Anti-War Protest on 29 North

Cecil writes: Driving north on 29 this morning (8:45 a.m.) past the shopping center with Giant and Maharajah in it, I noticed on the other side of the street, in front of that large business complex (is it Sperry?), a knot of anti-war protesters and an even LARGER knot of police cruisers and other police vehicles. Anyone know more than that?

111 Responses to “Anti-War Protest on 29 North”


  • I drove by this around 9:15 this morning. It’s a bunch of protesters outside of Sperry, basically saying that Northop Grumman (the parent company of Sperry) is a producer of weapons, etc. yadda yadda.

    If these people weren’t so ignorant, they would know that Sperry actually produces radar, sonar, and navigation equipment for both the US Navy and civilian business; last time I checked, their customers were pretty much 50%/50% civilian/military. They don’t produce any weapons.

    At least this group didn’t inflict their protest upon other people by screwing up traffic. They kept their protest limited to the front entrance of the Sperry building.

  • If I read your first paragraph correctly, they aren’t protesting Sperry’s activities, they are protesting the activities of Sperry’s parent company, Northrop Grumman.

    So, then, why the vituperative second paragraph? Am I missing something about the protest?

  • “Local Protest Blocks Defense Contractor”

    “Seven of the forty plus protesters demonstrating in front of Northrup Gurmman this morning are under arrest. Two had been taken into custody earlier this morning for tresspassing. Five others had chained themselves in the driveway of the defense contractor, to make a statement against the war in Iraq. A spokeswoman for the group says Grumman is contributing to the war effort, which is why they chose the location on Route 29 for their demonstration.”

  • I’m wondering where all the concerned protestors were when the Iraqi government was gassing the Kurds.

    I’m just asking.

  • Yeah, good idea for the protesters to show their support for your country especially in front of military personnel. Maharajah’s neighbor let us not forget is the recruiters’ office. I saw them out there showing their ‘support’ of free speech.

    If these protesters had balls, I invite them to sat down at NGIC. I don’t think they would be as nice as the police.

  • I’m wondering where all the concerned protestors were when the Iraqi government was gassing the Kurds.

    I’m just asking.

    I’m wondering where *you* were at that time. I’m just asking.

  • *I* was voting for a President that would do something instead of being a wuss

  • Right now, with all the xenophia and patriotism on the rise, it takes very big balls to protest against fascism.

  • Wow! So you mean you knew already Bush was going to invade Iraq?

  • Yeah, I knew that he was going to be a wuss when it came to stuff like this. Clinton was a pansy. Gore is a pansy.

  • It also takes very long legs, to walk all the way to Iraq to do it. But I’d salute anyone with balls that big and brassy.

  • Just because somebody is willing to get arrested for a cause doesn’t make it right. It just makes it worth (to them, at least) getting arrested over.

  • You’re confused, not surprisingly. There’s no need to "walk all the way to Iraq", since fascism is alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

  • Fair enough! You are DaMan, after all.

  • PWNED!!!!

  • Well, maybe if Northrop Grumman had supplied the gas, they’d have protested Grumman.

    Of course, it wasn’t Grumman who sold Hussein his chemical weapons–it was other US companies. For example, “Alcolac International, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in Gulf War diseases.”

    Regarding the gassing of which you speak, “The infamous massacre at Halabja – the gassing of the Kurds – took place in March 1988. Six months later, on Sept. 19, a Maryland company sent 11 strains of germs – four types of anthrax – to Iraq, including a microbe strain called 11966, developed for germ warfare at Fort Detrick in the 1950s. ”

    You can read more about how we armed Iraq here.

    Big_Al, I assume you were protesting these business deals at the time?

  • Since I’m not somebody who scans the headlines looking for something to protest, that doesn’t matter. I find it hypocritical that the people "taking a stand" against this war couldn’t care less about the reasons we’re at war. In fact, I doubt any of them could even give you any of the reasons that have been declared. It seems that they prefer to protest their own perceived reasons for the war, perhaps because the actual ones don’t lend themselves as well to protest.

    The only people saying this war is about oil are the protestors. No official of our government has made that claim, yet we always see signs that state "No Blood For Oil". It might be actually refreshing to see signs that stated "No Blood To Remove Murderous Madmen." THAT sentiment would have validity, might be taken seriously, and might cause those citizens supporting the prosecution of this war to pause.

    As it is, the ongoing protests, which involve a very small minority of citizens, are seen by the majority as little more than a public nuisance. That doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes them irrelevant in the eyes of most people.

  • I’m the one not surprisingly confused!

  • In about a month or so, all the UVa students will go away from CVille. And I bet you that the protesting will decrease about 75% or so.

    Anyways, the war will be over by that time.

  • Oh no – I’m doomed! Cecil found an article on the INTERNET! I know how to Google too. No big whoop.

    Frankly, I couldn’t care less how or where Iraq’s weapons got in their hands, any more than the British cared how we got our weapons prior to 1776. One sign of a strong society is the willingness to correct past mistakes. Additionally, Iraq apparently has self-produced a great deal of WMD (I hate that term – can’t somebody come up with something more accurate?) all by themselves.

    And no, I wasn’t protesting those business deals. I imagine you weren’t, either.

  • In about a month or so, all the UVa students will go away from CVille. And I bet you that the protesting will decrease about 75% or so.

    Anyways, the war will be over by that time.

    +2, Optimistic

  • I know you don’t care, but I think it’s kind of inconsistent that you’re all sad about the gassed civilians at Halabja while simultaneously it doesn’t bother you that US businesses raked in their profits at the expense of those civilians, nor that the US government knew at the time that Hussein was using them on civilians.

    I mean, let’s imagine that instead of crashing planes into the WTC, the 9/11 terrorists had dropped nerve gas all over the buildings and killed about 3000 people. Suppose we later found out that they were sold their nerve gas by, say, French businesses (who made a pretty profit) who knew that these were anti-American terrorists, and then we learned that the French administration knew that the purchasers had used the gas on Americans but decided not to do anything about it because they didn’t want to “damage relations” with this terrorist group.

    That’d be cool with you?

  • And no, I wasn’t protesting those business deals. I imagine you weren’t, either.

    *sigh*

    We all suck.

  • Nice choice for the French chemical industry, which is indeed much larger than Americans are aware of. You could have used American companies’ chemicals used on American people, but you chose to vilify further the French. Also of note, you are bringing this war in proximity with terrorism, an association with which we have little to no real proof. For that matter, the French, Germans, Swedes, Italians, Spanish, British, Scottish, Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, etc. etc. all either provided some original resources or even safe-harbor to terrorist activities.

    This war is unacceptable on many fronts, but the single most intolerable reason is that it infringes on the very sovereignty of Iraq and by extension, the whole Middle East. In 1944, Americans helped — substantially — liberate Europe, especially France, from the Nazi Empire, which had invaded other territories. In 1991, America fought the Gulf War to expel Iraqis from Kuwait. Now, America is *invading* a sovereign nation for nebulous pretenses. This is why protest is so prevalent all around the world, and yes, at Northrop Grumman’s local subsidiary, Sperry. America is showing old-world imperialism still has its partisans, and because the U.S. is the dominant military power today, don’t you find it at least curious Bush would be wielding theses powers to INVADE?

  • Actually, I’m not sad about the gassed civilians. I refer to that particular event because it clearly indicates that Saddam is perfectly willing and able to commit mass murder, even if it means he’ll have to take a late lunch. The fact that he is willing to kill his own people, as he has done in the past, as he’s doing today, and as he’ll continue doing until we stop him tells me that he clearly is willing to gas you, me, and anybody else if he is given the opportunity.

    Do you believe otherwise?

    He didn’t and isn’t killing these people out of neglect, or as an unintended consequence of other goals, as the result of some failed otherwise benevolent policy, or even as acceptable collateral damage. He killed and is killing them because he likes to kill people. His sons torture and kill becuase they like to torture and kill.

    Do you believe otherwise?

    I have a fundamental belief that people who kill because they get a kick out of it ought to be stopped by whatever means available.

    Do you believe otherwise?

    The alternative, of course, is to look the other way, continue to allow, if not enable him, his family, and his commanders to kill indiscriminantly, just for fun. After all, before last week he wasn’t really killing any Americans, so he wasn’t really a threat to us.

    That’d be cool with you?

  • …and you’re the one no one can decipher which side of the fence you’re on.

  • <I>+2, Optimistic</I>

    I’m thinking that prediction calls for a +3, at least. I suppose we’ll see.

  • +2, Optimistic

    I’m thinking that prediction calls for a +3, at least. I suppose we’ll see.

  • you wandered far afield from my point. i’m calling you a hypocrite for getting okay not sad but somehow het up (morally outraged?) at only ONE of the key players in the gassing of civilians at Halabja. If the killing of civilians at Halabja is repellent to you, you ought also be repelled by the officials in the US administration (Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr.) who knew what he was doing with the weapons and allowed him to continue to do so.

    You’ll need to look hard to find me defending Hussein anywhere on this board–it hasn’t happened because I don’t support him. But you’re the one trotting out Halabja and throwing that at current anti-war protesters as if their failure to protest that occurrence somehow invalidates their current actions–"where were they when Kurds were being gassed at Halabja–just wondering?"

    Oow, zowie! Like that’s some kind of devastating and unanswerable riposte? I mean, why on earth WOULD they have been protesting that when our government at the time was saying "no worries, no worries, just so long as Iraq remains enemies with Iran, it’s all cool!"

    All your points about how rotten Hussein is may be relevant to another discussion (one, perhaps, about Hussein), but it’s not relevant to a discussion of your selective concern about the Kurds.

    To sum up: it’s repellent to you that Hussein used chemical weapons on his own citizens–and it is so to me, too. But apparently it’s repellent ONLY to me that Reagan/Rumsfeld/Bush Sr. knew he had done so and didn’t lift a finger.

  • Not me. I blow. North by northwest, usually.

    ;)

  • No, not for you. You are so light, you ‘blow’ right over it.

  • Say it again, brother!

  • I am positive that the citizens of Iraq appreciate you for standing up in support of their dictator.

  • Just as you stand up for ours.

  • First of all, I had to look up "vituperative" to see what you meant. Second, I think what the writer was doing was releasing frustration about the ignorance of the protesters and at least commending these morons for not blocking traffic again. I think they realize that the traffic on 29 might not be as forgiving as the intersection of Ridge/McIntire. They would probably be picking these morons up off the pavement with a sponge.

  • Hey, these people don’t have the guts to be HARDCORE protesters. HARDCORE protesters actually go to other lands and protest like in the Gaza Strip and get run over by bulldozers!

  • First of all, I had to look up “vituperative” to see what you meant.

    First, you should thank anyone who teaches you something.

    They would probably be picking these morons up off the pavement with a sponge.

    Second, that’s no doubt what you call a “better life”?

  • A number of people I know who oppose the war in Iraq actually supported the war in Kosovo.

    This is troublesome, when we consider:

    1) Both regions were under the rule of oppressive dictators.

    2) Both leaders were decidedly unfriendly to the "West."

    3) Both leaders committed horrible acts of violence and oppression upon their populace.

    Why then, was there not this level of protest during THAT war? There was some, but not like this.

    Why did Europe (after considerable sitting around) jump on board and attack Yugoslavia, but not Iraq?

    What’s the difference, really?

    Does Western society value the lives of Europeans more than Arabs? If so, what does that say about us as a society? Are we racist towards people of Middle Eastern decent? We just don’t care (as much)?

    The news was flooded with content on the atrocities committed in the Balkans, yet we don’t see nearly as much about Iraq.

    When I saw the video of the Kurdish woman who was soaked in gasoline and then torched (she lived) by Iraqi troops last week, I was horrified. I don’t mind going in there to prevent things like this from (hopefully) happening again. Yet, few anti-war folks seem to give a damn. More sanctions. More inspections, etc.

    Where’s that liberal sensitivity we always hear about? Funny thing is, if Chirac was torching people in Paris you’d probably be all for Normandy #2.

    Again, you don’t have to LIKE the war, or even think it was a good idea, but at least admit that an Iraq free from an oppressive governement is in itself a good and just outcome.

  • Having lived under facism, I am sure you are an expert.

  • I drove by these morons this morning as well. I opened the sunroof, stuck my head out, and exercised my Constitutional Right to tell them how stupid I thought they were.

    I then went to work. I can’t help it – I just feel a need to contribute something to society.

    Perhaps when I am retired I’ll protest in favor of rights of grasshoppers to not get nailed by lawnmowers.

  • I must have, since I can spell it.

  • Where’s that liberal sensitivity we always hear about? Funny thing is, if Chirac was torching people in Paris you’d probably be all for Normandy #2

    The level of this ‘discussion’ is so low with some posters, it’s really not worth it.

  • The reason for the second paragraph is that it’s ridiculous to protest a segment of a huge company that has nothing to do with the reason you’re protesting… if your point is that Northrup Grumman makes bombs, then go protest in front of an actual bomb-making plant instead of protesting in front of a marine navigation systems plant. Who the hell are you going to convince inside of a facility that has nothing to do with what you’re protesting?

    I could completely understand if that facility made bullets or even navigation systems for guided missiles or something. But when the products that come out of that plant are not munitions, and also go out to civilian markets like Carnival Cruise Lines, then why bother? Especially when you have the NGIC right up the road… that would be a far more relevant place to protest. The people inside of the Sperry building, even though their paychecks are signed by Northrup Grumman, are so far removed from the "bomb-making" that they probably don’t give a crap. Northrup Grumman is a huge company, I’m sure the protesters could have found a more relevant place to protest up in northern Virginia. Unfortunately most protesting thus far has been more about laziness than pertinent, meaningful protests. Like I said before, why are all of these protesters inconvienicing Downtown or a rather unimportant facility when there’s a VERY good target up the road at NGIC. It just seems like a waste of energy to me.

  • Cause the chicken S***s know they will charged federally then..

  • I don’t think Bush qualifies as a dictator. He was elected… and I know you’re going to throw either the "popular vote" or "Supreme Court" arguments out there… but if anything we have Bush because the Democrats failed to rally enough support behind Gore. What was the voter turnout again? 50%? Bush isn’t a dictator, he was elected by default through the laziness and apathy of the electorate and the inability of the opposition party to rally support behind their candidate.

  • <I>why on earth WOULD they have been protesting that when our government at the time was saying "no worries, no worries, just so long as Iraq remains enemies with Iran, it’s all cool.</I>

    Good point. Why on earth ARE they protesting now when our government is saying "no worries, no worries, we’re doing the right thing, we’reliberating an oppressed people?"

  • Or shot, given the fun factor of our new Homeland Security hype.

    Still, they could protest across Rt. 29 from the NGIC, so as not to actually be on their property, and they could still deliver their message that way.

  • You’re missing the point, which I understand to be, where’s your line?

    Is it okay for Clinton to invade (yes, invade) Kosovo to remove one murderous dictator, but not okay for Bush to invade Iraq to remove another? That wasn’t a UN operation, either, by the way. If so, why?

    Is it okay for Clinton to bomb Baghdad by remote control to annoy Saddam, but not okay for Bush to send in the troops to eliminate him? If so, why?

    Where’s that confounded line?

  • Nah, those are wannabe hardcore protesters. Truly hardcore protesters go to Baghdad and volunteer to be human shields.

    Now THOSE protestors have big brass ones (gonads, not brain cells).

  • If they did that, Seminole Trail would have them arrested. In the protestor manual, getting busted at a shopping center probably doesn’t carry quite as many style points as being arrested at a defense subsidiary.

  • There are many trees in that area they could hug! Then run and grab some tofu and granola.

