Protesting the War - Better Options?

Great Debates
41

I would also like to thank PhuQan for the article. If he hadn’t have posted it, I would have.

Now I would like to take up GoHeels’ arguments against the Bush-Hitler correlations. Your first point is that America is a free country. I’m assuming that your logic is that since the US is not a totalitarian state, the leaders can’t just get away with what they wish—that they have to answer to the public in a democratic society. Firstly, you’re sorely mistaken into thinking that America is a democracy. Democracy means government by the people. The people don’t govern. The people elect those that govern. And those that are elected are first anointed by the rich election campaign contributors—without financial backing, no run for office is ever going to take to flight. So, in any election, the public can only choose between those representatives that the rich ruling class approve of. Then, those that bother to turn up at the polls get to vote in an election that has no guarantee of being competently administrated, let alone be free of outright fraud. And, furthermore, your sacred democracy in its fundamental form (where the public actually do govern and vote on all legislation) was shown not to work way back in ancient Greece.

What you need to grasp is that freedom is manufactured by those that manufacture opinion: The mass media. Hitler gained popular support through the media, as has Bush. The public can only vote on the data they have to hand which is too often spoon-fed to them by the media. The media has ignored the oppressive measures of the Patriot Act and such while splashing news papers with enthusiastic headlines about triumphant gains made on the battlefield. Hence, few notice that the government is encroaching on their civil liberties while mobs chant and cheer when the Marines storm Baghdad. Have you ever read “1984” by George Orwell? Case in point: How many people were afraid to fly after 9/11? How many people preferred to drive across state or across country despite the sheer fact that, despite 9/11, flying was still statistically far safer than driving on the road? Just try and tell me that the media doesn’t shape people’s view of reality.

As for the feds coming to visit PhuQan (or myself for that matter), time will tell. At any rate you sure won’t know anything of it if it happens. Do you really think the feds aren’t corrupt? Do you still buy the official version of the story run in the media about what happened in Waco, TX? The proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand applies here. I guess since you won’t hear the evidence you need on CNN or in the New York Times, you just won’t believe what is right in front of your face.

Strange comparisons? Interesting coincidences? How about fundamental correlations in modus operandi? A coincidence is data that is related by chance. Coincidences are mostly isolated and plainly not connected in any other way besides a single connection. The correlations spelled out in Thom Hartmann’s article don’t show coincidence. The correlations between Bush and Hitler demonstrate common characteristics and common methods of attaining objectives. That you manage to convince yourself otherwise puzzles me. I can only assume that you can’t see what you don’t want to see or that you need to read the article again, and this time look up any words that you don’t quite understand so as to ensure comprehension. And I am honestly not being condescending. I simply can’t see how you could take an objective view of the article and of current events and come to the conclusions you did. I’d appreciate further specific explanation of your conclusions.

42

ou might notice that there are no direct similarites made. There is no Hitler did this and Bush did this layout. The similarities are not contrived or made to look particularly pertinent. You read what is just a simple and quite accurate early history of Nazi Germany. The fact that it parallels so closely recent history is scary as hell to me. Particularly in the face of the Bush and Walker family support for the Nazi regime during that period. The bush and walker families were part of that “corporate support” that Hitler depended on.
Hitler did not even have any personal enmity against the jews. He simply used the german peoples own fears against them to convince them that Jews were dangerous. We also already do have at least 4 different “camps” that have been set up for political prisoners. They are not being used obviously (except of course that guantanamo facility) but they do already exist.
Posse comititus has been suspended just as it was in germany.

This is definitly NOT “much ado about nothing” though I am sure our president would like us all to keep thinking that.
We have been VERIFIABLY lied to and manipulated by this president. Where is the accountability for that? We crucified clinton for a simple lie about a sexual matter. Bush has lied repeatedly and the effects of those lies aren’t a few red faces, the effects of those lies have brought us to war and international condemnation.
This government disgusts me and is about as far from “american” as any government in the world.
Shame is an understatement.

43

You are missing a very important point, that is, “elections” do no necessarily refer to Presedential elections. That’s right, you get to vote for neat stuff like Congressmen and Senators too! And IIRC the liberal movement didn’t do such a great job making its view known in the last Senatorial/Congressional elections. That is what I am talking about, anti-war protesters talk really big about how they are voicing the opinions of a majority but obviously it isn’t translating into very much in the political arena. Votes are how you get Bush’s attention. So far they have done nothing more than hand the legislatorial agenda to him on a silver platter.

Oh btw, I never suggested that America would have been better off under Gore. Personally (and like a lot of other ppl I bet) I think we got screwed for choices of candidates in the last election. I could have gone for a more moderate republican with some actual professional experience; instead I got a figurehead governor with name recognition. In any event I do not share your overly cynical assessment of the political process. In fact in the context of your response it seems more like an open dismissal of the only means of legitimate political reform open to us… In other words, it sounds like defeatism.

44

Fair enough - but it was certainly my impression that they had, and were even generally so acknowledged. But there was only so much they could do against the commentators, self-appointed and otherwise, who insisted on the sneering and ignorant “pro-Saddam” description. What else do you think could have been done? YMMV of course.

I think your first sentence got it. I recall Fox’s (for one example) coverage of the many millions of anti-war protests being centered on one idiot with a sign supporting fragging of officers. Again, what else could the protesters do? They couldn’t force their opponents to be honest or reasonable or fair.

If you think the people who were expressing their views and concerns weren’t sufficiently anti-Saddam for you, then where were the pro-war anti-Saddam rallies? Yes, there were some, of course, but why didn’t they focus more energies on that message than on the support-the-troops message? If you’re going to criticize, then spread your criticism fairly.

Gotta disagree with that characterization too, sport. Yes, the US does have influence of some sort everywhere, including among other governments that also have influence, and such influences can add up. Also, please do not ignore that the President or PM is not the only political actor in any democracy - his power is limited by others who are also susceptible to the popular will, and those persons can be affected by a display of such.

See above.

Again, the war was not only (or perhaps even primarily) about eliminating Saddam, and it misstates both the anti-war and pro-war viewpoints to promote that point to primacy.

That has been discussed several times on these boards. It is a mischaracterization to say they were “leading” the protests, or even that the protests were led by any single organization or even single guiding principle out of many (London, can you put a name to the “sergeant major” you invoked?)

The medium is the message. Again, whose fault is that, really?

Actually, no, it doesn’t. Can you provide a cite for anything of the sort that would be fairly representative of any large group? I doubt it. Be fair.

[Bquote]2. Present a reasonable alternative to war that would effect Saddam’s disarmament AND subsequent regime change.
[/quote]
Once again, you only get to that point if you have already made Iraq the issue. It was not and never should have been - eliminating terrorism and its causes was, and Iraq was a secondary point. Its connection to 9/11, which you have already invoked, never plausibly existed, although Bush’s and Powell’s misstatements of it are still convincing to many.

The “reasonable alternative” was to reasonably define the proper, broader goals and methods to achieve them, starting with Osama (whom you may have heard of once upon a time).

There’s a helluva lot of inspections going on right now, aren’t there? Are they working? What “disarming” is going on?

I’ll agree with you there - and that is exactly what Russia, China, and France, along with the majority of the nonpermanent members of the SC, were headed toward - futilely of course, but is that their fault?

Or any acknowledgment from the pro-war faction that it might not be an appropriate goal as such.

A moral quandary, yes - where does one start and stop? You also should acknowledge the view that Bush was not, in fact, truly committed to the goal of improving life for the Iraqi people, based on his stated aversion to “nation-building” and token-only efforts in that direction in Afghanistan. So, is it unfair to think the Iraqi and Afghan people were and are very possibly not going to be much better off under the next warlord than the last one? If that point didn’t get across, don’t those who refused to listen or ask have the bulk of the responsibility?

And a well-stated one, too. We tend to disagree on who should have the responsibility for what. As for “marginalizing themselves”, I’ll have to disagree on that too - any views or plans that Bush disagreed with were totally dismissed (not just marginalized) by him, weren’t they?

45

First, Elvis, thanks for a thoughtful rebuttal. Sorry for not responding sooner, but work took up most my day, then management (aka my wife) insisted that I do some housework before satisfying my newly-acquired SDMB fix. :wink:

Well, I spent the entire day on Feb. 15 watching the protests on TV (yes, I’m well aware that I have no life). I switched among three channels – MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and C-SPAN (I try to watch Fox as little as possible).

C-SPAN offered little or no commentary, only footage of the protests. So if anyone presented truly fair and balanced coverage of the protests, it was C-SPAN. From what I saw on C-SPAN for about six hours that day, I stick to my assertion that the protest signs and speeches vigorously denounced Bush as an evil war-monger, while only marginally criticizing Saddam.

Yes, there were certainly some anti-Saddam signs and yes, some of the speeches I heard criticized Saddam. But the anti-Saddam rhetoric seemed muted and did not come close to the vitriol thrown Bush’s way. The anti-Saddam message should have been as unmistakable, overwhelming, and obvious as the anti-Bush message.

