"let's Protest!"
FlatlineUTD
Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7695Members
Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7695Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">"Why?" "I dunno! Protest with me!"</div> I know as well as everyone else that this video clip has been edited heavily to show protestors in the most negative light possible, but I couldn't help but get a chuckle out of it.
It reminds me exactly of the anti-war protesters that I personally know.
<a href='http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html' target='_blank'>http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/vid...ce-protest.html</a>
I also figure since it's likely to open up a big can o' worms, I'd be better off posting in here rather than off topic.
It reminds me exactly of the anti-war protesters that I personally know.
<a href='http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html' target='_blank'>http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/vid...ce-protest.html</a>
I also figure since it's likely to open up a big can o' worms, I'd be better off posting in here rather than off topic.
Comments
Pity they achieved nothing. I was stunned by Bush's complete contempt for the people he's supposed to represent. Mind you, my Glorious Leader here in Australia was exactly the same <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Look closely <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021803/content/from.parcol1.0001.ImageFile.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...1.ImageFile.jpg</a>
<a href='http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021803/content/from.parcol2.0001.ImageFile.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...1.ImageFile.jpg</a>
Spooge - those are "plants." I've seen them before. Pro-war advocates join in the protests to make the anti-war ones look bad. Either that, or Rush fell for some photoshops. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
HUH!?
Did that guy like not bother to make a new sign since he marched in 1980? How the hell does communism link to Saddam!? Not to mention that figure being blatently wrong...
A dozen million people on the streets worldwide and some of them are nuts. I would never have guessed ;p
Seriously, if you've come in touch with the globalization-critizising community, you soon discover that indeed 90% of <i>anything</i> is utter crap. I'm suprised he didn't find worse examples.
Is this supposed to be an anti-war rally, or a pro-war rally?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Except for slavery, nazism, fascism, & communism: War has <i>NEVER</i> solved anything!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really hope this is a pro-war rally, because otherwise these people are just total schmucks and should be shot.
And I'm sure a lot of them there did - they just picked the "best" ones for their video. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ooooh well excuse me for missing sentence as I skimmed over the lot of things.
But as Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi have both shown, peaceful protests *CAN* accomplish great things.
But then you get shot so its all moot anyway, at least for you.
I should have slept in.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you possibly clarify it?
The commander-in-chief of the United States military is charged with defending U.S interests, U.S. allies' interests, and to a lesser extent, humanitarian interests worldwide. The current situation in Iraq conflicts with all of these.
The sheer volume of intelligence, information, and educated advice that the President has at his disposal makes the average protestor's opinion by comparison almost completely irrelevant.
And he is supposed to just completely change his mind because .1% of the population turns out to a protest? The majority of the people in this country are NOT against war.
The president of the United States claims himself to be democratically elected, correct?
Then, as a democratic (or republican, if you want to split hairs) leader, it's his damn duty to open his sources to his electorate, including the protestors. And don't come with 'Top Secret'. We're talking about a freaking war here. Thousands of lives are at stake.
Also, according to the statements of Bushs advisors, anybody who doesn't skip the foreign affairs part of his newpaper consumes a bigger volume of foreign affairs information than the current president.
You have hit on the crux of the issue there. This is not technically a democracy, i.e. we do not vote to decide national law or policy, we elect leaders to make those decisions for us.
The President answers to Congress, whom we have also elected, it is THEIR job to represent us. The president does not answer to us. That is the key to the success of the office, i.e. not having to consult with the public to make important decisions. Yes, even decisions to go to war. His "duty" isn't to inform us of anything.
Do you think President Truman informed the public of anything before he decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? If he had asked them, what do you think they would have said? And if he was forced to do what they say? I am pretty sure very few people would have had the stomach to execute tens of thousands of civilians, but it is widely considered to have saved many more lives than that.
There will always be protestors, people have protested every military conflict that the United States has been in since WWII, including the last Gulf war, and the Afghan war, arguably one of the most beneficial wars in modern times.
Luckily for us, we have a president to LEAD us in the right direction, not one who must cater to ignorance.
P.S. In talking about "The President" realize the office is much, much more than just one man of dubious intelligence.
The President answers to Congress, whom we have also elected, it is THEIR job to represent us. The president does not answer to us. That is the key to the success of the office, i.e. not having to consult with the public to make important decisions. Yes, even decisions to go to war. His "duty" isn't to inform us of anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, to make educated descisions about whom to elect, the population needs to be informed.
Note that I didn't say that 'the president' has to inform the people, I said that the sources he gets the informations from have to be opened. The Congress is elected by the population. Thus, to allow the congress to be functional as controlling instance to the government (which it is currently not), the people who elect their senators have to know what is happening - only by that, they can chose the right senators.
Therefore, in the interest of the democratic / republican system, the public has to be informed. I can't accept that somebody goes around telling the people from whom his power originates that he knows more than they and thus, their opinion isn't valid. Their opinion brought him in his current position, after all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think President Truman informed the public of anything before he decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? If he had asked them, what do you think they would have said? And if he was forced to do what they say? I am pretty sure very few people would have had the stomach to execute tens of thousands of civilians, but it is widely considered to have saved many more lives than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what your 'widely' is, but my 'widely' calls the detonation of the two bombs two of the worst tragedies in younger human history. Even today, there are still children born with severe dysfunctions because of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Luckily for us, we have a president to LEAD us in the right direction, not one who must cater to ignorance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Put the word 'Leader' in <a href='http://world.altavista.com/' target='_blank'>Babelfish</a>, select 'English to German'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. In talking about "The President" realize the office is much, much more than just one man of dubious intelligence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was that office or the name of the man of dubious intelligence on the voting cards? Bush is the President, this <i>should</i> mean that he's the one making the descisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But, to make educated descisions about whom to elect, the population needs to be informed.
Note that I didn't say that 'the president' has to inform the people, I said that the sources he gets the informations from have to be opened. The Congress is elected by the population. Thus, to allow the congress to be functional as controlling instance to the government (which it is currently not), the people who elect their senators have to know what is happening - only by that, they can chose the right senators.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You keep implying that it is somehow the governments responsiblity to inform you. With all due respect, exactly how much research have you done into the matter yourself? If I may suggest some reading:
<a href='http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm#4' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm#4</a>
It's scary stuff. This is published by an independent group, the Federation of American Scientists, who monitor and report on all government military activity, for the public's benefit. The source for this is an unclassified report to Congress that is freely available to the public.
It makes me just shake my head when I hear the average protestor say something like "No blood for oil." Their many, many statements like that are why I hold them in such low regard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore, in the interest of the democratic / republican system, the public has to be informed. I can't accept that somebody goes around telling the people from whom his power originates that he knows more than they and thus, their opinion isn't valid. Their opinion brought him in his current position, after all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all let's get one thing straight, the people who are protesting the war, and most of the people who are against war (37% of Americans) can be pretty much assumed to be exclusive from the people who elected George Bush Jr. So it is not their opinion that brought him to power, and thusly it can be expected that he will represent their opinions less than the opinions of those who elected him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know what your 'widely' is, but my 'widely' calls the detonation of the two bombs two of the worst tragedies in younger human history. Even today, there are still children born with severe dysfunctions because of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On what scale are you judging these to be the worst tradgedies? In terms of civilian deaths, the two bombings combined would not even make the top 20 worst civilian casualties in history. In WWII alone, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, took 135,000 and 100,000 respectively, compared to Hiroshimas 66,000 and Nagasaki's 39,000.
If we had not dropped the bombs, not only would an estimated 500,000 - 1,000,000 American soldiers have died in a land assault, and many more Japanese soldiers, several million Japanese <b>civilians</b> would have starved to death in the ensuing months. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering ever, it was the ultimate dishounor. They planned to fight the invasion "house-to-house." It was the atomic bomb that broke their spirit, and ultimately saved them, as twisted as that sounds. The ends DID justify the means, unless you consider a fractional civilian loss to be worse then utter genocide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Put the word 'Leader' in Babelfish, select 'English to German'.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was funny, and it actually made me laugh out loud, but ultimately its nothing more than amusing, and has no bearing on the concept of a leader. For example, "Mein Kampf," Hitler's autobiography, another German phrase that has sinister overtones, means nothing more than "my life." Does this mean my life is evil? I hope not!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->this should mean that he's the one making the descisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He does ultimately make the decisions, but he is really only a vessel for his dozens of advisors and the thousands of people who work for the White House. He was elected for his platform not his intelligence.
P.S. Reading over this, I realize I sound quite callous, and I'm sorry for offending anyone. I am trying to keep emotion seperate from logic.
I fear I misunderstood you in so far that I believed you said (shortened up, of course) "The President has sources you can't know, so shut up.", whereas what you meant was "The President has lots of sources the average protestor ignores, so shut up.".
I didn't mean to imply that the government has to inform its population, I wanted to say that the government has no right to base its descisions on alleged information which it keeps secret, and apparently, we agree here.
Discussing the Report would burst the frame of this discussion, if you want to do so, I invite you to repost in the 'Upcoming War' thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It makes me just shake my head when I hear the average protestor say something like "No blood for oil." Their many, many statements like that are why I hold them in such low regard.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Catchphrases like "No blood for oil" are of course shortened, but don't believe that protester opinions stop there. It's similiar to advertisement: If you want something to spread, you better make it short and easy to remember.
There are rather lengthy discussions and pamphlets which elaborate on these thoughts, it's just that they seldom fit on the shields you hold up during the demonstration.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On what scale are you judging these to be the worst tradgedies? In terms of civilian deaths, the two bombings combined would not even make the top 20 worst civilian casualties in history. In WWII alone, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, took 135,000 and 100,000 respectively, compared to Hiroshimas 66,000 and Nagasaki's 39,000.
If we had not dropped the bombs, not only would an estimated 500,000 - 1,000,000 American soldiers have died in a land assault, and many more Japanese soldiers, several million Japanese civilians would have starved to death in the ensuing months. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering ever, it was the ultimate dishounor. They planned to fight the invasion "house-to-house." It was the atomic bomb that broke their spirit, and ultimately saved them, as twisted as that sounds. The ends DID justify the means, unless you consider a fractional civilian loss to be worse then utter genocide.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to discuss this further, we'd better be opening another thread (not to mention that I'd better read up on the events), just let me set another historicans opinion against it: Many believe that the Japanese resistance was already broken (there were even high-ranking officials who were willing to commit the ultimate dishonor) and that the A-bombs were mainly a warning for the SU which had just turned out to be not willing to cooperate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This was funny, and it actually made me laugh out loud, but ultimately its nothing more than amusing, and has no bearing on the concept of a leader. For example, "Mein Kampf," Hitler's autobiography, another German phrase that has sinister overtones, means nothing more than "my life." Does this mean my life is evil? I hope not!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, 'Kampf' doesn't mean 'Life', it means 'Fight', 'Struggle', or 'War'. Believe me, this is my native language.
Second, I used this trick because your quote reminded me of a statement by a rather liberal voter of the NSDAP who believed that a 'strong man' was needed to overcome the problems of the 'ignorant' democratic system.
I'm not comparing anyone to anything here, all I want to say is that your statement - while of course not aimed like this - was and is used to justify authoritarian systems.
Let's take Nemesis Zero, for example: I'd conservatively put you in at least the top 5% of the population in terms of intelligence and education. Assuming you read that report (from the director of the CIA), and assuming it is mostly if not entirely true (a safe assumption in my opinion), I'm guessing most of it was completely new to you, our model citizen. Nevertheless that is the real reason we are going to war. Not oil, not "revenge," not a conspiracy of the Defense Industry, and most certainly not to win George Bush popularity. In short, we are going to war for the reason we have been saying since the beginning. Because if we don't, there is a very real threat of a catastrophic attack versus the United States.
Which brings me to the other reason we entrust these (military) decisions to the President. Most people just don't have the stomach for the tough decisions. Perhaps Hiroshima is a bad example, we could easily get mired in the arguments of opposing historians. But let us speak hypothetically of conflicts in the which the right solution would seem morally repugnant to the average citizen, but any other solution would only be worse. Surely you can agree these exist, and then you must also agree that the decision cannot be entrusted to the public.
...so shut up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you possibly clarify it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I mean is that straping on a rubber rocket/phallus and singing an off-key poorly re-worded Bob Dylan song and in the process oversimpling the enitre argument against war to 'Bush is only doing it for the oil" isn't going to make anyone take the anti-war movement seriously. Yes there really were protesters doing that.........
True, maybe I should rant at the media that only pays attention to the nuts instead...... or breed a pack of skulks to...um...... weed out the nuts from the protests before the cameras make it there........ <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> ........... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->