militias try to gain status by blowing up Americans. Remove the catalyst and the level of violence would go down.

The fact is we don't really know what will happen if the US pulls out. We have our theories, however, the people arguing that the US troops are making the problem worse are many of the same people that have predicted correctly how the war would progress. The people predicting chaos are the ones who thought US troops would be greeted with flowers.

Given those track records I am more inclined to believe that US troops are making the problem worse.

[geoffrey]

They aren't blowing up Americans Riverwind. They are mainly blowing up people that want to be police officers, construction workers, things like that. These Sunni terrorists are against having peace in Iraq, as they realise that it would be the end of their apartheid over the other groups.

It's not Americans that are getting attacked. It's the democratic establishment of the current government.

Some Americans obviously get in the way of the Sunni's doing this.

[Catchme]

Right. Bush and the neo-cons have been completely wrong about everything related to the Iraq invasion from the beginning. Why should anyone believe their predictions of a Rwanda like breakdown anymore than their predictions of WMD?

The fact is American troops are a catalyst for violence and are likely hurting more than they help. The sooner they get out the sooner Iraqis can figure out what kind of country they want. Iraq we never stabilize as long as US troops are there.

The American troops as a fact of matter is all that's holding togethers a fragile, but democratic, regime. The country that the militarized Sunni terrorists will get is another of oppression of Shiites and the Kurds. That's simply not acceptable.

I don't understand the ignorance of the war mongers. They have been wrong about everything else - what makes them think they have a chance of being right on this one?

When the police leave town, shit hits the fan. I don't see why this wouldn't apply in Iraq. The government could not possibly maintain whatever remaining semblance of order remains on it's own. Do you realise what your thinking has created in Somalia?

The only people that militarized the Sunni terrorists was the USA in the first place under Saddam remember?

Riverwind is correct about saying they are wrong about this just as they were when they destroyed the country in the first place.

The police in your little analogy don't NOT belong to the country in question, thereby rendering your compare erroneous.

Commentary on the type of thinking re Somalia, is way off base.

[stignasty]

They aren't blowing up Americans Riverwind. They are mainly blowing up people that want to be police officers, construction workers, things like that. These Sunni terrorists are against having peace in Iraq, as they realise that it would be the end of their apartheid over the other groups.

It's not Americans that are getting attacked. It's the democratic establishment of the current government.

Yet,

Two U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Saturday in Iraq, the U.S. military said Sunday.

The two soldiers were killed in separate roadside bomb attacks north of the Iraqi capital, the military said.

One soldier, a member of the 89th Military Police Brigade, died Saturday when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle in northern Baghdad.

In a separate attack, a roadside bomb detonated near a Multi-National Division-Baghdad patrol north of Baghdad, killing one soldier on Saturday.

A U.S. Marine was killed in fighting Saturday in Anbar province, according to the military.

I doubt that they are attacking "democracy" as much as they are attacking the people they see as collaborating with the Americans (who did invade and occupy their country), not to mention the Americans themselves.

[Leafless]

I think allowing soldiers to die to save face over a terrible mistake is the most unpatriotic act of all.

Soldiers are dying to save help save the commercial face of America.

[BubberMiley]

The American troops as a fact of matter is all that's holding togethers a fragile, but democratic, regime.

Or maybe their presence is the cause of the violence. It was reasonably stable before the Americans arrived. Maybe the fragile democratic regime will stabilize once they're gone.

[geoffrey]

The only people that militarized the Sunni terrorists was the USA in the first place under Saddam remember?

Riverwind is correct about saying they are wrong about this just as they were when they destroyed the country in the first place.

The police in your little analogy don't NOT belong to the country in question, thereby rendering your compare erroneous.

Commentary on the type of thinking re Somalia, is way off base.

Get over it. That's already happened. How do we deal with the current situation? What happened 20 years ago isn't going to save lives today Catchme. It's the arrogant view of war protestors, because one bad choice years ago was made, that means all choices after that are wrong too. It's ridiculous, and your reckless would have many more killed.

Or maybe their presence is the cause of the violence. It was reasonably stable before the Americans arrived. Maybe the fragile democratic regime will stabilize once they're gone.

That's non-sense. They were held in line because they had no liberty, and anyone that spoke out was hunted down and murdered. The US is a little more high class. How do you propose that regime stablise itself when it's weak forces are attacked daily by Sunni terrorists that wish to reinstate their domination and opression of the Shiite majority.

This is a fair comparison to Somali. You can't commit to a regime change and then bail on it whenever you feel like it. Now Somali is a gongshow, rival warloads killing and looting. All because people like you encourage governments not to stay in the fight, and bring some justice to these people.

[jdobbin]

I just don't understand how little these people realise about the situation, and how reckless they are with situation in Iraq. Abandoning the Iraqi's would be reflected in history much like the UN's ignorance of Rwanda... possibly with a bigger death toll.

The U.S. might not be able to win if Iraq is determined to fight a civil war. I can't think of any third party intervention that might stop that, do you?

[jdobbin]

They aren't blowing up Americans Riverwind. They are mainly blowing up people that want to be police officers, construction workers, things like that. These Sunni terrorists are against having peace in Iraq, as they realise that it would be the end of their apartheid over the other groups.

It's not Americans that are getting attacked. It's the democratic establishment of the current government.

Some Americans obviously get in the way of the Sunni's doing this.

Three soldiers a day get killed for "getting in the way." Today, another helicopter got shot down.

[geoffrey]

The U.S. might not be able to win if Iraq is determined to fight a civil war. I can't think of any third party intervention that might stop that, do you?

Who is the U.S. fighting? They can't win because there is no victory for them. Their position is to help stablize the situation and train forces for the government to be able to stablize itself.

Three soldiers a day get killed for "getting in the way." Today, another helicopter got shot down.

Unfortunate, but then again we have to make the terrorists take some responsibility for the violence at sometime, now don't we? Or is it all the fault of the Americans?

[Leafless]

They aren't blowing up Americans Riverwind. They are mainly blowing up people that want to be police officers, construction workers, things like that. These Sunni terrorists are against having peace in Iraq, as they realise that it would be the end of their apartheid over the other groups.

It's not Americans that are getting attacked. It's the democratic establishment of the current government.

Some Americans obviously get in the way of the Sunni's doing this.

Three soldiers a day get killed for "getting in the way." Today, another helicopter got shot down.

Then it should be up to the U.S. to apply extreme force to totally clear cities and hand pick the population to refill these cities with populations who desire peaceful U.S. style democratic government and forcefully exclude and banish Sunni's.

[jdobbin]

Who is the U.S. fighting? They can't win because there is no victory for them. Their position is to help stablize the situation and train forces for the government to be able to stablize itself.

Unfortunate, but then again we have to make the terrorists take some responsibility for the violence at sometime, now don't we? Or is it all the fault of the Americans?

I'm not sure the Iraqi government is capable of stabilizing itself. The U.S. is increasingly fighting militias rather than just insurgents.

Initially the insurgents were just attacking the U.S. and Iraqi supporters. Now, militias attack each other in civil conflict.

It isn't just about insurgency anymore.

This could be a fight that the U.S. couldn't stop even with all the tea in China.

[jdobbin]

Then it should be up to the U.S. to apply extreme force to totally clear cities and hand pick the population to refill these cities with populations who desire peaceful U.S. style democratic government and forcefully exclude and banish Sunni's.

It sounds like a successful policy. All they have to do is overthrow the present government, install a pro-Consul and place more than a million soldiers in Iraq to provide security for an indefinite period of time.

[sharkman]

BTW, I love the way people in support of this protest throw out high numbers. It wasn't 100,000 protesters. The link itself says 10's of thousands, and at the end of the article it says somewhat under 100,000.

[Catchme]

One bad mistake? One bad mistake? Hardly.

True recklessness is/was going into a country and destroying it based upon lies, and then compounding it over and over again.

[Riverwind]

BTW, I love the way people in support of this protest throw out high numbers. It wasn't 100,000 protesters. The link itself says 10's of thousands, and at the end of the article it says somewhat under 100,000.

The thread and the number was provided by someone who sought to discredit the protest.

[frogs]

The validity of the war is simple.

What if the believers all had to go and fight, and only with their own money? End of war! Guaranteed! Rush Limbaugh and Bushki won't be there to fight, that's for sure!

NONE of the believers in the war do really DO believe in the war. They just believe in it if someone else has to fight it, or if they get pay and benefits. (Some quit even with the pay!)

People's opinions are only worth what they are willing support with money and time!