That doesn’t look like explaining a pithy one-liner without rancor.
Do me a favor. Don’t waste my time with your hypocritical attempts at moral mothering. Your snide comments in the transparent guise of advice are a waste my time, and disapointing as well, since I found myself admiring your style and content in our last encounter.
I’m responding to you in kind, Scylla. My initial advice to you in this thread was entirely serious, as was my observation that you don’t seem serious about debating. Rather, you want to score rhetorically, regardless of the contribution to the debate.
I’ll be happy to contribute more than clarifications of other people’s remarks here, if you’ll stop distorting them. Simple.
And I’m not your moral mother. Stand up straight.
By the way, the “find a small child” comment was a reference to your OP a while back which urged us to frame all arguments in the same manner in which a toddler would phrase them, as a test for their validity.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=114279&highlight=Scylla+AND+argument
xeno:
I don’t believe you. You saw no need to chide anybody else but myself. Suggesting that I am upset that my “brilliance is being underappreciated” certainly doesn’t come off as a helpful comment, but as an excuse for sarcasm.
I am not interested in your “advice.” I don’t trust your motivations, or honesty in that reggasrd. I have not been interested in your advice or observations the last several times you have offered it. It is neither helpful nor constructive. If you have an issue, go notify a mod, or start a pit thread. Failing that you can do us both a favor and attend to your own debating technique rather than presuming to correct mine. That’s my advice to you.
Fine with me.
I already broke that down for you once. You were the one bemoaning DS’ failure to get your “cleverness”. You were the one who claimed a remark of great wit had just wooshed over his head, and refused to clarify it. Stand by what you said or retract it, but don’t bitch about being called on it.
Well. Thanks for telling me my advice is dishonest and dubious. But hey, looks good on you, huh?
Here’s the debating technique I’m likely to stick with: when I see rank dishonesty and rudeness drive out experience and wisdom through sheer offensiveness, I like to step in; I know how to counter that crap. Since you seem to be the premier purveyor of sophistry and distortion here, we knock heads often. Welcome to my bailiwick.
For the record, regarding this “debate”, my position is that the peace protests are getting the media play the numbers deserve; nothing unusual here. As far as GWB’s pending war, I remain unconvinced that armed invasion is not somewhere between dangerously stupid and merely callously irresponsible.
Brutus:
People, including myself, began to question what our government was doing. (I had signed a petition in support of the war in the mid-sixties.) And the more that people questioned, the more those in powerful positions began to squirm and discuss and rethink and challenge. I am firmly convinced that the Vietnam protests were instrumental in bringing about an end to the war – especially when so many veterans became part of the movement.
In the years following the war in Southeast Asia, it became increasingly clear that the protesters had been right. We had been lied to! The domino theory was wrong. Women and men were being senselessly slaughtered – including our own military.
Protests did not stop the war in Eastern Europe or the war in the Gulf. But I have every respect for those who did make their opposition known. I think that I have already answered your question about a tangible goal – getting us OUT of Vietnam.
There is also a strong possibility that we would have been at war with Iraq months ago if it had not been for those who were very vocal about trying diplomacy through the UN again and giving the inspectors a chance. Who knows if it will make a difference this time? The President may turn a deaf ear to us, but members of Congress can’t do that when the numbers get even larger as they did i the 1960’s and 1970’s. They may not be so concerned about peaceful solutions but they are concerned about being re-elected.
If you don’t know the truth of what I am saying and you have made an effort to educate yourself on the subject, the chances are that what I say is not going to change your mind. I do think that most Americans acknowledge now that that war was unjust and unnecessary.
Have you read MacNamara’s account of what was going on inside the administration?
In the words of President Nixon,
Wasn’t it Nixon who got us out of Vietnam eventually? (The same Nixon who created the EPA; Why doesn’t the left love him?) I think that it is more hubris than fact that leads former protesters to think that somehow they made a difference. America pulled out of Vietnam because Nixon decided that it was in our best interests to do so; Not because of flower power.
**
**
Domino theory was wrong? Somebody better tell Laos and Cambodia!
**
**
Again, I think it is far more likely that the protests had little, if any, bearing on how long we were in Vietnam.
While I support the legal right of people to peaceably assemble (No smashing of Starbucks windows please!), I remain dubious of the effectiveness of protests and demonstrations and whatnot.
Xeno:
If you have a problem take it to the pit or notify a mod.
Forget it, Xeno. It’s Chinatown.
“Why doesn’t the left love him?”
Tough one! Let’s see now, just off the top of my head…
Because he was a weeping pustule on the rectum of the body politic. A racist, hateful, paranoid, anti-Semitic cycnic prone to mouthing righteous pieties. There is a considerable body of evidence that he and Kissinger deliberately sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks of '68. He should be stood up to a wall in Arlington Cemetary and shot. I know he’s dead. So what? He supported and covered up for a regime in Chile that murdered an American citizen in downtown Washington, DC.
In his defense, it must be noted that almost certainly never recieved any oral sex in the Oval Office.
Yup. Thanks.
Couldn’t have had anything to do with the American People turning aganist the war could it brutus? I was under the impression that increasing dissatisfaction at home, as evidenced by the large and vocal anti-war movement was one of the primary reasons America Pulled out of Vietnam.
Better tell those godless commie bastards in India, Pakistan and the rest of South East Asia as well eh?
Yes, all the demonstrations in Eastern Europe about 13-14 years ago were remarkably ineffective and the Civil rights protesters in America during the sixties completly failed to influence the government in any way. Mass Protest can strongly influence a governments actions although I doubt that will be the case with the protests mentioned in the OP.