However, I can accept your point that YMMV.

When I originally posted, I said my criticisms were aimed at American protesters, not necessarily protesters from abroad. American protesters should have been well aware that networks like Fox (and to a lesser extent MSNBC) would unfairly skew the protests as being “pro-Saddam” (or at least imply this).

Is that fair? No, of course it isn’t. But that’s the established playing field, and EVERYBODY in the anti-war movement should have known that.

The anti-war protesters should have anticipated how the U.S. television media would attempt to portray the protests, and, as I mentioned in my first point, “TAKEN EXTREME PAINS” to ensure an anti-war message, not an anti-American message, would be logically inferred by the American silent majority. Speakers should have bent over backwards to blast Saddam for not cooperating fully with inspectors, practicing torture, raping and plundering Iraq’s natural resources, etc.

Was there criticism of Saddam? Yes. Was it harsh enough to appeal to the U.S. silent majority? Not even close from what I heard and saw, and continued to hear and see as the war progressed.

The pro-war rallies weren’t anti-Saddam? Huh?

The fact is, in this debate, hawks didn’t have to dispel the notion that they were “pro-Saddam.” The fact that they supported a war aimed at killing him and ending his reign of terror pretty much implied they were anti-Saddam, no? Anti-war folks did not have this luxury.

Fair? No. Reality in post-9/11 America? Yes.

(As an aside: I hate the term “pro-war.” I despise war. Calling me “pro-war” is akin to calling someone who supports reproductive rights “pro-abortion” instead of the much more accurate “pro-choice.” That said, if the anti-war folks have to debunk the notion that they were pro-Saddam, I guess it’s only fair that supporters of the war get labeled as “pro-war.”)

Point taken, thanks for getting me to rethink this.

[QUOTE]
quote:

The anti-war movement responded to charges of being Saddam apologists with the standard “Yes, but…” argument, as in, “Yes, Saddam is awful, but…” which struck many Americans as eerily similar to offensive arguments presented after 9/11 (Does “Yes, 9/11 was a horrible thing, but America had it coming with its imperialistic, hegemonic ways” sound familiar?)

Actually, no, it doesn’t. Can you provide a cite for anything of the sort that would be fairly representative of any large group? I doubt it. Be fair.

[QUOTE]

Elvis, I can’t provide a cite that is fairly representative of any SINGLE large group, but I didn’t say that any SINGLE group said this. I would say, however, that the many individuals who did put some (or all) of the blame on America for 9/11 (the usual suspects – ivory tower college profs, Arab newspapers, European elites, etc.) did use the standard (and IMHO extremely offensive) “Yes, but…” or “Chickens coming home to roost” response to 9/11, which really alienates the average American, IMHO.

Like I said in my earlier message, I’m well aware that the overwhelming majority of the anti-war movement despised Saddam. However, this hatred, which would have served them well in America, seemed to be superseded by the hatred directed at Bush.

At least, that was my perception. Granted, my perception may well have been wrong. But I suspect most “Joe Q. Americans” felt down in their bones that they couldn’t join a movement that equated their president with such an awful man as Saddam. The anti-warriors never found a way to overcome the “My country, right or wrong” phenomenon that is sadly prevalent in the US.

Again, I think the American anti-warriors would have been much better served to absolutely demonize Saddam, to rip him for thumbing his nose at the will of the world. Maybe the American anti-warriors tried, but I sure couldn’t tell from listening to them. And even today, I suspect if you administered truth serum to the average anti-war folks will say that they hate Bush more than Saddam. I very well could be wrong about that suspicion, but if I even have to wonder, then the anti-warriors did not do a good enough job of convincing me.

And believe me, I wanted to be convinced. Though I support this war, I’m terribly worried about its consequences.

I guess in the final analysis, the anti-war movement admittedly had a much tougher sell than the pro-warriors in the post-9/11 American environment. But the anti-war movement did not do itself any favors by allowing itself to be portrayed as anti-American instead of anti-war. Some of that was not the anti-war movement’s fault, some of it was.

46

First, Elvis, thanks for a thoughtful rebuttal. Sorry for not responding sooner, but work took up most my day, then management (aka my wife) insisted that I do some housework before satisfying my newly-acquired SDMB fix. :wink:

Well, I spent the entire day on Feb. 15 watching the protests on TV (yes, I’m well aware that I have no life). I switched among three channels – MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and C-SPAN (I try to watch Fox as little as possible).

