Why so many Anti-American?

[cantdog]

Wrong but repeated all the everlovin time.

I think the point of the whole thing is that no one else deserves any consideration.

Shallow, inward-looking, blinkered, chauvinistic, deliberately ignorant-- in a word, nationalist.

 

[Kassiana]

Shortly after I came out against going to war in Iraq I was called a traitor.
--Me too. I was also told to “go home.” I’m not sure what the person meant, since I was born in the United States (and, in fact, have always lived in my birth state), but I’m sure it was meant as an insult.

It has been proven that I and the other people who opposed the Iraqi war were correct all along. There were no WMD's. Iraq was no threat to us or anyone else. Iraq had no links to international terrorism. Why is it that because I didn't believe the President's lies, that makes me anti-American? Why am I a traitor if I prefer truth to fiction?
--Because if the President’s last name isn’t “Clinton,” you aren’t allowed to say anything negative about him, even when it’s obvious, true, and the alternative is rampant evil.

I was entirely behind the invasion of Afghanistan too.
--I wasn’t, not only because the U.S. government supported the Taliban from the start, but also because once we destroyed them, the warlords took over and everywhere but Kabul got far worse than it was under the Taliban. I hated the Taliban, but they kept the warlords from fighting amongst themselves and sacrificing even more lives. Just like in Iraq, apparently we had no strategy other than killing the “bad guys” (and a good number of the good guys, but we said it was an accident, so it’s okay), then waiting to be worshipped like gods.

 

[cantdog]

the Taliban yet live

They are trained, the Taliban, not as terrorists, but as insurgents. They were initially trained as insurgents, against the Russians and their handpicked government, and they have been training since as insurgents. When we kicked them from the cities, they were in their home ground, and they lost nothing thereafter. Insurgents know not to expose enough of their organization to an enemy to be badly crippled at a stroke. They disperse by default, and only concentrate when they know they have an objective they can take, where local concentrations of the enemy are small.

We have a skeleton force in Afghanistan now, under 30,000 troops. We are an island, we and the new puppet government, in Kabul and a few other places. The Taliban are again retaking the countryside.

We did not, as Rumsfeld says repeatedly that we did, succeed there. We lose more every month, and so do the puppets we put in. Those puppets are Westernized, secularized Afghani, most not even Pashtun. They can never be, long-term, the government of the country for both these reasons.

To imagine that we will be able to maintain, unsabotaged, something as fragile as a pipeline system stretching hundreds of kilometers, is laughable.

The point of going into Afghanistan was to hit the al-Qaeda. We waited many months after the WTC incident to do that. Intelligence developed since has demonstrated that we left the al-Qaeda more than enough time to clear out. To Pakistan, mostly.

Pakistan was almost the only ally the Taliban had, because they require stability on that border.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In the viet nam era, protestors acted in a way that was totally unacceptable. By no means were all prtestors guilty of treating the troops badly, but as with most mass movements, the actions of a few got the most air time and the image of protestors spitting on troops and calling them baby killer and other vile things are the images of that era in the popular history.

Since Vietnam we have not had any major conflicts whereby large scale protest has been conducted. Certainly nothing on a scale to replace those images. It may be true that modern protestors are very careful to target the political machinery and not the troops, but that is not the image that is carried by most.

It stands to reason that opposition to a war will get you labled a traitor by the hard core hawks. It also stands to reason that doing so will link you in the minds of many with those protestors who crossed the line so long ago. In the war of spin, you are going to face the worst of it when you oppose military action, especially when the action has popular support.

-Colly

 

[thebullet]

It stands to reason that opposition to a war will get you labled a traitor by the hard core hawks. It also stands to reason that doing so will link you in the minds of many with those protestors who crossed the line so long ago. In the war of spin, you are going to face the worst of it when you oppose military action, especially when the action has popular support.

Colly, what you say is true. But I question that the war in Iraq is/was so all-fired popular.

It is media control that colors the reporting of such things as marches and protests. My wife was at a pre-war march in Washington and she insists that the media underestimated the crowd by hundreds of thousands of people.

I was at a much smaller peace march in Philadelphia. I guestimated the crowd to be several thousand, perhaps as high as 5,000. As we marched we were confronted by a few pro-war protesters who leaned out of windows and screamed obscenities at us. I counted twelve of them. (I was counting because I was interested in the way the media would portray the march.)

In the evening news, it was reported that 'hundreds' of anti-war protesters marched, and an equal number of pro-war protesters opposed them.

It was the only time I've been directly able to confirm media manipulation or outright media lies.

I haven't heard one anti-Iraqi war protester attacking the soldiers who are fighting this conflict. Everyone knows now (as perhaps they didn't know during Viet Nam) that these little wars of ours have very little to do with the common man, the common soldier, and much to do with the devious plans of powerful men who don't give a damn about America's fighting men.

I know that sounds harsh. But did you hear Rumsfeld's reply to a soldier asking for more armor? He essentially said that every one comming to Iraq could well die and so tough titties. These people really don't care!

 

[rgraham666]

In the viet nam era, protestors acted in a way that was totally unacceptable. By no means were all prtestors guilty of treating the troops badly, but as with most mass movements, the actions of a few got the most air time and the image of protestors spitting on troops and calling them baby killer and other vile things are the images of that era in the popular history.
-Colly

By the same token, very few troops were the monsters that the extreme protesters thought they were.

First, because very few of the soldiers in Vietnam were at the sharp end. Many were simply support troops.

Second, mistakes happen in war. In a situation like that, your primary concern is to keep your ass alive. It makes you a bit quick on the trigger.

But very, very few soldiers woke up in the morning and said to themselves, "Let's see how many slopes I can off today."

However, humans being the creatures they are, there's always a few, on all sides of the political equation, who prefer a simple belief to a complex reality.

 

[Lisa Denton]

THE AH IS SIMPLY AMAZING!!!! I used to look in the other stuff here but the Author's Hangout is really the only place you can find large groups of intelligent peoples talking without the "iwanna eata pussi" and "u sux dix u pig" being thrown in all the time.

LDW's thread has deviated a tad since origin, as most good thread do as they continue. So with a few recent posts concerning protests and marches I will throw my two cents in on that.

I researched something prolly few of you even "older and wiser" authors even remember, blockin out bad memories is not a bad thing sometimes.

You can get old copies of the newspapers, front page, huge picture, young college girl laying on the pavement with a large pool of blood around her head, dead. She was walking from one class to the next and was caught by a bullet fired by national guard troops at Kent State University during a vietnam war protest. That pic and others made the front page of prolly every newspaper in america, as the infamous governor of that great state took personal command of the national guard troops, with bullhorn in hand, he ordered american armed forces to fire on un-armed american citizens.

Some of those young national guard troops, trained to follow orders without hesitation, actually did.

Some troops froze, disbelieving, others threw down their rifles and others threw up their lunch as protesters fell dead and wounded. The troops had been retreating, pelted with rocks and bottles, some injured, all afraid. They were ordered to halt, turn, kneel, aim, and for the first time in history, fire on un-armed american citizens.

It is my personal opinion that that one day turned the tide on the american publics perception of the vietnam war as even the most hawkish supporters of that war looked at the newspapers the next day and spewed out their coffee.

It is also my personal opinion, and may even seem out of context with the above portion of this post, that protesters should NEVER direct violence towards law enforcement personnel attempting to protect the public, and enforce the law, during protests and marches.

These people have families and lives, many prolly agree with your views as you try to bash their head in with a brick and kick them with your SICK FUCKIN HATRED AND VIOLENCE AS YOU ATTEMPT TO BEAT YOUR OPINIONS INTO THEM ABOUT YOUR LOVE AND PEACE.

Excuse the caps there but I said it was a personal opinion.

Anywho, I just personally feel that violent demonstration filled with rabid hatred is not a good way to express peaceful intentions. And the innocent people who are attacked may often react with fear, escalating the conflict into something which has nothing to do with peace.

