Hey fester,
I read through your letter, and you make some good points. I agree, with many of the reasons the protestors used against the war coming to a halt after seeing Iraqi’s cheer in the streets, the protest movement seems to have largely been undermined.
RussianBeer, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was making his speech, he was doing it in an area relatively free from traffic with listeners who were interested in hearing what MLK had to say. I find no comparison between MLK and what the protestors today are doing. Also, their movements did block traffic, but it was not the traffic of one of the world’s busiest few miles of road. His was more of a social protest not a political protest. Also, Gandhi did get shot and killed.
When a protestor, on purpose, decides to play dead in the middle of a busy New York street, I find that act to be quite immature. Is it the commuter’s fault - who have actual jobs - to be slowed down by those protesting because they have nothing better to do in their sheltered, comforted world. I have no real sympathy for protestors who would rather have Saddam continue murdering thousands of Iraqi children, women, and dissidents.
Also, one must look at the larger picture. A good 80%+ of American public support the war. This isn’t like the Vietnam protests where majority of the country was divided over the issue and the US military was having a very difficult time. The protestors are nothing more than a small minority who seek attention. Where were the protestors when the US decided to bomb Kosovo? Where are the protestors when Saddam gassed many of the Kurds in Northern Iraq?
Anti-war protests have existed for as long as the US has been a nation. During the Revolutionary War, many anti-war types left to find refuge in Canada. During World War I, World War II, etc. there were protestors against the US’s involvement in the military conflict. It is a part of the American psyche and should not be banned.
I believe that protests are important, but they should be done in a sensible manner. Blocking streets and tying up the police when there are greater threats such as terrorism is very imprudent. Civil disobedience is marked by humility and a willingness to fact the consequences of being disobedient in a civilian fashion. Gandhi never threw rocks at the police. Gandhi’s followers rarely used militant tactics. MLK’s message was that of love. I strongly doubt he or his people held slogans like “President XYZ is the biggest terrorist”.
I, for one, do support the troops because they are doing their job. I think we have the freedoms because of the sacrifices they made. I read this summary of a quote posted a short while ago:
**When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, [COLOR=darkblue]“Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”[/COLOR]
It became very quiet in the room. **
Cheers!
Kirupa :beard: