A quick thought on pro-war and counter-protest protests

[Autonomy]

Given that Iraq was a 'war of choice' and was not forced upon us, do you think that there would be 'pro-war' protests had the Bush cabal never hatched the plan? Do you think that there would be marches with signs asking, "Why haven't we invaded Iraq yet?" had Bush been smarter and not begun this Iraq debacle?

I say no. It would be a non-issue, and therefore the pro-war protest scheduled for tomorrow is really just a pro-Bush protest, and not about supporting the troops or whatever else they purport it to be.

[knowbody0]

1. they are the anti anti-war protesters

we officially named them today at the seattle protest

[Autonomy]

2. Meta-protesting!

Me-ta-pro-test-ing (n)- The act of protesting protesting.

If we were to have a sit-in, would they stand on their heads? If we went on a hunger strike, would they eat until they exploded? If we burned Bush in effigy, would they burn him... er, nevermind. It all gets too weird.

Anyway, I suggest the creation of a group whose purpose is to protest the protesters who protest protesters:

Yes, we will be the anti-anti-anti-war protesters!

[knowbody0]

3. Autonomy, you may be on to something

pretty catchy phrase. let's go with it.

[leeroysphitz]

4. Excellent point. Top notch thinking.

I will definatley be using your point in future debates. Thanks!




Edited to say: I just noticed, 300 posts... Woo Hoo! (and so forth)

[Autonomy]

5. If you need to back it up with proof

cite the "fact" (I am assuming, but fairly sure) that there were no marches to force an invasion of Iraq during all of Saddam Hussein's 24-year reign, or even between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion. If they really believed in the cause they would have rallied at least once during all that time, don't ya think?

edit: of course asking them why they aren't over there serving now is still the more powerful rhetorical weapon. :)