Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Oct 18th, 2017: Lollypops

Recent Images

Oct 17th, 2017: Queen Tarzi
Oct 16th, 2017: Cook Pines
Oct 15th, 2017: Station Dog (Jim Dog)
Oct 14th, 2017: Doughnut Girls & Donut Dollies
Oct 13th(Friday), 2017: Internment Camps
Oct 11th, 2017: Santa's Bones
Oct 10th, 2017: Blood in the Streets

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Monday Jan 20 01:39 PM

1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors



It has to be noted that this was a minority of the protestors in San Francisco, but apparently a sub-group of the main protest broke off determined to do damage, and used the day to turn over newspaper boxes and bust the doors at the INS, above. They also took out a main window at a Starbucks (natch) and hit other such corporate symbols with their message in spray paint and whatnot.

The irony of violence breaking out at a war protest is pretty rich. The message of the protests was already confused enough. It's easy to take remarkable pot shots at the whole thing and its organizers.

If the shit really hit the fan, here's guessing most of these mental midgets would quickly soil their shorts and dive into the nearest Starbucks for physical cover, hoping to find the biggest possible SUV to drive out of the worst trouble... again, all irony-proof. What can you say about people who believe that by turning over newspaper boxes they are "targetting the corporate media"?



Elspode  Monday Jan 20 03:27 PM

The exact same thing happened, in the exact same city, although on a larger scale, prior to Desert Storm. The irony of that struck me then, as well, to the point that i added the following verse to a 'protest' song I was writing at that point:

"Picked up the old newspaper, saw people protesting for peace
Out in San Francisco, man, they acted like a pack of beasts.
Breakin' windows and burning cop cars, I can't believe that its true
I guess out in 'Frisco, the slogan is 'Give me peace...or I'll kill you!' "



Happy Monkey  Monday Jan 20 03:57 PM

A note

[delurking]

One thing to note is that there are people who attend any protest in the area, just to vandalize property in the confusion. These vandals may not have any sympathy with the protest's cause.



option  Monday Jan 20 05:02 PM

Consider this

The government was notorious for using agent provocateurs in the Vietnam days. This is similar to their infamous program of finding the most out-there militant black organizations and arranging money and press exposure for them. If you can't find a good straw man, you manufacture one.

That's just insurance, of course. Who is surprised when the ignorant and the criminal element take advantage of any circumstance to loot or riot, for fun or profit? Look at what happens after any sports game, St. Patricks Day parade, New Years, etc. Think about it. Why is this different? If it sounds ridiculous that peace protesters were violent, that's because it is.

This spin comes from elements within the media advancing a pro-war political agenda. It's an old, old, OLD technique. You will see other things associated with the peace protestors too - naked race baiting (throwing them in with Arab radicals chanting for the end of Israel, terrorist sympathizers), as well as some "quotes" from "organizers" hand-picked for their ignorance and flippancy.

Congratulations, you just fell for a classic media scam.

Looks like there are some lessons (not even that old) that we'll need to re-learn again... these peace protestors are all that's between you and another Vietnam.



Taoist  Monday Jan 20 05:33 PM

amen brother.



wolf  Monday Jan 20 05:40 PM

Re: Consider this

Quote:
Originally posted by option
Congratulations, you just fell for a classic media scam.
Congratulations, you just fell for the notion that any "protestors" could ONLY have the purest possible motives, and not just be looking for an excuse to trash stuff.


option  Monday Jan 20 05:49 PM

Classic

The fallacy of opposites.

"If you condemn slanted reporting of protest activities, you must be claiming all protesters have 'the purest of motives.'"

The fallacy of conflation.

"Even when the writer is making a point about the separation of two ideas/objects/groups, they are artificially rejoined. i.e. All protestors must be the same as these criminals (who 'trash stuff')."

So are you just bad at this? Or do you have some kind of agenda?



mlandman  Monday Jan 20 05:55 PM

Yeah, peace protesters are above reproach, right?

Wolf's right.

As with anything, people will look at this event (see picture) and slant it to their own belief re: the current situation (war with Iraq).

Quote:
Congratulations, you just fell for a classic media scam.
Yes, it's impossible to believe that some of the peace protesters might be a little 'odd' and decide to do something like this. That is an impossibility, whereas it's MUCH more likely that it's a government or media conspiracy.

If you look at the cracks made in the window, you can see Saddam with little devil horns, so I'm voting for the government/media conspiracy vote.

Instead of the peace protesters being the only thing between the you and another Vietnam, I would argue that there is a lot more than that, including diplomatic international pressure, of which little has to do with the local peace rally (or peace violence, or whatever). Besides, if it DOES happen, it won't be another Vietnam, not even close.

