I think so. Do you know differently? If he isn’t, my mistake.
Farrakhan on the political parties in the U.S.:
Does not look like a Democrat to me.
Maybe people should stop taking binary positions and presuming that all other people must fall into one of two camps?
Okay, seems I’m in the clear when I talk about how the racist Republicans are deliberately supporting this war because they like watching black people and brown people kill one another. Yay for qualifiers, huh?
Your exaggeration, your lie, is acting as though the groups you describe are significant, either politically or in this conversation.
Well, I’m afraid I have to give the soldiers an F for FFort. When we have verifiable numbers for the deaths of more than 10 times as many civilians as we have for US soldiers, I have to say, it looks to me like the civilians remain at far greater risk than the US soldiers do, and it looks as if however discriminating these soldiers are being, they’re not being nearly discriminating enough.
One first step toward solving the atrocity of civilian death would be for the military to keep statistics on the atrocity. They refuse to do so. How on earth can you solve a problem when you refuse to acknowledge its parameters?
Daniel
How do I stop them from marching? I’m serious, here. Do I physically restrain them? Have a bunch of guys dogpile them and sit on their chest? It’s a free country, how do I stop someone from exercising their freedom of expression when and where I don’t want them to express it?
And become so bogged down in refuting every fringe opinion that I’ve never supported and never invited that I can’t articulate what position I’m actually proposing. Why is it so unreasonable to expect people to address the points I’m actually supporting, and not automatically assume that I support every point of view I’m not expressly condemning?
Considering how poor a job you are of doing it, that might be for the best. I think I was closer to agreeing with you before you tried to defend your position.
Because my opposition to the war devolves entirely from how Bush has prosecuted it. I’ve got a surprise for you: I was an early supporter of invading Iraq. Hussein was a monster who was abusing his own people, and international sanctions did nothing but further entrench him in power. International law is pretty meaningless if the international community isn’t willing to enforce those laws. I spent the first year of the occupation defending that smug sonofabitch on these boards, at least in regards to Iraq. Everything that’s wrong with what’s going on in Iraq can be traced back directly to George W. Bush and his coterie of advisors. My entire opposition to the war depends on opposition to George Bush, who has proven once and for all that incompetence truly is worse than malfeasance.
But at least we had tanks, and intended them to be on the beaches. I’m not demanding that every military operation go off exactly as planned every single time. I’m not that delusional. But there is a point where you have to recognize that the people in charge of an operation are as much of a danger to the men in the field as the enemy.
If it makes you feel any better, thirty years ago I’d have been saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter. As incompetent as Bush is, at least he managed to get the soldiers into contact with the enemy before his incompetence started killing them off.
There’s that broad brush you keep claiming you don’t use.
No, it’s not, and it’s idiotic to expect that of you. Which is good, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen you, or any other conservative, actually do that. But you guys sure do love holding liberal’s feet to the fire every time someone marginally on our side says something stupid.
No, I don’t expect you to read minds. I expect you to stop pretending like you can read minds. Unless someone explicitly states a position, don’t assume that they hold that position. It’s really not hard. I do it every day, and I’m fairly certain confronted by a hell of a lot more mainstream opinions that I find morally objectionable than you do.
Bullshit. Both ways, that’s bullshit.
I take responsibility for the arguements that I make. I’m not going to take responsibility for the arguments that anyone else makes.
Exactly right. My argument is in my hands. Not yours, not Der Trihs, not Louis Farrakhans. Mine, and mine alone.
That was poppycock, the reality is that you use the extreme position of some to justify your disdain for the evidence presented.
Even here on this board, the majority on the left already distanced from such extremists, you are entitled to your opinions but not to the facts. We can not dictate the opinions of all that join us in protest, and OTOH the side that is currently in power is not shaking their idiots. Thanks to their influence to the ones currently in power, they are the ones harming the USA right now. As mentioned before, you are only setting up a straw-man here.
Yeah. Besides, the evil commie America hating lefties are not the ones calling for - or hoping for a terror attack on San Francisco, or Divine Wrath upon Dover PA. If they have to be diligent in making constant declarations against their extremists, then the other side has to do the same. Y’all can start by apologizing for Annie Coulter, Phred Phelps and Pat Robertson, and work yer way down. 
I don’t know the legalities of protest marches and permits, but there seems to be some mechanism available. I mean, I don’t see Pro Life messages mixed into Pro Choice marches. But if I am wrong and there is no mechanism, #2 becomes more important. My guess is that some mechanism is in place and the march organizers (permit holders) have to make a trade off: between greater numbers and cohesiveness of message. That is their decision and must accept the pros and cons of whichever way they lean.
Because how do you expect someone to know what the point of your march is if it has all these different messages in it? You might have it clear in your mind, and on your sign, but how is an observer to discern what message is agreed to by the whole group, which one is agreed to by 50%, by 25%, by 1%. What if your reasonable message gets overwhelmed by some extreme venom you don’t agreee with at all? Sure, I may be able to detect a messages that is more fringe and those that are more mainstream. But how do I know if that fringe is representative of one person, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand, 32,384?
