community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
A plea for donations for new clothes. . .
by John
Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2003 at 1:50 PM
johncihon@yahoo.com
A call for donations to help more radical elements avoid discrediting the entire movement.
In light of recent debate among the local activist community about what is appropriate behavior and dress at unpermitted protests, I am putting out a plea for donations of clothing and funds to purchase clothing, so that local formerly black-clad anarchists can dress in a manner that is socially acceptable to the average citizen at upcoming protests. Donations of clothing from the Gap and Banana Republic are particularly appreciated, as these clothing styles resonate well within the psyche of the average American television viewer. So many anarchists have previously failed to realize how off-putting their attire may be, so your donations will allow them to not have to make the hard choice between staying home or showing up and discrediting the entire movement. As well, we are seeking donations for laser tattoo removal surgery. We are also looking for individuals to sponsor anarchists to attend Dale Carnegie�s �How to win friends and influence people� series of courses, so that when talking to the media local anarchists are able to present themselves in a bland and inoffensive manner. Clothing and donations can be delivered to market square on Sundays at 2:30, where many of the afore-mentioned unfashionably dressed individuals will be busy distributing food to the area�s homeless.
A question of the question
by pr05p3r0
Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2003 at 11:33 PM
After marching my feet off last Thursday, up front & out in traffic, I found my fury at the actions of my government mixed with a certain amount of unexpected anger at some of my fellow marchers. I was dismayed to watch too many people behave like attention-seeking brats, pretentiously wearing tres-chic Zapatista bandannas, harassing passers-by, even gleefully doing the happy-pagan dance down the street. I felt betrayed by my government on one hand, my community on the other.
I was too grief-stricken over the start of this horrendous war to say what I wanted to say to my fellow marchers: this is not a party. This is not about YOU. This is not about how cleverly you can prank, how stunningly you can shock your parents or their surrogates in the community, how precious you can be baiting the police. You have no right to hijack the peace movement to satisfy your own personal need to feel important, special, or oppressed. This is deadly serious. People are being killed, every day, and it's not over their right to dance in the street, toss newspaper boxes, or draw fashionable anarchy symbols on buses. We are trying to save peoples' lives here, and that takes all the allies we can muster. Our task is not to repel or intimidate others into staying away from peace protests, but to invite them, to promote a movement of ALL sorts of people who feel grief-stricken, angry, betrayed by the actions of our government. We need to focus attention not on our individual selves, but on the goal--end the war!
Ask yourself, is what I'm doing actually furthering the goal, or is it just to satisfy my own needs? Sometimes it's necessary to give up something of our own for a greater cause. Sometimes that thing is a gas-guzzling car, sometimes it's your Starbucks latte--but sometimes it's your attitude or your desire to be the freakiest, most out-there kid on the block. The most visible sacrifice is not always the most important.
really now
by pr0t3s7
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003 at 1:16 AM
your pathetically illogical rhetoric implies that, perhaps, you are angry that more attention wasn't drawn upon yourself. yes, people are dying, that is why we must "escalate our actions" as opposed to complaining about a group of individuals who make honest attempts to disrupt the flow of malevolent societal obedience to a murderous regime (and hopefully disrupt the flow of blood abroad). wow, really, your argument is pretty funny, I'm not even sure why I'm taking time to respond to this nonsense, it's probably just a joke anyway (surely no one can be this ridiculous, haha).
"this is not a party"
Nor is it an inconsequential stroll in the park, however, it seems as though you are quite content about taking that path of pr0test.
"You have no right to hijack the peace movement to satisfy your own personal need to feel important, special, or oppressed"
I would advise you to take this sentiment into consideration when analyzing your own actions. How, exactly, do individuals who have organized numerous marches "hijack" a movement? It seems as though you are the one who is attempting to satisfy your personal needs to feel important. This should be obvious, however, for why else would you propagate this hilarious rant about the actions of others.
"People are being killed, every day, and it's not over their right to dance in the street, toss newspaper boxes, or draw fashionable anarchy symbols on buses"
Seriously now, WHAT are you talking about here? Does this even make sense to you? Did anyone ever say that Iraqis were being killed because they drew "anarchy symbols" on buses?
