Peace Protests

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Now don't get me wrong...I believe fully in the right to freedom of speech. But to demonstrate anti-war sentiment now is the wrong thing to do. We have soldiers in battle sacrificing their lives for Iraqi freedom. Instead of booing Bush...praise the bravery and determination of those keeping freedom alive.


On the other hand....we are the agressors. THis is the first time in American History where we've actually "invaded" another country. If we had U.N. approval there wouldn't be a problem. That's why anti-war sentiment is strong. We've always been the defenders or "world police"....not attackers.

Please post your thoughts....

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Now don't get me wrong...I believe fully in the right to freedom of speech. But to demonstrate anti-war sentiment now is the wrong thing to do. We have soldiers in battle sacrificing their lives for Iraqi freedom. Instead of booing Bush...praise the bravery and determination of those keeping freedom alive.

PY, if done right, people can do both.  I have nothing against the majority of the protesters giving voice to their opinion.  My only problem is with those that think rioting is still freedom of speech.  There is no reason for them to infringe upon anyone else's civil liberties, no reason they should stop traffic, and block streets.  No reason for them to trash a McDonalds, or toss public trash-cans at police cars.  

Let them demonstrate for peace with peace, that would be great.  

On the other hand....we are the agressors. THis is the first time in American History where we've actually "invaded" another country.

PY, not even close.  Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Granada, Panama.  All countries that US forces invaded without the UN (all but the last two were before the UN existed).  Even if you want to remove Puerto Rico and the Philippines because of being part of the Spanish-American war, you can't really say we didn't invade the others.  

I'm not saying that those acts weren't justified, that's not my point.  I think they were, just as I think this is (more justified then not).  The point is just that the USA has done this in the past, we shouldn't kid ourselves about it.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

I agree with you fully bucc on the protests. Yes the U.S. has been the invader before, but not on a major scale as this. Cuba was invaded because they had their targets pointed at us. Not only that but the Russians had installed nuclear weapons facilities there. Phillipines were invaded because of the Japanese during WW2. We stayed there to ensure that the Japanese wouldn't start another war. Puerto Rico...same idea. To have a defense against Cuba. However the Puerto Ricans wanted us there so we really can't call that an invasion. I'm not sure what you mean about Mexico. There's never been a full scale invasion into their country. The only time we've warred with Mexico is during the Texas Revolution and THEY were invading us.

[kami]

Just because you've done it before doesn't mean it's acceptable to do again.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

But if its for a noble reason?

[kami]

I would refrain from calling it a noble reason when there are so many risks involved and you also have to ask yourself if all this international diplomatic chaos is worth it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree with you fully bucc on the protests. Yes the U.S. has been the invader before, but not on a major scale as this. Cuba was invaded because they had their targets pointed at us. Not only that but the Russians had installed nuclear weapons facilities there. Phillipines were invaded because of the Japanese during WW2. We stayed there to ensure that the Japanese wouldn't start another war. Puerto Rico...same idea. To have a defense against Cuba. However the Puerto Ricans wanted us there so we really can't call that an invasion. I'm not sure what you mean about Mexico. There's never been a full scale invasion into their country. The only time we've warred with Mexico is during the Texas Revolution and THEY were invading us.

PY, you are talking about just the last 50 years or so.  Teddy Rosevelt invaded Cuba the first time, btw.  We took posession of Puerto Rico and the Philippines long before WW2 (we took the Philippines back after the Nipponese took them from us in the first place, but we took them from Spain long before that.).

So I wasn't talking about the bay of pigs (that wasn't really a US invasion, our government backed rebel Cubans.)

We also invaded Mexico (remember, most of the west coast belonged to them once upon a time).

And don't take this personally PY, because it's not meant to be directed at you.  But what happened to teaching history in schools anymore?  So many people here seem to not have a grasp on it.  I understand the Europeans not knowing American history, but not the Americans.  

Kami, I think I clearly said that.  Any reason you felt like repeating it?

[PsYcO sNiPeR]

PY, you are talking about just the last 50 years or so.  Teddy Rosevelt invaded Cuba the first time

Good ole McKinley decided to invade Cuba in 1898. And we decided to take the Philippines (we actually bought it from Spain for $20 million after the war), Guam, and Puerto Rico along with it.

Other than that, I agree with you on all points Bucc.

But what happened to teaching history in schools anymore?  

Yes, they still teach history in some places  

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Unfortunately World History in high school is a load of crap. U.S. History isn't any better. They only teach you what the Department of Education wants you to know. The rest you have to discover on your own. I really don't have a firm grasp on World History but I do know a lot about WW2 as that is my favorite subject. Past wars such as The Bay of Pigs, or the Spanish-American War are given the honor of an 8-sentence paragraph in today's high school history textbooks.   I am taking a history course in college right now, but its mainly U.S. history based on the troublesome years of the settlers. You've had a head start   Anyway...back to the subject.

Kami...it may not be noble in our eyes because we lavish in freedoms that others don't have. The Iraqi's on the other hand consider us thier "gaurdian". They welcome the freedoms we're offering.

[cookiedrei]

at this point, i don't see what any of these people are hoping to accomplish. is bush going to go "oh sorry guys, you're right, i'll stop right now?" the best thing people can do is go home and hope everything will be ok. even if it is free speech, it seems kind of counterproductive and negative at this point.

and i was also thinking today... where would being peaceful lead us? if we stopped our campaigns, wouldn't the attacks just keep coming, like they came out of the blue on 9/11? Would they ever stop, would they ever decide all of the sudden they like western culture? I really don't know.. it just made me kind of depressed. There aren't any answers today it seems.

[jn.loudnotes]

First of all, the AP World and US History classes aren't so bad.  They leave out a lot of course, but they do a pretty good job giving as broad a coverage as you could really expect in a year of high school.  

Second, don't feel depressed cookie.  The way I look at it, if the United States stops doing things that we know make us unpopular - such as invading disliked countries, imposing our culture on the rest of the world, etc - that can only reduce anti-American sentiment.  It certainly won't increase it.  But of course you can never stop it - people will always envy those with a better quality of life than their own (perceived or otherwise).  Really the only remarkable and shocking thing about September 11th was that it succeeded.  It's rare that such an event has been carried out in the US, and it seems like it would be difficult for it to happen again.  Only, I'm a little surprised that people ever thought, and continue to think, that it can't happen.  The attacks were out of the blue only in that it was our government's first major domestic anti-terrorist failure.  

Anyway, advocating peace can only help bring it about, whereas advocating war will certainly not promote peace.  Wishing for terrorism to stop is like hoping for an end to all bloodshed - that may not be possible of mankind - but perpetuating the violence isn't likely in any way to help.  Whereas, ending our own aggressions has at least a fighting chance.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

It's basically people exercising the right to demonstrate freedom of speech. They feel its necessary for the world to see their position. You also have to understand the mix that's involved. Some people there believe firmly in peaceful diplomacy to solve conflicts. Others were just there because it was an excuse to skip class . Occasionally there are some who are just there because they follow blindly.

I saw The Life of David Gale tonight. It was left-wing political propaganda. Nearly made me vomit 5 times. If you're anti death penalty then this is probably the movie for you. The bullcrap that spewed from it could drown the greater New York area. Eh....anyway...if you don't enjoy having a political view forced on you, I suggest staying away from this movie.

[tasty]

On one hand I'm moved by the civil disobedience of the people willing to get arrested for their beliefs. They are willing to truly stand out for what they believe in. On the other hand, I am annoyed by their lack of practicality. Their actions are going to inflame anyone who isnt completely anti-war, and probably push those that were undecided to supporting war just because they will be mad that they had to wait in traffic. Also, you can believe what you want about whether protesters are right or wrong, but its unacceptable to me for people to say its wrong for them to express their beliefs. If you truly believe this, than you do not believe in freedom.

BTW, I took 2 full years of US history and 2 full years of European/world history in high school, both of which went quite in depth to prepare my for success on the respective AP tests. Not all of our public schools are failing.

[Mr.Wuggles]

seriously u stupid peace protesters think that if you puke in the steets it will bring peace??? get real democrats

[tasty]

Mr Wuggles, could you possibly stereotype a bit more? Just because a small group of protesters performed a stupid action doesn't mean all protesters are. Furthermore, one could argue that their action wasn't so stupid because of the incredible amount of attention it got. Also, not all peace protesters are democrats, and I don't think that any of them believe that their actions are going to stop the war. I'm guessing you're pretty young, so I won't say any more.

[Mr.Wuggles]

in fact tatsy they are not protesting war at all they are anti-bush furthermore, anti-american. some think communism is the best think scince the sandwich. besides i am 15 i have a very strong political view and the attention should be lookin at war not protesters making blockades, falling off bridges, and making threat attempts to burn the U.S. embassy down.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Furthermore, one could argue that their action wasn't so stupid because of the incredible amount of attention it got.

One could argue it, but one would be hard pressed to prove it. =D

Seriously, any admiration I could have for them showing their commitment and dedication to their cause is completely offset by their illogic and blatant stupidity.  It's supposed to be a peace demonstration, so by all means, throw a trash can at a cop car, or destroy a McDonalds, those actions show peace.  Sure, one of their main points is protecting the civil rights of the Iraqi citizens (from bombs), but they show it by infringing upon the civil rights of American citizens (not with bombs, but still).  They protest violence with violence and stopping traffic.  Like you pointed out, the illogic of this behavior is more likely to push people away from their cause, then bring people towards it.  I'd also admire it a lot more if it were pointed in the right direction.  Protest Bush, Congress, the government.  Don't hassle people driving to the store, or trying to enjoy a day in the park.  

As for the education comment, even Tasty hasn't said he's had as much history as they made us take in school.  I had everything from ancient Greece and Rome to European and Asian while still in Jr High.  History was treated like math when and where I went to school, we took it every semester from 6th grade on.  History, Math, English and Science were required every semester, period.  Then you had some other classes like Government and such that were tacked on to it.  So, my shock isn't calling any of you stupid, but in the lack of emphasis schools seem to place on history anymore.  

Oh, and psycho sniper, the US paid Spain for them, but after we invaded them.  That was common practice back then, and kinda still is, but we call it "humanitarian aid" or "reparations" now a days.

[jn.loudnotes]

I don't know - I think most schools have some kind of comprehensive history class all the way through - I had "social studies" year-round from K - 8th grade - in high school they begin the course breakdown.  (i.e. a year of WH, one of US, one of Euro, etc)  

Also, I see the problem with throwing trash cans or destroying property, that's fighting violence with violence and I agree that it is stupid.  (Although it seems analogous to fighting a war in Iraq to prevent possible future war.)  Anyway, what about stopping streets?  That seems like one of the best forms of protest to me - it inconveniences without causing any severe lasting harm.  If you're trying to make a statement, what a great way to do it without burning, killing, or mutilating.

[cookie]

stopping streets pisses people off, it doesn't get the message through. IN fact, it probably makes people dislike their message even more for them rendering their lives that much more difficult. The other day in phoenix i was trying to get down to my favorite resteraunt for dinner (because i didn't have a kitchen or food to prepare) but alas, the street was blocked by protestors who were spitting on people, throwing things, and shouting inflammatory statements. yeah, that's peace and getting your message out. futhermore, im beginning to think this is what the terrorists want- first our airports are clogged and hyperlocked down, next our streets our clogged by our own people, our economy is dying... (but looking up recently!) what the hell.


as for history, i've had THAT up the wazoo. my school has a very very comprehensive and intensive AP world history dept (which i've had to endure) and i took AP US history freshman year. granted, i don't remember too much about what happened after the american revolution because that class was my favorite to sleep in... but i can recall tidbits here and there. I think i'm going to be a history minor. maybe even major.

[Mr.Wuggles]

I will restate again. The majority protesters don't give half a crap about the war, They hate Bush. When Clinton was in power, he statrted lobbing cruise missles everywhere. Did you see any protesters? No, in fact they were jumping for joy they were bombing people. I'm sorry if anyone here is Democratic. I have a hatred for them because they have to whine and cry when they arn't in office. No matter how the war turns out, they will still try to find something to point fingers at Bush.