The Global Protest Against The War...

[p_p_man]

is now underway...

Demonstrations everywhere and anywhere...

Japan and Russia have thousands in the streets, as has Europe...

And as America awakes you'll be joining the rest of us in showing Bush he's acting like a Bush...

Not like an American...

ppman

 

[Guest]

OK, I'm bored so I'll join in.

What would you do if you were Bush?

 

[miles]

OK, I'm bored so I'll join in.

What would you do if you were Bush?

He wouldn't be a recovering alcoholic.

 

[Guest]

He wouldn't be a recovering alcoholic.

LOL!

 

[eagleyez]

OK, I'm bored so I'll join in.

What would you do if you were Bush?

Well, for starters, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Every time he speaks he reminds us all what a moron he is.





Evidence his University of Michigan speech-

can you spell D U M B A S S ?

I think Dan Quayle is a brainsurgeon compared to Shrub!

P O T A T O.....

 

[miles]

is now underway...

Demonstrations everywhere and anywhere...

Japan and Russia have thousands in the streets, as has Europe...

And as America awakes you'll be joining the rest of us in showing Bush he's acting like a Bush...

Not like an American...

ppman

You made that up.

Nothing on CNN's website or any other. Must be more enlightenment from The Guardian.

Put down the bottle. You're hallucinating.

Pity...

How pathetic.

 

[Guest]

Does he always start threads and then leave?

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

You made that up.

Nothing on CNN's website or any other. Must be more enlightenment from The Guardian.

Put down the bottle. You're hallucinating.

Pity...

How pathetic.

Nothing in the the New York Times either...

Plenty in the rest of the world's media though...

I suppose you can see that as proof positive that Americans are
still heavily censored as to what they are allowed to know...

ppman

 

[miles]

Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

Nothing in the the New York Times either...

Plenty in the rest of the world's media though...

I suppose you can see that as proof positive that Americans are
still heavily censored as to what they are allowed to know...

ppman

Oh, yes, proof positive...

Where is it reported?

I can wait.

 

[busybody..]

Does the peace movement really have good intentions?

No.
Former Marine officer Adam G. Mersereau fingers the foolish utopianism of the so-called peace movement, which is that the USA is the wellspring of all misery in the world.

The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace, simply by choosing to lay down its arms. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U.N. directives and treaties, and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace, then peace would prevail by default.
However, Mersereau credits the peaceniks with good intentions while exposing their foolish world view. He seems to think that the real desire of the peace movement is peace. But it isn't.

The "peace movement" isn't about peace

The people of Iraq and North Korea, to pick two random examples, have not been at peace inside their own countries in decades. They share among them hundreds of millions of man-years - and woman- and child-years - of misery, oppression, murder, tyranny, torture, starvation, internal and external terrorism and even slavery, in thrall to the cruel men who ruthlessly rule them.

The wars that these illegitimate governments have waged against their own people and other nations draw not the slightest whimper of protest by "peace" activists, who travel to Baghdad to denounce America and give comfort to the brutal tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

It's past time we understood that western "peace" activists are not interested in peace. They are not for peace.

The two main camps of the peace industry


The Down With America camp - This is the smaller camp active in America. It denounces any and all things American for no other reason than that's what they do. To them America is bad, every place else is good, especially non-European places. (Europe is suspect, but is tolerated because it is no longer religious. One of America's chief faults is that Americans are still religious.) The oppressions and slaughters that people of color regularly wage upon one another is of no interest to this camp except as another thing to blame upon America. This is the sort that Mersereau describes, although, as I said, he erroneously credits them with actually wanting peace.

The Political Identity camp - The larger camp is equally uninterested in peace. Its motivation is pure, partisan politics. It is universally liberal to outright leftist, but not pacifist. Its members do not object to war per se, they mainly object to war being waged by the wrong people. This is the camp referred to by TR Fogey, who links to an article by Michael Totten with this nugget:
While it is unlikely that leftists [the DWA camp - DS] would have supported the war against the Taliban if Hillary Clinton waged it, it is almost certainly true that most mainstream liberals would support the war in Iraq if she were leading the charge against Saddam now. With only one exception, every anti-war liberal I have talked to admits this is true.
That defines the PI camp quite well: their support of or opposition to military force depends almost exclusively on whether their party is the one wielding it. Totten writes,
After weeks of arguing with one of my colleagues, I finally got him to concede that an American military intervention to depose Saddam Hussein is justified and appropriate. I convinced him by sending him reams of information about the brutal nature of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. He really didn’t know, and now he does, and he changed his mind. But with a catch. "This isn't the right American administration to carry out the invasion," he said.

