How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Protesting the protestors....   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Protesting the protestors....

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


25 posted 03-29-2003 10:39 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

and you miss my point.  Had Hitler been stopped when it was clear he was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, there would not have been a war, or if there had been a war, Germany would not have had a significant military force. The inaction did not merely delay the war, it allowed the magnitude of the war to be compounded exponentially. Regional conflict versus the Holocaust and world war; that is what history and logic would indictate. Sorry, just don't see any basis at all for your position except as a rationalization to a present situation that is unrelated.  To say Chamberlain's appeasement policy had a positive influence on the outcome of WWII is a bit much for me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 03-29-2003 10:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, well, well...It's great to be back and great to see all of the participation and sharing of views on this topic. Thanks to you all...


hush says...
"What would have happenned if another nation intervened in our treatment of the Native Americans? Would they have had the right? Should somebody have stopped us? Taken out our obviously cruel government and put their own form of government in its place?"

Although this may come as a shock to you, my answer to you hypothetical question would be yes. Any other democratic country would have had the moral authority to invade us and replace our government with other American leaders not advocating the slaughter and imprisonment of the American Indian. No one had the power to do it but they would have had the right because we were wrong.

I have to smile because you seem almost miffed that Bush is using decency as a reason thereby making the protestor's job harder...what an evil thing to do!

bsquirrel said it all...the best revenge is to vote Bush out of office if you are against him and his decisions. I have little doubt he mentally kissed his chances of re-election goodbye by initiating this action. In my book that gives more validity to his convictions...

To all of the questions presented in this thread there is one simple answer......time will tell.


Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


27 posted 03-29-2003 10:48 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

and I do apologize for getting off the topic of the thread.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 03-29-2003 11:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tim, you did get off the topic but you touch on important similarities which I agree with. Thank you for the input...
Auguste
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Ascendant
since 02-16-2000
Posts 5326
By the sea


29 posted 03-29-2003 11:35 PM       View Profile for Auguste   Email Auguste   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Auguste's Home Page   View IP for Auguste

If I were younger I'd also be over there, because I feel the cause is just and want to see the Iraqi people finally come to understand what freedom, not hunger, torture, rape and execution, feels like.  

I'm very proud of our "volunteer" men and women in uniform, their courage, their sacrifice, their willingness to risk all to help bring about a safer world and freedom to a long suffering people.  

As we sit back in our recliners watching cable tv, sucking on a beer, and ordering pizza in air conditioned homes, it's easy to take freedom for granted and also easy to not remember the great sacrifices that have been made to ensure some of us can be couch potatoes.  Freedom carries a great price tag.  My father knew that, as did my brother.  

I stand behind our president, our nation and our troops that are in harm's way and refuse to de-moralize them when they are giving they're all to help a hurting people and helping to keep our great country safe.  God bless them!  

    
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 03-30-2003 08:38 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I think there are many issues that can and should be discussed about some of the early blunders of the Bush admin on the diplomatic front -- realizing that the end result is the same -- war -- it's just a matter of who would have been on board and who wouldn't.

Looking at the 30% in the U.S. who still do not favor this action (at this time) it's pretty easy to see that it is a diverse group where about half the people are using this opportunity to lash out at the Bush administration because they don't care about anything excepting politics -- the other half are genuine objectors who have different reasons for not supporting war in general.

Still, I think there are two questions that can be asked of any war protestor -- abroad or at home -- those are -- who do you want to win--the Coalition or Saddam Hussein? And the second question is -- in that light, and given that your actions (although your right to free speech isn't and shouldn't be abrogated) aren't going to change the situation -- in what manner should you conduct yourself?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-30-2003 08:42 AM).]

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


31 posted 03-30-2003 10:21 AM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie

Tim,

I donít think you need to apologise either my view is that the actions leading to WWII and the actions that led to this current conflict are relevant in that their comparison serves to highlight the consensus of one and the divisions created in the other.

And I donít believe I missed your point, I simply donít agree with it.

I do agree however that if, based upon what we know now, Hitler had been stopped in 1935 by all the allied nations, including America, standing together the war may have been avoided. My disagreement is that I donít believe that ever could have happened given the circumstances at the time.

In 1935 when it was clear that Hitler was in breach of the treaty of Versailles we could have tried diplomacy (which we in fact did) or we could have gone to war to force him to comply. My assertion is that at that time war was far from an obvious choice, America itself didnít see the necessity. This isnít surprising when you realise that the ďbreachĒ in question was that Germany had re-introduced conscription in Germany, hardly a clear reason to go to war. Diplomacy at this point led to appeasement in 1938 and the failure of appeasement in 1939 created the consensus that allowed war to take place.

If you equate protesters with a lack of consensus or division of views then military action in 1935 would have had them in spades not to mention that with the benefit of hindsight the allies didnít have the military muscle to forcefully stop Germany in 1935. If war had been undertaken at that time in all probability we would have been defeated.

If we draw a parallel with what occurred before the conflict in Iraq the coalition forces have started military action in 1935 so to speak, without a clear consensus and with obvious divisions of opinion. Using WWII as a template the natural conclusion (which is I believe your point) is that this could ultimately save lives and suffering. History, or the ďwait and see methodĒ suggested by several people will prove this either way. My assertion is that just as diplomacy through appeasement led to consensus in 1939 a continuation of diplomacy to achieve a consensus in 2003 would have been preferable.

LR,

quote:
I think there are many issues that can and should be discussed about some of the early blunders of the Bush admin on the diplomatic front -- realizing that the end result is the same -- war -- it's just a matter of who would have been on board and who wouldn't.


I totally agree with this, in fact I wish I could have stated it so succinctly.

Answering your two questions isnít as easy as it at first seems but Iíll give it a go.

ďwho do you want to win--the Coalition or Saddam Hussein?Ē

Easy - the coalition

ďgiven that your actions (although your right to free speech isn't and shouldn't be abrogated) aren't going to change the situation -- in what manner should you conduct yourself? ď

HmmÖ You should support the war but:

Your question is loaded, if I believed my actions arenít going to change the situation the answer is obvious but the protesters just as obviously donít believe that by their actions they canít change the situation.

[This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (03-30-2003 10:22 AM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


32 posted 03-30-2003 09:35 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Eddie,
I appreciate you viewpoints on my post... and the explaination you gave on WWII is definately something to mull over. I am, however, going to have to slightly disagree with you on the VietNam topic...
As I grew up surrounded by VN vets (dad was in the Marines, and as a result, my best friends growing up were mostly VN vets), and in an attempt to understand my father, I did extensive research on that particular time in history, and it all boiled down to... well, it's never one thing... one of the main reasons for the loss of the conflict was the lack of action on the part of the politicians. The US went in there and was starting to do damage (reference: Operation Starlight, the first major campaign involving the Marines) until the war became unpopular. Then, usually right around election time, Johnson would de-escalate the war (as did Nixon during his time), and then get back to it. NOT ONE major campaign was lost by the Americans, however, by not letting the fighting men do their jobs, it caused more damage.
Other causes were Johnson's micromanaging the war (including deciding himself what the primary targets were) and then Robert macnamara trying to bring the war in under budget... And it goes on.
However, getting back to my original point...
Because the politicians were so worried about keeping their jobs and staying in power, they bowed down to the protestors, and tried to play both ends of the war... The saying is that you can't serve two masters, and they proved the point quite admirable (unfortunately). If the protestors in the 60's would have stood beside the fighting man, and the government, Johnson would have still been the wrong President for the war, however, the war would have been fought properly and would have possibly had a different outcome.
The only good thing I can see coming out of that entire time was the music.
Those are just my thoughts.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


33 posted 03-30-2003 10:04 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I cannot change history so easily to support my moral positions.  Whether it was passive or active appeasement, (both occured for many, many years, and obviously not only by Chamberlain), the appeasement allowed for the creation of Hitler's armies and ultimately the slaughter of millions of people.  Hitler violated so many agreements and parts of the Versailles Treaty, it would be difficult to enumerate them all. Hitler could well have been stopped without a significant war had any number of nations decided to stand up to him by enforcing any number of provisions of Versailles.  I well understand your position, I just totally fail to see any support for it whatsover in historical perspective.  I have no idea of what the outcome of today's war will be, but it is a fact what the results of appeasement to Hitler were.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


34 posted 03-30-2003 10:22 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I cannot change history so easily to support my moral positions.


