<!--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-->
The “no blood for oil” slogan does hold some ground. While in Texas, I read a newspaper headline saying that America will take the Iraqi oil for itself to compensate for the costs of the war, or something to that effect. The U.S. doesn’t want to buy the oil from the current Iraqi government because that would be feeding money to the enemy, so by taking over they can get it directly from a government they trust. Please note that I’m not saying this is the main reason they’re attacking, but if they really wanted to stop the terrorist funding, why not go for Saudi Arabia?
Edit: If it sounds like I think Saudi Arabia should be attacked, that was not my intention.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 22 2003, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 22 2003, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You believe that, meanwhile, I'll much rather go out there and <i>do</i> something than wait for a revolution that's 100 years overdue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I misstated my position. The problem is not in the demonstrations, but in the program that is presented. In S.F. it was a class-collaborationist, ex-Trotskyist Worker's World Party running the show, and subjecting the crowd to the appeals of the liberal wing of the ruling class (Democrats and greens). In Germany, I expect you got a big dose of national-chauvinism along with the old time socialist SPD and the greens? I'm curious to know who was speaking from the stage.
As long as there aren't anyone speaking from the stage about building a leninist-vanguard party, the demonstration only serves to strengthen the false conciousness of the masses in the form of bourgious ideology
There were some nuts in the demonstrations here in Australia (some 500,000 - 1,000,000 marched here, out of pop of 18,000,000) but for the most part it was ordinary people, mothers and families who couldn't understand why their government was so keen for this war. The typical "protesters" said the vast majority were "protest virgins", people who hadn't protested before but who marched because they felt strongly about the issue. It wasn't even properly orgainised; some lealets came around in the mail and there was "talk" of protests. The people who always protest, the "veterens" said they never expected anything like what turned out. So whilst there were some "nuts" for the most part here it was middle-income families who'd actually voted for the government in power.
<!--QuoteBegin--Zergling+Feb 27 2003, 07:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zergling @ Feb 27 2003, 07:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 22 2003, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 22 2003, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You believe that, meanwhile, I'll much rather go out there and <i>do</i> something than wait for a revolution that's 100 years overdue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I misstated my position. The problem is not in the demonstrations, but in the program that is presented. In S.F. it was a class-collaborationist, ex-Trotskyist Worker's World Party running the show, and subjecting the crowd to the appeals of the liberal wing of the ruling class (Democrats and greens). In Germany, I expect you got a big dose of national-chauvinism along with the old time socialist SPD and the greens? I'm curious to know who was speaking from the stage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The SPD has burried their socialist program some thirty years ago. Nowadays, they're as close to the (conservative christian party) CDU as one can get. There were some speakers of them and the Greens, which are currently too divided to be classified as <i>anything</i>, but the biggest part were globalization-criticisers from the Attac movement and its affiliates - my people. The conservative and nationalistic parts of Germanies political spectrum have traditionally strong links to the US government, i.e., they support whatever Washington does.
<!--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-->As long as there aren't anyone speaking from the stage about building a leninist-vanguard party, the demonstration only serves to strengthen the false conciousness of the masses in the form of bourgious ideology.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this is your believe, and I respect it, although I have - as you know - strong objections to the communistic idea. You have however to admit that these protests show a level of democratic engagement as I personally wouldn't have thought possible anymore. This alone, the fact that bigger portions of the population than ever before are willing to literally stand up for their believes, is something to appreciate.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 27 2003, 04:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 27 2003, 04:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From ATTAC's program:
To this end, signatories propose to participate or to cooperate with the international movement ATTAC to debate, produce and disseminate information, and act together, in their respective countries as well as on the continental and international levels. This joint actions have the following goals:
- to hamper international speculation; - to tax income on capital; - to penalize tax havens; - to prevent the generalization of pension funds; - to promote transparency in investments in dependant countries; - to establish a legal framework for banking and financial operations, in order not to penalize further consumers and citizens; the employees of banking institutions can play an important role in overseeing these operations; - to support the demand for the general annulment of the public debt of dependent countries, and the use of the resources thus freed in behalf of populations and sustainable development, which many call paying off the "social and ecological debt.
More generally, the goals are:
- to reconquer space lost by democracy to the sphere of finance, - to oppose any new abandonment of national sovereignty on the pretext of the "rights" of investors and merchants, - to create a democratic space at the global level.
It is simply a question of taking back, together, the future of our world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> when someone refers to "globalization" it is difficult to know what they mean. After reading ATTAC's program, I understood that they were simply a pressure group on the liberal bourgiosie of Europe (like the Greens in the US). ATTAC's program is to regulate the interworkings of international finance capital so that it can (somehow) serve the best interests of the human race. It does not bring up the question of how production should be organized, (such a position undoubtedly supports capitalist exploitation) or imperialism, (of which, globalization is simply an expression of quantitative changes in the last quarter-century). It's maximum program consists of lobbying for a more "humane" imperialism that will not exploit backwards countries so disasterously. It perpetuates the myth of "multinational corporations" and -the true crime of this theory- implies that only if bosses/bankers were controlled by the people, that there can be peace and democracy. Without the exploitation that billions suffer from daily, capitalism would collapse. Apologists for the ruling class only serve to perpetuate their rule.
