Peace Protestors, Grow The Fuck Up!

The BBQ Pit
141

Varlos -

Whatever problems I might have with the federal government’s level of preparedness and intelligence-gathering leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, I’d say its response since, from the president on down to individual FBI agents, has been pretty close to perfect.

I put no restrictions on that response, knowing that the leaders orchestrating it will already do whatever they can to minimize hardship on civilians, while eradicating the terrorist networks and governments that overtly support them (which would consist of the Taliban and, perhaps, Iraq). And I recognize the absolute need for a military component to it, particularly for governments that were complicit in slaughtering about 6,000 of our civilians, in civilian targets, on American soil, in a time of peace.

What’s the standard, dictionary definition for “unequivocal?” Clear. Unambiguous. Unquestionable. Not bogged down with provisos.

The people that did this want nothing more than to kill and maim Americans (and I’d guess other Western nations that are our close allies need to watch out, too). They have proven they are willing to die to do it. We know there are more of them waiting their chance to do the same. And we also know that there is no action we can take that will magically make them stop wanting us dead as their goal.

So … explain to me again why we should not simply evaluate the possibilities of a nonviolent solution, see that they are clearly not usable here, and turn the page?

Reading diligently through this thread to try to find dropzone’s proposed solutions (which was hard, because most of what he has done is whine about right-wingers and their insensitivity, all the while bashing them with as much vigor as he accuses the right-wingers of wielding).

All I could find was this:

I don’t know of anyone that is advocating stopping terrorism through “total war.” I know a lot of people are advocating stopping terrorism through a comprehensive approach that includes a military component. And I would add I want my military to focus on two things - staying alive themselves, and accomplishing their objectives. I don’t want them put into situations of tortuous rules of engagement where, if they are under fire and being picked off one by one, they cannot fire back. That can’t happen.

So I ask, what leads you to believe that all other avenues aren’t being utilized, and unworkable ones discarded?

The base dishonesty of the above position is in the idea that people with that view are willing to move on to other effective solutions if peace is proven not workable. Some are; some aren’t.

dropzone also said this:

Which indicates he agrees with my take on the response.

I disagree to an extent. I have heard a lot about how eradicating the al Qaida network, and Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, will not work, and won’t be a solution. As other pissed off radical Muslims will just take their places.

Cite?

It’s never been done before. We never responded overwhelmingly, as a unified, civilized world, to any terrorist act, including the bombing of the embassies and the U.S.S. Cole.

Again, whatever our faults before, we are responding now. Hell, we have Russia and China on our side now!

Al Quaida, because they are directly responsible for Sept. 11, will face military wrath. They’re going to die. The other groups capable of global terrorism can be squeezed out of existence through a variety of means, and will be easier to spot in their plotting through heightened diligence and intelligence-gathering worldwide.

To eliminate the other large-scale terrorist groups will take some doing, and a lot of pressure on allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirites. They will need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And they need to face significant penalties (chiefly financial) if they don’t do their part in this effort. And it will take a unified front by the Western powers to make those financial disincentives have teeth. That’s why I was heartened by Bush’s tough talk on the financial front of this - help us cut off their money, or your bank won’t be doing business in our country.

dropzone also said:

And I have stated in numerous places on these boards that I fully support the component of this effort that is going to involve direct aid and information to the citizens of Afghanistan and elsewhere. It’s crucial.

So, again we’re in agreement. Although some of your vagaries above may make one wonder what we do to “work for peace;” if you will “support what the US government is doing” if and when projectiles fly; and how exactly the effort would be expanded “in concert with the UN.”

I guess your only problem with me, then, is my lack of tolerance of unworkable solutions.

142

Gobear, I know this your fight, so please excuse me. Sometimes when an easy target walks in front of my flamethrower, I can’t help but squeeze the trigger.

Gobear never said this, so why are your arguing against it? Ah yes, because it’s easier to argue against something that you simply invented. This is what is called a strawman arguement. You’ll see it referenced often. So by all means take your strawman and stuff it your ass with your rolly eyes.

And this would be your attempt at sarcasm, yes? And I see your brillant analysis fails to take into account the cost of living in each region you listed as well as the hyper-inflation that would result in paying wages adjusted for US workers. There certainly are complex issues that could be discussed when it comes to world economics, but let’s leave your ignorance on this point behind, safely tucked away in your rectum with your strawman and rolly eyes, and move on.

But good marketing tells me what it wants me to buy. Drums and puppets are fine acessories if they are centered around a fucking coherent message. I don’t know what the current crop of protesters want from me. Should I take up drumming lessons? Should I give away my 97’ Sunfire as a symbol of my disrespect for capitalism? Should I shave me head and chant? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?

And there isn’t any good marketing connected with wearing masks. What kind of message is that suppose to send? I believe in this (whatever the hell it is) but not enough to be identified that I believe in it? Look I’m dressed as a pillow? No, it’s so that cameras won’t identify them when they commit violent acts during the protest.

He never said that he didn’t mind innocent Afghans being killed, so you’ve constructed another strawman. Bend over and we’ll just stuff this one up your ass with the other one.

Ok, but I think you’ll be walking funny.

[sarcasm]Gobear, Nazi, right…[/sarcasm]

143

Yeah, we tried to make GOBEAR a right-wing Nazi, but he kept flicking his wrist at the top of the salute. Ruins the whole thing, really.

144

Vinston Churchill calleds us Naazis, Naazis. Ve Vasn’t Naazis, ve vas Nazis!

Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer

Hitler…there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!!

145

Well there’s that, but have you ever SEEN what a rainbow looks like on a brown shirt? It just doesn’t work…

…d&r…

146

Yeah, but it hadn’t been for the Nazis, we wouldn’t have the Cabaret original cast soundtrack, and how could any self-respecting gay man get along without Liza Minnelli singing her tits off as Sally Bowles?

147

gobear “No, it’s not asinine at all to want economic justice, but capitalism is the only way to ensure raising of a nation’s GDP. Socialism sure has been a roaring failure.”

I realize, gobear that these remarks were made in reply to Gazoo’s very divisive way of casting the debate. I’d like to point out though that the great majority of people protesting globalization are not socialists nor even, ultimately, anti-globalization. A socialist usually wants to eliminate the ownership of private property by nationalizing or collectivizing it in some fashion. I know of almost no one involved in protesting current globalizing practices who wants that.

Most people protesting globalization want to replace so-called “free trade” with fair trade. In so doing they seek any or all of the following: 1) international laws to secure human rights and environmental protections; 2) the introduction of international labor standards to ensure workplace safety and a living wage; 3) providing workers abroad with the same right to collectively bargain enjoyed by the citizens of advanced industrial nations; 4) introduction of programs in advanced economies to compensate for the loss of high-paying industrial jobs; 5) the publicizing and democratization of unaccountable institutions such as the WTO and IMF who, without the sanction of citizens or governments, legislate on behalf of the entire planet, primarily in the interests of a small numer of multinational corporations.

None of these proposals seek to overturn capitalism; rather they seek to curb its excesses, something that ever since the industrial revolution it’s been clear to all reasonable people is necessary to do. Protestors want third-world people to enjoy the same kind of curbs that Americans and Europeans do.

gobear, I believe that if you checked out this movement at its best, you might find that in a number of ways it coincides with the principles you’ve described as your own in this thread and elsewhere.

John Corrado, I’m not sure where you’re heading with your question re Northern Ireland. (I may have missed something on p.2 which I’ve been skimming intermittently.) But I’d like to point out in advance that the Northern Ireland and Afghanistan are quite different as I’m sure you realize.

Milossarian: “Al Quaida, because they are directly responsible for Sept. 11, will face military wrath. They’re going to die. The other groups capable of global terrorism can be squeezed out of existence through a variety of means, and will be easier to spot in their plotting through heightened diligence and intelligence-gathering worldwide. To eliminate the other large-scale terrorist groups will take some doing, and a lot of pressure on allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirites. They will need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.”*

You know, Milossarian, there are very few people out there who are so pacificist that they wouldn’t support the kind of action that, with surgical precision, would eliminate the threat of ObL, Al Quaida, while “squeezing” other groups out of existence. For that matter, I would add to my wish list the replacement of the Taliban by a government that the Afghani people genuinely want. (And while I’m at it I’d like a cure for AIDS, an end to world hunger, and a new zip drive for my computer ;).

It’s fine to want all of these things. It’s another thing to refuse to recognize that pulling this off exclusively or even primarily through military force–which, on the whole, can’t be conducted like a surgical procedure–is a tactical nightmare. That’s precisely why our government is, at least for now, waiting and seeing.

You write about pressuring our allies including Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. to walk the walk. What you don’t realize is that the governments of these countries do not enjoy popular support. They are corrupt and undemocratic. Did you happen to notice that one of the terrorists was from the U.A.E.? Have you noticed that in Pakistan, where the reigning military dictator has agreed with help the US, pro-fundamentalist Muslims are protesting? What do we gain if Pakistan–a nuclear power with longstanding grievances against India–becomes a fundamentalist country?
I don’t say that you are absolutely wrong about everything that you say. I do say that you can’t discount the importance of not further exacerbating anti-US hostility. And although you haven’t entirely discounted that, you do seem to discount it when you doubt that ObL and his ilk can effectively use US military responses as a way of recruiting allies. Since our immediate concern is terrorist attack at home–rather than the winning of some mother of all wars off of our shores–shouldn’t we be trying very hard to discourage this effect?

As you know, I favor an international effort to pursue ObL and co. and bring them to trial. I might also favor police-style military actions if they enjoy international support. I also think the UN should be involved here.

You asked for a link and I’m going to offer you a few that you might find interesting. I’d be very happy to know what you (and others) think of them.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11601

This second one I’ve already posted in a GD thread on religious implications of the war. As I said there, I think it’s well worth reading but IMO a bit overstated.

http://www.TheNation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=johnson

148

Yeah, you’re right - a gay man can’t be a Nazi - you ever hear of Hermann Goering??? :rolleyes:

149

gobear, on re-reading I just want to make clear that I know you did say that “sure” you thought legislative protections were good. Again, I do realize that you were replying to Gazoo’s divisive post.

150

I now have “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” stuck in my head.

151

On a serious note, i would urge the Great Gazoo and other anti-globalization agitators to read the Globalization survey in this week’s Economist. They would see their claims carefully examined and in an evenhanded manner. The survey argues convincingly that many of the remedies proposed by the anti-globalization crowd would severely damage the long-term economic growth of the Third-world nations they wish to help.For example, legislation to enforce higher pay for Third-world labor, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don’t comply, would only fatten multinational corpoarate profits and ensure the bankruptcy of locally-owned manufacturers.
The protestors who claim that they are the advocates of freedom should read this on p. 15 of the Survey section.

152

Zero dead in Afghanistan??? How about 3 million dead in Afghanistan?? Over 10% of their population. A lot of them killed in the CIA’s version of “Let’s make a deal - you kill Russians, we’ll help you set up a puppet government” - too bad it didn’t work out?

153

I knew Hermann Goerig. I respected Hermann Goering. And GOBEAR, sir, is no Hermann Goering.

154

Yes, I do think that legislative protections are a good idea, but it’s vital to ensure that the remedy isn’t worse than the disease. As I pointed out, forcing an across-the-board pay rise would only serve to enrich multinationals and impoverish locally-owned businesses.

Gazoo, it would help if you knew your Nazis. Herman Goering was not gay. He was famous for having mistresses. Now Ernst Roehm, head of the SA, Hitler’s paramilitary street thugs, was gay. However during the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934, he, along with other leaders of the SA, was killed on Hitler’s orders. When the Nazis opened the concetration camps for Jews, Communists, Gypsies and other enemies of the Reich, they also include homosexuals, who were incarcerated under Article 175 of the German Penal code. Thousands of gay men and women were killed by the Nazis. Calling me a Nazi only illustrates your ignorance of history, putz!

155

Right. Not like the Soviets invaded the country once the government they were holding up started to fall. Good grief, can’t be the communists fault; must be those damned, dirty Americans. If they hadn’t been such assholes, Afghanistan would never have seen a war.

156

Let’s see what a person who helped organize the first campus demonstration against the Vietnam war at UC-Berkeley in 1962 has to say about the current protests.

Mandlestam:

**
I take it you see this as idealistic and an impossibility, then. I disagree.

There is a big leap between people with a level of enmity against America and its ways, and highly organized, intelligent, well-funded, comprehensive terrorist networks, training and actively working to do us harm.