C-SPAN offered little or no commentary, only footage of the protests. So if anyone presented truly fair and balanced coverage of the protests, it was C-SPAN. From what I saw on C-SPAN for about six hours that day, I stick to my assertion that the protest signs and speeches vigorously denounced Bush as an evil war-monger, while only marginally criticizing Saddam.

Yes, there were certainly some anti-Saddam signs and yes, some of the speeches I heard criticized Saddam. But the anti-Saddam rhetoric seemed muted and did not come close to the vitriol thrown Bush’s way. The anti-Saddam message should have been as unmistakable, overwhelming, and obvious as the anti-Bush message.

However, I can accept your point that YMMV.

When I originally posted, I said my criticisms were aimed at American protesters, not necessarily protesters from abroad. American protesters should have been well aware that networks like Fox (and to a lesser extent MSNBC) would unfairly skew the protests as being “pro-Saddam” (or at least imply this).

Is that fair? No, of course it isn’t. But that’s the established playing field, and EVERYBODY in the anti-war movement should have known that.

The anti-war protesters should have anticipated how the U.S. television media would attempt to portray the protests, and, as I mentioned in my first point, “TAKEN EXTREME PAINS” to ensure an anti-war message, not an anti-American message, would be logically inferred by the American silent majority. Speakers should have bent over backwards to blast Saddam for not cooperating fully with inspectors, practicing torture, raping and plundering Iraq’s natural resources, etc.

Was there criticism of Saddam? Yes. Was it harsh enough to appeal to the U.S. silent majority? Not even close from what I heard and saw, and continued to hear and see as the war progressed.

The pro-war rallies weren’t anti-Saddam? Huh?

The fact is, in this debate, hawks didn’t have to dispel the notion that they were “pro-Saddam.” The fact that they supported a war aimed at killing him and ending his reign of terror pretty much implied they were anti-Saddam, no? Anti-war folks did not have this luxury.

Fair? No. Reality in post-9/11 America? Yes.

(As an aside: I hate the term “pro-war.” I despise war. Calling me “pro-war” is akin to calling someone who supports reproductive rights “pro-abortion” instead of the much more accurate “pro-choice.” That said, if the anti-war folks have to debunk the notion that they were pro-Saddam, I guess it’s only fair that supporters of the war get labeled as “pro-war.”)

Point taken, thanks for getting me to rethink this.

[QUOTE]
quote:

The anti-war movement responded to charges of being Saddam apologists with the standard “Yes, but…” argument, as in, “Yes, Saddam is awful, but…” which struck many Americans as eerily similar to offensive arguments presented after 9/11 (Does “Yes, 9/11 was a horrible thing, but America had it coming with its imperialistic, hegemonic ways” sound familiar?)

Actually, no, it doesn’t. Can you provide a cite for anything of the sort that would be fairly representative of any large group? I doubt it. Be fair.

[QUOTE]

Elvis, I can’t provide a cite that is fairly representative of any SINGLE large group, but I didn’t say that any SINGLE group said this. I would say, however, that the many individuals who did put some (or all) of the blame on America for 9/11 (the usual suspects – ivory tower college profs, Arab newspapers, European elites, etc.) did use the standard (and IMHO extremely offensive) “Yes, but…” or “Chickens coming home to roost” response to 9/11, which really alienates the average American, IMHO.

Like I said in my earlier message, I’m well aware that the overwhelming majority of the anti-war movement despised Saddam. However, this hatred, which would have served them well in America, seemed to be superseded by the hatred directed at Bush.

At least, that was my perception. Granted, my perception may well have been wrong. But I suspect most “Joe Q. Americans” felt down in their bones that they couldn’t join a movement that equated their president with such an awful man as Saddam. The anti-warriors never found a way to overcome the “My country, right or wrong” phenomenon that is sadly prevalent in the US.

Again, I think the American anti-warriors would have been much better served to absolutely demonize Saddam, to rip him for thumbing his nose at the will of the world. Maybe the American anti-warriors tried, but I sure couldn’t tell from listening to them. And even today, I suspect if you administered truth serum to the average anti-war folks will say that they hate Bush more than Saddam. I very well could be wrong about that suspicion, but if I even have to wonder, then the anti-warriors did not do a good enough job of convincing me.

And believe me, I wanted to be convinced. Though I support this war, I’m terribly worried about its consequences.

I guess in the final analysis, the anti-war movement admittedly had a much tougher sell than the pro-warriors in the post-9/11 American environment. But the anti-war movement did not do itself any favors by allowing itself to be portrayed as anti-American instead of anti-war. Some of that was not the anti-war movement’s fault, some of it was.

47

that should be “ramp-up to war progressed.”