    But seriously, if these guys want to be taken seriously by me they should inconvience themselves by getting arrested rather than screwing me by blocking the traffic.

  • THey are sending milk to the troops. Or Oakley who provides sunglasses. Perhaps they need to protest the middle east oil producers that make the oil we use to…. oh… nevermind!

  • You have to remember that Bush ‘wasn’t’ elected by the people. He was appointed by the SuprmeCourt.

  • if your point is that Northrup Grumman makes bombs, then go protest in front of an actual bomb-making plant instead of protesting in front of a marine navigation systems plant

    I’m guessing it has something to do with the bomb-making plant not being here. If I want to protest a Supreme Court decision, I’ll stand in front of the federal courthouse at the corner of Ridge/McIntire and Main. It’s not that I actually believe that Judge Harry Michaels is to blame. It’s just that the courthouse is here, along with the Charlottesvillians that I wish to address, unlike the Supreme Court.

  • they DIDN’T block traffic on 29, and some of them DID get arrested.

  • My bad – I keep forgetting that.

  • because this time fewer people believe them? because we found out they were lying last time and their credibility has become stretched too thin? because we generally don’t buy the argument that the ruling oligarchy is primarily motivated by humanitarian impulses?

    i think those are all plausible answers to your question of why people are protesting despite BushCo’s assurances that this is the only way to achieve the goal of ousting Hussein.

  • Bollocks. Bush II got more of the popular vote than Clinton did against Bush I. His electoral victory was no more dubious than Lincoln’s or Kennedy’s.

    Anyway, I don’t see what rehashing the dead issue of the election has to do with this war.

  • I only wish you had the guts to back your convictions and spend a day inside a real fascist regime. Then we’d see how much bullshit you’d talk.

    It’s the old paradox: the fact that you don’t live in a fascist regime is the only thing that makes it possible for you to say you do, and also the thing that makes you an idiot for saying it.

  • Yeah, I’m so light that you always resort to ad hominem attacks when you reply to me.

    Reason is hard.

  • that is when you get a roadtrip planned. I can understand your point Waldo but for the average joe like myself I see people protesting the wrong place. That isn’t making me think about the war it is making me think what morons.

  • I think, as someone else suggested, that it is not laziness that prompted the protestors to protest in front of Sperry. While some of the protestors might be able to, most of them probably do not have the time from their school, jobs, family, etc., and maybe not the financial resources to plan a trip to NoVa.

    There’s also the thinking that Sperry’s head honcho will call up his boss at Northrup-Grumman and tell him how many protestors are there, what they’re doing and why.

    I commend people on both sides of the war debate for being active enough to publicly state their opinion.

  • This very small minority seems to be much more vocal than the pro-war protestors. Also, I certainly wouldn’t call the 30% of Americans that oppose the war a very small minority. They’re a minority, sure, but that’s still significant.

    Yes, the protestors are talking a lot about oil as a cause for the war. Given Bush and Cheney’s background, this is a fairly logical assumption to make. Furthermore, Bush has made statements explicitly stating that oil is in fact a reason for this war for two reasons, to protect the US’s oil supply and to preserve that supply for the well-being of Iraqis.

    But you don’t scan the headlines.

    There are all sorts of other reasons for not going to war…

    -Spurning the UN.

    -Many people feel that diplomatic efforts did not go far enough.

    -Many people feel that there were no real diplomatic efforts.

    -Many people, and the government has all but admitted this, believe that terrorist acts will increase as a result of the war.

    -Many people feel that pre-emptive strike actions are wrong and set a very dangerous precedent.

    -Some people feel all wars are wrong.

    The protestors are saying all of these things, and more, maybe not just the ones you see when you’re driving down the street. But how would you know…

    You don’t scan the headlines.

  • "Tell security to keep them off the property. Hey is the coffee hot?"

  • This post was ment to go under the protesting at NGIC thread.

  • Really. The election was rigged but it’s gone now and I really don’t give a damn except that American institutions were able to be so easily manipulated.

    What is important is that Bush rules without counter-weight. I’ve explained this enough in other posts and I’m tired of reiterating it.

  • Bruce… you have no idea of what I am and what I am capable of. So why you just kiss Bush’s feet and shut the ***** up.

  • Maybe if you used just a little more of that kanoodle you were given at birth, then just maybe…

  • "You have to remember that Bush ‘wasn’t’ elected by the people. He was appointed by the SuprmeCourt. "

    A popular comment by the uninformed.

  • The boy who cried “Edit” is awful mysterious. Perhaps instead of lodging obstreperous threats against relative unknowns, you should work on stopping this malevolent editing that seems to be going on.

  • He was NOT elected. He was APPOINTED by the supreme court. There is a big difference.

  • Ummm it has everything to do with it.

    First, bush doesn’t win the election, then the supreme court justices that his daddy appointed appointed him president.

    Then a couple months later, the CIA allowed 2 terrorists that they KNEW were coming to america into the country. The FBI buried information they gathered from yet another terrorist. Then somehow these terrorists attacked a known target with a KNOWN method (there was a federal anti-terrorism report with a PICTURE of airplanes slamming into the WTC on the cover).

    Then we blow up Afghanistan so we can build our gas pipeline which we already invested 10 billion dollars surveying. No protesters then.

