What protest?

http://www.sept15.org I think is the link.

Well I certainly support their right to protest, but I'm not exactly sure what they're protesting for. I mean, they want to stop the war, but I don't see any answers as to how they're going to do so. Immediate recall of all troops to American soil? Just the troops in Iraq? The troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Troops in the entire Middle Eastern theater? Does that extend to the Naval units in the gulf as well? How about the UN Peacekeeping troops also in the region?

And what happens when we pull the troops out?

Protesting's great and all, but I don't see what laying around on the ground near the Peace monument is going to accomplish. Especially if ends in the arrest of said people. All I see on that website is rhetoric and propaghanda! What does "The military-corporate establishment has shown it fears the people." even mean? Fear what from the people? Fear which of the people?


Meeting Salem was nice, by the way.

You straight up pimped that response, fool! :)

Thank you. I just have lots of experience making what seems like a good first step without then thinking about what happens afterwards.

This was particularly the same lead-in I was thinking. I've always debated with myself the actual effectiveness of protesting. While I love the symbolism incorporated with it, I still have no idea if it really has every changed anything. The conclusion I have reached, which I've noticed that a lot of people somehow miss (just like how, such as, south africans and iraqis can't such as find america on a map) that they're not trying to directly change the law makers and those in "power"'s minds, but rather it is to draw attention towards the issue to the masses, every day people, those *really* in power in terms of social "law".

Power obtained is power volunteered from elsewhere. If, as a whole, the entire nation flat out decided to not obey any of the law enforcement, then what would law be anymore? You have to have people willing to become ruled in order to rule, in short.

The second broad point I'm getting to is that I believe protests yes, are meant to draw attention to the issue, but also, and more importantly, show numbers. How likely are you to support a small group of people who believe in the same causes you do? Very slim. At the core of every civil disobedience is a crazy fanatic absolutely in love with their cause. This is not necessarily a negative thing, but it is definitely a required thing. The loudest voices *are* the most fanatical, regardless of whatever side the yelling is coming from. Typically, however, most Americans don't feel as strongly as that core, but when a cause rallies up enough support, moderates can support from the fringes of the mass, if that makes sense. This gives them a sense of participation while also making them feel as if they could distance themselves from that group if necessary.

As for this post, I wasn't concerned with anything such as car pooling or anything of that nature, but rather was curious on other's opinions about the event and that form for civil expression.

Perhaps what could be gained from this attention is that some bright mind may finally take some interest in finding "best case" solution to the problem and possibly putting it in motion. Maybe if anything there will finally be a formalized exit strategy formulated that most everyone can agree upon. Who knows? We as a nation have most definitely seen stranger things occur.

I mean, there was Strom Thurmond.

Nice ending!

You mean the longest running elected member int he United States?

And look at that 140-190 people arrested depending on whose count you go by. And, this is what gets me, is after police didn't take action after they "died" they then decided to get themselves arrested by climbing over the metal barriers that had been set up and standing there and waiting to be arrested.

Who know that the point of a protest was to get arrested? *L*

I also like the march organizers claiming 100,000 people, and various men on the street eyeballing it at 10,000.

For the record I get all my information from news.google.com with the main info coming from http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ivrAdGWlfmAyQ2-JkvlhPQGP6uFA

Okay. I'm wrong. Robert Byrd is the longest serving Senator but Strom Thurmond has spent more time as an elected official, as he was also Governor of South Carolina.

Hey that's what this community is about!