I was curious if there were groups farther to the left speaking?
Well of course protests aren't enough. Protesting by it's very nature is not helpful, because it amounts to telling other people to do something. Protesters are like the players in games who spam over and over again for the rest of the team to do something. About a third of the US population is opposed to invading Iraq under any circumstances, so why can't the same be said for a third of congress? Why don't some of these protesters become senators? The answer is that most protesters are all talk. While politicians dedicate their lives to running the government, protesters just get together to **** about the politicians every once in a while, but never take any serious action to achieve their political "goals." They can **** all they want, but that won't accomplish anything.
I'd really like to know where you all get your demographic data about protestors from.
Folks, should you not have noticed, the 2/15 demonstrations had a completely mixed group of participiants. Beginning with the usual suspects, over numerous lobby groups (amongst them several veteran initiatives), to simple 'joe-neighbor' people, everything was represented. Judging the political initative of a group that diverse is bound to fail.
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What is good for a country doesnt always mesh with what the people of the country believe is right. People can be ignorant, apathetic and stupid. I would rather have faith in my Prime Ministers than many of the single celled organisms that i see vote for him.
The problem with protesting against foreign policy and defense, as opposed to most domestic issues (e.g. healthcare, gun control) is that it is usually important to keep vital information away from the public for security reasons. Unlike a corporation where transparency is the ideal, a government needs to keep secrets to make good decisions.
So I wouldn't be so quick to say that our elected representatives are disregarding public opinion; they have access to far more info than we do.
if you read the site it makes sense hes moking the media.
<!--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-->While watching TV coverage of the peace protests this past January, I noticed a large contingent of signs bearing extreme language that attacked President Bush--insulting him personally, calling him a terrorist, and comparing him to Hitler. At the same time, I didn't notice any signs criticizing Saddam Hussein. There were no signs asking him to abide by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement or the various U.N. resolutions he's been violating for over a decade.
Despite the extremist language used by many of the protesters, despite the fact that they seemed to blame President Bush for a crisis caused by twelve years of Iraqi noncompliance, the media portrayed the protesters as mainstream. This must mean the media perceives as mainstream the notion that Bush and Hitler are similar. The media also apparently perceives as mainstream the notion that, to resolve this conflict, nothing should be asked of Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps these perceptions pervade the cocktail parties of Central Park West, Georgetown and Los Angeles, but I suspected that most Americans--be they Democrat or Republican, Bush supporter or critic--would say that a parallel between our President and Hitler is extreme, not mainstream.
Frankly, I was angered that the media glossed over the obvious extremism within the protests. I was angered that the media would not challenge--or at least examine--the mentality of the people comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. And I was angered that the supposedly mainstream marchers seemed unwilling to acknowledge the extremism of their comrades.
So, I decided that, at the next protest, I would show a truth of the protesters that was going unreported by the traditional media.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its funny though it seems to be a bit like BfC exsept when he finds nuts with guns its "original and provocative" not "unfair and misleading."
Comments
The “no blood for oil” slogan does hold some ground. While in Texas, I read a newspaper headline saying that America will take the Iraqi oil for itself to compensate for the costs of the war, or something to that effect. The U.S. doesn’t want to buy the oil from the current Iraqi government because that would be feeding money to the enemy, so by taking over they can get it directly from a government they trust. Please note that I’m not saying this is the main reason they’re attacking, but if they really wanted to stop the terrorist funding, why not go for Saudi Arabia?
Edit: If it sounds like I think Saudi Arabia should be attacked, that was not my intention.
I misstated my position. The problem is not in the demonstrations, but in the program that is presented. In S.F. it was a class-collaborationist, ex-Trotskyist Worker's World Party running the show, and subjecting the crowd to the appeals of the liberal wing of the ruling class (Democrats and greens). In Germany, I expect you got a big dose of national-chauvinism along with the old time socialist SPD and the greens? I'm curious to know who was speaking from the stage.
As long as there aren't anyone speaking from the stage about building a leninist-vanguard party, the demonstration only serves to strengthen the false conciousness of the masses in the form of bourgious ideology
I misstated my position. The problem is not in the demonstrations, but in the program that is presented. In S.F. it was a class-collaborationist, ex-Trotskyist Worker's World Party running the show, and subjecting the crowd to the appeals of the liberal wing of the ruling class (Democrats and greens). In Germany, I expect you got a big dose of national-chauvinism along with the old time socialist SPD and the greens? I'm curious to know who was speaking from the stage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The SPD has burried their socialist program some thirty years ago. Nowadays, they're as close to the (conservative christian party) CDU as one can get. There were some speakers of them and the Greens, which are currently too divided to be classified as <i>anything</i>, but the biggest part were globalization-criticisers from the Attac movement and its affiliates - my people.