    Then all of a sudden a mid-term election rolls around, and the economy is shit. The GOP decides to push war to distract us from the economy. From that moment on the media (lap dog) is barking about war war war even before the UN resolution was put forward. Why? Not for oil, not to liberate the iraqi people, but because we need to cover up our domestic problems. So you see, its not blood for oil, its blood for huge tax cuts for people who make $10,000,000 a year.

    So you see, its all ONE story, the "election story" cannot be seperated from anything this administration has done. Dont you remember that bush removed the check and balance of the senate? The EOP is operating in a vacuum without any transperancy. Thats unconstitutional. And dont get me started on the patriot act, constitution schmonstitution. And please dont go read the patriot act 2, you’ll think you’re living in stalinist russia.

    If this country were ever to become corrupted (well more corrupted than corporate lobbyists can do) or totaltitarian, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any resistance organization to emerge, because with the massive intelligence gathering capabilities of the government, any uprising could be crushed before it began. Can you say patriot act? We’re spying on you for YOUR protection, and YOU can be hauled off and thrown in a "detainment camp" with no charges, no rights, no nothing. Hmmmmmmm

    Excuse me while I go hide in a hole somewhere before the storm troopers get a chance to hunt me down for writing this.

  • Obstreperous threats

    Phew! That’s one I haven’t read in a long while: I had to look it up! One point for our favorite online erudite sadomasochist! Bravo!

    …although, can a threat be other than obstreperous?

    …and you lose another point for your continuous perpilocutionist demeanor, no matter how fond I am of parrhesia.

    …lastly, a point is lost for phatic postings with obvious meiosis intent. So you really are down by two points, sans counting your innate knack for dontopedalogy, flummery and macrology.

  • Sympatico… you have no idea of what I am and what I am capable of. So why you just kiss Webster’s feet and shut the ***** up.

  • I’m the one who can be capable of… and who’s who. And your the one supposed to kiss feet and ***** shut up :-(

  • Hear, Hear

  • dkachur said:

    "There are all sorts of other reasons for not going to war…

    >-Spurning the UN.

    Worked with UN on this problem for 12 years. Sure doesnt constitute "spurning"

    >-Many people feel that diplomatic efforts did not go far enough.

    They went to the wall with diplo efforts and were stymied in an undiplomatic fashion,

    by the likes of France and Germany .

    >-Many people feel that there were no real diplomatic efforts. <

    By "real" do you mean we didnt try, try, try, and try again?

    ->Many people, and the government has all but admitted this, believe that terrorist acts will increase as a result of the war. <

    Not exactly a revelation, but never be afraid to stand up for what is right because of fear of retaliation.

    >-Many people feel that pre-emptive strike actions are wrong and set a very dangerous precedent.

    Not pre-emptive in the true sense of the word and if by some stretch they were considered so – "the element of surprise is worth several divisions." I don`t think we are fighting a "gentleman`s war although the US certainly certainly tries.

    -Some people feel all wars are wrong.

    Well, I can think of a couple that if we had not fought them we would be in one hell of a shape

    - "Verstehen Sie?"

    Well, I am biased but after combat in WWII and Korea, which took eight years from my life for my country I sometimes wish there were a few people I could cross off my list of "who we are fighting for" but then I`ll never do that – it`s just nice to think about. One never realizes how valuable his country is until one fights for it against people with opposing views.

  • If I hear one more person equate opposing the war to supporting Hussein, I’m going to give that person a lobotomy because they’re clearly not using their brain for any sort of thinking. Ugh! Get it through your skulls that that’s practically never the case! At least have the decency to *think* about what others are saying.

  • Net threats? Ooh, scary! I’m scared. Hold me?

    Moron.

    The point remains, you wouldn’t know a real fascist regime if it crashed your birthday party, shat in the punchbowl, and jumped up and down on the piano keyboard shouting "Look at how very fascist I am being!"

  • When you *are* arrested for writing this, I’ll give any credence to what you’re saying.

    And again, rehashing the election is pointless. Bush won, get over it. He wasn’t the one who threw the whole mess into the courts in the first place.

  • You said: I only wish you had the guts to back your convictions and spend a day inside a real fascist regime. Then we’d see how much bullshit you’d talk.

    It’s the old paradox: the fact that you don’t live in a fascist regime is the only thing that makes it possible for you to say you do, and also the thing that makes you an idiot for saying it.

    Then, I said: Bruce… you have no idea of what I am and what I am capable of. So why you just kiss Bush’s feet and shut the ***** up.

    It is very obvious you have problems with basic logic. It is therefore not surprising you are not able to comprehend the world around you.

    To make things very clear: I did not threaten you in any way. I responded to your childish insults: no “guts”, “idiot” with a truthful counter-statement: you don’t know me, my history and my capacities, all in stark contrast with your statements pretending to be privy to who I am.

    In conclusion, I’ll say you’re a minor intellect, on the net or not.

  • This very small minority seems to be much more vocal than the pro-war protestors.

    Not a logical point to make. When was the last time you saw a protest (or, actually, a demonstration) by people who think the government’s doing okay, people who think we pay just the right amount of taxes? Citing the relative lack of “pro-war” protestors doesn’t support your point in this case.

    Calling people who support this military action “pro war” is a bit disingenuous and waaaaaaaay simplistic. It’s like calling people who are in favor of a woman’s right to choose “pro-death,” since they are opposed to the “pro-life” movement.

    If I’m “pro-war,” does that make you “pro-Saddam?”

    Spurning the UN.

    Please – aside from the fact that the UN has already made their stand against Saddam crystal clear, we beat the diplomatic drum until it ran out of gas. The UN has a long list of prevailaing resolutions that justify this action in Iraq.

    Many people feel that diplomatic efforts did not go far enough

    Most people disagree. It was time to stop trying to talk, and how anybody could think that anything short of a well-aimed bullet or a well-placed bomb was going to change Saddam’s ways is beyond me. That’s like saying Manson would have changed if somebody had just tried to convince him that murder is wrong.

    Many people feel that there were no real diplomatic efforts.

    Most people disagree. 12 years is long enough to determine the enemy’s willingness to accept change.

    Many people, and the government has all but admitted this, believe that terrorist acts will increase as a result of the war.

    So we should just give up and let the world go to hell because of “threats?” I don’t think so. Besides, where are the terrorist attacks we’re owed from having invaded Agfanistan? Still waiting for those to occur.

    Many people feel that pre-emptive strike actions are wrong and set a very dangerous precedent.

    Many people feel that sitting back and allowing a homicidal madman and his minions to continue to kill, rape, and generally oppress a country is far worse, and that it might not be a bad thing for such folks to understand that they may be next on our list of threats to eliminate.

    Some people feel all wars are wrong.

    I agree that war is undesirable, but appeasement is much worse. How do these people feel about rape, murder, genocide, and other violent acts against innocent people?

  • Look, headcounts have little intellectual value. But they do validate – or invalidate – policy, since we think we’re still in a democracy, after all. (Does anyone remember what I have said months ago to cvillenews, and for years to others, that the U.S. political system is broken and we need to ‘raze-and-rebuild’?)

    Before Bush engaged our country in this war, the American public was quite obviously strongly split. Furthermore, the international public was quite strongly leaning against war AT THIS TIME. The United Nations, too, was very clearly not resolved yet on military action against Iraq.

    I’ll say this in its most simplistic form: Bush is a bad president. On this issue and on so many others. He exhibits lack of judgment and acts more like the King of America than as the democratically elected leader of the United States of America, a nation with an often quite proud history.

    I wish no harm to our troops, whom I think are actually victims of Bush’s monarchist conduct. Iraqis, too, are victims of their own monarchist nutcase, Hussein and his family, plus now, they have to contend with an invading imperialist, who thinks they are superior by ideology and religion.

    So, it is Bush who has opened military hostilities and he has done so simply because he has the power to do so. At its core, the situation is a simple as this.

  • I have no trouble comprehending the world or losers like you who inflict your half-witted attempts at reasoning on it.

    I expect I know exactly what you are and what you’re capable of, at least intellectually, and it isn’t much.

    And you still wouldn’t know a fascist state if it bit you on your pimply behind. The day you learn the difference between real fascism and any government you happen to disagree with is the day you’ll be worthy of the first shred of respect.

  • Look, headcounts have little intellectual value. But they do validate – or invalidate – policy, since we think we’re still in a democracy, after all.

    You’re right. Headcounts have little intellectual value. And if headcounts are any measure of policy, then Bush has had a 65 – 70% approval of his policy since before this war even started.

    Before Bush engaged our country in this war, the American public was quite obviously strongly split. Furthermore, the international public was quite strongly leaning against war AT THIS TIME. The United Nations, too, was very clearly not resolved yet on military action against Iraq.

    The American public was strong split, with the obvious minority against supporting Bush on his Iraq policy. The international public had a similar split, with some countries having larger splits than others. And the United Nations has been unwilling to put teeth to its resolutions for over a decade. I dare say they wouldn’t have been resolved on military action against Iraq at any time in the forseeable future, using historical precedence as my guide.

    I’ll say this in its most simplistic form: Bush is a bad president. On this issue and on so many others. He exhibits lack of judgment and acts more like the King of America than as the democratically elected leader of the United States of America, a nation with an often quite proud history.

    You have a right to your opinion, but obviously the majority of people right now believe differently than you do. And as much as you may think that Bush “acts like a king”, he was elected by us, the people, and he faces re-election in the future, should us the people not think he did a good job as President.

    I personally don’t believe that everything Bush has done has been great, but he has exhibited at least one quality of a good leader. Decisiveness. Unlike, say, the current UN security council.

    So, it is Bush who has opened military hostilities and he has done so simply because he has the power to do so. At its core, the situation is a simple as this.

    Again, that’s your opinion. I don’t agree with you. I don’t believe that Bush opened military hostilities “simply because he has the power to do so.” I believe that he opened hostilities because non-hostile measures were clearly ineffective.

    Saying anything to the effect that Bush started this war on a whim (what, he woke up grumpy that morning?) sounds ridiculously paranoid to me. It requires a belief that the President does nothing for any motive but selfishness. This is a belief that I do not hold.

  • There much to debate on the headcount issue, and we can agree to disagree.

    However, when you say “Saying anything to the effect that Bush started this war on a whim (what, he woke up grumpy that morning?) sounds ridiculously paranoid to me.“, this is an obvious underhanded potshot. Did I say “he woke up grumpy that morning”? No, I think there’s far more to it than that. Of course, as you know, or at least I hope you know.

  • so how do we get him impeached? O wait a sec, everyone voted Rep in the Senate and Congress. I guess they too were appointed by the supreme court.

