News: Media Ignores Pro-America Rallys

As none of you probably are aware, a series of Pro-America / Support our Troops rallies went on across the nation this weekend.

Yes, I read about it, in my local paper. (The real kind, not the yellow journalism kind). Since I read about it, I don't see how I can accuse my apper of being biased.

 

The left gets more coverage, simply because contraversy sells newspapers. The media cover whatever will get them sales or ratings. Equal Coverage is not under consideration.

 

or perhaps because the anti-war rallies had millions of people attending them?

 

People who are NOT protesting anything rarely go to rallies; go on marches etc.

I will back my President in whichever decision he makes and stand behind him and my country.

BTW, we are ALREADY at WAR ...it just hasn't been declared yet!


Sue

 

I don't see how that relates to my point - the fact is that the anti war demonstrations are the largest that have ever occured in many countries (UK, Italy & Spain for example) are you arguing that unless a person joins a demonstration they support war with Iraq?

I don't understand the logic behind that at all.

what if you don't view the interests of your president and the interests of your country as the same thing?

I think it is in the interests of Bush and company that there be a war, I do not think that it is in Americas interest.

that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Anyway, to get back to the topic the reason there is not huge media coverage of 'pro-war' marches is because they are not huge events.

 

I'm sure our troops appreciate knowing that THERE ARE are people who are supporting them. I for one WILL support them!

 

I am saying that anti-war protests are bigger because they are the ones protesting!

I think it is in the best interests of our country. You don't honestly think our President is doing this for monetary gain???

How long did we have war in Viet Nam before it was declared a war.....was it ever?

 

okay - could it not be simply because the majority of people are against and illegal and immoral war of conquest?

no I don't think he is doing it for monetary gain - I just don't think it is in the best interests of the United States to redefine the concept of 'legitimate' war, wreck the agreements that have kept peace between the majority of nations for the past 40 years, alienate itself totally from its allies and potentially create a large number of terrorists.

The fact is that Iraq is, in no way, a threat to the United States, Iraq has not attacked the United States and there are no proven (or even probable) links with terrorists that threaten the United States. Why are you going to war?

 

I have to agree with ForYourGlory, and I Am Blessed 16 (Sue).

I support my president. And like Johnv, I do read about it in the media. But I think most people do support the President, and their family members who volunteered to go. I for one do.

I think the protesters are attention getters who would protest anything to just have their picture in the paper, given a chance. The cause does not matter to them.

I thank those people who went for me and those protesters. And I pray God leads our family members there and back.

Sherrie

 

Are you for real?

Sherrie

 

yes - do you have any actual evidence to prove otherwise?

If you do you should forward it onto your government immediately because at the moment they have none.

Let's go through my statements:

"The fact is that Iraq is, in no way, a threat to the United States"

- True, Iraq does not have the capability to attack the USA

"has not attacked the United States"

this is, obviously, true

"there are no proven (or even probable) links with terrorists that threaten the United States"

This is true - even Bush & Blair do not pretend otherwise.

so what part of my post do you have issues with?

that is a ridiculous statement - are you arguing that 1 million people in the UK just wanted their picture in the paper? what about the 1.3 million in spain? - just attention seekers?

 

But you're not an American so that's not your call to make now, is it?

 

bah! double post

 

okay, replace the word president with prime minister, bush with blair and America with UK.

redefining the notion of legimate war, undermining international law and endangering all of us in an illegal war has implications for everyone not just Americans and as such everyone should make their opinion heard.

I don't believe that pro-american and pro-war with iraq are the same thing.

 

I guess it's a good thing for all of us you're not an American, then.

 

yes - do you have any actual evidence to prove otherwise?

If you do you should forward it onto your government immediately because at the moment they have none. </font>[/QUOTE]…as far as you know. Colin Powell released some evidence at the U.N. recently, but further release of more explicit and detailed materials would endanger the lives of intelligence officers and special forces soldiers currently in Iraq. Furthermore, release of certain information would reveal methods and sources of intelligence to the enemies of the U.S. and Britain, causing them to be ineffective in the future.

It’s a tough situation for societies that cherish freedom of information, but it’s the reality we face.

This is patently false. U.S. government agencies are tracking persons who are believed to be Iraqi intelligence officers in the United States. Some weapons of mass destruction do not need armies or missiles to reach their targets.

Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the President of the United States a little over ten years ago. If the attempted assassination of the nation’s chief executive is not an attempted attack on the nation, I don’t know what is.

Actually, Bush has intimated otherwise… There seems to be a connection but they haven’t released clear evidence.

 

so are americans that don't support a war being anti-american?

McCarthy? is that you?

 

No. There's nothing anti-American about antiwar sentiment. However, the seditious actions of many in the antiwar movement are patently un-American and should be prosecuted.

 

If the UK & US had evidence they would present it - Powell, himself, said that he was compromising his sources when he presented his last round of 'evidence' to the UN. America could provide the Blix with the locations of the WMD - sorry, I forgot, they have:

source

this is no evidence of a threat at all - they may some 'intellegence officers' in the USA - please explain how that represents a threat?

how about an army invading the USA? or launching an attack on America?

Blair & Bush have backed away from that claim - if they had any evidence they would present it, without a shodow of a doubt