Anti War Movement

The device that all peace protests are suppose to be dismissed as Marxist movements is dried up rhetoric regressing back to the days of McCarthy. Any inference that labor or "the workers" should be identified with Marxism is a clever diversion but that will not stand, either. I suggest reading and watching what both sides advocate and then come a conclusion of what one supports. Right now, both sides have their guns drawn in a Mexican stand-off. What one has to realize is that those in a peace movement aren't going to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

0 Replies

I dab a bit of paint on the walls and then play here, if my painting comes out bad it's partly this site's fault.

--

Iraq's not a nuclear power and I don't think they'd waste any of their first nukes on a stupid attack that would guarantee their destruction. I personally find it far more likely that individuals will attack us than states. But like I said, this is in teh "what if" category so we won't get anywhere with this.

---

We are under no obligagtion to provide the "beacon" or the alternatives, but there are alternatives. Progress is slow but this year there has been progress in the Arab world. Most notably with Pakistan, whose strongman (no democracy there yet) has the thankless job of fighting extremism there.

How was this progress wrought? Through the easing of sanctions leveled against them from their own nuclear tests. They have the bomb but what git their leader on our side was economic consideration and our hard stance to them had done little.

--

Tripping over immigrants? Either you are clumsy or a xenophobe of immense proportions. Immigration means they want a better life, it doesn't mean they like our foreign policy. I have lived there too and am well aware of the love/hate relationship.

People don't hate us so much as our policy. But they sometimes have a hard time differentiating it. Immigration is an insipid defence of foreign policy. It's indicative of our wealth and nothing more.

0 Replies

First Canada is more lax about accepting immigrants and then we are tripping over them here? An extension of a visa was issued to one of the hijackers -- how lax do you figure our immigration standards are? Let's blame it all on the Canadians.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The device that all peace protests are suppose to be dismissed as Marxist movements is dried up rhetoric regressing back to the days of McCarthy.

Some things are true even if McCarthy said them. It is a fact that Marxists infiltrated many "peace" and other movements. And really, isn't invoking McCarthyism dried up rhetoric?

Lightwizard wrote:

Any inference that labor or "the workers" should be identified with Marxism is a clever diversion but that will not stand, either.

It will stand quite nicely. Marxist organizations on campus always call themselves something like "Worker's Alliance For Progress" or "Worker's Party" or some such thing. They are easy to spot. If you read the papers closely, you can always find them as one of the organizers, especially for campus protests where the liberals are especially easy to fool.

Lightwizard wrote:

I suggest reading and watching what both sides advocate and then come a conclusion of what one supports. Right now, both sides have their guns drawn in a Mexican stand-off. What one has to realize is that those in a peace movement aren't going to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

My opinion is based on a clear-eyed look at both sides of the issue. The fact is that you will never see conservatives disguising themselves as something else. What you see is what you get with conservatives. However, Marxists do disguise themselves as moderate liberals and hide their agenda. I suggest you read and watch what the leaders of these "peace" protests actually say and investigate their histories. It will be a good education for you.

You might also consider that not shooting when shooting is necessary is very dangerous. You might learn from the example of Europe's appeasement of Hitler rather than doom yourself to repeat that history.

Tantor

0 Replies

In my opinion this is not about Iraq, Saddam, or Al Queda. It is about Cheny, Rumsfield, and the first President Bush wanting to avenge their failures and soothe ruffled feathers. Remember it was Cheny who refused to send air support for our troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. It was fear of a real war that they could not stomach and now with the help of Osama they have been able to recreate the scenario and again will rely on technology to win the battle for them.

Afghanistan is not yet secure, we the people are not yet secure, the world is vulnerable and these guys want to spend 80 billion dollars to avenge their own egos. These old men do not care about us, to quote President John F. Kennedy, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. John F. Kennedy," Speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1961.

0 Replies

Tantor: Re: your last response

Might be that your opinion is valuable for the USA.
But in other countries, 'Marxists' are Marxists and nothing else.

One of the strong wings in the German conservative party, CDU, is the Workers Union, btw.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Iraq's not a nuclear power and I don't think they'd waste any of their first nukes on a stupid attack that would guarantee their destruction. I personally find it far more likely that individuals will attack us than states. But like I said, this is in teh "what if" category so we won't get anywhere with this.

Iraq specializes in stupid attacks. The attack of Iran was stupid. Kuwait was stupid. The attempted assassination of ex-Pres Bush was stupid. Their support of the first attack on the WTC was stupid. I would rather not trust Iraq's good sense were it to gain a nuke.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Progress is slow but this year there has been progress in the Arab world. Most notably with Pakistan, whose strongman (no democracy there yet) has the thankless job of fighting extremism there.

