OPINION & EDITORIAL
Protest far from treasonous
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Chris Dols:
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
- Protest far from treasonous (April 20, 2005)
- Socialism needed for egalitarianism (April 28, 2005)
- Help for hurricane victims stuck in Iraq (September 15, 2005)
- Flaws in Beckstrom argument again (October 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Anti-war, pro-troops (September 21, 2007)
- War referendum inappropriate (March 30, 2006)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (April 4, 2006)
- Troop funding shouldn't be jeopardized (April 10, 2007)
- In battle over funding, Dems have power, potential (October 30, 2007)
by Chris Dols
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The anti-war movement in the United States is facing a pivotal moment. Even though a majority of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was not worth the consequences, the position advocating immediate withdrawal of troops is nearly impossible to find in the mainstream media. The “support our troops” rhetoric dominates the entire spectrum of political debate despite the death of over 1,500 of those troops, the casualties of another 11,000 and the desertion of yet another 5,500. The “Support Our Troops” slogan is a cover for support of a murderous occupation that progressives have no business supporting.
To care about the well-being of American troops (and Iraqi democracy for that matter) is to support the demands of military resisters: those soldiers who refuse to take part in this war. Consider what Navy Petty Officer, 3rd Class Pablo Paredes said as he refused redeployment to Iraq: “I’d rather do a year in a prison in the military than do six months of dirty work for a war I don’t believe in.” Or Army Sergeant Kevin Benderman: “I am ashamed to be associated with this mess, and I certainly did not join the Army to kill women, children and old men.” These are statements worth supporting, not the criminal orders these and other soldiers bravely refuse to follow.
In an Orwellian feat of logical gymnastics, “Support Our Troops” means putting those troops in harm’s way. And similar incoherence leads alleged proponents of democracy to oppose Iraqi self-rule as they make apologies for the occupying army’s “excesses.” People who were originally opposed to the war find themselves supporting the occupation. Either they accept the lies peddled by the embedded reporters about the character of the Iraqi resistance or they don’t think that Iraq can get on its feet without the help of the occupation, and worse of all, they accept the assumption that the U.S. military is even capable of installing democracy.
Liberals would do well to reject such naiveté for the well-being of Iraqis as well as the American troops they purport to support. The United States is in Iraq to prevent democracy, thus the staged elections and the continued presence of over 100,000 American troops. A democratic Iraq means that Iraqis might decide to use oil revenues for social programs or economic development rather than toward the profits of Western multinational oil companies. This is not something the United States will tolerate.
One of the biggest barriers facing progressives today is the paternalism among those who refuse to acknowledge the right of Iraqis to self-determination and their right to resist foreign occupation. Myths about the resistance permeate every discussion. Yet, by the Department of Defense’s own records, only 4 percent of the insurgents’ attacks have targeted civilians. The resistance is decentralized and is made up of ordinary Iraqis who understandably resent the American looting of their oil and the development of 12 permanent American military bases across the country.
By definition, to put conditions on self-determination is to oppose self-determination. We would do well to ask ourselves how we would respond to foreign tanks rolling down State Street. As one enlisted soldier said on the radio program “Democracy Now,” “if soldiers had come into our country and had invaded us and had come into our homes, then I would have fought back, too.” Yet some local progressives have led the charge to marginalize and intimidate proponents of this democratic demand. Casey Hoff and Sly of WTDY 1670 have dedicated time on their radio programs to charge a University of Wisconsin student with treason for her support of these demands. Such charges are the tactics of McCarthyism. This is merely a cover for their paternalistic support of the occupation, their denial of Iraqis’ right to self-rule. The woman you charge with treason deserves the opportunity to defend herself. She and I are ready to debate both of you. She and I will argue for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops, and you argue whatever you want. Either step up to the challenge and debate or withdraw your cowardly remarks.
Chris Dols (cdols@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and is a member of the International Socialist Organization.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 4:15am):
The anti-war movement would indeed be facing a "pivotal moment", if anyone outside of the anti-war movement gave a shit about it.
No matter how many articles you write and how much you shout ridiculous slogans you chant, you're irrelevant to pretty much everyone but yourselves.
The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner we'll stop seeing moronic columns like this one.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 6:05am):
"Yet, by the Department of Defense's own records, only 4 percent of the insurgents' attacks have targeted civilians."
Funny you don't mention anything about the other 96% of attacks occurring... Could it be because many of these attacks are directed at the Iraqi Security forces and not U.S. troops?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:22am):
Am I the only one who thinks supporting our troops means we should get them the hell home and not fight bullshit wars with their blood? Why is it wrong to question the war. Even if you personally believe it to be right what about it would be wrong to look for methods to get our fellow citizens home. Even if in the end we find they are still needed I think they would be glad to have people here fighting for their lives.
PS-Take that damn sticker off of your car if you are in an SUV
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:28am):
Iraq under Hussein was could not be described as governance by "self-rule."
The war ousted Hussein.
Dols says:
"This is merely a cover for their paternalistic support of the occupation, their denial of Iraqis' right to self-rule."
Ergo, he must now support the war!
Welcome to the correct side Chris!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:34am):
If tanks ever get all the way to State St, you stupid moron, you can pretty much rest assured that the rest of the country will already lie in ruins.
Thankfully, a plurality of Americans prefer to confront threats far, far away from Madison.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:36am):
"If tanks ever get all the way to State St, you stupid moron, you can pretty much rest assured that the rest of the country will already lie in ruins."
Either that or it's Halloween again.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:40am):
Great Article Chris.
The numbers yesterday said that Bush's war in Iraq had a 39% approval rating. Popular support is slipping as people begin to realize that we never should have gone in there in the first place.
It took a while with Vietnam too...of course there are still people on this board who feel that Vietnam was a justified war. Just shows you what an absurd sampling of little conservative trolls are on this site.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 8:00am):
Cosign the post above, I love when America loses.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 8:12am):
If you honestly think that leavng Iraq now will allow the citizenry of that country to determine their own destiny, Mr. Dols, you are the naive one. It also means you lack an understanding of history, intercountry relationships, and the Middle East dynamic. Keep planning that revolution that nobody wants!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 8:52am):
If all the protesters actually hated America then why would they protest? If I hated something I would want it to fail miserably. People protest because they know America can and should do better. We want it to do the right thing so fucking bad, and that's why we oppose fighting a pointless war where our people are dying. If I hated this country I would watch Fox News and have tears of joy streaming down my face everytime we fucked something up. As of right now I just watch Fox news to get angry at what has become of my beautiful country.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 9:12am):
"It took a while with Vietnam too..."
Eventually our enemies will realize that beating the USA just requires a well organized fifth column. Then all future wars will be fought in the streets of the USA.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 9:35am):
No, if you supported America you'd want it to be successful in its endeavor in Iraq.
After all, we are the ones who supported Hussein and most of the dictators in the region in the past, and unfortunately still do.
Our prior support of Hussein being the case, then "supporting that America do the right thing" would mean we'd own up to our mistakes and take the fucker out and then carefully rebuild the country in a way that allows Iraqis to "choose their own destiny" at the ballot box instead of at the barrel of a gun. It would mean that instead of sputing rhetoric about spreading democracy and then supporting dictators, we do our best with what we have to create democracy in a region that has never had it.
You folks on the other hand seem to think that "supporting that America do the right thing" means we admit we've failed every where, fold up our tents and make sure we don't bother anyone. Then when we've done that, you fucking hyporcites will be in the streets protesting that the fundamentalist Islamic regimes in the middle east don't allow democracy and treat women like 2nd class citizens (as you have done in the past and continue to do today, even as we try to fix the problem!!).
Your hatred of Bush has made you literally hope we fail in Iraq. Do you realize what failure in Iraq would mean for its citizens right now? Don't fucking answer with "we shouldn't have gone in the first place" because we can't exactly do anything about that right now, can we? Hell I think it was probably a mistake to go, but now that we are there, we need to succeed.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 9:53am):
all it takes to be a traitor, is giving the enemy "comfort and support."
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 9:56am):
"little conservative trolls"
i can't help but think that this is an anti-semetic statement. why is it again that lefties hate jews so much?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 9:56am):
You're article and your opinions were alright up untill the last paragraph. You just wrote this article so you could attack Casey Hoff didn't you? Why did you have to make it so long then? Nice work
ps McCarthyism eh? good pull on that one
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:01am):
Would that cover Kerry's trips to France to treat with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong while he was in the Navy and the USA was at war?
I do begin to wonder if Kerry will ever allow the public release of his military records.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:04am):
Good grief. ANOTHER idiot. Please ignore this person or his desire to one up anyone he "challenges to a debate." Regardless of your opinion on the war, pulling out now would do 100 times more damage than us staying to keep the peace. You can always question the reasons for going, but let's not hold a grudge and set back Middle East progress another 100 years.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:07am):
Kerry's "latest" promise to release his military records was 80 days ago today. Maybe he's waiting unitl after the election (2008?).
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:09am):
pps next time you want to attack someone on a wednesday just put it in the shoutouts... you'll get better reviews:)
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:17am):
america deserves to lose everything. citizens who disagree with national policy (foreign or domestic) have an obligation to change it. if not, they must reap the toxins of decades of occupation, zionism, oppression, extortion, slavery, nuclear attacks and many more sins.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:35am):
Yes, it may not have been the greatest move to go to war in Iraq. We can't change that now, but it seems as if the protesters want immediate removal of all troops. What kind of solution is that? How is that going to solve anything? Answer then, and you might convince me pulling out completely is the right thing to do at this time.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 11:27am):
"Cosign the post above, I love when America loses."
-how can a United States citizen actually utter these sentiments? Many people disagree with the war, as obvious by above posts, but to actually hope the we lose? Losing coincides with American soldiers dying and there is no just argument you can have to actually "love" when people are dying, unless you are imbalanced. I support the war, but i understand the anti-war sentiments and their first amendment right to free speech, to each his own. But to publically state that you love Americans dying is just absurd...
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:13pm):
I don't want the Us to win in Iraq. Yes, I want us to fail. Of course I do. We are the aggressors and on the wrong side ethically, politically and legally. So of course I hope we lose.
I am sick of you nitwits and your "My country right or wrong" bullshit. You would have supported slavery, McCarthy, segregation etc. It's people that stand up that change our country for the better. Disagree with out politics all you want. Don't tell me I don't care about America, I do that's the reason I hope we lose in Iraq so America will wake up.
Fuck all of you.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:15pm):
It is not about America, it is about justice. If an American war is unjust, I won't support it. Simple as that.
Go sign up to bomb some babies cowards.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:34pm):
did you say that when clinton bombed babies in the mideast and europe? you know, he didn't even TRY to go to the UN...also, the war on iraq was HIS IDEA! ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:35pm):
i say we bomb whoever we feel like. i also say the prez can get a bj from whoever he feels like.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:36pm):
you know, blacks mated with camels and that is where our enemies are derived from.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:37pm):
ok, that anti-arab talk is a little overboard! however, i can see a physical similarity...ouch, now you got me being an a$$!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:38pm):
"wrong side ethically, politically and legally"
uh, what does this crap mean senator kerry?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:39pm):
Liberal policy: "Let's sit on our hands and hope things work out for the better."
Conservative policy: "Let's hold people accountable and realize the dream of freedom and liberty."
Which policy do you think out Founding Fathers followed?
I'm no advocate of war, but I simply cannot understand how these hippie wannabes (or former hippies) simply knee-jerk themselves into believe every single miltary battle is immoral and wrong. Pacifism is a failed policy. Just ask France. Yet this is what these liberals alwasy advocate.
Hussein flaunted UN security resolutions repeatedly. Thank goodness Bush got in and said "enough." He may have been wrong about the WMD, but the move had to be made and the world is a helluva better off for it.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:41pm):
...and if you do not agree with me, I will FIGHT YOU.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:51pm):
"You would have supported slavery..."
Nope, I'm a Republican - the Democrats were the party supporting slavery. Then the Democrats set up the KKK and Jim Crow laws.
The Democrat dean of the US Senate is Robert Byrd, past Grand Klegal (recruitment officer) for the KKK and former
advocate of racial segregation who obstructed the confirmation of the first African-American woman to be nominated to be Secretary of State.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 12:53pm):
and no doubt, your pansy a$$ will lose and start to cry. then you will go around asking wealthy types in the private dorms to pay for your rehab, because you can't. if they don't, you might call up one of your arab buddies who will gladly get a retard to blow himself up around those private dormers...for they are the reason you didn't have money, or balls in the 1st place, right?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:18pm):
BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!
from Europe????
I'm hoping that Democracy has been established in Germany by now, hasn't it?
***
Sixty years after the end of World War II, there are still 62,000 American troops in Europe. They are stationed in 236 bases, including 13 training areas. The force has been reduced considerably over the years, especially after the Cold War ended in 1991, leaving over a quarter million American troops in Europe. But in 2015 there will still be 24,000 American troops over there, in 88 bases, and using four training areas.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005419195623.asp
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:18pm):
Chris Dols,
I know that Pam said those comments about the Resistance. So, you guys support Tyrannical regiemes, eh... (Of course, saddam was a socialist!!)
Please, Dols, wake up and smell the coffie. The elections in Iraq were not rigged, and things are getting better over there, not worse.
Anyway, your protest failed, and even many progressives are seeing that as well. You have lost.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:19pm):
"I do begin to wonder if Kerry will ever allow the public release of his military records."
I wonder the same thing about Bushie
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:22pm):
"did you say that when clinton bombed babies in the mideast and europe?"
Actually I did because unlike you I don't feel the need to worship 100% of the words that came out of my presidents mouth. And so did noted liberal pains in the asses like Michael Moore who talked about Clinton's bombings in Bowling for Columbine. And every fucking day the nitwits at Fox News attacted Clinton while our troops were in dangers way, but if you dare do the same thing now with Bush and Iraq you are a traitor. I can't wait till I get to heaven because I know it will be free of republicans.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:28pm):
Everyone who likes to attack the democrats as being the party that supported slavery obviously don't know their history. The ethos of the two parties essentially switched after the civil war, which is why Abe Lincoln was a republican and fought for a unified nation instead of states right's. Now it is the republicans who fight for the right to hang the treasonous confederate flag in the south. And unlike republicans I will not give everyone in my party a free pass. No elected member in our government should have any ties to the KKK, the same way no Pope should have ties to the Nazi party. But it makes more sense for southern rednecks to be democratic. Any lower socioeconmic group would benefit from democratic policies. Meaning lower class blacks and lower class white racists would benefit most from the same party. What the republicans have become exprerts on since the Nixon administration was to trump "value" issues and downplay their economic issues, so that southern rednecks would rather vote against their own well being than vote for someone who's going to help minorities.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:30pm):
Casey Hoff is the king of the douche bags. And he can't write for shit either.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:30pm):
"Nope, I'm a Republican - the Democrats were the party supporting slavery. Then the Democrats set up the KKK and Jim Crow laws."
When will you idiots stop comparing the political parties now to that of 30-100 years ago. They do not believe the same things today as they did then.
And furthermore most of these dixiecrats you speak of later joined your republican party.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:35pm):
How is this war paricularly unjust? We're feeing millions from tyranny and opression. Sure, some innocent will die along the way, but that's the price for freedom sometimes.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:38pm):
Robert Byrd, past Grand Klegal (recruitment officer) for the KKK - still a Democrat.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:39pm):
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:49pm):
What a lot of nonsense -- from most every poster on this thread.
The violence and hypocrisy of this particular administration can only be questioned by brainwashed baboons.
The motivation for any war certainly must be questioned. That Hussein was a bad guy is not even an issue. Nor, ultimately, is our hypocrisy in supporting evil despots until they present a "threat." The utter disregard for the opinions of the rest of the world, however, requires scrutiny.
The Bushites are fine with the UN when it does what they want, but, when it doesn't, they stomp their feet like angry children and do what they want anyway. All in the name of the Democracy they so willingly subvert with lies right here at home.
Their power comes from the promotion and exploitation of ignorance. Figure oil and religion into the argument, and you have everything that will make our Democracy fail
I see this as a bad thing, as there is no doubt that much more chaos and violence will result from our failures. And of course those responsible will be far away from the worst of it.
Support the troops? I say pity them. They have been brainwashed and deceived. Viet Nam was apparently not sufficient to show how wrong we can be in waging war. The promise of a free education -- which a functioning Democracy should provide without military requirement -- takes the best intentions of the poor and undereducated and exploits these intentions by teaching obedience and violence.
Isolate yourselves as individuals, conservatives, just as our nation isolates itself from reason and the rest of the world. Believe everything they feed you. Do not question. The lucky, selfish ones will enter the ranks of their hierarchy. The rest of you are their fodder.
Do not tell those of us who are capable of independent thought that we are alone. We are outnumbered by the simple-minded, but we have the strength of reason.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:55pm):
"We are outnumbered by the simple-minded, but we have the strength of reason."
Spoken like a true member of the self-selected elite who think that they should be making all the decisions for us simple-minded folk who pay the bills.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:58pm):
Note to the Right-wingers: The racist policies of the Republican party in the last fifty years more than contradict the outdated claims of "ending slavery." Hell, it is ofted cited that, nowadays, Nixon would be seen as liberal. How do you think Lincoln stacks up?
As I like to say, it is not that all Republicans are Nazis, it's that all Nazis vote Republican.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 1:59pm):
"Believe everything they feed you. Do not question. The lucky, selfish ones will enter the ranks of their hierarchy. The rest of you are their fodder.
Do not tell those of us who are capable of independent thought that we are alone. We are outnumbered by the simple-minded, but we have the strength of reason."
Ah yes, there it was. The words of someone who thinks his enlightenment means he towers over the rest of us as an intellectual giant. If only, he (or she) thinks, we'd just realize how smart he is and follow his wishes, we'd be soooo much better off.
What a joke.
I've got $6 in mixed change says you believe everything that's spoon fed to you from sources just as biased as you think ours are. Chomsky, Moore, etc.; I'm sure you've read them all and I'm sure that's all you've read.
You think you're enlightened because in your little flat in Madison, Wisconsin, the world is easy and everything makes sense, and you've got access to and license on the "truth".
Grow up and get over yourself. You're no more enlightened, intelligent, or "right" than anyone here. You're just another blowhard who confuses his opinion for fact, and in the end is probably as dumb as a box of wet hammers.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:00pm):
Vietnam vet calls spitting in Fonda's face 'a debt of honor'
Reached by telephone this morning, Smith called Fonda a "traitor" and said her protests of the Vietnam War were unforgivable. He said he went to the event at the Unity Temple, 707 W. 47th St., for the sole purpose of spitting in her face. He said he doesn't normally chew tobacco, but he did Tuesday.
"I consider it a debt of honor," he said. "She spit in our faces for 37 years...It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11442991.htm
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:02pm):
Good job, pounce on one line and completely ignore the bulk of his argument. That way you can divert the attention from his opinion and classify him as some kind of stereotype.
Why don't you respond to the rest of his post?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:37pm):
"I've got $6 in mixed change says you believe everything that's spoon fed to you from sources just as biased as you think ours are. Chomsky, Moore, etc.; I'm sure you've read them all and I'm sure that's all you've read.
"You think you're enlightened because in your little flat in Madison, Wisconsin, the world is easy and everything makes sense, and you've got access to and license on the "truth".
"Grow up and get over yourself. You're no more enlightened, intelligent, or "right" than anyone here. You're just another blowhard who confuses his opinion for fact, and in the end is probably as dumb as a box of wet hammers."
Everything you've said here makes my point for me. You cannot conceive that someone can see all dogma as dogma. When Chomsky or Moore says something reasonable, I agree. When they don't, I don't. But the willingness to think and question certainly does give me an advantage. It means I won't believe BS just because I'm supposed to.
You also seem to assume that I'm some kind of Madison teenage reactionary. Again, you accept without considering alternative possibilities.
Consider what's to gain. Is it cynical or optimistic? Selfish or mutually desirable? Reasonable or insane?
Given your inability to reason, I'm not feeling threatened by your simplistic attacks -- only by the widespread irrationality you represent.
I make no claims to always being right, but a reasoned argument will always win out over dogma and brainwashing. Solutions come from reason, not blind faith. Opinion with support -- and this may seem shocking -- IS superior to opinion based on nothing but greed, ignorance, and a hollow sense of superiority. (This last is demonstrated most clearly by childish name-calling.)
I'll stand by my opinions. You, with none of your own, are forced to stand by what others have heaped upon you.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:39pm):
This isn't the best forum to respond to long posts, but I'll give it a shot:
"What a lot of nonsense -- from most every poster on this thread."
Oh, sorry daddy.
"The violence and hypocrisy of this particular administration can only be questioned by brainwashed baboons."
Can ONLY be QUESTIONED by baboons? Since he is claiming he's so smart for questioning/opposing it, isn't he then calling himself a baboon?
The violence of this particular administration is on a pretty low level compared to several in our past. I seem to remember one Democratic President twice issuing an order to barbecue tens of thousands of people with a single weapon. I seem to recall a Democratic President who escalated a police action so that more than 300K soldiers were fighting and more than 68K got killed. I seem to remember a Democratic President who used military force, without asking the United Nations at all, to stop an alleged genocide that turned out to not be nearly as serious as once thought.
President Bush has used the military against two countries. If you were opposed to our action in Afghanistan, then you're fucking nuts and stupid, plain and simple. Even our NATO allies mobilized for that one. The other is Iraq. The reasons and the way we did it can be questioned for very good reasons. Estimates of total casualties are in the tens of thousands. Anti-war lunatics who claim hundreds of thousands have been refuted.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis died in any given MONTH under the previous regime, and I don't recall them ever being proud to have voted for the first time in their lives.
So let's have a little perspective, shall we? And so now I ask, how again is this Administration "particularly" violent?
"The motivation for any war certainly must be questioned."
Apparently only by baboons.
"That Hussein was a bad guy is not even an issue. Nor, ultimately, is our hypocrisy in supporting evil despots until they present a "threat.""
Sir, these are only non-issues because you've decided they're non-issues. That is your opinion and can hardly be stated as "fact". Here is where your self-delusion that you're some intellectual heavyweight betrays you.
"The utter disregard for the opinions of the rest of the world, however, requires scrutiny."
Utter disregard? We asked for help for months. We made our case. We didn't bully anyone. They said they weren't interested. Fair enough, but last I checked no country has a right to tell the President or the Congress when and where they may authorize force.
Remember too that pretty much every other country was parroting the same lines as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton: Iraq had WMD, had not disarmed, and was a threat.
Oh, and their opinion is definitely of concern when they are making hundreds of millions of dollars off of illegal oil contracts and selling weapons to the regime in spite of UN resolutions, isn't it?
"The Bushites are fine with the UN when it does what they want, but, when it doesn't, they stomp their feet like angry children and do what they want anyway."
If you are under the impression that George W. Bush is the first President in our history, or that the United States is the only country in history to politely ignore the United Nations, then it is absolutely pointless to argue with you because you are not living in anything resembling reality.
Interesting tidbit though: Many nations voted for a UN resolution mandating force if Iraq did not show proof of disarmament. Yet when proof of disarmament was not shown, they violated their own UN resolution by not following through.
"All in the name of the Democracy they so willingly subvert with lies right here at home."
While they are guilty of missteps, they did not lie about the intelligence. The recent commission on intel failures pointed that out.