Well, there is one major difference between the anti-war movement now and the one against the Vietnam war in the late 60s: labor’s already involved. Unions from across the US sent contingents to both DC and San Francisco. A number of the largest locals from the biggest unions have launched “US Labor Against the War” (some info) to get the anti-war message out to organized labor. This is before the war on Iraq has even started. There was nothing like this when the anti-war movement around Vietname was just getting off the ground.
I was at the last anti-war demonstration here in October and I was out there last weekend. Based on conversations with members of the press and other observers of such mass gatherings, I’m quite confident in stating that the quotes of “tens of thousands” are drastic underestimations. While I don’t think there were the 500,000 claimed by International ANSWER (“Act Now to Stop War and End Racism”, to refresh an earlier poster’s memory), there were definitely between 200,000 and 300,000 out on the streets of DC on the 18th. If it were even 80,000, as some of the higher “official” reports have claimed, there wouldn’t have been contingents still waiting to start the march from the National Mall at 5:00 PM when the head of the march was finally reaching the Navy Yard over a mile away. The streets were packed.
Godwin’s Law already?
how come they got so much attention? They were all relatively small. they seemed to be a bunch of 60’s hippywannabees. Here’s an inside look from a non-liberal media source:
While protesters labeled 9/11 “a drop in the bucket” and compared it to breaking a nail, what did they see as a serious terrorist threat? A glance at the thousands of signs on the Mall revealed the answer. Placards read: “USA Is #1 Terrorist,” “Bush Is a Terrorist,” “The NYPD Are Terrorists Too,” and “Get the Terrorists Out of the White House.”
"Reesa Rosenberg, a Muslim from New Jersey, came to the nation’s capital bearing a sign that read “Bush Is the Real Terrorist.” “When it comes down to it, it’s all for oil and global domination,” she believes. “It’s almost like Hitler”
“A table display exhorting passersby to defend North Korea’s right to nuclear weapons or an activist who cheered in vain for a policeman to fall off a fire-escape ladder 30-feet above a Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant were typical of the happenings at this weekend’s rally cast aside by too many reporters covering the demonstration. Instead, the media treated viewers and readers to a sanitized version of the action, which depicted protesters as patriots acting in the American tradition of dissent. Harmless old ladies, middle-American Republicans, and well-dressed students, and not someone like Reesa Rosenberg, were the folks shown on television or quoted in the newspaper.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-flynn012003.asp
IMO, if Ms. Rosenberg wants to see what Hitler was like, she can jump on the next plane to Baghdad and walk around the streets there with a sign saying “Saddam is the Real Terrorist.” How do you think Saddam would execute her? Poison Gas, head cut off, hanging, firing squad?
Uh…huh. So if a table with a slogan saying “Defend North Korea’s Rights to Nukes” is set up at a demonstration, that means the whole demonstration supports it? If one (obviously very stupid) protestor cheers for a policeman to fall off a 30-foot ladder, the whole demonstration wants him to fall off? You ever think reporters might not have included such things because they didn’t reflect the general mood of the whole demonstration?
Just because a newspaper or magazine bills itself as “non-liberal” doesn’t mean it somehow automatically sheds the cloak of bias and becomes purely objective. Especially a periodical like the National Review.
Boo, boo, booooooooo! 
I want to jump in with a couple of random comments (I’m going to paraphrase the original comments):
-“Only a few dozen people across from the White House” may not sound like a lot, but that’s all that’s permissable by law. I saw Chief Ramsay stating that no more than 25 people can assemble in Lafayette Park due to White House security issues.
-I live less than 2 miles from the Mall and would estimate the crowd at about 100,000-150,000 on Saturday, almost no turnout on Sunday (if they were around, I didn’t see em)
-The large majority of the protesters were assembling peacefully and causing no problems. However, towards the end several people were arrested for entering a restricted area- they did this on purpose in order to get arrested. In addition, the INS building was badly vandalized. I understand that there were bigger problems with unruly protesters in San Francisco.
-“What have demonstrations ever proved?”- Protests have proved something, notably with the civil rights movement. IMHO, pics of protesters in Alabama getting hit with firehoses and having police dogs sicced on em for simply asking for the same rights most people had did a lot to turn public opinion in favor of the civil rights movement (I am NOT comparing these protests to the civil rights movement, just pointing out that protests can be effective).
-“As I read the news, the least likely thing the Israelis need to worry about is an attack from Iraq.” According to my co-worker (who’s an Israeli) they’re currently passing out gas masks in several places in Israel. Not to mention the $25,000 payments Saddam’s made to the families of suicide bombers.
-As for the Detroit Auto Show numbers, no one can see a comparison between protesters with “no war for oil” signs and people paying good money to see the latest gas guzzlers?
Just because the writer only pointed out a few events doesn’t mean more didn’t take place…
why didn’t any of the protesters stop such disgusting behavior? maybe they didn’t disagree with it or didn’t see the lunacy in it?
ever read the boards at the democtratic underground? go check them out…you’ll see the completely lunacy of the far left.
Or, just maybe, since they actually believe in the American principle of free speech, they saw no point in “stopping” someone whose point of view differed from theirs.
The Far Left, (of which most of the protestors have not been members) does, indeed, include many lunatic positions. On the other hand, it seems that it is the Far Right in this thread that wants to shut down American values to “save” America.
(Maybe we can find a village to destroy so that we can save it?)
Boo excellent suggestion with the DU! I am especially fond of the “Top 10 Conservative Idiots” weekly review.
Good work, albeit unintentional, in the ongoing struggle for peace and justice! Today you did your part!