Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mania · Oct 22, 2006, 07:40 PM

United for Peace: 4th Anniversary of War in Iraq: A Call to Action from UFPJ

Its time to put your money where your mouth is. I plan to travel from Colorado. I know there are a lot of war hawks on here so maybe you guys can come and setup a counter protest of 1000 people vs one million. Nothing like this has happened since Vietnam. Be a part.

macintologist · Oct 22, 2006, 11:04 PM

YouTube - Peace love and anti-semitism?

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 08:51 AM

I was driving home last week and there was a 'protester' holding a 'peace' sign in front of the town fountain where a lot of the traffic passes.

Over the past few years I've seen a few gatherings by college students and democrats protesting the war. I haven't really thought much of it one way or the other, but seeing this lone guy with his peace sign made me think.

You're alone and its obvious we ain't gonna just pull out. What are you thinking?

Millennium · Oct 23, 2006, 08:56 AM

I've often wondered: what is it that the peace protesters really want? Do they want the conflict in Iraq to end, or do they want the suffering in Iraq to end? I ask this because I'm not sure these are as synonymous as many anti-war folks seem to believe, and if it came down to one or the other, I wonder which one they'd choose.

Nicko · Oct 23, 2006, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've often wondered: what is it that the peace protesters really want? Do they want the conflict in Iraq to end, or do they want the suffering in Iraq to end? I ask this because I'm not sure these are as synonymous as many anti-war folks seem to believe, and if it came down to one or the other, I wonder which one they'd choose.

Or it could be that they are connecting the dots and that it is the US invasion and occupation of Iraq that is fueling the civil war.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 09:13 AM

Us pulling out isn't going to solve that problem. Guaranteed.

Ghoser777 · Oct 23, 2006, 09:14 AM

Unfortunately, I don't think staying there will solve that problem either.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 09:18 AM

I fear you're right.

chabig · Oct 23, 2006, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've often wondered: what is it that the peace protesters really want? Do they want the conflict in Iraq to end, or do they want the suffering in Iraq to end? I ask this because I'm not sure these are as synonymous as many anti-war folks seem to believe, and if it came down to one or the other, I wonder which one they'd choose.

I believe that the peace protesters are selfish. They don't care about the suffering of others as long as they don't personally have to be involved.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by chabig

I believe that the peace protesters are selfish. They don't care about the suffering of others as long as they don't personally have to be involved.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of them supported an intervention into Darfur.

ghporter · Oct 23, 2006, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Or it could be that they are connecting the dots and that it is the US invasion and occupation of Iraq that is fueling the civil war.

I wouldn't call it "fueling" the civil war. I think that a number of insurgent groups with their own agendas are using Iraq to make a statement-and each statement is full of hate and violence. At least WE intended to be there to make things safe (whatever else you think about the reasons for the invasion, our stated and functional purpose since passifying the Iraqi military has been to produce a safe, civil nation out of what had been for decades a totalitarian despotism). The insurgent groups seem to be there to 1) kill other Muslims who happen to listen to different Imams 2) kill Americans just because, and 3) keep things unstable for as long as possible.

Whatever reason we went into Iraq, we have had to deal with a huge number of people who want to take advantage of the relative anarchy there to kill other people. We have had to deal with neighboring countries whose leaders talk out of both sides of their mouths and allow/encourage radical clerics (whose motivations are apparently all death to everyone who doesn't pray in their mosque) and provide money and support to any group that hurts people other than the ruling party's supporters. And having the American people confused about our purpose and intentions in Iraq by NOT BOTHERING TO ACT LIKE WE'RE SERIOUS, NOT ENSURING MILITARY LEADERS ARE DOING THEIR FARKING JOBS AND NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS WE ALREADY HAVE THERE is the worst problem.

If we pull out with chaos on the ground, several thousand U.S. troops will have died FOR NOTHING. And the world will be able to say truthfully that we goobered up Iraq but good. If we actually get our act together and come up with a PLAN for controlling the borders and keeping the outside fighters out, then getting all the internal groups to stop acting like three year olds who had their baloons popped, THEN we might actually get something done.

Doofy · Oct 23, 2006, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I'm not sure I agree with that. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of them supported an intervention into Darfur.

And if there was an intervention into Darfur, in three years' time that same percentage would be out protesting the US presence there.