 

[thebullet]

Lisa D said:
You can get old copies of the newspapers, front page, huge picture, young college girl laying on the pavement with a large pool of blood around her head, dead. She was walking from one class to the next and was caught by a bullet fired by national guard troops at Kent State University during a vietnam war protest. That pic and others made the front page of prolly every newspaper in america, as the infamous governor of that great state took personal command of the national guard troops, with bullhorn in hand, he ordered american armed forces to fire on un-armed american citizens.

Lisa:

Us old fogies do remember:

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming, we're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming, we're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio,
four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, how many more?
Four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, home many more?

Ohio by CSNY

 

[Guest]

Lisa, cross your legs for my sake.

 

[thebullet]

Lisa, cross your legs for my sake.

You're right CV. It's no fun drooling over what you can't have. I drool enough without any outside help.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa, cross your legs for my sake.

A bit off topic CV, I thought you were tryin to be nice and get along with peoples lately? Anywho I am always nice so I say this with a warm fuzzy feelin "Don't fuck with me."

I do not have "FUCK ME" written on my forehead.









http://www.mytempdir.com/28122004/10044.jpg

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa:

Us old fogies do remember:

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming, we're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming, we're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio,
four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, how many more?
Four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, four dead in Ohio, home many more?

Ohio by CSNY

I have heard that, I like older stuff better than newer stuff radio stations. Or even country is good sometimes if they play good stuff.

Also older sci-fi. There was a site with free e-books but I lost the addy. I liked Enders Game and Speaker For The Dead, was there another book which followed?

 

[thebullet]

Enders Game and Speaker For The Dead, was there another book which followed?

There have been a barrage of books after Speaker for the Dead, none of which deserve to be mentioned. However, here you go: Xenocide Children of the Mind Ender's Shadow Shadow of the Hegemon Shadow Puppets

Actually, Ender's Shadow was a pretty original idea and a pretty good book. It told the exact same story as Ender's Game but from Bean's point of view, revealing that little was as it really appeared.

Ender was not originally in Speaker for the Dead as I understand it. Card re-wrote that book to include Ender after he wrote Ender's Game (maybe I'm thinking of the magazine version of that book).

Anyway, my pen name on other sites is Andrew Wiggin. Of course, that is the real name of Ender.

 

[Lisa Denton]

There have been a barrage of books after Speaker for the Dead, none of which deserve to be mentioned. However, here you go: Xenocide Children of the Mind Ender's Shadow Shadow of the Hegemon Shadow Puppets

Actually, Ender's Shadow was a pretty original idea and a pretty good book. It told the exact same story as Ender's Game but from Bean's point of view, revealing that little was as it really appeared.

Ender was not originally in Speaker for the Dead as I understand it. Card re-wrote that book to include Ender after he wrote Ender's Game (maybe I'm thinking of the magazine version of that book).

Anyway, my pen name on other sites is Andrew Wiggin. Of course, that is the real name of Ender.

Huh? Speaker For The Dead without Ender Wiggin, I don't think it would have been the same book. Ender is the key character.


Where was we? Oh yea, do you think violent peace marches make any sense?

 

[thebullet]

Where was we? Oh yea, do you think violent peace marches make any sense?

violent peace march: an oxymoron. In my neck of the woods at least half the peace activists are Quakers. Non-violence is in their blood. And me, I'm just a coward.


It's true, Lisa. Speaker for the Dead sans Ender. Have I ever lied to you?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . It is media control that colors the reporting of such things as marches and protests. . . .

Best argument I encountered about why protest marches are no longer effective came form Matt Taibbi of the NY Press, following the Republican Convention in NYC.

WELL, THAT WAS FUN

Huge, ineffectual protests make me proud to be a white middle-class coward.

By Matt Taibbi
taibbi@nypress.com


HEY, YOU ASSHOLES: The 60s are over!

I'm not talking about your white-guy fros, mutton-chops and beads. I'm not talking about your Che t-shirts or that wan, concerned, young-Joanie-Baez look on the faces of half of your women. I'm not even talking about skinny young potheads carrying wood puppets and joyously dancing in druid-circles during a march to protest a bloody war.

I'm not harping on any of that. I could, but I won't. Because the protests of the last week in New York were more than a silly, off-key exercise in irrelevant chest-puffing. It was a colossal waste of political energy by a group of people with no sense of history, mission or tactics, a group of people so atomized and inured to its own powerlessness that it no longer even considers seeking anything beyond a fleeting helping of that worthless and disgusting media currency known as play.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I admire young people with political passion, and am enormously heartened by the sheer numbers of people who time after time turn out to protest this idiot president of ours. But at the same time, I think it is time that some responsible person in the progressive movement recognize that we have a serious problem our hands.

We are raising a group of people whose only ideas about protest and opposition come from televised images of 40 years ago, when large public demonstrations could shake the foundations of society. There has been no organized effort of any kind to recognize that we now live in a completely different era, operating according to a completely different political dynamic. What worked then not only doesn't work now, it doesn't even make superficial sense now.

Let's just start with a simple, seemingly inconsequential facet of the protests: appearance. If you read the bulletins by United for Peace and Justice ahead of the protests, you knew that the marchers were encouraged to "show their creativity" and dress outlandishly. The marchers complied, turning 7th Ave. into a lake of midriffs, Billabong, bandanas and "Buck Fush" t-shirts. There were facial studs and funny hair and man-sandals and papier-mache masks and plenty of chicks in their skivvies all jousting to be the next young Heather Taylor inspiring the next Jimi Hendrix to write the next "Foxy Lady."

And the New York Post and Fox were standing on the sidelines greedily recording all of this unbowed individuality for posterity, understanding instinctively that each successive t-shirt and goatee was just more fresh red meat for mean Middle America looking for good news from the front.

Back in the 60s, dressing crazy and letting your hair down really was a form of defiance. It was a giant, raised middle finger to a ruling class that until that point had insisted on a kind of suffocating, static conformity in all things—in sexual mores, in professional ambitions, in life goals and expectations, and even in dress and speech.

Publicly refusing to wear your hair like an Omega-house towel-boy wasn't just a meaningless gesture then. It was an important step in refusing later to go to war, join the corporate workforce and commit yourself to the long, soulless life of political amnesia and periodic consumer drama that was the inflexible expectation of the time.

That conformist expectation still exists, and the same corporate class still imposes it. But conformity looks a lot different now than it did then. Outlandish dress is now for sale in a thousand flavors, and absolutely no one is threatened by it: not your parents, not the government, not even our most prehistoric brand of fundamentalist Christianity. The vision of hundreds of thousands of people dressed in every color of the rainbow and marching their diverse selves past Madison Square Garden is, on the contrary, a great relief to the other side—because it means that the opposition is composed of individuals, not a Force In Concert.

In the conformist atmosphere of the late 50s and early 60s, the individual was a threat. Like communist Russia, the system then was so weak that it was actually threatened by a single person standing up and saying, "This is bullshit!"

That is not the case anymore. This current American juggernaut is the mightiest empire the world has ever seen, and it is absolutely immune to the individual. Short of violent crime, it has assimilated the individual's every conceivable political action into mainstream commercial activity. It fears only one thing: organization.

That's why the one thing that would have really shaken Middle America last week wasn't "creativity." It was something else: uniforms. Three hundred thousand people banging bongos and dressed like extras in an Oliver Stone movie scares no one in America. But 300,000 people in slacks and white button-down shirts, marching mute and angry in the direction of Your Town, would have instantly necessitated a new cabinet-level domestic security agency.

Why? Because 300,000 people who are capable of showing the unity and discipline to dress alike are also capable of doing more than just march. Which is important, because marching, as we have seen in the last few years, has been rendered basically useless. Before the war, Washington and New York saw the largest protests this country has seen since the 60s—and this not only did not stop the war, it didn't even motivate the opposition political party to nominate an antiwar candidate.