Remember too that if W was lying about Iraqi WMD, then so was Clinton, so was Blair, so was Chirac, so was Schroeder, so was... you get the point?
"Their power comes from the promotion and exploitation of ignorance. Figure oil and religion into the argument, and you have everything that will make our Democracy fail"
I see you are bashing religion now. Nice.
Did you know it has been official U.S. government policy for years that access by the West to Middle-Eastern oil must not be disturbed? Are you delusional enough to think this was a Republican-only policy?
"I see this as a bad thing, as there is no doubt that much more chaos and violence will result from our failures."
Problem: We haven't failed yet. The jury is still out on both Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't done it perfect or even well, but signs indicate it's improving.
The fact that you claim we've failed before the results are in indicates you hope we fail. Why do you hope the United States fails in promoting semi-modern democracy abroad?
"Support the troops? I say pity them. They have been brainwashed and deceived."
Do you know that or do you just assume it is true? How many soldiers have you talked to as you've formed this opinion?
If you haven't talked to any soldiers, what gives you the right to question their motives and their intelligence, per chance?
"Viet Nam was apparently not sufficient to show how wrong we can be in waging war."
So your premise is that if we fail once we must never try again?
"The promise of a free education -- which a functioning Democracy should provide without military requirement -- takes the best intentions of the poor and undereducated and exploits these intentions by teaching obedience and violence."
You're free to not take advantage of the GI bill anytime you want.
There is no such thing as a free education, by the way.
"Isolate yourselves as individuals, conservatives, just as our nation isolates itself from reason and the rest of the world."
Isolate ourselves from reason. OK, was it reason when the UN put Sudan in charge of its Human Rights commission? I mean, I'm not a career diplomat or anything, but I'm pretty sure my first choice for that particular commission would NOT be Sudan.
Was it reason that the UN refused to act in Rwanda? They were free to anytime you know. Was it reason that they refuse to admit that Darfur is genocied? Was it reason that they passed a resolution telling Iraq to show proof of disarmament or face the consequences and the subsequently fail to live up to its threat?
You're either naive or willfully stupid enough to assume the UN is some haven of enlightened reason while only the United States and its redneck hick President are gumming up the works. Either way, it's very entertaining yet sad at the same time.
I believe I addressed the rest. Consider yourself OWNED.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:49pm):
"the same way no Pope should have ties to the Nazi party"
Joining the nazi youth groups was manditory and if you bothered to read his bio, he deserted after getting drafted into the German army. Doesn't sound like a nazi to me.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:51pm):
His dad was a member of the Nazi party. And Isreal has been trying to pin war crimes on him since they've been in existance.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:57pm):
You said:
"Everything you've said here makes my point for me. You cannot conceive that someone can see all dogma as dogma. When Chomsky or Moore says something reasonable, I agree. When they don't, I don't."
Yes, sure, you are enlightened enough to be free of all dogma. And yet when arguing with those with whom you disagree, you use the same tired lines about conservatives and members of the military, that they are stupid, have been brainwashed, and rely too much on religion.
Yes Mr. Winner, your post was a fine example of individual, rational thought free from biased and stereotypical assumptions.
"But the willingness to think and question certainly does give me an advantage."
Then use it to come up with some new slogans instead of the same old tired boilerplate leftist mantra.
"It means I won't believe BS just because I'm supposed to."
You think I believe BS because I'm supposed to? I live and work in Washington buddy where the BS from both sides flows like the tired slogans out of your mouth. I see the Administration lie and twist the truth one day and the next day it's the Democrats lying and twisting the truth. And guess what? The stuff coming from the Democrats' mouth sounds just like the stuff coming from your mouth.
Above dogma indeed. Please. You're as unoriginal and unbiased as Pat Robertson on a bad day.
"You also seem to assume that I'm some kind of Madison teenage reactionary. Again, you accept without considering alternative possibilities."
Fair enough. How old are you? What is your education level? Do you live in Washington? How many members of the armed service do you know? How many foreign policy-makers? How many employees of USAID or the CIA do you talk to routinely? Because I know plenty.
"Consider what's to gain. Is it cynical or optimistic? Selfish or mutually desirable? Reasonable or insane?"
Your problem is that you ask those questions assuming you already know the answers. Do you ever consider that perhaps you don't know the answers?
"Given your inability to reason, I'm not feeling threatened by your simplistic attacks -- only by the widespread irrationality you represent."
Yeah, and you strike fear into my heart with your "original" post about how enlightened you and the rest of the world are compared to our President and the members of our military.
The fact that you A>claim we've failed when the results of Iraq are still unknown and B>probably believe you already know the answers to the questions you posit above indicate you are in fact the one with the lack of reasoning skills.
"I make no claims to always being right, but a reasoned argument will always win out over dogma and brainwashing. Solutions come from reason, not blind faith."
Then on what do you base your claim that those who join the military are brainwashed? Have you talked to several members of the military and seen dull, blank looks in their eyes as they parrot similar slogans in response to your probing questions as to their motives for joining? Certainly if you claim to ask lots of questions and use lots of reasoning, this must be the case. Certainly you've interviewed many servicemen and women and have scientific evidence to back up your claim.
Right?
"Opinion with support -- and this may seem shocking -- IS superior to opinion based on nothing but greed, ignorance, and a hollow sense of superiority."
Really. Where is the support in anything you claim. The soldiers being brainwashed - where's the evidence? That we've failed in Iraq - where is the evidence? That Bush's administration is "particularly violent" - where is the evidence? He's got a hell of a long way to go to catch FDR, Truman, and LBJ you realize?
"I'll stand by my opinions. You, with none of your own, are forced to stand by what others have heaped upon you."
LOL. You are a riot.
Let me guess: You have used your superior intelect to determine, independently (because this is an original thought of yours, based on hard analysis) that I get all of my information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?
Am I right?
You're done. Go back to the coffee shop and plan some more protests.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 2:58pm):
Silly Activists.. Ignorance is Bliss and The Common Folk will Continue in it
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 3:27pm):
Well, pretty much every response in the detailed criticism of my last post takes my comments out of context.
Without really wanting to spend the time belaboring each point further, as that will surely become an endless process, I'll stick with just a few:
First, You missed my point entirely on the Viet Nam reference. The point was that we were (as our failure to fall to "the threat of communism" posed by the Vietnamese verifies) mistaken in our appalling assault on that country, and the ruinous effects are still quite palpable. Regardless, the naive would-be soldier is convinced (often with lots of lies, now well acknowledged, regarding length of tour and further commitments) to potentially kill and die on the assumption that the government is making wise decisions. I see this as a crime, worsened by the lure of education; a carrot before the nose of the manipulated.
Second, religion. Defend religion all you want, and I'll list the many ways in which faith is destructive, and reason offers all the benefits of religion with precious little in the way of Inquisitions and Beheadings.
But this is a discussion for a different forum. I suggest, for starters, that you read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. I do not, as some might suppose, accept every premise he postulates, and my thoughts on his subject predate my reading his book. But he makes many arguments more effectively than I can hope to make them here.
This is not to say I don't appreciate and admire your time in attempting to refute my points. That you seem to miss the basic premises in lieu of specific, non-contextual argument is unfortunate, but not surprising. If you are a religious person, my basic points contradict the things you've been raised to rely on -- faith in the non-demonstrable.
Now, back to the response.
I never made any claims to be a "Democrat" or otherwise. Nor is this is about comparing Bush to previous leaders or the US to previous empires. This is simply about questioning what the US is now doing.
Your greatest error in your critique was confusing my intentions regarding "questioning" things. (I may have been unclear, though, taken in context, I believe my point should have been easy to follow.) The idea was that not asking questions is bad. The violence and hypocrisy of the administration (not compared to others, just within itself) is not being questioned by, as I uncharitably put it, "brainwashed baboons." To question things, as I attempted to do, was suggested as a good thing.
Next, my reference to questions about Hussein as "non-issues" was in the interest of saving space. The US put him in power and used him until we decided this was a bad thing, as we have so often before. Because I was focusing on current ills and not out past mistakes, I decided to stick with our mishandling of the war and our dubious and bogus reasons for waging it -- of which, I admit, I barely scratched the surface.
Okay, this is going on too long. But considered that my initial complaint was about the low level of discourse to which this forum had sunk. Read back over the posts. Most are mindless, unreasoned, and resort to name calling. I apologize, then, for "baboons." But not for "brainwashed."
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 3:28pm):
Good post. I'm actually agreeing with a Conservative.
We may have gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons, we may not have handled it very well, but the thing that gets to me is that at the end of the day, Bush just may have been right with this policy.
Imagine a time 15 years from now when Iraq (cross your fingers) IS a functioning democracy. That's proof positive that this is good for America (and good for Iraq, too). It just needs to happen, and it WON'T without American support.
I'm reminded of an idea from The Simpsons, where Homer unintentionally saves the nuclear plant from melting down. This new act of screwing up but getting lucky enough to have things turn out ok is referred to as "pulling a Homer", and as crazy as it sounds, Bush might have pulled a Homer with Iraq.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 3:50pm):
"The ends justify the means" is pretty well dismissed by modern philosophers, and thinking people in general.
Tens (if not hundreds) of thousand of dead Iraqis might question your premise.
And the argument that "they might have died under Hussein anyway" doesn't quite clean the blood form our hands.
A viable democracy cannot survive in a devoutly religious country. If we can't do it here, how can we expect the devastated Iraqis to manage it? through our supervision? Maybe, if we beg the UN to help out, based on the "Homer" argument.
"Uh, sorry. We kinda messed that up. Could you lend a hand?"
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 3:51pm):
Boy, they keep pouring in. At what point is "Reason" considered "Reasonable" by the brainwashed?
Knowing a lot of manipulators on both sides of the aisle certainly doesn't translate into "enlightenment." It helps that I've made no such claims myself. One needn't be "enlightened" to point out the failings of others or oneself. These presumptions of my arrogance deny the idea that Reason is a concept based on reality, demonstrability, and, ultimately, objectivity. To claim I had access to these things would be arrogant (as it is in the utterly faulted Religious Right, whose Reason is supremely limited by their Faith). To claim that my awareness of and attempts to grasp these things gives me a better foundation than any spouter of rhetoric is Reasonable -- by definition.
This idea that I am spouting other people's ideas doesn't stand up to scrutiny, for the simple fact that I am not. Whom have I cited? What have I said that doesn't deliberately stand on its own? What clichés have I relied upon to make my arguments? If it is a cliché to say the administration should be scrutinized, and to suggest that their motives are self-serving, that may say more about them than it does about me.
Criticize my lack of citation if you like (though I find that the comments here are long enough, and the off-the-cuff response, for all its potential failings, is pretty much the point of a forum such as this.)
As for this notion of brainwashing, and in addition to the very basic premise of military training which enforces that questioning "authority" is wrong, I'm referring specifically to the faulty premise that the government is not manipulating the populace to accept that the war is good, and that the US government is blessed with super-papal infallibility. It only takes one soldier's disillusionment with the Iraq situation to demonstrate my point, and there happen to be a lot more than one -- even just among the survivors -- coming back (when they're finally allowed) with a lot of questions for our policy makers.
On this level, I'm admitting generalization. The critics of what I've said have yet to make such an admission.
Good night.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 4:07pm):
It could be questioned whether either side of the predominant "discussion" is listening to the other.
On the other hand, reason makes a good argument. Y'know, because that's what reason does.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 4:14pm):
by the way,
what would Dols label as treasonous?
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 4:19pm):
Maybe those who throw out law and reason to witch-hunt and scape-goat.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 5:25pm):
"by the way,
what would Dols label as treasonous?"
Any counter-revolutionaries will be shot on sight!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 5:45pm):
"His dad was a member of the Nazi party. And Isreal has been trying to pin war crimes on him since they've been in existance."
Your facts are off.
Read below:
The son of a rural Bavarian police officer, Ratzinger was six when Hitler came to power in 1933. His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler's Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.
In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and the family moved to Traunstein, a staunchly Catholic town in Bavaria close to the Führer's mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden. He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941.
He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. "Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one," concluded John Allen, his biographer.
Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. He deserted in April 1944 and spent a few weeks in a prisoner of war camp.
Ratzinger also headed the papal commission that wrote "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past", the document apologizing for the the churches indifference during the holocaust.
Do you actually think the conclave would elect a cardinal under investigation for war crimes? Get serious.
DJ
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 6:39pm):
war is for cowards and religion is for the weak.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 6:52pm):
For once I find myself agreeing with you the protest was not treasonous at all. Stupid yes, a monumental waste of time yes, an excuse for a bunch of college kids to get a day out of class yes. Maybe even seditious but treasonous no.
Yet what did it accomplish other than making the participants feel good about themselves. Now they get upset cause those mean old Republicans come along and take even that from them. I doubt at any moment some American soldier is sitting in Iraq saying "Damn maybe I shouldn't be here and the ONLY reason I believe that is because of those enlightened students at UW who walked out of their classes to stand in solidarity with us". I doubt if one terrorist watched this and said you know they are right maybe we should just stop lopping the heads off the Americans, blowing up things in Iraq etc.
Nope I doubt if any American soldier could even give a shit about what the students at UW are doing at the moment. So we once again have a bunch of losers too chickenshit to do anything substancial coming up with a way to protest a war which will affect them in the least. You know they could have decided not to drive for a day and save gas but did they. I wonder how many of these protestors drove daddies SUV's to even get to the site the bunch of f*cking hypocrites. But this is a war for oil afterall right, but how many of these protestors drove that day, ate a meal, wore clothes, etc all of which use oil. Now if really "against" a war for oil as you claim wouldn't you try to do anything to limit it's use. Naw, that would be to much EFFORT ON YOUR PART, and who needs that when all I have to do for a walk out is keep my lazy ass at home from class and maybe shout a few stupid slogans right.
As for your claims of AWOL status let's post a few numbers from just the Army (that is just one branch of Service for those protestors who don't know a damn thing about the military ie all of you). The following is the number of soldiers who have been reported AWOL in the US Army for the last 6 years. Notice how in 2000, 2001, 2002 the numbers are fairly close and yet there we were only in Afghanistan at the time. Showing that in the grand scheme of things there
FY 1997: 2,218
FY 1998: 2,520
FY 1999: 2,966
FY 2000: 3,949
FY 2001: 4,597
FY 2002: 4,021
FY 2003 (to May 2003): 2,096
Now if one looks, we can see the Iraq war has been going on for two years. Yet in 2001 to 2002. BEFORE WE EVEN INVADED IRAQ the number of AWOLS was over 8,000. Two years into the Iraq war we are at 5,500 meaning that the numbers of AWOL soldiers have actually DECREASED. Not increased so again before you start posting crap about the military you don't know you might want to get your facts from somewhere other than the "Socialist times"
As for supporting the troops it is the protestors who somehow perverted meaning supporting the troops means to bring them home. In WWII the troops had the support of the majority of Americans and yet I don't recall their being an outcry to just bring them home before Hitler and Japan were taken care of (cause if there would have been as in Vietnam our politicians would have caved and we would be speaking German now). So for your information "supporting the troops" has never meant bringing them home except in the drug addled minds of the 60'ish hippie loser/protestor and their minions of today.
As for the protest at UW thanks for thinking you are so "all important" that the world actually gives a flying fuck what any of you at UW think in the grand scheme of things. The protest was nothing more than a bunch of college students throwing their last "temper tantrum" before reaching adulthood. Cause that is what a "protest" is, the same manner of getting your point across that a two year old child might use or someone who is still in the two year old mindset and has not yet become an adult. For those who don't believe me then please explain why it is that protest is synonymous with college, student, and youth?? Funny seems those who can call themselves and that the world sees as adults have found better methods to get their points across. So walk out of class now while you still can before you have to get that "big boy/girl job" and such stunts get your stupid asses fired.
SSG Ronald Pritchett
ronald.pritchett@verizon.net
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:38pm):
I will agree that his protest was not treasonus. His protest was stupid and idiotic, and very childish, but not treason. Supporting communist dictatorships with words is not Treasonius, but is very idiotic. The best way to make these types go away is to protest them whenever they show up. That is what we ProtestWarriors and College Republicans did last Thursday.
Anyway, this is a new trend. Don't expect us to stop, or turn away when confronted by leftist hordes.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 7:44pm):
Pritchett should be convicted of treason. Maybe his buddies in the governement would put a rubber bag on his head and electrodes on his balls like they do to Iraqis.
Prtichett you make better cannonfodder than arguer. Stick to what you do best, and go bomb some more babies and women and then call yourself brave and a hero.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 8:30pm):
"Nope I doubt if any American soldier could even give a shit about what the students at UW are doing at the moment."
Aren't you a soldier? and you are here?
"As for the protest at UW thanks for thinking you are so "all important" that the world actually gives a flying fuck what any of you at UW think in the grand scheme of things."
1) If you don't care what Uw students think why are you here everyday bitching about what sudents think?
2) I think you are mad that no one cares what YOU think.
"I wonder how many of these protestors drove daddies SUV's to even get to the site the bunch of f*cking hypocrites."
Amazes me how you get angry at uppermiddleclass kids who drive "daddies SUV" but not at the uber rich who aer making you got to war for corporate profit. Though I agree with you that it is hypocritical to protest a war for oil and then use a lot of it.
"As for supporting the troops it is the protestors who somehow perverted meaning supporting the troops means to bring them home. In WWII the troops had the support of the majority of Americans and yet I don't recall their being an outcry to just bring them home before Hitler and Japan were taken care of (cause if there would have been as in Vietnam our politicians would have caved and we would be speaking German now)"
this argument is logically flawed:
1) WWII is not the same as Vietnam is not the same as Iraq.