"We are trying to save peoples' lives here"
Are "we"? I know that the "attention-seeking brats, pretentiously wearing tres-chic Zapatista bandannas" are trying their best to effectively resist the nefarious militaristic actions of the US government. These individuals are the ones who are actually willing to put themselves on the line to attempt to escalate resistance. However, I'm not sure that "we", as you put it, are trying to save people's lives. Really, what are you doing? Insignificantly walking around the street complaining when genuinely concerned, dedicated activists decide to utilize more creative means of pr0test? Exactly how are you ever going to save someone's life? By making laughable attempts at thwarting the more progressive actions of others, while doing nothing yourself but walking up and down the street? Yes, more MARCHING, now THAT'S true resistance! hahaha
really, put the old english down before you type your next reply
What's up?
by selfish masked up brat
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003 at 3:23 PM
"this is not a party. This is not about YOU." Well, it isn't about any individual. It's about throwing a wrench into the massive killing machine that is our state. Dancing in the street does this. Escalating tactics (inanimate objects as blocades) does this. Marching does this. Standing on the corner with a sign does this. Teach ins do this. Street parties do this. Anything that breaks out of the normal mold and brings our murderous society to a halt for even a moment can save lives, bring people into the movement, and make a strong statement.
"We need to focus attention not on our individual selves, but on the goal--end the war!" Yes, you're right, so we should also stop trying to dictate the actions of others so that they conform with our own individual opinions and ideas of what's effective. Everyone out there on Thursday wants the war to end, and no one wanted it to start in the first place. It's very selfish to say you know what's more effective and what's better than the next person. Maybe a newspaper box won't help much, but I know that stifling creativity and creating a homogeneous peace movement will do more to support the war than to hurt it.
"sometimes it's your attitude or your desire to be the freakiest, most out-there kid on the block" This isn't really true. A lot of folks in masks were organizers who have to deal with police oppression in their daily lives so that these marches happen. POG members were targeted, attacked, and arrested on Thursday for their political beliefs. If they want to wear masks, I think everyone should respect that, just the same as I'd respect those who choose not to wear masks. I mean, hell, if everyone wore masks, that tactic would be incredibly effective, but no one suggests that and for good reason: you should do what you want to fight this war!
No
by Evan N
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003 at 3:36 PM
I respect te idea of wearing bandannas, as i do at marches, but however way you want to see it moving inanimate objects into the street doesnt do shit but piss people off and alienate our movement. It would be delusional to think that you are doing some sort of justice to the opressive state by throwing something into the street. all it does is make the peace movement look like spoiled kids. if you want to smash the state do it at an anti capitalist protest, but at anti war ones concentrate onthat . and yes i do understnd the relationship between capitalism and war but MOST PEOPLE DONT and trying to claim that right now just alienates the movement and attracts less people. if you want to stop the war, we need to attract as manyt people as possible
not at all
by pr0t3s7
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003 at 10:27 PM
"moving inanimate objects into the street doesnt do shit but piss people off and alienate our movement."
I'm not going to re-post my entire article, but I believe I have explained the tactical significance of these types of actions quite effectively. I'm not too sure how one claims that the creation of inanimate blockades will "piss people off" but refrain from commenting on the fact that a LARGE, UNPERMITTED MARCH in the middle of the street during rush hour in itself just might "piss people off". Really, I would appreciate it if people stopped being so divisive and considered examining their own tactics. If you march in the street, you may "piss people off", however, you have deemed the consequences acceptable for the benefits recieved through large public demonstrati0n. If you want to COMPLETELY avoid evoking a sense of anger in a few reactionary individuals, I advise you to stay as far away from activism as possible. Moving objects into the streets to form blockades is a legitimate form of pr0test, as I have explained in my article. If you do not wish to use newspaper stands and dumpsters to break the spell of societal complaceny then by all means refrain from partaking in those actions. I'm not too excited about the idea of sitting in the street at dem0nstrations, however, I will not attempt to ostracize and vilify the individuals who utilize this form of pr0test.
"if you want to stop the war, we need to attract as manyt people as possible"
As I explained breifly in my article, a diversity of tactics possesses the potential to bring a diversity of people to these events. I know a lot of people who oppose this war but don't attend pr0tests because they believe them too be nothing more than boring walks in the street. Let's embrace our tactical diversity by allowing the more traditional pr0testers to draw a large pacific portion of the crowd and enabling the more vehement dem0nstrators to acquire a more active contingent.
Seriously, the more *active* people at the pittsburgh dem0nstrations make honest efforts to reach out to everyone, and some people still find it necessary to make laughable attempts at textually, verbally, and physically attacking us for our choice of tactics. As a movement we must remain cohesive. The media and police would LOVE to see this movement divided, and we must never let them attain this victory.
