[Shalako]

Help me out here.

There have been a lot of threads lately about the anti-war protesters. The most seem to be the typical Joan Baez, granola, tye dye, bongo drumming, vegetarian, birkenstock wearing, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, one world, underdog loving, endangered species, love humanity as a whole but hate the individual, naked Marin County rich chick, America always bad, highly intellectual, latte drinking, gun hating, social engineering, white guilt, do-gooders that just want a better world for 'the children'.

So what would they actually fight for? Not just hold a sign and chant and vandalize. What would they actually be willing to fight for? How bad would things have to get before they took up arms and kicked some a.s.s.? Or would they just continue to look the other way and demand peace at all costs? Is every life so precious to them that not a single one must be spent to right the wrongs of the world?

That is why I discredit the protesters. They are not able invest some level of risk to correct the wrongs of the world. They want a no risk solution to everything. Meanwhile they chant, and dream, and wish the bad will just go away....

I don't think they would fight for anything.

[DeltaElite]

From my experience in arresting them, no they would not fight for anything.
They are just windbags who can't function in our culture, so they hang on the fringes and suck from the teat of society.

Now I do respect vets who are concerned or against war, they have been there and have an informed opinion.

[Pendragon]

I object. I do like a nice latte every now and again :)

I was listening to the radio and some people were talking about how a lot of people who protested in the 60's were doing something new - they felt powerful and it was something they did in their "prime". They have built up a lot of positive associations with protesting and a lot of them are out doing it "for the rush" rather than for a good reason.

Makes as much sense as anything I can come up with.

[Drjones]

I'd REALLY love to smack a peacenik/pacifist/hippie square in the face and find out if they practice what they preach.

:D :neener:

:evil:

[Gary H]

I might be off base but..

I know that in the S.F. area, many have been waiting years for a cause. We also have a core group of anarchist. Some folks are simply expressing the way that they feel. I think that feeling is more motivational than thinking. In a city where more people voted for the Green Party candidate than George Bush, it is easy to get folks out and about for such a "cause."

In Europe, there is a strong anti-American .. anti-Semitic basis for their actions.

[coonan357]

hey granola isn't bad , I used to take it on my .... well watch the other guy hunting trips. ok so I am a odd lot . but not a pacifist .

[Ryder]

The protests seem to actually be causing more urgency in the rush to war since the administration does not wish to see what support they do have erode.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Duh. Opposing your own government when it's hell-bent on prosecuting an unjust, unnecessary and unwinnable war IS fighting. It's just not fighting with violence.

[fallingblock]

but 'fighting without violence'?

Malone, you may have just supplied a catchphrase for all the peace hobbyists of the world:D

[Patch]

While I favor preservation of life by actively promoting intelligent solutions to avert the problems in the first place that commonly bring about war....I do recognize that past wars have served vital fuctions in the quests for freedom and independence.....Though I have also come to learn that...at least for some....war is the pathway by which one achieves permission to be hypocritical, as it is difficult to believe we can "solve" the problems of others, when we have yet to solve our own......

[ravinraven]

The protester crowd is merely irrelevant background noise. These people are irrelevant because they had no concern for "peace" when Slickster was blowing hell out of the folks in Bosnia/Herz?? even to the point of taking out the Chinese embassy. Nada peep did I hear from any of them then.

What's different now?

I am not thrilled by the prospect of war. We've all watched the "inspections" fail. I had hopes there for a while. And I believe the administration would look like REAL heroes if a peaceful departure of Saddam's thugs could be accomplished.

I have no better idea of how to solve the situation. Burying my head in the sand and waving a sign is not a viable option.

[4570Rick]

Pot smoking
Public nudity
Free condoms
Clean syringes
Animal rights
Tree rights
Porno
Illegal allian rights
The right to take your rights away.:banghead: :cuss: :fire:

[mrt]

4570Rick gave some topics...if you speak out against these things to their face they will kill you...if they can get away with it...Speak out the truth and say this to them:

doing drugs supports terrorist killers
abortion is killing a child
according to the Bible, God is against homosexuality


...now you have a killer

[Drjones]

doing drugs supports terrorist killers

Just like SUV's, right?

:rolleyes:

[Khornet]

FEELINGS ON THE MARCH

It seems these days that all the letters to the editor, guest editorials, and public demonstrations are opposed to war with Iraq. But in ordinary day-to-day encounters, I see very little antiwar sentiment. I'm inclined to conclude that while the demonstrations tell us how many of our citizens are willing to devote a day to insulting President Bush, they tell us very little about the opinion of the average American. As one Internet wag put it in a satirical newspaper "headline", "289 Million Americans Stay Away From Peace Marches".

But if I'm right that the peaceniks are merely the loudest rather than the largest segment of public opinion, then the question becomes: why aren't we hearing more from the other side?

The answer lies in the motivation of the two sides. Supporters of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair have reasoned the matter through, and concluded that war, while not desirable, might be the proper and honorable course. Opponents of the war, on the other hand, are operating on feelings. That's why their speeches are long on slogans but short on data.

War is a terrible thing, and anyone halfway human is repelled by it. But that revulsion is a sentiment, not an argument. For too many opponents of the war, unfortunately, that sentiment is all that's needed. Critical thought and moral judgment, which follow when reason evaluates an ugly thing, do not appear in the protest placards because the antiwar mind hasn't gone beyond the first gut reaction. Steeped for a generation in our therapeutic culture's message that genuine emotion validates any assertion, they have no tool for evaluating the meaning of an event other than how it makes them feel.

Emotions are quick, sudden things. This is why, while most of us were still trying to figure out whether Mr. Bush's position made sense, the worshipers of Feelings were already in the street demonstrating. Emotions are colorful and dynamic. That's why protest signs carry slogans like "Bush: the real Terrorist", and "No Blood For Oil". The few truly plausible arguments against the war are expressed in paragraphs, and would never fit on a sign. They don't make good slogans, and they aren't very dramatic. You don't see them at the demonstrations, and you don't hear them there because a New York Times editorial doesn't work as a chant. The supporters of Mr. Bush are quiet for a reason: you can't shout history. It's too complicated.

When you conclude that you must do a repugnant thing, you don't dance in the streets. We don't celebrate when we put sick pets to sleep, and we don't tell the world our decision with the boisterous pride of the demonstrators. We just go ahead and do the right thing; we know we don't have to like it. So also with the decision that war is necessary: as far as we can see with the information we have -- and the antiwar people don't have any more information than the rest of us -- there is no honorable alternative to war if Mr. Hussein doesn't disarm. But since we're not thrilled about the death and destruction that will result, you don't see us waving signs in the middle of town. Meanwhile, like the teenager shouting "You never want me to have any fun," the antiwar crowd say we relish the thought of bloodshed. For people whose feelings are their moral compass, there can only be one reason for going to war: because you love it.

There's nothing wrong with hating war. So did Sherman, Grant, and Eisenhower. But feelings are a fickle compass. We were given minds to rule our hearts because, while compassion and love are feelings, so are hatred, lust, and envy.


Michael R. Bowen M.D.

[Leatherneck]

KHornet: very insightful. As a Vietnam war veteran, I'm repulsed by the very thought of battle and the ever-present innocent casualties. Even the thought of blowing up some enemy soldier who's just doing his duty is repulsive. But I've come to believe (recently) that there is no honorable alternative to ousting Saddam and his henchmen. And apparently, the only way we're going to rid Iraq and the world of him and the collective danger he presents is to fight. So, however reluctantly, I support the President's plan. I do expect the world to have its eyes opened in the aftermath.

TC
TFL Survivor

[BigG]

"Feelings - whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa Feelings - "

member that windbag Barbra Whatshername? :scrutiny: :barf:

[BigG]

Personal responsibility is an alien thought to those yokels. :scrutiny:

[jmbg29]

So what would they actually fight for?What 4570Rick and mrt said.

In my foolish and misspent youth, (for nearly a decade) I lived in a college town in the Communewealth of Massachew:cuss:s.

Most if not all of my customers (I'm a carpenter) were flaming liberals. One of my specialties at the time was building rather elaborate paneling and cabinets. Just about 7 out of ten of my customers would have me build "secret" panels to keep their firearms behind. Once in a while I would comment on how nice a particular gun was. Quite often they would react with disgust at the thought that a working class pig like me not only knew about guns, but had some myself. They could have them, but then again, they were elite and politically correct thinkers (I first heard the term PC in 1985 or 86 in that town), and champions of the disenfranchised. I OTOH was just a working class pig.

Someday they will grow tired of "not fighting with violence'', and a leader with enough guts to come at America head on (instead of merely undermining it) will rise out of their ranks. It is then that you will find out how armed these lovers of peace really are, and if you don't think that they would gut you like a fish to further their goal of a socialist totalitarian police-state, you're wrong.

The creed of the left is "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine!" That is how they justify and rationalize the theft of your money for their pet projects.

That core belief is what allows :cuss:ers like the Hollyweird crowd to berate ordinary Americans for their ownership of S.U.V.s, from the backseat of their chauffuer driven stretch Hummer on the way to their own private jet.

Someday, attacking America and her freedoms by nipping at her heels to knock her over won't suffice. Someday a Bubba with some real charisma, and guts to go with it, will rise and convince them that it is their time to strike in order to take away by direct force whatever you might have that they think you don't need or deserve.

It is no accident that everything left-wing involves a convoluted, uninteligible formula for telling people why they shouldn't be able to own a certain firearm, or a certain kind of car. In their eyes, you shouldn't be allowed the fruits of your own labor without their having first choice of what is in the basket. Not that they would take those fruits for themselves. Oh no! They would be taking them for the good of the "children".

Yeah, that's it!:rolleyes: :uhoh: :fire:

[BigG]

Jmbg29: If I didn't know better I'd swear you were growing cynical. :evil:

[Khornet]

Where are ya? I don't mean that YOU are necessarily acting on blind feelings, bud. I mean the people I see waving signs. Let's hear it!

