Attention Recovering Hippies

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
More...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...026/ap_on_re_us/anti_war_protest_18&printer=1

Young punk rockers with mohawks, aging hippies and middle-aged couples with children all took part, chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war."

On a nearby street corner, a handful of Iraqi-Americans staged a counterdemonstration. Aziz al-Taee, spokesman for the Iraqi-American Council, said, "I think America is doing just fine. ... We think every day Saddam stays in power, he kills more Iraqis."
 
H

Heretic

Guest
Its amazing how far some people have their heads burried in the sand.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
One very big difference between Vietnam and Iraq. Iraq has the potential to attack this country surreptitiously potentially wiping out an entire city. Which city in the U.S. do the protesters want to sacrifice. NYC took the first hit. I propose liberal central, Hollywood, as the next ground zero.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
My take on "war" protesters:

The ONLY thing they are against is a world order based on the United States of America model, IE Constitutional government with a bill of rights to protect the individual.

"Based on what", you ask?

Whatever one thinks about Viet Nam, whether or not we should have committed troops, the fact remains that our goal was to try and maintain an infant democracy, South Viet Nam, against the Soviet backed communism of the North.

So, Jane Fonda and company, Billy C at Oxford included, were supporting the advancement of communism, the antithesis of freedom and individual rights. It is laughable to expect that, had we just stayed out, that the "people" of Viet Nam would have decided for themselves. Yeah, at the point of Soviet bayonets.

Gulf War 1 it is at least intellectually honest to say "hippies" were protesting "blood for oil" as Bush 1 did not propose anything more than the maintenance of the status quo in the region. Ignoring the economic impact is another story.

The current threatened hostilities aimed at Iraq are expressly aimed at a regime change to, yes, protect our short term interests but also to very much create the opportunity for freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people and, maybe one day, the whole region, which is in our long term interest.

Same thing we are doing in Afghanistan.

So, hippies, as you are opposed to liberating a society and potentially and entire region, aka a “racist war” in your world view, what are your motivations?
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Originally posted by Larry Gude
My take on "war" protesters:

The ONLY thing they are against is a world order based on the United States of America model, IE Constitutional government with a bill of rights to protect the individual.

Well said!
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Larry Gude
Gulf War 1 it is at least intellectually honest to say "hippies" were protesting "blood for oil" as Bush 1 did not propose anything more than the maintenance of the status quo in the region. Ignoring the economic impact is another story.

Right on, for the most part, Larry. My only contention is with the quote above. It was not blood for oil; it was a call by the Kuwaitis that they needed help to suppress the takeover of their country by Iraq. The strategic value of the region (oil) might have helped expedite our action but it wasn’t a reason for doing so. We went as far as the UN allowed us to go as we did the right thing by assisting a nation under the gun of these thugs. I would like to believe that we would do it even if oil wasn't involved.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ken, I say to you...Rwanda. We knew what was starting to go on there. We ignored it. 800,000 people got chopped up because everybody over there is to damn poor to buy ammo. No national interest.

I got no problem accepting as fact (in my opinion, of course!) that we "liberated" Kuwait strictly to stabilize the free flow of oil, worldwide, at market prices.

To me, you just can't "liberate" people who do not otherwise have liberty. They are only a moderate state in comparison to their neighbors, not in comparison to what you and I would think is liberty or freedom.

They are a monarchy not in the modern UK sense and you don't want to be a woman there.

As far as Iraq, the only reason I see a freedom angle there is because of the oil COUPLED with the belief that these people would make fine democrats in the small d sense. They have the means and potential to become a modern state, as we see it, to their benefit and ours. I see a national interest.

Rwanda? Nope. Somalia? Nope. Balkans? Nope.

There has to be something in it for us besides simply humanitarian interest. Haiti is a great example. There is no evidence whatsoever of their taking advantage of our help.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Larry Gude
Ken, I say to you...Rwanda. We knew what was starting to go on there. We ignored it. 800,000 people got chopped up because everybody over there is to damn poor to buy ammo. No national interest.

I don’t know Larry. There were several differences between Kuwait and Rwanda. First, and probably the most important was who our leader was, Clinton versus Bush (one had balls and the other was too busy satisfying the urges of his). Next were the international implications as addressed by the UN. Rwanda had little or no chance of escalating to a regional conflict, while Kuwait could have erupted into a real nasty mess if immediate military action wasn’t taken. Iraq had just been in a ten year war with Iran and was now going after the sleeping Kuwaitis. If they had moved to the west, mixing it up with the Israelis, it could have really gotten hot (pun intended).

Back to the point, the UN was very explicit on what the member nations were going to do against Iraq and gave very little instruction and effort except for establishing a DMZ between Uganda and Rwanda. I see our government having very little input on either case other then the singular vote within the Security Counsel. That is until the Kuwaiti leaders and other moderate Arabs asked for our assistance. I’m not sure Rwanda did any of that. I am searching through the UN Resolutions to get a better understanding of what was asked of and directed by the UN.

I got no problem accepting as fact (in my opinion, of course!) that we "liberated" Kuwait strictly to stabilize the free flow of oil, worldwide, at market prices.

I’ll agree that we might have had ulterior motives to get involved and oil is as good of one as any, but shouldn't a nation act in its best interests? Seems like that is what we were doing in the Iraq/Kuwait event and as you said there wasn’t much incentive to engage in the battling in Rwanda. Furthermore the method of fighting was so primitive that any direct action by our military would have been scrutinized beyond belief.

As we aren’t the world’s police force, like many think we should be, when should the US of A get involved? I think it is when we have a direct interest or are called upon to act by those that we hold allegiance with. There are many UN Resolutions calling for action that we haven’t intervened or acted upon. Does that make us evil or does that indicate that we feel that many nations should resolve their own problems?

As to Iraq, we have an obvious interest. Weapons of mass destruction and a monster that has said he will use them to bring us down and is now seeking even greater weapons. This is a direct threat to our security and that is why Congress empowered the Commander in Chief to utilize military force if necessary. Some might see it as a battle for oil, I don’t. I see it as a necessity to prevent an evil leader from gaining power he has all intention to use.

BTW, I was agreeing with your original post except for what we now are discussing.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ken,

BTW, I was agreeing with your original post except for what we now are discussing.

I knew that.

That is the toughest thing about forums, to me. Sometimes it's hard to pass on "inflection" or "tone". Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were somehow taking me to task or whatever. We're on the same page, just, as you pointed out, niggling a few other points.

I defer to you in terms of treaties and commitments because I know you take the time to actually read what they say and what they mean.
 
Top