-mike


option  Monday Jan 20 06:02 PM

"Wolf's right."

No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.

So, have you volunteered for the Army yet?

I mean, I'm assuming you're for the war. At any rate you seem pretty sure it will go smoothly. If you're against it, I've mistaken myself. But if you're for it, you're getting ready to go fight it, right?



MaggieL  Monday Jan 20 06:25 PM

*snort* I always love it when sprouts lecture publically about a war they read about in history class.



option  Monday Jan 20 06:30 PM

snort

Or when people make assumptions about the age of others.

Or forget that a few "sprouts" lost parents or other relatives there...



Griff  Monday Jan 20 07:06 PM

There seems to be a LOT of unfair grouping going on regarding these protests. I think the war is bullshit therefor I'm must be a commie, wrong I'm a Libertarian. Some folks, that I assume are left anarchists, based on earlier protest tactics, decide its a good opportunity to trash property so one side assumes they're working for the gov and the other side assumes this little fringe represents the rest of the movement. Maybe we're all just a little or a lot tense because the shit is about to come down and we all want to be on the moral side. (That would be my side btw )



mlandman  Monday Jan 20 07:10 PM

Quote:
No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.
If you're interested in contributing to an interesting debate or providing interesting conversation, then say something else besides this ridiculous statement.

BTW, assuption boy, I'm too old to volunteer and additionally, am not pro-war. To me, the best option (yes, that means the one that I would favor above all else) would be the newly discussed option of Exile for Saddam and family, and *no* war. Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple. And if war does happen, I don't think it will go smoothly but it won't be anything like Vietnam, (of course, mostly due to technology), but the outcome WILL be different. (If you think Saddam's regime will still be in power at the end of the 'war', then you're wrong.) America might not 'win', if winning implies super low casualties, or status quo within the international community. However, the regime change in Iraq will happen, as opposed to what happened in Vietnam. If you believe that Saddam's regime will be in place after a full scale military conflict, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

By the way, did you read the article or visit the source of this media conspiracy? It's certainly not pro war and seems to be quite pro peace. Or is that just a front? Unless you believe that it's a front, I don't think you even LOOKED.

I don't know what else to say. You came out with some statements saying "Congratulations, you've just fallen for a media scam" to anybody that believes that a peace protester really did this damage. Aside from the fact that I believe you're quite wrong, you've got to realize people will respond the way they did. And they don't neccessarily deserve the "So are you just bad at this? Or do you have some kind of agenda?" crap.

-mike


juju  Monday Jan 20 07:50 PM

Whatever the motivations of the people involved were, one thing seems clear. The spin that goes on completely eliminates the effectiveness of protesting. It just undermines it's credibility.

Even if you argue that protesters really do like to destroy shit, the outcome is the same: undermined credibility. That's certainly not helpful for spreading your message.



option  Monday Jan 20 08:03 PM

Downhill from there

Quote:
Originally posted by mlandman


If you're interested in contributing to an interesting debate or providing interesting conversation, then say something else besides this ridiculous statement.
Wow - you called what I said ridiculous. What a smashing rebuttal. And it was your best one, too, as we'll see...

Quote:
BTW, assuption boy, I'm too old to volunteer and additionally, am not pro-war.
Oh - foolish me. Allow me to repeat myself. "If you're against it, I've mistaken myself." But I'm glad you pointed out you're too old as well. Just in case.

Quote:
To me, the best option (yes, that means the one that I would favor above all else) would be the newly discussed option of Exile for Saddam and family, and *no* war. Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple. And if war does happen, I don't think it will go smoothly but it won't be anything like Vietnam, (of course, mostly due to technology), but the outcome WILL be different. (If you think Saddam's regime will still be in power at the end of the 'war', then you're wrong.) America might not 'win', if winning implies super low casualties, or status quo within the international community. However, the regime change in Iraq will happen, as opposed to what happened in Vietnam. If you believe that Saddam's regime will be in place after a full scale military conflict, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
Go team. Which paper did you read all this in? Or did you figure it out "yourself?"

What a nuanced foreign policy you have. Your "best option" is Hussein surrendering peacefully rather than defending himself. How erudite of you. You're clearly not after conflict at all.

I'm sure you're not concerned with what's happening in Iran, or Pakistan, or Israel/Palestine, or North Korea, or any of the other interesting "opportunity problems" that might be related to this conflict.

In fact, I'm sure if we get lucky and things don't turn ugly you'll be there, pointing fingers and blaming people for having considered any of the risks...