Robert Kagan recently wrote "Yesterday's liberal interventionists, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti, are today's liberal abstentionists. What changed? Just the man in the White House."
Together, these two camps comprise the "peace movement" in America today. It is not possible to grant to either camp the courtesy of good intentions. The DWA camp is virulently anti-American, and therefore pro-fascist, pro-tyranny and pro-oppression, all of which are states of war, not peace.The political identity camp sees peace and war through the lens of whether their own political faction holds power. If so, war may be good. If not, war is always bad.

There are no good intentions to be found anywhere among them.

There are a small number of true pacifists who do not fit into either camp, but their visibility and influence is near negligible. Quakers and Mennonites, for example, generally do not work to undermine America but neither do they support America's wars. However, my personal experience shows that almost all American religious protests against the Bush administration fall into the political identity camp. They almost without exception supported Clinton's war against the Bosnian Serbs and accepted his violent attacks upon Iraq, his cruise-missile campaigns against Afghanistan and Sudan (which killed innocent people) and his invasion of Haiti. But I have already written about the neo-Marxist politicization of the Church.

 

[eagleyez]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

Oh, yes, proof positive...

Where is it reported?

I can wait.

Google news was all over it!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

Oh, yes, proof positive...

Where is it reported?

I can wait.

At the moment it's on all UK TV News Programs...

The newspapers probably won't show anything until their later editions...

You did know that today was the day of protest, didn't you?

ppman

 

[miles]

Does the peace movement really have good intentions?

No.
Former Marine officer Adam G. Mersereau fingers the foolish utopianism of the so-called peace movement, which is that the USA is the wellspring of all misery in the world.

The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace, simply by choosing to lay down its arms. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U.N. directives and treaties, and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace, then peace would prevail by default.
However, Mersereau credits the peaceniks with good intentions while exposing their foolish world view. He seems to think that the real desire of the peace movement is peace. But it isn't.

The "peace movement" isn't about peace

The people of Iraq and North Korea, to pick two random examples, have not been at peace inside their own countries in decades. They share among them hundreds of millions of man-years - and woman- and child-years - of misery, oppression, murder, tyranny, torture, starvation, internal and external terrorism and even slavery, in thrall to the cruel men who ruthlessly rule them.

The wars that these illegitimate governments have waged against their own people and other nations draw not the slightest whimper of protest by "peace" activists, who travel to Baghdad to denounce America and give comfort to the brutal tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

It's past time we understood that western "peace" activists are not interested in peace. They are not for peace.

The two main camps of the peace industry


The Down With America camp - This is the smaller camp active in America. It denounces any and all things American for no other reason than that's what they do. To them America is bad, every place else is good, especially non-European places. (Europe is suspect, but is tolerated because it is no longer religious. One of America's chief faults is that Americans are still religious.) The oppressions and slaughters that people of color regularly wage upon one another is of no interest to this camp except as another thing to blame upon America. This is the sort that Mersereau describes, although, as I said, he erroneously credits them with actually wanting peace.

The Political Identity camp - The larger camp is equally uninterested in peace. Its motivation is pure, partisan politics. It is universally liberal to outright leftist, but not pacifist. Its members do not object to war per se, they mainly object to war being waged by the wrong people. This is the camp referred to by TR Fogey, who links to an article by Michael Totten with this nugget:
While it is unlikely that leftists [the DWA camp - DS] would have supported the war against the Taliban if Hillary Clinton waged it, it is almost certainly true that most mainstream liberals would support the war in Iraq if she were leading the charge against Saddam now. With only one exception, every anti-war liberal I have talked to admits this is true.
That defines the PI camp quite well: their support of or opposition to military force depends almost exclusively on whether their party is the one wielding it. Totten writes,
After weeks of arguing with one of my colleagues, I finally got him to concede that an American military intervention to depose Saddam Hussein is justified and appropriate. I convinced him by sending him reams of information about the brutal nature of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. He really didn’t know, and now he does, and he changed his mind. But with a catch. "This isn't the right American administration to carry out the invasion," he said.

Robert Kagan recently wrote "Yesterday's liberal interventionists, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti, are today's liberal abstentionists. What changed? Just the man in the White House."
Together, these two camps comprise the "peace movement" in America today. It is not possible to grant to either camp the courtesy of good intentions. The DWA camp is virulently anti-American, and therefore pro-fascist, pro-tyranny and pro-oppression, all of which are states of war, not peace.The political identity camp sees peace and war through the lens of whether their own political faction holds power. If so, war may be good. If not, war is always bad.

There are no good intentions to be found anywhere among them.

There are a small number of true pacifists who do not fit into either camp, but their visibility and influence is near negligible. Quakers and Mennonites, for example, generally do not work to undermine America but neither do they support America's wars. However, my personal experience shows that almost all American religious protests against the Bush administration fall into the political identity camp. They almost without exception supported Clinton's war against the Bosnian Serbs and accepted his violent attacks upon Iraq, his cruise-missile campaigns against Afghanistan and Sudan (which killed innocent people) and his invasion of Haiti. But I have already written about the neo-Marxist politicization of the Church.