There was a time when mass protests were enough to cause Johnson to give up the Oval Office and cause Richard Nixon to spend his nights staring out his window in panic. No more. We have a different media now, different and more sophisticated law-enforcement techniques and, most importantly, a different brand of protestor.

Protests can now be ignored because our media has learned how to dismiss them, because our police know how to contain them, and because our leaders now know that once a protest is peacefully held and concluded, the protestors simply go home and sit on their asses until the next protest or the next election. They are not going to go home and bomb draft offices, take over campuses, riot in the streets. Instead, although there are many earnest, involved political activists among them, the majority will simply go back to their lives, surf the net and wait for the ballot. Which to our leaders means that, in most cases, if you allow a protest to happen… Nothing happens.

The people who run this country are not afraid of much when it comes to the population, but there are a few things that do worry them. They are afraid we will stop working, afraid we will stop buying, and afraid we will break things. Interruption of commerce and any rattling of the cage of profit—that is where this system is vulnerable. That means boycotts and strikes at the very least, and these things require vision, discipline and organization.

The 60s were an historical anomaly. It was an era when political power could also be an acid party, a felicitous situation in which fun also happened to be a threat. We still listen to that old fun on the radio, we buy it reconstituted in clothing stores, we watch it in countless movies and documentaries. Society has kept the "fun" alive, or at least a dubious facsimile of it.

But no one anywhere is teaching us about how to be a threat. That is something we have to learn all over again for ourselves, from scratch, with new rules. The 60s are gone. The Republican Convention isn't the only party that's over.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Just as you’re sick and tired of people being anti-American, I’m sick and tired of being lablled anti-American every time I criticize a government policy or institution, as if “America” is synonymous with the US government.

You know, I love my kids, but when they do something wrong I tell them about it. That doesn’t make me anti-my kids. In fact, it’s the parents who never speak up, who believe that their children can do no wrong, who are the rotten parents in my opinion. Similarly it’s the people who believe that their country is always in the right just by virtue of being their country who are no more than knee-jerk chauvinists.

“My country right or wrong” might be a great sentiment to have in a dictatorship, but in my view it’s about as anti-American as you can get.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Either George Bernard Shaw--or George Orwell quoting Shaw--said that "My country, right or wrong" was on the same moral level as "My mother, drunk or sober."

Well that's silly.

Obviously George's mother wasn't an alcholic or he wouldn't have said that. He would have known that it is* my mother drunk or sober-- especially for a man.

Not a good argument. I cringe every time I hear/see that phrase.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don’t think Lisa’s right about Kent State being the first time National Guardsmen fired on unarmed Americans. As I recall, Guardsmen fired on crowds of striking coalminers back in the 20’s (can’t remember the name of the incident), and I know for a fact that 3 black protesters were killed when Guardsmen fired on a crowd demanding integration of a bowling alley in Orangeberg (sp?) S. Carolina in 67 or 68. I'm not sure that was the first time, though.

Anyhow, I remember Kent State. I remember that before the shootings, the national guardsmen seriously beat up two of the protesters, one of whom was a disabled Viet Nam vet. I remember that after the shooting something like 75% of the public thought the students had it coming to them for protesting in the first place. No one was ever prosecuted. The incident was investigated and labelled “regrettable”. The givernor’s rationale was that the protesters were destroying property.

I was pretty active in anti-war stuff myself, up until maybe ’72, when I finally just said fuck it and gave up.

I didn’t see any signs of spitting on returning troops or calling soldiers baby-killers and all that, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s just that things hadn’t gotten to that point when I was involved. Things definitely got nastier as the war dragged on.

There was plenty of violence during demonstrations though, even in the early days, and most of it came from the right: construction workers or “hardhats” and the police. I left town before the Chicago Democratic convention of ’68, but I knew a number of people who were beaten and locked up in what the Walker commission called “a police riot”: the cops just went berzerk on the demonstrators.

I guess just like in war, things look different depending on what side you’re on.

---dr.M.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Best argument I encountered about why protest marches are no longer effective came form Matt Taibbi of the NY Press, following the Republican Convention in NYC.

(But no one anywhere is teaching us about how to be a threat.)

Yea, but a threat to what? I was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq and never joined into any marches or protests. Why? Because some idiot against "flyin saucers the CIA is using to control us" will always throw a brick upside a policemans head, then its burnin and lootin in the name of peace. Fun, fun.

I am not going to destroy my country or beat the hell out of a cop in the name of peace. I am against the current administrations lunatic decisions, not against america.

The "my country right or wrong" crowd is wrong, but so is the "my country is wrong so I'm gonna overthrow the fuckin government because I know best" crowd.

You start attacking those standin in the middle and they will join against you, I know, I am one of them.

Things have to be changed peacefully.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Why is it that Rush Limbough and Sean Hannity are never acused of being anti-American when they complain daily about the state of this great nation. When they equate liberals with Evil- as if liberals aren't American too- or even people. When the Right Wing tries to have a President impeached, they are not Anti-American, but they are already poised to say that the liberals plan to try it on GWB, and that that is Ani-American.

Sean and Rush complain about America and Americans- they spew as much hate, anger, and intollerance as anybody here or elsewere- and claim they don't. It is all aimed at other Americans. Americans' who don't agree with *their* view of what America should be.

But for some reason, this makes them Patriots, and those who disagree with them are Traitors.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well that was fun

Actually, conserning protests and the 60's being over-- protests were far from the only thing that was going on during the Vietnam anti-war movement, and it wasn't just hippies involved either.

Also- the media even then did it's best to downplay or make the anti-war effort seem frivioulous- esp, by insinuationg that it was just a bunch of long hair teenage hippie freaks.

So not that much has changed.

 

[thebullet]

As I recall, Guardsmen fired on crowds of striking coalminers back in the 20’s (can’t remember the name of the incident),

I believe you are referrring to the Ludlow, Colorado massacre. We oldtime Ramblin' Jack/Woodie Guthrie fans should remember that one.

 

[thebullet]

But for some reason, this makes them Patriots, and those who disagree with them are Traitors

Sweetie, it's all about who controls the media. They get to set the agenda. That's why patriots like you and me are screwed while traitors like Limbaugh and Hannity are multi-millionaires.

Is this a great country or what?

 

[Lisa Denton]

I don’t think Lisa’s right about Kent State being the first time National Guardsmen fired on unarmed Americans. As I recall, Guardsmen fired on crowds of striking coalminers back in the 20’s (can’t remember the name of the incident), and I know for a fact that 3 black protesters were killed when Guardsmen fired on a crowd demanding integration of a bowling alley in Orangeberg (sp?) S. Carolina in 67 or 68. I'm not sure that was the first time, though.

Anyhow, I remember Kent State. I remember that before the shootings, the national guardsmen seriously beat up two of the protesters, one of whom was a disabled Viet Nam vet. I remember that after the shooting something like 75% of the public thought the students had it coming to them for protesting in the first place. No one was ever prosecuted. The incident was investigated and labelled “regrettable”. The givernor’s rationale was that the protesters were destroying property.

I was pretty active in anti-war stuff myself, up until maybe ’72, when I finally just said fuck it and gave up.

I didn’t see any signs of spitting on returning troops or calling soldiers baby-killers and all that, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s just that things hadn’t gotten to that point when I was involved. Things definitely got nastier as the war dragged on.

There was plenty of violence during demonstrations though, even in the early days, and most of it came from the right: construction workers or “hardhats” and the police. I left town before the Chicago Democratic convention of ’68, but I knew a number of people who were beaten and locked up in what the Walker commission called “a police riot”: the cops just went berzerk on the demonstrators.

I guess just like in war, things look different depending on what side you’re on.

---dr.M.

You are prolly right about it not being the first time dr.M cause I was kinda throwing my personal opinions and assumptions in there also. I don't have the research stuff anymore but most of what I was basing my opinions on was that after Kent State there was a shift in the nation's way of viewing the protesters, as people, somebodies kid, not just a scummy commie trying to overthrow the government.