But it's all academic to you, of course... you're too old to fight.

Quote:
By the way, did you read the article or visit the source of this media conspiracy? It's certainly not pro war and seems to be quite pro peace. Or is that just a front? Unless you believe that it's a front, I don't think you even LOOKED.
What are you even talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not complaining about an article - this is about people conflating criminals with peace protestors.

I'll add...
Quote:
Griff said:

so one side assumes they're working for the gov
As I hope should have been clear in my post, I'm not making that assumption.


tw  Monday Jan 20 08:23 PM

The picture is about as relevant to anti-war demonstrations as it is about Eagles fans. It does not even represent a significant minority of either group. At best it is 'proof' that we should ban alcohol in the US.

Now had this been a picture of Chicago summer 1968, or civil rights riots of the same period, or even Seattle during the start of the next round of GAPP, then the picture would have been relevant - have some significance. But the picture is about as relevant as one Saturday night outside a wild bar. It only demonstrates that some people will be violent for almost any reason. It is the stuff that makes Liza Thomas Laurie a popular news women in Philadelphia.



wolf  Monday Jan 20 08:58 PM

Re: "Wolf's right."

Quote:
Originally posted by option
No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.

So, have you volunteered for the Army yet?

I mean, I'm assuming you're for the war. At any rate you seem pretty sure it will go smoothly. If you're against it, I've mistaken myself. But if you're for it, you're getting ready to go fight it, right?
No, we merely disagree.

We could both be right, we could both be wrong.

Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I'm just stating that there are other, equally valid viewpoints/interpretations.

But you are stating as an absolute something which is not.

I'm as big, or bigger, a conspiracy fan as the next guy ... but even I don't look for them behind every bush (or Pres. Bush ). (Although I am a proponent of the Flight 800 missile strike theory, and the Flight 93 shoot-down theory.)

As far as volunteering for the army, no, I haven't either. I'm not eligible for one, and I wouldn't take the cut in pay for another. I will support our troops in such an action, however. I have too many friends, past and present, in the military to do otherwise. Soldiers do a job that many of us are unwilling or unequipped to do. They don't make the wars, they just go and fight 'em. That distinction often gets blurred, and particularly with Vietnam, led to the returning soldiers being vilified by the protestors.

Yes, I support the war. I'd like to see Iraq resolved diplomatically, but I honestly don't see that as a viable option at this point. That would require rationality on BOTH sides, which clearly doesn't exist in Iraq, and I'm often not certain about "our" side.


wolf  Monday Jan 20 08:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tw
At best it is 'proof' that we should ban alcohol in the US.
And we know that doesn't work.


option  Tuesday Jan 21 03:07 AM

No

I wish I could be gentlemanly and compromising about it. No, you really are wrong. It's quite simple: you tried to attribute something to my statements which is false: that I believe "any 'protestors' could ONLY have the purest possible motives." To this you add the subtly add the charge of "conspiracy theorist." I don't suppose you want me to repeat my earlier response (to which I notice you make no specific reply). Why compromise with that?

(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)

You go further, and now I feel so must I. It's grim, but we're not just discussing politics anymore. All this quiet patriotism is soaked in blood.

You "support" our troops? I doubt they feel your support.

You're implying that if the army doesn't support the lifestyle to which you're accustomed, that clears you of the responsibilities that go with your opinions. But I get the feeling you already know better. There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job."

I know many of the people you "support." You seem as though you should know well enough already that by accepting this conflict you do the opposite of supporting them. Do you imagine that you turn your back on them by opposing sending them to the gulf? It's on the altar of this kind of credulousness that they'll be sacrificed (in small numbers or great, who can predict?), not to defend their country, because by every indication Iraq threatens us less than Saudi Arabia, and not to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because then they would be on their way to North Korea or Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are indisputably known to exist (in the former in abrogation of an important disarmament treaty, and in the latter, in the hands of the single most likely people to use or lose them), but to further the interests of a western oil cartel.



Slithy_Tove  Tuesday Jan 21 05:13 AM

Advice: nothing makes a discussion worthless faster than questioning others' motives and ad hominem attacks.

Once someone starts attacking me, rather than my ideas, I stop paying attention. I advise everyone else to do the same.



Cam  Tuesday Jan 21 09:11 AM

We've kind of had a vicious cycle of that in the cellar lately though. It's been kind of annoying



wolf  Tuesday Jan 21 11:05 AM

This guy is new, and probably didn't read as a lurker long enough to establish clue-ness.

