Small rant re: the "peace" movement

[10-Ring]

The more I see these demonstrators, the more I hear the babble come from their mouths, the more frustrated I get.
1st off, they shouldn't be called a "peace" movement but more appropriately, a "see no evil, hear no evil, forget all evil" movement. How do they justify a regime developing weapons of mass destruction? What do they want, another N. Korea?
2nd, they don't seem very peaceful in their demonstations. There seem to be more & more pics of them burning something, looting something, hitting or spitting on someone or general misbehaving....not too peaceful in my book.
Lastly, it seems as tho these people have forgotten what happended Sept 11th, how helpless & angry we all felt and how we all demanded our government make sure nothing like that happened again...well IMHO, that's exactly what we're doing!

Rant off...thanks for lending me the space to voice an opinion

 

[Drjones]

Make no mistake:

It is by NO means a "peace" movement.

99% of ALL the anti-"war" movement is sponsored by openly communist and anti-American groups.

All protestors I've seen just hate Bush and America, and are using the war as an excuse to miss school and work to make idiots out of themselves in front of those of us who know better.

BTW, all looters should be shot on sight.

 

[10-Ring]

Having a son of high school age, what has upet me lately is seeing kids get up out of their class rooms & protest in the name of peace.
School must have really changed since I graduated. I don't remember being able to speak in class w/o permission much less walk out!

 

[Standing Wolf]

The self-styled "peace protestors" are just anti-Americans flying a flag of convenience.

 

[Blackhawk]

During about October, 1969, there was a big Vietnam war protest march on Washington, D.C., intended to demoralize and alienate U.S. soldiers in Vietnam against the war. It motivated me to immediately sign up for another tour since that's where I already was.

These pukes are just the descendants of the Jane Fondas of those days. May they get what they deserve....

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

The more I see these demonstrators, the more I hear the babble come from their mouths, the more frustrated I get.

Maybe you should listen to what they're saying instead of ranting about what you think they're saying. It's much less frustrating.

1st off, they shouldn't be called a "peace" movement but more appropriately, a "see no evil, hear no evil, forget all evil" movement. How do they justify a regime developing weapons of mass destruction? What do they want, another N. Korea?

Most I know call themselves "anti-war", not "peace" activists. There's a difference. And what right do you have to equate their opinion with "justifying" anything? Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.

2nd, they don't seem very peaceful in their demonstations. There seem to be more & more pics of them burning something, looting something, hitting or spitting on someone or general misbehaving....not too peaceful in my book.

Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.

Lastly, it seems as tho these people have forgotten what happended Sept 11th, how helpless & angry we all felt and how we all demanded our government make sure nothing like that happened again...well IMHO, that's exactly what we're doing!

And once again, though I'm repeating myself for the 100th time, the war against Iraq has exactly nothing to do with Sept 11. Not even Bush is trying to pass off that rather spoiled red herring anymore.

 

[jmbg29]

Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.

Well, unless 200,000 is some sort of a magic number (a sub-critical or critical mass of people maybe???) we got 45,000 people together for the WA St. Republican picnic in 2000.

Not a single violent occurence. Not one. Not to mention that the Western Washington Fairgrounds people remarking on the fact that there was almost no litter to pick up after the event.

No unruly lefties tried anything out in the parking lots either. Perhaps that is because WA is a shall issue state.

Quite curious....

 

[Drjones]

Maybe you should listen to what they're saying instead of ranting about what you think they're saying. It's much less frustrating.

"Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture's gotta go!"

"America is the REAL terrorist"

"Bush = Hitler" and other cute analogies ad nauseum, ad infinitum

"Free Mumia" (See, I told ya these protests are just an excuse to further some stupid agenda!)

They also seem *quite* fond of burning American flags.

Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags?


Want more?

Or have you "thought" enough about what they're saying?

Most I know call themselves "anti-war", not "peace" activists. There's a difference. And what right do you have to equate their opinion with "justifying" anything? Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.

Come now, don't forget to call them "anti-American" and "Supporters of Saddam."

"Al Quaeda Fan Club" is one I liked myself....

And that's the funny thing....they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably.

They just don't want to do what has to be done.

Its for the children.

Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.

I will bet you money if we got a bunch of gun owners together for a protest, it would be the most peaceful protest in history.

Really.

 

[clem]

Well, just remember who these people are and when it's all over, we'll remind them of what they said and did.

 

[Zander]

And once again, though I'm repeating myself for the 100th time, the war against Iraq has exactly nothing to do with Sept 11. -- MV

It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate it...it still won't be correct.

In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately.

You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why.

He's our mortal enemy, dedicated to providing the most devastating of weapons to those who would attempt to destroy our lives, our social structure, our economy...by any chemical, biological or nuclear means he can produce and disseminate.

