1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors

[option]

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]

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]

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..

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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