Um, who changed history?

The overriding assumption in every post so far, Tim, is that everybody saw Hitler as the threat he did eventually become.

Call people stupid, but many saw Hitler as a bulwark against what they considered the greater threat to the status quo:

the Soviet Union.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Or were they right, just at the wrong time?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


35 posted 03-30-2003 10:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ringo,

I agree with your assessment, more or less, of Vietnam.

But what would a victory in Vietnam have looked like? A united Vietnam under a pro-American regime with American troops on the border of China?

Again?

  
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


36 posted 03-30-2003 11:11 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

You brought up an interesting question... What would it look like?? I was but a simple Marine and am the least qualified person to guess... however, since you haev me thinking about it:
My guess is that it would have initially been a very tense situation, with the timesand the tension between our nations, even after Nixon's visits. Eventually, I feel it would have moved towards the situation we had in Europe where we had a pro-American government with American troops along the East Bloc borders. Still some tense moments, and definate distrust, without the physical barriers with which to maintain security.
To be completely honest about that situation, I think it would have probably been more tense than Germany, due to the fact that South VietNam (and the re-unified VietNam by default) had one of the most corrupt governments in the world at the time, something that the change mid war did nothing to alleviate. Nothing would have changed, as the corruption would have been on the "winning" side of the process.
This "what if" scenario actually has me wondering... I think I'll call over a few friends who have experience and some expertiese (sp) in this area (global politics) and tomorrow, we'll figure it out over a case of beer and a rack of bbq ribs.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


37 posted 03-31-2003 12:05 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I can't say I am qualified to call anyone stupid, but you have raised an entirely different issue.  That is the point. In 20/20 hindsight, appeasement was not the proper solution.  Governments at the time had reason to fear the Soviet Union.  Chamberlain feared war with anyone. The United States was in an isolationist frame of mind. But that is not point being referenced.  The point being made, at least as far I could ascertain, was that appeasement allowed for a consensus building of nations against Hitler which was a positive.  I do not condemn the motivations of those at the time, just indicating that their decisions did not bode the world well. If it is your opinion that appeasement in retrospect was a positive as it coelesced the forces against Hitler, then it was a positive foreign policy.  I have to respectfully disagree and yes, I do feel the historical facts indicate quite clearly that appeasement as a policy failed quite miserably.  I readily acknowledge this is a 20/20 hindsight observation.  
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


38 posted 03-31-2003 12:33 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

and I hope in the future that hindsight will not show present policies failed so badly.  And I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and honor of the men making the decisions today as those who made the decisions pre-WWII, I just pray for not so disastorous results.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


39 posted 03-31-2003 12:54 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal


Well said hush and well said squirrel, and of course great points by all. I won't chime in because as a canadian I'd probably just get shot down lol
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


40 posted 03-31-2003 06:13 AM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Aenimal, one point:  Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and can offer them up in any conversation.  No one gets shot down unless they cross the guidelines for respect and tolerance as set forth by Ron.  This has been a good discussion across the board - I would like to see it continue.
KristieSue
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 01-31-2003
Posts 1555
PA, US


41 posted 03-31-2003 07:28 AM       View Profile for KristieSue   Email KristieSue   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit KristieSue's Home Page   View IP for KristieSue

and...(Not speaking for myself)Just because the President makes choices for this country, does not mean that he speaks for all of the people here.  Just because Canada's government made certain decisions does not mean that the entire country feels that way.  The more people that chime in (civally (sp?) the more interesting it is.

so Aenimal????......

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


42 posted 03-31-2003 07:37 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Yep....Balladeer had to leave..he was heading to Panama City to dance on stage at the MTV/Spring break thinggie.....
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


43 posted 03-31-2003 11:54 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Balladeer-

'I have to smile because you seem almost miffed that Bush is using decency as a reason thereby making the protestor's job harder...what an evil thing to do!'

But is decency a reason to go in, or an excuse? I'd be interested in what you have to say about the rest of my previous post, if you have a chance.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


44 posted 03-31-2003 12:48 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I do find it interesting that the protestors are protesting Bush, and this war though...The coalition has killed less people, fed more people, then Saddam has...but, I guess he has that right?...(in his country, he and only he has that right though)....I think the protestors must be correct however, everyone should turn their heads when these kind of crimes are happening to humanity, daily...hourly...and the U.S. and the rest of us "do-gooders" should just mind our own business and let them just kill everyone under Saddam's orders...after all, diplomacy was doing wonders...don't you think?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


45 posted 03-31-2003 02:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Okay, hush. I didn't see a lot that needed to be commented on but I'll give you my thoughts...

"I think it's (saving the Iraqi people) being used to distract from the main issues at hand..."

...you don't say what the "main issues" you refer to..are.

"My moral authority qualm here is based on the issue I brought up eariler. What gives us (as America) the moral authority to intervene based on human rights when we allow, and even foster exploitation overseas by our own corporations? Just as the protestors can't have their cake and eat it too, an economically controlled democracy can't plead human rights when it serves their purpose (be it economic, strategic, or moral) and ignore them when it suits American business. "

Which overseas exploitation by our corporations are you referring to? Where are we ignoring human rights when it suits our purpose? It's very easy to pen sentences like that to sound good but they are worthless without examples. Besides, if I agree (which I have) that there are shameful things in America's past, does that mean we are excluded from moral actions? Because Italy had Mussolini does that mean they will never be recognized as being able to able act in a moral way? We can say that about every country or government in the world. I think it's silly to say that, since we mistreated the Indians over a century ago, we can't take any action we call moralistic because of it. Yet, by your examples, that is what you are saying.

"and yet, we feel that we don't have to listen (and *gasp* maybe even concede to) the majority because we have moral conviction, personal interests, and, most of all, strength, on our side. What kind of democracy is that? "

hush, you feel that the majority should rule simply because it is the majority? If you have an important decision to make regarding your family or life do you take a poll of the neighborhood and go by whatever they say simply based on their numbers? I hope not! You are stating one of the reasons why I hold our current administration in such high regards. Against world-wide protest they are holding their position and are not being influenced not to continue doing what they feel is right. That's what gets my respect....not someone who would bow down to majority's will if they felt it less of a hassle to do so. No, it's not democratic. America was not created as a democratic country. It was created to be a republic. A true democracy would never work in any country. Since there is always a large difference in percentage between the haves and have-nots, in a true democracy (one person, one vote) the have-nots would always be voting against the haves...and winning. It would be chaotic. We have democracy to the point where we elect our representatives and leaders. After that we are represented by the leaders we have placed there. We have given them the power to act in our bests interests. We don't get to raise our hands and vote on every decision that comes up. Is that the democracy you want? I doubt it..

If you have any facts, I'll be glad to hear them. SImply to have an "uneasy feeling" or "suspicion that there are hidden agendas" is not enough. We ALL have uneasy feelings. Nobody likes war. I hate to see some of the things I am seeing on tv and I would like for everything to be happy and peaceful with no killings and people's rights being respected. Was it like that before the war began? Nope, but it was easier for us to ignore then, wasn't it?

Yes, you began your other response with a cheap shot and then followed with another. The interesting thing is that, even acknowledging that it WAS a cheap shot, you posted it anyway. Ask yourself why....

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


46 posted 03-31-2003 05:50 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
and I hope in the future that hindsight will not show present policies failed so badly.  And I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and honor of the men making the decisions today as those who made the decisions pre-WWII, I just pray for not so disastorous results.


I agree. If you put me in a foxhole, I pray as well.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


47 posted 03-31-2003 07:12 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Michael,

quote:
Where are we ignoring human rights when it suits our purpose?


Are you kidding?

Do you want a list?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 03-31-2003 07:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Forget the list -- let's just say...

CHINA!!!!!!!!!

This whole thing about morality shows the entire failing of the Bush admin's diplomatic front.... and why there were some people in America who were worried about electing someone with his -- er -- language skills....

The axis of evil is why he couldn't sell this war abroad.

If he'd focused on the word 'danger' instead of 'evil' we'd be looking at an entirely different planet today.

Danger people can understand.

Evil -- is just too nebulous.

And then they remember words like 'crusade'.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


49 posted 03-31-2003 07:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No spitting contest with you today, Brad...sorry. I'm aware of your views. I have little doubt you can find human rights violations in anything the government does...I'll pass.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Protesting the protestors....   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors