Why are anti-war protests bigger than pro-war rallies?

They're only bigger in cities with a high anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-corporate, anti-everything population.

Go to other cities and the Soldier Support rallies are fairly large in relation to the community population.

And it's funny that you still refer to them as pro-war.

Assuming this is true, what's your point?

I guess when people agree and are "happy" with what's going on don't feel the need to go out. Their voice is being heard.
those who disagree want to get their views out again and again.
When your "happy" your content. When your pissed you "throw a fit"

in movie terms-
people were pissed about the Last Temptation of Christ and Protested it in great numbers
People love Chicago-you don't see them lineing the streets in support of it.

No, I read it. And I retorted that assuming you are correct, what's the point in asking?

Because A)I don't believe that you're correct in the support/anti numbers Nationwide, and B)I believe you don't want to hear from people who are not anti-war. You're enjoying the limelight of being the vanguard of the anti-war crowd here at CHUD...and that's fine. You've got a following and I applaud that achievement.

you don't have to show support by standing in a crowd and chanting. You can write troops letters, send them cookies and goody bags. Many people are doing that.

Do you have to go to Speaker's Corner, put down your soapbox and speak out every time you support something?

By the way Devin, the thesis that the anti-war crowd are operating under is the concept of power. Or the lack of it.

Think about it.

It's funny that you equate anti-Bush/anti-war with anti-corporate/anti-everything. People against this war are no-more Communist window-smashers than troop supporters are blood-thirsty toads.

Your point would be a lot better if it didn't fall for itself.

Apparently you are unaware of the protests in San Francisco. the posters, banners, bullhorns, and other rhetoric were not only the anti-war type. There were all sorts there just to get camera time.

But Adam claims that's not the case.

Maybe news cameras did a focus on lunacy. I don't watch television, so I wouldn't know. But if 1000 people marched down mainstreet in support of troops, and 200 carry signs that said, "Bomb Iraq," what should I think?

Figures for pro-America rallies over the past few weeks:
Philadelphia -- 10,000
Cleveland -- 10,000
San Antonio -- 8,000
Houston -- 10,000
Omaha -- 5,000
Oklahoma City -- 6,000
Tulsa -- 4,500
Nashville -- 7,000
Atlanta -- 25,000 (incidentally where 500 anti-war protesters turned out for an anti-war protest)

Not unsubstantial numbers for flyover communities.

<a href="http://glennbeck.com/home/rally.shtml" target="_blank">The organizers.</a> No less accurate than the organizers of anti-war rallies. And no more.

There were a dozen people on Lincoln Way here at ISU holding signs that said things such as:

-Bomb Iraq
-Fuck Saddam
-Carpet Bomb the Bastards
-Fuck Hippies

I slowed down and asked them where they bought their crack.

Just as in the anti-war crowd there are supreme dickheads the opposite side has dickheads.

The World's full of assholes.

If there was so much anti-war sentiment in places other than the cities Gore won, why don't we see anti-war rallies in Omaha or Fort Wayne?

Or is there as much anti-war sentiment as you think?

And don't bring up London or any other foreign city.

Here's the reason: More servicemen come from flyovers than the big cities. You're not going to find anti-war sentiment in those communities.

They are also not the type to rally...period. I know, I'm not the type for the most part. Been to one, that's it. And that was a Human Flag here in Sacramento two weeks after 9/11.

What? One guy -supposedly- blows up a bulding and suddenly the flyovers all are implicated?

Talk about lumping together! Geezzz...you're the World Champion!

I said nothing of the sort.

I actually read it that it was supposedly only one man not that he supposedly did it.

10,000,000 anti-war protesters took to the streets on one day. This wasn't in the US only, but all over the war, with 1.5 million people marching in London alone.

Meanwhile the average pro-war person is sitting back, and letting the bombs do their talking for them, content in the fact that men, women, and children have to die to get rid of an un-substantiated threat.

The the war is galvenizing people all over the world, be they pro or anti war.

I like this Chomsky quote I read yesterday:

"Huge media campaigns wielding vacuous slogans to dispel the danger of thought are now a staple of the ideological system. To derail concern over whether you should support their policy, the PR system focuses attention on whether you support our troops -- meaningless words, as empty the question of whether you support the people of Iowa. That, of course, is just the point: to reduce the population to gibbering idiots, mouthing empty phrases and patriotic slogans, waving ribbons, watching gladiatorial contests and the models designed for them by the PR industry, but, crucially, not thinking or acting."

I think this is a pretty good article regarding protests both for and against the war, and how this era relates to the Vietnam-era protests.

<a href="http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0303/26special_garcia.html" target="_blank">Link</a>

Edited to correct my spelling and grammer.

I dont think "pro war" people feel any need to hold rallies. I mean, the war IS happening, its not about to be called off or something, therefore they have No Need to Protest.

The anti war people want something that ISNT going to happen , therefore they protest.

It seems quite simple really.

so it's like crying over spilled milk?

you know, a friend of mine mentioned this the other day. he had just come back from SF, and what he got from it -- while waiting in traffic -- was that it seemed they were more pissed at the fact that there is nothing they can do about it that will affect the war in process than with the issue(s) at hand.

and if they had power, what would they do with it?

And if you don't think Bush is worried about the perception the anti-war protests are creating, look no further than the speech he gave today at McDill Air Force Base. A rah-rah speech in front of a guaranteed enthusiastic audience with plenty of cheers and clapping for everything he said. And a more calculated PR move you couldn't find.

And that post isn't showing up on the summary page, though I can see it here. Odd.

i think the rah-rah-rahs have to do more with the loss of our boys more than what he thinks of protests.

Maybe, but is sure isn't going to hurt to have video of a large crowd roaring approval at the speech. I don't think he'd dare make that kind of speech anywhere where there wasn't some kind of strict control over who was in attendance for fear of some kind of audible or visible protest.

Probly not. That's what politics is all about. "How does this play in the media."

Sad state of affairs, but because so many people do not take the time to educate themselves about issues and such, it is "education by the media".

And that will only end badly...............

Ok, I'll bite. Harass me all you want for this, I can take it. The "pro-troops/pro-American involvement in war" rallies have less folks show up because...more of their supporters have "real" jobs and can't find the time. That's right, I'm bringing the big old elephant into the room and making him crap on your sofa. The reason I say this about the war "supporters" (man, I am having a quotations orgy here) is because from what I see most people who actually have the time to protest the war sure as hell don't seem to have a problem missing work to do so. I mean, if I or anyone else I know who has a standard office job tried to just leave work to protest my ass wouldn't be coming in the next day. And since I, like many working family folk, bust my ass and work very hard all week I sure as hell would rather spend my weekend with the family that sit in a park and listen to people with megaphones yell about Bush.

This is just like the anti-globalization rallies. You see many people who are college-age kids (many of which do not have 40+ hour workweek jobs), housewives, etc. Generally, people on the lower end of the economic scale and as such they have the time to protest. My 2 cents.