[Shalako]

You guys are very insightful. This is starting to paint a vivid picture of what compels these other folks. To Malone, I understand that some folks are against this particular action. That's fine, but I think most are just opposed as a blanket dislike of force, period. Will they ever approve force to oust the likes of Sadaam or a Pol Pot, or an Idi Amin? I doubt it. They would just say send him a big hug and he will come around. Now, if someone has a viable alternative, or is a vet that says the bloodshed is not worth it, I will listen. I have yet to be convinced the do nothing alternative will work this time around.

jmbg29, you seem to be talking about the ringleaders, or I hope that's the case. I am focussed more on the useful idiots that follow the elite liberal rabble-rousers. We will never get those upper eschelon folks on our side but we might convince some of the sheep that their sheppards are really the wolves. Yeah, right.

Thanks again!

[Joe Demko]

The most seem to be the typical Joan Baez, granola, tye dye, bongo drumming...

You think you could work a little more stereotyping in there? This ranks right alongside antigunners characterizing all of us as gun-crazed, inbred rednecks breathlessly awaiting the chance to shoot a schoolyard full of children.
Would they fight for anything? Ask them and find out. Smack one, as DrJones suggested. You might find out that they not only will fight but may, in fact, give you a butt-whoopin'. Assuming that your opponents are stupid, weak, decadent, etc. is an error you should try to avoid. Look what happened to the Japanese when they underestimated the US.

[BigG]

Does anybody remember this gem? "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

Most of the protesters are paid unemployed "activists" hired for the photo op. That's done in DC all the time so imagine it's done elsewhere too.

The people that really are opposed to the war for a good reason (is there a good reason?) at least have whatever convictions they have to soothe their minds.

The large segment of liberal cattle are useful idiots as V. I. Lenin, IIRC, said.

Remember the American Revolution. IIRC, 60% of the colonists were perfectly happy with the status quo and did not lift a finger to help the rebels.

[BigG]

...characterizing all of us as gun-crazed, inbred rednecks... Wait a minute. You mean you're not one of us? :p

[jmbg29]

jmbg29, you seem to be talking about the ringleaders, or I hope that's the case.If I am, then their movement is 60-70% "ringleaders" ...characterizing all of us as gun-crazed, inbred rednecks...I demand to be referred to as Agro-American! It's my right!:p



Je suis un Hillbilly! :evil:

[Drjones]

Khornet:

What a wonderful and insightful piece! Do you have a link to that?

jmbg29: Also a wonderful post. Very thought-provoking.

[Chris Rhines]

I would.

- Chris

[ChristopherG]

For crying out loud, I would too. I fit the majority of those of your initial 'criteria' that are intelligible enough to apply to any actual person, and I'd fight to stop wasting this valuable board's time with this kind of meatheaded, rednecked, anti-intellectual tripe. Good night.
cg

[fallingblock]

ChristopherG...are you assuming that you represent the 'anti'
or 'intellectual'...or 'don't know' category?:)

Golly, jmbg29...you might be turning cynical ("an optimist with open eyes"?):D

Golgo-13: It is difficult to keep a serious perspective on such opponents as those demonstrating in the recent 'peace' marches...how not to underestimate bored & angry ideologues?:rolleyes:

'Would they fight for anything?' perhaps is an incomplete question-

'Would they fight for any meaningful thing?':D

[NewShooter78]

I have to say that I resemble much of what was listed in the first post. Hell, I was born in Marin County. The only difference, is I'm not anti anything, and I'm a shooting enthusiast. Most of these people haven't a clue about what is really going on, and a lot of them just do it because they don't like Bush. If it was Clinton, then they wouldn't be protesting...at least not as loudly.

And...there are such a thing a professional protesters. Just look in the misc. section of the jobs listing in your local paper. So some of these people are actually paid to be out there and to collect local college, and in some cases, high school students. Once these kids grow up a bit, loose a lot of money to taxes, and then actually see where it is going, they'll change their minds.

There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist either. Not wishing to ever have to fight is not a bad thing. Most of you with CCW's hope that we will never, ever have to use our weapons. Most of you in the military probably hope you never have to see combat, and if you do, talk to a vet with some combat experience. I don't really want us to go to war with Iraq, but more and more I'm thinking that we are going to have to. And the same goes for N. Korea.

[BenW]

It's just not fighting with violence.
Not fighting, but unfortunately too often violent. I've never seen so many "peaceful" people ticked off and screaming and yelling. As was evidenced to me today. I was driving down the freeway minding my own business in my (well , the taxpayers') camo truck with government plates on it. Out of nowhere this VW van (what else?) full of "no war" etc. stickers passes me with a lone woman driver who appeared to be shouting what I can only assume to be obscenities at me (since she was also showing me one of her fingers) who then cuts in front of me missing an accident by inches.

I'd been in the right lane driving 65mph for the last 20 minutes, so it had nothing to do with driving. She was simply "expressing herself" against an institution (assumed institution, as I'm a civilian fed) that she hates. One might take the peace protestors more seriously if they tended toward calm debate instead of irrational violent acts in the name of peace.