I've come to the conclusion that these people would protest about Kraft cheese slices being square if there wasn't anything else for them to protest against. It's what they do. It's their form of entertainment.

Amnesty International is a good starting point to observe their behaviour:

"Saddam is a tyrant - someone must do something about him".
"Saddam is killing his own people - someone really must do something about him"
"You removed Saddam and invaded Iraq! You bastards!"

It's all about the negative with these people. It's all about the whining. You'll notice that in every instance all they do is criticise what other people do - it's never we must do something about this situation, it's always someone else must do something.

And I'm sure there's a bit of anti-west, anti-capitalism feeling mixed in there too. If it was just about being anti-war, why aren't there a million protesters walking in London this weekend to protest about the NK nuke tests? NK's nukes are designed for war, aren't they?

Dr Reducto · Oct 23, 2006, 09:55 AM

Great, more ineffectual liberals will do another pointless march. Im sure that the government will know we oppose the war now. I go to a lot of protests (I cover them), and mostly it's just college kids "looking for a cause". I think it's a joke. And I don't even support the war!

Really, if the people doing this were serious, they should all get some guns and converge on the capitol. That'd get some things changed

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Really, if the people doing this were serious, they should all get some guns and converge on the capitol. That'd get some things changed

That'd also be incredibly hypocritical.

RAILhead · Oct 23, 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by mania

United for Peace: 4th Anniversary of War in Iraq: A Call to Action from UFPJ

Its time to put your money where your mouth is. I plan to travel from Colorado. I know there are a lot of war hawks on here so maybe you guys can come and setup a counter protest of 1000 people vs one million. Nothing like this has happened since Vietnam. Be a part.

I AM LIKE, SO, TOTALLY THERE, D00D!!!!11!

I'll bring the sharpies, you bring the poster board!!!11! WE WILL BE ON TEH TEEVEE and MAKING TEH HISTORY. w00T!!!!1!!

MARCHING pwns BIG BROTHER!!!1

Hawkeye_a · Oct 23, 2006, 10:23 AM

Im a bit confused myself. Before the invasion i was against invading Iraq, but i was also against Saddam's regime. Now, on a positive side, Saddam has been removed from power, his tyrany dismantled, some basic form of democracy implemented, but the bloodshed continues.

I can sympathize with nationalist-iraquis who dont want foreign troops o nthie soil, but to what extent ? that they kill each other ? And if we do pull out, all hell will break loose between the two feuding muslim camps, with the Kurds caught in the middle.....on one side you'll have saudi arabia and on the other iran trying to salvage what they can of "iraq".

Im not sure if i want the troops to leave. i was aginst the war thats for sure, but going forward, i dont think it would be a good decision to abandon Iraq, especially with psychotic neighbours like Saudi and Iran.

As much as invading Iraq has tainted America's image in the world... abandoning it to these wolves wont exactly improve America's image on this matter.

chabig · Oct 23, 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I'm not sure I agree with that. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of them supported an intervention into Darfur.

Probably so. The difference is that the US had no real interest in Darfur. Armed conflict is OK with them as long as the US has no interest in the outcome. If the US stands to benefit from the outcome, then all hell breaks loose. These people aren't really against war or conflict. They are against the United States.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by chabig

Probably so. The difference is that the US had no real interest in Darfur. Armed conflict is OK with them as long as the US has no interest in the outcome. If the US stands to benefit from the outcome, then all hell breaks loose. These people aren't really against war or conflict. They are against the United States.

Well I can't say i agree with the US only going to war when it suits them best.

Or if they do, then stop pretending they're doing everyone a big favor. Own up and say you're doing it for yourselves, nothing more, nothing less.

OreoCookie · Oct 23, 2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I wouldn't call it "fueling" the civil war. I think that a number of insurgent groups with their own agendas are using Iraq to make a statement-and each statement is full of hate and violence. At least WE intended to be there to make things safe (whatever else you think about the reasons for the invasion, our stated and functional purpose since passifying the Iraqi military has been to produce a safe, civil nation out of what had been for decades a totalitarian despotism). The insurgent groups seem to be there to 1) kill other Muslims who happen to listen to different Imams 2) kill Americans just because, and 3) keep things unstable for as long as possible.

For sure, the indefinite presence of US troops is fueling the civil war. If there was a time-table of troop withdrawal (which can be anything from now to withdrawal in over the next few years), the political establishment would be stabilized.