I don't share your enthusiasm for Pakistan and our alliance of convenience with them. While they are helping us with our fight against Al Qaeda, more or less, they are also trading nukes for missiles with North Korea.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Tripping over immigrants? Either you are clumsy or a xenophobe of immense proportions. Immigration means they want a better life, it doesn't mean they like our foreign policy. ... People don't hate us so much as our policy. But they sometimes have a hard time differentiating it.

"Foreign policy" makes the Arab bias sound more noble than what it is. Basically, they hate Israel out of irrational religious prejudice whipped on by local rulers who seek to distract them from local issues. They want the US to allow the Arabs to kill the Israelis. Not gonna happen.

The foreign policy of the US does not affect Mohammed the street peddlar for good or ill. It is a phony issue. For Abdul the Iraqi goatherder roaming the desert to get in a rage about US foreign policy is ridiculous. We have no effect on his life. I was very much struck by interviews with Afghan Muslims living in the sticks who professed hatred for America but had never met an American nor knew exactly what America was, country or continent, nor where it was. All they knew was their imam told them America was evil.

Tantor

0 Replies

Your timline is skewed, North Korea and Pakistan's exchange outdates the alliance your deride.

And yes, our policy affects the average Joe to say otherwise is ludicrous. I have no idea why you tie this into Israel, that's only a segment of our policy and not relevant to the point I made. What I said is that immigration has nothing to do with support for our policy.

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

In my opinion this is not about Iraq, Saddam, or Al Queda. It is about Cheny, Rumsfield, and the first President Bush wanting to avenge their failures and soothe ruffled feathers. Remember it was Cheny who refused to send air support for our troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. It was fear of a real war that they could not stomach and now with the help of Osama they have been able to recreate the scenario and again will rely on technology to win the battle for them.

Huh? The Rangers and Delta operators in Modadishu got constant air support in the form of AC-130 gunships that stayed on station all night and tore a lot of the Somalis up.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George Bush. It was Les Aspin who was Sec of Def under Clinton when Mogadishu was fought. You have your facts mixed up.

However, you are precisely correct that the fear of war that Aspin and Clinton felt led to us abandoning Somalia and encouraging Osama to think that if he hit us hard enough, we would collapse. That's what Sep 11 was all about.

Thank goodness we have Bush as president and Cheney as VP along with Rummy as Sec Def. They are not gonna run.

Tantor

0 Replies

I am sorry I made a mistake my information was based on my cousin's account and he was there, must have been mistaken, and probably meant the Gulf war, he is on disability from the Army, 1st Airbourne, then Rangers, and finally Delta Force.

0 Replies

I stand on my opinion that the Cheny-Bush-Rummy coalition is only interested in what they can personally gain in a war with Iraq and that they will find any excuse to invade. With this economy what better way to distract the public than with a foreign war and history tells us that a war time president will be re-elected. It would seem that a long protracted ground war in Iraq along with a dedication to rebuild that country in our own image in post war Iraq would assure the president of a 2nd term.

Then we start the sequel to Viet Nam, large numbers of vets, this time around they will not even have the VA benefits afforded the Viet Nam vets. These women and men released into a weak economy at home. A generation of young men either killed or devastated by a war let lose to drink and drug there way out of the abyss. In the meantime Al Queda is free to kill at will around the world. And Afganisthan well they are already stumbling.

0 Replies

Joane,

Are you arguing that the Bush administration then does not care if Iraq has nukes or not?

The economy is simply not that bad, Democratic propaganda notwithstanding. Unemployment is around 6%, not bad. 5% unemployment is basically full employment, as that proportion of workers are transitioning jobs in a normal economy. There is no recession. The economy is still growing, just not as fast as the 1990s.

There will be no protracted ground war in Iraq. It will be over in a month. Most of the Iraqi military are probably going to sit this one out. I wouldn't be surprised if some Iraqi units have pre-arranged surrenders.

It seems you are protesting Vietnam about thirty years after the fact. You also have your facts mixed up about Vietnam vets being somehow more dysfunctional than the rest of society. The stats show that the Vietnam vets had the same social problems like alcoholism and drug use at the same rate as the general population, no more, no less. The idea that Viet vets spent their lives in an alcoholic haze is a myth.

Tantor

0 Replies

The economy is growing, 40,000 lost jobs in November, unemployment rate of 6%?

The only nuclear weapons I think we are likely to find in Iraq are the surplus dirty nuclear weapons our soldiers used to carry in Germany that where to be detonated in case the Russians made a move. My guess is that we gave them to Iraq to fight Iran. Then the wall fell the red curtain lifted and all the while our intelligence resources were, well what where they doing?

0 Replies

I suggest that your education, Tantor, is biased entirely to the right and is not in the least balanced. So pardon me if I turn your words back towards you -- where is the evidence that Marxists are crawling out of the rocks behind every piece movement? Sorry, I can find it nowhere but in the likes of MaxNews, unsubstantiated by nothing but the most vague insinuation based on scanty and very questionable sources. What particular universities are in the grip of Marixts factions? You make a lot of generalized statements that sound more like they're based on some unfathomable fear. Your rhetoric is still borrowed from the McCarthy era and if you believe that it still stands today, you need an education. Inventing words is your forte, so why should anyone believe any of your other inventions? I would suggest perhaps not leaving your front door -- you never know when one of those immigrants or Marxists will get you.

0 Replies

Did the US ever use biological weapons on it's own people, hmm

How We Killed Our Own Troops

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

The economy is growing, 40,000 lost jobs in November, unemployment rate of 6%?

That's right, Joan. The economy is growing. People lose their jobs in a growing economy, too. The only economy in which nobody loses their job is a bad economy, like the Soviets had. Just heard the 6% quote on the news the other day. So what's your point.

JoanneDorel wrote:

The only nuclear weapons I think we are likely to find in Iraq are the surplus dirty nuclear weapons our soldiers used to carry in Germany that where to be detonated in case the Russians made a move. My guess is that we gave them to Iraq to fight Iran. Then the wall fell the red curtain lifted and all the while our intelligence resources were, well what where they doing?

The US does not have any dirty nukes in the inventory. None. I challenge you to name one. We also don't give our nukes away to anybody. Nobody. I challenge you to name a country that has received an American nuke.

I can also tell you, having trained to deliver nukes, that the US military does not fool around with them. They are the most closely guarded and accounted objects on Earth.

Tantor

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I suggest that your education, Tantor, is biased entirely to the right and is not in the least balanced.

Your suggestion is wrong. My education was slanted left, like most education in the US. I did not become a conservative until my graduate studies when I began thinking for myself. However, if you know of a college somewhere in the US that provides a conservative education, please let me know.

You suffer from a severe case of liberal self-righteousness in which all other opinions are unbalanced except yours. I recommend that you open your mind to diverse opinions. You will be a better and clearer thinker for it.

Lightwizard wrote:

So pardon me if I turn your words back towards you -- where is the evidence that Marxists are crawling out of the rocks behind every piece movement?

I have said no such thing. What I did say was that many of the "peace" protests were organized by Marxists. I told you how to find them. Simply go to any campus newspaper covering a protest, look for the list of the organizers, and search for anything with "worker" in its name. The Marxists like to get their names in the paper too, so there is likely to be a quote from them.

Lightwizard wrote:

What particular universities are in the grip of Marixts factions? You make a lot of generalized statements that sound more like they're based on some unfathomable fear.

University faculties are the last refuge for Marxists. I wouldn't pick any particular university, except perhaps Berkeley, as dominated by Marxists. However, most liberal arts colleges in universities are dominated by far left liberals who reject conservative professors who apply. Those are the facts, pal.

Lightwizard wrote:

Your rhetoric is still borrowed from the McCarthy era and if you believe that it still stands today, you need an education. Inventing words is your forte, so why should anyone believe any of your other inventions? I would suggest perhaps not leaving your front door -- you never know when one of those immigrants or Marxists will get you.

Yawn.

I'd be happy to match my education to yours, kid. My whole life has been one long academic experience. It's pretty foolish to think that anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated. However, liberals like you make that mistake all the time. I can't help but notice that no matter how little education a liberal has, they think they are smarter than conservatives no matter how educated. It's kinda like a religious cult who believe their dogma makes them superior.

Tantor

0 Replies

Let's stick to the issues? What individuals think about each other can be discussed privately.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not since 1958 has the service sector lost jobs over a two-year period, not even during the severe recessions of 1973-75 and 1981-82. It is easy to understand why the administration might feel this was not the time to wait and hope for a better economy.

The above quote was taken from an article in todays' New York Times "Week in Review" entitled Surprise, It's the Economy Again, Stupid!

0 Replies

I am also unconvinced of Hans Blix's suitability as an effective chief inspector in Iraq. He was the first choice of France and Russia, not the United States, neither of which seems interested in interfering with Iraqs ability to produce and use WOMD.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york100102.asp

0 Replies

Anti War Movement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know