Those can be found and dismantled, I believe. And without that level of organization, intelligence and funding, an attack like Sept. 11 will be made much, much more difficult.

Our vigilance will now have to be unceasing to prevent such organizations from sprouting up again. But that’s pretty much a given, anyway.

**
The United Nations has given the USA its full endorsement to act in its self-defense. I haven’t heard of a nation that hasn’t, in fact.

I don’t see the Afghans tolerating a government, even a temporary one, that does not consist of their own people and of their own religion. So I question what the UN can do here.

This is the U.S.'s ballgame. Every country on the globe recognizes it, and has professed as much. The U.S. will utilize whatever forces and resources will best accomplish its goals. I don’t see that as being the UN, although I do see it involving a coalition.

**
I also favor military actions where nobody but bad guys get hurt. For that matter, I would add to my wish list the replacement of the Taliban by a government that the Afghani people genuinely want. (And while I’m at it I’d like a cure for AIDS, an end to world hunger, and a new zip drive for my computer. ;))

**
I don’t discount it. But given the choice of potentially exacerbating anti-US hostility or allowing the terrorist network that perpetrated numerous attacks against Americans including Sept. 11 to continue, what should the US do?

One is a hypothetical; the other is intolerable.

If people are given information about who we are after and why, and they choose to see us as hostile to their interests, anyway, what does that say? Are the citizens of Afghanistan oppressed by the Taliban, or aren’t they? Are Muslims and Muslim nations intolerant of violent radicalism that perverts their religion, or aren’t they?

157

gobear: “The survey argues convincingly that many of the remedies proposed by the anti-globalization crowd would severely damage the long-term economic growth of the Third-world nations they wish to help.”

On the whole, I respect The Economist enough not to dismiss their analyses out of hand. But I do want to point out that they are in the business of selling magazines to people who want to hear this perspective.

“For example, legislation to enforce higher pay for Third-world labor, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don’t comply, would only fatten multinational corpoarate profits and ensure the bankruptcy of locally-owned manufacturers.”

You know what? The very same arguments were made in the nineteenth century when workers in the US and UK fought for a ten hour day, then an eight hour day, the right to collectively bargain, occupational safety, etc. Always these things were going to spell disaster for workers. And yet look what happened: until the current wave of globalization (beginning c. the 1970s), workers in the West enjoyed a very high standard of living.

Does The Economist address the problem at the root of our current and long-term economic woes? That is, the problem of oversupply–caused by the fact that there is a surfeit of cheaply made goods and a deficit of people who can afford to buy them?

In any case, this is a semi-hijack and I’ve gone far enough. Just wanted to point out that the globalization debate is too important to be ridiculed, and too complex to be cut dead by one article in The Economist.

[from The Economist ]:“The idea that citizens are not individuals with different goals and preferences, but an undifferentiated body with agreed common interests, defined in oppositon to other monolithic interests such as “business” or “foreigners”, is not just shallow populism, it is proto-fascism.”

gobear, I think many people in the movement are well aware of that a citizens vs. business mentality is uncalled for. Indeed, this is an insult to the intelligence of a movement that includes Nobel Prize-winning economists, university professors, lawyers, writers, human rights activists–i.e., people who are aware that this isn’t a question of a one-size fits all. And while, as I’ve said, I don’t usually dismiss The Economist, this rates as one of the most derisive and unhelpful categorizations I’ve ever read on its pages. Although loosely unified, if the fair trade movement stands for anything, it is democracy, especially for people in non-Western countries. To twist this into “proto-fascism” befits Fox News or the National Review. Indeed, perhaps Rupert’s gotten his claws into The Economist without my having caught on?

But thanks for posting it all the same :slight_smile:

158

Ah Milossarian, I’ve already heard your arguments (just as you’ve already mine). Your belief that a swift, effective and consequence-free war can be waged and won (with the end effect of removing terrorism in toot) is as “hypothetical” as my belief that there are better ways.

You asked for cites and you provided you some.

You won’t get your kiss unless you do your homework ;).

159

Goering was pretty aggressively heterosexual. You might be thinking of Ernst Roehm? At any rate, it’s irrelevant, because Gobear isn’t a Nazi.

160

Gee, I am surpised the Economist doesn’t back the protesters :rolleyes: Who are going to quote next, Rush Limbaugh???