If s/he catches the feel of The Cellar™, s/he'll stay. If s/he doesn't s/he'll get frustrated and wander off.

(*shrugs*)

Don't care, really.



option  Tuesday Jan 21 11:24 AM

Funny

"This guy is new, therefore..."

It's just, while nothing I said was ad hominem, that was. Good for a chuckle, I guess.



warch  Tuesday Jan 21 11:31 AM

Quote:
*snort* I always love it when sprouts lecture publically about a war they read about in history class.
I'm glad to see them thinking about war, because they're the ones gonna be fighting it.


Hubris Boy  Tuesday Jan 21 12:18 PM

*Convulsed with laughter and gasping for breath, Hubris Boy struggles back to his keyboard. Wiping a tear from his eye, he stares incredulously at his monitor. Yes, it really does say what he thought it said.*

Quote:
Originally posted by option
(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)
That single statement tells us all we need to know about your abilities to reason critically and write effectively.

Run along, now.


option  Tuesday Jan 21 12:22 PM

Hmm.

You could try actually making an argument?

Or does the last insult win?



MaggieL  Tuesday Jan 21 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by warch

I'm glad to see them thinking about war, because they're the ones gonna be fighting it.
Point well taken...but bear in mind that speech isn't always evidence of thought.

In fact, sometimes it is evidence of its absence.


Uryoces  Tuesday Jan 21 03:34 PM

Option, the way I've come to think of the cellar is a group of friends sitting around drinking beer [wine/relaxing beverage of choice] and shooting the breeze. We're all friends here, or at least not strangers. We all have viewpoints on this issue and how to resolve it. Some are wackier that others -- Mine involves packs of rabid weiner dogs and lots of hemp. tw's a good soul, just have to have him breath into a paper bag once in a while.

There's no need to blow a seal.



Undertoad  Tuesday Jan 21 03:55 PM

Now, wait a minute... HB's note made me think about it, and I feel tw has made the most important point of all:

Quote:
Originally posted by tw
It only demonstrates that some people will be violent for almost any reason.
Precisely.

Geez, even in the middle of a peace protest, some people will be violent for almost any reason.

And that's why, sometimes, you have to go to war.


warch  Tuesday Jan 21 04:42 PM

Or:
sometimes, you have to go to war, and then, some people will be violent for almost any reason. The defensive offense or the offensive defense. I dunno. War should be the last resort, threat of war is a tactic.

I am confused. But I do know that knocking over a newspaper box is just stupid, meaningless vandalism.



Uryoces  Tuesday Jan 21 06:16 PM

Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...



tw  Tuesday Jan 21 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by warch
I am confused. But I do know that knocking over a newspaper box is just stupid, meaningless vandalism.
Meaning that:
1) war is hell
2) war only causes trash in street (can't be - Philly already has enough)
3) having an opinion must result in vandalism
4) fighting for peace means war - we must burn the village to save it
5) peace is a violent anti-American movement
6) Sharon did it
7) it was a terrorist plot by six Arabs who crossed the border from Canada
8) the picture was politically motivated
9) the picture was misrepresented; a result of the Eagle's game
or
10) the picture is irrelevant and only misrepresents reality.


quzah  Wednesday Jan 22 02:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mlandman
Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple.
Bullshit. It has nothing to do with the Saddam regime. It has to do with this black stuff that comes out of the ground. Nothing more. Nothing less.

People seem to forget that what, we HELPED this horrible, evil monster test shit on his own people. We* did this. Not them on their own. We helped. Funny how the media never brings that up huh? Where the hell do you think they got their "weapons of mass destruction"? Cracker Jacks(TM)?

So now they're suddenly bad because we don't like them again? Shit. Oil. That's all folks. Oil.

Quzah.
*by we I mean the government of the United States.


quzah  Wednesday Jan 22 02:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...
Like you could spot real leather from fake from a picture on TV. I had to buy a pair of "dress shoes" for work once. It's fairly easy, without even going out of your way to try, to find shoes without leather in them.

All in all, it depends on your personal views as to why you believe or behave the way you (you being any given person) do.

It's like people that are vegetarian. Personally, they annoy the shit out of me. "I'm vegetarian because I don't like to see animals hurt! Mmmm that milk was tasty! So was that fish sandwich!"

Then they get all defensive when I scoff at them. Really, that's my only problem with "meat eaters" (I almost said the 'C' word, but then the black vans would show up if I mention it more than once a day...) is that they get all defensive and have to PROUDLY PROCLAIM THEIR RIGHT TO EAT RAW RED MEAT. No one gives a shit. Eat what you want. I don't care. Just don't jump on my case when I state my reasons for not.[/rant]

See what you started.

Quzah.


Uryoces  Wednesday Jan 22 03:08 AM

Actually, it was a leather jacket I saw at a fur protest in Seattle. I don't know if said person was actually participating or watching, but of course the camera focused in on them. The talking head didn't point this out in the newscast, but it was there. I still have my leather jacket, and wore with the understanding and glib explaination that I wasn't wasting said cow. I now don't fit into it. Between 23 and 30 I added three inches to my height. I'm trying to remember the last time I ate cow flesh. I've been eating a lot of chicken and pork in various oriental/semi-oriental ways.

The shoe comment actually came from my brother. Usually I buy from local Volume Shoesource. Not a lot of leather there to choose from.

-- Hoping Quzah doesn't notice that the factories that produce for Volume Shoesource underpay their workers --



wolf  Wednesday Jan 22 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces

There's no need to blow a seal.
I really don't think it's fair to bring his/her sexual preferences into this discussion.


option  Wednesday Jan 22 12:12 PM

Awww

Hey, why not, it's the internet after all.



russotto  Wednesday Jan 22 02:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with the Saddam regime. It has to do with this black stuff that comes out of the ground. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Nope, it's not about that. Not primarily, not even secondarily. Mostly, it's likely about Saddam taking a shot at W's daddy.

Quote:

People seem to forget that what, we HELPED this horrible, evil monster test shit on his own people. We* did this. Not them on their own. We helped. Funny how the media never brings that up huh? Where the hell do you think they got their "weapons of mass destruction"? Cracker Jacks(TM)?
They did not get their weapons of mass destruction from the US. The US DID provide military aid during the Iran-Iraq war, but not WMD.

And if "we" DID create him, isn't it our responsibility to destroy him?


option  Wednesday Jan 22 02:59 PM

Uh

Quote:
Nope, it's not about that. Not primarily, not even secondarily. Mostly, it's likely about Saddam taking a shot at W's daddy.
You're joking I think.

Quote:
They did not get their weapons of mass destruction from the US. The US DID provide military aid during the Iran-Iraq war, but not WMD.
Although it's been widely known for ages that we gave Iraq both biological and chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, after the post-9/11 anthrax scare, the fact was more or less officially acknowledged to the media, i.e.

The Observer on Antrhax

"Scientists investigating the attacks say the bacteria used is similar to the 'Ames strain' of anthrax originally cultivated at Iowa State University in the 1950s and later given to labs throughout the world, including Iraq." (And that's just from one of the first two links that come up in google when you type in "u.s. iraq anthrax".)

And if you want to go on a military crusade to rid the world of such weapons, start with North Korea. Or Pakistan. Or China for that matter... Oh wait, none of those places have oil fields. Never mind.


dave  Wednesday Jan 22 04:29 PM

The prospect of going after China is a joke, Pakistan is our new friend and we've already discussed why there's no military option in DPRK. I'm not saying military action is justified in Iraq, but if we're looking for a war we can win, it's the best option.



option  Wednesday Jan 22 04:52 PM

Hmm

Mentioning China was indeed a joke. As for the rest, Pakistan is "our new friend" who is also the chief financial and military backer of the Taliban, and who is on the verge of nuclear war with India and home to an unelected government (whose figurehead speaks English with a charming British accent) beset by popular Islamic fundamentalists. Can you say Iran-before-the-fall-of-the-shah?

As for North Korea... why don't you catch me up? Why, again, is there no military option?

If all you're looking for is a war you can win, invade Saudi Arabia. You have about as much of a pretext.



juju  Wednesday Jan 22 05:45 PM

Isn't it rather hypocritical of our nation to go around taking other people's weapons away from them, and then keeping our own?



dave  Wednesday Jan 22 05:49 PM

Saudi Arabia is our big oil friend. Invading them makes about as much sense as shoving a pencil in your eye. It's just one of those things you don't do.

Like I said, Pakistan has no problem because they're our new buddies. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but <b>that is the way it is</b>.

I gave a really short overview of why we can't attack DPRK here. It is by no means exhaustive, but should be a good overview.

Personally, I'm not at all looking for a war. I am not at all convinced we need to be attacking Iraq. I also have a friend that's been called up (as has Cellar user Tobiasly), and I'm not at all interested in hearing that they're coming home in boxes. I'm just trying to look at this from a realist perspective. If we are going to attack someone, Iraq is probably the best option. :\



option  Wednesday Jan 22 06:25 PM

Sorry

I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis.

The first bad sign is that you took my example of Saudi Arabia literally, as if it were a suggestion.

