1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors

[tw]

The picture is about as relevant to anti-war demonstrations as it is about Eagles fans. It does not even represent a significant minority of either group. At best it is 'proof' that we should ban alcohol in the US.

Now had this been a picture of Chicago summer 1968, or civil rights riots of the same period, or even Seattle during the start of the next round of GAPP, then the picture would have been relevant - have some significance. But the picture is about as relevant as one Saturday night outside a wild bar. It only demonstrates that some people will be violent for almost any reason. It is the stuff that makes Liza Thomas Laurie a popular news women in Philadelphia.

[wolf]

Originally posted by option
No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.

So, have you volunteered for the Army yet?

I mean, I'm assuming you're for the war. At any rate you seem pretty sure it will go smoothly. If you're against it, I've mistaken myself. But if you're for it, you're getting ready to go fight it, right?

No, we merely disagree.

We could both be right, we could both be wrong.

Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I'm just stating that there are other, equally valid viewpoints/interpretations.

But you are stating as an absolute something which is not.

I'm as big, or bigger, a conspiracy fan as the next guy ... but even I don't look for them behind every bush (or Pres. Bush ). (Although I am a proponent of the Flight 800 missile strike theory, and the Flight 93 shoot-down theory.)

As far as volunteering for the army, no, I haven't either. I'm not eligible for one, and I wouldn't take the cut in pay for another. I will support our troops in such an action, however. I have too many friends, past and present, in the military to do otherwise. Soldiers do a job that many of us are unwilling or unequipped to do. They don't make the wars, they just go and fight 'em. That distinction often gets blurred, and particularly with Vietnam, led to the returning soldiers being vilified by the protestors.

Yes, I support the war. I'd like to see Iraq resolved diplomatically, but I honestly don't see that as a viable option at this point. That would require rationality on BOTH sides, which clearly doesn't exist in Iraq, and I'm often not certain about "our" side.

[wolf]

Originally posted by tw
At best it is 'proof' that we should ban alcohol in the US.

And we know that doesn't work.

[option]

I wish I could be gentlemanly and compromising about it. No, you really are wrong. It's quite simple: you tried to attribute something to my statements which is false: that I believe "any 'protestors' could ONLY have the purest possible motives." To this you add the subtly add the charge of "conspiracy theorist." I don't suppose you want me to repeat my earlier response (to which I notice you make no specific reply). Why compromise with that?

(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)

You go further, and now I feel so must I. It's grim, but we're not just discussing politics anymore. All this quiet patriotism is soaked in blood.

You "support" our troops? I doubt they feel your support.

You're implying that if the army doesn't support the lifestyle to which you're accustomed, that clears you of the responsibilities that go with your opinions. But I get the feeling you already know better. There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job."

I know many of the people you "support." You seem as though you should know well enough already that by accepting this conflict you do the opposite of supporting them. Do you imagine that you turn your back on them by opposing sending them to the gulf? It's on the altar of this kind of credulousness that they'll be sacrificed (in small numbers or great, who can predict?), not to defend their country, because by every indication Iraq threatens us less than Saudi Arabia, and not to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because then they would be on their way to North Korea or Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are indisputably known to exist (in the former in abrogation of an important disarmament treaty, and in the latter, in the hands of the single most likely people to use or lose them), but to further the interests of a western oil cartel.

[Slithy_Tove]

Advice: nothing makes a discussion worthless faster than questioning others' motives and ad hominem attacks.

Once someone starts attacking me, rather than my ideas, I stop paying attention. I advise everyone else to do the same.

[Cam]

We've kind of had a vicious cycle of that in the cellar lately though. It's been kind of annoying

[wolf]

This guy is new, and probably didn't read as a lurker long enough to establish clue-ness.

If s/he catches the feel of The Cellar™, s/he'll stay. If s/he doesn't s/he'll get frustrated and wander off.

(*shrugs*)

Don't care, really.

[option]

"This guy is new, therefore..."

It's just, while nothing I said was ad hominem, that was. Good for a chuckle, I guess.

[warch]

*snort* I always love it when sprouts lecture publically about a war they read about in history class.

I'm glad to see them thinking about war, because they're the ones gonna be fighting it.

[Hubris Boy]

*Convulsed with laughter and gasping for breath, Hubris Boy struggles back to his keyboard. Wiping a tear from his eye, he stares incredulously at his monitor. Yes, it really does say what he thought it said.*

Originally posted by option
(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)

That single statement tells us all we need to know about your abilities to reason critically and write effectively.

Run along, now.

[option]

You could try actually making an argument?

Or does the last insult win?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by warch

I'm glad to see them thinking about war, because they're the ones gonna be fighting it.

Point well taken...but bear in mind that speech isn't always evidence of thought.

In fact, sometimes it is evidence of its absence.

[Uryoces]

Option, the way I've come to think of the cellar is a group of friends sitting around drinking beer [wine/relaxing beverage of choice] and shooting the breeze. We're all friends here, or at least not strangers. We all have viewpoints on this issue and how to resolve it. Some are wackier that others -- Mine involves packs of rabid weiner dogs and lots of hemp. tw's a good soul, just have to have him breath into a paper bag once in a while.

There's no need to blow a seal.

[Undertoad]

Now, wait a minute... HB's note made me think about it, and I feel tw has made the most important point of all:

Originally posted by tw
It only demonstrates that some people will be violent for almost any reason.

Precisely.

Geez, even in the middle of a peace protest, some people will be violent for almost any reason.

And that's why, sometimes, you have to go to war.

[warch]

Or:
sometimes, you have to go to war, and then, some people will be violent for almost any reason. The defensive offense or the offensive defense. I dunno. War should be the last resort, threat of war is a tactic.

I am confused. But I do know that knocking over a newspaper box is just stupid, meaningless vandalism.