And isn’t it reasonable for an observer to assume that the people who are marching are pretty much in agreement. If not, why would you go to the trouble of marching together. I appreciate your frustration here. I remember when the girl from ANSWER ran back up to the mic in Washington and yelled “Free Mumia”. I just laughed loud. I was able to separate her statement from the general complaint because it was so completely off point. But how am I, or anyone else expected to discern where the lines are drawn and with whom?
We can stop any time you like. If you would like this last word simply indicate that you would prefer I not respond, and I won’t.
Yes, but you forget that they expected a warm welcome, not this protracted fight with an insurgency. It was a huge error, yes. But no one was desirous of sending men and women into battle with equipment they needed. They simply didn’t think it was going to be needed.
It makes me feel no better. I am not a fan of Bush. At all. Regarding this war or domestic issues. He should nerver have been put in office. But he is there. And he will be there for over three more years. My point all along has been: if you are opposed to the war and want to bring our soldiers home, do so in a way that respects them and their commitment to this country. And NO, not ALL anti-war messages do that. Do you think that the entire anti-war crowd should have a free pass? Because they all want our men and women home safe and sound that they have license to say ANYTHING? That is bullshit. With the right to say what you want comes the responsibility to weigh the consequences of your speech. Are you saying you disagree with THAT?
Bullshit again. Are you saying that I cannot/should not have my perceptions of a group steered by their very actions. Your claim is complete bullshit. And you should know it. What you’re really objecting to is my not having been steered more in the direction that you prefer. That’s not on me. I reacted to what an extremist on this board said with surprise. It further surprised me that only a couple of others objected to his rantings. Now, I know how certain people who spoke up feel because they spoke up. Of those who have silent on the issue, tell me, what am I supposed to think, and why? How shall I divine whther they agree and to what degree. While I should be expected to give an individual the benefit of the doubt, as you say, why should I logically assume that der trihs is the only one with what I consider vile thoughts. And, I would add, someone who does agree with der trihs would think that giving him the benefit of the doubt would mean to ascribe those “enlightened” thoughts to him, not to distance him from them.
But that’s exactly what you’re expecting me to do. Guy is walking in the 2003 anti-war march on Washington. He is surrounded by the gamut of messages. He is carrying no sign himself. He is wearing a blue coat. Tell me, what messages should I assume he agrees with and which ones, if any, does he find objectionable? Please, tell me.
I’m of the mind that I can tell nothing of his specific thoughts. I can only say that he is a memebr of a groups that believes A,B,C, and D, to varying degrees. That’s it!
And I think that is a fine strategy for you as an individual. But when you are part of a group, you’re only being fair to yourself if you make it clear what portion of the groups message you agree with and which part you don’t.
And when you choose to convey that argument it behooves you to make sure that it is not only sent clearly, but received clearly. If there is “noise” consisting of overlapping or competing messages why would you NOT want to take steps to ensure that what you intended to be communicated is what actually is communicated?
I’ve been trying and trying to figure out what “support the troops” consists of. As best I can firgure it, it means supporting GW and his war. I refuse to do that. I never thought that there was ever any justification for this war. The UN had acted, Saddam had accepted inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq.
The only thing I feel for the troops in Iraq is pity. The poor bastards are there and they are going to stay there indefinitely. And those who have recently rotated back to the ZI will soon be re-rotating back to Iraq.
Y’know, it you sat right down and wrote a hundred supportive letters to a bunch of strangers in the forces in Iraq you would get a lot of reactions. Some would be, Gee thanks a lot for taking the time. Others would be, You stinking bastard. The only reason you wrote is to ease your guilty conscience for having put me in this fucking hell hole. Stick you “best wishes” up your ass. But probably the most common reaction would be puzzlement and then the letter would be crumpled up and thrown in the latrine
Come on, those who trumpet “support the troops.” What the hell are you talking about?
.
How about you just ask? You’re expecting to discern opinions on complex social issues based on pep rallies. Protest marches are about raising awareness, not necessarily communicating a clear agenda. It’s the wrong medium for that sort of fine control of message. It’s an attention grabber and an emotion booster. If you want a nuanced understanding of someone’s position, try reading the books being written by prominent leaders in that position. Check out what they’re saying on the political talk shows. Come here and post a thread. You want to understand something, ask someone who supports it. Rallies aren’t a good way to start a dialogue.
Well, I won’t say don’t reply, but I’m hoping this post will mostly wrap things up.
It was fucking moronic, and they had been warned repeatedly by their own military leaders that it was going to be a lot harder than they thought. And that was only the beginning of what they’ve done wrong. You’re probably just going to roll your eyes at this, but you should really check out Al Franken’s latest book. He’s definetly partisan, but unlike most other partisans (all of 'em, I’m not just slamming your side) he’s pretty scroupulously honest. And it’s absolutely appalling, what Bush’s crew have done in Iraq.
Of course I agree. And of course I’ve weighed the consequences of my actions. Guess what? I came to different conclusions than you have! I truly cannot comprehend how criticizing George Bush is in anyway disrespectful to the troops. That’s totally non-sensical to me. You might as well tell me that eating carrots is disrespecful to them. And while I do understand what you mean when you talk about criticism of the war giving encouragement to the troops, but I truly believe the effect is minimal, at best, and far outweighed by the longer range good of shortening our involvement there, or at least affecting a change in how the war is prosecuted, to the advantage of our troops there. Certainly, some individuals, like yourself, will be turned off by that message. Others will be drawn to it. Current polls seem to indicate that more and more people are coming over to our side. I’m confident that our strategy is working.
Oh, and I’m sorry, but if you got your legs blown off in Iraq, you did lose it for nothing. It’s horrible, it should never have happened, it’s quite literally a national tragedy. But it’s the truth, at least as near as I can tell, and I think that if I really respect the troops, I owe them the that, at the very, very least.
You can alter your opinions however you want. I’m telling you flat out that your perceptions will not be accurate if you do so. The people who disrespect the troops are in the definite minority, and are mostly ignored by the mainstream left. They’re not ignored out of tacit support, but out of a differing philosophy in how to manage fringe opinions.
I’m not saying he’s unique, but jeez, if you were so surprised to run into someone with these opinions after this long, doesn’t that argue that his opinion is extremely rare? If it were at all common, wouldn’t you hear it all the time?
If the over-all march is anti-war, you can safely assume he’s anti-war. Or he’s looking to score with some hippie chicks. Anything else is an unfair assumption.
Have I not done that in this thread? What part of my message is unclear, here? I’m only asking that you not take the opionion of one member of the group as representative of the whole group. If everyone were in here talking about how much the troops suck, sure, you’d be able to say, “that group doesn’t support the troops.” But what you’ve got here is 99% of the posters saying, “I support the troops, but not the war,” and 1% of the posters saying, “I don’t support the troops,” and you think the fact that the other 99% don’t immediately dogpile that one guy means they don’t really support the troops?
Because it attracts more attention to those messages, and subtracts time spent on the message I want to communicate. It also leads to factionalizing and splintering of our base. We don’t have to like these assholes, but we still need their votes. Just like Republicans and the religious right.
I wonder, sometimes, about whether this “before and during the war is not the time to question the war” attitude carries on into other parts of people’s lives. If somebody was accidentally poisoning my dinner, for example, I’d try to tell the cook while it was happening, and then I’d tell the members of my dinner party before they started eating. And if somebody took a bite, I’d yell “STOP EATING THAT!” and call the hospital. magellan’s position seems to be that I should wait until we’re eating dessert so I don’t impede the waiters from serving the food.
I take it you’ve never been to a protest. In 2002, I went to one of the marches against the war. It was sponsored by International ANSWER, who I knew nothing about at the time and don’t support in any fashion. People at the microphone opined on who knows how many topics that had nothing to do with Iraq, and even when they talked about Iraq and America I didn’t always agree with them. And I’m sure people carried signs advocating those positions and tons of others. Since I was in the march, I wouldn’t have even seen most of them. You’d be right to figure the people there generally agreed the upcoming war was a bad idea, but nothing beyond that.
By the way, now that Bush is lying about how we got into the war, is it officially okay to say Bush lied? I’m just curious.
Didn’t you get the memo ? I’m the Secret Master of the Left. When the time is right, the rest will throw off their false masks of moderation, seize power and rule the world !! 
Seriously, I’ve wondered why magellan01 and others think I’m one of a horde. I’ve alway thought of myself as the odd one out; it feels strange for someone to assume otherwise. Where are all those people who agree with me ?
mswas is taking a break from the computer at the moment.
Haven’t you heard? Freedom is on the march…
That only applies to those who agree with the president. Everyone else has to stand in the “Free speech zone” and get used to being called “UnAmerican”.
May I please have a citation or several re this that I may use in the future?
You do get used to it after a while.
Well, well. It looks like the Senators, for political gain, are verging on giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. See this Los Angeles Times article.
Report progress to Congress? Can you imagine the effrontery of such a thing? How dare they but into the Commander in Chief’s prerogative to mismanage the war as he sees fit?
Just for you who are wondering, the above was sarcasm.
It’s a way to tie God and patriotism and all that is good in with whatever Bush decides to do. It’s a way to make the country even more divided. He started the wars that sent the troops there. So, if you diss Bush you are dissing the troops. If you feel the slightest kind intentions for the troops, then you must feel that Bush is The Second Coming Of Gawd. It’s all part of the secret “Are ye wid me or agin me” policy memo. At its simplest, if you don’t blindly support everything Bush says and does, you are a troop hater, America hater, freedom hater, and probably not a very nice person. Black and white. Us and them. Good and evil. All or nothing. This from the once self proclained Great Uniter.
They dare to do such a thing? Freedom haters! Commie bastids! Traitors! Mutiny Mister Christian! Where are my strawberries! Precious bodily fluids!
Traitors!
No, saying he lied, and even proving he lied is now disallowed as “unauthorized lying and re-writing of history”. Only The Prez is authorized to lie out his ass and re-write the fuck out of history.