I've yet to see anyone even attempt to counter the very serious assertion that the protests are wasting funds and resources which could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks.

This is a simple concept: an action does not have to be illegal to be traitorous. By defining "traitorous activity" as a crime punishable by jail time, you are misstating my argument, and avoiding the facts.

This is not a surprise, since none of your treasonous rantings can defeat the very simple truths which Batster and I have set forth.

Let's make it simple: Although protests are not illegal, they are helping our enemy's propaganda machine during an armed conflict, and wasting resources which could prevent a potential attack within our borders. Therefore, such activities are traitorous. Even a moronic asspirate like Jackass should be able to grasp this simple concept.

Who is an anti-war protester here, Bin? Who here is marching?

You seem to not agree with much of what our government does when the military is not involved. Does that make you an anti-government protester?

You seem to not like the INS much, are you an anti-INS protester?

Kundricks, you need to refer to your logic page because you are sloppily flailing. Your "waste of funds" tangeant is a silly sidestep from your central argument which is that those who disagree with your view of the war, whether they protest or not, are traitors to their country. I considered it might have just been a sloppy initial statement on your part, but now Dagwood and Imploder, and even myself are traitors now, too. Why don't you just admit that you hold that view rather than trying to change it to whether protests are economically sound?

Lucidjackson supports the war, as do I, but we know the arguments against it and can intelligently argue about and explain them. We do not believe everything the government tells us and we will ask questions, or at least pay attention and understand them, something you would definitely do if you weren't in such ecstacy from the violence and death.

Jackoff asked: "gaping bleeding pussy".....ooo what subconcisous memory brought that image up?

My memory of brutally fucking your jackass momma until her scabby cunt bled all over my engorged jackhammer cock.

Buttdart also misstated Member A's argument. What Member A actually said was:

"Hair on your palm bugging you again? What are you talking about sheboy?"

Instead of attempting to explain why wilfully diverting police resources which could be used to prevent terror attacks on our homeland is not an act of treason, Member A also said, "I ask you, how much bigger of a pussy then Kendricks could you want"

Talk about a lack of objectivity and a rewrite of history, for christ's sake. I guess it is ok for people to flame Kendricks, but god forbid Kendricks should return the favor. Reminds me of the people who think that 9-11 was the USA's comeuppance, and that we are wrong for retaliating and taking preventive measures to decrease the risk of future large scale attacks.

Go Halliburton! Go Bush! Go USA! Let's flatten Baghdad, and then make a killing rebuilding it with proceeds from the sale of bargain priced Iraqi oil!!!

I am glad to see that other Americans, as well as a good, decent, upstanding Canadian, in here are standing up, and supporting the USA's noble cause, while some of our finest citizens (and even some brave noncitizens, who have voluntarily enlisted in our military) are fighting and dying for us.

Ben, Batster, Snapper, Superman, and our good Northern neighbor DonGringo, I salute you!

In the past, I have argued against the United States invading Iraq. I thought the policy in the Middle East had much more to do with U.S. economic and military interests than a genuine concern about weapons of mass destruction or the threat of terrorism or the welfare of the citizens of Iraq.

And I have expressed broader concern that a policy of pre-emption displays a uniquely American brand of arrogance that will only create enemies around the world. Preemption could also give other nations carte blanche to attack their neighbors, demonstrating to the international community that the Americans had set a precedent, I argued.

It was my fear that our roughshod-running would compel those who already find us distasteful to lash out violently against our interests—and our citizens—and compromise our war against the REAL terrorists.

I was wrong.

Upon considerable reflection, not to mention embarrassment, it’s clear to me now that America was left no choice but to set the wheels of war in motion. I’m convinced now that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who has savagely murdered citizens of his own country and subjected those who have managed to survive his terror to a life of pain and misery. All the while, he has thumbed his nose at an international community that has been all too patient for 12 long years.

I was wrong to doubt the motives of U.S. leadership, which, I now see, wants only peace and stability around the world. How could I have thought President Bush and his key advisors had anything in mind other than liberation of innocent Iraqis and the safety of freedom-loving people everywhere? Ah, well, we all make mistakes, and this is an embarrassing one.

The discovery that Iraqi soldiers are equipped with chemical-weapons safety kits provides evidence that Saddam’s regime has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and is planning on using them—not only on coalition soldiers but probably also mainland America, most assuredly delivered by his friends in the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

With its public humiliation of POWs, its use of human shields, its violence against Iraqi citizens fleeing the city of Basra, Saddam’s regime has shown that it has no regard for civilized rules of war. That despotic government must be crushed.

And thanks to a broad, cohesive coalition of dozens of nations around the world, we’re well on the way to accomplishing just that. Although some naysayers are suggesting that we’ve completely misjudged the Iraqi resistance and are bogged down in the outskirts of Baghdad and Basra, no one ever said this war would be an easy one. The coalition has not diverged from the plan. Yes, some lives have been lost, but casualties are an unpleasant fact of war.

No one knows how long the war will go on, but the outcome is certain: the coalition will prevail and the Iraqi people will be freed from the clutches of a corrupt, brutal government.

What’s truly exciting is that once the war is won, the United States will not only help establish a U.S.-style democratic government in Iraq, which is clearly what everyone there wants, but it will also enjoy a strong presence in the Middle East and can assist other countries in reforming their governments. Our presence will also no doubt allow for greater peace in the region.

I have finally become convinced that the Bush administration’s policy of preemption is the correct direction, not only for the United States and its interests abroad, but also for the world as a whole. There must be a dominant power, and the U.S. is the only country positioned for it.

Iraq is just the first step, I believe. There are other countries capable of doing harm to America and its friends: North Korea, Iran, Syria and Lybya to name but a few. We should strike at them before they strike first. The future of the world depends on us.

Anyway, I really meant to post this yesterday, just as I was re-evaluating my position… Sorry if this isn’t up to date with the latest news reports. I’m wondering if anybody else has had similar thoughts.

Dogster, congratulations on your conversion. Speaking of inhumane treatment of POW's, the following has been reported of Pfc. Jessica Lynch's condition after being liberated:

Randy Coleman, a military spokesman in West Virginia, said she had fractures in both her legs, and her family said she also had injured her arm. U.S. officials in Kuwait said earlier she had two broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound.

See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82923,00.html

Those of you who have been fighting Saddam's propaganda war for him must really be proud.

In other news, a Columbia University school senior whose father is an Army colonel serving in Kuwait had this to say of De Genova, the professor who publicly stated that the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military:

"A Columbia professor wished death upon the father of a Columbia University student and possibly [on the parents of] other students," William Pratt told the New York Post, adding he was "appalled and devastated" by De Genova’s harsh remarks.

"What really pushes me over the edge is when a professor basically wishes for the slaughter of U.S. military men and women who gave him the right to free speech and to make those disgusting comments," Pratt told the Post.

We are at war, folks. You are for us, or against us. This is serious shit, and there is no middle ground.

Kendricks,

He was being facetious, in his predictable, idiotic way.

-Superman-

I don't know, this doesn't sound facetious:

"Upon considerable reflection, not to mention embarrassment, it’s clear to me now that America was left no choice but to set the wheels of war in motion. I’m convinced now that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who has savagely murdered citizens of his own country and subjected those who have managed to survive his terror to a life of pain and misery."

That's pretty much right on the money.

Well, Dogster? Which is it? Let's hear a nice, concise, unambiguous statement: Were you sincere in this most recent post, or was that just a failed attempt at sarcasm?

Dogster admitting he was wrong was the first clue ... sorry I ruined his cute followup ;)

-Superman-

I have a question.

If Saddam is not dead, why hasn't he appeared on TV holding a newspaper proving the date the tape was made?

Does he have anything to gain by making the world wonder?


I think he's dead.

opinions?

Maybe he just had an arm blown off, or his face all fucked up with schrapnel or something?

I’m sitting here listening to the latest news reports, as US troops move ever closer to Baghdad.

Here’s what I think, minus the sarcasm and April Fools Day pranks.

1) Yes, I think Saddam is a brutal tyrant, worthy of elimination. I always have. Even when he was an ally within our sphere of influence, fighting Iran, I was well aware of his brutality and extremism. As an Iraqi, he comes from a nation and a culture that has emphasized brutal conquest and war for hundreds of years.