Also, sorry for the double post.

48

No, I won’t. The deal was that SH was supposed to SHOW that the WMD that were previously known to exist had been destroyed. It was not supposed to be a game of hide-and-seek, which is what it became. The inspections were not working because SH was playing a deadly game.

No, I wouldn’t. They were doling out tidbits, as little as possible and only under duress. They were NOT being cooperative.

Well, yes, I was simplifying. However, anything but complete compliance was a specific violation of both the peace treaty and several U.N. resolutions.

No, I don’t agree with you. The advances were puny, few and far between, and again, only under threat and duress.

And please, don’t tell me what I will agree with or will believe.

49

Well, MLS, you have your reasons.

I won’t tell you what you will agree with or will believe.

But we do engage in asking each other and all of us here questions, don’t we?

May I just make a request?

Bush and his War Party have succeeded in chasing the rats from Iraq, namely, Saddam and company, or exterminating them.

Now, can you please just have a look at the shambles they have also succeeded in bringing about in Iraq: lives lost, bodies mangled, buildings and homes destroyed, infra-structures abolished, cultural treasures blown to smithereens, and the looting and general mayhem still going on and on.

At least, MLS, let there be peace between us, and never let us settle differences with firepower or bladed edges.

Susma Rio Sep

50

Thank-you for clarifying your view a little. I can see your point. Where I beg to differ on your argument is that the very election process is going to get anywhere in forwarding the will of the people. Elections are funded by rich election campaign contributors—presidential, congressional and senatorial. The people only ever get to choose from the candidates that are screened and approved by the rich oligarchy, so to speak. That is why you had nothing but corrupt morons to choose from in the 2000 presidential election. Why do you suppose that your candidates for the House and Senate will be any different?

I would like to contend your charges of cynicism and defeatism. I do not believe that people are motivated in all their actions by selfishness alone (cynicism). I simply understand that the political environment in America attracts such vermin to power. Most people are not that way. However, to survive in politics it is somewhat of a prerequisite. And I certainly do not too readily accept defeat (defeatism). I, however, do see that the present format of government cannot breed anything but corruption. If you reward the criminal with power and wealth, you will end up with wealthy and powerful criminals. That is not cynical and it is not defeatism; it is mere realism and, beyond that, quite obvious.

51

Fair enough, GoHeels. I mainly wanted to make clear that communication requires good-faith listening and neutral media. Absent either of those, when true communication does not occur, it makes no sense to blame the talkers instead - to do so reveals a bias.

A bias, that is, along the one indicated by a refusal to support an allegation about a significant segment of American society blaming America for 9/11, but to repeat it instead. I thought that contemptible canard had been dispelled almost as soon as it appeared, but clearly not everyone got that message. To see that come up again was quite disappointing.

It looks like London_Calling has decided to abandon this thread rather than defend or discuss his assertions. Perhaps a default judgment can be entered into the record.

52

Are we talking in the months leading up to war? Hey, protest away. Are we talking after Bush had already said, “Hey, we’re going to war in 48 hours”, or after the bombs were already dropping? There was nothing that could be done to stop the war at that point. Indeed, aborting the war after it had started would’ve done more harm. But at any rate, it was clear that protests weren’t going to do any good. In fact, nothing that the anti-war folks could do at that point was going to stop the war, or have any effect on the administration’s Iraqi doctrine.

So after that Point of No Return, you’re more than welcome to protest, but it’s blatantly obvious that it’s not going to do anything other than officially label you as “anti-war”. And to that extent, great, your dissent is dually noted. However, if the only reason you’re protesting is to let people know your opinion, then you are, in fact, protesting just for your own peace of mind, and not for any greater good.

Oh, and GoHeels, I would like to offer a belated welcome to the boards, and thank you for adding another eloquent and well-educated voice to the boards.
Jeff

53

Elvis, I should have been clearer. Let me attempt to restate:

I assert that “the Left/liberals,” (advance apologies for overgeneralizing) who I think make up the rank and file of the anti-war movement, are steadily marginalizing themselves politically, at least in the U.S.

Why?

**1. They have allowed themselves to be portrayed as “anti-American” by not being “anti-Saddam” enough. **

As I said in my previous post, this is not entirely their fault – often, the anti-warriors were unfairly portrayed by the U.S. media. Nevertheless, the anti-warriors should have held a more realistic view of the post-9/11 U.S. zeitgeist and adjusted their basic message to say “Saddam, you brutal, evil, sadistic, subhuman animal, COOPERATE WITH INSPECTORS NOW.” The secondary message should have been, “U.S. stay out of Iraq.” In other words, they should have placed their first and foremost demand on Saddam, not Bush, and labeled Saddam for what he really was. Instead, the basic message I inferred was that America – or more specifically, Bush - was the greater of the two evils.

In essence, I believe in the minds of many Americans, the anti-war movement morphed into an anti-American movement at that point, and the movement lost much political capital. The American anti-warriors should realize that quite a few Americans right now feel very lonely in the world right now as they see images of their flag being burned everywhere from Paris to Jakarta. Most Americans take that personally, even if the foreign anger is directed not against them, but the U.S. government. Had the anti-war movement positioned itself as at least neutral, if not anti-Saddam, I believe many more Americans would have been more sympathetic. I’m not saying they would have necessarily changed their minds about the war, but I think more would have been willing to at least listen to the anti-warriors’ message instead of just writing them off as America-haters.

2.The overwrought, hysterical, alarmist, and generally inaccurate rhetoric turns moderate Americans off.

Again, I cite the “Bush = Hitler,” “no blood for oil,” “Revenge for Daddy’s mistake in 1991” etc. messages as being counter-productive. The article supplied by PhuQac comparing Bush’s actions to Hitler’s was interesting, but Americans, IMHO, do not think of Hitler as a conquistador as much as they think of him as a genocidal murderer. Bush may be a lot of things, but he’s not a genocidal murderer. Making the comparison – especially when Bush’s enemy in this war actually WAS a genocidal maniac – strikes most Americans as absurd and further erodes the anti-warriors’ credibility.

Not to mention that few, if any, of the anti-warriors’ predictions of doom have come to fruition (no massive U.S. casualties, Arab street hasn’t exploded, many [though certainly not all] Iraqis have greeted soldiers as liberators instead of oppressors, no WMD use, no WMD launches on Israel, no bloody urban battles, etc.). The Left/liberals have, in essence, cried “Wolf” too often in the days leading up to the war, and many Americans aren’t buying the doomsday scenarios posed by them anymore.

Now obviously, this whole thing isn’t over by a long shot, and the tide could turn and the U.S. could find itself in a nasty situation. But as of today, the war has been as close to a “best-case scenario” as could be reasonably expected. So far at least, the anti-warriors forecasts have proven inaccurate.

**3.As London_Calling stated, the message was muddled. **

“No War in Iraq,” is fine, but keep the message clear. Frankly, I think most Americans have no idea who Mumia is and don’t give a shit about corporate exploitation of the Third World workers. Allowing fringe Lefty pet causes get mixed in was a mistake and only served to dilute the all-important anti-war message.

That’s what I meant by the Left/liberals marginalizing themselves. And like I said, I truly worry about this, because I have a feeling that the main issue will be foreign policy in presidential and congressional elections in the coming years. Credible, reasonable, good-faith debate is sorely needed right now in this country, and I fear that because of their actions and words right now, the liberals/Left won’t be taken seriously. In that case, the whole country suffers, IMHO.

And ElJeffe, I appreciate the welcome!! I hope I can contribute in some way to the intellectual health of the SDMB.

54

Wise of you to throw in the advance apology. And, yes it is an over-generalization. What is it that makes you think that a certain political demographic constitutes the anti-war movement? This is a serious question. I am curious to learn the basis for this repeated assertion. I certainly hope it isn’t Rush Limbaugh because that won’t earn you any credibility. As for your claim that they are marginalizing themselves politically (which is a point that I don’t contend), do you think that people should modify their opinions so as to be politically attractive? Do you think people should view the truth in a way that will make them attractive to the masses? Do you think that it is more important to say “salesperson” (as opposed to “salesman”) than to actually portray things as you see them according to your personal integrity?

Sir, politics is the art of saying what people want to hear. Politicians are renowned to be liars and expected to be corrupt and opportunistic. To say that some movement fails politically is no insult. To say that someone fails to adhere to their word and what they truly believe in (despite any political ramifications), now that is a serious allegation.

Again, your point is political. The protesters should have been more politically correct you say. It seems the latest trend is that you cannot criticize your president without being politically incorrect. Doesn’t that conflict with the American free speech principal or something? You say protesters should have focused on Saddam. I say why should people in America care about Saddam. American citizens should be primarily concerned with how competently their country is being run. Why should they concentrate on foreign dictators? Oh, yes, I forgot. They need to be politically correct. Sorry.

It would well behoove many Americans to start recognizing that true patriots recognize when American ideals are being compromised and scream like hell about it—the notion that to be a patriot is to fall into line and support the president, no matter what lunacy he engages in, is pure folly.

Firstly, when did Saddam become a genocidal maniac? Herein lays the very essence of the inability to accurately assess reality. I don’t think even Bush has ventured to call Saddam “genocidal.” It reminds me of the allegations of the Serbian genocide that turned out to be complete bullshit. If Saddam is genocidal, then George Washington (when he quashed certain insurrections shortly after the War of Independence) and Abe Lincoln (when he went to war with his own citizens to “preserve the union” were also “genocidal maniacs.” Sir, in formulating an argument please call a spade a spade, otherwise a lot of effort is spent simply reestablishing the foundations for the argument.

I would like to grant you the benefit of citing correctly the American public being far from connecting Bush’s actions to Hitler’s. However, the American public formulates its opinion based on what is disseminated by CNN and The New York Times. The article by Thom Hartmann, posted Phu, will not reach most Americans and so will not contribute to their evaluations of current events. So, no most Americans haven’t learned the lessons of history and so are prone to cheer as American troops invade and conquer.

That most Americans don’t give a shit about corporate exploitation of the Third World workers is because they aren’t up to speed on such activities and this is the only reason why the message comes across as muddled. The “all-important anti-war message” incorporates a great deal of related issues. To simplify it down to “war is bad” is equally ineffective. The issues that may have been poorly broadcast may have been poorly broadcast because they stepped on some powerful toes. The execution of the communication has no bearing on the validity of the communication itself. If the American public started paying attention to content rather than fancy graphics and pretty presentation, then the communication might be heard. Maybe that’s expecting too much.

55

The warmovement is NOT all about stoping the war, it has one mainreason:
To hate yankees.

56

:slight_smile:

57

Lander, I didn’t say that everybody in the anti-war movement adhered to a certain political demographic. I said that the “rank and file” - in other words, the majority - of the anti-war movement IN AMERICA probably does fall left of center on the political spectrum. Some in the anti-war movement fall farther left than others. Certainly, the anti-war movement does contain elements of conservative philosophy, but I think my assumption is reasonable on the whole.

And as I stated earlier, my politics fall, on the whole, slightly right of center (slightly left on most “social” issues. And not that it matters, but I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh (or watch FoxNews, for that matter). But thanks for neatly lumping me in with the far right. :rolleyes:

Well, that’s for individuals to decide for themselves. All I’m saying is that IMHO, the overblown rhetoric combined with the basic message THAT I HEARD - which may not necessarily be correct - could very well produce a backlash in this country. I may be right, or I may be wrong, time will tell.

Fair enough, as long as you’re prepared to live with the consequences. The consequences may be good (people agree with you and vote the bum out of office in 2004) or it may be bad (people are offended by the message and Bush wins in a landslide). If I had to put money on it, I think more people will be offended than not, is all I’m saying.

Of course, my point is political. I’m not criticizing the movement’s basic anti-war message. I am criticizing HOW they make it. Feel free to say that Bush masturbates in the Oval Office to large-screen images of bunker-busters destroying hospitals filled with war orphans, if that’s what you want. All I’m saying is that there’s a good possibility that many folks in America may be offended, and may end up writing you off as anti-American assholes.

If you don’t care about that, you have that right. But those of us who both support the war but wish Bush would get voted out for other reasons (and may I assume by your posts, that’s also what YOU want) are worried that the anti-war movement’s rhetoric may produce a backlash.

And no, that does not conflict with the free speech principal. You can say anything you want, and no one’s stopping you. As I said before, when the feds burst into your house in the middle of the night to arrest you as a subversive, then it’s a free speech issue.

Americans should care about Saddam because in the minds of many, he’s dangerous to U.S. security, although I concede that many Americans don’t think he’s a threat. I happen to think he is (or was) a threat. You may not.

Agreed.

That’s fine, although if you’re addressing me with that statement, I don’t know where I said that patriotism is defined by falling into line and supporting the president.

I think the Kurds and Shiites may be inclined to think Saddam was a genocidal maniac, and I think the Bosnian Muslims may take issue with your assertion that Serbian genocide was “complete bullshit.” Or, maybe it’s more accurate to characterize Saddam and/or Milosevic as simple brutal murderers. I think the facts show that both guys were pretty sick fucks.

And equating Washington and Lincoln with those guys is laughable. But feel free to keep making these silly assertions - as long as you realize that the great majority of people will write you off as delusional.

And what I’m saying is that if the anti-war movement wanted to foment the massive political wave necessary to stop Bush from starting the war, it should have stayed on the simpler anti-war message. Maybe the anti-war movement didn’t want this - maybe it sought worldwide attention, but not political change. I guess you would have to ask individual anti-war protesters what they really wanted.