[fallingblock]

I know the experience....

In 1968, I had to transit the Washington, D.C. Greyhound terminal on a fairly frequent basis, and got a discounted ticket (and Army permission for leave) only if in class "A" uniform.

I had 'flower children' spit on me and call me "baby-killer" for doing nothing more offensive than sitting waiting for my bus:mad:

It is this sort of brainless anger from many 'peace' protesters that prevents me from taking them too seriously. What are they angry about?:confused:

If they couldn't distinguish between a hapless draftee in a bus station and the evil Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War...well, they're the sort of folks who'd judge someone by the color of their skin.

You're probably fortunate the Kombi-driving peace-woman didn't have a firearm:D

Do I 'want' war?:what:

Would Saddam submit without the threat of one? Sure...just give him enough time:barf:

[Drjones]

fallingblock:

That is so sick.

I have an entire book of stories JUST like that called "Home-Coming; When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam."

Story after story of stuff like that and worse.

Absolutely sick.

People who do stuff like that are simply subhuman, and should be, well, I can't and won't say what should happen to them, but I think you all can guess.

Clarification: Why "subhuman" some of you may ask? People like fallingblock and untold numbers before him have risked and given their lives for that subhuman filth to be free enough to berate those who fight for them.

If a "person" cannot respect the fact that people have died for our freedom and act accordingly, they are totally unworthy of anything and everything American, let alone worthy to breathe the same oxygen as REAL humans. It is just simple respect.

This is not to say one cannot disagree or hold differing views, by any means. There are just certain ways that humans do and do not act.

[Malone LaVeigh]

If you people knew how lame this conversation sounds. It's so amusing to me how everyone characterizes those who disagree with them as "emotional," "mindless followers," etc. Of course, no one could possibly have an honest difference of opinion with you.

Here's a clue. There are tons of folks on the left sitting around having this same conversation about YOU, right now. They build paper tigers of stereotypes about you, and have every reason in the world to believe that you are 100% driven by raw emotions and prejudice. Their reasons are just as absurd as what I hear here, of course.

Having a leg in each camp, it's not as easy for me to get away with stereotypes. Talk like this always makes me embarassed to be associated with the speaker's POV.

[Drjones]

Malone:

I think most of us just know that those people won't walk what they talk.

If you could elaborate on exactly what here is "so emotional" I'd like to hear it.

And if you can also justify the actions of people like fallingblock experienced, I'd also love to hear that.

[jmbg29]

Having a leg in each camp :confused:

[DadOfThree]

Malone,
What is your take on all of the protests taking place in the US now if they are not politically motivated? From the interviews I have seen, the protesters generally say that "War is never right", "The US shouldn't impose our will on other countries", "Too many innocent civilians will be killed by the US" etc. If this is truly their agenda, where were the protests during Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti? I understand that you personally were probably against all of these actions but the ones organizing and leading the current protests were nowhere to be found during the previous administrations "Imperialisms"
I personally was not a huge supporter of going back into Iraq but I will admit that my mindset has changed. Saddam started the war in 1990. We beat him and stopped before removing him on the condition that he follow the UN rules. He didn't follow them and continues to not follow them. He lost a war that he started. He doesn't get to make the rules now. If the UN does not enforce its own ultimatums, it needs to go the way of the League of Nations and be disbanded. And no, I don't think we are going to take control of the oil fields. If that did happen, I think Bush would lose the support of the majority of the people who are backing him now.

[fallingblock]

I appreciate your post; there were tens of thousands of guys in the same position as me...graduate from high school, get draft notice, take 'high school trip' to Vietnam.

I was opposed to the Vietnam War...that's what makes the 'flower children' abuse of me so pathetic...they just assumed the uniform was me:rolleyes:

Malone:

Of course they had a 'difference of opinion' with L.B.J....but their hatred and zeal blinded them. It happens to the leftists too!
Witness the hurling of invectives at G.W.. If the left truly thinks he is a 'moron', then who is giving in to their 'dark' side?

This is obviously not the principled stand Malone seems to assume today's 'peace' protesters have(perhaps because he agrees with them?).;)

I reported my own experience of then; I observe that the shrillness and hatred of many of today's 'peace' protesters seems sadly familiar to those I knew in 1968. In what way is that 'absurd'?

Malone, I am not attempting to stereotype anyone. I just fail to see how you can assume that the 'peace' protesters occupy some sort of moral high ground. I'd guess I had a 'leg in each camp' before you even had 'a dog in the fight'?:)

[Thumper]

Having a leg in each camp

Flattering yourself, Malone?

[Khornet]

that is a column I wrote for America's Voices
www.americasvoices.org where I have a weekly slot. It's not up yet, maybe next week. It's one of those right-wing conservative nutcase sites...a natural home for me.

Malone--I agree there is plenty of anger in this thread, but the basic premise-- that much of the protesting is done out of what sure looks like unthinking reflex oppsition to whatever America, and especially a Republican president, does-- is valid. As I said in the column, principled oppsition to Bush's policy does exist; I just don't see it much. All I see is ad-hominem attacks, and refusal to acknowledge that someone could support the war out of any motive other than greed, hatred, racism, etc. It's not hard to understand how one could feel he was dealing with brats, not fellow citizens.

BTW--foot in both camps? You're shifting right a bit? What made you do that?

[Intune]

"lame" "...so amusing..." "Here's a clue" "Talk like this makes me embarrassed..." "...absurd..."

What POV do you share? Your idioms indicate total disdain for the conversation, in addition to those involved in it. What IS your POV on Iraq? There’s an old Sumner county saying- Man with a leg in each camp has no stand!

[Khornet]

Another example of the carefully thought out opposition; someone who has sifted through the pros and cons and arrived at a principled position. Tina Brown, in today's London Times:

"The Bush crowd's only management style, like that of many who subscribe to the outmoded cult of America's Toughest Bosses, is to unzip and thwack it on the table."

"Is it just the residue of Fashion Week that makes me wish there were more, or should I say any, gay men in the Bush Administration?"

"In lieu of outright womanhood--except for Condoleeza Rice, who crosses the gender barrier by becoming the most zealous enabler--perhaps an injection of androgyny could be brought to bear on diplomatic relations in this moment of crisis."

Yes, siree. The antiwar folks sure keep the discussion on a high plane. I've not seen anything nearly this bad on this thread so far.

[BigG]

Malone: The only emotion I get reading posts like this one is mirth. :neener:

[DaveB]

Yes, siree. The antiwar folks sure keep the discussion on a high plane. I've not seen anything nearly this bad on this thread so far.

I can fix that:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/030218/donwright.gif

db

[Derek Zeanah]

That is why I discredit the protesters. They are not able invest some level of risk to correct the wrongs of the world. They want a no risk solution to everything. Meanwhile they chant, and dream, and wish the bad will just go away....I didn't protest, but my dad had the feeling I was going to. Might have if I thought that protesting would actually make a difference. Same reason I don't write to my representatives about issues -- I've got enough experience with government to believe that it's a waste of time.

You're making the assumption that everyone opposed to this "war" is one of the eternally disenfranchised, or one of those "protesters" we saw on TV right before Desert Storm who were most concerned with a reinstatement of the draft and how that might affect them.

We're not all whiners. We're not all stupid. Some of us can actually reason through the arguments we're being spoon-fed, and we've come up with a different conclusion than you have.

Look -- I believe violence does solve some of the most difficult problems that human society faces. I did my time as airborne infantry, and tried as hard as I could to get shipped to Bosnia (long story -- 3-month field problem in Hohenfels with a Bosnia theme, right before Clinton went on TV and stated that we had taken no actions with regard to intervening in the genocide there. Took another few years to actually get troops on the ground, if I remember correctly).

New, I'm not going to offer any specific arguments as they tend to raise passion rather than thought in some circles (I'll be glad to do so in another thread, if you like). I will suggest that some of us over here on the libertarian/pro-rights front believe that our nation lacks the legitimacy required to do something like move into Iraq, and that doing so is going to hurt us more in the long run than letting Saddam stay in charge of hiss little fiefdom.

Personally? I'd like to see the CIA train 20 snipers from the disenfranchised over there, equip them with top-of-the-line optics and .50 cal precision rifles, and watch Hussein's head explode. Once it's over, Bush Jr can go on TV and say "that's what happens to bastards who try to assassinate my daddy once he's out of office," and be done with it.

But this course of action, combined with the "war on [some] drugs," the "war on terror," the patriot act, dept of homeland security, "total information awareness," patriot II, etc?

God save us from ourselves. :(

[DaveB]

That is why I discredit the protesters. They are not able invest some level of risk to correct the wrongs of the world. They want a no risk solution to everything. Meanwhile they chant, and dream, and wish the bad will just go away

Pretty impressive that one can intuit the motives of millions of people around the world just by seeing pictures on the tv.

Seriously, can you not see their arguments as anything other than the above?

Do you really believe that invasion is the only possible way to off SH?

Is it necessary to level Iraq if the actual goal is to off SH?

Isn't there anything else that might work?

db

[DaveB]

Those notorious cowards from Australia are at it again.

From http://www.smh.com.au/

It's been four days now, and still it hasn't let up. In the wake of the largest demonstration on Australian soil - last Sunday's peace rally at Hyde Park, which I attended - the critics have lined up with an awesome variety of baseball bats to give us pathetic peaceniks the earnest thrashing we so desperately deserve. 'Cos this time we've gone and done it, haven't we? We've played right into Saddam Hussein's hands, when any dummy can see that what the world is crying out for right now is more guns, more soldiers, more bombs, more violence, and more attempts to completely nobble the one institution charged with preventing wars, the United Nations.

Once we've got rid of the UN and abolished all form of international law, the world will be a much safer place. Why can't we see what is so blindingly obvious to them?

The other stinging line of attack is: where the hell were we when Saddam was killing tens of thousands of his citizens? Why weren't we marching then?

Hang on, where the hell were you lot? Show us the columns you wrote calling for a Western invasion of a sovereign Arab country at the time Saddam's mass atrocities first became known. Point to the speeches, please do, where John Howard and Alexander Downer called for the same. I may have missed it, but I do not recall a single peep out of either man on the subject until such time as George Bush with his closest cohorts decided that Saddam had to go.

Suddenly, Australian political leadership felt the same, and was immediately joined by the chorus of conservative choirmasters we've come to know and love. Then, no sooner had George decided that North Korea also needed a whiff of the grape than, suddenly, this was equally obvious to the aforementioned. The Australian line: "What George said, except for us it goes double!" And that will bloody well learn Saddam and Kim-il Whatsit, that will.

And once that position is taken, it immediately means that those of us who do not believe in war as a solution must be painted as a collection of infantile, weak-kneed, appeasing Neville Nobody Chamberlains, lost from our natural moment in time of the late 1930s.

The real problem for the critics, though, was that this was no easy crowd to stereotype. For anyone who was there knows, this was not the usual suspects of greenies, lefties and ferals chanting along the road while Sydney cast a bored glance over them and got on with its business.

This was Sydney, in all its wonderful diversity and stripes. Right in front of an elderly and well-heeled group carrying a banner saying North Shore Against the War was a group of young Iraqi-Australians with a flag, and in front them some students with the banner "Somewhere in Texas, a Village Is Missing Its Idiot".

We were lads, ladies, locals, chardonnay swillers, beer-guzzlers, abstemious, Jews, gentile, jivers, gays, goths, very old, very young, the rich, the poor, the lot. We were simply uncategorisable, other than "Australians who have had a gutful" - Australians who simply cannot believe that our Government has got us into the middle of this mess, and who wish to register our protest.

And because of our very diversity, it is very difficult to be more specific than that as to our motivation for attending the marches. But extremely broadly I believe it runs something like this ...
We believe that of all the lessons the tragedy of September 11 demonstrated, the most salient is that just one person with enough white-hot hate in him can become a weapon of mass destruction all on his own.

We believe that in the wake of September 11, the only sane foreign policy for the US and all its allies to pursue is to examine just what caused that level of extreme hate, and act in a manner which will reduce it. While the range of possible policy options will vary widely - though hopefully led by the need to lessen tensions in the Israel-Palestine conflict - it most definitely does not include bombing Baghdad.

We believe the whole conflict has, yes, many nuances, and while Bush might not believe in nuances - preferring to continue with the absolute black-and-white view that "they attacked us because we are the brightest light of freedom etc" line - Australia should have no part of this.

We finally believe that of all the wars and potential wars of our time, the distinguishing feature of this one is that it is driven by political leadership with little backing from their populations. And in New York, London, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Melbourne, Adelaide and Armidale last weekend, a large tranche of those populations had the will to say, "NO! Stop this madness, now, while there is still time." And our only hope now is that there really is still time.

db

[BigG]

...examine just what caused that level of extreme hate, and act in a manner which will reduce it.

Say what? :rolleyes: :barf:

[DaveB]

Say what?

Do you want examples?

Or do you think that we simply don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks?

db

[Khornet]

All we have to do is die.

[BigG]

Out of what you're offering, I'll take choice B, Dave. ;)

[Kevlarman]

Have ya'll sen this video?

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

[Delmar]

I can't believe this moron dictator is turning the world on its head over this inspection thing. Pretty obvious he is not living up to what he agreed to when we stomped on his military forces way back when, and equally obvious he is not going to live up to his committments now.

There has been the suggestion we send in more inspectors. Sure!
We have about 200,000 of them we are going to send in. Reason? You have not lived up to anything you have agreed to since 1991. You were supposed to bring us the bad stuff, or tell us where it is, or bring us documentation of its destruction and you failed to live up to this. Nobody has to die over this-don't shoot and we won't. You fire a rifle-you get an artillery barrage. You set off a can of your Raid Yard Guard and we will nuke you.

So, either the US and the UN mean what they say or they don't. How many times is it going to take for our country to be attacked before we do something about it? Good thing Pearl Harbor didn't happen a couple of months ago-we would have Hans Blicks running around trying his best not to be the one to start a war.

I fully understand a person who would like to see this end bloodlessly, and count me in that group. Do not lump me in with the flag desecraters and the mindless ones-my family's military history goes back over a century and with very few and extremely small gaps, have worn the uniform even when it was not fashionable to do so, and have done it with pride.
A note to Saddam-do not think my reluctance is cowardice. There might be velvet on the glove but there is solid steel behind it.
A note to the government-we have served proudly and will continue to do so, but we are not cannon fodder for your use as a disposable item. Don't even think about pulling another LBJ-there are too many around still who remember what that was like and you do so at your peril.

P.S.-to the few who were in Dallas last weekend desecrating the flag. If your intent was to find fault with the government, I understand the frustration and fully stand behind your right to protest, but leave the flag out of it. There's been a lot of coffins draped with it over a lot of years, and they are deserving of your respect if nothing else is.

[Shalako]

Boy, people sure do REACT to stereotypes don't they? I will guarantee you that I am more like the stereotype I initially described than anyother person on this board. I know what I am talking about because I have lived amongst the actual folks I described and called them my friends. And those of you that disregard the truth in that sterotype are trying to read yourself into my thread. Perhaps I am not talking about your brand of protester. All I am saying is there may be other alternatives, killing is really bad, but sometimes it is necessary. I havent heard a better plan yet.

The people I have known all my life have a gutteral reaction to war/violence/killing that precludes them from doing the hard thing. Now, I'm no bloodthirsty killer, but sometimes you have to take out the trash. I don't want to go into my hippy-bay area credentials but if I need to I can if it will convince you I KNOW the people I described in the first paragraph, but I admit I don't know you Malone, ChristopherG, and DaveB. I appreciate your opinions, but they don't pertain to MY qestion.

My question rephrased is: Do some people reject taking action at any cost merely if violence is involved?

If that is the case, I wont listen to them. It is irrational to expect the bad guy to just 'go away'. Violence must always be AN alternative.

[BigG]

Delmar, I pretty much agree with everything you expressed but just want to single this out: A note to the government-we have served proudly and will continue to do so, but we are not cannon fodder for your use as a disposable item. Don't even think about pulling another LBJ-there are too many around still who remember what that was like and you do so at your peril.

It's always a good idea to keep in mind the sins of some of our less scrupulous "leaders." Couldn't agree more. Without LBJ, we would probably not have half the caca we have been in since.

[Delmar]

Shalako


Getting back to your question-there are those who will not use violence except with their mouth. See it all the time.

Big G
I really hate that any politician would use the men and women of this country in anything less than an honorable goal, who willingly commit themselves to the armed forces especially, but in any government service generally.
I personally couldn't trust Bill Clinton as President for either term.
If he said the sun was shining I parted the drapes to be sure. GW makes me proud on some issues but really worries me on others. I for one would like to have clearly defined borders, and W is not giving me warm fuzzies if you know what I mean. The difference I see is that while I may not like what W is saying at times, I can count on him to try to do what he says.

[Intune]

I don't give a rat's bottom what the gun-grabbin' Aussies think about this war. They wanna stay out of the fray, fine. They can invite a bunch of their French & German friends over for a party. In fact, after the way some of our "allies" are acting, a bit of isolationism is looking better and better! I am not a big fan of the govt and don't believe that we need to be the world's policeman. Have your dictatorship, monarchy, socialist or democratic form of rule, whatever floats your boat. However, when you commit genocide on a few hundred thousand of your people, invade a neighboring country and then get your butt kicked, you'd better go along with the rules laid out by the victors or face retribution. Well, the day of reckoning is nigh. Time and a peaceful solution have run out. I'm sure there are websites to volunteer for the human shield program, if ol' Saddam is such a great guy and is being unjustly persecuted. In fact I bet his army would gladly accept foreigners to bolster his forces. Bring your white flags, you'll need em.

[Malone LaVeigh]

If you could elaborate on exactly what here is "so emotional" I'd like to hear it. Fear is considered an emotion in most circles. What word would you use to describe the hysteria that Bush is whipping the population up into?
And if you can also justify the actions of people like fallingblock experienced, I'd also love to hear that.What have I ever said that would make you think I would justify such rudeness? Sure, I get a little rough at times in back-and-forth argument, but that kind of behavior is unpardonable.
What is your take on all of the protests taking place in the US now if they are not politically motivated?And the administrations actions aren't? It's still incredibly risky to take an anti-war position at this time. That's why so few mainstream politicians of either party have done so. I'd say it's the height of irony that the pro-war side accuses the anti side of being politically morivated. Bush's motives are transparent.
From the interviews I have seen, the protesters generally say that "War is never right", There is a small fringe of Christians and others in this country who can always be counted on to take that position. They are often seen at silent vigils and candle processions, etc. They are the long-term presence at demonstrations that keep the "movement" going during hard times. But you don't get 200,000 people out in sub-freezing weather from that pool. the majority of people coming out and voicing opposition are not total pacifists.
"The US shouldn't impose our will on other countries", Are you saying we should?
"Too many innocent civilians will be killed by the US" etc. The key phrase there is "too many." We all know innocents will die in any war. It doesn't mean you are never prepared to do it, but you should be darn sure the threat is worth it. A lot of us remain unconvinced, and think the admin. is going off for poor motives.
If this is truly their agenda, where were the protests during Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti? Maybe you missed the demonstrations against the Bosnia campaign. They weren't as big, probably because Clinton was a better politician. (That's NOT a compliment...) Our involvement in Somalia was confused, misguided and inept, but it was not a unilateral war af aggression. Haiti, likewise, was carried out to restore a democratically-elected head of state. I personally don't like the idea of US involvement in internal disputes of sovereign nations, but compared to the vast majority of our national adventures, this one was downright altruistic.
Of course they had a 'difference of opinion' with L.B.J....but their hatred and zeal blinded them. It happens to the leftists too!
Witness the hurling of invectives at G.W.. If the left truly thinks he is a 'moron', then who is giving in to their 'dark' side? I couldn't agree more. I am one who thought GW was a moron, but I've definitely changed my mind about that. (Won't be fooled again.)
I reported my own experience of then; I observe that the shrillness and hatred of many of today's 'peace' protesters seems sadly familiar to those I knew in 1968. In what way is that 'absurd'? There was plenty of shrillness and hatred back then on both sides, and there still is. What's absurd is the notion that any side has a corner on the market. You should hear the tin-plated twerp we have in Sacto. on the right-wing radio station. He has an evening show called "The War Room." Whipping his followers into a frenzy every night. Before the protests here last weekend, every other word out of his mouth was "traitor," or "ally of Saddam."
Malone, I am not attempting to stereotype anyone. I just fail to see how you can assume that the 'peace' protesters occupy some sort of moral high ground. I think we'd all do well to presume that all of us are coming from a position dictated by our morality. Can't say I've taken that tone every time, but will endeavor to do so inthe future. (Well, except w/ respect to GWB. I'm not that crazy...)

[Thumper]

Malone,

One question, and don't try to weasel-think it:

Did you agree with the original '91 agreement Saddam signed in order to stop hostilities?

Think on it...

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, I don't know what you consider "weasel-think." Maybe you have a better handle than I on how weasels think.

It's not up to me to agree or disagree with the agreement. I don't know enough about the specifics to know if it is a good deal for us.

In general, I think it would be great if he were disarmed. Of course, everyone wants the other guy disarmed. But there is no way we or anyone else can ever prove that he's completely disarmed. I believe that he can be rendered no threat to us through a vigorous inspection program. It should be given a chance before we go in killing people. Is that too much to ask?

And before you start with Bush's propaganda line, "he's had 11 years," remember the first inspectors were well on their way to getting him disarmed before they were forced to abandon Iraq ahead of a bombing campaign in 1998, IIRC. The Clinton admin. badly bungled the process by attempting to use inspectors as spies. This has not been kept secret.

[fallingblock]

by the time I get back to the computer there's another page of posts!:)

Dave B: That article from the "Sydney Morning Herald" would represent the view of the average Australian about as well as a piece from the U.C. Berkeley student paper represents the view of Americans!:rolleyes:

Malone: We're a lot closer on these issues than you might imagine; only somewhat 'out of phase':D

I did my dedicated anti-war phase over 30 years ago and have settled into the view, shared by others, here at THR, at least, that war (or perhaps the posture of overwhelming force) may sometimes be the best solution available to a problem such as Iraq. But I've been on both sides of the fence, and understand at least some of what's motivating the genuine 'peace' protesters.

There surely is enough shrillness and hatred to go around on any issue these days. I am particularly impressed by the anti-gun
folks who tend to go all hostile and violent with pro-gun folks.
Now there's a seeming paradox;)

I don't mind disagreeing with you about "W"...he's such an improvement on Slick Willie IMHO:)

We can all appreciate the diversity of opinion and the general standard of manners on this forum.:p

[Thumper]

Malone,

I had assumed the term "weasel-think" would be self explanatory. I'll ignore the implied insult.
It's not up to me to agree or disagree with the agreement. I don't know enough about the specifics to know if it is a good deal for us.
Typical of the left. Perhaps you should read up before arguing so vehemently.

If you find that you do, in fact, agree with the terms of the original agreement (not to mention the subsequent agreements) maybe you'll agree that we should back our words up, as we promised.

[jmbg29]

And before you start with Bush's propaganda line, "he's had 11 years," remember the first inspectors were well on their way to getting him disarmed before they were forced to abandon Iraq ahead of a bombing campaign in 1998, IIRC. What? Where did you get that idea?The Clinton admin. badly bungled the process by attempting to use inspectors as spies. This has not been kept secret.Yeah. I'm sure that Klinton let that info out by mistake.:rolleyes: BTW, if Herr Klinton and the predatory pedophile Scotty Ritter were well on the way to "getting him disarmed", what harm would there have been in spying exactly? Since for all intents and purposes, Hussein's regime would be over the moment the last WMD was de-milled. He'd be dead before one could blink. No more regime, no more need to spy on uncle Saddam. "He having snuffed it" as they say in the "Dead Parrot" sketch.They weren't as big, probably because Clinton was a better politician. (That's NOT a compliment...):rolleyes:Tears of...laughter..blurring vision....must...type I couldn't agree more. I am one who thought GW was a moron, but I've definitely changed my mind about that. (Won't be fooled again.) [NELSON VOICE]HaHa![/NELSON VOICE]the majority of people coming out and voicing opposition are not total pacifists.I could swear that I said earlier that the majority of them are total scum. Did I leave out the total part? Ooops, my bad!:evil:

For the sake of argument, let's say for a moment that they aren't total pacifists. So what? The fact is that the only way that they wouldn't have been out in that street, is if a Demorat was in the (Oppressive Priviledged Race) House. With the exception of the anarchist rats. They'll come to a vandalism party at the drop of a hat.

[12.7x99mm]

Joan Baez.... What???

Cant these idiots come up with anything new... OMG