The only reason one could be pissed off at anti-war protestors is because a large number of them have zero idea of: why peace should be maintained, why war is not the only answer and the fact that it's not just about oil (or any other single element). This is the only thing that angers me about protestors, when they protest because protesting is cool, without believing in it or knowing anything about it.

I was against the war before it happend to, I was hoping that there was another way, but there wasnt. We have been trying to go about this without going to war...The troops have a hard enough time over there without knowing that were protesting. So lets give our troops and country all the support we can.
Your whole post summarises what is wrong with the current situation very well. The Bush administration is playing the 'support the troops' line so well it's unbelievable. There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting a conflict. Namely, it should go without saying that you support your troops, but just because they're at war, doesn't mean you can't still be opposed to that war. Memories of Vietnam vets getting **** on their return must still be incredibly strong, but those memories alone will ensure that none of the vets of this conflict will suffer from protestors on their return. You know, if the war was being waged for the right reasons, you probably wouldn't have such a large number of people protesting.

Also, how can you go from being opposed to the war, to being supportive of the war, simply because the war is now underway? All this indicates to the US government is that they can go to war as regularly as they like, because everyone's feeling patriotic, and a large number of the protestors can be turned into supporters by playing the 'support the troops' line.

I feel that some people have never done there homework on Sadaam.People feel he is the victom he is not his people are the victom of his own actions. He murders and lies, he rules his country off fear, and propaganda. No man/women shouldd be able to rule or run a country on this, he needs to be removed and the only way to do this is to go to war with him. People who dont believe me do alittle research on Sadaam before you get mad at me.
I feel that some people have never done their homework on the United States. Which continued to support Saddam's regime even after the Kurdish uprising was put down using chemical weapons in the 1980s. The focus of this war has also well and truly shifted from weapons of mass destruction to the liberation of the Iraqi people. So, destroy the country, 'liberate' the people so they can live in democratic freedom (such an arrogant notion that our way of government is perfect and works for everybody), and contracts all round for the US corporations to rebuild Iraq. Of course, repercussions like other countries being pissed off, increased Islamic militance, the delicate balance in the Middle East being grossly upset by this superpower governing Iraq, and the inevitable uprising of the Iraqi people against the US conquerors have obviously not been considered.

When no WOMD's are found, I get the feeling that no-one will care because the US will be trumpeting about democracy and freedom. I think linuxelite said in another thread, if they cared about democracy and freedom, why haven't they invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe.

The USA I feel is the greatest country to live in, it may not be perfect but it is free. Please dont rape the country of all its benefits and then turn your back on the US when its time to go to war.
Again, there is a difference between supporting your country and supporting your administration. Again, the administration is playing this line very well. You are not turning your back on the US by refusing to support the war.


The irony of it is that when it's all over and the coalition assist the Iragi's in rebuilding will France and Russia then demand that the Iraqi's still pay off the loans Saddam took from them.
No country in this mess is blameless. Yes, France and Russia had significant investments in Iraq, which explains why they were opposed to the war. But the US isn't doing this for purely moral reasons either. The contracts will go to US corporations, and it will be an expensive and lengthy task. Hopefully no doubt this will stimulate the US economy, at the expense of the French and Russian economies. The situation reminds me of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the three forces were constantly at war with each other, which ate up all the goods which were manufactured, which ensured that the cycle continued and kept the people in slavery. The US is getting rid of a shitload of bombs and running a massive military campaign (which is costing heaps), and then paying even more money to rebuild the things that get destroyed in the process. I guess their hope is to eventually bolster their economy from the downturn it is currently in.