2) Saddam is our enemy not because he’s a “monster” but because he’s deviated from our sphere of influence, and our national interests. The US essentially created the conflict with Iraq, for a variety of reasons, in August of 1990, when, for instance, April Glaspie, former US ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam that the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait was an “Arab-Arab” issue and that the US had no particular association with Kuwait.

3) I think Islam is generally a hateful religion and that Islamic fundamentalism is a worthy target of concern and intervention, as I believe I said earlier this week on this thread. Specifically, there is a growing multi-nation Islamic mindset that poses a threat to US interests.

4) Saddam has never shared power with Islamic extremists, especially Al Qaeda, but his popularity has been growing somewhat in some Islamic circles. Saddam’s Ba’ath party, as he runs it, is both secular and socialist. After the Gulf War, Saddam felt he had to lean on religious principles for support, to take advantage of the fact there are more than a billion Muslims in the world. His success in this arena made him more dangerous.

5) I have more invested in our troops and our victory than I’ve discussed previously on this site. Like most of us, I know people over there, and I dearly hope they emerge victorious and unhurt.

6) I think K’s extreme stance here is part of his own personal belligerent tasteless joke. I could be wrong, but I prefer to believe K is not as insanely rigid as he currently portrays himself on this site. Just look at some of the mock-insane stuff he’s posted over the years about Dahmer and others. Kenny lives for his little internet wars. Of course, I can understand that, they can be fun. This is nothing new. The fact he actually fishes out people who subscribe to the stuff he dreams up is fairly amusing, I must say.

7) It is easy to sit at home and glorify the war, and talk about kicking butt as you sit on your butt away from the danger. If you are here in the states, in your 20’s, and pro-war but not in the military, then that’s pretty interesting. The hypocrisy is pretty obvious.

8) There’s plenty of propaganda bullshit out there. In the abstract, you hear people argue that the war will make Iraq better off in the long term, and so we are there to free the Iraqis from Saddam. In reality, there will be a massive body count among the local population. Moreover, the US doesn’t have the kind of track record that suggests that they’ll make the Iraqis a high priority after the war.

9) The supporters of the invasion of Iraq are so fraught with defensiveness and fear, they rival the anti-war Left’s usual level of conspiratorial paranoia and self-righteous grandstanding. Witness the recent dismissal of veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett. In the end, such conspiratorial paranoia serves those who would further limit constitutional civil rights. Democracy and various hard-faught freedoms are really going down the tubes.

10) The current war started in spite of a lack of enthusiasm in this country for war. The polls that register ‘approve’ or ‘dissaprove’ can only count the numbers. They cannot test the depth of feeling. And there are many signs that the support for war is shallow and shaky and ambivalent. That’s why the numbers showing approval for the war have actually been going down.

So… I support our troops and hope for a quick victory. At the same time, this particular war, as conducted by our non-elected president, stinks. How it was planned, how it was explained to Americans, and why it is being conducted are all rather mysterious.

This time around, I’m not involved in protests. But I respect those who have the guts and clarity to speak their minds, even as the masses are ready to chuck real freedoms away for the myth of homeland security.


(Message edited by dogster on April 03, 2003)

d'Artagnan,

Our government is very effective and productive during war. I am most impressed by their work in Iraq.I just wish other departments of government worked as hard and as well.

I have the highest respect for our military and the lowest respect for the INS or what ever they now call themselves.

More pseudointellectual drivel from Dogster. Superman really was right about him.

(Message edited by kendricks on April 03, 2003)

Dogster:

"Moreover, the US doesn’t have the kind of track record that suggests that they’ll make the Iraqis a high priority after the war."

You were on a roll and I agree with many of your statements, but when I look around the world at the countries we have invaded/defeated and their recovery after the wars have been over, I find your above statement difficult to defend.

I would think the people of Japan, West Germany, South Korea would strongly disagree with that kind of thinking. In fact I feel the common citizen of North Korea, and what use to be East Germany would take great exception with your logic.

"non-elected president" -I love that. I makes me laugh every time.

Dogster, you say that you think Saddam is a brutal tyrant, worthy of elimination and yet you oppose(or at least opposed) eliminating him. It's obvious that you let your agenda and hatred for our president get in the way of what you think is morally right.