I respect the anti-warriors enough to assume they wanted to actually stop the war.

You sound like a sneering, holier-than-thou elitist snob when you say that. You claim to speak for the people, yet you claim intellectual superiority over them. You know best, I guess.

58

…my impression from reading your post, Lander, was that you inferred that I believe the anti-war movement had to be “politically correct,” as you termed it.

No, I assert that the anti-war movement be more “politically astute.”

I commend the anti-war movement for its masterful utilization of the internet, e-mail, and other technologies to coordinate massive protests in America’s - indeed, the world’s - biggest cities. The sheer numbers of people protesting were frankly astounding.

The anti-war movement should have seized the moment. It should have realized the eyes of the America were opened by all those people making a political statement. Many of us “undecided” Americans were ready to hear the movement’s message.

All I’m saying is that many of us were disappointed in the message. I say “many of us” and cite as evidence the the steady decline for anti-war support in U.S. polls from Feb. 15 to present.

I can only speak for myself, but I wanted to hear your vision for resolving the issue of Iraq, and personally, I was disappointed in what I heard. I listed why I was disappointed in my previous posts.

If the purpose of the anti-war movement was to enact political opposition so overwhelming as to make Bush seriously consider halting the war, then the movement, IMHO, failed miserably. If the purpose was to speak (albeit very loudly) to each other, it was a resounding success.

59

If the anti-war protestors had actually suggested a better solution, they might have actually got somewhere. The world had a problem, and America, Britain, and Australia decided to actually do something.

The result is that the world is now a better place. Go look at www.coxandforkum.com for some good cartoons.

60

While you argued well concerning the semantics of what constituted the anti-war movement, you still didn’t cite where you get the idea that “the “rank and file” - in other words, the majority - of the anti-war movement IN AMERICA” falls “left of center.” As for “lumping you in” with the far right, I was only asking if that was where you get your impressions simply because I listen to Limbaugh for comic relief and have heard him ramble on to this end. I have no idea where you get your impressions, GoHeels, and am, as I said, just curious to learn where you get this left-wing = anti-war notion that I’ve heard so many times.

The notion that seems to form the basis of your argument is that the anti-war movement is perceived as anti-American. Now, if these protesters are out there opposing this war because they don’t want to see their country walk down the wrong path, then they’re obviously not anti-American. I would contend that personalities like the propagandist radio talk-show hosts that portray these folks as anti-American are the cause of such perceptions.

How their statement is made is often dictated by how the medium conveys it. I think you even conceded something to that effect earlier in the thread.

At any rate, what happened to judging for yourself what the issue is and isn’t about? Why is it that the protesters are responsible for all the CNN consumers’ opinions? Are the masses not capable of researching and evaluating?

American’s should be concerned about a nation that doesn’t even have missiles that can reach the Mediterranean? As for the “giving weapons to terrorists” babble, effective intel, competent immigration and functioning local law enforcement could handle such a threat if they actually did their jobs—which they obviously didn’t on 9/11. You’re right, I don’t think Iraq is a threat to the US.

In all fairness, you didn’t. I’ve seen too much pseudo-patriotism concerning this war and had to vent on the issue but I will admit that it should not have been directed towards yourself.

Sir, check the definition of “genocide.” Casualties of a civil war do not count as genocide. Sick fucks, yes. Genocidal maniacs, no. Any war is a result of sickness. Genocide goes way beyond war and into a realm that is essentially evil and neither Hussein nor Milosevic went there.

What you call “silly assertions” are simply factual if you view them objectively. If you truly feel otherwise, please enunciate how a civil war in America is different to civil war in Iraq or in eastern Europe.

I see how what I said came across that way. It was my bad. What I actually feel contempt for is the institutions that breed consumers with short attention spans, not the consumers themselves—although I would like to see more people think for themselves rather than just mimic the expected emotional responses that are fed to them through the media.

As for being an elitist snob, I am actually a high-school drop-out that has read a lot and traveled somewhat. I didn’t go to Harvard, nor am I a Wall St stockbroker. I don’t speak for the people—I simply speak for myself. And I actually do think I know best; otherwise I would keep my mouth shut and listen. Having said that I will concede being wrong when it seems I am and learn from what others say rather than try to twist an argument so as to seem right. It just so happens that I engage in this sort of debate because it challenges my integrity and, at times, corrects it. I happen to think that you, GoHeels, show some integrity and have thought out your point of view and enjoy your challenging mine. Please feel free to continue to do so.