Back to the question
by pr05p3r0
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003 at 11:28 PM
You write "It's about throwing a wrench into the massive killing machine that is our state. Dancing in the street does this. Escalating tactics (inanimate objects as blocades) does this."
and
"It's very selfish to say you know what's more effective and what's better than the next person. Maybe a newspaper box won't help much, but I know that stifling creativity and creating a homogeneous peace movement will do more to support the war than to hurt it."
I didn't tell anyone what to do, I asked (and continue to ask) that everyone consider with brutal intellectual honesty whether their actions are truly effective or merely satisfying. Often, particularly when working as part of a larger movement, what we want to do won't get us what we say we want. The desire to act out, to destroy, to create mayhem can be strong, and it's easy to confuse that desire with the idea that those actions are necessary, even required. It takes courage, self-discipline and genuine dedication to distinguish between means and ends.
As for the rest, if you're laboring under the delusion that any petty violence perpetrated in the name of any cause will "throw a wrench into the massive killing machine that is our state", you need to go back and read some honest history. Those tactics didn't work for the Situationists of Paris & Berkeley (has anyone ever changed your mind about anything by being an ass in your face about it?), and they aren't going to stop this war. We need to draw out the quiet majority who are morally sickened by the war on Iraq, to make it attractive for them to stand out in the open and say their piece. Extremism feels like doing something, but it only draws the ire of those we would want to join us (is there anyone we wouldn't want to join us?) and marginalizes what should become a mass movement. I'm looking for more creativity, new, more effective strategies than the tired old "run around & throw things & get arrested" thing. I'm hoping for a genuinely diverse movement, one that looks like our country, with all ages, all economic classes, all lifestyles. That's the only kind of movement that can effect change.
Look, no one's suggesting you should wear a suit (but if that's what it took, would you do it?). But if you want to lead instead of merely act out, you need to keep the goal firmly in front, and be willing to do what it really takes: build partnerships
What do we want?
PEACE!
When do we want it?
NOW!
wow
by Evan N
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:16 AM
Dont you understand that when people hear "property destruction" on the media about the anti war movement it straight TURNS THEM OFF. they dont want to be a part of it. it makes us look spoiled kids that are just out in the streets to trash stuff and not stop the war becuase ordinary everyday people CANNOT make the connection between property destruction-capitalism-and war. people would be MORE LIKELY to do the large unpermitted march because there are diverse people doing it. you dont see old ladies throwing newapepr boxes though. the main point is property destruction TURNS PEOPLE OFF fromt he movement. go do it at an anti-capitalist march.
oops
by Evan N
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:23 AM
i think my computer tweaked out and made my whole last post bold on accident - sorry
</b>What's all this talk of property destruction?
by protestor
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 9:06 AM
"Dont you understand that when people hear "property destruction" on the media about the anti war movement it straight TURNS THEM OFF."
This may be, but there wasn't any property destroyed on Thursday, so I'm not quite sure what you want us spoiled brats to do about this media perception.
"But if you want to lead instead of merely act out, you need to keep the goal firmly in front, and be willing to do what it really takes: build partnerships"
Well, first of all, who needs to lead this anti-war movement? It's completely ridiculous to say that anyone needs to lead anything. That said, if it weren't for POG, a group supporting a diversity of tactics that is mostly made up of spoiled and somewhat militiant masked kids, there wouldn't have been a march at all on Thursday! Further, the group absolutely does work to build partnerships. Look at the endorsers from the January rally that had 3000 people on the SS and 5000 people in Oakland. They organize peace picnics and permitted rallies to make sure everyone who wants to participate can find a voice. If you can't/won't respect a diversity of tactics in one event out of 3, then perhaps you should only participate in the permitted events that obviously conform to your own comfort level --- not that there is a thing wrong with that, but this debate is basically moot. If you want a march with zero diversity and no tactical unity, you're going to need to organize it, I don't think POG will and I don't think the Merton Center will, either.
Property destruction
by george k
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:14 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
Property destruction:
1. paper boxes
2. personal vehicles
3. commerce disruption
4. traffic disruption
5. peace disruption
I can go on if you like. The march DID cause physical and intellectual disruption and destruction of a willful nature. From the physical acts of violence of material objects being damaged from their undisturbed state, to the forced use of police officers overtime, requiring extra tax-dollars to pay them coming out of the peoples pockets.
Your tactics are not appreciated. The people who personally observed you, unfiltered by any "corporate media" were apalled at your immaturity and presumtuousness, and most of the citizens of the city (and around the country where this takes place for that matter) are glad that the protesters who use these unpermitted tactics are arrested and penalized for said tactics.
FREE SPEECH DOES NOT IMPLY UNFETTERED SPEECH. THERE ARE RULES FOR EVERYTHING IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY AND IF YOU CANNOT FOLLOW THEM, YOU WILL BE RESTRAINED UNTIL YOU DO FOLLOW THEM.
<EOM>
Are you people blind to the truth?
by George K.
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:15 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
Why We Must Fight � and Now!
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett
Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.
Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."
Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln�s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word �liberty.�" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler � as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests � betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.
Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.
Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf�s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.
It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world�s dictators.
In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.
We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world�s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.
This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world�s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin � during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."
Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.
Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.
We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton�s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.
In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.
I'm not sure if you understand
by jwg
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:58 AM
the difference between 'destruction' and 'disruption'
the purpose of street marches is to disrupt. Not a single thing was destroyed except for the reputation of the City and county po-po.
uhhh
by Evan N
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 4:13 PM
by the way im ignoring george K
ANYWAYS to respond to a post before him where someone was saying property destruction didnt occur i AGREE, but it doesnt MATTER what happened because the media said it happened at thats as good as it actually happening to the normal person sitting back at home.
george k
by Bil Bennett
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 4:19 PM
You sure copy and paste well. There are plenty of other places to read that pompous windbag Bennett, that you don't need to waste the space here.
Bennett
by Theo
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 5:05 PM
TheoK444@aol.com
This was posted elsewhere, again, i respond:
It is wrong to assume tht just because demonstrators aren't carrying signs denouncing Sadaam that they support his government. Every demonstrator i've talked to agrees that he is a murderous tyrant. That said, there are plenty of other murderous tyrants in the world today who are oppressing, starving, torturing, etc. their people, who have wmd or are trying to get them, who support terrorism, and who actively hate the United States. Yet, for some strange reason, we are not at war with these nations. North Korea announces that they are resuming a nuclear weapons program, threatens U.S. spy planes in the region, let it be known that they have missles that may be capable of reaching the West Coast, and actually threaten the U.S. with war if we impose sanctions on them. Yet Bush doesn't seem to consider this a threat worth going to war over. Iran has recently been discovered to be working on a nuclear weapons program, in violation of international law. The fundamentalist regime has been active in supporting terrorism around the world, especially in Palestine. Yet Bush doesn't seem to think this is a threat worth going to war over. Need i mention Syria? Or our 'ally', Saudi Arabia? I'm still holding my breath waiting for Bush to even so much as criticize the Saudi regime for allowing the hateful anti-American propeganda that is a daily occurrence in their media, or attempt to stop the flow of oil money into terrorist hands. And what about China? Don't give me this Sadaam is such an evil man argument, because the world is full of evil men killing their own people, and we're doing nothing about it.
There was no response to my post elsewhere, perhaps George K and others can explain to me why we went to war with Iraq and not Iran or North Korea.
