Ha ha, it’s Scylla and December’s worst nightmare! Hundeds of thousands of people protesting the actions of the Bush administration – ok, that happens – but mainstream coverage? On Faux and CNN?
Does not compute! Does not compute! Call Michael Powell! We need to merge the media again!
Hee hee hee. Hey, is “time still running out for Saddam”? Damn effective arms inspectors… 
**
Yes, I know. And it sounds like something Neville Chamberlain would have said, who negotiated for “peace in our time,” got a temporary peace at a horrible price and ended up with the most terrible war the world had every seen.
A clever person might see it as a clever one-liner ar Tomndeb did. They might compare where it fits and where it doesn’t and extract meaning behind my “quip.” They might think of the moral of the Neville Chamberlain story which is that sooner or later an aggressor has to be confronted.
While England may not have been ready for war, there is every indication that Neville Chamberlain thought appeasement was goind to work, and that he would in fact bring a “lasting peace.”
One might also gather from all this, that is therefore not the duty of a govenment simply to preserve peace at any cost “wherever it exists,” simply because it exists.
Because, regardless of his reasons, Chamberlain sued for peace at a time when a concerted effort could have stopped Hitler. The peace that Neville brought was the worst kind of peace because it allowed Hitler to both expand and consolidate, and therefore grow strong enough to challenge the world.
Now you may say “But England wasn’t strong enough to stop Hitler,” and you may be right. On the other side of the coin if England had done something maybe we might have gotten involved sooner and the war would have been less destructive.
At any rate this strengthens my original remark. Because, we are strong enough.
All this, or parts of it, an intelligent person might have gathered from my remark.
Invoking Neville Chamberlain simply suggests that peace is not always such a great idea.
No. That is not what I did. I said it was “mostly a quip.” I did that because Tomndeb’s analysis and your whining combined with my leaving you “whooshed,” probably led Spiny to think that he was missing something, when in fact the object lesson was simply that preserving peace isn’t always so great.
I would prefer to call it fatigue in the face of persistant and obstinate ignorance, but if in your little black and white world, I must choose, than I’ll take evasion. I’ m sure most will agree that it is hardly worth the breath explaining it to you.
And there’s another Nevilleism for you. By avoiding having to explain a fairly straightforward comment to the likes of you, I ensured that I would have to at much greater cost later, just as Neville did with Hitler, and you would have us do with Saddam.
That’s not true. You didn’t understand it. If you did, you would not have said that Bush’s whole reason was Saddam’s potential.
For any given communication, there is a required minimum intelligence necessary to understand it, that is true. Howevery, I can hardly think of an instance when a President has been so clear and consistent in his approach to a foreign matter. When you have trouble interpreting remember that it is unwise to project your failing onto the rest of the world.
Via con huevos, Davey me Boy.
With the difference being that the US is a sovereign nation, and Tenesse is not, your point has some validity.
We are our own nation, and we are responsible for own actions alone, regardless of what the UN says.
For example if the UN pursued a course of action that was obviously evil and wrong, and demanded the participation of the US in propogating it, I think our clear moral choice would be to refuse.
Similarly, if the UN were impotent and useless as the League of Nations became before it, we might choose an alternate course.
As nations we are sovereign, and must make our own choices.
That being said, in this instance I think it would be foolish and wrong for us to overthrow the Iraqi government without a UN mandate. There would be an exception to this, but I won’t mention it as I think it unlikely.
I’m impressed with the job they’re doing, particularly Blix. I’ve got my fingers crossed that they may yet avoid this thing for all of us.
Not really, december. Apples and oranges.
One is entertainment. The other is a political act.
One is an annual event with months of publicity and organization and, no doubt, a healthly advertising budget. The other was organized by grassroots organizations in a relatively short period of time.
One was inside in shirt-sleeve temperatures. The other was outside in severe cold.
The attendance estimate for one certainly included figures of people who attended more than once over a four-day event, essentially counting the majority of people two or more times. The other was a estimate of total attendance for one particular day in one part of the city.
Whether it was 25,000, 50,000 or 100,000, it is significant, and thus newsworthy, when that many people come from across the nation to petition their government regarding any cause.
I don’t understand this. Why make something up and pretend that some other person is saying it?
False attribution is simply lying, and it seems to happen quite a lot around here recently.
I have not spoken out against these peace demonstrations. I have not voiced concern, nor am I concerned that they are being covered. I would be concerned if they **were not.
[/quote]
I may disagree with what some people are saying, but these are difficult times where as a country we’re being faced with difficult and controversial decisions.
People are going to feel strongly about it and want to make their voices heard.
I have absolutely no problem with demonstrations against Bush, or the war, or the media covering it, especially if I disagree with the demonstrators themselves.
So, I don’t understand this need to lie, and make things up, and pretend that people are arguing something they are not.
??? Detroit auto show? I’m sorry but I don’t understand the connection between the Detroit Auto show and anti-war protests. Do you think the Detroit auto show is more newsworthy and didn’t get enough attention?
Like I and others have said: it’s timely. We’re at the brink of war we’ve seen news on it almost every day for some time. This is more news concerning the possibility of that war. What’s the stretch?
