It is difficult to win a war when your country counts some of its worst enemies as citizens.
keep in mind...these are the protestors who are "fighting for peace"...kinda like *f-ing for birth control"....
Cindy Sheehan, Ralph Nader and Ramsey Clark, are all anti-American.
all of the left believe in free speech, as long as it supports their position
they are against the free speech on the opposition
Professor
I really don't think the republic is at risk from fringe groups such as these, but if it is there are groups on the right and with more power that pose an equal risk.
When it comes to protesting, I am just as wary of those groups or people that always support the government as I am by those that always oppose it.
This is a great country, there is room for every opinion.
Our ability to be successful in determining the outcome of the struggles in the Middle East has now come down to the war in Iraq. Failure there spells failure across the region. Incompetence has brought us to this point, let's see if any lessons have been learned and if Gen. Petraeus can pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire.
This is an excellent summation of the danger of these leftist groups. They truly hate this country and everything it stands for.
Of course, I never trust anyone who constantly sees everything in the terms of victimhood.
"This is a challenge for the survival of good and right..."
well put, don. too many people who are on the side of the anti-war moonbats don't believe in good and evil - or right and wrong - or at best they have a very skewed version of it. simply hoping that others will follow your lead doesn't make it so.
Regarding the lawsuit, I think this case will probably shut the door on any possibility of success.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1...9/1963/1963_39/
Besides, I think the only person who would have legal standing to sue is General Petraeus himself (and in his capacity as a member of the military and not an individual). Though I'm not a lawyer, my layman's guess is that any lawsuit initiated by a third party on behalf of another third party would be dismissed due to a lack of standing. I'd have to go back to my notes though as I'm writing off the top of my head.
No doubt the MoveOn ad was beyond repulsive but there's little legal recourse, if any that can be achieved.
Jim again makes sense, but I take it further.
ANSWER is insignificant. Almost no one who attends their rallies & marches buys into the communist agenda, or has a single anti-American thought. No one who was there is cheering US defeat, or looking for America to lose, as you claim.
Those are just silly talking points.
The real issue is this specific occupation in Iraq, and what to do about it. And like it or not, much of America is questioning pretty much all aspects of it, from how we got in to what to do now...
While I'm kinda on the fence--I neither support continued occupation or immediate withdrawal, and see no good answers--I'd like to see the conversation move toward finding a way out with as little damage to us, Iraq, or the region as possible, and therefore support demonstrations that keep the issue from being a foregone conclusion in favor of seemingly endless occupation & continued death all around.
Commies & anti-Americanism are boogiemen made of straw. (I'm not saying there is no such thing, but both put together are to the peace movement what Fred Phelps is to religious thought.) There are far too many people from all walks of life opposing this occupation (either in polls, or in representation at these marches) for you to credibly attribute it to be "anti-American Reds."
I understand that some of the groups have socialist or commie ties. If that were grounds for automatic dismissal, you folks would have to give up the eight-hour work day (along with many other labor laws), and The Pledge of Allegiance. Even followers of bad political theories can have good ideas, occasionally. Fixing what Mr. Bush broke (more slowly & carefully than we broke it, I hope) is one of them.
Thanks Shoprat: Yes, it is...but they have rights too. The worst of them would even destroy those...
Thanks Libby! Hope you're doing well.
"Fighting for peace"...that's a good one, alright!
Jim: Are you familiar with International ANSWER's platform? These people are the hardest of the hardliners. They've combined internationally into an alliance of socialism and radical Islam. Last year's antiwar protests in Britain called for the destruction of the British state.
Should we never have any worry about those who seek to kill us?
Thanks Flag Gazer: Yes, there's a lot of victimhood among these types.
Thanks for commenting, Heidi!
Donald
I think we have a lot enemies who wish us dead, but I'm not sure about Answers as a threat.
I will look into them and get back with you.
recently a KGB agent wrote and article about how the ussr used propaganda against the us. propaganda plays a far lerger role then most realize. the constant barrage against the us by socialists/anarchist and their compatriots (terrorists) has had a significant impact as to how us citizens view the war. kuwait funded the anit-gitmo propaganda, which make the impression that all the terrorists at gitmo were do-gooders picked up erroneously by the us. the fact is: they were captured on battlefields while trying to kill americans.
Why are peace protesters so violent?
It boggles the mind!
Well it was Anarchists that spearheaded the campaign for the 8-hour workday and they were no threat to America. They only bombed it a bit and assassinated a president. It was just an international terror campaign. No biggie… I can see the parallels…
Anyways it wasn’t Anarchists or Socialists that are responsible for the 8-hour day, it was President Roosevelt in his New Deal, which was passed decades after Anarchist Unions campaigned for the 8-hour day in the 1870s and 80s. They had nothing to do with it. It was a great American president who saw the benefits of moderate Socialist policies and how it could compliment Capitalist ideals.
And if RepSac claims that ANSWER are anything like Christian Socialists then he is mistaken. They are atheist revolutionaries, of which Bellamy was neither.
Thanks Geek! Good to see you visiting and commenting!
Repsac3: You too easily dismiss International ANSWER as insignificant.
But your own language of dissent impugns your statements. It's not an "occupation" in the sense that you mean. We handed over sovereignty to Iraqi political leaders long ago.
It is also not true that American public opinion is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal. Public opinion's unhappy with the way things have turned out, but I recently posted on the WSJ poll that found the public opposed to a quick cut-and-run.
Play words games all you like, Repsac3. ANSWER folks are relentlessly anti-U.S. The NYT piece in fact calls them an umbrella group for the movement. How many of the peaceniks have denounced ANSWER?
They had nothing to do with it. It was a great American president who saw the benefits of moderate Socialist policies and how it could compliment Capitalist ideals
Great American President? Sure, if you count standing the Constitution on its head the hallmark of a great President. Personally, I don't.
Moderate socialist policies? Do you consider yourself a conservative? All conservatives I know throw up at the sight of socialism. Personally, I find the whole concept wretched, as does anyone who understands the differences between capitalism and socialism.
Wow.
if anyone wants to truly understand the threat we, the western world, face, it is wise to read what terror organizations say. read the greetings of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, al-qaida spokesman printed below
"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
"Our martyrs are ready for operations against American and Jewish targets. America should be prepared. It should be ready. They should fasten the seatbelts. We are coming to them where they never expected."
"The war against the United States has just started," and al-Qaeda has the means to "stage fresh attacks against US targets."
We have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children.
Donald
They certainly are an anarchist, Marxist group, aren't they.
I still question whether they are that large a threat, but they do need watching.
Where as threats to the republic are concerned I worry more about a terrorist attack around the time of the upcoming change in the executive. Would there be a call to declare martial law?
In the past five years the executive branch has expanded and then consolidated extraordinary powers. Let's hope the opportunity does not present itself.
It is also not true that American public opinion is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal.
I agree... That must be why I never made any such claim.
but I recently posted on the WSJ poll that found the public opposed to a quick cut-and-run.
And while I wasn't polled by WSJ, I oppose a quick cut & run, too. But that doesn't make me a stay the course guy, either. I want the US to find its way back out, as carefully as possible, to minnimize the damage this occupation created. (And no, I'm not saying we're responsible for all the troubles in the Middle East, or that Saddam wasn't a bad guy who created a whole lotta damage of his own, or that now that AQ is in Iraq (which I do blame on our not securing the borders), we don't need to respond to that.)
ANSWER folks are relentlessly anti-U.S.
Some of 'em are. And, like the black bloc asses who follow peace protests areound (& are also anti-American in my opinion, based on their violent tactics), I denounce them. My point is, they are an insignificant part of the movement, idealistically. The myriad of folks attending are not parroting actual anti-American slogans (by which I don't mean opposing the President or his policies, which is a very American trait and is done all the time by whatever party isn't in office), arming themselves (you tend to find that kinda anti-government militia stuff on the right fringes) or trying to overthrow anyone, violently or otherwise. At worst, they try to get you to read stuff or pay attention to rambling speeches. Not all that scary, and occasionally, even fun to debate against, as a rhetorical excersize...
The NYT piece in fact calls them an umbrella group for the movement.
That'd be because that's exactly what they are. ANSWER really isn't it's own group, but a coalition of all kindas of left o center groups, from commies to environmentalists to human rights groups. So whatever your bugaboo, there's probably an affiliated group that you're able to point to & say "They're bad because___" The fact is, they came together to oppose the war, and that's all most folks give a hoot about. Freeing Mumia & saving the rainforest, & celebrating the life of Che may or may not be on some folk's individual agendas, but that's not why we attend ANSWER rallies, even if there are some speeches & signs that suggest otherwise. The minute an ANSWER rally becomes about communism (or much of any interest of any other coalition member group), the streets will be almost empty.
How many of the peaceniks have denounced ANSWER?
I only know of a few, mostly based on a foolish anti-Jewish stance they took in 2002 or so. (They barred Rabbi Lerner from speaking as a rally, after he denounced their support for a single Palistinian state, rather than a two state solution. I considered not attending the next ANSWER function in NY, but even Rabbi Lerner himself suggested continuing to support the anti-war movement, even i
I only know of a few, mostly based on a foolish anti-Jewish stance they took in 2002 or so. (They barred Rabbi Lerner from speaking as a rally, after he denounced their support for a single Palistinian state, rather than a two state solution. I considered not attending the next ANSWER function in NY, but even Rabbi Lerner himself suggested continuing to support the anti-war movement, even if ANSWER was involved.)
Few peaceniks have denounced ANSWER, because few take their ideas seriously in the first place, or see them as any kinda threat to our American way of life. Yes, the ANSWER coalition has commies (& palastinians, & pro-muslim groups, & socialists, and vegetarians, & religious groups) in it. They (the individual organizations) are no more of a threat to the US way of life than any other fringe group is. And together as ANSWER, they spend very little time (though still far too much, according to many of us) selling anything but opposition to the occupation.
Freedom Now: Thanks for jumping in there. I think you raise interesting points, and I agree that the anarchists would like nothing better than the destruction of the state, then or now.
Geek: Policies change over time, and where market conservatives in the 1930s were probably aghast at the idea of Social Security, I doubt more than a few in the GOP today would abolish the program.
Maybe the guys at Cato would, but you'll have to fill me in more there.
Thanks Anonymous: But clarify - who has the right to kill "4 million Americans..."
Jim: I don't like ANSWER, period. They're nasty, anti-American, and I don't know how anyone could associate with them, knowing their platform.
I support the unitary executive theory. We're nowhere - and I mean nowhere - near martial law.
People on the left (not necessarily you) are tremendously sensitive to threats to civil liberties, but many of the same folks oppose more military measures in the GWOT, in fact preferring law and order methods (but not warrantless wiretaps of suspected international terrorists).
Go figure!?
Well it was Anarchists that spearheaded the campaign for the 8-hour workday...
It was both anarchists and socialists, here in the US. (The first MayDay parades here were in support of the 8 hour work day.) In England, it was socialists.
...and they were no threat to America. They only bombed it a bit and assassinated a president. It was just an international terror campaign. No biggie… I can see the parallels…
You're making my point, FN... Even otherwise bad folks can have good ideas... Or would you prefer to scrap all the labor laws?
Anyways it wasn’t Anarchists or Socialists that are responsible for the 8-hour day, it was President Roosevelt in his New Deal, which was passed decades after Anarchist Unions campaigned for the 8-hour day in the 1870s and 80s. They had nothing to do with it. It was a great American president who saw the benefits of moderate Socialist policies and how it could compliment Capitalist ideals.
Funny how you dismiss the socialists right out of the picture, because they don't fit your meme, and deny that the early calls for an 8 hour day had anything to do with Roosevelt's later decision.
-------------------------------
Eight-hour day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The United Mine Workers won an eight-hour work day in 1898.
The Building Trades Council (BTC) of San Francisco, under the leadership of P.H. McCarthy, won the eight-hour day in 1900 when the BTC unilaterally declared that its members would work only eight hours a day for $3 a day.
By 1905 the Eight-hour day is widely installed in the printing trades.
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day, and cut shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, most soon followed suit.
The Adamson Act was a United States law passed in 1916 that established an eight-hour workday, with additional pay for overtime work, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in 1917.
The eight-hour day was realized for many working people in the U.S. in 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 
under the New Deal made it a legal day's work throughout the nation.
------------------------
And if RepSac claims that ANSWER are anything like Christian Socialists then he is mistaken. They are atheist revolutionaries, of which Bellamy was neither.
Straw man. repsac makes no such claim. repsac repeats what he said originally; even bad actors can have good ideas, & that one can do or support the same thing a commie or a socialist does or supports--like opposing the occupation of a foreign country, appreciating US labor laws, or pledging to t
Repsac3: I think you underestimate these groups. It's not a bunch of suburban moms who've loaded up the kids in their SUVs for tailgate parties on the Mall in Washington!
I didn't attend the demonstrations, no excuses. So I can't rebut your points about "antiwar diversity" from experience.
I have read many articles and blogs, and I can see the pictures for myself (see Malkin, for example). I think these people would destroy the nation and enslave the people in a reign of terror if they got their way.
That's just my opinion, but nothing you've said rebuts my basic points on ANSWER.
Straw man. repsac makes no such claim. repsac repeats what he said originally; even bad actors can have good ideas, & that one can do or support the same thing a commie or a socialist does or supports--like opposing the occupation of a foreign country, appreciating US labor laws, or pledging to the US flag--without being or becoming a commie or a socialist.
There are times when guilt by association makes sense. This isn't one of those times, unless doing so supports the position you came in with, and prefer to leave with.
I have read many articles and blogs, and I can see the pictures for myself (see Malkin, for example). I think these people would destroy the nation and enslave the people in a reign of terror if they got their way.
I feel the same about Malkin, sometimes...
But don't forget, Malkin, et al. has an agenda, as well. The pictures & experiences they relate are there to sell a particular version of events, to back up a particular ideology.
Go to youtube & search out "ant-war Protest" or "Gathering of Eagles" videos for yourself, and look at all the people involved in the marches. (I recommend hitting a variety of videographers, because they too, have an agenda.)
There are some crazies, there are some truthers, & there are some anarchists... And then there are ordinary folks of all ages, genders, & races, dressed like you or I would be on a late summer day, participating in the marches & making their voices heard.
That's just my opinion, but nothing you've said rebuts my basic points on ANSWER.
Your basic point about ANSWER seems to be that the coalition contains commies. It does.
You allege that ANSWER & the like cheer US defeat, hate everything for which the US stands, & would storm the barricades against a US government under seige, in hopes of imposing a reign of totolitarian terror, but you fail to offer much of anything to support the allegations.
If you see no reason or need to support them, I see no reason or need to refute them, other than to say I've not seen anything that supports your allegations (aside other folks of your bent making the same allegations, also without proof.) I even took a quick look for anything about ANSWER's support for overthrowing the Brittish State, but found nothing.
You're free to maintain your opinion. Until I see a reason or two to change it, I will maintain mine, as well.
Repsac3: No straw man here. I've said I didn't attend the demonstrations, nor does it sound like you did. People can be opposed to this war, sure, without being a revolutionary.
But you said ANSWER's insignificant, and I think you're wrong, and I mean really off base there, man!
I was there ... in the pictures, look for the Michael Moore kinda-lookalike with the red shirt and guitar, with a "USS Independence" baseball cap.
And yes, there were the "normal"-looking mixed in with the usual suspects ... and even among the usual suspects, there is such a diversity of causes that you might wonder what the march is really about.
That doesn't make the agenda of its leaders any less significant ... or dangerous.
In organizing such events, there is a significant fallout, for ANSWER ...
... validates the misplaced idealism of some, who think we can just wish war away/are evolved beyond war/etc.
... reinforces the fallacy of many, that ordinary people are at the mercy of the rich and powerful ... and a socialist government (led by those ANSWER supports) can see to it that they "get what they deserve" from life.
... adds undeserved credibility to groups like the 911 Truthers, by recognizing them as legitimate.
ANSWER, and the groups that assist them in setting up these marches, are a prime source of the truly faulty intelligence of this war, with a focus NOT on stopping the war ... but on damaging those they perceive are standing in the way their birthright-to-rule.
Why do I say that?
Besides all the references to 911 Truthiness and calls for impeachment, there is one other indicator that is quite reliable.
If they were anti-war, at least a few of them would be protesting in Tehran, Damascus, and Waziristan.
Not just DC.
"That doesn't make the agenda of its leaders any less significant ... or dangerous...."
Thanks Rich! I appreciate your clarity!
I think that in this country it is a law and order issue. Overseas? You go where you must to defend our nation.
I seldom agree with G. Bush, but he is the president and if he wants to hit terrorists anywhere in the world, it's OK with me.
If Bush, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had recognized prior to 9/11 what the real danger was, we wouldn't be in this predicament. There is another 9/11 out there and I would hope we would do whatever it took to stop it.
Interesting comments, Jim! The administration made mistakes, but we're back on the right track in Iraq now, and we'll continue to battle al Qaeda there and elsewhere around the globe.
"Code Pink protesters.... cheer a U.S. defeat because they hate everything for which the United States stands."
i am in complete agreement with code pink.
KEvron
Mr. Douglas
You shouldn't be surprised, I'm no leftist, I'm a liberal.
I think there are some things that the government can do better than private enterprise. Waging war would be one and I think healthcare is probably another. Healthcare is such a mess and there seems to be no way to rein it in. Maybe Ms. Clinton is onto something. It will take more study.
Nonetheless, if we don't defeat the terrorists and stabilize the Middle East, then there won't be enough money for anything except weapons.
The vast middle of the political spectrum of this nation knows what is important which explains the polls finding that the people want us to use caution withdrawing from Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to see that and the people can smell out bad politics whether the smell comes from conservatives or from liberals.
The strawman to which I refer was FN's...
Not quite sure what Rich is saying, except that he thinks ANSWER is dangerous, as well.
Lending credibility to the truthers?
That's like the blind leading the blind. Few take either group seriously. I don't even think ANSWER takes truthers seriously (or vise versa). In fact, I'd venture to say it's only the right (some of it, anyway) who cares about either/both of them.
And as for protesting in/near where the wars are, some (though not many) are. Remeber the human shields?
The fact is, we protest here against what this government is doing because this is the government that is supposed to represent us, and this is the government doing what we'd prefer they didn't. It's all well & good--though dangerous--to yell at Tehran (in Tehran, even), but why should Tehran care what a portion--even a big portion--of American citizens think, especially when our own government doesn't seem to?
I didn't see rightwing Americans standing in Tienamen square... But I would never take that to mean the right does not oppose communism. (The same cannot be said for granting Communist China the trading status we have, without insisting on more attention to human rights abuses, however.)
The US government is of the American people, by the American people, for the American people. There is no other government where that is the case, and that is the reason we address our grievences where we do, rather than somewhere else. (For the most part, that's true, regardless. Even when some other government is misbehaving, many Americans petition OUR government to put pressure on that other one to stop what they're doing, because it is our government that stands the most chance of listening to what we say.)
When I see the protests that are mounted in other countries against US actions, I sometimes wonder how effective they are... ...and at the same time wish ordinary Americans were as involved in world as the citizens of other countries seem to be.
The idea that protesting for peace is illegitamate unless anti-war Americans take it to the other countries involved is a charge I never understood. (I think it's some kinda chickendove argument...)
I do think religious/spiritual pacifists ought to oppose war & violence wherever it occurs, but I still see the value of starting where one can do the most good. For Americans, that is by petitioning their own government to stop it's own violence, first.
"the people can smell out bad politics whether the smell comes from conservatives or from liberals."
or, as i like to put it: a sane man knows bullshit when he's thread through it.
KEvron
Repsac3: I thought you were discounting my analysis. ANSWER is bad news - their very ideology calls for the elimination of the United States - but I never said they don't have the right to protest.
As for the peace argument, I think a lot of peaceniks would never authorize the use of force, although Brooke made the point. I'm just patting her on the back.
Now, back to my point: ANSWER would seek to destroy our nation if they got the power. They might not claim to represent all the lefties, but they'd sure like to...
In any case, you're evading most of the substantive points I've made!
Lending credibility to the truthers?
Yes ... what would you think if, say, the KKK (robes, hoods, and all) was standing along Pennsylvania Avenue last Saturday, mixed in among us ... and we didn't move away?
We know how Big Lies get started ... and since distrust of the government is a national pastime that cuts across party lines, it is too easy for such a Big Lie to take root, and tear up the pipeline of sound judgment.
And as for protesting in/near where the wars are, some (though not many) are. Remeber the human shields?
Bad example ... for they did not protest the actions of the regimes being shielded. The shields ended up being used as dupes by the regimes, instead. The only criticism, was directed at America.
The fact is, we protest here against what this government is doing because this is the government that is supposed to represent us, and this is the government doing what we'd prefer they didn't.
We are sharing this rock, and the fruits of technology and prosperity have turned this planet into, effectively, a zero-lot-line subdivision.
The "neighbors" have a responsibility to us, as well.
This may be a bit hard to understand, but go with me here: as a practical matter, wars are ended by the decision of the loser. A one-sided protest may lead this nation to make that decision ... and facilitate oppression on a global scale, as a result.
If you are going to be truly antiwar, but still support justice, life, and liberty, you had better be protesting, with at least equal volume and stridency as you use against our government's misdeeds ... the worse things those other governments do.
Or better yet, encouraging your government to confront them.
It's all well & good--though dangerous--to yell at Tehran (in Tehran, even), but why should Tehran care what a portion--even a big portion--of American citizens think, especially when our own government doesn't seem to?
Because, like I said, we are sharing this rock, and they have a responsibility to be good neighbors.
Problem is, as long as they are trying to expand totalitarian rule, they can't be considered good neighbors.
I didn't see rightwing Americans standing in Tienamen square... But I would never take that to mean the right does not oppose communism.
Touche, repsac ...
... but at least we did raise our voices against the oppressors ... something I do not hear coming from the antiwar Left on a detectable, much less consistent, basis when it comes to the Saddams and Ahmedinijads of today.
(The same cannot be said for granting Communist China the trading status we have, without insisting on more attention to human rights abuses, however.)
When you are dealing with a rational adversary ... who perceives that they have something to lose if the balloon goes up ... you can employ other tactics besides immediate military confrontation.
China is learning how free markets bring prosperity to her people ... next, she will learn that the sustainability of those markets, and the prosperity derived from them, is dependent upon the level of personal freedom and protection of personal rights that is facilitated by the government.
However, we cannot let our guard down as we do this, either.
The US government is of the American people, by the American people, for the American people. There is no other government where that is the case, and that is the reason we address our grievences where we do, rather than somewhere else. (For the most part, that's true, regardless. Even when some other government is misbehaving, many Americans petition OUR government to put pressure on that other one to stop what they're doing, because it is our government that stands the most chance of listening to what we say.)
The leaders of these other nations are grown-ups too ... where is ANYONE holding them to account for the proper implementation of governance?
But instead, only America (and occasionally, Israel) are the whipping boys ...and that is because more than redress is involved here.
What drives a lot of the whipping here is not a desire for justice ... but a misplaced envy of those who have more than others, exploited by those who wish for their own gain and prestige to say what can be the most dangerous words in any language: "I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU!"
The problem is, as I said earlier, if you only stop one side, the other side is the victor ... and they get to set the agenda -- in this case, a mix of Sharia and common thuggery.
When I see the protests that are mounted in other countries against US actions, I sometimes wonder how effective they are ...and at the same time wish ordinary Americans were as involved in world as the citizens of other countries seem to be.
Now, I will agree with you that ordinary Americans need to increase their involvement -- or even just get involved, period -- in the decision-making process of our government.
However, keep in mind that some of the motivational methods used in other nations to get people on the streets do not lead to an informed and independent populace stating their grievances -- deception and threats come to mind.
The idea that protesting for peace is illegitamate unless anti-war Americans take it to the other countries involved is a charge I never understood. (I think it's some kinda chickendove argument...)
In a way, it is a response to the chickenhawk smear ... but it is more than that.
It indicates the frustration that many have, because others seem to lack the recognition that America is not THE focus of evil in the modern world ... a recognition which was NOT evident in the words and deeds of those in the streets (as opposed to on the sidewalks) last Saturday.
Even though we spend vast amounts of treasure in "smart" weaponry that minimizes collateral damage ...
... even though we implement rules-of-engagement and procedures that place our warfighters at greater risk in order to place noncombatants at lesser risk ...
... even though we have a 60-year history of restraint regarding the use of nuclear weapons, while still using them to protect vast swaths of humanity well beyond our own borders from totalitarian expansion ...
... even though, in the face of strident criticism, our "cowboys" have ACTED to liberate hundreds of millions of people, facilitate REAL reductions in nuclear arms, and reduce internatonal tensions on a far more sustainable basis than all the choruses of Kumbiyah ever sung ...
... we are still considered the focus of evil by many.
That speaks of a lack of sound judgment.
I do think religious/spiritual pacifists ought to oppose war & violence wherever it occurs, but I still see the value of starting where one can do the most good. For Americans, that is by petitioning their own government to stop it's own violence, first.
What if American violence is the ONLY way to get the violence from the other side to stop?
That is what many of your fellow-travelers on "the other side" refuse to understand.
In their minds, there is no differentiation between violence executed to remove a threat to life and liberty, and the violence perpetrated by the threat itself ...
... but because, in most cases, the thugs who wish to establish totalitarian rule will ignore them, they throw up their hands and focus all their vitriol upon a nation that is standing in opposition to such oppression.
In fact, in too many cases, the anti-war Left has tried to push us out of the way of the barbarians, in the name of "peace" and "anti-imperialism".
The only peace that will result from such one-sided protest, as we have seen on more than one occasion, is the peace of the gulag and/or graveyard ... because, while wars are ended by the decision of the loser ... the winner sets the postwar agenda.
As long as the Left keeps straining and hacking at every gnat of Administration error ... while silently swallowing the camels of terror, tyranny, and death whole ... they lack credibility in my eyes ...
... and their protests, my friend, sound much like breaking wind.
Repsac,
You made an error. You claimed that without socialists or commies we would have to give up the 8-hour day. No, without FDR and his New Deal we would have to give up the 8-hour day.
I wouldn’t have said anything, but your analysis was off in the first place because the Anarchists were the primary movers in the early days of the union-backed movement for the American 8-hour day - not the Socialists and Communists as you corrected yourself.
My purpose was not to undermine Anarchists or Socialists but to clarify historical accuracy.
As a long time Anarchist I am very familiar with the history of the movement.
-----------------------------------------
Basically, you engage in straw man arguments and then accuse everyone else of throwing around the straw man.
The Christian Socialist Bellamy has nothing to do with militant Socialists like ANSWER and has little in common with it. The comparison is meaningless. His religion-based patriotism would be scorned by ANSWER, a Marxist/Leninist organization. Militant Socialists like ANSWER have extreme differences compared to moderate Socialists like Christian Socialists or even the British Labour Party (whom they view as Imperialists). If we were talking about Socialism in Sweden you would have a little more of a point, but we are not talking about an organization as benign as the Swedish Social Democratic Party or Democratic Socialism in general.
It is unfortunate that one word can describe both, but that is the reality of the English language. You once tried to convince me to use an alternative word for jihadists or something like that a long time ago (via Flopping Aces), but I forgot what that word was. Its not in common usage.
Anyways, the term rightwinger is similar. That can describe a moderate like Senator Susan Collins or an extremist like Adolf Hitler. Are they the same? No. Yet, Repsac, you use the term rightwinger in a similar manner that we use Socialist.
“Thomas Sowell offers superb Exhibit of the Right-wing Mind
Espousing two blatantly contradictory ideas at once, often in the same speeches or articles, is a common device among those devoted to authority.”
http://batnutz.blogspot.com/2007...exhibit-
of.html
Socialism has a negative connotation to me. You don’t, but you do have a negative connotation towards rightwingers so I who am I to call you out on it? If I were to comment on your post about Thomas Sowell I would argue the issues and refrain from telling you how to think.
-----------------------------------------
Donald you are wrong about one thing. There are a bunch of Leftists that actively denounce ANSWER. This is because Leftists are prone to in-fighting and are very divided. The denouncers of ANSWER are quite often Communist themselves.
Let me refer you to the UFPJ’s denouncement of ANSWER. It describes many petty operational issues that could easily be fixed and doesn’t
really list any issues of substance that could be cited as unfixable disagreements. The intolerant and inflexible character of such activists bleeds through the linked article…
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ar...cle.php?
id=3162
(If you want you can also check out the rest of their website to read another “Petraeus Betrayed Us” story or get some info on alleged U.S. aggression against Iran (as Iran fights a proxy war against us in Iraq).
"Socialism has a negative connotation to me. You don’t, but you do have a negative connotation towards rightwingers so I who am I to call you out on it?"
does this come with a decoder ring? whatta trainwreck!
KEvron
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, al-qaida spokesman:
“We have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children.”
From OBL 1996:
His number one complaint: “(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law.” “the enemy-the greatest Kufr” Kufr are us. [remember, we are the Kufr]
“I say: Since the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential; then they would be even more enthusiastic, more powerful and larger in number upon fighting on their own land- the place of their births- defending the greatest of their sanctities, the noble Ka'ba (the Qiblah of all Muslims). They know that the Muslims of the world will assist and help them to victory. To liberate their sanctities is the greatest of issues concerning all Muslims; It is the duty of every Muslims in this world.”
“Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.”
“Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty. It is a legitimate right well known to all humans and other creatures.”
From Ayman al-Zawahire (remember he is a medical doctor):
Al-Zawahri urged Hamas to implement Islamic law in Gaza, telling it, "Taking over power is not a goal but a means to implement God's word on earth."
“the Jihad in Iraq today…is moving…to the stage of consolidating a Mujahid Islamic Emirate which will liberate the homelands of Islam…and raise the banner of Jihad…towards the environs of Jerusalem…”
“I call on him to ask himself these questions, and if he doesn't, then let him await Allah's punishment for him, which He mentioned in His Noble Book, "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.”
[Note: “O you who believe…” is from the Qur’an.]
This is an example of an NGO striving for world dominance. Submit or die is the message of al-Qaida. If you care to check world opinion polls, you will find that the latest survey of four Islamic nations indicates: the majority of Muslims agree with the goals of al-Qaqida.
A review of the Milgram experiments indicates their use of a higher authority, Allah, to provoke their lackeys to suicide missions. This is a blasphemy to any right-minded person.
Why would anyone want to stop fighting them?
Kevron you are a troll. Honest communication is not an option in your skewed little insulated world.
Anonymous, the Milgram experiments are an excellent reference for those who don't believe that there are millions of people out there who genuinely bet their lives on whether or not the US is the Great Satan and needs to be destroyed. They DO believe it because Allah-- or those who claim to speak for Allah-- told them so.
The Milgram experiments and the follow-ups done by other researchers proved that this can happen to 61% of the people, no matter how freedom-loving or ethical. The name was familiar and did a quick google on "Milgram" when I read it in your post, then remembered where I'd seen it before... in college. It's a textbook study for persuasion by giving people "authorization" and slowly increasing the levels of authoritarianism to switch the persuasion to "orders". It revealed the danger of adopting the "I was just following orders" mind set.
The Milgram experiments are something ALL people should read about, and then resolve to NEVER do something unethical just because someone in authority "authorized" it and said it was OK. Those poor sots in the ME have little choice about it, but I'm not going to cry over them... they DO have the option to not murder anyone. It might get them killed, but so would a bomb vest.
"Kevron you are a troll."
how can you tell?
"Honest communication is not an option in your skewed little insulated world."
oh! the irony!
right on mama
it elementary
i don't understand why people are not aware of this and focusing their efforts on debunking the ideology of hatred and death
well maybe they did it in the basilian islands
Yes ... what would you think if, say, the KKK (robes, hoods, and all) was standing along Pennsylvania Avenue last Saturday, mixed in among us ... and we didn't move away?
Your being with the KKK would not further legitimize either your group or theirs, which is the accusation you purport to be backing up with this argument.
We know how Big Lies get started ... and since distrust of the government is a national pastime that cuts across party lines, it is too easy for such a Big Lie to take root, and tear up the pipeline of sound judgment.
I have more faith in the intelligence of the American people than that.
Bad example ... for they did not protest the actions of the regimes being shielded. The shields ended up being used as dupes by the regimes, instead. The only criticism, was directed at America.
I disagree that it would make much of any sense for Americans to protest the actions of other governments in those countries, particularly when our own government is also acting badly.
Only one government is beholden to and claims to represent the American people.
We act where we can have the greatest (or any) effect, even if the cause is greater elsewhere.
I suspect you know this as well, or you (or yours) would be organizing protests against the enemies abroad, rather than your political enemies here. We talk to the US government & people because they are the ones with whom we have influence.
If you are going to be truly antiwar, but still support justice, life, and liberty, you had better be protesting, with at least equal volume and stridency as you use against our government's misdeeds ... the worse things those other governments do.
First off, many are only opposed to this war, and said nothing when we invaded Afghanistan, believing that was justified.
Second, this illusion of a "fair & balanced" world that FoxNews created is a myth. Some ideas & actions are more worthy than others. One does not need to protest all war equally to credibly be anti-war. You act where you stand the most chance of doing the most good.
If one is a true pacifist (I am not, but I know some are), you don't lose credibility until you advocate in favor of any country's warlike ways, or stop your opposition once your country is no longer engaged in war.
Or better yet, encouraging your government to confront them.
Some do... only they urge them to do so non-violently.
The leaders of these other nations are grown-ups too ... where is ANYONE holding them to account for the proper implementation of governance?
If that is how you feel, and you believe that signs and slogans will do any good, I urge you to marshal your fellow righties & begin protesting against them, rather than against those here who disagree with you.
You made an error. You claimed that without socialists or commies we would have to give up the 8-hour day.
I'm not going back & forth on this again, FN... I put up my links showing the history as I understand it. If you read it differently than I, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Basically, you engage in straw man arguments and then accuse everyone else of throwing around the straw man. The Christian Socialist Bellamy has nothing to do with militant Socialists like ANSWER and has little in common with it.
I wasn't aware we were grading socialism on a curve, and saying some socialism is better than others. I put forth the argument that the pledge was written by a socialist, not that it was written by an ANSWER style socialist. I did so to say that not every word and deed that comes from one's perceived enemy is automatically unacceptable by virtue of where it comes from. Should some "muzzie" find the cure for cancer, I hope we don't refuse to use it because of it's origin.
It is unfortunate that one word can describe both, but that is the reality of the English language.
I believe you dismiss the argument a bit too easily, but so be it.
You once tried to convince me to use an alternative word for jihadists or something like that a long time ago (via Flopping Aces), but I forgot what that word was. Its not in common usage.
Wingnuts & Moonbats: One Muslim's Jihad, is Another Muslim's Hirabah - Flopping Aces (wordsmith)
As far as the rest, yes, words do hold different connotations for different people, which does make absolute agreement on the meaning of any word impossible. But I don't agree that my use of "rightwing" or "socialist" is so fraught with connotation as make reasonable communication impossible. While you seem to think my use of socialist is overbroad, I think you're defining it down just enough that you don't have to confront my actual point. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the two, or maybe we're both flat out wrong... I imagine this won't be the last time the words get in the way...
Ohhh Repsac,
I find these conversations to be very boring. You really go off on tangents. You missed my point about Socialism so much that I dont even know what you are talking about.
Anyways, we have many Muslims allies. The Kuwaitis, Kurds, Albanians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc... I dont think they are my enemies.
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baathists, JAM, etc... those are enemies.
You dont even know who you are talking to.
I find these conversations to be very boring.
The fact that you keep coming back to them says far more than your words...
You really go off on tangents.
You'll have to give an example... ...if you're not too bored.
You missed my point about Socialism so much that I dont even know what you are talking about.
I didn't miss it so much as dismiss it as not being relevant to the point *I* was making when *I* brought the subject of socialism up. (And you talk about going off on tangents...
Anyways, we have many Muslims allies. The Kuwaitis, Kurds, Albanians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc... I dont think they are my enemies.
I don't either, and that's my point... (To be fair, I was kinda playing a guilt by association thing there... I first learned the term "muzzie" from your friend nanc's blog... Her posts & those of many of her commenters are lousy with the term... But, you are not your sister's keeper and, while I never noticed you making a similar defense of Muslims there, I shouldn't hold you responsible for their sins. I'm sorry for doing so.)
That said, my point is still valid, I think... I hope that on the wildly unlikely chance that the cure for cancer is developed by a member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baathists, or JAM, we don't refuse to use it based on where it came from.
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baathists, JAM, etc... those are enemies.
Good enemies to have.
You dont even know who you are talking to.
But I learn more every time you speak.
and the sheep sang: four legs are good, two legs are bad
I make breakthroughs from time to time.
You will find that pro-victory supporters are not monolithic either.
Commenting by HaloScan