Always the question
by pr05p3r0
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 10:18 PM
To defuse some of the polarization on this thread, I thought I'd go to someone else's words try to make clear what I'm trying to say. The following paragraphs are taken from the website of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization with a long and repected history of focussed, considered civil disobedience:
In undertaking civil disobedience, or indeed any dramatic public action, the challenge is one of perspective and humility. Daring actions growing out of the frustrations of desperate times can lead to a distorted sense of our power and place in the scheme of the universe. Civil disobedience can become purely a technique, over-used and detached from its spiritual roots. Actions
undertaken routinely can run counter to the practice of civil disobedience as a disciplined act of the individual conscience and an expression of faith, concerned with results in that context. I think that more introspection might lead to an increasein participation--keep the goal in mind. Just clarification Just want to clarify that Evan N is an astute fellow, but I have some differences of opinion with him on some of these issues, and people are beginning to confuse us. i forgot... John, I forgot to mention this before, but your statement that "Clothing and donations can be delivered to market square on Sundays at 2:30, where many of the afore-mentioned unfashionably dressed individuals will be busy distributing food to the area’s homeless." is a work of pure genius. ..... yeah, but? "ANYWAYS to respond to a post before him where someone was saying property destruction didnt occur i AGREE, but it doesnt MATTER what happened because the media said it happened at thats as good as it actually happening to the normal person sitting back at home." what to do lets ***Not give the corporate media ammunition to use against us*** Discipline (in a very broad sense) is what we need to combat the twisting of facts and occurances by the mainstream media. Like think before you act. When you're standing beside that newspaper box say "how will this look to the person watchign the news that is sitting on the fence between war or peace" You will attract more flies with honey than vinegar or something liek that Media Demonization There are good arguments against utilizing property damage as a tactic. The fact that the media will inevitably focus on such acts is not one of them. solution so the solution is to keep doing it? just GIVE the media crap to twist around and distort until it fits their purposes? that doesn't get us anywhere unless we are trying to dissuade people sitting in their living rooms watching the news from joining us. the solution is to give the media the least possible amount of stuff to distort. Granted, they will twist around anything, but the newpaper boxes were unneccessary and so was the car hitting. Eliminating all unneccesary activites that can be construed as violence is the key bennet theo: we'll get them all, one at a time. We? Who is this "we", rp? Unless you've enlisted, you're still just sitting in your mom's basement spamming indymedia. . There was no response to my post elsewhere, perhaps George K and others can explain to me why we went to war with Iraq and not Iran or North Korea.
Perhaps because N. Korea has in the past done exactly what they're doing now. We give them money, they go away and be good for a couple years. That's what happens when you're a poor communist nation who has decimated your own economy, you need handouts from the US, but you can't ask for it so you just threaten.
As for Iran they're in the middle of some pretty serious social revolution, and most people feel they'll be able to solve their own problems.
And then there's Iraq, who has ignored diplomacy for 12+ years and systematically killed any opposition groups, leaving zero paths for change.
Honestly I'm amazed at how often people ask the "why not Iran or N. Korea?!?!" question. Why not Iran? Pretty weak responses, all of them. You didn't even address the things that are going on in those countries. So N. Korea is just threatening us to get money? And this is acceptable? What happens if we say no? Will they just give up their weapons of mass destruction and go home? Not likely. And Iran? Still trying to build nukes, exporting fundamentalist revolution throughout the middle east, and i'm sure the war in Iraq is going to do wonders to promote liberal, democratic revolution in that country. And as for one at a time, that is simply asinine. I hope to god that is just wishful thinking, and not Bush's plan. Are we just going to invade every country that we feel threatened by? How long before the entire world is united against us? Simply asinine. Especially when we are actively supporting anti-American fundamentalism by supporting the regime in Saudi Arabia. As long as we keep trying to play both sides of the fence, we will continue to get burned. I would be a lot less likely to oppose this war if i though it was accompanied by a serious and constructive change in U.S. foreign policy. We? to head predator: what kind of head do you give? Human Rights? Am I missing something in every single comment? Who's the loser? Hey, it's our right to march and to protest. Who are you to try and stop us? This administration is killing women and children in Iraq and this war needs to stop and people like you just want to discriminate against us and bring us down. Marching and protesting works but, obviously, you are just some highly paid executive who enjoys trampling on the rest of us! Corporate Drones Hey ass. Nice assumption but I'm black and not white so don't tell me about discrimination you mindless loser. I've just risen above you idiots and decided to be productive member of society rather than looking for excuses to join a party. Tactics you say? Well, keep up the good work, maybe you'll stop the war and then Sadamm can go back to raping and torturing his people -- congrats on your accomplishment. Then again, it's not likely the "cause" you are fighting for. I'm sure it were mosquito's rights you be out there too because you clearly are someone who just needs a club to belong to. Seeing you coming Don't worry, I won't have to see you coming because I'll likely smell you. In any event, if you think that L.L. Bean's clothing is a disguise, then you have a lot more serious problems than the war. Funny how all you clowns protest against discrimination and then categorize everyone who disagrees with you as L.L. Bean-wearing white corporate types. I guess to you, getting a job, dressing nicely and being fiscally responsible is a crime. honestly does anyone really believe that rape and torture will cease and order will reign in post-saddam Iraq. Really? Thank you Nostradamous. That will give you even more reason to march won't it. seriously, it's history look at iraq before saddam. Iraq Actually, Jackal, many on the left were opposed to Sadaam's war 20 years ago, when our hero, Ronnie Regan was selling him weapons and supporting his murderous regime. Amnesty International has been actively opposing his regime for decades. The left was light years ahead of the right in recgonizing the type of regime that Sadaam controlled. Or perhaps the right simply didn't care as long as he kept fighting Iran. And i'm sick of hearing the argument about what a butcher Sadaam is. That's not why we're there. Stop pretending we're there to save the Iraqi's from Sadaam. We're not. We didn't help the Kurds when they rose against him in 1992 and he slaughtered them. We don't care about the North Korean government starving millions. We don't care about human rights abuses in Iran, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia, the list goes on. We ignored genocide in Rwanda. We haven't succeeded in setting up a stable democratic government in Afghanistan, nobody seems to notice that. Even the administration, in making the case for war, didn't even mention liberation of the Iraqi people until they had exhausted every other rationale. Please, please, please stop beating that tired, dead old horse. Thanks. Memory problems? Funny how I didn't see any of you guys out prancing around in opposition to Clinton's strikes on Iraq. Very selective battles you choose. The thread on here accusing the guy of rape because of "intimidation" and other forms of "mental" control of women had liberals screaming but didn't hear a peep when Clinton was screwing an intern. If you're going to take a position, at least be consistent. As for Iraq, I agree on the 11th hour liberation theme but I also understand that Iraq posed a huge international threat with hidden, biological and other weapons and supports terrorism. That's enough for me to wipe out their administration. Liberal Light Years So Theo, if you guys were light years ahead of the Right on the Iraq issue ... WHY THE HELL WEREN'T YOU BOMBING SADDAM OUT OF POWER 20 YEARS AGO ???? It was you progressive liberals that stopped the Coalitino forces from moving into Bahgdad in 1991 and removing Saddam. Liberals I'm not sure what the hell you're even talking about. Re-read my post. Exactly who do you think should have been bombing Iraq 20 years ago? Amnesty International? Reagan was president. He wasn't bombing the hell out of Iraq in order to 'liberate' the Iraqi people. He was too busy arming Sadaam. That's the entire problem. Your post didn't even make sense.
by Evan W.
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 10:46 PM
Evan W. (not Evan N.)
by pr0t3s7
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:38 AM
by selfish masked up brat
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:14 AM
So ... I'll repost my question ... if the media are going to lie and make things up, what the hell are we supposed to do about that? They have that power ... I know it's a problem, sort of (although I think a good amount of property destruction by some affinity groups targeting corporate businesses that are linked to war, slave labor, etc would really do a lot to increase the costs of this war), but there isn't ANY p.d. and the media reports that there is ...
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:55 PM
P.S. thanks for clarifying our names Evan W. i was just about to do the same
by Sam
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 8:25 PM
Regardless of whether or not anything gets damaged, the media will villify, play down, and misrepresent the views of the anti-war movement.
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:26 PM
by rp
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 3:36 PM
by head predator
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 3:53 PM
by .
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 4:35 PM
by Theo
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 9:52 PM
TheoK444@aol.com
by red redator 1
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 7:47 AM
redpredator1@yahoo.com
by Jackel
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 8:52 AM
First, you sad losers, this thread was obviously started as a joke on you but you all are too stupid and self-absorbed to see it.
Second, and more substantively, Saddam has been beheading, starving and otherwise torturing (in unspeakable ways) the citizens of Iraq for years and I've never seen one protest or march? Now we do the right thing to go in and topple the bastard and every mindless, gotee-wearing, pale, pimpled, unemployed, xgen loser in the city wants to march against it. Go figure.
I started reading these comments until I realized that I was becoming more stupid by the minute. It's like a stupidity virus that attacks those who require a collective body of like-minded losers to feel wanted.
I have an idea. Why don't you all just march over to your nearest employer, get jobs and do something productive.
by Caltechguy
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 9:20 AM
by Jackel
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:42 PM
by Jackel
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:46 PM
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:47 PM
did anyone ever look at Iraq before saddam, there will be chaos, death and destruction on a much wider scale without saddam. and the Turks and Iranians will invade as well. We are condemming an entire nation to death
by Jackel
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:52 PM
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:54 PM
we have no idea what is going to happen when he is gone, the notion that we will give Iraq freedom, that is some nostradamus shit there.
Look at afganistan, we sure gave those people a peaceful post -war country.
by Theo
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:10 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
Love,
Theo
by Jackel
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:20 AM
by S.Odamninsane
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:30 AM
by Theo
Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 8:57 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)