Karen that was not meant to single you out just a lot of people hear have a lot of good ideas and seem very committed to their beliefs but I wonder how much they do to promote their ideas. I also have no stomach for running for office but I have worked for the campaigns of people I believe in. Also just having civil discussions with the people you know and work with every day can have an effect. I'm no idealogue. I've had my opinions changed or modified many times. I listen with an open ear. I don't think though that if we believe in something we need to act not just 'bitch'. Again this is meant for everyone not any type of pointing at you.Ed :)
Ed posted "Dissent or not no one has the right to disrupt the public way or cause damage to private or public property"That must be applied to history to be evaluated:In the former Soviet Union, the 1989 protests - blocking public ways etc, achieved the greatest fall from grace in human history. The Berliners rose in force and the government chose not to suppress it violently and the Soviet Union fell.How many here would stand up and say that Martin Luther King's actions were stupid and uncalled for.By your logic, Rosa Parks had no right to sit. Indeed, by law, she had no such right, but her actions helped change America.The symbolism of the tea party is the equavilent of blocking apublic way - acting illegally - and it is part of our treasured heritage.Those who proclaim that an act of defiance or peaceful interference should not be allowed are generally those who support the protested against policy. Impose unfair or improper policy on them, and they too will join those "illegally" in the streets.Perspective.Chris.
quote:I tried to be nice getting my point across but the fact is you are in a 30% minority that doesn't support this military action. You can ask all the opinions you want around the office but 70%+ of Maine people support this cause!
I'll try to be nice too. You need to get out more, your wrong.
Scott- I absolutely agree with your post Of 10:08 this morning.charlie
L Liberal you made some good points but like George pointed out in a later post protesting should be in a "manner that does not ignore the rights of other citizens." People blocking rush hour traffic are not out blocking tanks rolling down the steets. Besides interfering with others rights it's conterproductive. I am actually dead set against this war but I think there are much more productive ways of changing things. IMHO protesting is one of the least effective ways of doing this. As I said in a previous post; voting, letters to the editor, running for office, engaging in dialogue with peers are all much more effective in changing public policy.As a side note: Any focus now should be about post war policy. The war is already here!Respectively, Ed
George, I think we have to go back to the UN for both 'legitimacy' ie. we didn't enter this war for our sole benefit, and to help pay the costs of post-war reconstruction. If the US (and GB) have to foot the cost for this whole thing it could be devasting not just to us but the whole world economy. Iraqi oil should be used to help rebuild the country but it would be a slap in their faces if we used it to pay for the war. I don't think the rest of the Middle East could stomach that.Ed
quote:Originally posted by threeifbywire:
[b]History has better shown that Henry Kissinger, by suggesting to the North Vietnamese that they would find better terms from Nixon, singlehandedly sabotaged the Paris peace agreement in 1968 and then settled three years later for the same terms. Without him, the Vietnam Memorial would be half as long.[/b]
If I am not mistaken, the topic is about the protesters and dissent, not what Kissinger may or may not have done. I have seen a number of documentaries, one on PBS, that quoted the North Vietnamese leaders, as being more impressed with the perceived lack of will of the American, than dealing with the American government. If there is ANY chance that even one of our brave soldiers is put at risk because of the demonstrations, it is irresponsible and unpatriotic to continue. I do not deny their "right" to do so, but I certainly have the same right to to call them the ignorant fools that they are. Al
Well said Wingman!charlie
U.S. and its allies are invading Iraq because of...[i]Al Greenlaw[/i]? Clear thinking is a beautiful thing, isn't it?skf
quote:Originally posted by Editor:
[b]U.S. and its allies are invading Iraq because of...[i]Al Greenlaw[/i]? [/b]
No, no! The reason the war is going badly is because of Charlie.
"The reason the war is going badly is because of Charlie."
No, no, no! If I had my way, the war wouldn't be going on at all!charlie
Okay, Charlie. If it's not all your fault, it must be the journalists' then.
Yeah, you're probably right, threeifbywire. Let's spread it all around, avoiding the real culprit if possible.charlie
"There are plenty of us with grave reservations" Yep, there are and we're all going to meet that reservation at some point in time. I reserved mine a couple of years ago, and ya know it's the only piece of property that someone else isn't in a mad rush to get away from me or anyone else !!! It's the dissenters that are going to have to live their lives knowing that they were cowards and content to condone the slaughter of helpless men ,women ,and children. Ya know what they say about hindsight? Hopefully their children will try to understand them for what they are.
There is enough information posted to this board to determine I am a dissenter so far as this war with Iraq is concerned, Snowalker. But, to judge me a coward based only on that is a mistake I assure you.Is it more courageous for the most powerful military force on earth to take on a third world nation such as Iraq? To me that's a bullies way. What is the current justification for attacking Iraq again? It escapes me at the moment.charlie
Al said "If there is ANY chance that even one of our brave soldiers is put at risk because of the demonstrations, it is irresponsible and unpatriotic to continue."Al, as a liberal, I would agree if you substitute the word "ANY chance" for "a reasonable liklihood."To me patriotism is standing up for our country in the heat of unfair criticism from abroad. It is supporting our troops even though you do not support the war. It is acknowledging that even though one does not support the war, we have a democracy, and if a different president had been elected, there would have been a different result; therefore dissent and demonstrate, but within the legal confines provided by our society - to the extent the legal confines are consistent with a fair and free society.Patriotism is saying "I don't like it, but I still love and support my country. While there is cause for displeasure with some of our policies, as a whole there is far more to be proud of then to be ashamed of."From a liberal.Chris.
Chris: I won't quibble about the semantics, so substitute what makes you feel comfortable. My criticism with those that are getting the most press, are that they carry signs saying, "Support our troops when they shoot their officers", who deface or vandalize property, or deliberately try to interfere with the free flow of traffic and business. This is not dissent. This is hooliganism. The organiziers of these demostrations are mostly American hating Marxists. Unfortunately, those who may be true dissenters, are either being unwittingly used, or don't care who the organizers are, as long as their message gets out. Al
When I was flying helicopter gun ships in the Mekong Delta 32 years ago today there were Ho Chi Minh supporters back here at home. Today we have Saddam supporters here at home. The sheeple or silent majority seem to be clueless about the motives of those who oppose our country. It is very simple. Muslim terrorists and ecoterrorists want us dead. Their agendas are precisely the same. They support Saddam's torture chambers, poison gas and policies on women's rights. They would perpetuate Saddam's regime. They share the goal of the Muslim world to reduce America to an enslaved subsistance economy. Trite liberal slogans can not sugar coat their goals.
quote:Originally posted by Roger Ek:
[b]When I was flying helicopter gun ships in the Mekong Delta 32 years ago today there were Ho Chi Minh supporters back here at home. Today we have Saddam supporters here at home. The sheeple or silent majority seem to be clueless about the motives of those who oppose our country. It is very simple. Muslim terrorists and ecoterrorists want us dead. Their agendas are precisely the same. They support Saddam's torture chambers, poison gas and policies on women's rights. They would perpetuate Saddam's regime. They share the goal of the Muslim world to reduce America to an enslaved subsistance economy. Trite liberal slogans can not sugar coat their goals.[/b]
Not all of the majority is silent because of apathy or their "sheep"-ishness (pun police have been notified). Some are silent due to their tradecraft.
This is from a Army captain stationed in DC. To nobody's surprise there were protestors Friday in DC. They attempted to disrupt the metro system and block the Key Bridge, a leading artery into DC from Northern Virginia."I got hosed twice because I come in from NoVA on the metro and it is raining hard which makes traffic worse anyway...to the point- I got off my train in Rosslyn because I had to use the bathroom. When I was getting back on the train, there were protestors on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one. An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protestor offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined. The young protestor put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, "Ma'am, don't you care about the children of Iraq?" The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my first husband died in France during World War II so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth your country. And if you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it."I'm glad to report that loud applause broke out among the onlookers and the young protestor was at a total loss for words.
Hooo-rahhhh! Never mess with determined old ladies with umbrellas!!
Roger, so as a Nam Vet with possibly some experience of winning hearts and minds of a foreign civilian populace, do you think we are going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?
Mike G, The Vietnamese people did not want us all dead. They wanted to be free. They also wanted to be free of foreign armies occupying their country. Colin Powell's quote this week sums it up. I paraphrase: "America has sent troops to many countries to secure their freedom. The only land we ever asked for was enough to bury those who did not return."Iraq is a very different situation. Sunni and Shiite Muslims compete for local influence, but it is imperative to understand that both sects want us dead. If Muslims believe their religion they want Mike G dead; they want me dead; they want us all dead. "Death to America" is no cheap slogan. It is the central core of their being. The best example of our hearts and minds effect is the large number of Vietnamese who risked everything to escape to America. I never heard of anybody escaping to Vietnam.
charlien:"Is it more courageous for the most powerful military force on earth to take on a third world nation such as Iraq? To me that's a bullies way."Why is this statement remotely relevant? Do you believe that one valid aim of this war is to demonstrate courage? So, then, we should pick fights NOT based on perceived threat, but by size of the opponent? What absolute and total HOGWASH!! This isn't the Monday night fights, and is not about entertainment. It is the job of our forces to make sure, in the words of George Patton, that the "other poor son-of-a bitch dies for his country". Part of the exercise is NOT being killed yourself. As for the reasons for picking the fight in the first place, 'displaying courage' isn't even on the list.If you want demonstrations of courage, I'd submit that the firefighters and cops charging into the WTC are a pretty good example. You might also consider the few HUNDRED troops from our special ops forces who led the VASTLY outnumbered northern alliance to victory in Afghanistan.NONE of it was done to demonstrate courage.
Taken totally out of context TJC.It is relevant because I was replying to Snowalker's statement, "It's the dissenters that are going to have to live their lives knowing that they were cowards..."Courage and cowardness are opposite sides of the same coin in my opinion, as is love and hate.charlie
quote:Originally posted by charlien:
[b] What is the current justification for attacking Iraq again? It escapes me at the moment.charlie[/b]
Charlie, complete and total failure on the part of Iraq to live up to any agreement that ended the last war. :D
James,The agreement that ended the last war was between Iraq and the UN, not the US of A, therefore enforcement is the domain of the UN, not the US of A"W"s stated goals have ranged from elimanating Al-Qaeda threats to liberating the Iraqi people, and all that lies between, consistancy is lacking here.The last Texan we had in the White House was equally inept at global diplomacy, as was the one befor that!
"Today we have Saddam supporters here at home"Rubbish. Even the most moronic anti-american protesters do not support Saddam.Chris.
charlien:It is your reply, then, that was out of context. The issue was the cowardice or bravery of the demonstrators. Your reply seems to advocate our MILITARY picking fights ONLY when there is a reasonable chance that we will LOSE. That is the inverse of the Weinburger doctrine, and also the inverse of good sense.[ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: thejohnchapman ]