Trek 4 the Troops

It's been done quite recently. Check out these guys -- although I think
they did have support.


http://adventuresforthecure.com/

Robert LEone
wrote:
In December, 2006 I'm embarking on a cross country ride to raise
awareness and nonpartisan support for our troops involved in the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm calling the ride Trek 4 the Troops, and I
welcome you to read more about it www.trek4thetroops.com.

What makes this ride different from other cross-continental
awareness/fund raising rides?

The ride will be done solo, without a support vehicle, on a fixed-gear.
That's right, FIXED GEAR! To the best of my knowledge only a
select few have ever traversed the continent on a fixed-gear, and some
might say that the attempt is crazy.
SNIP

wrote:
It's been done quite recently. Check out these guys -- although I think
they did have support.


http://adventuresforthecure.com/

Robert LEone
wrote:
In December, 2006 I'm embarking on a cross country ride to raise
awareness and nonpartisan support for our troops involved in the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm calling the ride Trek 4 the Troops, and I
welcome you to read more about it www.trek4thetroops.com.

What makes this ride different from other cross-continental
awareness/fund raising rides?

The ride will be done solo, without a support vehicle, on a fixed-gear.
That's right, FIXED GEAR! To the best of my knowledge only a
select few have ever traversed the continent on a fixed-gear, and some
might say that the attempt is crazy.
SNIP

Wow, that's pretty cool what they did. I wasn't aware they'd done
that.

You're right, they did have a support vehicle. Maybe I should change
my intro to emphasize the solo, non-supported aspect of my ride (just
kidding, it ain't a big deal that others have done it, too. It's still
pretty crazy).

Scott

wrote in message
ps.com...

Frank Drackman wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Rich Clark wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it
into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads
and
isn't appropriate here.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't
think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the
remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an
immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only
support
I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there.
Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home
now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC

Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.


It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get
attention
for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get
attention. Very sad.

Frank,

You couldn't be more wrong. Yes, I had thought of riding cross country
for awhile. But, my motivation is not to raise attention to me,
regardless of how you see it. I saw an opportunity to do something
good with something I was thinking of doing anyway. If you see that as
self-serving, so be it.

Very, very sad.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:25:30 -0400, "Rich Clark"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and
isn't appropriate here.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

That's the problem, it isn't a rogue government. You're just in a state of
denial about that. Get over it. Bush was elected and enacted policies that,
wisely or not were widely supported. Come to grips with that concept and you
will become politically relevent.

Ron


I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:43:35 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On a strategic level, getting the troops home from Iraq and not
letting them get caught up in another pointless exercize that puts
them in harm's way is probably the best way to support the US military
men and women.

They didn't sign up to stay home and stay safe.

But I have question for Bill C -- what's a good charity to give to to
directly support servicemen who are still there (or in need in other
places). I may need to assuage some of my liberal guilt.

Encourage them to succeed instead of whining about their obstacles.

Ron

a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Rich Clark wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and
isn't appropriate here.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't
think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the
remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an
immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support
I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home
now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC

Funny, but the only reason you get to express your sentiments on this
is because better men than you have fought to preserve that right.

Fred

The real funny thing is that we have those right in the first place because
those men fought against their own government to obtain them. Read
Washington's (commander of the Revolutionary forces) Farewell Address
comments about the dangers of an "overgrown military establishment" and the
framers general adversin to foreign entanglements.

Eisenhower's (Supreme allied commander WWII) Farewell Address is
enlightening too.

"Donald Munro" a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
bill wrote:
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.

Donald Munro wrote:
Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton.

Howard Kveck wrote:
Cheneystan.

Presumably UCI licenses would be available in Cheneystan.

Nope, Bicycling in Cheneystan would be punishable by waterboarding. The best
you could hope for is that they'd allow gas-guzzling dernys.

Donald Munro wrote:
bill wrote:
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.

Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton.

And the capital? Cheneyopolis?

Donald Munro wrote:
bill wrote:
The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields.

Donald Munro wrote:
Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton.

Howard Kveck wrote:
Cheneystan.

Presumably UCI licenses would be available in Cheneystan.

Of course they wouldn't. We don't need no steenkin' licenses. As long
as you had large corporation sponsorship, you're good to go. Doping
would be legal and sponsored. The only drawback is that Der Tour de
Cheneystan awards ceremony would be presided over by what appears to be
a world record grimacing hemorrhoid.

R

wrote:

A good troll. It may have not been intentional, but crossposting
along with the reference to a controversial topic made sure all
the necessary elements were there. Getting Bill C to say "I'm not
getting wrapped up in this one" when you know he can't help
himself from wading in is a good quality indicator.

My one beef is that it was a tad incomplete. If you had mentioned
that you weren't wearing a helmet and were bringing two guns for
protection, then it would have been complete.

Bob Schwartz