    Man we will never get Bush out of office. What can we do?

  • You think Germans knew the extent of which Hilter was a psychopath in the beginning of his ascension in the 30’s? Earning your respect is frankly of no import to me, and obviously vice-versa. Lastly, my behind is not pimply, although I find it curious you mention this kind of ‘yuckiness’.

  • It’s a figure of speech. And Hitler made it perfectly clear what he intended to do, people just didn’t want to believe he actually meant it.

  • It’s a figure of speech. And Hitler made it perfectly clear what he intended to do, people just didn’t want to believe he actually meant it.

    A pimply butt is a figure of speech to you? I think I’m getting a focus on your origins.

    Bush is making it perfectly clear, in his own substandard way. He’s going after “Tuhrists”, except that his definition of these expands all the time. Maybe it’ll be yankees if he’s given a chance.

  • In fact, the more I think of it, the more it’s probably "tourists" he’s wanting to mow down, not terrorists.

  • same here. if you want to make a point to a company, go protest in front of that company. personally, i think what they did was great. they showed the world (or at least this small corner of it) what a bunch of lazy idiots they are.

  • So what do you guys think of this:

    Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14942-2003Apr2.html

  • I think this is one more drop in the bucket of America sinking into fascism. Ashcroft’s new Patriot Act II is on its way, so get ready for a lot more patriotism!

    Of course, I could be wrong.

  • Fortunately, from what I’ve read, few but the state senator sponsoring this legislation are willing to defend it. It sounds like most people think he’s going too far. Which is heartening.

    I find it disheartening that so many Americans view protest as so much less important then getting wherever it is they’re going–McDonald’s, the dry cleaners, soccer practice, whatever. It’s like the #1 Sin Against Americans has become Getting in My Damn Way or Slowing Me Down Somewhat. "yeah yeah yeah, the US military is killing civilians in Iraq–MOVE IT, I want to get to the coffee shop!"

  • ha ha! It’s a pity you run out of stamina sometimes against those who defend the status quo, because when you’re on, you’re on! :-)

  • Hmm, I was hoping that some of the more right-leaning denziens of cvillenews would chime in. I would like to know what their opinion of this is.

  • I think I’m counted among the right-leaners, though I try to defy classification. ;)

    The right to free speech and the right to gather peacefully guarantee protesters the right to protest. They shouldn’t be labled "terrorist" for protesting.

    Indeed, as long as they’re not breaking the law, I don’t even mind their protests. Now, if they start pulling stupid stunts, then I’ll be irritated with them, but it’ll be irritation for pulling stupid stunts, not for protesting.

    The guy is obviously an anti-constitutional moron.

  • PS – I do think they should be charged for breaking the law (by blocking traffic). But a 25 year sentence is stupid, as is labelling them terrorists.

  • I just knew that Lafe had a PS on what he wrote the first round.

    Hey, maybe we can charge them with treason, or, better yet, how about "wrongful death" against American soldiers, since these protest might renew Iraqis resistance to invasion.

    I mean, employing the same common-sense, aren’t the French responsible for this war, since they could have approved it, on demand from Bush and then Saddam Hussein would’ve just given up peacefully, of course, due to America’s “suggestions of war”. Isn’t that what your site ‘lafesnet’ says?

    I say, anyone who contests public, state and national policies should be arrested for posing a threat to other citizens, UNLESS they do it in their own house, behind closed doors. That’s it! I think we’ve got the solution!!!

    Oh shit, maybe posting on the Internet is a no-no too. Hey, that means I’m a treasonous bad guy myself :-(

  • How does charging them with a traffic violation (or whatever blocking traffic is) equate to calling them treasonous?

    And you’re close to what I said about the French. I believe that what they did, declaring that they would veto *any* resolution that mentioned war in *any* way, ultimately committed us to war by removing the one prod that Saddam had to force him to comply with the UN. I mean, once you know a dog has no teeth, you’re not going to pay any attention to its bark.

  • I know this discussion is not worth it, because no matter what the truth of the matter, you cannot seem to comprehend. But here’s anyway:

    First, France’s President Jacques Chirac, its Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin did not say ‘no war, no matter what’. What they did say is: ‘no war at this time’ and they proceeded to complete the stance with the following, in more diplomatic terms: ‘no matter how Powell and then Blair try to phrase it, to dress it up and to try to ram it down our throats’. The fact of the matter is, the Iraqis were in fact disarming, due in substantial part, according to Chirac himself, to American forces breathing down his neck. The International Community was willing to contemplate deadlines for Iraq’s disarmament, there was no deadlock except in Bush’s mind, like a spoiled brat who’s not getting his way, and I mean right now.

    Second, Bush was going to war anyway, no matter what. Even if Saddam Hussein had submitted 110% to his demands, there’s absolutely no way Iraq could have disarmed so quickly (since last Autumn). On one hand, our government portrays Iraq as an old world nation, ill-equipped almost anachronistically, on the other hand, they should be able to push a PC keyboard button and all their missiles would explode harmlessly, with laser-guided night-lit LEDs flashing positions all over GPS’ed Palm Pilots. I know… ding ding… these Americans are so gullible (Bush thinking), let’s just blame the French. Even though I said we’ll ignore U.N. vote and go to war anyway, even though I promised I wanted to see a hand-count of votes “no matter what”, we’ll just say it’s all because of those freedom fries, err, I mean France’s ridiculous veto power. Hey, since the last Gulf War, vetoes have been used 9 times: twice by China and 7 times by us, the U.S.; “but it’s ok if we use it, but if any other country thinks they can do so against me, then fukk’em!”

