I'd like to see this woman try this trick in her homeland, say, protesting Syrian support for the Iraqi "insurgents."

And I wonder why these nutballs think that watching mental defectives do a strip tease and covering their naked selves with dumb graffitti is somehow going to make us hit ourselves in the forehead, forget all of the logic and facts that got us to our positions, and say "Of course! The war is Iraq is wrong!"

Only in America.

Sounds pretty effective actually. They've
managed to get their message on your
website, for one thing. Perhaps some
Mars Society folks will take a lession.

The anti-war message is on my web site quite often, particularly the idiotic antiwar message. That doesn't mean that it convinces anyone.

If their goal is to get their message out and publicized, then yes, they were briefly successful. If their goal is to pursuade the skeptical to their point of view, then they are failing. Then again, these so-called artists are often the same people who think that name calling and insults are persuasive, too.

People like the first commenter don't seem to notice or care about this distinction.

Ego has something to do with it...

She has convinced me that Syrian women are easy.

On another blog, the blogger was commenting on the absurdity of Mrs. Sheehan declaring "Bush killed my son." I agreed with the hosts view that she was tarnishing the honor of her son, and she would do better not to do so. For certain, her message was doing nothing to convince others who disagree with her.

Within that context, a commenter writes to disagree. This commenter was a mother, who lost their 18 yr old son in the war (so claimed). This woman figures that she owes (her word) nothing to her child in terms of respecting their honor. She states her son neglected to consider the labor and hardship she endured raising him, when he decided to fight a war she disagreed with fighting. Then she blames Bush and Rove (I assume brainwashing) for leaving her with a "still born 18 yr old child".

Exactly what in that response is suppose to convince me that I'm in wrong to support the war?

I got her message.
I see where she's coming from.
I have no desire to go be there with her!

PS What is it with war protestors that causes them to sag and droop? At least PETA knows how to find an attractive canvas.

Have any of the naked protests swayed anybodys real opinion? Probably not. The point is not to convince others of your point of view, but to make yourself feel important.

I'm confident that when the war is over and the US withdraws the nude protestors will all claim victory of sorts. We can't stay forever and there is no way to put a value on their efforts for the peace movement after all.

Like all commercials, the message doesn't have to be especially logical or persuasive for it to have an effect, particularly for those on the fence who might see the logic of both arguments and are still undecided. It's idiotic for a fast food restaurant to use a guy wearing a plastic ping pong ball head as their spokesman, yet they would have stopped a long time ago if it wasn't working. The person in this political advertisement just got her "most sincere message" out to hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom passed it along because it seemed so "idiotic" that they wanted to make fun of it. You folks have just been "conned". At least you got to enjoy it.

Blue noses like you would limit expression to traditional modes. In the 21st century it will take many forms, some of which you may not like.

Can someone tell me how public female nudity is supposed to discourage warfare?

Blue noses like you would limit expression to traditional modes. In the 21st century it will take many forms, some of which you may not like.

Who's a "blue nose"? I love seeing naked women. And I didn't say anything about limiting expression, contra your stupid assertion. I just think that it's a dumb and pointless way to change peoples' opinions.

Decades ago, a company used a "ping pong ball headed" person as a spokesman for commercials. The series of commercials ended with the company exploding the spokesman, because quite simply, he didn't work for them.

Well, actually it wasn't that he didn't work. He was very effective. The fast food chain sales picked up, but when people tasted what was literally the meat and potatoes of the company, they began rejecting the message as well. People came, saw, and left.

Decades later, the fast food chain brought the spokesman back. Sales improved again, and this time customers stayed. Why? Because now the message was more palitable.

Believe what you want to believe. But the fact is her message was unaccepted. If her message was something worthwhile, she could have simply held a sign. The fact is her message was nothing. The only interesting thing about her is studying what dementia drives a person like her.

"Well, At Least It Makes It Hard To Hide A Bomb"

I dunno. That ass is awfully big...

Oh dear lord, Joe. I won't be able to get that image out of my mind for the rest of the day. Thanks a lot. ;o)

"Have any of the naked protests swayed anybodys real opinion? Probably not. The point is not to convince others of your point of view, but to make yourself feel important."

Exactly! This type of stunt says to me: "Hey look! I am an anti-war human freakshow! My message must be more important because I am behaving like a fugging idoit!"

I may not agree with what she has to say but I will defend to the death her right to say it ;-)

As opposed to people she is siding with, who would shoot a woman who showed so much flesh in public regardless of what was painted on said flesh.

Perhaps someone walking naked in her home country with tattoos of the names of the people in the twin towers might help. These people just want attention. But I agree with the earlier poster....there could be a large explosive hidden in that there caboose.