HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Distortion of the Anti-War Movement by Democrats

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Distortion of the Anti-War Movement by Democrats

    The laundry list of complaints issued by liberals about the war in Iraq rarely ever extends beyond the minute issues of whether the Pentagon supplied sufficient weaponry and protection for our troops (CNN), the length of the war, when we will withdrawal, and the fact that we are losing it. The job of controlled opposition throughout history has always been to give the public an illusion of genuine debate on an issue; in which often the opponent’s position on it is not what is being contested but small subtopics. This gives the perception of real debate while only the “politics” are being discussed and not the legitimacy of the issue itself. One of the main objectives being to keep the public from truly thinking about the real issue and giving the two “slightly opposite edged mediums” as the only possible sides to take.

    For example, on the topic of free trade, most liberals could careless about the sweatshop exploitation of third world citizens, destruction of their environment, destruction of their economy, advanced corporate rights over humans, etc. They will tend to only focus on the loss of U.S. jobs (CNN "Critics (of CAFTA) say that it will send more U.S. jobs overseas") which reinforces the view that they value U.S. lives more than the lives of others even though U.S. workers are far from the ones most affected by it. Plus the fact that they do not want to end free trade, and are in fact supporters of neoliberalism, but merely reform it on some parts illustrates my previous point as well.

    The subjects of corporate war profiteering, forced neoliberalism of Iraq’s economy, the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, the establishing of a puppet government to serve U.S. imperial interests, whether Bush lied or not about the “reasons” to go to war for oil, or possible support for the Iraqi insurgency never arise. On supporting our troops, liberals tend to fold to conservative pressure very easily on that issue, fearing the dreaded McCarthy fingers of betrayal will be pointed at them. If they truly don’t support the war and the actions of the U.S. soldiers carried out in it then how can they then turn around and claim to support the troops? The only answer is that they truly don’t care about the lost lives of innocent Iraqis but only the lost lives of armed, invading combatants.

    Although the propaganda slogans of fighting “for” your country as a noble act of heroism combined with the false lure of stability in finances and career to draw in poor, minority high school dropouts or recent graduates and its effects on the mind cannot be ignored, responsibility for participating in a war that you know you will have to kill innocent civilians in must ultimately fall onto yourself. Even taking into account those that signed up, never thinking they will be deployed for Iraq, or were in the armed forces before Iraq there is really no excuse for this besides ignorance. At the moment it is well known that the majority of recruits are being deployed to Iraq and while the excuse of signing before the war holds more legitimacy the killing of civilians in foreign countries by U.S. troops occurs all the time and you take the risk of participating in it when you first register.

    "Instead of debating the criminality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New York Times and Washington Post are discussing what Dick Cheney actually meant by "last throes."" (An Interview with Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi of Iraq's Peoples' Struggle Movement) The right of the Iraqis to resist the imperial occupation is something that people never even think about while they undoubtedly would not deny such a right for themselves. The support of U.S. soldiers, while they systematically bomb heavily populated towns and cities, shoot innocent men, women and children, force people out of their homes in the middle of the night, cut off all access to electricity, water, etc. to neighborhoods unless they comply to U.S. demands, destroy Iraqi historical and cultural relics, jail people for no reason, deny them due process, and torture/rape them, etc. is clearly an unjust position but never questioned. Even Michael Moore attempts an apologist defense of the soldiers in Farenheit 9/11 when he said they were following "a bad example set by their president".

    Throughout history, the media of invading countries has pledged blind faith to the soldiers while demonizing the resistance; a good example of this is the portrayal of the French insurgency as terrorists by the Nazi Germany propaganda outlets. Liberals have not refrained from labeling the insurgents as terrorists or from portraying the soldiers as mythical heroes. Many changed their views on the Iraq War after the “election” in January of 2005. This displayed their ignorance of the fact that no legitimate government that had support of the invader has ever been formed while under occupation. Regardless of how it was formed it will always reflect the political and economic interests of the occupier.