(Message edited by snapper on April 03, 2003)

Further, the last thing the USA wants is for Iraq to become another shithole like Afghanistan, where terrorist groups are allowed to breed and fester. Of course Iraq will be a priority after the shooting stops. It is truly retarded to beleive otherwise.

The world will be a far, far better place due to this military action, in many ways.

(Message edited by kendricks on April 03, 2003)

Kendricks,

(Or if you prefer, Jackhammer Cock). Geez, what a childhood you must have had to overcompensate the way you do. ;)

You said, "This is a simple concept: an action does not have to be illegal to be traitorous. "

You're right. It's simple alright, simply wrong. By definition, treason IS against the law. How can you dispute that?

Let me help you with your english. You MEAN to say that protesters are so misguided that they do not realize that by protesting, they are hurting their own country and encouraging the enemy to resist, thereby risking American lives. That is true, and it is the price of having a democracy. If you'd spent less time memorizing the sexier bits of Mein Kampf, you'd know that. ;)

You also said, "I've yet to see anyone even attempt to counter the very serious assertion that the protests are wasting funds and resources which could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks."

The implication of such a question is that the protests are somehow not legitimate political expressions. They are. You may not agree with them, I don't agree with them, but those people are entitled to their opinion, AND to express it.

The greatest irony in this whole argument is that your military is over in Iraq, ostensibly to fight against the kind of government that represses people. Your conviction that ALL protestors are traitors is probably one that Saddam would agree with.

So as I said, who is guilty of the greater betrayal of American ideals? Protesters exercising their rights and participating in the political process, or you who wish to brand them all traitors for doing so?

Kendricks, be a man, simply admit that you used the word 'traitor' without much thought, (I know I made the same mistake at one point), and I can take a break from making you look dumb.

Kendricks has never admitted to being wrong on this board and he had better not start now!!

Why not? It would be a sign of maturity, (a badly needed one). If he can't, he should counter the argument with the best logic he can muster. Chances are he'll resort to more unimaginative obscenities, (which I enjoy more since they underline weakness of his argument).

An accepted definition of "traitor" is: "One who betrays one's country".

Batster and I have already explained to you ad nauseum why war protesters during armed conflicts are aiding and abbetting our enemy, thus betraying their own country.

Since I am not arguing that anyone be arrested for peaceful protests, I am not advocating any type of government oppression. Any idea you have to the contrary is a figment of your imagination, or an outright lie.

So there you have it. Americans who are currently helping the Iraqis fight their propaganda war are filthy cocksucking traitors in desperate need of a good ass kicking, although they are not in violation of any law.

The real problem here is Jackass' inability to understand that the word "traitor" can encompass activities not punishable by law.

"Dogster, you say that you think Saddam is a brutal tyrant, worthy of elimination and yet you oppose(or at least opposed) eliminating him. It's obvious that you let your agenda and hatred for our president get in the way of what you think is morally right."

I'm not opposed to eliminating him.

Bush Senior spent the months needed to build a global consensus, and the stature of the US improved thanks to his highly competent efforts. He and his advisors recognized that there was more to life than a tunnel-vision stomping of Saddam. As such, the Gulf War was much more than a military victory for the US. It helped to strengthen US diplomatic and economic interests, and the US came out smelling like a rose in much of the world. We reaped plenty of benefits from this.

Unless I've missed something, Bush Junior has botched the non-military aspects of the war. How will the current war affect global international relations, and the safety of US citizens and interests abroad? On the high side, we stomp out Saddam and maybe get more direct access to some cheap oil. We send the message to the world, "don't fuck with us." Maybe we entrench ourselves militarily in the Middle East and create a new base of operations. On the low side, we may have traded being a global DIPLOMATIC force for a military victory. Have we done anything to stem the tide of fanatical Islam, a real threat? I doubt it. Just the opposite, I'm afraid. We may well be fighting military battles, rather than diplomatic ones, for quite awhile. I hope I'm wrong, but various moderates in Bush Senior's administration have pretty much said the same things prior to this war. As in, we're screwing ourselves internationally, committing ourselves to a militaristic path. And, if you believe those dudes (traitors in some peoples' eyes), the chances of future loss of life has likely increased. I don't HATE Bush Junior. But he ain't his father, and that will probably cost us in the future. I hope he shrewdly has some trump card up his sleeve that will allow this war to contribute to future peace and prosperity for the US. Ah, well, maybe all this will strengthen the military-industrial aspects of our economy. Joy.