The second bad sign is that your argument on why we won't attack Pakistan is because "they're our friend, and that's the way it is" (emphasis removed). I really don't like to dignify this kind of non-thinking with an answer, but I'll stoop anyway: Iraq used to be our friend too, until they became our enemy.

Your reasoning behind not attacking North Korea is funny when you compare it to the situation in Iraq. In my opinion, though some of the points you make are grounded, you conclusion is specious. I think attacking Iraq is more dangerous than attacking North Korea. You have a unilateral American invasion sparking the kind of anti-American sentiments that could drive a revolution in Pakistan (and put nukes in the hands of fundamentalists) - fomenting conflict and ultimately revolution in Pakistan has been one of Al Qaeda's big missions (ref. the recent terrorist attacks in India). You have the ability of Iraq (or another regional power technically "at war" with Israel) to do something nasty in former Palestine which will draw the Israelis into the conflict. That will cause a variety of alliances among the U.S. and the arab states to unravel. Then you have the chem/bio wildcard. What do you think the Israelis will do if a flight of SCUDs carrying chemical weapons hit Tel Aviv? If you have nothing to lose, and you're looking at "regime change" (death and/or American prison, not just for Saddam, but for his officers), that's exactly when you contemplate doing that kind of stuff.

You point out the troops in the Korean DMZ that are at risk for a missile strike... hmm... yeah... those troops in the DMZ are just immobile hostage-troops, from the special "Human Target" brigade (unlike our troops deploying to the gulf right now, of course).... North Korean missiles really make it impossible to confront them militarily...

In fact, unlike in East Asia, a messy, spiraling conflagration in the Middle East will do nasty, unpredictable things to the oil supply, and thus, the global economy... But we can risk all that - it's not as worrisome to you as South Korea throwing a "shit fit."

Anyway, North Korea will rest much easier tonight, upon hearing that they have nothing to fear militarily from the U.S..



dave  Wednesday Jan 22 07:47 PM

I think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd usually try and explain it, but you're obviously a waste of energy. So please respond to this in an uppity, condescending tone. Then let's keep an eye on the news and see whether or not I'm right about us attacking DPRK.



option  Wednesday Jan 22 08:14 PM

"Uppity and condescending." Yes sir.

I see. You have an answer to these points - you just don't feel like sharing. I must really be missing out.

Interesting misdirection on your part there. If you check back, you'll see I'm saying it's less sensible to attack Iraq than North Korea, not that we should (or will) attack either (though attacking Iraq does appear to be a foregone conclusion now). So your suggestion that watching the news well tell us anything about this disagreement is just more proof you're either not paying attention, or don't want to...



tw  Wednesday Jan 22 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd
Dave says attacking N Korea is not an option for reasons tactical. Option is discussing strategic reasons for and not for attacking nations. They are complete different worlds.

However, an attack on DPRK is not unreasonable depending on what the objectives are. The US currently has 37,000 troops in country. We can easily move 1/2 million to the other side of the world. Then easily we could move 1/4 million only across the Pacific Ocean.

1/4 million US and 650,000 S Korean, combined with unrestricted mobility of a Navy and Air power makes an invason of DPRK tactically possible. Success would even be better since the N Korean army, severely short of fuel and other basic materials could not match the US/ROK mobility.

The realities of those missiles: they are only terrorist weaspons much like Saddams Scuds. They don't have military significance. They don't have accuracy to be anything but similar to German V-1 and V-2 rockets.

An invasion of N Korea is tactically quite possible. But it is not possible for both diplomatic and strategic reasons. Clearly a better case could be made to justify an attack on DPRK as compared to Iraq. But we are not talking about invading Iraq for justifiable reasons. George Jr wanted Saddam before he was sworn in as president. The reasons for attacking Iraq are personal. For example, everyday Saddam is there, then most of Geroge Jr's advisors must look at their mistake. They failed their jobs as politicians under George Sr. George Jr has long held personal distaste for Saddam for what ever reasons.

But these same people did not come into office with same biases towards N Korea. That is the difference. There is no justification, strategically, to attack either. A better case could be made against DPRK. But instead, for reasons that make no sense to American interests, we are instead going to invade Iraq.


juju  Wednesday Jan 22 11:30 PM

Option, couched in Dave's bitter sarcasm is good advice. Don't be so condescending towards people. Even if it is warranted, most people will just stop listening to you when they feel they're being attacked. This isn't logical on their part, it's just how people are. It doesn't matter how brilliant or right you are. If you condescend, they're just going to go on the defensive.

However..