Originally Posted by ghporter

If we pull out with chaos on the ground, several thousand U.S. troops will have died FOR NOTHING. And the world will be able to say truthfully that we goobered up Iraq but good. If we actually get our act together and come up with a PLAN for controlling the borders and keeping the outside fighters out, then getting all the internal groups to stop acting like three year olds who had their baloons popped, THEN we might actually get something done.

How probable is that scenario even under the best circumstances? IMHO, not very. For me, the more important question is: how many more (= troops and civilians) will die because of this?

Sky Captain · Oct 23, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

If we pull out with chaos on the ground, several thousand U.S. troops will have died FOR NOTHING. And the world will be able to say truthfully that we goobered up Iraq but good.

This is the real adgenda of the left.
It's got nothing to do with peace.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

This is the real adgenda of the left.
It's got nothing to do with peace.

You really have some interesting theories on that 'Left'

Sky Captain · Oct 23, 2006, 11:38 AM

The organizers at the top have tricked their followers into thinking their rallies are for peace.
But it's all a big political campaign. A big administration bashing forum where a million hapless "protesters" can bash Bush and pat themselves on the back.

Granted, it's time to start turning the government over to the Iraqi people.
If they truly want peace, they will have it.
If they want to wholesale slaughter each other, then so be it.
We got critisized for not doing this during GW1.
Well folks, now you have it. Don't waste it.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 11:42 AM

So your comments apply to the people at the top.

Like neoconservative conspiracies and Karl Rove, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

Mark Larr · Oct 23, 2006, 11:45 AM

It ain't a war protest until you go and get yersleves a KentState™.

Mark Larr · Oct 23, 2006, 11:46 AM

I already gotcher name for it.

The Million Moonbat March!

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 11:50 AM

Your wit is astounding.

King Bob On The Cob · Oct 23, 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

For sure, the indefinite presence of US troops is fueling the civil war. If there was a time-table of troop withdrawal (which can be anything from now to withdrawal in over the next few years), the political establishment would be stabilized.

I'll argue that point. Even if we pull out, the current government is not strong enough to stabilize the area. It'll take time.

Are you willing to give the Iraqi people the time they need?

sek929 · Oct 23, 2006, 11:55 AM

It's easy to discard these people as "moonbats"

But the only thing it sucessfully does is show your own narrow-minded views.

We are fighting for the sake of our own country's wellbeing with this attack on Fundi-Islam, right? Isn't one of our freedoms the right to protest?

Seems if you were any sort of American you could agree with the war and praise your fellow Americans for expressing their rights.

Alas, you are probably to partisan to think in such ways, for shame Mark Larr.

Sky Captain · Oct 23, 2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

So your comments apply to the people at the top.

Like neoconservative conspiracies and Karl Rove, only on the other side of the political spectrum.

Quite possibly.

Neoconservative by WIlipedia's definition. Or should I say a bloggers.

In any event these, rallies have lost the true meaning and purpose.

Millennium · Oct 23, 2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Or it could be that they are connecting the dots and that it is the US invasion and occupation of Iraq that is fueling the civil war.

If that's true, then it's a problem, because the insurgent groups don't just oppose the US: many of them also oppose each other. If the US leaves, that removes one party from the conflict, but only one of many. There will still be plenty of parties left to continue the war long after the US leaves. One might say that the US touched off this mess (or, perhaps more accurately, allowed it to escalate into the current state of violence), but US absence will not stop it anymore.

This is why I say there's a choice to make between ending the conflict and ending the suffering. The morality of going into Iraq in the first place can be debated endlessly, but even if the US leaves, it's not possible to un-invade. We need to be thinking about this in the context of the present reality, not second-guessing things that cannot be undone. In the end, that may be the biggest reason I don't side with the peace protesters: too much of their platform seems to be depend on the existence of some kind of Undo switch, rather than fixing the problems that we have caused.

Mark Larr · Oct 23, 2006, 12:03 PM

For shame the only POV that is acceptable to shreiking Moonbats™ is their own.

Otherwise a dissenting POV is shouted down with hatred and vitrol as the Moonbats™ are on the side of our enemy and welcome them with outstretched necks.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

In any event these, rallies have lost the true meaning and purpose.

Like I said, I don't get protesting the war at this point.

itai195 · Oct 23, 2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Otherwise a dissenting POV is shouted down with hatred and vitrol as the Moonbats™ are on the side of our enemy and welcome them with outstretched necks.

One of the most ironic sentences I've ever read.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

For shame the only POV that is acceptable to shreiking Moonbats™ is their own.

Otherwise a dissenting POV is shouted down with hatred and vitrol as the Moonbats™ are on the side of our enemy and welcome them with outstretched necks.

It's a shame you think your name calling is ok.

Mark Larr · Oct 23, 2006, 12:10 PM

Neocon isn't namecalling?

Puhlease.

If the left had been looking for a solution instead of blame, then they may have kept their credibility.

But they are all too predictable, cower to the enemy and offer your head.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Neocon isn't namecalling?

Last time I checked neoconservatives were a legitimate subset of the right portion of the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

If the left had been looking for a solution instead of blame, then they may have kept their credibility.

But they are all too predictable, cower to the enemy and offer your head.

Do they cower to conservatives and offer their heads?

Doofy · Oct 23, 2006, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

For shame the only POV that is acceptable to shreiking Moonbats™ is their own.

Word.

Doofy · Oct 23, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Last time I checked neoconservatives were a legitimate subset of the right portion of the political spectrum.

Last time I checked, NeoCons were (by their own definition) "Liberals who've woken up to reality". They actually come from the left side of the spectrum.

Mark Larr · Oct 23, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Do they cower to conservatives and offer their heads?

Conservatives can't take what has already been offered to our enemies, the islamofascists, the utopian ideal of the left.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Last time I checked, NeoCons were (by their own definition) "Liberals who've woken up to reality". They actually come from the left side of the spectrum.

That's nice and all, but does that have anything to do with it supposedly being a slur?

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Conservatives can't take what has already been offered to our enemies, the islamofascists, the utopian ideal of the left.

Offered, but not taken. So its there waiting if the Left has really laid down.

Doofy · Oct 23, 2006, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

That's nice and all, but does that have anything to do with it supposedly being a slur?

Just correcting your "last time I checked neoconservatives were a legitimate subset of the right portion of the political spectrum" statement. That's all. Don't drag me into your catfight.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Just correcting your "last time I checked neoconservatives were a legitimate subset of the right portion of the political spectrum" statement. That's all. Don't drag me into your catfight.

I guess it depends how you look at it. I was unaware that guys like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz used to be liberals.

Sky Captain · Oct 23, 2006, 12:51 PM

And I alway took neocon to be a play on neonazi. A slur.

Nicko · Oct 23, 2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And I alway took neocon to be a play on neonazi. A slur.

It's not a slur if thats what they call themselves.

OreoCookie · Oct 23, 2006, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I'll argue that point. Even if we pull out, the current government is not strong enough to stabilize the area. It'll take time.

Are you willing to give the Iraqi people the time they need?

What's there to argue? You make a plan for withdrawal, the duration of the withdrawal may be years (as I indicated), but right now there is no clear idea what to do, no clear indication of a strategy – any strategy.

I don't think an immediate withdrawal is the right answer – but neither is staying indefinitely. Because otherwise, the US risks another Vietnam (morally, not militarily).

ironknee · Oct 23, 2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I AM LIKE, SO, TOTALLY THERE, D00D!!!!11!

I'll bring the sharpies, you bring the poster board!!!11! WE WILL BE ON TEH TEEVEE and MAKING TEH HISTORY. w00T!!!!1!!

MARCHING pwns BIG BROTHER!!!1

right and you were the one with the common good post.

right moving along

Sky Captain · Oct 23, 2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

It's not a slur if thats what they call themselves.

Except I've personally heard a conservative refer to themselves as a "neocon".
Just as I've never heard true liberals refer to themselves as "leftists".

When someone calls smeone a "neocon" it believe it's meant to be berating.

placebo1969 · Oct 23, 2006, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

It's not a slur if thats what they call themselves.

Neoconserative may have been coined by a conservative, but it has been co-opted and shortened to "neocon" as a pejorative.

Millennium · Oct 23, 2006, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

It's not a slur if thats what they call themselves.

Go to any rap concert and start tossing the N-word around. Unless you're actually black, I think you'll find they have a very different opinion about what makes something a slur.