Anyway, I haven't read most of the stuff on this long thread. I imagine that there may be some other sane people on this board who think rationally about these things, beyond the repetetive overblown chatter which seems to want to stifle opposing views.

I recognize that the jar head and wannabe jar head contingent is ever-present on this board. Some of these dudes serve an important function in protecting US interests. They bravely do their jobs without thinking much. But there are good reasons for excluding them from strategic and diplomatic discussions.

"Bush Junior has botched the non-military aspects of the war."
Sorry but this is a bullshit statement. Bush did a great job of getting Resolution 1441 passed unanimously. France botched the diplomatic aspects of this war.



"On the low side, we may have traded being a global DIPLOMATIC force for a military victory."
With all due respect I truly believe this helps the US diplomatically. Diplomacy doesn't mean shit unless it's backed up with action.

"Maybe we entrench ourselves militarily in the Middle East and create a new base of operations."
I would have to say given the nuclear power of Iran the fact that we will put a major base in Iraq is almost certain.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to....

Ok, so you refuse to admit you've used the word incorrectly by failing to acknowledge that it's a crime. No prob., I'll let it go.

How about this though Kennyboy...

Say it was you speaking out against something the government was doing. Not even a war...let's say you disagreed with a tax or something. Would you be a 'traitor' because your protest forced the government to spend policing resources? Even during peacetime you could be putting American military lives at risk ya know.

And right now with the war being waged, is anyone who does anything that takes away from resources the government could conceivably spend on terrorism or the war - all traitors?

People who speed and force a policeman to stop them, people unpatriotic enough to eat too much red meat and consequently suffer from colon cancer, thereby taking up valuable hospital resources....are they all "filthy cocksucking traitors" Kenny?

Well...Jackhammer, are they? ;)

You so dumb.

Btw, stop trying to hide behind Batster's skirts. When he shows up he's well able to speak for himself. We want to hear YOUR thoughts on the matter.

Lucky J:

A reasonable interpretation of "traitorous" activity includes actions designed to support enemy forces. Your examples all involve means of obstructing US government functions, but not in ways intended to support an exterior enemy. Therefore, tax protestors may be stupid, but are not engaged in traitorous activities.

For a good example of traitorous activity, please see "Teheran Ollie"'s deliveries of TOW missiles to the Ayatollah.

Jackass, it's time for your sorry ass to put up or shut up.

You claim that in order for an action to be traitorous, it must be illegal.

Which statute are you referring to? Post the cite and the text of the law. Come on, bitch boy, let's see you back up your bullshit.

The same challenge goes for anyone else who wants to jump on jackoff's little fairy bandwagon.

Explorer,

I was being facetious in order to illustrate the danger of Kendricks'example. I was doing it to show that under his definition, almost anyone can be considered a traitor.

Kendricks, the following words are yours, I've capitalized some for emphasis. You said,

"GIVING AID AND COMFORT to the enemy during time of war, in any degree, is obviously TRAITOROUS. "

That's YOU using the language of Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. constitution. Which is,

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT"

You are clearly identifying war protesters as law breakers by quoting the words of your own constitution.

I'm sorry, but you asked for it.

I expect an apology to follow....Jackhammer. ;)

This is a really dumb discussion now. I would suggest that you two meet in the Zona to discuss whether or not fucking Mexican putas is giving comfort to the enemy.

Explorer,

I agree it's dumb, and apologize for boring the rest of you, but the point is so simple I can't believe the K-man doesn't get it. Perhaps his own words will now allow him to admit that he's been wrong all along.

a) Kendricks will never admit that he's wrong about anything here.

b) Since (a) is clearly true, trying to get Kendricks to admit that he's wrong is not the most rational thing to do.

The problem, jackass, is your kindergarten understanding of concepts clearly over your head.

The legal definition of Treason is: a breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

What war protesters do borders on treason, and arguably is. Due to liberal construance of the first amendment, though, these people will not be punished or tried.

The point you continually miss, however, is that the common definition of "traitor" is broader than one who commits treason.