Quote:
Originally posted by option
There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job."
Man, this is brilliantly written. Although I'm not sure how I feel about the sentiment, I really like the way you worded this. I certainly hope you choose to stick around!


quzah  Thursday Jan 23 05:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
-- Hoping Quzah doesn't notice that the factories that produce for Volume Shoesource underpay their workers --
That's another pet peeve of mine. Child labor / "underpaid" workers. People can sew footballs for $0.25 each and we consider that bad. You have to take into account the country they live in, the number of people they're feeding, etc. I really don't understand how people want to take jobs away from these kids / families / etc, just because we don't think they're getting paid enough. It's better then to pay them nothing and have them starve, then it is to give them a job? I just don't see the logic there.

If they're willing to do the job, let them do it. I've done shitty jobs before, I survived. Now naturally we'd all like to see everyone have more money for everything, but it's just not realistic. You don't want to pay more for your football just so someone who's making it can get a higher wage.

Everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, and yet we get on our high horse and say "oh, you should pay them more".[/offtopic rant]

Quzah.


dave  Thursday Jan 23 06:26 AM

We had this discussion a long long time ago, about paying more for goods so that those making them could earn a better living.

I noted that I usually buy "Made in the USA" stuff, and generally for that reason - because I know that I'm paying a bit more so someone can live a better life. The effect is that less money goes toward supporting companies that exploit cheap labor overseas. It's not much, but it's something everyone can do.

I'm not vehemently against taking work overseas, but I find it disappointing that the higher-ups are reaping fat cash that should be going to the workers.



wah  Thursday Jan 23 04:11 PM

Wow, I hope I don't sound so much like option when I get all hissy about stuff.

Probably do though. I can't wait until we have enough bandwidth that we can just record voice diatribes instead of having to write them out. So much subtley is lost, and then there's the spelling...

Anyway, I think more and more rich, white folks (like me) are trying to be ethical in their consumption of consumer goods. While it might be better for 'Ech', my hypothetical asian exploited worker, to make $.25 a day working in inhumane conditions than it would be working for $.07 a day on a farm. It would be much nicer for me, and for him, to know that he was making a decent local wage and had some say in his working environment. If a company can build a reputation with this in mind, I think they would be rewarded in the marketplace, although they might have problems achieving monstrous economies of scale.

Industrialization can be a bastard, it certainly was in this country, and whatver we can do to help is, IMHO, worthwhile.

But whatever. Going back to the original posting though...

tacitus is a troll, and generally admits as much.

Woo-hoo, three warblog bans...and counting.



Undertoad  Thursday Jan 23 04:30 PM

Regardless of the guy's approach, I think he has a point.

Can you imagine if there was a pro-war march organized by, say, the KKK... and the right decided to go in with the KKK because of its useful experience in planning marches and recruiting sign-holders and etc...? Because that's what the antiwar did with this one.

Stalinism has long ago been shown to be the scourge of the earth, resulting in millions upon millions of useless deaths, and every two-bit dictator around the world who decides to take over fashions themself as Stalinist.

You just don't put in with these sorts, and especially not when there's an important point to be made and important dialogue to be had.



tw  Thursday Jan 23 04:30 PM

So what was the strategic objective of that guy(s) who trashed the newspaper machine, et al? And for that matter, what was the strategic objective of posting it?



wah  Thursday Jan 23 04:44 PM

UT, I think you're talking to me. So, anyway, if you want to debate the logic of the position that any participation by an extremist group paints the entire things as extremist, go ahead. But you're going to have to work for it.

You'll have to start by finding out how many ANSWER people are hardcore commies first.

I mean really, it's like saying. "So you don't want to march with ANSWER, eh? When exactly did you decide to become FOR more war and racism?"

The conversation goes no where. Ask 99% of the people who went to the protest and they'll tell you they were there to protest an invasion of Iraq.

<i>Can you imagine if there was a pro-war march organized by, say, the KKK... and the right decided to go in with the KKK because of its useful experience in planning marches and recruiting sign-holders and etc...?</i>

It's not a march organized by the KKK. It's a march organized by the group called "Black People are Smart, Successful and Intelligent."

See?



mlandman  Thursday Jan 23 04:53 PM

Discussing the point

Dave, yes, option is uppity and condescending, that's the problem that I and others had here.

Regardless of the fact that he seems to be an a-hole, he does have an interesting viewpoint on things. I find the argument from both sides to be entertaining at this point.

-mike



Undertoad  Thursday Jan 23 04:55 PM

It doesn't matter what the people were there for if their presence is successfully spun as lemmings for extremists. If the end result is less support for their cause, they might as well have stayed home. I'm not saying that's exactly the case here, but then, the end of the story hasn't been written yet.



Griff  Thursday Jan 23 05:05 PM

Of course, if we don't show up the pro-war amen corner gets to pretend that the anti-war side lacks support. Republican radio set a nice little trap for us there.

Amusing sidebar, I've been listening to NPR the last two days. If they were this skeptical of Clinton, they wouldn't have lost me back then.



wah  Thursday Jan 23 05:07 PM

It doesn't matter what the people were there for if their presence is successfully spun as lemmings for extremists.

UT, true, which is why I'm taking my time to fight that spin.

It seems the only people trying to spin it that way are the pro-war folks. And even then, it's just some of the sillier ones.

Also, it's a stretch. Since even ANSWER's home page isn't trying to take credit as a 'huge march for Stalin'. The only people trying to give them credit for such a thing are those that want to discredit the showing, which seemed to be about 200k, from what I've heard.

And I haven't heard much. Its seems that even since the 400,000-850,000 Man March, the Forest Service has shied away from making official estimates of crowd sizes. Which might be a nice opportunity for someone who wants to specialize in such a profession.



Uryoces  Sunday Jan 26 06:30 AM

Quote:
That's another pet peeve of mine. Child labor / "underpaid" workers. People can sew footballs for $0.25 each and we consider that bad. You have to take into account the country they live in, the number of people they're feeding, etc.
Yeah, I'm aware of that conundrum, Quzah. How much is that $0.25 to them? Probably a lot more than $0.25 means to me. The real trick is to determine when this becomes a social problem rather than an economic reality.

I'm going to be paying more attention to this as time passes. I may be out of a job in 5 years. I work as phone tech support for Washington Mutual, and before that, the internal Microsoft helpdesk. In one of my nightmare visions of the future, tech support businesses in India take over, and pay their workers $5/hr versus my wage here. That $5 certainly goes farther than my $5. I'd defintely need to find some other job in this field, or I might need to look into other sectors.

I may have to become a farmer ...


perth  Sunday Jan 26 11:03 AM

uryoces,

thats the exact same nightmare i have. its especially frightening when your bosses boss actually *tells* you how much cheaper it is to have calls routed to india, followed by a mumbled 'but we wont do that'. makes you wonder when the hammers going to drop.

~james



richlevy  Monday Jan 27 07:20 PM

Re: 1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad

If the shit really hit the fan, here's guessing most of these mental midgets would quickly soil their shorts and dive into the nearest Starbucks for physical cover, hoping to find the biggest possible SUV to drive out of the worst trouble... again, all irony-proof. What can you say about people who believe that by turning over newspaper boxes they are "targetting the corporate media"?
Of course, one solution to this is to draft them, send them to basic training to teach them physical and mental discipline and respect for this country and its institutions, then, when they have become 'all that they can be', take these improved individuals and get them killed in a battlefield thousands of miles away for what may be other than a 'clear and present danger' which is supposed to be the definition for risking American lives. I still can't defend mindless violence, but I can understand the anger which motivates them, I just can't understand what's motivating the establishments actions.

Sorry, but my son just turned 17 yesterday. While I doubt he will ever volunteer, I have a vivid imagination and can picture the US getting in over it's head and reinstating the draft, especially after recent decisions about the use of reservists, many of whom are law enforcement officers, professionals, and other necessary components of our infrastructure. This means there might be a decision to go back to the Vietnam-era philosophy of using the future workforce of 18-21 year olds instead of risking the current one. I have this mental picture of a government car pulling up to my house 3-4 years from now and an officer and chaplain getting out. If that were ever to happen, I will certainly look back at these days and ask myself 'Was there anything more I could have done?'

I have already bought two wooden and glass flag cases for US burial flags in the past 6 months. One was for my half-nephew, a 20 year old Marine who died of natural causes, and my recently deceased father-in-law, who was retired Navy. I ordered them on the Internet from Oriental Trading Company and composed the two lines for the brass plate. The government or the funeral home just gives you a clear plastic zip-up case. I can actually picture myself making the order. Maybe this time I'd get one of the nicer, more expensive models, maybe even 'Made in the USA', although at that point I think that sacrificing ones child for ones country would negate the need to be patriotic in that department.

If this sounds creepy to you then imagine how it feels to me. I don't approve of what these destructive 'peace' idiots are doing, and I feel that their actions distort their message, but since some of them might be the ones who have to choose between jail and war if things get bad and the draft comes back, I can understand their frustration.


Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.