A respectable and effective protest to the war

[slang]

I came across this article today and I read through it, as I do with all the protestors' comments and quotes.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747771.html


This particular article is different from many that I have read. It's not based on the "illegitimacy" of the Bush presidency, not bogged down with 50,000 technical examples that can be neither refuted or conclusively proven, or spun from some wild conspiracy theory. Hoffman makes his point in a rational, compelling way without turning into a lunatic. If you're attempting to actually influence people (are you reading this Susan) Hoffman's statements would be a good example to follow. I don't have any problem with political protest or opposing views, but some of these people have attracted my attention in a way they most likely didn't intend. Though I cannot realistically say that I will not support some of the more prominent Hollywood spokespeople by seeing their movies, etc., I will certainly *remember* what asses they have been in their "protesting the president", not the war.

This is a good part of the article:

"I believe -<B> though I may be wrong because I am no expert</B> - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".

See, he understands that he is not an expert nor has access to secret gov't info. He has an opinion and expresses it. Millions of supporters respect that opinion and Mr. Hoffman for presenting that opinion without breaking out into some tirade against Bush/Republicans.

As you may know, I am in favor of this war for many reasons I have previously posted. The fact of the matter is however, that only time will prove either side. There was a military action about ten years ago that I was very much in favor of. When this action was executed, I remember cheering because it had been so long looming. Two or three years after the murder of the Branch Dividians, I learned a great deal that I hadn't been aware of before the slaughter. I keep that "little war" in mind when contemplating the Iraq war. The two are actually miles apart in similarity, but I am aware of the manipulation of info for the desired result.

[Griff]

The Hollywood left doesn't understand how little their opinions mean except in bolstering the right. Kennedy does the same when he talks about battlefield losses, since its obvious to most non-Mass Americans that the man is a fool. As much as I love to rant about whichever party is in power, I know that the only effective protest is to argue outcomes. I think we are going to inflame Arab hatred of us and end up with a lot more terrorism in the long and the short term. Bill O'Reilly tells me that they're gonna forget all about it and its gonna be peaches cream and democracy for all. I think its absurd to believe that Iraq is capable of sustaining democracy but like you emphasized its what I THINK not what I know.

[Mathu]

Maybe you can help me out.
I am looking for a gun to be used soley for self defense
in my house: point and shoot.
How do you feel about a short barrel shotgun
loaded with some kind of buckshot.
Any suggestions?
Thank You and may peace be unto you

[Undertoad]

The idea that one may be wrong is so important to intellectual honesty that, as y'all plainly see, I've put it rather permanently into my user title. I haven't changed my user title in ages, and that's why. I trust myself in that I think I am a pretty bright person, but I have often gotten things wrong. And where people think I'm wrong I hope that they will try to put me right.

The Hollywood folks have gone over the edge from my perspective. I understand it, I think - if you feel you can't trust the administration, then you have to ignore specific facts that only the administration has put forth. Then things start to get murky. And because it's war, it's critically important.

In international relations, you really hope against hope that your government will set politics aside, and for once simply do the right thing. I remember Clinton preaching free markets at the students in China, and it practically brought a tear to my eye. When Limbaugh et al still tried to stick him in the side during that trip, it showed their true colors, showed who you can believe. It royally pissed me off...

Now the thing is, remember when we were about to invade Afghanistan? Remember what the same sides were saying at that point? Oh my ghod, some were saying, we're going to have a land war in Asia. Oh my ghod, we're going into the same morass that ended the USSR. We're going to bomb and kill these innocent people, the humanitarian aid is going to fail, we will make their lives worse.

And when it went better than it ever could, they spun it like it didn't. It showed their true colors, showed who you can believe.

[slang]

Originally posted by Griff
I think we are going to inflame Arab hatred of us.....

They will be too busy watching football on TV, eating pizza, voicing their opinions without losing their head, drinking beer, paying taxes, driving a car that *isn't* from the fifties, learning and adjusting to a new free society to give hatred of us a second thought.

If we don't come through with the cable TV though, we're screwed. Maybe we should be sending cable technicians to Iraq to get the groundwork going to speed up the transition.

[slang]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Now the thing is, remember when we were about to invade Afghanistan? Remember what the same sides were saying at that point? Oh my ghod, some were saying, we're going to have a land war in Asia. Oh my ghod, we're going into the same morass that ended the USSR. We're going to bomb and kill these innocent people, the humanitarian aid is going to fail, we will make their lives worse.

In my ignert opinion, the "new and improved" non-destructive weapons we will be using in this exercise will reduce civilian deaths. That doesn't mean there wont be any, but I think it will be few. Imagine if *none* of your electronic gadgets worked. How effective of a resistance could you wage?

As for Teddy K and the like, I have their number. They know if this goes well, there will be Reps dominating the House, Senate, and the White House for a long time. They would willingly protest a hot shower and a bar of soap if they felt that it would help them regain the power they feel they are *entitled* to.

I think the degree of creativity these asshats have is amusing because it is so transparent. The party that cried wolf. I have my hat here with salt ready, but I dont think I'll be eating it anytime soon.

After the self destruction of the Democratic party, we can replace the Reps with Libertarians. Then maybe I can relax my sphincter.

[Griff]

You're right about the seductiveness of consumer goods, maybe its enough. It will happen so I'm just gonna watch n see.

[slang]

Originally posted by Griff
You're right about the seductiveness of consumer goods, maybe its enough. It will happen so I'm just gonna watch n see.

I dont want to sound like I have a clue what thier society will accept. If the Iraqis were free to leave and had a US visa in hand, I think they'd be pretty happy.

Maybe they could make some spin-off similar to football with goats playing some part in the game.

[Undertoad]

I'm optimistic that the whole thing will settle terrorism down more than it encourages it.

To start with, there's the point that Hussein supports terrorism directly.

But bigger than that is the idea that we are keeping the west-vs-Islam conflict at center stage, not ignoring it hoping it will go away. And we are taking it to their shores to keep it off ours.

The conflict has been bubbling under for, like, centuries and it's the conflicts that take the longest to cook that scare me the most.

To think of it another way, Kim Jung Il and N Korea is the end game of eastern Communism, of trivial little states being propped up by big friendly commie powers as long as they were useful. Everybody knows it can't go on, everybody knows these states can't support themselves, and it's just a matter of time until their heads of state croak and are replaced by more reasonable people. Nobody [who matters] thinks it might be a noble, working social experiment anymore. The game could play out poorly, even resulting in the unthinkable vaporization of a city or two. But then it's over, because Il and many of his unfortunate followers would be vaporized in turn, and nobody would say it didn't have to happen.

The middle east, though, could be the MIDDLE game of something that started before the years had four digits in them.

Many people say that Bush is only using the flames of 9/11 to get public support for this conflict. Sure, that's possible. .. even probable. But what kind of public support would there be if there was another attack?

Can you imagine there being public support for an invasion of Afghanistan on September 10th? Of course not. The public outcry would be enormous, even though at that time it would have been the Right Thing To Do.

Can you imagine there NOT being another 9/11 if we lacked that same resolve on September 12th?

Geez, I know this is a rambling post... sorry. There are just so many thoughts rambling through my brain at this point, and a lot of them just need an opportunity to get out...

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
They know if this goes well, there will be Reps dominating the House, Senate, and the White House for a long time.

Not necessarily...especially if the economy isn't back in tip-top shape. Ask Dubya's daddy how one can go from hero to zero in about 18 months. Dubya has an edge in that he comes across as more down-to-earth and in-touch than his father, but IMO, the economy is really what drives people's choices at the voting booth.

[slang]

I agree. The major factor (IMO) in keeping the market down is this Iraq war. As we saw recently with the new budget (of 2.35 TRILLION bucks), having the reps in the majority is not a great thing.

I think that after this war has been won, and the residual terrorists have been extinguished, the dow will make regular small gains to the point that some good jobs will be created.

That's my expectation anyway.

[tw]

Originally posted by slang
I think that after this war has been won, and the residual terrorists have been extinguished, the dow will make regular small gains to the point that some good jobs will be created.

Dow does not make productive jobs. It is a measurement of and not a creator of productive jobs.

There is no history to suggest economic upturn. America did not pay for most of the Gulf War. America was paid by most of the world - biggest contributor I believe was Japan - to fight that war. That war resulted in a lesser recession because we paid so little. This war will be different - more like what Korea and VietNam did to the American economy. America will pay completely for this war and will suffer economics consequeneces. Its the old and well proven concept of guns and butter.

Basic economics. Money does not make a prosperous economy. After all that money is spent, then punishment either from inflation due to too much cash, or from recession due to no new products or useful capital equipment. With VietNam, we had something even worse - stagflation - both inflation and recession - because war results in long term negative economic results.

War creates a short term boost in economic activity. Then when that activity does not result in profits or productivity increases, then a downturn must result.

Only after war in Europe (both WWI and WWII), that resulted in America owning much of Europe, did a war instead result in economic boom. There is nothing in this George Jr inspired war that will create economic prosperity. It is but another problem with entering war too early - before a problem ever exists.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I'm optimistic that the whole thing will settle terrorism down more than it encourages it.

What terrorism. Take away Al Qaeda and America has suffered virtually no terrorism once we stopped attacking Druze and Shites in Lebanon and settled Khadafi. Al Qaeda is a direct result of not leaving the Gulf as we had promised. If Al Qaeda is only due to occupation (a broken promise), then what will invasion, occupation, and a forced government on an Arab nation do? To believe an Iraqi invasion would not result in terrorism on America is George Jr mythology.

Most Arabs have no interest in terrorist activities against the US which is why current Muslim fundamentalist terrorists are such mental midgets. Saddam is sponsoring no international terrorism except in myths. However once the US attacks a nation that no one in the world fears, then terrorism on American will return to make Lebanon (and the resulting Khadafi acts) seem trivial.

Most of the world - even the Arab world - resoundly supported America's rescue of Kuwait - so agressively that I should not have to repost some of those examples. But most of the world is already resoundly against an American unilateral and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. That makes America ripe as a terrorism target - which the French should like because it takes them off the hook.

If we remove Saddam, have we removed the source of any terrorists? Of course not. Any association between Saddam and terrorism is created by the George Jr administration to justify their pre-conceived actions. Go outside this war monger American government and no one - no responsible nation - links Saddam with international terrorists.

Of course this is the same administration that would advocate war even with China over a silly spy plane. They will say anything to justify a war - facts be damned. Facts are that an invasion of Iraq will make it very easy to recruit smart terrorists in the Arab world.

[tw]

Originally posted by slang
As you may know, I am in favor of this war for many reasons I have previously posted. ... There was a military action about ten years ago that I was very much in favor of.

I was also a minority that advocated immediate war on Iraq when Kuwait was invaded. For that matter, I was proclaiming a war that would involve every major world power back in June 1990. Most, including a best friend, thought I was loony (then some asked where Iraq was).

Most Americans back then would not support a war to liberate Kuwait. Today too many forget their actual opinions. Those not in open support of war included most of The Cellar, Defense Secretary Cheney, majority of Congress, most of George Sr's advisors, and most of my friends. Funny how today a strong majority say they supported that war. Funny how so many forget that it took Margaret Thatcher to put the backbone into George Sr (and Scowcroft to stiffen it in the middle of August).

In fact some friends still are pissed that I called then after 11 PM on 1 Aug 1990 (woke them up) to tell them 'my' war had started.

So what is different here? My someone so hard nosed is so opposed to this war? No smoking gun, still, AND that America should only fight wars that those most threatened first could not solve.

We are not the world's policeman. First those nations that are threatened must see and confront the problem. The same person who kept saying on The Cellar that we will fully end up in a war in the Baklans (who apparently was the only one advocating eventual military action) - with total silence from virtually the entire Cellar - uses same reasoning to say this war is wrong.

I find it curious that among the few who advocated the immediate liberation of Kuwait was Brent Scowcroft - George Sr's National Security Advisor. He too agrees with me about this inevitiable war. Wrong time and currently not justified.

Another hard nosed, take no nonsense, man is Scott Ridder - of the first Iraq WMD team. Do you remember his take no bullshit, confront them to expose their stalling attitude? Ridder makes a point quite bluntly. This is not a war to remove mass destruction weapons. We are going to war only to take out Saddam. Of course. Saddam is a tribute to Cheney and company who drank champaigne when they should have defined conditions for Saddam's surrender. Scott Ridder and I also share a common belief - that this war is about Saddam and not about WMD.

Slang, you will be surprised how militant my support for war has been. This war is that different - war for the wrong reasons. So hard nosed about no international nonsense that some call me an extremist conservative. War must have solid, fundamental reasons. Those reasons don't even come close yet to existing in Iraq - and never will until Saddam's neighbor are threatened. They, not America, are Saddam's targets. Saddam, not WMD, are George Jr's target.

[Undertoad]

Scott Ritter has now been completely discredited by his inability to offer any defense whatsoever of charges that he was arrested after he used a chat room to solicit the intimate company of a 16 year old girl.

An event which BTW preceded ALL of his recent statements.

Just in case you weren't aware. HTH.