Why does there seem to be so much hostility towards anti-war left?

[WI_DEM]

I saw a lot of negativity in the thread dealing with John Kerry owing a huge part of his election anti-war movement-when he wins. This is not the only thread I have seen over the past many months which criticizes the anti-war left and I guess I don't really understand why.

If anything we do owe those who stood up (by the thousands in this country and the millions world wide in the early days of Bush's attempt to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq) a huge Thank You for the actions they took and have taken since the war was launched.

Too many people in Washington and around the country were afraid of standing up to Bush on the war because he was framing his actions as being part of the "war on Terrorism". They were also afraid to stand up to a "war time president" with huge approval ratings.

In the end, movements do make accomplish change. The Civil Rights movement woke up White America to the evils of Jim Crow and people of all colors and faith joined the movement and it took along time but they changed America. The anti-war movement in Vietnam also brought about change by continuing to publically question the policies of our country and helping to elect anti-war representatives. They ultimately were successful as well. The Anti-war left in this country which stood up to Bush's Folly from the beginning also planted the seeds which will be the defeat of the president on November 2nd.

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Because the DLC operatives here are doing the will of their master

..the treasonous son of a bitching PNAC'er Will Marshall.

[sangh0]

9. Here's your answer

Calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with you "DLC operatives" who "do the will of their master" is probably not going to promote a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. I don't want "warm and fuzzy feelings" from the DLC

I want them to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY because they are not now, nor have they ever been, compatible with this party's traditional values. Anyone who endorses even a fraction of the Neocon fascist plan is an enemy of this party and of this country, and I could care less what they think of me.

[sangh0]

44. Good because you're not going to get any

.

[bearfartinthewoods]

155. "compatible with this party's traditional values"

care to list the top three or four in your version?

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LandOLincoln]

100. Ain't it amazing

how much the far left and the far right have in common?

[wyldwolf]

101. funny - I used to think I was pretty far left...

...until I met some real far lefties here.

I swear, they are as looney as the far right. The difference is the far right is more dangerous. They work and fight to get their looney agenda passed. The far left whines and bitches about how unfair everything is and how everyone is out to get them - all the while patting themselves on the back for their obvious superiority over the rest of us.

[LandOLincoln]

103. I thought I was too, but I encountered the Loony Left a long time ago.

Went to my first (and only) Students for a Democratic Society meeting in 1965, I think it was, only to find that while the visiting speaker--one of the SDS founders IIRC, and straight out of Berkeley--was an absolutely brilliant guy and a superb politician, the locals (this was Urbana, IL) were posturing gasbags who fancied themselves great revolutionaries. Pfffft.

Dunno what it is about east central Illinois, but we seem to breed an excess of dotty extremists of both persuasions.

Of course, then there was the time my friends and I gave a ride to a Weatherman at the big demonstration in D.C. the weekend after Kent State. He was not only a posturing gasbag but a drooling idiot as well. Looked & talked just like Mortimer Snerd, but he wasn't from east central Illinois as far as I'm aware...


http://www.the-forum.com/toys/mccarthy.htm

[wyldwolf]

102. Proud and highly paid DLC operative here...

..sent in just to annoy you.

[mhr]

2. The Moderate Wing Of The Democratic Party Is Afraid Of The People

That is why the moderates are more like the republicans than typical democrats.

These people agree with the consolidation of power through corporations since this is where their power begins and ends.

[sangh0]

10. Here's your answer

Describing everyone that disagrees with you as a scared moderate who are similar to Repukes is not going to endear you to those you seek to persuade.

[mhr]

14. I Stopped Trying To Persuade Anyone Long Ago, I Am An Observer Of Fact

If some don't like the fact, tough.

Open your eyes and look at what people do, not what they say.

It is as simple as that!

[sangh0]

40. How defeatist!

Another principled pacifist standing on principle, the principle being "Why should I keep fighting? It's easier to insult"

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

65. More personal attacks

from the crowd that claims to be concerned about the issues (but refuses to do anything about it but complain about how THEY are treated)

[maxanne]

156. luckily

that's not anywhere near the same as describing everyone who disagrees with you as a member of the loony left who has a great deal in common with the far right. Uh, uh - no similiarities at all.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. because we are always coerced to go along with the program

In this case the John Kerry program. And the John Kerry program is pro-war, pro-profit, pro-big business.

When you are in the minority, this is the price you pay. Ignore the hostility and keep up the protest. Keep up the pressure.

[sangh0]

13. Here's your answer

Describing those who disagree with you as using force against you (ie "coercion") and denigrating the Democrat's candidate is not going to endear you to anyone.

You reap what you sow.

Plant ice, harvest wind

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

31. another answer for you

Instead of addressing the issue of name-calling, mhr just performs some

[mhr]

51. Drone On!

eom

[Laughing Mirror]

41. I don't care about being endeared by anyone

I care about the truth.

Apparently, it is you who is reaping what you have sown.

[sangh0]

42. Then don't complain about the hostility

Apparently, it is you who is reaping what you have sown.

Which is why you won't see me starting any threads whining "Why is everybody always picking on me?"

[Laughing Mirror]

46. Where have I complained about hostility?

I said to ignore it, as I'm now going to do with you.

[sangh0]

66. Did you read the original post?

.

[Laughing Mirror]

71. I responded to the original post

and I said to ignore the hostility.

What you must realize is that some of us are natural born protesters. We protest what is wrong. We protest lies. We are not politicians. We do not practice the art of compromise. We do not make concessions just to put your man in. The sooner you realize this, the better.

[sangh0]

72. Well, good for you.

There is no such thing as a "natural born protester". There is such a thing as a natural born complainer.

And many don't just protest lies; They also make them up.

[Laughing Mirror]

81. We are trying to change things to make things better.

Not continue down the path of despair and destruction.

And I am a natural born protester, whether is a concept you are able to understand or not.

And you have not heard me complain, but rather try to explain.

Good-bye.

[sangh0]

82. You've achieved nothing

At least nothing good. Your intentions are meaningless given the absence of results.

We ALL have good intentions. Your whining, and the sanctimonious name-calling in this thread, are typical of the arrogance of those who have achieved NOTHING

[Laughing Mirror]

97. You've lost your mind

Where I have whined or called names?

[tinanator]

112. maybe it lost its place in the harangue?

theres your answer.

[DenverDem]

4. Result of mind control propaganda.

"Liberal" is evil. "Left" is communism. "Anti-war" is cheese eating surrender monkey.

Sheeple believe the lies and fear being labeled by the sub human wrong wingers, when it is actually a badge of courage .

Plus, there are a lot of wrong wing operatives posing as rational humans that troll this site, many of which are professionals sitting in boiler rooms doing it.

[sangh0]

15. Here's your answer

Surprisingly, some people don't like to be called mindless SHeeple

[mhr]

29. Surprisingly, Some People Don't Like Being Told To Fall In Line

Oh, but some just don't get that, do they?

[sangh0]

33. and more name-calling and insults

from the free-speech crowd

[mhr]

52. Drone On!

eom

[DenverDem]

58. Yeah, shut up and get in line.

Time for your shower.

[JVS]

60. Lol. It will say it will help kerry win, or it will face the hose again!

[DenverDem]

57. Truth hurts.

Tough.

[sangh0]

67. That's "Truth"?

There are bigger Truths to deal with than this childish name-calling. I thought that was what the anti-war left was about.

[DenverDem]

80. How about the truth that war is the most counterproductive foreign policy

ever conceived.

Your incessant whining is rather counterproductive as well.

[sangh0]

84. Switching the subject

You were defending how another poster called people "Sheeple", which you said was "the Truth"

Now when challenged, you won't defend calling people Sheeple, and instead pretend you were honorably opposing war.

[DenverDem]

86. You are incorrect again, sir.

I was defending myself for calling obstinantly and willfully ignorant drones who accept obvious prevarication to rationalize the unethical and counterproductive redistribution of wealth called war "sheeple", and that is mild compared to what they deserve to be called.

I was also responding to your comment on "larger truths" so my post was completely appropriate and you are a whining counterproductive milstone around Kerry's neck.

You think any sheeple besides you are even reading this and anything I say is going to change their/your mind? Puleez. Peddle your tiresome red herringisms elsewhere.

[tinanator]

113. maybe they should choose another label, one that applies?

"there are a lot of wrong wing operatives posing as rational humans that troll this site, many of which are professionals sitting in boiler rooms doing it"

[sangh0]

116. Good point

That doesn't really sound like a description of "Sheeple"

[JI7]

5. how about anti-war right ?

like robert byrd.

[WI_DEM]

11. Robert Byrd is a true hero

for his stand on the war and articulated the wrongheadedness of the war as well or better than anybody.

[sangh0]

17. I love the way Byrd helps the energy corporations

while speaking out against their war.

Thanks Bobby!

[JVS]

18. He's a moderate that I like

[nadinbrzezinski]

Ok you will not like this answer

I do not like the antiwar left, for the same reasons I do not like the Pro War Boosters on the right. They have become doctrinaire and for the most part truly neither side fully understands the issues... or can see that the other side just might have a point.

Why don't I like the Anti War Left?

It was a very large blind spot stilll form Bam.. the armed forces... it also has another large blind spot, anti Isaeal with tinges of anti semimitism. (Yes ANSWER did not allow Rabbi Lerner to speak in San Fran, because he was pro Israel and anybody familiar with Tikkun knows just how pro peace the man is)

The right has its own blind spots

But it really comes down to one thing... most of the people on both sides are doctrinaire and incaplable of reasesing the situations as they change...

For the record I am not for the war, but that has been my experience from talkign to the doctrinaire anti war left. Hence my demonstrations, as it were, have been done in places like feeding your congress criters a regular diet of letters and comments, and writing letters to the editor.

In other words, look for some of teh threads where there are attacks on the armed forces, for instance (My husband just retired from the USN), and you will see why there is hostility, and no... it has NOTHING to do wih the DLC but the tactics and words used by the doctrinaire left... (just as the Righties)

[peachy]

7. Sorry but

Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace do not describe the same person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Thanks for making my point about doctrinaire

Look TIKKUN in your browswer.

[WI_DEM]

16. the anti-war left is not necessarily

anti-Israel. I saw people of all walks of life and opinions. The war was just plain wrong and they spoke out on it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. I'm not anti Israel

I'm anti Likud. Likud is anti Israel, just as PNAC is anti American.

[peachy]

6. Kerry is in danger

of causing the anti-war left to Ralph. All the talk of 'Anybody but Bush' is getting quieter as Kerry continues to try and prove that he's tougher than Bush. His Venezuela policy http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_031...
indicates to me that he will continue to support US policies of interfering with democratically elected governments which don't toe the line with respect to US interests...

His recent bout with Bush over oil prices indicate that although he has addressed issues of energy policy, he's not going to stand up for them when the going gets tough.

Kerry cannot win if his only message is "I'm not Bush" and so far thats all I hear. How about you?

[Dr Fate]

144. All I see are bunch of people attacking the Democratic nominee

I was opoosed to going into Iraq as well..

But at this point, I am all about boosting Democrats.

If you dont like being "attacked" then stop "attacking" Democrats.

Dont assume that all anti-war Liberals like me are supporting Bush, Nader or Voo-doo man or whoever either...

[JVS]

12. Because the democratic nominee has no plans to end the war

combine this with a slavering devotion to the party line and it is easy to see where the anger comes from.

[sangh0]

19. And here's your answer

Describing those who disagre with the anti-war left as "slavering devotees to the party line" will not result in LESS animosity to the anti-war left.

[JVS]

21. They don't really disagree. It depends on what Kerry says.

If he says that the war is bad, they'll be the first to proclaim it. If he says the war is justified they'll be they'll proclaim that. It's that slavering devotion talking. Come on, do you really think these people would be bashing anti-war people if the nominee were anti-war?

edit typo

[sangh0]

25. And the anti-war leftists are hypocrits

They complain about war and imperialism, and like to blame everybody but themselves, but they have done NOTHING to prevent imperialism in Iraq. They use imperialism to mask what their primary concern is...atacking Dems. That's why none of the so-called anti-imperialists are doing ANYTHING about it but complain about the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[mhr]

30. What The F**K Are You Talking About?

You are quite obtuse to say the least!

[JVS]

35. You are the one attacking a fine Democrat like Byrd above just for...

being against war. Then you have the gall to point your finger at others. Anti-war people of all political backgrounds are honestly against the war, not to annoy you but because the war sucks.

[sangh0]

37. I criticize Byrd for helping to fund the war

by helping the energy corps (remember them? We're fighting for THEIR profits!!)

And the so-called "anti-war" leftists love him.

[JVS]

50. Bullshit, you trash him because he took a stand that makes Kerry...

look bad in comparison.

What did Byrd do that was so awful? I'd be surprised to hear that he hasn't worked in concert with energy companies, WV has a huge coal mining industry. Next thing you know FL and MI politicians are going to cut deals with Orange and Auto firms, oh the horror!

"And the so-called "anti-war" leftists love him."

Oh shit, you're onto us. How astutely you refer to the war opponents as "so-called" Yes the ugly truth is that all who claim to oppose the war are really pro-war. Yes many like Byrd, despite his socially centrist views because he stands up for us on big issues. I suppose if leftists didn't like him you would accuse them of being ideological purists.

[sangh0]

69. What did Byrd do that was so awful?

That he would vote against impeaching Clinton for getting a blowjob, but ONLY IF Clinton backed EPA rules that would allow coal mining corporations to dump mountaintops into stream beds, which resulted in a loss of wetlands, as well as leaching toxins into the soil and the water supply?

Some stand.

Yes the ugly truth is that all who claim to oppose the war are really pro-war

Not what I said. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of idolizing a man who supports the corporations that started and funded this war.

[JVS]

56. I'm complaining about the present and future!

I'm complaining that Kerry has no plan to get out of Iraq if he gets elected. Those are things that could be rectified

[sangh0]

70. Not true

If you visit Kerry's website, you'll see that he does have a plan.

[JVS]

73. He has no plan there, merely plattitudes.

And they are not about leaving, but rather about staying.


"Plan for Winning the Peace in Post-Saddam Iraq
Saddam’s Capture Represents Opportunity to Rebuild Alliances and Iraq
Speaking in Iowa, John Kerry outlined a plan for winning the peace in Post-Saddam Iraq, trying the former Iraqi leader, and building a lasting coalition to support our operations."

"Capturing Saddam Represents an Opportunity for the U.S. Kerry believes that we have recently seen two major diversions from the historical path of American leadership. On one side is President Bush – who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism. On the other side are those in the Democratic Party who threaten to take us on a trail of confusion and retreat."

"Kerry believes that we don’t need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will walk alone. He believes that we need a President who will lead the nations of the world into a new era of security, freedom, and peace. Kerry believes that capturing Saddam Hussein provides a new opportunity for the United States to build a broader coalition and win the peace in Iraq. Today he unveiled his plan to rally the world’s free and democratic countries into that coalition."

The only words said here about leaving are very negative. He doesn't want to get out. This gives me a legitimate ground to complain.

[sangh0]

74. Not true

Kerry's website has a detailed plan for withdrawing from Iraq by getting the UN involved

[JVS]

78. Perhaps you could provide a link?

[sangh0]

117. http://www.johnkerry.com/

.

[JVS]

121. Not good enough. That is where I got the vague bullshit above

Come on where is the real deal? Or isn't there any?

[sangh0]

127. http://www.johnkerry.com/

Do your own homework

[JVS]

128. I already did

I was right and you are wrong

Quit spamming

I quoted his page and his plan was to stay not to leave. Show me where his plan to leave is

[Ignis]

76. An...interesting...observation.

They complain about war and imperialism, and like to blame everybody but themselves, but they have done NOTHING to prevent imperialism in Iraq. They use imperialism to mask what their primary concern is...atacking Dems. That's why none of the so-called anti-imperialists are doing ANYTHING about it but complain about the past.
I'll be the first to admit to being slightly confused by your statements above.

Could you please explain in more detail exactly how you've come to the conclusion that every single progressive who opposed the invasion of Iraq is guilty of hypocrisy? I've been trying to wrap my poor brain around the A,B:C logic of your statements, but I'm still failing to see any way in which every single progressive who actively worked against the IWR and/or who protested the buildup to the invasion is a de facto hypocrite.

I'd simply like to know the logic behind your thinking on this matter, as it frankly doesn't make any sense to me. Cheers.

[sangh0]

118. You misinterpreted that statement

It referred to "anti-war leftists" and not "progressives who opposed the invasion of Iraq". One can oppose the invasion, but still not be "anti-war". Being "anti-war" means being against war, not being against one specific war, while supporting the other wars.

I hope that helps clear the confusion.

[Ignis]

143. So...Gandhi and MLK, Jr. were hypocrites?

It referred to "anti-war leftists" and not "progressives who opposed the invasion of Iraq". One can oppose the invasion, but still not be "anti-war". Being "anti-war" means being against war, not being against one specific war, while supporting the other wars.

I hope that helps clear the confusion.

Ah. Well, it's certainly good to know that the error lies entirely in my court for misinterpreting 'anti-war' in the context of this discussion as 'anti-IWR' rather than 'complete pacifist'.

So, with that bit of semantics cleared up, allow me to repeat my above query. As far as I understand your argument, it is thus:
1. Every single person who is a) a complete pacifist and b) is a progressive is a hypocrite.
2. Not one single person in this group of pacifist progressives has ever done anything to work against (or 'prevent') imperialism in Iraq.
3. The only reason that any pacifist progressive ever speaks out against imperialism is merely to obfuscate an attack against some/all members of the Democratic party.

Would you be so kind as to confirm that this is indeed your argument? I would be more than happy to discuss the aforementioned points with you, but I'd like to confirm that this is a fair reiteration of your argument before I either criticise it or propose a counter-argument.

Cheers.

[sangh0]

145. Gandhi and MLK were not leftists

try again

Ah. Well, it's certainly good to know that the error lies entirely in my court for misinterpreting 'anti-war' in the context of this discussion as 'anti-IWR' rather than 'complete pacifist'.

You won't get the context if you restrict yourself to the discussion in this thread. These discussions have been going on for months. Please stop flattering yourself by equating what you do with what Gandhi and MLK did. There's a huge difference - They got something done. AFAICT, you've achieved nothing.

Would you be so kind as to confirm that this is indeed your argument?

No, those are your straw men. Have fun knocking them down. WHen you're done, you can tell me again how you're just like MLK and Gandhi.

SO how many times were you assasinated?

[Ignis]

148. Revisionist history doesn't help your case.

Gandhi and MLK were not leftists...try again

Are you honestly attempting to propose that Gandhi and MLK were further to the right than the left on the traditional left-right political spectrum? If so, I'd love to see some support for this claim, given that it flies in the face of traditional historical analysis of the lives of these two men.

You won't get the context if you restrict yourself to the discussion in this thread. These discussions have been going on for months.

I don't believe I said 'in the context of this thread'. In point of fact, I said 'in the context of this discussion'.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that this discussion has revolved around the IWR rather than the merits/flaws of pacifism in general. In this context, it would seem to be intuitive that 'anti-war' means 'anti-Iraq-invasion' rather than 'completely pacifist'. If you have a very specific definition that you're trying to convey, I would suggest being very specific in your diction.

Please stop flattering yourself by equating what you do with what Gandhi and MLK did. There's a huge difference - They got something done. AFAICT, you've achieved nothing.

While this sort of invective and insulting tone may be exciting, they really add little to the discussion. Nowhere did I compare myself to either of these two men. Not once.

Regardless, whether or not I have personally achieved anything is not the point at hand. You have made several sweeping statements in which you claim to have somehow divined the intention of all pacifist progressives, and you have rather flippantly judged them to be wanting.

The problem with sweeping generalisations is that they're rarely accurate, and almost always indefensible. When you make statements that have the semantic value of 'Black males are stupid', you oughtn't get insulted when someone presents a specific example which contradicts your sweeping generalisation.

Rather than going the rather grotty route of ad hominem attacks and misquoting, perhaps you would be better served by a frank re-evaluation of your original argument.

No, those are your straw men. Have fun knocking them down. WHen you're done, you can tell me again how you're just like MLK and Gandhi.

I've asked several times in good faith for you to refine/define your points. You have refused to do so. If you don't like my analysis of your arguments, point out specifically where I have misinterpreted them.

Again, if you propose an argument such as 'Black males are stupid', it is certainly not inappropriate for someone else to ask you to specify whether you mean:
1. All black males are stupid at all times, or
2. All black males are stupid at some times, or
3. Some black males are stupid at all times, or
4. Some black males are stupid at some times, or
5. This one black male I know did a stupid thing once, or
6. I saw a TV show where a black male did something stupid.

If you feel that this request is unfair, I would direct you to the recent thread regarding 'born again' religious experiences, in which you sharply criticised a poster for making sweeping generalisations about and magically divining the intent of all persons who consider themselves 'born again'.

PS: Redefining an argument to suit one's own needs and then attacking the reconstructed argument is an example of the Straw Man fallacy. Asking for clarification in good faith on an argument which employs sweeping generalisations is not.

[sangha]

149. MLK and Gandhi were not leftists

They had liberal (not leftist) positions and a number of conservative positions, particularly on social issues and particularly was true with Gandhi. I didn't say they were conservative, or to the right of the middle. I said they were not leftists. They were liberals.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that this discussion has revolved around the IWR rather than the merits/flaws of pacifism in general. In this context, it would seem to be intuitive that 'anti-war' means 'anti-Iraq-invasion' rather than 'completely pacifist'. If you have a very specific definition that you're trying to convey, I would suggest being very specific in your diction

Fair enough. The "anti-war" is a label of no distinction. Practically everyone on DU is against this war. It's use is meant to accuse those who disagree with them with being "pro-war".

Nowhere did I compare myself to either of these two men. Not once.

You're including them in a group you identify with, anti-war leftists. They were not leftists, and they were truly anti-war. On one hand, you're saying we're not talking about pacifists, and on the other you're identifying your arguments with pacifists. Your argument against this war is not the argument that they used.

But your right about one thing. It wasn't meant to flatter you personally. It was meant to flatter your argument by associating it with MLK and Gandhi's arguments.

Regardless, whether or not I have personally achieved anything is not the point at hand. You have made several sweeping statements in which you claim to have somehow divined the intention of all pacifist progressives, and you have rather flippantly judged them to be wanting.

No, I haven't. I have described a group that describes itself as "anti-war leftists" with the intention of misportraying others as pro-war. That's the part of context I was referring to when I said that you were leaving some of the context out.

Please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[no name no slogan]

137. Anti-war leftist confesses: "I caused Iraq War!!!!"

I'm quite puzzled by that statement, too. As a private citizen with no standing army of my own, I'm at a loss to specify how I caused the invasion of Iraq.

I'm getting a headache trying to figure out how my actions, as a concerned citizen, caused GeeDubya to invade Iraq.

I protested against not only this war, but every US incursion since the 80s. I vote in every election. I wrote my senators and congressman. I educated others about the causes behind this war, and why we were wrong. I've even participated in civil disobedience at the headquarters of companies who profit from weapons.

And still, I can't figure out how it's somehow my fault for causing this war.

[sangh0]

146. By which statement?

I'm quite puzzled by that statement, too. As a private citizen with no standing army of my own, I'm at a loss to specify how I caused the invasion of Iraq.

I don't remember saying anyonw besides Bush* caused the war.

What I did say is that you didn't prevent the invasion? Are you saying that you DID prevent the invasion?

I'm getting a headache trying to figure out how my actions, as a concerned citizen, caused GeeDubya to invade Iraq.

Where did I say you caused Bush* to invade?

I protested against not only this war, but every US incursion since the 80s. I vote in every election. I wrote my senators and congressman. I educated others about the causes behind this war, and why we were wrong. I've even participated in civil disobedience at the headquarters of companies who profit from weapons.

And none of it worked, did it?

[no name no slogan]

150. HERE's what I question

They complain about war and imperialism, and like to blame everybody but themselves, but they have done NOTHING to prevent imperialism in Iraq.

You posted this. You basically said that I did not prevent the war, and I replied I did WHAT I COULD AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN to prevent the war and US imperialism in Iraq. You seem to think that because my actions didn't prevent the war, that somehow me and others like me caused it.

As I stated, I did what I could, as a private citizen. One of my Senators (Wellstone) voted against the IWR, the other (Dayton) did not. My representative also voted against the war. I wrote letters, called my congressman, educated others, and did whatever I could, short of being a human shield, to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

I tried. It didn't work. But what you are saying is "don't bother trying, because it won't work". This is a very slippery slope you would have us go down-- one that poisons the very core of free speech and freedom to be involved in a democratic society.

What you are saying is "don't bother to influence policy, because it's out of your hands, and should be left to the hands of the pros"-- i.e., the "professional" politicians who trod the halls of Congress, and the ones who buy them off every election cycle.

This is exactly the same argument the right wing makes to discourage not only voting, but public discourse itself. Why do you think they like to discourage simple voter registration, and getting out the vote in poor areas? It's because they are AFRAID of DEMOCRACY. They are AFRAID of people taking an interest in the public discourse, because it may expose them as the thieves and crooks that they really are. They are AFRAID of people realizing that the emperor has no clothes, and that the people are no more wises than some benevolent politician up on a hill somewhere.

Your arguments fall right into their hands. Don't bother trying to change things, because you're not "equipped" to have an opinion of your own. Leave it to our "elected officials" who are obviously much wiser than you are, and know how these things work. Just shut up, check the box by the "D", and "support the party", no matter how wrong it may be. Repeat as necessary until your are an unquestioning obeying vote (and wallet) for "our candidate"-- who won't make your life any easier even if he wins.

[sangha]

151. And here's where I see a problem

You seem to think that because my actions didn't prevent the war, that somehow me and others like me caused it.

IMO, the important word there is "seem". Sometimes appearances are deceiving. I did not say that you caused the invasion, and I did not mean that. I merely pointed out that your efforts were unsuccessful, and IMO that puts you in a weaker position to criticize someone else for not doing enough to prevent the invasion. This doesn't mean you were wrong on each and every count, but it does show that whatever tactics you used, they were not sufficient. It's my personal policy to grant those who have tried and succeeded greater credibility than those who did not succeed.

What you are saying is "don't bother to influence policy, because it's out of your hands, and should be left to the hands of the pros"-- i.e., the "professional" politicians who trod the halls of Congress, and the ones who buy them off every election cycle.

Again, I did not say that. It may seem that way, but the appearance of that is deceiving. What I think is that the failure suggests the need for a revision in one's tactics. Repeating the same old slogans doesn't work.

[no name no slogan]

153. Good points, but there's a BIG difference between me & a public official

You make some valid points; however, what you are saying is that, because I as a private citizen failed to change the course of the war, I have no right criticizing a public official who supported the war.

Maybe my efforts and those of other anti-war folk did not work to prevent the invasion-- maybe there was no way for us, as private citizens, to prevent it. We don't know for sure. However, our elected officials DO have some control (no matter how little) to stand up to GeeDubya and his neoCon lackeys.

And even if their votes would not have prevented invasion, there's still some merit and value to making a SYMBOLIC stand against pre-emptive war and unjustified military action. I'm sure that many of those who voted against the IWR did so on these grounds, because they KNEW that BushCo would somehow devise a way to have their war. Maybe if more elected officials would have raised their hands and simply said "I will not support this war", they may have made some folk at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave think twice about what they were doing.

And even though the US invaded Iraq, the war is not over by any stretch of the imagination. The Peace Movement is STILL working for peace in the region and is still affecting public opinion-- which is often the first step in stopping the war for us "common folk".

This is not a zero-sum game that simply ends once the Saddam statue falls to the ground. The peace movement has changed its tactics, and is working to end the US-controlled occupation of Iraq-- which is the cause for most of the problems on the ground today. As long as the US is seen as a foreign invader and occupier, the situation will not get better.

As long as the war continues, the peace movement will continue, too-- whether its a Republican War or a Democratic War.

[sangha]

154. Good points. Let me further clarify

You make some valid points; however, what you are saying is that, because I as a private citizen failed to change the course of the war, I have no right criticizing a public official who supported the war.

Not quite, but I'm glad you raise it so I can be more specific. During the run-up to the invasion, there were a number of well-known public figures, including public *officials*, who were quite vocal in their opposition. Though it would have had more influence if more officials had done so, there is no question that the opposition had some opportunities to make it's views known.

But that didn't stop the invasion. Now, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done, but the results suggest to me that having public officials speak out on the issue is not a sure-fire way to prevent the invasion. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to me to consider not speaking out a condemnable act. I can't hold too much against someone who chose not to pursue an ineffective line of action.

And even if their votes would not have prevented invasion, there's still some merit and value to making a SYMBOLIC stand against pre-emptive war and unjustified military action.

I don't believe in symbolic actions that have no power. IMO, real symbols have power. An ineffective act, in my mind, demonstrates an absence of power and therefore cannot be a symbol. When an official makes a symbolic act such as this, it's really about the person taking a stand, and marking out their position. IOW, it's about the person, and not the issue.

Maybe if more elected officials would have raised their hands and simply said "I will not support this war", they may have made some folk at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave think twice about what they were doing.

Maybe, but IMO, the evidence seems clear that Bush* wanted to invade Iraq and would do it no matter what.

And even though the US invaded Iraq, the war is not over by any stretch of the imagination. The Peace Movement is STILL working for peace in the region and is still affecting public opinion-- which is often the first step in stopping the war for us "common folk".

I agree, there is still work to be done, which is why I regret the way some "anti-war leftists" focus on the past to the exclusion of the future.


For example, while some are focusing on IWR votes, and specific battles like Falluja, our govt is preparing to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, and none of these anti-war leftists seem concerned about this

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[pberq]

20. media brainwashing

Becuase the mind-control media are owned by the War Party - both Dems and Repubs. This all-pervasive media is able to brainwash the public.

Just finished reading "Dreaming War -- Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta" by Gore Vidal. This guy is great!!

He makes the point that since the end of WWII we have been living in a security state that serves only the interests of 1% elite that own most of everything. Hence, all the wars and covert actions of the past 50 years have been to serve the business interests of the elite.

see
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html
for a sample of Vidal's analytical genius.

[sangh0]

26. And here's your answer

It seems that the real hostility is generated by the anti-war left, who can do nothing but insult everyone who disagrees with them

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

39. Another answer

Instead of addressing the issues raised, all mhr can do is make personal attacks.

[mhr]

53. Drone On!

eom

[no name no slogan]

68. True enough

although I don't agree with Vidal on many things (IMHO anybody who agrees with someone 100% of the time can't think for her/himself), he does make a valid point.

The US economy never came off its wartime footing from WWII. We continued to churn out weapons at WWII-like levels, even when we were the largest and most threatening superpower on the globe.
We are still the largest producer of war goods in the world-- larger than all others COMBINED. Our entire economy is driven by war and violence and based upon the fear that somebody, somewhere, will destroy us utterly.

The continued existence of our economy depends on having an ongoing state of war someplace in the world: whether it's a "cold war" or a "hot" war with real shooting, our major industries depend upon it. In almost every year since the end of WWII, we have been involved in a war, "police action", or "expedition" of some sort that continues to justify our "need" for a mind-bogglingly HUGE "defense" industry.

Fortunately, around the late 60s, some Democrats and leftists saw the futility of our war efforts against the rest of the planet, and had the wisdom to speak out against our continuing militaristic nature. Unfortuately, these same thoughtful people were called "communists", "traitors" and "fringe" by the "rational" powers that benefited from the permanent war economy-- the same people who had the most to lose when the country woke up and cut off their blood money.

Unfortunately, I do not see John Kerry as being a leader that will stop this insanity. He has had brief moments of enlightenment, but coming from a background that has immensely benefitted from the permanent war economy, I don't see him as somebody who will speak out against it. He's too cosy with those who are pulling his strings (big media, the benefactors of the permanent war economy, etc).

Nonetheless, I'll vote for him, because even I prefer to get the crap beaten out of me by a guy with a smile rather than get the crap beaten out of me by a man with a scowl.

[Padraig18]

22. Some of us who are not leftists also opposed the war, and marched.

The only hostility i personally have is with the leftists who try to make it sound as though they were the ONLY people opposing the war. I am center-left, and I rallied and marched and froze MY ass off, too!

[WI_DEM]

32. Yes

I'm sure you did and you should be proud. But if you don't preceive the kind of attitude that is has developed at DU from some towards the left then you are wearing rose colored glasses. What it comes down to is that for many on the left the war is the premier issue of not this election and it is an evil and wrong war and many people on the left have a hard time supporting a presidential candidate who helped sanction Bush's invasion. That doesn't mean they won't, but alot have reservations and that has (I think) fostered a kind of anti-left attitude here because some haven't fallen into line behind John Kerry.

p.s.
As you know, the candidate you supported (as did I) Howard Dean couldn't be considered a leftist either--but remember how many of the people who oppossed Dean in the primaries tried to make him out to be some "looney" lefty who can't win the election--many of those same people are still here on this site.

[Padraig18]

55. Oh, I see the hostility.

I see two main reasons for it:

1.) Personal--- the hostility is directed at a particular poster, and not the anti-war left, per se.

2.) Electoral--- People are scared sh*tless that we will come across as being vocally and stridently anti-war, as MANY here want us to be, and that the electorate will harden their hearts to us, the result of which will be a 2nd terms for *.

I've not seen any true PRO-war sentiment here, however; have you?

[WI_DEM]

62. you may be correct

and I don't think there is pro-war sentiment, just anger at those who strongly oppose the war and have a hard time supporting Kerry.

[Padraig18]

64. It took me a bit to get on board.

We entered the primary season knowing that only one candidate would emerge victorious; like you, I had hoped that that candidate would be Howard Dean. The clear will of the voters in our primaries was for Sen. Kerry, war vote and all, as we both know. Bottom line: those of us who opposed the war did not carry the day within our own party.

I do have a problem with those who can't seem to get behind Kerry, and here's why: we either elect Kerry, who is many orders of magnitude more progressive than is *, or we endure the disaster that a second * administration would represent for this republic.

I'm not thrilled with John Kerry, but I intend to work my fingers to the bloody bone to see that he becomes POTUS. There is no other viable option.

[Uzybone]

Yawn

you "antiwar" self made martyrs are getting annoying. Almost everyone (save true pacifists) is antiwar until they feel threatened themselves. If Iraq had missiles aimed my way you bet I wouldn't have been anti Iraq war. I was against this war from the start, but damn I don't feel like anyone should congratulate me and kiss my pinkie ring for it. Lets all do our part and stop looking for issues to whine about.

[WI_DEM]

28. what an attitude

that is really annoying and turning up on increasing frequency on what was once a strongly anti-war site. If what you say is true that everyone is anti-war unless we are threatened ourselves then lots of our elected officials in Washington proved differently. Iraq was never a threat to the United States and the world wide anti-war movement has pointed that out time and again. It was pure and simple politics the reason why some of our Democratic officeholders supported Bush on the resolution.

[sangh0]

36. You're the one with the attitude

In this thread there are multiple instances of so-called "anti-war leftists" engaging in bigoted name-calling. Instead of considering how that might be contributing to the hostility many DUers feel to the supposedly "anti-war leftists", you just repeat the propoganda.

[WI_DEM]

43. not in what I wrote

and in the post which inspired this. If you don't think that the anti-war movement isn't at least partially responsible for the impending Kerry victory you are kidding yourself.

[sangh0]

45. Yeah, right

The so-called "anti-war left" is responsible for all that is good in the world, and Kerry is responsible for all that is bad.

Gee, I wonder where the hostility comes from

[el_gato]

47. DLC = Corporate Servants opposed to Democracy

That is a fact and some people just can't stand hearing it.

[WI_DEM]

54. well since you bring it up

what did Kerry's zig-zagging stand on Iraq accomplish. Is he for it or against it. The war is the reason Bush is going to lose and those who opposed it from the start do deserve partial responsibility and if you want to ignore it and mock them that is your problem.

[sangh0]

77. What did you accomplish?

If you're so interested in consequences and results, what have you anda the anti-war left achieved beside alienating most Americans, including liberals?

[JVS]

79. Do you ever answer a question or do you just ask them?

[maxanne]

157. asking lots of questions

is a way of expressing no opinion, and keeping people on the defensive. If one has no opinion, one can't be held accountable for it, or questioned about it.

[WI_DEM]

87. yes yes

the anti-war left has alienated most people including fellow liberals who also hate the war. We who opposed the war didn't accomplish a thing nor did those who opposed Vietnam or stood up for civil rights. We should have just sat on our asses and been quiet instead of rising up. We should have been like Kerry and many other establishment democrats and put our finger in the air and seen which way the political wind was blowing.

[sangh0]

119. So you stopped the Viet Nam war?

Try and pay attention. We are talking about Iraq, and as far as I can tell, you haven't stopped anything there

[JVS]

129. That's because some "Democrats" voted for it

Hard to stop it when the supposed opposition doesn't do their job

[sangh0]

133. So you didn't stop it

So much for the effectiveness of the "anti-war left" who can't succeed without the help of Democrats.

[JVS]

134. Maybe we should in turn not vote for them

[edzontar]

139. How much do they pay you to post this crap?

Honestly, SanghO or Sangha or whoever you are, I don't undertsand how you can devote so much time to stalking people who actually care about people dying and being murdered in Bush's criminal war.

[sangh0]

141. JVS cares about people dying?

Then why does he support Sen Byrd who has supported murdering energy corporations that help fund Bush* and pushed for war?

[edzontar]

142. JVS speaks eloquently for himself.

Byrd may not be good on every issue, but neither is Kerry.

Saying that JVS's admiration for Byrd on the war--where he has been heroic, IMHO--equates to support of Byrd's
Just ebcause some folks cannot abide disagreement with Kerry on ANY issue does not mean that anyone who criticizes Kerry is AGAINST him.

For example, I am supprting Kerry but absolutely HATE his position on the war--then and now.

But I hold the future of the country and the defeat of Bush to be so important that I am putting this aside to support the man.

Y'see there are many shades of gray in this world....and we all have to struggle to make the right decisions.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uzybone]

59. You are right

my reponse didnt convey what I meant to say. Everyone is anti-war until they are threatened or until the war benefits them. That is what I had meant to say. My point still stands though.

[ACK]

23. Perception of anti-war left as being single issue voters

Though I think I have disagreed with some of the hard left or anti-war left on a number of issues I believe this characterization is untrue.

Most of the anti-war left will vote for Kerry.

_

[peachy]

48. probably

but he's currently loosing more daily.

Perhaps you could say that we are a single issue constituency, if that single issue is social justice.

[MadHound]

61. Sad to say, but the only thank you that the anti-war left is going to get

From the Kerry camp, if he wins, is more war, more death, and more innocents killed. Apparently the people in power can't or won't learn their history lessons. For here we are again, locked into another unjust imperial war, with no exit strategy in sight. Meanwhile successive presidents, whether they're Dem or 'Pug are going to engage in another pissing contest, racheting up our involvement in the Iraqi quagmire, just to prove that they aren't soft on terror.

And in the end, the US will once again be forced out, leaving behind chaos and ruin, with our only accomplishments being wreaking havoc on a defenseless people, and making obscene profits for the war mongers.

A guilty conscience can do one of two things. It can either change a person for the better, or entrench their mindset in concrete. I think that it is the latter phenomenon that we are seeing directed at the anti-war movement. These people see that if Kerry is elected, he will continue to dig us deeper into the Iraqi quagmire, and the anti-war movement will direct it's anger and attention to him. So now the pre-emptive attacks on the antiwar movement are comencing, both to try and convince these anti-war people to vote for Kerry, and to have ammunition against the anti-war movement when they turn on Kerry.

Sorry, but the gratitude will be long in coming and short on substance. Being the conscience of a country is a neccesary position, but also a thankless one.

[sadiesworld]

85. "Being the conscience of a country is a necessary position,

but also a thankless one."

Egad, what drama do you think are starring in here?

Like (I imagine) most DUers, I do/did not support the Iraq boondoggle. I do, however, support JK and my conscience is quite clear on this point. Actually, I WOULD feel guilty if after seeing the damage done by *, I not only didn't vote for the only chance at removing *, but also sought to sway others in the hopes of a guaranteed * victory.

[MadHound]

90. Tell me friend, how did you ever get the hang of that little manuever?

Being against the war, yet being able to turn a blind eye towards a war mongering corporate whore simply because he has the magical letter D behind his name. That's a trick I've never figured out, and really don't want to. But it still amazes me to see it happen with other people.

Honestly, do you think that a candidate who not only voted for the IWR, but has also promised throwing another 40,000 troops into the fire has any plans on getting the US out of Iraq? Just because he is a Democrat doesn't magically make him the anti-war candidate, or have you too forgotten the lesson of LBJ?

Kerry is already being pressured by his corporate masters not to appear "soft on terror" and is in consequence already rattling his saber. When and if he gets into office, well damn, he not only has to worry about re-election(nope, sorry, gotta throw more troops into the fire, after all, can't appear to be "soft on terror"), but he's got corporate masters to pay back(there's money to be made off of this war, can't get out now), and thus the whole mess boils down to a pissing contest between the Dems and 'Pugs to see who can better prosecute another damn imperial war, ala Vietnam.

So once again, the US will be involved in another quagmire, while millions of innocents are murdered for no good reason, and the corporate warmongers make a buck or millions. Yet somehow, some magical way, voting for the warmonger with a D behind his name will make it all better

Do you really know what finally made it all better vis a vis Vietnam? It was all of those anti-war folks getting out in the street, changing minds, telling the truth, and yes, being the conscience of the country. And finally, after two decades enough people woke up out of their stupor to finally demand change, and voila, change was made(wow, by a president with an R behind his name, who'd a thunk it).

Is that what its going to take this time around? From the warning signs we're seeing, apparently so. Because once again, people are burying their heads in the sand, and thinking the some how, some magical way, voting for a warmonger with a D behind his name is going to end the war. Good luck with that bipolar spin you've got going there, it is tricky at best. Me, I'll stick with the tried and true, by not reward warmongering corporate whores with my vote, and actively working against this illegal and immoral war, no matter who is in office. You see, I remember my history lessons, in this case, I've lived them.

[sadiesworld]

91. Sorry, but it seems to me that you will be rewarding the REAL

"warmongering corporate whore" by failing to vote.

[MadHound]

92. Weak arguement my friend

You are assuming that I won't be voting, and you know what they say about assume

Also, how can you, or any other honest anti-war person in good faith vote for somebody who is simply going to continue this quagmire, all in the name of protecting the US from terror, or liberating the Iraqi people, or whatever the latest buzzword excuse is? I'm sorry, but war is war, no matter who is in the driver's seat, and if you are voting to put a person who is already promising to further extend this war, how truly anti-war can you honestly be? I'm not trying to insult you over this, but I really don't understand this twisted logic, and sad to say, it is becoming more and more common these days.

[Robb]

96. That's not an argument.

"War is war, and someone who is going to extend an existing war is clearly pro-war, so if you're anti-war, you can't be for the guy."

You can call it the "anti-war left" if you want. But what you're spouting is just schoolyard foot-stomping. You can be a soldier and against war for the same reasons you can hate abortion and be pro-choice. It's not twisted logic, it's the completion of a logical progression that gets more complicated than "Sally pulled my hair, so Sally is evil".

[MadHound]

107. Sorry friend, but it sounds like you are trying to use spin and semantics

To justify voting for an admitted pro-war candidate. No matter how much you try to trivialize the matter by resorting to such taunts as "schoolyard foot-stomping", the stark reality remains that Kerry WILL continue this illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. That is a FACT. The man voted for the IWR, he has already stated that not only will he stay in Iraq, but will up the ante with an additional forty thousand troops. Just because the man has a D behind his name doesn't absolve him of the responsiblity of doing the moral, ethical and humane thing vis a vis Iraq, that is get the US out and the UN in. Until that initial act takes place, we are going to continue to kill innocents(on both sides), rape and plunder a country we are brutally occupying, and remain a parriah amongst nations. And if Kerry takes office and doesn't do the right thing, his hands will be just as bloody as Bush's.

To try and justify Kerry's position through spin and semantics is disingenous at best, and willfully promoting the ongoing horror in Iraq at worse. That you and others, the Democratic party among them engage in this activity only reveals the cynical blackness of your own heart. Perhaps it would be a better use of your time to examine your own motivations in regards to this manner than to denigrate mine.

[Robb]

110. Were I denigrating your motivations, you'd be aware of it.

Fortunately I'm only belittling the naivete of your astoundingly credulous position. To review, you've disagreed with me, and reworded and proferred the same artless statement you made before. No doubt it is the blackness of my heart that refuses to see that as "argument".

[MadHound]

111. So let me ask you a question then.

If Kerry grabs the brass ring and attains the Presidency, judging from his statements and action he will continue to prosecute the Iraqi war in a vigorous manner. Will you protest his actions then, or will you continue to give him a pass simply because he is a Dem?

[JVS]

104. I suppose an anti-war person could vote for them in good faith

Especially when not faced with an alternative.
But how could one not disagree with their continuation of the war?
Unless of course their anti-war stance was just political posturing.

[MadHound]

108. Well friend, I am older and wiser,

And I realize that any pro-war candidate will take my good faith vote and use it as a mandate to continue the horror of war however he sees fit. I remember LBJ and Nixon, and have a high level of distrust for any posturing politician of either party.

And there are always alternatives, and we must use those alternatives in order to send a message. Yes, yes, I know the old meme that voting third party is voting for Bush, yadda yadda. However does any party deserve your vote when it runs contrary to your deeply held beliefs? Is a candidate entitled to your vote when he uses it in order to perform acts that are morally reprehensible to you. This is a very large matter to the vast majority of the anti-war people. Voting for a pro war Dem candidate is tantamount to a pro life person voting for a pro choice candidate. And all of this fearmongering about Bush being a demon from hell, well I've heard that all before also(and fell for it too) in regards to Nixon, Reagan and Bush I. Guess what, we survived. It wasn't pretty at times, but we survived. So if one doesn't give in to that fearmongering, perhaps we can band together and send a message that neither party can ignore. And thus, ultimately, bring about a better world.

[sadiesworld]

105. Well, I assumed you would vote for Nader, or just cut out the middleman

and vote for Bush, but it seemed rude to actually articulate same.

I firmly believe that Bush will push on to Iran, Syria, etc. Whereas, I believe JK will extract us from Iraq ASAP and put an end to the monkey's adventures in empire.

Your warmonger is my hope for the end to the past few years of insanity.

Let's agree to disagree, hm?

[MadHound]

109. I have just one question for you then.

How can you hold the belief that ". . .JK will extract us from Iraq ASAP and put an end to the monkey's adventures in empire." in the face of both Kerry's own pro war statements, and the history of both parties warmongering in order not to appear soft on whatever the boogeyman of the day is? I'm sorry, we can agree to disagree, but that kind of non-linear, illogical thinking baffles me. It appears that your wishful thinking flys starkly in the face of reality. But hey, if it brings you comfort at the end of the day, great. Just remember that the cost of that comfort will be paid for in the blood of innocents.

[edzontar]

135. MH, I totally share your hatred for the war and disgust with Kerry's

IWR vote and support of the Bush War--the crime of the century, as I call it.

I also share your frustration with the apologetics we are served constantly by JK's defenders on this issue.

For the most part, these efforts at spin are sophistry.

Kery clearly bears responsibility for the war he voted for.

That said, I am going to vote for him anyway-- as a lesser of 2 evils and not with any genuine enthusiasm--because I really do eblive we have to get Bush out of there.

If he continues the war, I will turn full protest against him.

And there will be no limit to the shame that will righfully fall upon him and his apologists if this comes to pass.

[Zorra]

63. Because the right wing has effectively brainwashed over half the

population of the US?

[ArkDem]

75. This pretty much says it all

>In the end, movements do make accomplish change. <

[WI_DEM]

83. oops

looks like I wrote too quickly, should be "in the end, movements do accomplish change." But thanks for pointing it out and allowing me to correct it.

[redqueen]

95. I, for one, understood the meaning from the context

Movements not only result in change, but also help to foster an environment in which change is even POSSIBLE.

ECS and SBA fought THEIR WHOLE LIVES for women's suffrage. Imagine how much crap they had to hear from their fellow 'liberals'. (you're hurting the movement, you're making people hate us, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bleat!)

[ulysses]

88. hostility to typos?

:boggle:

[ArkDem]

89. hostility?

. Learn to smile my friend.

[redqueen]

94. How exactly does that typo 'say it all'?

What does it say?

[ArkDem]

106. It says:

In the end, movements do make accomplish change.

[edzontar]

125. I would guess you would NOT want your own typos mocked...

Why not stick to the question?

There is enough pointless antagonism here as it is.

(see above for MANY examples)

[ArkDem]

159. Be my guest, mock away.

.

[redqueen]

93. Guilty conscience?

Who knows? Who freaking cares?

I'm sick of it all, frankly.

[info being]

114. I think its time to start a whole new country

Let's go virtual. More to come at a later date.

[jfxgillis]

98. At first it was because you were obviously wrong ...

... now it's because you were obviously right.

Next question?

[hippywife]

115. I Am Going Because....

I have been reading the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows book. I found the following exerpt which I think should cause us all to stop and think about what we do, or more importantly what we don't do, in our daily lives.

This is from 1958 written by a Naval Officer and submarine chaser who chose to oppose the testing of nuclear weaponry. He sailed out into the Pacific Ocean to where the U.S. had been testing H-bombs and wrote the following essay outlining the reasons he went.

When the call is made for people to join a local peace effort, bear in mind the small sacrifices those efforts require compared to what this man and so many others have done to make the world sit up and think differently about the atrocities that occur in the world everyday. I think it is important to bear him in mind when deciding if we, individually, will answer the call to action.


I Am Going Because...
by Albert Bigelow


I am going because, as Shakespeare said, "Action is eloquence." Without some direct action, ordinary citizens lack the power any longer to be seen or heard by their government. I am going because it is time to DO something about peace, not just TALK about peace.

I am going because, like all people, in my heart I know that ALL nuclear weapons are monstrous, evil, unworthy of human beings.

I am going because war is no longer a feudal jousting match; it is an unthinkable catastrophe for all people.

I am going because it is now the little children, most of all, the as-yet-unborn that are frontline troops. It is my duty to stand between them and this horrible danger.

I am going because it is cowardly and degrading for me to stand by any longer, to consent, and thus to collaborate in atrocities.

I am going because I cannot say that the end justifies the means.

A Quaker, William Penn, said, "A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it." A Communist, Milovan Djilas, says, "As soon as means which would ensure an end are shown to be evil, the end will show itself to be unrealized."

I am going because, as Gandhi said, "God sits in the man opposite me, there for to injure him is to injure God himself."

I am going to witness the deep inward truth we all know, "Force can subdue, but love gains."

I am going because however mistaken, unrighteous, and unrepentent governments may seem, I still believe all people are really good at heart, and that my act will speak to them.

I am going in the hope of helping to change the hearts and minds of men in government. If necessary, I am willing to give my life to help change a policy of fear, force, and destruction to one of trust, kindess, and help.

I am going in order to say, "Quit this race, this arms race. Turn instead to a disarmament race. Stop competing for evil, compete for good.

I am going because I have to--if I am to call myself a human being. When you see something horrible happening, your instinct is to do something about it. You can freeze in fearful apathy or you can even talk yourself into saying that it isn't horrible. I can't do that, I have to act. This is too horrible. We know it. Let's all act.


http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/speaking/april20.html

[edzontar]

120. Well WI-Dem, you certainly drew them out of their shells...

Besides, as anyone who reads this thread can can see, the hostility reflects an ongoing contamination of this board by a small and intellectually insignificant band of PNAC types who support the war and/or hate "leftists" even more than they despise the Bushies, who are their true political soul-mates.

I still believe that the majority of people who come here--centrist or "leftist," share your views on the war.

All the polls that we see on the issue make that pretty clear.

But this loud and obnoxious contingent of war-supporters and DLC neo-McCarthyites can be relied upon to turn any attempt at discussion into a hail of personal attacks.

It is a pitiful state of affairs.

[WI_DEM]

122. I agree that most folks here do hate the war

but some of them don't really care for the anti-war movement apparently--or at least some of those involved in it who have a hard time reconciling John Kerry with his vote on the Iraqi Resolution.

[edzontar]

124. I have been very critical of Kerry on the war but will vote for him

As a national, even global gesture.. for it is imperative that we bring down the war's architects--Bush and co.

If the war continues in some terrible way under Kerry, I will demonstrate against him the wat i did against LBJ when i was just a kid, back in the day.

Anyone who has a problem with that knows where to go,

[JVS]

123. Aye, they truly suck

[edzontar]

126. I wish they could all be drafted and dropped off in Falujah

For the modern-day equivalent of a "Holiday in Cambodia."

[JVS]

130. They hate you for your principles

It makes them realize what worthless pieces of shit they are.

[edzontar]

131. They have principles--they support Bush's war!!!!

That is the bottom line.

Pardon me, but I am AGAINST Bush and his puke minions, whatever party they claim to belong to.....

[JVS]

132. Fair enough. I give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they...

vacillate depending on which way the wind is blowing.

[edzontar]

136. Most of them support the killing, knowingly or not...

It is sickening....

[Zhade]

138. Simple; people hate that we were right and they were wrong.

To be honest, I hate that we were right, too.

[edzontar]

140. And some are just war supporters, although they never admit it.

Why would someone devote the better part of their life's time, for hours a day, to attack anti-war people on a DEM board unless they, themselves, are supporters of this war?

Only one conclusion can be drawn-they supprt the criminal policies of the Bush administration in Iraq.

Any other interpretation defies all logic....

[meti57b]

152. you might want to consider keeping in mind, that we didn't necessarily ...

... choose Kerry. Kerry was the winner of the early caucuses/primaries. That pretty much set the course.

In the general election, you will have a choice of bush and Kerry for president. Now, you can vote for Dean, Kuchinich, Nader or whomever else you want to vote for or do a write-in for, but you are going to get either bush or Kerry. The more people who don't vote for Kerry, the more likely we are to get bush.

Why would someone devote the better part of their life's time, for hours a day, to attack Kerry voters on a DEM board unless they, themselves, are supporters of bush?

Only one conclusion can be drawn-they supprt the criminal policies of the Bush administration in Iraq.

[edzontar]

158. I will vote for Kerry, but I'd feel better about it if he would speak-out

...and clearly on Fallujah and Iraq.

For some on this board, this doesn't seem to matter.

I respect the ones who support the war more than I respect those who defend silences in the fact of war crimes as a "campaign tactic."

To me, this is moral bankruptcy of the first order.

[Drknowit]

160. DONNER UND BLITZEN!!! IT DEPENDS ON WHERE ONE IS FIGHTING:

Er...Gentlemen, the Left can handle lots of wars of liberation and succeed as has been the case over the past fifty years since the end of World War II. Yet, let us also realize that more people have been massacred in Sudan than in Isreal or Iraq. More women have been raped in Sudan than in Isreal or Iraq. More villages and towns have been bombed over the years than in Isreal or Iraq.

Now, here is the reality that will really bring a shock to whether Sudan should be liberated along with those others that are being liberated. Furthermore, Sudan today will be nothing but a future raiding point into Europe by Asian powers who many people are accusing of supporting genocide in Sudan to clear off the lands of Southern Sudan so that oilfields can be dug and corporations can ran rampant after they have participated in a very horrible type of sanctified racism.

Sad to say, many African leaders and nations have lost their pride. They have sat back and let imperialists with a Middle Eastern orientation commit genocide on the indigenous people of Sudan. They have allowed African women to be raped and used as sex slaves for the breeding of more "Arabs" to take over lands that are those of the Nubia, Dinka, Shilluk and other descendants of the original Cushites.

While everyone is focused on Iraq and Isreal, when Sudan becomes an Asian base for the invasion of Europe, the Domination of Africa and the cutting of the Oil and shipping lanes to the Americas, perhaps that is when we will be interested.

The fact is, neither ISREAL NOR IRAQ IS AS IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN, AFRICAN, EUROPEAN SURVIVAL THAN IS SUDAN. However, if the types of genocide and atrocities that are taking place in Sudan continues, it is only a matter of time that a hodgepodge of Asian powers, Middle Eastern imperialists and multinational corporations collude to dominate the entire region and bring about the fall of the West.

[e-mail]
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire (The 1400 Year War Against the Arab Invasion of Sudan)

More on the history of trade, commerce and civilization in Africa from prehistoric times to the present
"Susu Economics," published by 1stbooks Library
see http://community.webtv.net/nubianem

[sangha]

161. I am afraid you have been deceived

by all the talk about how imperialistic Kerry's foriegn policy is. It has led you to believe that there are many here who are concerned about imperialism, when the truth is, some only care about attacking Kerry, and could not give a whit about imperialism.

While they whine about Kerry, Bush* is arranging for a Satus of Forces Agreement that will result in our establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq, which is right in line with the PNAC's agenda. You won't hear the so-called anti-imperialists mention that. There's nothing to attack Kerry with in there.

[Skinner]

162. This thread didn't really need to be resurrected.

I'm locking.