For example:

1. All murderers are felons, yet not all felons are murderers.

2. All who commit treason are traitors, yet not all traitors have committed treason.

You can be a traitor without actually committing an offense that the US government will prosecute as treason - as the protesters have proven.

If you dispute this, show me a statute or an article of the constitution which defines the term "traitor".

I dare you. I double dare you.

A. Agreed
B. It's damn fun to make him look dumb.
C. I'll sheepishly admit it's bogged down the thread for the rest o' ya's and back off on this point.

Oh damn, that didn't last long did it.

Ok Kendricks here ya go...NOT all traitors are guilty of treason....but there's no escaping that you applied the definition of 'treason' as it appears in the constitution, to the war protesters you labelled as 'traitorous'.

For chissake, your own quote shows that. I guess I was the only one here who thought you might have the character to admit a mistake, but everyone else here seems to know you better.

You "double dare" me??? How old are you Kenny? That sounded like the "Jackhammer" might actually still be a knitting needle. ;)

Wrong. I quote, from the materials I just provided you: "Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort."

Don't make me requote the rest to you. You are just plain wrong. As well as jackass.

Of course, this whole semantic argument is really beside the point, since it has already been demonstrated that war protesters are aiding our enemy in his propaganda war, as well as leaving us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Whether or not you believe this rises to the level of "traitorous" is irrelevant; the fact remains that these people are assholes who are aiding the USA's wartime enemies.

It is amazing that you are too fucking dense to grasp this basic concept.

"Irrelevant" is certainly a word that belongs in this discussion, only you've applied IT incorrectly as well.

I'll leave you alone for now, I'm sure it's only a matter of time till you gut yourself on some other hook you try to wriggle off.

Go back to your Nazi porn for now.

On the US Patriot Act and a possible follow up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act:

"...According to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrrorist...It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents." - ABCNews.com

Another quote from the same article for you gun fans and those that think only liberals are concerned.

"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement...We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration." - Mark Hammond, Gun Owners of America consultant

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/conservatives_patriot030312.html

One does not have to be against the war to understand some of the potential consequences. And you think people complain about abuse of government powers NOW...

Oregon legislatures have also proposed Senate Bill 742. It would never pass (I believe), but that such harsh penalties for such vaguely defined crimes is even brought up amazes me:

"Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who 'plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt' business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly...The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism." - Reuters
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/ts_nm/life_protests_dc_1

From my reading of this, if ONE member of a any gathering (not necessarily a protest) does something like jaywalk (which might delay traffic), police could consider it an intentional act to disrupt transportation and arrest all partipants and subject them to a potential life imprisonment term. Extreme and unlikely, yes, but I know how much some of you trust and support police and our legal system.

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

I put up the world poll about embedded reporters. Are the reports live or censored (perhaps I should have said "approved").

Since then I've been watching TV with this in mind and I bet it's a mix.

Bringing reporters into the thick of it and allowing live reports is a risky proposition. One slip-up as to location or future intent could lead to a poison gas bomb right on top of those guys.

If I ran the war, I'd censor (oops I mean approve)all reports before they are aired.

Speaking of witch...

Just off the wire; one of the embedded reportes was killed. I'll go back and find out who it was, and who he worked for.

I think it is incredible that the military has allowed the hundreds of reporters to ride along and report on the war. Maybe it is just me, but the military commanders seem much more liberal on news reports than they were in the last war, when Swartzkoff would roll his eyes at most of the questions from news reporters.

Of course Rumsfeld has kept the rolling eyes going during his interviews.

I'd roll my eyes too. Most of these questions are really stupid.

Snapper - I totally agree - whenever I see someone write "non-elected president" it cracks me up as well.

It takes away all credibility of their entire post and puts them on the level of a Daschle. These people must be so brainwashed by NPR that they are beyond help. I think Gore and Lieberman have finally accepted that they lost but some of these left-wing liberal nuts can't see it.

What makes it sad in today's times is that they are being 'Anti-American' and 'traitors' and actually wish bad times upon the US because of who the president is.

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace" - George Washington

I give credit to Lieberman. Even though he has different views than the current president on most issues he is honest enough to openly support the him with this one.

The journalist that was killed was Michael Kelly from the Washington Post.

(Message edited by snapper on April 04, 2003)

Snapper,

Michael Kelly was one of my favorite columnists and a great editor. He was a good writer and had a great sense of irony and sarcasm. I am going to miss his work. His last column, published yesterday, was a great snapshot of the combat in central Iraq. I was looking forward to further reports.

As far as the Bush election controversy. I didn't vote for Bush. I thought he was kind of a numbskull. And I dont care much for his connections to the religious right. But I will probably vote for him now. He has shown some real balls.

I must admit I was also sceptical about his win in Florida. His brother being govenor and all. But after the election, A consortium of papers, including the New York Times( not exactly a Bush supporter), the Miami Herald, the Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder, paid several million dollars for a study of the ballots. Under the freedom of information act, they reviewed all of the Florida ballots. They reviewed them under every scenario proposed. They even used the counting scenario that Gore was proposing in court. Under every scenario, Bush won. End of story. Thats why you do not hear more about it. If there were really something to it the media would not back down. Now you only hear that line from Bush haters and extreme partisans like Jesse Jackson.

There remains the very valid argument that Bush lost the popular vote. And so he did. And so what? You cant change the rules of the game once it is being played. The rules dont require a win of th epopular vote and the rules wont change. Nobody really thinks we will be better served by a direct popular vote. Thats why there is not a strong movement to make the change.

Gore won the popular vote by carrying the large cities. But he could not even win in his home state. He could not carry Arkansas either. Clintons home state. Politicians should have a strong base in their own state. If people from Tennessee would not support their native son, what does that tell us?

It was a battle of two weak candidates. But Bush has won me over, at least on the Iraq issue.

As far as the raging traitor argument. I wont back off of my opinion that the anti-war protests help Saddam. And, if he is the enemy, the war protesters are aiding the enemy. Is it illegal? No. Should they have the right to protest? Yes. Should I have the right to say that most are scumbag traitors? Yes.

I think this all started when I commented that the majority of the anti-war protest is really a Anti-bush and Anti american movement with little basis in reality and no viable solutions to the Iraq crisis. Note that I did not say people who are opposed to the war. I said Anti-war protesters. I also said that the protesters really do the country a disservice. I am not alone in feeling this, even though jackson feels the protesters are the true patriots.

John Leo writes:

A big problem with all the Hitler-Ahab rhetoric is that it is high on contempt and rage, leaving little room for any attempt to engage or persuade. Note that the depiction of the president as a deranged or Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us how passionately they oppose hate speech in all its forms. Also, the denunciation of Bush as Hitler is a favorite of people who shout "McCarthyism!" when anyone points out, accurately, that the antiwar movement has been organized by far-left activists who defend Mao, Castro, Milosevic, the mullahs of Iran, and the Stalinists of North Korea. The reason Bush is compared to Hitler so often is simple: All the other recent monsters are heroes to major antiwar organizers.
The real Nazi. The Hitlerization of Bush is particularly outlandish since there already is a rather obvious Hitler figure in this drama. Saddam Hussein gouges out the eyes and cuts out the tongues of resisters--and their children. He drills holes in people's hands and pours acid into the holes. He rapes and tortures. Yet the "peace" and the human-rights movements are reluctant to notice. Sarah Baxter of Amnesty International points out that her group issued a "harrowing" indictment of Saddam's regime just before 9/11; then it instantly switched gears, deploring western leaders who mentioned all the Saddam Hussein terror that Amnesty had laboriously documented.

Like Amnesty International's downplaying of Saddam's terror, the peace movement was a direct and abrupt result of 9/11. A month ago, a Washington Post news report said this February's peace rallies were agreed upon at an international meeting two months earlier in Italy, "but their roots go back to the days just after Sept. 11, 2001, when activists say they began meeting to map out opposition to what they anticipated would be the U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pen-tagon." In other words, the "peace" organizers were not responding to any Hitler-like actions by President Bush. They just didn't want the United States to defend itself.

Many "peace" marchers, of course, are not anti-American, just antiwar. That's the point of all the news articles saying the movement has "broadened," i.e., pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. However, we should all pay some heed to whom we hang out with. Tom Bevan, a blogger at RealClearPolitics, put it nicely: "It matters a great deal who is organizing the protests. I don't absolve the `true' antiwar protesters for taking part in a march organized by American-hating groups any more than I'd absolve someone who marched in a legitimate protest of immigration laws if it was sponsored by the KKK."


Once again, If the chinese say that the anti-war protests help Saddam how are we sincerely supposed to believe otherwise? Jackson, I wont come back to the issue again. I am tired of it. But I wont change my mind either. If you help Saddam I believe that you are helping the enemy. Or is Geroge Bush and the United States the real enemy?

I was worried that this whole war could mushroom into a regional or world conflagration and that we might all go up in ashes. It could still happen, but I am starting to breathe easier. I might still be alive for Hombre Fiesta #6.

Batsterwhoishappytostillbealive

Not all traitors are bad. After all the good ol' USA was founded by traitors of that country on the other side of the "pond". I'm not calling anyone a traitor here or picking sides.
Like it or not, we are now in a war. Like I posted before, let's support the troops.
Because of our armed forces past, present and future we are allowed to have the freedom of speech and have not been taken over by some country who would censor us.
To those members past, present or future memebers of the Armed Services, Thank you!

"I must admit I was also skeptical about his win in Florida."
I was skeptical too until after the first recount. Each additional time they counted I found it more and more amusing. How many times did he win Florida anyway, was it six times?

"There remains the very valid argument that Bush lost the popular vote."
He most likely did, but this will never be proven. Each state stops counting ballots once there in no mathematical way for any of the trailing candidates to win. If each state tallied every vote it is possible(yet highly unlikely) that he also won the popular vote. I would never dwell on this though because I'm not in denial like some people. I only wrote this just to see what reaction I'd get from other using their way of thinking.

"Gore won the popular vote by carrying the large cities."
I saw a map that illustrated the election results district by district for the entire United States. It looked like Bush won 98% of the country. That was expected though given what the farmers had riding on getting rid of the death tax.

Hopefully I will still be around too so I can buy you a beer at he next fiesta.

-snapper-

Batster, please answer this question, do you agree with Kendrick's assertation that Explorer, Dogster, JamesBR, Luckyjackson, and myself are all traitors to our country? (Not really LJ as he is Canadian)

JamesBr voted for Bush, his current feelings developed from Bush's actions regarding the war.
LJ and I support the war (but question aspects of it and can discuss related issues)
None of us are protesting.

Or is the discussion of ideas on an off-topic thread of a private pay sex message board a form of protest for which we now deserve to be compared to the lowest of beings? (IMHO, being called a traitor to one's country is a graver insult than most profane insults)

Wow, another blatant lie about what I said. Here is a quote from me:

"If you support our enemies over us, you are a filthy traitor."

If the label fits, wear it. If you don't support our enemies and aren't out there protesting against us during war time, then don't fucking worry about it.

I have seen some blatant attempts to discredit someone through outright lies before, but that pretty much tops all of them.

I as well have no interest in restarting the whole thing, I have only this comment to make in regard to Batster's post, and then if EITHER of them wish to resume their tutelage, they can e-mail me at luckyjackson@hotmail.com, thereby sparing the rest of you who are understandably bored by the whole thing.

The argument wasn't about whether or not protests indirectly helped Saddam. They do. The points I was making were as follows,

1. Kendricks certainly intended to brand them as TREASONOUS traitors, as can be seen by his use of the words "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". All the teasing was aimed at getting him to simply admit he'd made a mistake in calling the protestors 'traitors' in that sense of the word. He doesn't have the character to admit it. Fine. End of story.

2. This second point was the more important. The intolerant attitude behind Batster's and Kendrick's use of the word 'traitor' - even in the anecdotal sense, betrays a lack of respect for the democratic principles America was founded on, something many Republicans these days are also guilty of.

I don't agree with the view of those protestors either. However, saying that they're free to express their views, but are traitors by doing so is irresponsible. Why? Because it tars all protestors with the same brush, and I don't think anyone here believes that all the protestors share the sentiments of that idiotic prof who wished for a million Mogadishus.

When a democratic government allows dissenting opinions but stays to the course of action that voters have given it the authority to follow, then it is demonstrating a strength of our way of life, not a weakness.

(Message edited by luckyjackson on April 04, 2003)

I already addressed all that. Go back and read my previous response to you until you understand it.