    If you talk to even most conservatives or liberals today their main objection to Iraq will be “Why are we still in Iraq” and not “Why are we in Iraq in the first place”. What they see is that a dictator has been put into his place, our presence there is making things even worse, so why are we still there? But if you believe that the war in Iraq was a front for establishing a puppet government that caters to the needs of our multinational corporations by opening up their oil and water resources for plunder than you know that calling for a withdrawal plan is useless and the questions above naïve because the goal in which Bush has spent over $200 billion on has yet to be attained. Even in speaking on the results of the Iraq War they remain selective: the instability in Iraq and the deaths of our soldiers remain more important than the cutting of basic needs off in many areas in Iraq, the safety of the Iraqis, and the loss of Iraqi civilians. Their moral relativism and hypocrisy also includes citing the number of U.S. troops that died in Iraq as a reason to leave but not the substantial amount of Iraqi citizens slaughtered, up to 128,000, as a reason to even do likewise or much less oppose the war.

    The fact is that most Democrats/Liberals don’t oppose the war at all but merely wanted a better war, which was admitted by John Kerry in several of his speeches. The focus on lack of body armor and protection for troops was one of Kerry’s main bases for opposing it which is one of the weakest stances I’ve heard. If Kerry’s supporters had truly thought about it, in fact he had supported war to an even higher degree than Bush with even greater tactics, weapon stocks, and equipment. See, the goal of Kerry and most liberals is to win this war which they don't see happening through Bush and they carefully mascerade their ultrahawkish pro-war stance in anti-Bush rhetoric.

    Liberals, the Cindy Sheehan supporters in particular, have once again destroyed the anti-war movement as they did in Vietnam by distorting and weakening its real positions and goals. They have altered the mainstream conversations to relatively trivial issues when compared with reality. This does far more good for Bush and the neocons than actually supporting the war because Bush gets to save face on many more major issues. It seems this war has reflected Vietnam in more than one way, its opponents are more focused on bringing the government to justice for not bringing the troops home then they are for it attacking a sovereign nation to add to its imperial system.

  • #2
    This was surprisingly a very good read out of you

    I agree with this a lot. I really dont think any 'liberal'/'democrat' leaning poster on here legitimately cares about the lost iraqi lives - just American lives.

    Liberals, the Cindy Sheehan supporters in particular, have once again destroyed the anti-war movement as they did in Vietnam by distorting and weakening its real positions and goals.
    No doubt. Michael Moore also fucked over the movement too.

    The fact is that most Democrats/Liberals don’t oppose the war at all but merely wanted a better war, which was admitted by John Kerry in several of his speeches. The focus on lack of body armor and protection for troops was one of Kerry’s main bases for opposing it which is one of the weakest stances I’ve heard.
    Agreed. If clinton was in office the 'liberals' (for lack of a better word) would go along with this war like they did in Kosovo. The problem is, most conservatives would too. I would, and will, support any war launched by any of our politicians that I feel is just in any way.
    Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

    Comment


    • #3
      A good read, but not entirely accurate imo.

      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      The laundry list of complaints issued by liberals about the war in Iraq rarely ever extends beyond the minute issues of whether the Pentagon supplied sufficient weaponry and protection for our troops (CNN), the length of the war, when we will withdrawal, and the fact that we are losing it. The job of controlled opposition throughout history has always been to give the public an illusion of genuine debate on an issue; in which often the opponent’s position on it is not what is being contested but small subtopics. This gives the perception of real debate while only the “politics” are being discussed and not the legitimacy of the issue itself. One of the main objectives being to keep the public from truly thinking about the real issue and giving the two “slightly opposite edged mediums” as the only possible sides to take.
      Maybe true at congressional level, but I believe many people including posters on this board are aware of the real issues surrounding this war and discuss far more than troop withdrawal.


      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      For example, on the topic of free trade, most liberals could careless about the sweatshop exploitation of third world citizens, destruction of their environment, destruction of their economy, advanced corporate rights over humans, etc. They will tend to only focus on the loss of U.S. jobs (CNN "Critics (of CAFTA) say that it will send more U.S. jobs overseas") which reinforces the view that they value U.S. lives more than the lives of others even though U.S. workers are far from the ones most affected by it. Plus the fact that they do not want to end free trade, and are in fact supporters of neoliberalism, but merely reform it on some parts illustrates my previous point as well.
      Sad but mostly accurate.

      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      The subjects of corporate war profiteering, forced neoliberalism of Iraq’s economy, the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, the establishing of a puppet government to serve U.S. imperial interests, whether Bush lied or not about the “reasons” to go to war for oil, or possible support for the Iraqi insurgency never arise.
      Here I disagree, all these issues are raised and debated on this board frequently, as such it is likely they are raised at dinner tables, in university discussions, round water coolers. There are many blogs that address these issues regularly. But if the article is referring to ongoing debate on Capitol Hill than I guess it is accurate to some degree (although there have been commissions to investigate intelligence failures and manipulation - but these seem to have been more for show than anything else) and the article is correct when referring to MSM.



      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      "Instead of debating the criminality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New York Times and Washington Post are discussing what Dick Cheney actually meant by "last throes.""
      Yip, MSM seems intent on not rocking the boat.

      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      (An Interview with Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi of Iraq's Peoples' Struggle Movement) The right of the Iraqis to resist the imperial occupation is something that people never even think about while they undoubtedly would not deny such a right for themselves. The support of U.S. soldiers, while they systematically bomb heavily populated towns and cities, shoot innocent men, women and children, force people out of their homes in the middle of the night, cut off all access to electricity, water, etc. to neighborhoods unless they comply to U.S. demands, destroy Iraqi historical and cultural relics, jail people for no reason, deny them due process, and torture/rape them, etc. is clearly an unjust position but never questioned.
      I hear discussions about all the above issues regularly. They come up on this board fairly regularly so I don't its accurate to say these issues are never questioned. They just don't seem to be questioned by career politicians or the MSM.


      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      Throughout history, the media of invading countries has pledged blind faith to the soldiers while demonizing the resistance; a good example of this is the portrayal of the French insurgency as terrorists by the Nazi Germany propaganda outlets. Liberals have not refrained from labeling the insurgents as terrorists or from portraying the soldiers as mythical heroes. Many changed their views on the Iraq War after the “election” in January of 2005. This displayed their ignorance of the fact that no legitimate government that had support of the invader has ever been formed while under occupation. Regardless of how it was formed it will always reflect the political and economic interests of the occupier.
      In my experience it is the conservatives who label insurgents as terrorists and portray soldiers as mythical heroes. Maybe many did change their opinions after January "election" but many didn't. Most people I talk to see this government as a puppet government.


      Originally posted by whereismarshall
      The fact is that most Democrats/Liberals don’t oppose the war at all but merely wanted a better war, which was admitted by John Kerry in several of his speeches. The focus on lack of body armor and protection for troops was one of Kerry’s main bases for opposing it which is one of the weakest stances I’ve heard. If Kerry’s supporters had truly thought about it, in fact he had supported war to an even higher degree than Bush with even greater tactics, weapon stocks, and equipment. See, the goal of Kerry and most liberals is to win this war which they don't see happening through Bush and they carefully mascerade their ultrahawkish pro-war stance in anti-Bush rhetoric.
      Kerry was seen by those who voted for him as the lesser of two evils. I don't think it is necessarily "a fact that most" don't oppose the war, simply that there was not a viable choice to vote for other than Kerry for those who didn't want Bush for a second term. Much like the British election, the majority of Britons were and are opposed to the war in Iraq but since both major parties supported the war, basing your vote on the war was impossible.
      "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

      -Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Barak Obama for President.
        FUCK THIS PEACE SHIT, ALL YOU WIGGAS BE DECEASED.

        Comment


        • #5
          For whatever your reasons you want an end to the War in Iraq, just help it end. Even if you believe it will bring down gas prices so you can go drive your big-ass SUV. Just do the fuck something! And if you support the war do the fuck something too. Go your ass over there and fight it, motherfucker. But no! The guys who want this war are still over here like little the stupid little chickens they really are and once again sending the poor to war to defend the American way! Why don't they send their own children? Where are Jeb and George's kids?

          "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."


          John Lennon

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah, but since when were liberals a realistic to the conservative bullshit??? They are both the same, so OF COURSE the liberals don't give any more a fuck than the conservatives. They are both out for votes. By any means necessary. Seeming sincere is the first line of attack, but only politically naive believe that politicians believe the shit written on their speech papers.......

            Shun power structures, and force them to recognize a THINKING populace. Power to the PEOPLE (NOT the democrats!)

            Any citizen who defines themself as either republican or democrat already gave away their MENTAL power.....

            Peace
            Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
            Would you let the system
            make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
            .

            Comment


            • #7
              Tricia- Most people on this board aren't Democrats.

              Comment


              • #8
                i don't think that nowadays there is a diffrence between liberals and conservatives,and even if there is a diffrence,even if there is a huge gap between how liberals think and how conservatives think,liberals don't do shit! they really don't do anything. That's why america voted for bush,cuz he did (wrong) things,cuz he seemed like someone that would take action,they didn't find that with kerry (america thought kerry was a wimp) but even so,i'd rather have a wimp in charge than someone who goes to war for fake reasons,just to be richer and have more oil
                if you give me a rep PLZ LEAVE YOUR NAME so i can know who you are,especially if you leave me a bad one,have the damn guts to leave ur damn name!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bely
                  i don't think that nowadays there is a diffrence between liberals and conservatives,and even if there is a diffrence,even if there is a huge gap between how liberals think and how conservatives think,liberals don't do shit! they really don't do anything. That's why america voted for bush,cuz he did (wrong) things,cuz he seemed like someone that would take action,they didn't find that with kerry (america thought kerry was a wimp) but even so,i'd rather have a wimp in charge than someone who goes to war for fake reasons,just to be richer and have more oil
                  Clinton got elected for two terms, even though his Democratic counter-parts in congress were losing big time to the Republicans during the same stretch of time. Almost all Presidential elections have shown that the stronger of the two candidates always win the election.

                  One of the big reasons I think Kerry lost the election was because he was a Senator. He had voted on all major issue's many times over, so his position on every issue was public information. Governors tend to do better in elections. George W. Bush was a Governor, Bill Clinton was a Governor, Ronald Reagan was a Governor, ect... I think JFK was the last Senator to be elected President, although I could be wrong about that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How does StereoTye have all red boxes? He is one of the most level-headed, calm, and logical posters on this board.
                    Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      good read, and good points. But I still say the heart of the problem lies within the existance of a 2 party system. Each side has people who are more interested in being a part of something rather than working on the goals that would benifit the majority. Bandwagons are a stick in the mud of democracy.
                      One convienient location...... somewhere in Africa.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheWalrus
                        How does StereoTye have all red boxes? He is one of the most level-headed, calm, and logical posters on this board.
                        no joke.

                        this board has gone to hell in a handbasket, raccoon shit in a sandwhich, etc.

                        I swear, everytime I log on here I see more threads created by either teenage conspiracy theorists, communists, anti-semitists, or just stupid people in general.
                        ------------------------------------------
                        Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
                        I don't have a problem with gays, in fact I wouldn't mind sharing a room with one

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ralph nader had a plan to get the troops out in 6 months of his presidency
                          07/05
                          (last month)
                          the last vet.before everyone got vetted
                          Originally posted by MarshallArts
                          Who's got you quoted in their sigs? Are they as equally worthy as those that have sigged me? I just can't imagine it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by reservoirGod
                            ralph nader had a plan to get the troops out in 6 months of his presidency
                            07/05
                            (last month)
                            If only he was elected..

                            Comment

                            Post ad widget 300x250

                            Collapse

                            LATEST POSTS

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by oneshotc0, Today, 10:04 AM
                            0 responses
                            2 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post oneshotc0  
                            Started by oneshotc0, Today, 10:01 AM
                            0 responses
                            1 view
                            0 likes
                            Last Post oneshotc0  
                            Started by swaraj7698, 03-07-2020, 06:12 AM
                            6 responses
                            86 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post everest
                            by everest
                             
                            Started by Petertrtrt, Today, 04:00 AM
                            1 response
                            4 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post KevinLo
                            by KevinLo
                             
                            Started by ketofat, Today, 01:50 AM
                            0 responses
                            2 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ketofat
                            by ketofat
                             
                            Started by ketofat, Today, 01:49 AM
                            0 responses
                            3 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ketofat
                            by ketofat
                             
                            Started by ultraketoxusa, Today, 12:17 AM
                            0 responses
                            2 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ultraketoxusa  
                            Started by ultraketoxusa, Today, 12:16 AM
                            0 responses
                            1 view
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ultraketoxusa  
                            Started by ultraketoxusa, Today, 12:15 AM
                            0 responses
                            1 view
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ultraketoxusa  
                            Started by ultraketoxusa, Today, 12:13 AM
                            0 responses
                            1 view
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ultraketoxusa  
                            Working...
                            X