He's an evil man who deserves to be removed from power; in fact, he deserves a slow and painful death. I'll settle for a quick and relatively painless dispatch as long as he is given the eternal dirt-nap.

He and Osama bin Laden can console each other in Hell...

 

[ahadams]

the few pathetic protestors seen in central Missouri (half a dozen protesting at the WALMART - of all places - in Jefferson City [the Missouri Capitol - I guess they figured the off duty cops who pull security at walmart and sams club would protect them from the normal people] and a few protestors near the USAF base about 50 miles away [sorry folks, all the bombers left weeks ago, we know because we heard them leave...well no, we're not sorry, come to think of it - just hope they bomb bagdad and babylon flat to the ground] were all either teenagers who were clueless or 60's rejects many of whom are actually retired by now [and are led by the 'professor emeritus' of a junior college if that can be said with a straight face].

Note to ML: failure to connect the dots on the part of various shortwave personalities does NOT constitute a problem for the rest of us.

 

[Jackanape]

Malone, with all due respect, I do listen to what the protesters have to say. As I live in San Francisco, it turns out that I have to listen to them quite a bit. The main protest organization here is International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), well at least they're the ones who organized the biggest protests here. I checked out their literature, and did a little research regarding this group. Turns out that International ANSWER is closely allied with the Workers World Party (International ANSWER confirmed this in an article written about them in the San Francisco Chronicle). The Workers World Party has supported the Chinese government's crackdown in Tiananmen Square, Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Their short list of heroes includes such visionaries as Stalin, Mao, Milosivich, etc.

So, what does all of that have to do with what they have to say? I mean, they are an anti war group, right? Well, like you suggested Malone, I listened to what the main organizers of International ANSWER had to say. The one individual that stands out in my memory is Brian Becker. Becker is one of the Top officials at International ANSWER, as well as a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. He was the co-director of International ANSWER's January 18th protest in D.C. Here's what Becker has to say:

"We know that the biggest single contribution that we can make to the final transition to socialism everywhere is to build a truly revolutionary party that can lead the struggle to overthrow imperialism at its center."

Funny, I don't hear Mr. Becker talking about war nearly as much as I hear him talk about socialism. It seems that Becker has more of a problem with capitalism than he does with war. How odd...

A quick scan of the last International ANSWER protest in San Francisco showed me that Becker wasn't just some fringe nutjob. In fact, he seems to be swimming in the mainstream of the anti war crowd. If I had a dollar for every "Destroy Capitalism" sign, or glassy eyed college kid selling "Revolutionary Worker", well I'd be a rich man. And what does Mumia, universal health care, animal liberation, and the rights of the homeless have to do with war anyway? Not much, and yet I saw all of these signs at the protest. If I were watching the protest on TV with the sound off, I'd have no idea what these folks were actually protesting. Too many causes represented at once.

Now I understand that most of the folks at this protest were there to protest the upcoming war. But the folks who organized the event are self proclaimed Marxist / Leninists. Folks whose biggest axe to grind is against capitalism, not war. So all of these well meaning folks who came out to protest the war are actually lending their support to an avowed anti capitalist group. What was the term that the communists used in the past? Oh yeah, useful idiots...

As if that's not enough, there is a group here in San Francisco calling itself "Direct Action" (a bunch of non denominational leftists from New College) has vowed to shut down the financial district of San Francisico the morning after the war starts. When I checked out their website, I found that the building that I work in is on their list of targets for protests. They intend to blockade the building to shut down business there. Mind you, there are no government offices in this building, just private businesses. So, they want to stop business to protest war... Right... And they are going to use physical coercion in the form of a blockade to deny me the ability to make a living. And this is somehow related to stooping a war? Folks here in San Francisco call these actions "peaceful anti war protests". This is not true, what they are is violent anti capitalist protests. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Oh and Malone, 200,000 people? You mean 65,000, right? The only count that can be verified of the last S.F. protest was 65,000 people at its peak (not the 200,000 that International ANSWER claimed). By the way, this count was done by the San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy...

Sorry about the long winded rant folks, I've just had my fill of these protests lately...

 

[faustulus]

Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags?

It is a piece of cloth, get over it.

And that's the funny thing....they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably.

Failed in the sense that he has nuclear weapons? or failed in the sense he has used his arsenal on the Iraqi people in the last 12 years?

In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately.

I suppose N. Korea will be next since Kim Jong Il has threatened us numerous times.

You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why.

What he does to his own people is there problem, they want to buy guns we'll sell them to them. I think America has fought enough of other peoples civil wars. And as for invading other countries, one we supported the other we kicked him out of. so I don't think you could say we were ignoring him.

He's our mortal enemy

Does anyone really talk like that?

The fact is this has nothing to do with Sept. 11. It never has. Malone LaVeigh is right. Saddam is not, has not, probably will never be a religious zelot, Iran, you can make a case for, but not Iraq. He has too many problems of his own to worry about.

Weren't we supposed to be finding OBL? wasn't that the goal. Until he is found and brought to trial -- that is the American way-- we don't need to be sticking our noses in other countries affairs.

Look if the mere thought of India and Pakistan having nukes doesn't scare the bejeebies out of you then you don't know much about the region. If you can sleep well knowing that the N. Koreans have the Bomb and have every intention of reuniting the peninsula one day study up on your history of the area, and finally if you you can live with China's stated intent to reclaim Twian then you haven't been paying attention. Of all the threats to our security and our nation, Saddam falls somewhere above Canda and below a crazed Russian Boomer captian.

 

[10-Ring]

This current action in Iraq is a natural progression in this war vs. terrorism. This new kind of war will ultimately confuse alot of people who will have trouble tying all the links together.

 

[faustulus]

This current action in Iraq is a natural progression in this war vs. terrorism. This new kind of war will ultimately confuse alot of people who will have trouble tying all the links together.

Probably like the war on drugs.

Please explain this "natural progression."

The fact is there is stronger evidence to suggest that Saudi Arabia had more to do with the attacks than Iraq. Heck, Germany had more to do with them. If you have evidence please state it. both are evil and want to hurt americans is not a natural progression because that would lead us several other places before iraq.

 

[Drjones]

It is a piece of cloth, get over it.

I never said anything about what I think of flag-burning.

The point is that Malone claims that these people have something valid to say against the war.

I say that the opposite is true: They do not care for any war, they just hate America.

The question still stands:

Why do you need to burn flags to protest a war?

The thought that perhaps WAR isn't the issue when they burn flags doesn't even enter your mind?

Failed in the sense that he has nuclear weapons? or failed in the sense he has used his arsenal on the Iraqi people in the last 12 years?

Thank you for proving my point.

I suppose N. Korea will be next since Kim Jong Il has threatened us numerous times.

Perhaps.....perhaps.....

I think America has fought enough of other peoples civil wars.

Explain to me how the Iraq situation is a "civil war."

Look if the mere thought of India and Pakistan having nukes doesn't scare the bejeebies out of you then you don't know much about the region. If you can sleep well knowing that the N. Koreans have the Bomb and have every intention of reuniting the peninsula one day study up on your history of the area, and finally if you you can live with China's stated intent to reclaim Twian then you haven't been paying attention.

It does frighten me that certain other countries have WMD.

How many countries you wanna fight at once?

 

[faustulus]

Thank you for proving my point.

The only way I proved your point is if there has been a war in Iraq in the last 12 years I am unaware of. See there hasn't been and he still doesn't have anything other than what he had BEFORE the Gulf War.

Explain to me how the Iraq situation is a "civil war."

Iraq is composed of tribes, much like Afghanistan. They lack any sort of nationalism, as we know it. These tribes have been fighting one another for ages. Each leader of Iraq has tried to forge some kind of national idenity (that's why Saddam keeps babbling on about Babalyon). He rules with an iron fist because he is beset on all sides by rivals for rule, hence he keeps trying to kill the Kurds, the shiites, etc. We are going to do that for them? Let them do it themselves. If they hate him so much let them get rid of him. He is using the U.S. to unite the nation. Actually he has done that for sometime. You realize of course that in his eyes and the eyes of many iraqis Saddam won the gulf war.

[/list]

Perhaps.....perhaps.....

That comes off as blood thirsty and I don't believe you are. And I don't want to fight any countries. We managed to bring down the Soviets without a direct war, just maybe we can do it again.

I never said war was the only reason people burn flags, but it is a legitimate form of protest. I don't see how it transforms into "i hate america" Does that mean that they don't, I can't say, I have burned a flag or two in my time (mainly because the gov. tried to say I couldn't) do I hate America, No. in the end flag burning is just an attention getter, it is something to put on the news. It calls attention to the message but it is not the message itself.

 

[Shweboner]

Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.

Well as of now war seems to be the only FINAL solution here.

In all the protests I ahve seen or heard the common theme seems to be Anti-America or Anti-Bush... not so much for 'peace' and 'anti-war'.

And for all the garbage that spills out of their mouths I cant recall once hearing the offer a VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE SITUATION. so they can stomp around all they want but all they are doing is talking.... and if you arent part of the solution you are part of the problem... and these commie jerk-offs are part of the problem.

I have no time or respect for these "people"


~Brian

 

[2dogs]

All protestors I've seen just hate Bush and America

You got it, Doc.

 

[Delmar]

We managed to bring down the Soviets without a direct war

How true-and there are a lot of Americans who died or were wounded as a result of Soviet financing in all of the "indirect wars." There seems to be a willingness of people to wait until these little dictators are huge, or "its their problem". Better hope it stays that way, because if you are willing to let it be some defenseless peoples problem, it may well become yours later on. Doesn't always happen, but I haven't heard anyone with a 100% accurate crystal ball who could tell me exactly how it is going to come out on either side. I'll stay ready.........................

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

This has gone too far for me to try a point-by-point, so I'll try to address the main points.

Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags?

First of all, who is this "they" you keep talking about? I've been to 3 big protests so far over this war, and for that matter scores of big and small protests over the years, and have yet to see a flag being burned. I carried one in the last protest I was in, as did my Vietnam War vet friend. I have read arguments over burning the flag and understand some consider it a valid form of protest against the actions of the government. I don't personally have a problem with the symbolism, but, being a positive kind of guy, would rather wave it than burn it.

And your use of McCarthyite slurs like "anti-American, freedom hating communists" doesn't do a thing to advance your position. Just solidifys the position anyone who disagrees with you and doesn't like being called names.

...they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably.

Can you say that "every other option" has been tried? I can think of at least two that haven't. And failed at what? Regime change? Disarmament? No one has ariculated a consistent goal, maybe because if they did, there would be less world and popular US support than there is.

In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately.

Why use the word "fact" unless you have one to present. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Show me any evidence that Saddam's "objective is to murder us indiscriminately." That's the kind of language used to scare the sheeple so they'll buy anything. Got duct tape?

You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why.

No one in this or any other US government gave a rat's rear about the torture and murder, either internal or external until he started going after oil we wanted to keep in the hands of our preferred despots. Spare me the crocodile tears, please. Rumsfeld was meeting with Iraq under Reagan while Saddam was gassing Iranians and Kurds. We supplied weapons to both sides in that war. I'm not ignoring anything, unlike the pro-war people around here. I just think there are better ways to deal with this than killing thousands of Iraqis and wreaking an environmental disaster. (Not to mention wrecking our own economy. Checked your 401K lately?)

He's an evil man who deserves to be removed from power;

That description fits a lot of politicians I could name.

Jackanape:

long tome on Int'l ANSWER

Wow. Did you really do all of that research yourself? That material has been the subject of an ongoing debate within the anti-war movement for some months now. Most notably in the Nation. Everyone who has looked into it recognizes that this group is the organizer of the main protests so far. The debate on the left has been between those who believe we should boycott ANSWER rallys because of who they are and those who believe we should attend the rallys but distance ourselves from the organizers. There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers.

In fact the second mass demonstration I attended in SF had a lot less "free Mumia" types than the first. The Sacramento rally had very little.

But you will always see some of them at any big anti-government action. It's like the Nazis and whacko survivalists you see at gun shows. I hope people don't judge us all by them.

Oops, gotta go...

 

[CZ-75]

There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers.

By attending their rallies, you give them support. And how may folks at the rallies do you think really know who these folks are?

They can point to every rally attended by someone, like yourself, who doesn't support their beliefs, and leverage that attendance figure to show that they have wide popular support and deserve the ear of more moderate politicians from the left.

As to the uninformed, who generally make up the masses of these folks, I'd say that WWP/ANSWER will use the opportunity to brainwash them, if not into complete agreement, then into the false belief that WWP is more "moderate" than it really is.

 

[jimpeel]

The question these people like to bandy about is "A war could kill as many as 100,000 innocent Iraquis. How many innocent Iraqis are you willing to kill to depose Saddam?" The answer, which is never given, is "As many as it takes."

The counter question to this query is:

"Saddam has an established record of killing an average of 33,000 Iraqis per year. You state that there could be as many as 100,000 innocent Iraquis killed by warfare. In ten years he will have killed, on average, 333,000 innocent Iraquis. How many innocent Iraqis are you willing to allow Saddam to kill by leaving him in power; and is the killing of 100,000 innocent Iraqis to save 233,000 innocent Iraquis justifiable; or should we allow the 333,000 to die?"

 

[jmbg29]

I can think of at least two that haven't.

And they would be.....?

 

[faustulus]

We keep talking about anit bush this and anti american that.

Here is a question to answer only to yourself.
If Clinton was doing this what would your reaction be?

jimpeel

I am willing to let him kill as many as he wants because it is not our responsiblity. We cannot and should not police the world. If we are going to Saddam is low on the list, We will have our hands full in W. Africa for some time.

The problem I have is we still don't have bin Laden in custody, we have no business fighting a war that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM