Today at the Portland Peace Rally

[ChrisT]

I seem to remember there were some belly dancing fans on the board

[Dru]

i will say one thing the peace rally folks know how to dress up

 

 

you can tell the chic in the middle is from the PNW though

 

minimal UV exposure, no tan

 

 

[jordop]

.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by jordop

[cracked]

"Future Librarian"

[JoshK]

Ugh, those belly dancers are nasty. Drop them on Iraq, I'm sure that'll scare them into submition.

[jordop]

.

Edited June 15, 2021 by jordop

[Dru]

jordop said:

You know, if protestors all donned business suits . . . but then they'd never get in the papers

 

suits never have to protest. gov't gives em what they want...

[jja]

Dru said:

jordop said:

You know, if protestors all donned business suits . . . but then they'd never get in the papers

 

suits never have to protest. gov't gives em what they want...

 

If the protesters looked like (and actually were) normal people maybe I'd pay attention to them. As it is, why should I give a shit what a bunch of freaks think?

[cracked]

Nice autosig, John.

[allthumbs]

let the hippies drown in a vat of warm diarrhea

[j_b]

If the protesters looked like (and actually were) normal people maybe I'd pay attention to them.

 

yeah sure

 

I challenge you to find a freak in the pic above.

[snoboy]

jja said:

If the protesters looked like (and actually were) normal people maybe I'd pay attention to them. As it is, why should I give a shit what a bunch of freaks think?

 

Translation:

 

"If the protestors looked like me and thought what I did, then I might listen to them."

[Fairweather]

71% of Americans now support military action in Iraq. That's up over 20% from Feb. Looks like the (so-called) peace protesters are losing the hearts and minds of the American people.

 

Bush should never have gone to the UN. (Clinton sure didn't when he hit Baghdad and Belgrade.) It just emboldened these clueless anti-Bush protesters.

 

Hey! Does anyone remember what happened to the people of Srebrenica...a UN declared "safe haven"? The UN politely stepped aside while the Serbs went in and massacred over 10,000.

 

Yea....peaceniks, the French, and the UN. They'll keep the world safe.

[Dru]

Fairweather said:

71% of Americans now support military action in Iraq. That's up over 20% from Feb. Looks like the (so-called) peace protesters are losing the hearts and minds of the American people.

 

Bush should never have gone to the UN. (Clinton sure didn't when he hit Baghdad and Belgrade.) It just emboldened these clueless anti-Bush protesters.

 

Hey! Does anyone remember what happened to the people of Srebrenica...a UN declared "safe haven"? The UN politely stepped aside while the Serbs went in and massacred over 10,000.

 

Yea....peaceniks, the French, and the UN. They'll keep the world safe.

 

"The American people" have never known less what they want.

 

COLUMN

Bush could win the war, but lose the peace

 

Angus Reid

Vancouver Sun

 

 

Saturday, March 15, 2003

 

 

If the United States goes to war in Iraq without the backing of the United Nations, there'll be a lot of casualties in addition to combatants and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. The UN, NATO and possibly the European Union might be severely damaged. America's already tarnished international reputation will be further blackened. But the most unprecedented casualty -- one that would hold a special place in the history books -- might be the presidency of George W. Bush.

 

He doesn't need the UN to ensure victory in Iraq. But without it, he cannot secure the peace. And without the legitimacy of strong international backing, it's doubtful that post-war conditions in Iraq will be conducive to turning the tide of U.S. public opinion.

 

Reading public opinion in the U.S. can be tricky, especially after Sept. 11, 2001. That's because of what CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider refers to as the sense of "defiant exuberance" that has defined the American mood for most of the past two years. Americans have an increased tendency to answer all questions on how things are going with a resounding "Fine, just fine."

 

According to Thom Riehle, president of polling firm Ipsos' Washington office, this exuberance has produced a false picture of the gathering political storm that confronts the president and his advisers, regardless of the outcome in Iraq.

 

"Too much is made of the questions concerning Mr. Bush's supposed approval ratings" says Riehle "and not enough of the serious misgivings that Americans have about the state of the economy, the direction of the country and the competence of the president."

 

The approval rating of the U.S. president has dropped from its record high in the wake of 9/11 to a lower, but still respectable showing in the mid- 50s. But when pollsters such as Riehle shift from exuberance-laden, jingoistic measures of how Americans feel about the performance of the "The President" to practical matters, such as who Americans would support in an election, it doesn't look so good for the Bush White House.

 

A year ago, 54 per cent of American adults said that if an election were held they would definitely vote for Bush. Only 20 per cent said they would definitely vote for someone else. Today, this gap has narrowed to a virtual tie, with fewer than 40 per cent of voters embracing Bush.

 

Part of this drop is the result of the faltering U.S. economy. The 10-question Ipsos index, which asks specific questions on consumer confidence and job security, has been in freefall for almost a year. It's dropped by about 40 per cent since last March.

 

And that's not the whole story. Perhaps the single most damaging measure of the trouble looming for George W. Bush at home is the growing percentage of Americans who have misgivings about the general direction in which the country is headed. Last year, about three-quarters of Americans felt their country was headed in the right direction. Today, the number of Americans feeling this way barely exceeds a third.