—And it sounds like something Neville Chamberlain would have said, who negotiated for “peace in our time,” got a temporary peace at a horrible price and ended up with the most terrible war the world had every seen.—
S, funny. I’m all for kicking Saddam’s ass at any time for NO REASON AT ALL- simply because he sucks and abuses his people. But even I can see how cravenly silly this example is: arguing from hindsight on one case of appeasement that didn’t work. There is nothing more idiotic than looking to analougies from history to decide what is right: so idiotic that during the first Iraqi war there were people seriously arguing over whether it would be another Munich or another Vietnam. Obviously, these both represent dangers of potential policies… but we already knew that. The case still has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Every thread ends up becoming an argument for or against the war but let’s try to get back to the OP in which december says the demonstrations of a couple dozen people are getting too much attention. And when shown the demonstrations were huge he compares them with the Chicago Auto Show. WTF?? Does this make any sense to anybody? Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the numbers of people who have demonstrated against the war with the numbers of people who have demonstrated in support of the war? Huh? How about that december? Does that make sense to you? How many people demonstrated in support of the war?
Between fourteen and eighteen buses traveled from Minnesota, a trip between twenty and twenty-four hours (we had very fast drivers so it was twenty). My nineteen year old daughter and her best friend also went.
Looking either up or down the street, I could see no end to the people.
International Answer gave its own estimates, which were much larger than those of mainstream media.
While eating in Tortilla Coast in Washington that night, we heard a newscast that put it at 30,000, and also said that, at that time, NO ARRESTS had been made, which made us proud.
Craven? Idiotic?
It’s hardly as craven or idiotic as deconstructing a comment to pretend your opponent is doing something he’s not so you can denounce it. It seems to me that this is rapidly becoming the primary technique here in GD.
Maybe not so obvious to one who advocates peace at any cost, which is the context within which I made my remark.
Here’s how to fight that: Be ready to explain and build upon your pithy one-liners without rancor, no matter how underappreciated you feel your brilliance was by those you “wooshed.”
“Peace at any cost”? Now who’s deconstructing comments to derive false meanings? You made your remark in the context of a reply to David Simmons, who was advocating peace as a priority. The cost/benifit analysis of that priority in the context of Iraq had only been explored (by David in his posts) only to the extent that Bush’s case for war had been criticized as a weak justification.
But Saddam is beating the war drums. He knows that he’s in material breach. How can we avoid war now unless he suddenly cooperates? Exile?
Anti-war protesters deserve some media attention. I don’t see the big deal.
Passing over december’s laughable reference to the Detroit Auto Show -
It is dangerous to attempt conclusions based on the comparative numbers of pro- and antiwar demonstrators.
Those who find official/legal sanction for their views are much less likely to hit the streets. To cite another example, anti-abortion rights protestors typically far outnumber pro-abortion rights demonstrators, but this does not have real significance as far as beliefs among the populace as a whole.
Scylla, I hope you’re aware that David Simmons has just a little more direct experience with fighting for peace than you do. Word to the wise, okay?
I agree, but I am trying to compare things which are more related than the auto show. Now, if Bush decides to not go to war, how many people would hit the streets to demonstrate in favor of war as the adequate solution to the crisis?
I am not trying to prove anything except that the OP is really, really silly, and I think we pretty much all agree on that.
xeno:
Is the churlish bad advice necessary? It doesn’t even make sense, as Simmons didn’t ask me what it meant before he announced that it meant that I thought “all attempts at keeping peace were appeasement,” and that my point of view was “shallow.” And, your attemtp to chide me is also unwarranted, as I am happy to explain when politely asked, as I did for Spiny. And, surely any amount of readiness that I posessed to explain my thinking or motivations didn’t stop you from assigning them to me without asking here, as you’ve stated your conclusion that my motivation is that I feel my brilliance is underapreciated.
You are. He didn’t say “priority.” He said “duty.”
“a duty of government is to preserve peace where it exists and promote it where it doesn’t.”
Sure sounds like peace at any cost to me. There’s nothing in there about a “fair” peace, or justice, or any other qualifier.
"
“Churlish”?
Whatever you say, Scylla. You’d know, if anyone would.
Nope. He said it “sounded like” you thought all such attempts were appeasement. That was rather a broad invitation to elucidate your comment.
You’re the one who told him he’d been wooshed, and that a “clever person” might’ve seen your remark as a clever one-liner, “ar Tomndeb did” (except that tomndebb called it a clever “cheap shot”). That was after you complained about how it was no fun to explain your smart-ass quips. Your own words support my conclusion.
Actually, he asked the question whether it wasn’t “a goal” of the government to preserve and promote peace. (His words are right there on page 1.) Sounds quite different from “the primary duty at any cost” to me. But maybe that’s just because I can distinguish between rhetorical questions and declarative sentences.
I dunno, Scylla… it seems to me as if you’re not serious about this debating stuff. I think I’ll go over there and share a beer with Simmons. Shout over at us if you get serious.
xeno:
Seeing as you’ve served no purpose other than to chide me, I’d hardly call it debating. I’m hoping I can take you at your word with your resolution not to engage me again without invitation. May I?
You’re still having trouble understanding simple English sentences, aren’t you? I made no such resolution.
Find a small child to explain it to you.