If you're going to c&p, at least do it honestly. Do you expect anyone to believe you wrote that?

 

[miles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

At the moment it's on all UK TV News Programs...

The newspapers probably won't show anything until their later editions...

You did know that today was the day of protest, didn't you?

ppman

Double-vision frequently occurs while intoxicated.

500 kiddie protesters = 1000

Hic. Puke. Thud.

Coma.

 

[busybody..]

Miles

Did I ever say I did? Why would anyone assume I did? Why couldnt I have written the above anyway?

Instead of looking to piss on me and others.....READ THE DAMN THING!

You are a disturbed creature......and a real schmuck!

 

[eagleyez]

The only true pacifists....

Well, maybe the nature of pacifism is to be less needful of exposure and visibility.

Stay Tuned and you'll see.

Maybe turn off talk radio and put

Your ear tothe ground....

Peace

 

[miles]

Re: Miles

Did I ever say I did? Why would anyone assume I did? Why couldnt I have written the above anyway?

Instead of looking to piss on me and others.....READ THE DAMN THING!

You are a disturbed creature......and a real schmuck!

You have a Jolly Roger superimposed on the flag and you call me disturbed?

ROFLMAO!

 

[busybody..]

Inch Worm

YOU are a disturbed creature!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

Oh, yes, proof positive...

Where is it reported?

I can wait.

It should be on your TV screens now...

ppman

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Global Protest Against The War...

It should be on your TV screens now...

ppman

It's on C-SPAN. Demonstration in Washington D.C.

 

[Problem Child]

If these protesters would quit trying to get the crowd to do a stupid chant every three minutes they'd get a lot more speechifying in.

Left-wingers are so inefficient.

 

[p_p_man]

If these protesters would quit trying to get the crowd to do a stupid chant every three minutes they'd get a lot more speechifying in.

Left-wingers are so inefficient.

I liked the one in Japanese...

Sounded like a cross between the Chipmunks (the cartoon) and Tweety Pie...



ppman

 

[busybody..]

March of the Idiots

All around the world, idiots are doing what they do best—marching and screaming incoherent slogans. But once you get past the headline (Thousands Rally in DC!) you discover that the turnout seems to have been rather, uh ... pathetic.

Demonstrators staged peace rallies worldwide, events that typically drew hundreds or fewer. But 5,000 people marched through downtown Tokyo, carrying toy guns filled with flowers, wearing face masks that parodied President Bush and waving banners. The crowd, made up largely of students and laborers, was orderly.

About 60 protesters in Hong Kong shouted, "War, no," and in Pakistan, the familiar refrain "No blood for oil" rang out.

Several hundred people tried to march on the U.S. consulate in Lahore, but Pakistani authorities held the crowd back. Six were allowed to deliver an appeal to American officials to spare Iraqis from war.

More than 400 New Zealanders demonstrated in Christchurch. In Moscow, a few hundred people agitated outside the U.S. Embassy in a protest organized by a branch of the Communist Party. People turned their backs to the building, and signs called the United States a "Global Cannibal."
Even the Syrians demonstrated solidarity with their useful idiot cousins in the US, although their message was a bit more direct.

In the Syrian capital, Damascus, thousands marched with a message that was not all about peace. Many cried, "Our beloved Saddam, strike Tel Aviv," in celebration of Iraq's missile thrusts against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War and in hope Saddam would strike again. In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians rallied under the same slogan.


Nice crowd the anti-war left hangs out with.

 

[Guest]

Do you numb nuts ever try to answer a question of offer solutions to a problem?

Or do you just bitch all day. And paste articles.

And I'm talking to you, busy p p.

 

[busybody..]

Storm...WTF is the question?

I just don't have the stomach today for lengthy anti-anti-war postings. Having watched nearly and hour of the International ANSWER-sponsored protest, I can see that the speakers consist of the usual combination of bubbleheads, anti-American activists and closet supporters of oppression and brutality, as long as it is committed by regimes opposed to the U.S. For the latter, I refer you to the frequent statements from the podium about the U.S. attack on the "people of Afghanistan." Others have remarked on this, but it is still remarkable that the liberal tradition of supporting equal justice under the law for women and for tiny minorities such as gays and lesbians has mutated into de facto support for the Taliban. In the real world, it would be very hard to create the case for a more just war than that against the Taliban and its friends in Al-Qaeda. But oppose that cause they do, even though it was the guns of the United States that liberated that country from serial amputations, from women-as-cattle, from the brutal execution of homosexuals....If you cannot see this, my dear anti-warriors, you are really too blind to be helped.