2) People have every right to influence their governments policies in a democracy. The majority supposrted WWII so we stayed in, the majority didn't support Vietnam so we pulled out. That's what democracy means!
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 8:31pm):
So, we should never protest that with which we disagree. We should take it like men. Be subjegated. Give up our independence, bow down to the lords of greed and stupidity, and hope they'll go easy on us.
God bless the U S of A.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:12pm):
Didn't say you shouldn't protest, but shouldn't the protest benefit the reason, cause, etc you are protesting against instead of the PROTESTOR??? So again what was accomplished other than a bunch of lazy assed students finding yet another excuse to skip class for the day? They could have organized a drive to buy medical supplies for those injured Iraqi's they profess to care oh so much about. They could have went to DC and protested where the actual policies are made or in front of a Congressman's office there in Madison. They could have decided to walk or bike to class that day. They could have left class early so that electricity, and other energy been saved. Literally hundreds of things, but no they decided to benefit those they care the most about (ie themselves) and come up with an "excuse" to get out of class early and hang with friends and basically have a block party. Man that will really help those Iraqi's (not), bring this war to a faster end (not) or do anything but make "themselves" feel good about "themselves" cause they are doing "something" to stop the war. Well for the next protest let's all "eat a steak dinner" for Iraq. Yep that is what we will do. On April 25 I propose that all those against the war have a 5 course meal at a local restaurant to show our distaste for war. I mean it will have about as much meaning, support and overall significance as walking out of class for a day.
Ie, the bags are burlap not rubber moron and if you had ever FLOWN in the back of a military aircraft you would see why they are used. But you would know as much about that as would someone seeing a riding crop used on a horse and then accusing the rider of "abusing" the horse wouldn't you?? Again maybe you should actually learn something about what you protest? I would dare say if given the choice electrode tied to my nuts (with no REAL electricity used by the way, just the threat) and having my head chopped off I would probably go with the former instead of the latter. Who is it doing the latter again???
Again a protest is a poor way to do anything. Like a child who can think of no other option when his parents tell them "no" so they throw a temper tantrum. A protest is much the same thing. We can't talk out our problems, nobody will listen to me, they don't understand etc. So to make them do all of the above I will throw the equivalent of a public "fit" to gain attention. Much like the spoiled child who gains attention from adults by throwing such a fit is the protestor who still thinks acting like a two year old when entering the adult world is the way to get attention. Might work on your parents when you were 5 guys, but has very little effect on the world at large other than making those doing the protest look like the spoiled brats they are/were.
As for the soldier aspect don't know of one soldier who has asked a college to "protest for us while we are fighting over here" since the war began. One would think that they would know what they were getting into when they signed up to join the ARMED forces. However, I think the problem is that University students think soldiers are as stupid as they are and are somehow dupped into joining and are blinded to what the military actually does. Some people enjoy being in the military just like you must enjoy protesting so get over yourselves and realize that you are not "their enlightened savior" coming to rescue us from our bondage to the government. Anymore so than we are coming to rescue you from your "bondage" under the liberal parents and professors that you fall under at UW.
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:17pm):
Besides how many at the protest are in college in the first place because of the "government" and defense industry jobs worked at by their parents????... Yep those same folks protesting are the exact same people benefiting from the "bad ole govment" they profess to be against. Why if we are so against the federal government how's about all those who's parents work for the "man" resign from college in protest??? Oh cause again that would affect whom??
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:29pm):
Okay, Mr. Dols, we agree on one point. Protesting is not treasonous in and of itself.
The agreement stops there.
"To care about the well-being of American troops (and Iraqi democracy for that matter) is to support the demands of military resisters: those soldiers who refuse to take part in this war."
To care about the well-being of Iraqi democracy is to stay there until that democracy can support itself. Pulling out now would cause the swift destruction of the fledgling constitutional republic and Iraq's descent into anarchy and warlordism. Oh, but of course! This would create a dissatisfied citizenry, a prime requisite for Marx's theory of revolution! Coincidence? Hmmmmmmm.
"By definition, to put conditions on self-determination is to oppose self-determination. We would do well to ask ourselves how we would respond to foreign tanks rolling down State Street. As one enlisted soldier said on the radio program "Democracy Now," "if soldiers had come into our country and had invaded us and had come into our homes, then I would have fought back, too." Yet some local progressives have led the charge to marginalize and intimidate proponents of this democratic demand."
False analogy. The United States already has a functioning republic, thank you very much. This is not the case with Iraq. Republics don't form themselves. Nations are birthed in blood, Mr. Dols; this has been the case throughout history and is not going to change any time soon. You'd do well to remember that. At the moment, the balance of forces in Iraq absent the forced of the United States would quickly lead to a bloodbath, and the result would not be a self-determining government of the people. You are deluded to think otherwise.
Woodrow Major
Protest Warrior, Murray State University
Rogue 9, Protest Warrior forums
Anonymous (April 20, 2005 @ 10:46pm):
blah, blah, blah.
Apparently, we're all deluded, one way or another. We either don't think at all, think in a very narrow frame of reference, accept what we hear out of hand, reject what we hear out of hand...
Rather than half-assed tirades of self-importance, why don't we all sit back and just ask ourselves what our intentions are.
Pacifists, in my opinion, have the best intentions. Even as it is acknowledged that, sadly, violence is sometimes the answer (strangely, only as a reaction to violence or the threat of violence), is it wrong to push for a world in which other answers are more thoroughly explored?
It seems to me that any protest is ultimately designed to raise awareness and to provoke conversation. As self-righteous as much of the 'conversation" here has become, I'd say, as someone totally uninvolved in the protest, that it was a big success.
Regardless, intentions are key. Pointing fingers is tricky, but, conceptually, greed and dogma direct a lot of the intentions of a lot of influential people.
Will we maybe agree, just maybe, without arguing the details and the unavoidable subjectivity that comes of them, that this is true, and that it deserves scrutiny?