The conservative and nationalistic parts of Germanies political spectrum have traditionally strong links to the US government, i.e., they support whatever Washington does.
<!--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-->As long as there aren't anyone speaking from the stage about building a leninist-vanguard party, the demonstration only serves to strengthen the false conciousness of the masses in the form of bourgious ideology.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this is your believe, and I respect it, although I have - as you know - strong objections to the communistic idea. You have however to admit that these protests show a level of democratic engagement as I personally wouldn't have thought possible anymore. This alone, the fact that bigger portions of the population than ever before are willing to literally stand up for their believes, is something to appreciate.
To this end, signatories propose to participate or to cooperate with the international movement ATTAC to debate, produce and disseminate information, and act together, in their respective countries as well as on the continental and international levels. This joint actions have the following goals:
- to hamper international speculation;
- to tax income on capital;
- to penalize tax havens;
- to prevent the generalization of pension funds;
- to promote transparency in investments in dependant countries;
- to establish a legal framework for banking and financial operations, in order not to penalize further consumers and citizens; the employees of banking institutions can play an important role in overseeing these operations;
- to support the demand for the general annulment of the public debt of dependent countries, and the use of the resources thus freed in behalf of populations and sustainable development, which many call paying off the "social and ecological debt.
More generally, the goals are:
- to reconquer space lost by democracy to the sphere of finance,
- to oppose any new abandonment of national sovereignty on the pretext of the "rights" of investors and merchants,
- to create a democratic space at the global level.
It is simply a question of taking back, together, the future of our world.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
when someone refers to "globalization" it is difficult to know what they mean. After reading ATTAC's program, I understood that they were simply a pressure group on the liberal bourgiosie of Europe (like the Greens in the US). ATTAC's program is to regulate the interworkings of international finance capital so that it can (somehow) serve the best interests of the human race. It does not bring up the question of how production should be organized, (such a position undoubtedly supports capitalist exploitation) or imperialism, (of which, globalization is simply an expression of quantitative changes in the last quarter-century). It's maximum program consists of lobbying for a more "humane" imperialism that will not exploit backwards countries so disasterously. It perpetuates the myth of "multinational corporations" and -the true crime of this theory- implies that only if bosses/bankers were controlled by the people, that there can be peace and democracy. Without the exploitation that billions suffer from daily, capitalism would collapse. Apologists for the ruling class only serve to perpetuate their rule.
I was curious if there were groups farther to the left speaking?
As for that program, let's say that it's a little aged (i.e.: pre-9/11).
Folks, should you not have noticed, the 2/15 demonstrations had a completely mixed group of participiants. Beginning with the usual suspects, over numerous lobby groups (amongst them several veteran initiatives), to simple 'joe-neighbor' people, everything was represented. Judging the political initative of a group that diverse is bound to fail.
<a href='http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/sr030224.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/...es/sr030224.asp</a>
<a href='http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=677' target='_blank'>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=677</a>
<a href='http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=3' target='_blank'>http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_p...bal_role&list=3</a>
That's just a few. And they conflict somewhat. Do with it as you will.
there can be no true anarchy, there can be no true utopia
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is good for a country doesnt always mesh with what the people of the country believe is right. People can be ignorant, apathetic and stupid. I would rather have faith in my Prime Ministers than many of the single celled organisms that i see vote for him.
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
So I wouldn't be so quick to say that our elected representatives are disregarding public opinion; they have access to far more info than we do.
<!--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-->While watching TV coverage of the peace protests this past January, I noticed a large contingent of signs bearing extreme language that attacked President Bush--insulting him personally, calling him a terrorist, and comparing him to Hitler. At the same time, I didn't notice any signs criticizing Saddam Hussein. There were no signs asking him to abide by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement or the various U.N. resolutions he's been violating for over a decade.
Despite the extremist language used by many of the protesters, despite the fact that they seemed to blame President Bush for a crisis caused by twelve years of Iraqi noncompliance, the media portrayed the protesters as mainstream. This must mean the media perceives as mainstream the notion that Bush and Hitler are similar. The media also apparently perceives as mainstream the notion that, to resolve this conflict, nothing should be asked of Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps these perceptions pervade the cocktail parties of Central Park West, Georgetown and Los Angeles, but I suspected that most Americans--be they Democrat or Republican, Bush supporter or critic--would say that a parallel between our President and Hitler is extreme, not mainstream.
Frankly, I was angered that the media glossed over the obvious extremism within the protests. I was angered that the media would not challenge--or at least examine--the mentality of the people comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. And I was angered that the supposedly mainstream marchers seemed unwilling to acknowledge the extremism of their comrades.
So, I decided that, at the next protest, I would show a truth of the protesters that was going unreported by the traditional media.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its funny though it seems to be a bit like BfC exsept when he finds nuts with guns its "original and provocative" not "unfair and misleading."