 

Adding all this up produces a potentially fatal political deficit that the president must manage during the final 20 months of his first term. This deficit threatened the Republicans in the months leading up to the congressional mid-term elections, so Bush deflected attention away from his domestic weaknesses by turning up the temperature on Iraq. Ironically, he is now more politically vulnerable than ever as a result of the very issue he trumpeted to win last November.

 

The optimists in the Bush administration expect that war, with or without UN backing, will produce a dividend that will make the boss's popularity soar, fire up the economy and pull the nation out of its malaise. Public opinion in the U.S. might be a bit testy, they concede, but just wait until the military is engaged. Americans always fall in behind the commander-in-chief when the bullets start to fly.

 

In the short term, they might be right. But the situation is different from anything Americans have confronted since Vietnam. For one thing, this won't be just a snatch-and- grab mission like Panama, or a campaign for the liberation of Kuwait, like the first Gulf War. Instead, the action looming in Iraq is being seen as an enterprise in nation-building. Saddam won't just be disarmed, his regime won't just be removed from power, but democracy and freedom will blossom in Iraq.

 

To make this happen in an ethnically diverse, and predominantly Islamic, nation of 22 million requires a commitment of resources and time that is probably beyond the grasp, and almost certainly exceeds, the patience of the American people. A U.S. victory might win the hearts of many Iraqis, but the Americans will be forced to stand virtually alone watching ethnic scores being settled, regional tensions rise and suicide bombers attempt to penetrate the defences of their garrisons. It's hard to imagine a sustained burst in popular support for the Bush administration when, even after the war is over, Ma and Pa in Wisconsin are still seeing dead Iraqi children on the news and watching their own sons coming home in bodybags.

 

With or without the UN, this will be George W. Bush's war. When it is concluded, no matter how swift and convincing the victory, look for Americans to question whether it was really worth the cost. And look for them to return their focus to the domestic agenda.

 

On this front, the picture is even less pretty. The deficit is spiralling out of control, unemployment is rising and tax cuts are mired in controversy about whether they are just another gift for wealthy Americans.

 

The backing of the UN Security Council won't dissolve growing doubts among Americans that stalk his presidency. But such support will provide the U.S. with allies to assist in the process of reconstruction and lend legitimacy in dealings with Iraqis and their neighbours. It will also provide an exit should conditions in post-war Iraq prove too onerous for U.S. forces.

 

In the last few days, the war rhetoric from the White House has exhibited some signs of softening. Perhaps this is because Bush is coming to see the vital importance of the international system that his country helped create. Or maybe he is starting to realize that, without the UN, Saddam Hussein might not be the only leader whose days are numbered.

 

areid@angusreid.net

 

© Copyright 2003 Vancouver Sun

 

 

[Fairweather]

I'm glad I have a president that won't bend over and take it in the ass from UN goof-balls and other assorted leftist kooks. These folks are still fuming over Kyoto; a grand plan to bilk the USA out of hundreds of billions $$ by forcing us to "purchase" CO2 "credits" from less fortunate nations.

 

Anyway.... I digress.

[Dru]

[jja]

I challenge you to find a freak in the pic above.

 

Ok, pick one ...

 

[iain]

hmm where have I seen that bridge in the background before? ah yes, the hunted.

[Squid]

Fairweather said:

I'm glad I have a president that won't bend over and take it in the ass from UN goof-balls and other assorted leftist kooks. These folks are still fuming over Kyoto; a grand plan to bilk the USA out of hundreds of billions $$ by forcing us to "purchase" CO2 "credits" from less fortunate nations.

 

Anyway.... I digress.

 

Hell, I'm still fuming over our shameful refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement. Enjoying the warm winters?

Anyway... end of thread drift.

[Fairweather]

ChrisT said:

I seem to remember there were some belly dancing fans on the board

 

They kind of look like Kurdish women.....

 

except they're not lying dead, gassed, clutching their infant children in an alley like Saddam prefers them.

[cracked]

Fairweather said:

ChrisT said:

I seem to remember there were some belly dancing fans on the board

 

They kind of look like Kurdish women.....

 

except they're not lying dead, gassed, clutching their infant children in an alley like Saddam prefers them.

 

They look kind of scary to me. I'd rather have bombs than that belly.

[tomcat]

PLEASE STOP POSTING THAT PHOTO! IT IS DISTURBING.

[erik]

i can't wait till jja and fairweather head out to kill ohter humans!

 

jja, everysingle person looks nornal to me?! i challenge you to pick out a non-normal person.

 

i love how you guys try to turn everything into some sort of left vs right. both sides are the same money grubbing power hungrey pieces of shit. not a single one of them thinks for theirselves.

 

you guys are dense. i would bet that you are all uptight and proably pretty boring people.

 

 

[AlpineK]

I think the middle woman's belly is a little scary, but other than that it looks like a bunch of families watching some white chicks doing a belly dance routine.

 

Fairweather think of world politics like grade school.

 

Just cause your the biggest badest kid on the block doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get along with the other kids.

 

I think GW might need to go back to 1st grade.

[Figger_Eight]

This was discussed before, but I'm not sure how effective turning a serious protest into a circus is. When people start acting like clowns, the attention turns from the issue to the big fat belly on the lady in the middle.