• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Good article: Let's stop calling the left anti-war

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Let?s Stop Calling the Left Anti-War
by Aaron Goldstein
30 August 2005

Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan have taken sides in the war against Islamic terrorism.



Individuals and organizations that tend toward the political Left in America are often described as being ?anti-war.? To be certain, it is in reference to their collective opposition to American military presence in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan.

But can Michael Moore, Jodie Evans of Code Pink and mère d?année Cindy Sheehan be truthfully described as anti-war?

I submit that the aforementioned persons are not anti-war by virtue of statements that all three have made in support of the terrorists, Iraqi and otherwise, who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Now, Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan might not represent all thinking on the Left, but they are at the very current of it and as such are very well regarded in those circles. With that in mind, I refer you to the following statements.

On April 14, 2004, only ten days after Casey Sheehan was killed in action in Iraq, Michael Moore wrote the following on his website www.michaelmoore.com:


The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ?insurgents? or ?terrorists? or ?The Enemy.? They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

On June 26, 2005, Jodie Evans of Code Pink wrote the following in her blog while attending the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul. This was a show trial against the United States and Britain and those sitting in judgment included Eve Ensler (of Vagina Monologues fame) and author Arundhati Roy, both of whom opposed the effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. Here is one of her revealing observations:


We had sat yet again through nearly 12 hours of testimony. There was no question that the UK and US were guilty of an illegal, immoral and unjust war -- the case had been proven over and over. Nor was there the need to question the Iraqis? right to resist. Of course, they had the right if the invasion was illegal. Instead, the question had already become: now what do we do about it?

Let us consider also Cindy Sheehan?s comments to CBS reporter Mark Knoller earlier this month during her "vigil" in Crawford, Texas:


You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they?re not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they (American troops) have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country.

Let?s be clear about it. The ?anti-war? Michael Moore denies that the people who are killing our soldiers with road side bombs at the behest of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are terrorists, never mind insurgents. He even likens them to the Minutemen. Funny, but I don?t recall the regimens from Concord beheading United Empire Loyalists.

Jodie Evans, whose organization Code Pink describes itself as ?women for peace,? sees no need to question the Iraqis ?right to resist? since, in her opinion, the invasion was illegal. Was Jodie Evans in a coma when the UN Security Council passed 17 resolutions citing Saddam Hussein for violations of the Gulf War Ceasefire over a 12 year period?

One thing is for certain, she did not share notes with Cindy Sheehan. After all, Sheehan told Knoller that the ?freedom fighters? were from ?other countries.? So is it the Iraqis who are ?resisting? or are foreign terrorists doing it for them? Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan might want to get their story straight.

Of course, I might be giving Sheehan too much credit by half. After all, she did not object to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. But why would she object to Syrian Baathists? This is a woman who on public record as stated, ?I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullsht to my son and my son enlisted.? This from the so-called ?Peace Mom??

So given America?s inherent original sin, people who might not otherwise blow themselves to smithereens are killing themselves with only the promise of 72 virgins and taking as many people with them as possible, because ?they want America out of their country?? Wait a minute, Cindy. I thought the ?freedom fighters? were coming into Iraq from other countries. So is Iraq their country as well, even though they might be from Iran or Syria? But then again, Cindy Sheehan has no quarrel with the Syrians so why would such niceties bother her?

Based on their own words, Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan can accurately be described as anti-Bush. Based on their own words, Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan can accurately be described as anti-American. But also based on their own words, Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan cannot accurately be described as anti-war. Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan are not neutral persons who abhor war in all forms and declare a pox on all your houses. Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan have taken sides in our war against Islamic terrorism. Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan are not on our side.

Although President Bush has been vilified for stating that ?you are either with us or you are with the terrorists? there is no doubt that Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan are with the terrorists. Michael Moore, Jodie Evans and Cindy Sheehan are enemies of America.

Pretty harsh. I know. But ask yourself these questions. If Michael Moore is not with the terrorists then why liken them to the Minutemen? If Jodie Evans is not with the terrorists then why doesn?t she condemn their acts, let alone question the right of Iraqis to kill our soldiers outside the rules of engagement? If Cindy Sheehan is not with the terrorists then why refer to them as ?freedom fighters??

My question to each of them is what is there to gain in supporting these terrorists and hoping for their triumph? Are they nostalgic to revisit their misbegotten youth and return to America in the 1970s? Do they want our soldiers to once again be spit upon and called ?baby killers?? Do they want our armed forces to withdraw from Iraq, only to see millions of innocent civilians slaughtered in a manner reminiscent of the killing fields of Cambodia? Do they want terrorist attacks to escalate? After all, if the terrorists know that America will not stop them then who will? Or do they simply want to jump and down and chant, ?We Beat Bush!!! We Beat Bush!!!?

Whatever their motivations, let us stop pretending that Moore, Evans, Sheehan and others who follow their tune are, in any way, anti-war.



Aaron Goldstein, a former member of the socialist New Democratic Party, writes poetry and has a chapbook titled Oysters and the Newborn Child: Melancholy and Dead Musicians. His poetry can be viewed on www.poetsforthewar.org.

 
Cliffs:


Michael Moore, Sheehan etc aren't "anti-war" as much as they are pro-terrorists or anti-America:


On April 14, 2004, only ten days after Casey Sheehan was killed in action in Iraq, Michael Moore wrote the following on his website www.michaelmoore.com:


The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ?insurgents? or ?terrorists? or ?The Enemy.? They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

^^^^ Doesn't sound like someone who is for PEACE to me!

Sheehan, etc etc all have said similar things.
 
To me it sounds like someone who is making an attempt to reach your president to stop the killings, as otherwise it will just escalate, So yes, it sounds like someone who's anti-war.
 
The whole thing sounds like nit-picking to me.

Please show me what treaties or international laws gave the U.S. the authority to invade Iraq. The failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions is a pretty thin smokescreen. The U.N. did not sanction the invasion.

Those who use the label "foreign insurgents", just don't get it. First of all, many Muslems see this as an assault on Islam, not simply an action in Iraq. So, if they are Muslims, they are not foreign in their own eyes. Secondly, the concept of Iraq as a cohesive nation and people is a myth. It is a conglomeration of very different groups of people whose primary alliegence is not to a nation. These groups compete for power and influence (often violently) with the absolute certainty that they are right; and so, are not ameanable to compromise.

I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that Iraq was part of the "War on Terrorism" before we invaded. I do not consider my opposition to the action in Iraq to be un-American at all. I consider it a voice to restore the honor and integrety of our nation, not only to the rest of the world, but to ourselves.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4562.html

??

:roll:


Another Hannity/Limbaugh wannabe spouting his inane crap.


<sigh>



This board has been overrun by non-thinking RW trolls in the last month or so. I guess the GOP is getting desperate as hell and pulling out the stops and telling their Team Leaders to step up the rhetoric and hyperbole.

this coming from a person whose nick may be the most embarrassing freudian slip to ever disgrace this or any other board. slither away.

 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The whole thing sounds like nit-picking to me.

Please show me what treaties or international laws gave the U.S. the authority to invade Iraq. The failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions is a pretty thin smokescreen. The U.N. did not sanction the invasion.

Those who use the label "foreign insurgents", just don't get it. First of all, many Muslems see this as an assault on Islam, not simply an action in Iraq. So, if they are Muslims, they are not foreign in their own eyes. Secondly, the concept of Iraq as a cohesive nation and people is a myth. It is a conglomeration of very different groups of people whose primary alliegence is not to a nation. These groups compete for power and influence (often violently) with the absolute certainty that they are right; and so, are not ameanable to compromise.

I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that Iraq was part of the "War on Terrorism" before we invaded. I do not consider my opposition to the action in Iraq to be un-American at all. I consider it a voice to restore the honor and integrety of our nation, not only to the rest of the world, but to ourselves.


can't be 'nit-picking' when you and your kind are under the delusion that endless violations of security council resoultions are nothing more than a 'thin smokescreen'. try to remember that those resolutions were international laws trying to protect the world against saddam's aggresion and his desire for wmd.

 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Let?s Stop Calling the Left Anti-War
by Aaron Goldstein
30 August 2005


Aaron Goldstein, a former member of the socialist New Democratic Party, writes poetry and has a chapbook titled Oysters and the Newborn Child: Melancholy and Dead Musicians. His poetry can be viewed on www.poetsforthewar.org.

excellent article that rehashes obvious themes that i and many others have wrestled with here. the democratic party is infested with their own fundamentalist loons which they seem to be embracing with as much fervor as the republicans do the religious wackos. the problem with the democrats is they can't win national elections when they embrace people whose love the terrorists is greater than their love for their country.

hey, frackal, take particular note of the author's ideological bacckground. that aaron goldstein was a former liberal loon is telling. neo-conservatism arose when certain neo-marxists, liberals, communist sympathizers, and haters of america underwent epiphanies back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
can't be 'nit-picking' when you and your kind are under the delusion that endless violations of security council resoultions are nothing more than a 'thin smokescreen'. try to remember that those resolutions were international laws trying to protect the world against saddam's aggresion and his desire for wmd.
Try to remember that the body that established those "international laws" did NOT authorize Bush's vigilante invasion. You can't have it both ways. BushCo broke "international laws" against unilateral acts of aggression.
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Cliffs:

Michael Moore, Sheehan etc aren't "anti-war" as much as they are pro-terrorists or anti-America:
Ah, yes, the simple-minded "you're either with us or you support terrorists" fallacy. It makes a great attack when truth is against you.


On April 14, 2004, only ten days after Casey Sheehan was killed in action in Iraq, Michael Moore wrote the following on his website www.michaelmoore.com:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ?insurgents? or ?terrorists? or ?The Enemy.? They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

^^^^ Doesn't sound like someone who is for PEACE to me!
That's probably because your perceptions are distorted by Bush-colored glasses. He is not advocating violence, he is exposing a lie.


Sheehan, etc etc all have said similar things.
And they are correct. Although Iraq has been infiltrated by more and more external "terrorists" over the last couple of years, the bulk of the guerilla warfare has come from natives defending their country against an invader. Most Americans would do the same if the tables were turned.
 
Just more of the usual "Us vs Them" "With Us or Against Us" " If you're not 100% behind the Prez, then you're a Traitor!" agitprop from the neocon apologists.

Too bad that modern Wingers don't understand the intellectual basis for much of what they believe is descended from trotskyism-

http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

You're being manipulated. Not that you have the intellectual capacity or emotional maturity to appreciate that, but it's true, nonetheless...

 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: syzygy
can't be 'nit-picking' when you and your kind are under the delusion that endless violations of security council resoultions are nothing more than a 'thin smokescreen'. try to remember that those resolutions were international laws trying to protect the world against saddam's aggresion and his desire for wmd.
Try to remember that the body that established those "international laws" did NOT authorize Bush's vigilante invasion. You can't have it both ways. BushCo broke "international laws" against unilateral acts of aggression.


true, they didn't authorize but also would not have because the proceedings were marred by a number of factors that worked in saddam's favor, namely french refusal, declared on march 10, 2003, that military action against iraq was not happening regardless. chirac, who made that reckless declaration, undercut the efforts to win a diplomatic agreement. blair remarked at the time what a mindless action that was. sadly, the french have a permanent member veto and there was nowhere to turn from there (diplomatically speaking) than to war. the onus was on saddam and all the council heard from the dandyish french foreign pm was how WE needed to accomodate iraq's concerns.

there is so much written on those days that reveals the failings of the system and of particular council allies of saddam. their embarrassments date to 1994.

there is also the question whether a second resolution authorizing military action was needed when 1441 promised serious consequences and 1441 encompassed previous broken resolutions which also provided for resort to a military response.

clinton (and blair) bombed iraq - a military operation - in dec 1998 without u.n. resolution.
the kosovo intervention - yes, that too, a military operation - occured without u.n. auhorization. the u.n.'s military intervention in the congo in the 1960s occured under threats, dictatorial intransigence, and violation of international law of far lesser degree than in iraq.

kofi himself said in speech that a state's sovereingty is not a cover for them to commit gross human rights violations against their own people, implying and re-hashing the traditional moral imperative of intervention, the same employed by blair and bush, to
say the least.

i could go on.

oh, there is also the british legal brief (2002) which reviewed the legality of the conflict and found nothing amiss, and which has never been refuted.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: syzygy
can't be 'nit-picking' when you and your kind are under the delusion that endless violations of security council resoultions are nothing more than a 'thin smokescreen'. try to remember that those resolutions were international laws trying to protect the world against saddam's aggresion and his desire for wmd.
Try to remember that the body that established those "international laws" did NOT authorize Bush's vigilante invasion. You can't have it both ways. BushCo broke "international laws" against unilateral acts of aggression.


true, they didn't authorize but also would not have because the proceedings were marred by a number of factors that worked in saddam's favor, namely french refusal, declared on march 10, 2002, that military action against iraq was not happening regardless. chirac, who made that reckless declaration, undercut the efforts to win a diplomatic agreement. blair remarked at the time what a mindless action that was. sadly, the french have a permanent member veto and there was nowhere to turn from there (diplomatically speaking) than to war. the onus was on saddam and all the council heard from the dandyish french foreign pm was how WE needed to accomodate iraq's concerns.

there is so much written on those days that reveals the failings of the system and of particular council allies of saddam. their embarrassments date to 1994.

there is also the question whether a second resolution authorizing military action was needed when 1441 promised serious consequences and 1441 encompassed previous broken resolutions which also provided for resort to a military response.

clinton (and blair) bombed iraq - a military operation - in dec 1998 without u.n. resolution.
the kosovo intervention - yes, that too, a military operation - occured without u.n. auhorization. the u.n.'s military intervention in the congo in the 1960s occured under threats, dictatorial intransigence, and violation of international law of far lesser degree than in iraq.

kofi himself said in speech that a state's sovereingty is not a cover for them to commit gross human rights violations against their own people, implying and re-hashing the traditional moral imperative of intervention, the same employed by blair and bush, to
say the least.

i could go on.

oh, there is also the british legal brief (2002) which reviewed the legality of the conflict and found nothing amiss, and which has never been refuted.
Still doesn't change the fact that the invasion of Iraq was a major fsck up which we are now paying to high a price for.
 
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.
 
Awwwwwww the Red State brainwashed have finally had enough thanks to mother Nature.

Too late sheeple, you made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

9-22-2005 Hurricanes Decrease Support for Iraq War

Hurricane Katrina and its wrenching aftermath have turned public attention and already-dwindling support away from President Bush's Iraq policy.

And that was before Hurricane Rita took aim at Texas.

The devastating storms are increasing pressure around the country and in Congress for an Iraq exit strategy and prompting calls for reining in spending on an increasingly unpopular war, one which could bedevil Republicans in the 2006 midterm congressional elections.

"It's a tangled picture" that will get even more complicated as those elections near, said Stephen Cimbala, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University.

"It's like Osama bin Laden's running the weather"
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.
"peach activists" are the pits.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.

Oh I think that the exact opposite is the case ...

You are FOR this war and FOR this violence for one simple, undeniable fact.....

The war was started by a Republican.

If Clinton started this war, you'd be screaming the exact opposite argument. I guaran-damn-tee it.

Peace activists are who they are regardless of the war and regardless of who's in office.

For you and your ilk, you have no opinion of your own.

You let other's (RNC's) policies dictate your opinion to you.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.

Oh I think that the exact opposite is the case ...

You are FOR this war and FOR this violence for one simple, undeniable fact.....

The war was started by a Republican.

If Clinton started this war, you'd be screaming the exact opposite argument. I guaran-damn-tee it.

Peace activists are who they are regardless of the war and regardless of who's in office.

For you and your ilk, you have no opinion of your own.

You let other's (RNC's) policies dictate your opinion to you.

You couldn't be more wrong. As I was telling someone else(or was it you) just the other day - I supported the removal of Saddam long before Bush 43 became President. But hey, you can stick with your deluded creations if you wish but now you can't say you don't know the truth.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.

Oh I think that the exact opposite is the case ...

You are FOR this war and FOR this violence for one simple, undeniable fact.....

The war was started by a Republican.

If Clinton started this war, you'd be screaming the exact opposite argument. I guaran-damn-tee it.

Peace activists are who they are regardless of the war and regardless of who's in office.

For you and your ilk, you have no opinion of your own.

You let other's (RNC's) policies dictate your opinion to you.

You couldn't be more wrong. As I was telling someone else(or was it you) just the other day - I supported the removal of Saddam long before Bush 43 became President. But hey, you can stick with your deluded creations if you wish but now you can't say you don't know the truth.
I supported it too but not at this cost.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I agree - they are hardly anti-war - it's more that they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican wars.

Notice though that some in the press are calling them "peace activists" :laugh: More like "anti-Bush activists".
You act like criticizing the Dub for his obvious fsck ups amounts to being unpatriotic.

There you go again with your paraniod creations. I never stated nor implied any such thing. I just find labeling them "peach activists" or "anti-war" is stupid because their motive is Bush.

Oh I think that the exact opposite is the case ...

You are FOR this war and FOR this violence for one simple, undeniable fact.....

The war was started by a Republican.

If Clinton started this war, you'd be screaming the exact opposite argument. I guaran-damn-tee it.

Peace activists are who they are regardless of the war and regardless of who's in office.

For you and your ilk, you have no opinion of your own.

You let other's (RNC's) policies dictate your opinion to you.

You couldn't be more wrong. As I was telling someone else(or was it you) just the other day - I supported the removal of Saddam long before Bush 43 became President. But hey, you can stick with your deluded creations if you wish but now you can't say you don't know the truth.

So you're trying to tell me that you would've supported a war based on lies if it were Clinton doing it, just because you wanted Saddam out of power? OMG, that's rich.

So tell me, do you think peace activists only exist when Republicans are in office? If so, you're deluded.
 
Back
Top