    Third, there was no imminent threat from Iraq. If the International Community needed another 6 months to come to the same conclusion, then that’s what it should have taken. Collaboration requires mutual respect. Bush, Rumsfeld, and lately Powell have none for the rest of the world. They don’t need nobody but themselves.

    Fourth, the U.S.’s claim to be a peaceful loving nation is obsolete. As I brought forth in previous posts, America waited until the end of 1941 to enter world war 2. And the Japanese / Germans were way more of an imminent threat than weak Iraq. Now, Bush is not waiting for there to be any real, tangible danger, but is going to eliminate the potential of it. Forget Iran and North Korea for now, let’s go after the easy target, the guy that “insulted my daddy”.

    Fifth, it is about the oil and the bad economy. What is the first thing U.S. troops were told to secure? Oil fields, of course! Oh yes, it’s for the Iraqis, I forgot. And as long as Bush is Commander in Chief during wartime, not many Americans are going to want to change horse. So, there, the second term is a shoe-in.

    Sixth through twentieth, I’m tired of wasting my breath (keyboard strokes).

  • Saying, "because no matter what the truth of the matter, you cannot seem to comprehend," is called an ad hominem attack. This means that you are attacking me personally, instead of addressing any points or arguments that I may have made. This is not a good way to have a discussion, and such pettiness only serves to make you look bad.

    If you choose to subscribe to the view that Chirac is a peace-loving hero and Bush is an evil spoiled fascist then you and I are simply going to have to disagree. I don’t subscribe to your viewpoint that everything the US does is motivated solely by selfishness, nor that there is some evil right-wing conspiracy to screw everyone else in the world.

    Most of the rest of your points have been explored in this thread, and others, and rehasing them at this point will most likely accomplish nothing.

  • No, although my saying you do not comprehend was directed *personally* to you, that was a statement of fact. You either do not or wish not to comprehend. Period.

    You are an aggravating individual to deal with, because you ask for explanations, people make an effort to present their views to you, and then you take 10 seconds to respond (and that includes your thinking process, no doubt). Essentially, you draw people in, and then you make some fashionable statement as a retort.

    This does not interest me.

  • I find it disheartening that so many Americans view protest as so much less important then getting wherever it is they’re going–McDonald’s, the dry cleaners, soccer practice, whatever.

    Interesting that you selected relatively trivial destinations to make your point. Would your statement have a different meaning if you substitute “work (or school),” “the emergency room,” and “the fire” for McDonald’s, the dry cleaners, and soccer practice?

    25 years for protesting by itself is ridiculous, and like the various bills that arise from urban congressmen demanding the draft be reinstated, this idea has no legs and even less of a chance of becoming law.

  • I selected relatively trivial destinations because I think most of the time, most Americans are on their way to relatively trivial destinations. I know I am, as I drive about–sometimes I off to work and I do need to get there on time, but most of my trips in the car are not so fraught with importance: I’m off to the grocery (and NOT because we’re on the edge of starvation), I’m off to shop for some new shoes, we’re going to catch a movie, etc. Americans are by and large lucky people who have a lot of leisure time, relative to citizens of other nations, and a lot of ways to spend that leisure time–all of which, for me, fall into the relatively trivial category.

    My point is that Americans tend to view the unhindered pursuit of these relatively trivial pursuits as a God-given, Constitution-sanctioned right that prevails over every inconvenience. We have a bad sense of perspective and we’re kind of selfish.

    OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to the idea of the relatively trivial. A firetruck on its way to a fire, an ambulance carrying someone to the hospital, etc., should be able to get through. I didn’t think I needed to acknowledge that. I know of no protesters who would argue that "no business as usual" applies to those cases.

  • Your level of confidence in the system is touching. However, I wonder how laws like * sodomy and oral sex (even heterosexual) is illegal in a dozen southern states, including Virginia * busing black children into white schools in the 70’s * 5mph on Route-29 South *etc. You’ll notice these laws were installed during times of uncertainty. This is *how* crazy laws are put on the books. Ashcroft’s Patriot Act is nuts and wait ‘til version 2. You ain’t seen nothing yet. But, it is true, unawareness is bliss and waking up in no fun.

  • What is the first thing U.S. troops were told to secure? Oil fields, of course!

    Do you think it’s possible – just POSSIBLE, not even likely or probable – that we had securing the oil fields as a top priority because the Iraqis had placed explosives at many of the well heads and would set hundreds of wells afire, which they did in 1991, setting in action a major ecological catastrophe?

  • Everything’s possible, dude.

  • As I suspected, the United States is one of the premier stockpilers of chemical warfare. Check this link:

    An interesting passage, as spoken by Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

    By far the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons are in the United States and Russia. The United States has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons; Russia has 40,000 tons of chemical weapons. Together, these account for almost 95 percent of global stockpiles. Both countries are in the process of destroying their weapons, with the United States being a little farther ahead than Russia, but both have only just begun the process, and they both hope to complete it by the end of this decade.

    Bush wanted Saddam and co. to rid themselves of WMDs over the weekend, whereas the U.S., with all its technology, wants a decade!!!

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog