What do you think about protestors?

Should Hollywood celebrities be looked at any differently than any other person who speaks out for or against the war?

I am an ARMY wife from Hagerstown MD, stationed at Fort Lewis WA. While I am glad that Americans have the right to protest, I am not for protesting. My husband puts his life on the line for people who don't support him. Just think, in a lot of other countries, these "protestors" would be branded traitors, and even killed! Freedom of Speech is one thing, but when do we draw the line? Everyone should respect the president, our troops and our country! I have one question: where were all these protestors after September 11th? I'll tell you, they were rallying around our president!

As a college student studying Political Science I see the 1st amendment right as being very important. However, it is so important that it should be used with discretion. I am all for protestors if they disagree with George Bush's foreign affairs policies, and they voice their problems with that. Unfortunately those who are running the protests, and marches are not democrats, they are not moderate leftists, they are radical leftists. The organizers and leaders of the ANSWER foundation are all members of the Worker's World Party. Otherwise known as the communist political party. These people are not just against the policies of George Bush. They are against the policies of America, democracy, capitalism, and freedom. These people are protesting the very ability for them to protest in a way. I have seen numerous signs at protest rallies all over comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler. This is a great example of taking it too far. That is un-patriotic. Say what you want, but the generations that came before myself experienced something so dreadful and horrible that is not even comparable to George Bush. The protestors should not be jailed, but instead should not be given attention by the media. Their radical ideas and speeches should be seen as illogical and incorrect. To go a step further, if the media covers the protests, cover the pro-war rallies also. A few weekends ago a giant rally in Washington, D.C. occurred entitled "Rally For America" I personally knew many people who went and was told that thousands of people were there in support of America and our troops. I however did not see anything about it in newspapers, TV or the internet. In case the media did not notice, Fox News is the number one rated cable television network. Ratings is what it is all about right? You want more money, start being a tad bit less biased in your reporting and editorials. In the meantime I love democracy, and fortunately these protestors and followers of Marx and Lenin could not prevent my love from spreading to those in Iraq. God bless America and our troops.

The problem here is that in times of war, the popular opinion - i.e, that of the war supporters -- has come to dominate and even oppress the minority opinion. Thus, those who protest George Bush leading the United States into a massive assault on the Middle East are labeled "traitors" or "unpatriotic". This is the majority's way of instilling fear into the hearts and minds of those who do not line up and salute the President as he and his administration completely disregard the Constitution (did the entire country seem to forget that it is CONGRESS' job to declare war under Article I?!) and robs the American public of its civil liberties and 4th Amendment protections, all in the name of "national security". And let's not forget who this affects most; it is not the typical white, middle-class American; it is singling out anyone with the "wrong" last name, the "wrong" skin color, and the "wrong" religion. These policies have gone so far as to require a special registration and even the indefinite, baseless detention of young Arab-American men -- many of whom are U.S. citizens and whose families have been so for generations -- much like the atrocity of the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. This is not patriotism or even democracy; it is McCarthyism. It is in the Bush Administration's interest to so sway the public opinion against protestors that, much like the 1950s, those with even the mildest comment of dissent, or those who are questioning of our government's policies, are branded traitors and subsequently ostracized, lynched, and/or black-listed. Anyone who thinks the current state of political dissent is not akin to the Red Scare should re-read their high school history book. OF COURSE we have a right -- perhaps even a duty -- to protest and question government action, even in wartime, and particularly when we are acting without the blessing of United Nations. The 1st Amendment is applicable in times of peace, and in times of war. And, it seems that the largest folly of logic that those who think people should not protest is this: the fact that an individual chooses to protest does NOT equate with non-support of American troops; it equates with a disagreement of the government policies that have sent our young men and women into harms way to carry out those policies.

The problem here is this logic. "The popular opinion - i.e, that of the war supporters -- has come to dominate and even oppress the minority opinion." The problem with this statement is that before the war started and right up to it 60-70% of Americans favored military action against Iraq. And roughly 15-30% of all Americans were against the war. That 15-30% however was made out to be millions of people, and all we ever saw on TV were people protesting the war, calling George Bush names, and so on. Thats fine, exercise your freedom of speech and right to protest all you want. This is America, and we have what is called a majoritarian democracy. This means that the minority has the right to be heard, but the majority rules. The minority has been heard alot more than the silent majority, and finally someone spoke out and called the minority "unpatriotic". All of a sudden the first amendment doesn't apply to anyone else unless they're going against the President. Is it not my freedom of speech to call you "unpatriotic" ? I mean if you can't take what you're dishing out why waste your time? Finally the silent majority ruled and went to war while the minority continued to hold rallies, protests, and talk on TV, yet public opinion did not shift to being against the war. Also Congress was given the ability to give the President the ability to use our Armed Forces for certain period of time, you can read about it in history or government books, its called the War Powers Act I believe. Then you make claims about the camp in guantanamo bay saying how we are picking out specific ethnicities and cultures to throw in the camp. How do you know? Have you been there? And my question is what skin color are middle eastern terrorists? And what religion are they? Also how many protestors have died because of their views? I have heard people say some of the most radical things, but have not been touched solely because of the 1st Amendment. The difference between now and the Red Scare, is that people in this country actually are communists, but they are not prosecuted at all. Where did you guys get so much money for peace rallies and protests when such a small percentage of Americans supported you? Democracy and freedom will always prevail, and the communists need to stop thinking that racial claims can pull more people over to their side. Good effort Marxy, looks like you'll need to go back to the drawing board. Mmmm smell that? Thats the smell of 100% pure democracy.

I am enjoying the lengthy and well-written posts here. Thank you for participating in our forums!

Please let's refrain from name-calling

Wow. That certainly shows strength of character when you resort to petty, baseless name-calling (i.e. Marxy, Communist) in what you apparently believe is an informed opinion. I realize you're still an undergrad so I'll cut you a little slack. But actually, in so doing, you've proven my point for me that the majority opinion is oppressive of the minority (and might I add, often feels the need to rub the dominance of their opinion in the face of the underdog). Further, no one mentioned, or even eluded, to Guantanamo Bay; perhaps you misunderstood. Special registration for Arab-Americans is vastly different from "enemy combatants", who are being held in what essentially amounts to dog kennels in Cuba (read media descriptions of the cells circa January 2002 if you don't believe me), against the Geneva Conventions.

First, special registration is a mandate by the government for Arab-American males to go to a specified location in the major cities, "register" with the INS (in what is, in fact, a custodial interrogation by the government in violation of Miranda), and possibly face "detention". Indeed, "detention" is much more atrocious than an arrest, because it is a standard created in the Patriot Act that permits the government to detain a person indefinitely and without probable cause. This was created specifically to circumvent the basic Constitutional guarantees that are triggered by a traditional arrest. I'm not surprised that you didn't know what was being referred to actually; the media, as you pointed out, was too busy covering the protests, and drumming up distaste for those ungrateful, "unpatriotic" protestors, to remind us that our fundamental liberties were being stripped away in the background.

Second, if you read the War Powers Act and the litigation arising from it, Congress has never abrogated its authority to declare war in order to instill that power in a single individual. Constitutional interpretations have held that the President is, however, authorized under the Commander in Chief clause of Article II to deploy the military for "armed conflicts", but not war. "Armed conflicts" has been held to mean engagements such as removing Noriega from power in Panama, the involvement in Somalia, etc. but never outright war. Operation Iraqi Freedom has never been characterized by the President, the Department of Defense, or the State Department as anything other than war. Doesn't the fact that the President unilaterally led the country into war scare you in the least? It is a very calculated move on the part of this administration. Loosening the restraints imposed by the Constitution allows for the wiggle room needed to head down the slippery slope toward autocracy. (I would think, as a "democracylover", you should be chilled to the bone.)

Finally, I question your characterization of the majority as being "silent", and your assertion that those who disagree with the President would only have the 1st Amendment apply to them. The majority is certainly not silent; every day, the news networks, White House press briefings, and even the American way of life exercises its support for the President and the war effort. American flags hung in car windows, ribbons worn on lapels, "God Bless America" signs, reports from embedded reporters as American tanks rolled through the desert toward Baghdad, and front pages of hometown newspapers such as this one, all burst with rank-and-file support for the war, and its ongoing. Media coverage of protests seemed to drop from the face of the earth as soon as the war began, but that doesn't mean that the dissent ceased; in fact, it got stronger. But if CNN (or FOX News, it really makes very little difference) was your sole source of information, you would have never known. Further, I take no issue with your right to call others "unpatriotic"; in fact, I might even defend it. However, those who wield such a word, particularly because it is wielded toward the minority by the dominant, are seldom aware of the power and force behind the word. It is a word that has the ability to ostracize, silence, and excommunicate in the current political environment. It's the scarlet A (or in this case, U), and it is used as weapon. Let us not forget, a lot of conduct (example: cross-burning) in the not-so-distant past has been disguised as protected 1st Amendment speech when, in fact, it was a tool of intimidation meant to silence the dissenters.

Protestors cannot all be characterized as "people who don't support" your husband or the armed forces. Remember that these people are not protesting the military, they're protesting the war itself. Yes, the right to protest is guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution of the United States. To not excercise our rights, to let them go to waste, is disrespectful to those who fought and died to give us that right. And yes, people in other countries who may try to protest are often branded as traitors and are tortured or executed -- that is precisely the reason why the United States stands as a beacon to all of those others that do not respect the rights of their citizens. Finally, where were all the protestors after September 11th? Mourning the loss of the thousands of Americans killed that day, like most other Americans. However, "rallying" is something completely different than mourning. Not everyone wants even more innocent blood to be shed (Iraqi civilians, Iraqi soliders, and US soldiers) which is precisely what the warmongering president and his administration is doing.

You have my sincerest apologies melaniekt I meant no harm by my reference to Karl Marx. I was merely joking. However you rise a very good point about people using terms to "ostracize, silence, and excommunicate", not a day passes that I don't hear one of my professors or fellow students at this institution of higher learning, tell me how George Bush is "a warmongerer" or "a greater threat than Saddam Hussein", I hear people compare him to Hitler, people call him an "idiot", and everything he and his administration does is automatically deemed bad. The whole idea of being a conservative is bad. People tell me I am "blindly-following" President Bush, teachers make references to how cruel, inhumane, and insensitive Republicans, and conservatives alike are. This is not an example of the majority trying to oppress the minority, but instead the minority trying to force their views onto myself and other students who may be indifferent.

As for the racism towards Arab-American men, I did misunderstand your first post, however your second one intriques me. I have several friends who are Arab-Americans and they are U.S. citizens but have never gone to register with the INS. Are they in violation of this law? I am honestly curious and would like to know. Besides that, if it is true that arabs who are in america and not citizens must go and "interview" with the INS, all I have to say is this: why do we dig for oil in the desert? Because that's where it is located. Why would the U.S. single out Arab-Americans? Because they are the ones who are currently committing terrorist acts against the free world. No doubt others have committed terrorist acts against the United States (i.e. Timothy McVeigh) but ever since 1979 Americans have been under attack by middle eastern terrorists, in the middle east, europe and the United States.

According to the War Powers Act, the act requires the president to notify Congress of the reason for committing combat troops within forty-eight hours of their deployment; requires that hostilities must end within sixty days unless Congress extends the period; gives the president an additional thirty days to withdraw the troops from hostile territory, although Congress can shorten the period; and requires the president to consult with Congress whenever feasible before dispatching troops into a hostile situation. So no, it does not directly give the President the power to declare "war", but with Congress' approval it gives him the ability to send our troops for a conflict for a period of time as you said. However, instances such as Somalia where our troops arrived in December 9, 1992 and left in March 1994, that is more than a year. And three weeks time is about how long the Iraqi war lasted. Many of our troops have already returned home from it. No doubt it may be classified as a "war" but acts of war have been inflicted upon Americans by middle eastern terrorists since 1979 with the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehren. Thousands of Americans have died since then in various attacks. Finally, no I'm not chilled to the bone, 44 nations is not unilateral.

In regards to the majority not being "silent" and the references to the media and the public shifting their attention and using their freedom of speech to support the war. I think you are mistaking things for what they are not. People flew flags, hung signs that said "God Bless America", and wore ribbons not to support the war, but to support our troops. Many people who may have been against the war still went over and fought in it, and some who were against it had family members who were fighting in it, but no matter what your opinion on George Bush's foreign policy decisions, you are an American and you don't want our troops to be hurt or killed. So you can protest the war, but once it happens you have to support the troops, not the war, the troops. The media still covered the protests as it was seen all over Europe, the Middle East and throughout America while the war was going on there were still protests. I even watched several protest rallies in San Francisco and Washington D.C. on C-SPAN. However you are correct most of the media footage was on the war, but it was not supporting war, merely doing their job and informing the public as to what is going on. They covered the war primarily on an objective basis, and never did I hear any one news reporter supporting the war. In newspapers, which yes I do read despite being in undergrad, many still were very outspoken in speaking out against the war. And to get back to the original topic of this forum after all that, I would stick with my original statement and say kudos to them for speaking out, but for those who speak out against the troops, shame on you. Speak out against the war and George Bush, not against America. As for a previous example of something "disguised as protected 1st Amendment freedom of speech" referring to "cross-burning". Another example that comes to my mind is another type of burning disguised as free speech, "flag-burning".

democracylover - I have to disagree with you on a couple of things:

That simply is not true. Take, for example, Jose Padilla, who is currently being detained as an "enemy combatant" by the US government for allegedly attempting to set off a dirty bomb in Washington, DC. He is a Muslim, not an Arab-American. Nor are all Arab-Americans terrorists, which the Bush administration seems to believe since they are requiring this special registration. Your statement is basically supporting racial profiling, which is based entirely on stereotypes. Just as it is horribly wrong for traffic police to pull over law-abiding African-Americans on suspicion of whatever, it is just as wrong for the government to require special registration for law-abiding Arab-Americans.



Haven't Middle Easterners been 'under attack' by American foreign policy? The occupation of some of the holiest of holy sites in the Arab world by American troops is torturous to many Muslims. Furthermore, American foreign policy in the Middle East has forced families from the homes that they had occupied for generations and imposed brutal economic sanctions that have made the food and medicine next to impossible to obtain. (I refer here to pre-WWII Palestine, Lebanon, and post-Gulf War Iraq). This by no means justifies the violence of the few rabid fundamentalists, but perhaps you can understand the context from which the disgust with America comes from.

You have to be very careful about specifically naming something an "act of war". Without a declaration of war, there is no act of war. Thousands of innocent Americans have died in terrorist attacks, yes; like I said, this is in retaliation for a very flawed American foreign policy that leaves thousands of Middle Eastern people dead from starvation and lack of basic medical care.




I don't even understand what you were getting at here. What does this 44 nations refer to? It doesn't seem to fit with the argument you were making in the paragraph in which it is included. The original reference as I understood it from 'melaniekt' was about the loosening of the constraints of the Constitution being dangerous.

I don't agree with this at all. There really is almost no such thing as a real objective news report anymore; every network or newspaper or wire service or whatever has their biases now. They're so well-produced, though, that you may not notice the subleties in the reporting. Fox News is notoriously conservative in its approach, just as an example.



Cross-burning and flag-burning are completely different. Cross-burning was meant to directly intimidate African-Americans, and make them fear for their lives. Who is fearing for their life if an American (who is guaranteed the right to free speech) burns a flag? I have never seen one American citizen attempt to intimidate another American citizen by burning a flag in front of his/her face. And obviously Americans as a whole aren't going to fear for their lives if Joe Schmo burns a flag to protest American foreign policy. So, though I would never do it myself because I appreciate the sacrifices made by Americans past for and under the flag, I support the right to burn it in protest to American foreign policy. Or, hell, burn a flag in protest of Levi's jeans being so expensive, whatever. It's a Constitutional guarantee that we are given, and it is not inflicting injury or fear for personal safety to anyone.

mlt76 you're big on the quotes. I'd like to support your statement with what I said right after that quote. I would like some clarification though, and not generalization, do Arab-Americans who are not U.S. citizens have to register with the INS? or do all Arab-Americans both citizens and non-citizens have to register with them? Because as I said before I have many friends who are Arab-Americans, they were born in America and are U.S. citizens and have not done anything with the INS. Therefore I think the idea of racism for this "special registration" may be confused with regular registration that all immigrants and visitors from foreign countries must do with the INS. Now I am sure that Arabs may go through more hoops with INS with "interviews" or "interrogations" whatever you want to call them. If you want the standards to be lower so more innocent Americans can lose all their freedoms, including the right to live, then thats fine. Until then some groups are going to be put through a little harsher standards because of their previous track record of killing Americans. Whether it is right or not, thats the way it is.

My next question is, can you name the occupied Holy cities that U.S. forces have occupied? I understand that America might have made mistakes in foreign policy in the past such as supporting Israel, heaven forbid, and the support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is another common mistake referred to, which I agree was a mistake. However, when Iranian students attacked and seized the US EMBASSY in Tehran in 1979, it occurred before 1980-88 which is the duration of the Iran-Iraq war. So maybe there was something else that angered those students? In April 1983, a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US EMBASSY compound in Beirut. It explodes and kills 63 people. Six months later a large truck laden with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. Is terrorism not a form of war of specific groups of individuals against an entire country? Two months later in December 1983 another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US EMBASSY in Kuwait. The next year, September 1984 another van was driven into the gates of the US EMBASSY in Beirut. In EUROPE, April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Four months later in August, a Volkswagon loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and is executed. What about his human rights? TWA Flight 840 and Pan Am Flight 103 are bombed in 1986 killing approximately 265 people. January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters, one month later a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. November 1995 a car bomb explodes at US military complex in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia killing seven service men and women. Several months later in June of 1996 another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. Simultaneous attacks on two US EMBASSIES in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224. USS Cole was docked for refueling on October 12, 2000 is hit by a small craft that explodes and kills 17 US Navy Sailors. This is all BEFORE September 11. So did the US wage a big war against the Middle East killing thousands and angering alot of them, and I missed it? How are embassies occupying forces?? We may have had forces in certain places but the troops never told the people how to live their lives, they were there to keep peace. How are our forces in Madrid and Germany occupying holy cities?

Well of course there are the economic sactions that the US has imposed on the Middle East, while we are in the process of playing the blame game for the economic problems in the Middle East I'm gonna take Global Warming, Rich people, selfish Americans, capitalists, and those darn Republicans, they seem to be the problem for everything. Never though would I blame the leaders of the countries in the middle east who are too obsessed with traditional values, blaming others for their problems, and imposing harsh restrictions on their people. If the leaders in the Middle Eastern countries would move on with the rest of the world and provide OPPORTUNITIES to their people like we have in the United States, their economies would flourish and they would not NEED us to provide goods and aid to their country. But instead the leaders are very tyrannical and instead of helping their people they force them to starve, and then the US has to choose whether or not to feed a dictator or oust him and feed the people he oppresses. So when we impose sanctions such as with Iraq, it is for a reason, not because we enjoy making Arabs starve. Even if you are referring to pre-WWII that was over 60 years ago, its time for them to move on and GET OVER IT. Do not hold grudges. Focus on succeeding and fixing the problems instead of relying on others.

The 44 nations was referring to melaniekt's statement of The war was not unilateral, it was supported by 44 nations, and I can list them if you'd like, but since I've already written alot, I will spare everyone. As for the Constitution I am still confused as to how Bush is loosening its constraints.

The war was covered on an objective basis in most regards. If someone says "I'm here with the 3rd infantry division and they were engaged in a firefight with Iraqis earlier today, blah blah blah" I'm really confused how that has the even most subtle bias to it. He is reporting what happened, it is a fact, and he is not saying he supports or doesn't support the action, he is saying what the action is, that is objectivity.

Interpret flag-burning however you like, on September 11, and other days when I see Palestinians, and Arabs burning American flags I am fearful, but more so angry. The burning of a cross was no doubt to scare African-Americans who were a minority and were no doubt already scared, and I would never defend cross burning. Flag-burning however does not necessarily intimidate me if I see another American burning it or if I see Arabs burning it, but that is because I know we are the greatest super power right now. Because we are so free and so powerful that person can burn that flag all day long, but that is an example of taking it too far. Just yesterday I viewed a website that went in-depth in comparing the Bush family with Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich citing several points that supposedly related the two families. When day and night President Bush is working to defend their right to call him a Nazi, he is working day and night to protect those people who burn an American flag and call him every name in the book. Our leaders work day and night to defend the people who criticize them when never having served a day in public office. Basically my point is, Americans are spoiled and they take their freedoms too far. I do not think any freedoms should be restricted or limited, but they should be seen as very valuable and should be used with discretion. Every American who burns a flag, who calls our leaders names, who says this is wrong, it should be like that, needs to be held accountable for everything they say. Call Bush names, but when was the last time you ran for President? When was the last time you were the Secretary of Defense or State? Do you have a PHD in American Foreign Policy? Is the view good from the cheap seats? I hope so because its free, compliments of the people you hate.

Dude, you take so much out of context. You are just incapable of logically backing up an argument. You're thinking is erratic and unfocused. You are resorting to "evidence" to prove your points by bringing into your argument situations that have nothing to do with the point that you are trying to prove.

Case in point: (and I won't use direct quotes if you can't stand them. But it is academically responsible to quote your sources, in case you haven't yet learned that in your College Writing 101 class)

(#1)

-melaniekt discusses clauses of War Powers Act and the legal responsibilities that Congress and
the President have toward one another when deploying troops for an armed conflict. melaniekt states that the President used Article II to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, which allowed for armed conflict. BUT the President declared war, not armed conflict. There is a difference between the two. So essentially, melaniekt concludes, the president unilaterally led the nation to war under the War Powers Act.

-NOTE: the presence or lack of support of foreign nations has nothing to do with the War Powers Act.

-then, democracylover disagrees with melaniekt's assertion of a unilateral act because 44 nations supported the United States.

-do you understand at all why your argument cannot possibly be a valid counterpoint? does this make sense to you now? War Powers Act has absolutely zero to do with whether or not other countries supported the US. It has everything to do with the fact that the President acted unilaterally to lead the country into war, i.e. without any involvement from Congress. Note that the word 'unilateral' does not necessarily have to relate to inter-nation relationships, which, I assume, is where your rationale about the support of 44 other nations comes in. It can also mean INTRA-national relationships, like that between the president and congress.


#2:

-democracylover asks if I can name any holy cities that are occupied by American forces in the Middle East. This is in response to my assertion that American military forces occupy Islamic holy sites which angers Muslims.

-Note that I said "holy SITES" not "holy CITIES".

-Yes, I can name a couple of them. Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Occupied by the IDF, directly supported by American foreign policy. Prince Sultan Air Force base in Saudi Arabia, near routes of the Hajj pilgrimage. Pretty much all of central Saudi Arabia is 'holy territory' for the Muslim world since most of the life of Muhammed and many of the battles of the Islamic civil war that divided Sunnis and Shiites took place there.

#3

-I know you can't stand quotes, but I can't in good conscience continue to not put them in, so:

-democracy lover says:

Yeah, something else angered them. It was called the Iranian revolution. Remember the Shah? Remember Kholmeni? Also, what does this have to do with the opening statement of your paragraph, which asks about US occupation of holy "cities", not "sites", in the Muslim world? Embassies are not occupying forces, they're diplomatic posts.

-And thank you for your chronology of terrorism by Islamic forces against American forces. Here's another timeline for you:

Midieval times: Richard the Lionhearted leads Christian crusades into Arab world, killing and torturing Muslims.
Immediately post-WWII: Palestinians forcibly removed from their homes and land, which are given straight away to Jewish settlers.
To this day: US supports further Israeli colonization of the ghettos of the West Bank, forcing the very same Palestinians who once had homes in what was once Palestine but is now Israel to continue to live in extreme poverty.

Seems there's a long history of Western aggression toward Muslims, doesn't it?

#4:

-democracy lover says:



It really is naive to think that US forces are stationed at all of these places overseas to "keep peace". I directly quote CENTCOM here about Prince Sultan Air Force base on globalsecurity.org:

"The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development."

I didn't see anything about peacekeeping, did you? I did see something, though, about *OIL* and "sustainable development", which is dip-speak for western-style modernization.


#5:

-democracylover says:

Last time I checked, Germany and Madrid aren't in the Middle East. Those bases have nothing to do with what we're discussing, which is occupation of Muslim holy sites, or "cities" as you misquote.

But since you asked, what is the purpose of having those military installments anyway? I am curious myself. Let's see what Global Security says:

"For more than 50 years, the United States has maintained a large military force, primarily comprosing Army and Air Force units, on German soil. In the spring of 1945 they arrived in overwhelming numbers - combat and support troops belonging to the 6th and 12th Army Groups swarmed over the German countryside, blah blah (more geological and landscape descriptions)...With the end of the war on May 9, 1945, the American troops assumed the duties of administration and control of the United States Zone of occupation in the divided German nation. It was originally envisioned that the American forces in Germany (and Austria) would carry out their occupation role and eventually disband and return home. However, the changing political events in the post-war world would alter that plan."
Then it quotes Winston Churchill:
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent."

So, let's see, it was originally the occupation of Germany after its defeat in WWII, but then we decided to stay a little while longer to keep a close eye on Stalin. Kinda like the installations that sprung up in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia after the Gulf War, dontcha think?


#6:

-democracylover says:


-I present a couple of counterpoints to this. First, the traditional values and "harsh" restrictions are in adherence to a strict religious code called Sharia. I am going to cautiously presume that you are speaking about the treatment of women under Sharia, so correct me if I am wrong in my presumption. If I am correct, though, then I think that you are probably buying into a manufactured stereotype about the meekness of the Muslim woman, about her fear of her husband, about the "illicitness" and "servitude" of the 'harem', etc. I then challenge you to pick up a book called "Harem Years: The Memoirs of an Egyptian Feminist” by Huda Shaarawi. It is a first-hand contradiction of this stereotype. Or, heck, even read the premise alone of the "1001 Nights". Or, if you have access to Lexis-Nexis from your school, see if you can find the article called "Fundamental misunderstandings: Issues in feminist approaches to Islamism" by Bronwyn Winter, from the Journal of Women's History. Here's the author's abstract:

"Within feminist debates on Islamism, many issues remain both contentious and insufficiently explored, including the relationship of fundamentalism to religion, the situation of Islamism in relation to a supposed crisis of modernity and search for authenticity, and its legitimation through "democratization" and "multiculturalism"."

#7:

-democracylover says:

If you think that there was little to no bias whatsoever, just check out the very front page of CNN.com. On the right hand side, in a little box called "The New Iraq", there's a feature called "Heroes of War" which displays revolving daily accounts of the lives of some US soldiers who were killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now before I get flamed, let me say that this statement should not be interpreted as me being 'unpatriotic' or 'not supporting our troops', but that's pretty blatant for CNN to report in that manner and to show solidarity with the US position by posthumously knighting Americans as heroes.


#8:

-democracylover says:



Sure we're spoiled. I'll agree with you there! But I wonder what you would classify as taking a freedom too far? Like, would it be something like me taking my Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech too far to call Bush an ignoramus? Oh, wait, I think I hear the secret police coming to get me for taking that freedom too far. Gee, I guess I shouldn't have done that.

#9:

-democracylover says:

-I haven't run for president or secretary of state or secretary of defense. I'm not old enough. How about you? When was the last time you did so? (Understand that if you're going to ask foolish questions like that then you have to answer them yourself, too).

-No I don't have a PhD in American Foreign Policy. I'm not sure that such a program exists. Georgetown, though, has a pretty good MS program in National Security studies, you might want to look into it if you can ever learn to write a concise argument in undergrad.

-Yes, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats, don't you think so? Cuz you can sit back here, just like you and me and melaniekt are doing, and criticize or praise as much as we want and we didn't have to pay for a damned thing, like you said. I like it that way. But I don't hate Bush, I hate what he does. I actually think he'd be a pretty good drinkin buddy, if he weren't clean and sober now. But I hate those two Bush twins, don't you? oooh, they make my skin crawl. I do want to point out, though, my previous quote which you disregarded when you said that I "hate" the people that gave me the "cheap seats":



Okay, to conclude with a bit of humor. Here's what your arguments remind me of. It's funny!

http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_w...ar_on_iraq.html

For one thing, I do not take much out of context, as for you, stop beating around the bush and answer my questions. Also thanks for proving some of my points.

When are you going to answer my question about the racism against Arab-Americans? Is it for US Citizens or Non-US Citizens to register with the INS?

About the unilateral comment, I assumed that she was talking about foreign nations because there is no way melaniekt meant Congress,

does the Iraq Resolution passed by both the House and Senate by both Democrats and Republicans and then signed by the President, slip your mind? Thats understandable it was awhile ago.

check this site out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-7.html

I'm fully aware of plagiarism guidelines mlt76 and it amuses me that you have to make reference to me being in college constantly, if I can't write logical arguments why are you getting so worked up about it? Wouldn't my stupidity make me look dumb enough as it is?

I used embassies in that paragraph to point out the fact that they are not occupying forces but were still attacked. Thanks for supporting my "concise argument".

I apologize for the great misunderstanding saying cities and not sites. But still thats only two sites you named and one is not occupied by US forces but the IDF whom we support. I am glad you used the Crusades as an example of aggression towards Islamics. Because for those of you who know your history, you know that after the death of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, in 814 the Christian empire was under attack by Islamic forces after the death of Muhammad. By the 8th century, Islamic forces had conquered North Africa, the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and most of Spain. Islamic armies established bases in Italy, greatly reduced the size and power of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) and besieged its capital, Constantinople. After the First Crusade the Christians had won back Jerusalem from Islamic control. The 2nd Crusade failed in regaining the Holy Land, with Islamic forces now behind the leadership of Saladin they recaptured Jerusalem. The 3rd Crusade which involved Richard the Lionheart, Frederick Barbarossa, and Phillip II of France, again FAILED to recapture Jerusalem, so instead the Islamic invaders now controlled the site where Jesus Christ was crucified.
That is an example of Islamic aggression towards the West. When did that happen? Over 700 years ago. Muslims defeated the Christians. Good evidence.

As for the Israel - Palestinian conflict, if the Jews stop attacking the Muslims, Jews will continue to die. Without US support Israel would not exist. The US is the only factor that prevents the radical religious fundamentalists from destroying Israel. If the Muslims stopped attacking the Jews, we might be able to convince Israel to stop colonizing ghettos, and reach a peaceful conflict. Unfortunately these people on both sides are so proud and will probably never back down against each other, in the meantime we're going to support the little guy. Shame on you America. (notice the sarcasm? I'm joking there)

Don't even try and play the Oil card.



Again I'd like to thank you for proving my argument. Germany and Madrid aren't in the Middle East, and they are not holy "sites" but were still attacked. I thought Muslims were angry because of US occupation of holy "sites". So if they aren't holy "sites" being occupied, why'd they still attack us? Thanks for taking everything literally, not rhetorically.

The restrictions I was referring to was not just to women alone. Although I appreciate your counterpoint arguments. The restrictions were to all people within almost all Muslim states. King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud is the Crown Prince & King of Saudi Arabia and is worth approximately $20 Billion. He gets this money from property, equities, and oil. He is the richest leader in the world. Saddam Hussein who ranked 4th among the wealthiest leaders of the world was worth at least $2 billion. For some two decades he has enriched himself off Iraqi oil revenue, building palaces all over the desert nation. Yasir Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority is worth an estimated $300 million. He has feasted on all sorts of funds flowing into the P.A., including aid money, Israeli tax transfers and revenue from a casino and Coca-Cola bottler. Much of the money appears to have gone to pay off others. Now, let me get to the point since you seem to misunderstand me alot. These leaders are worth millions and billions of dollars. Where do they get their money from? They get it from the revenues of THEIR PEOPLE. So its our fault that Iraqis were starving while Saddam eats lavishly in one of his dozens of Presidential palaces? My point is these leaders should stop stealing from their people, and they should give the money back to their people. They need to provide opportunities for their citizens to work, to get jobs, and to earn an income to feed their family. They need to take some of their billions and give these poor people in their country aid to get back on their feet. But instead they keep it for themselves and brainwash their people to believe that it is because of western aggression that they don't get to eat, or they don't have a home. Thus we want to help these people and oust their leaders who won't only help them economically, but also impose harsh religious restrictions on them such as Saddam Hussein not allowing Shiite Muslims to pray and demonstrate as they are doing now telling the US to get out. The irony is thick. The countries of the middle east could be very well off economically with the money of their oppressive dictators and monarchs. See for yourself at forbes.com:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/26/billionaireland.html

Your wit amuses me mlt76. Thanks for not being entirely serious the whole time, I was afraid I was the only one who liked to crack a joke once in awhile.

As for running for President, Secretary of State, etc. it was merely a point to say if you're going to criticize someone and not understand their position as President or whatever, you shouldn't do so unless you know what its like to be in his shoes. No I haven't run for President either, but I'm not criticizing him because I don't know what its like to be the leader of the free world. But while we're on the topic, I've been in elected positions since I was in 6th grade. My peers see me as a leader and they've elected me to numerous positions where I have had great responsibilites. I work for people who are elected to their post by the general public and I see and know first hand the stress, decisions, and circumstances that revolve around their everyday life. And I can only imagine how much of a heightened level of stress and difficulty decisions may be for the President, Secretary of Defense, State, whatever. Until you can understand this, how can you say he did the right or wrong thing? I'm not necessarily saying what has happened is definitely right, but I'm not saying its wrong because I know what its like to be a leader and be criticized wrongly for something you did that was for the best of your constituency.

Personally, I'm a male about the same age of the Bush twins, and I kind of like them. They're hot. How could you not like them??

Finally, next time try this site for counterpoints: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article1051.htm not too radical eh?


We might as well a agree to just disagree, its only you and I and maybe Melaniekt reading these posts, oh yeah and the webmaster. But seriously you're not gonna convince me, and I'm sure you're set in your ways too. So why waste your time arguing with a college kid? I have finals and I can't keep responding to you if I want to get into that Foreign Policy program at Georgetown.

As much as I'd like to respond in-depth to this spirited discussion, my time is limited so I'll have to make this short.

1) Re: special registration. Intended to track foreign nationals, but operates with the disparate impact in that permanent residents and their citizen offspring have also been targeted. You will only find such reports in press that someone such as yourself would probably give no credence (i.e., mostly foreign press in the UK and France). If you have Arab-American colleagues who are citizens that have not yet been targeted, they're pretty lucky. But I'd be willing to bet that, if you'd ask them, someone they know has had to register. Check out the official site for INS Special Registration. It's quite watered-down. http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared...alreg/index.htm

2) It is Article II of the Constitution, which lays the foundation of the Executive Branch, that I referred to, not Article II of the War Powers Act. And when I say that the President led the country unilaterally into war, I am not referring to him in relation to other nations, but in relation to our own governmental structure. Harp on resolutions all you like, but resolutions are not war declarations, nor are they authorizations to the executive to declare war. Resolutions are authorizations to engage in "armed conflict". Armed conflict does not equal war -- this is well-established precedent. Yet the fact remains that the President led the country into WAR, not armed conflict, and based on a RESOLUTION, not a declaration. You see? Structurally, the level of authorization doesn't match up to the level of the act.

3) About the comment "don't even try to play the oil card" in response to mlt76. The oil issue is certainly not a card. It is the primary reason our country is even interested in the Middle East in the first place. Do you think President Tex, or the rest of the country for that matter, would give a rat's behind about regional stability if there wasn't a valuable natural resource in the region -- one that essentially drives the global economy? It is a very important, if not THE most important, issue in such a discussion.

4) Re: objectivity of media reporting. I really have to disagree with you, democracylover. Our media sources are not objective, but the manipulation is subtle. For example: remember all those Iraqis giving the thumbs up to CNN cameras when the statue was being pulled down? What you didn't hear is that the thumbs up sign, in the Middle East, is the equivalent of the American middle finger.

5) Stripping of civil liberties in the interest of national security. This relates directly back to the special registration issue that seems to have piqued your curiosity, democracylover. The term being used in the law journals is "erosion of the Fourth Amendment". You know, that's the one that says that the government can't come barging through your home and search through your belongings or your person without a warrant or probable cause. Well, the INS registration is essentially giving the government a license to do this to the registrants (i.e., Arab-Americans and foreign nationals from the region), but the practice has extended to dissidents and groups (including the ACLU) who oppose the direction that the DOJ, under the Bush-Ashcroft administration, is taking. Wire-tapping, spying, and indeterminate detention can now occur unfettered, thanks to the Patriot Act. The problem is, Americans aren't aware of these allowances in the Act, and the Administration prefers it that way. The typical, uninformed American seems to think that, if the government tells us its for "national security", he'll support it. What isn't being reported or discussed in the mainstream is that we're basically creating a Gestapo and a KGB here on our own soil. Think it can only happen to "them" and not you? Think again. Read "Patriot Raid" by Jason Halperin, who was just a guy having dinner at a restaurant when the Patriot Act came knocking on his door. It's chilling. Here is the link: http://www.notinourname.net/detentions_roundups/ Click on "Patriot Raid".

This will be my last post on this topic.

Basically, democracylover, you're just dead wrong about Bush, about flag burning, about declarations of war and of armed conflict, and about Arab-Americans or Arab immigrants (there is a difference) for the various and numerable reasons that melaniekt and I have addressed. And you have not once backed up your arguments with any evidence even remotely related to the point you are trying to illustrate. My one last example that supports this point is this, your quote:



Deconstructing this quote, you (a) do not say WHY you are not taking things out of context, (b ) you demand that I answer your questions as if I have a responsibility and obligation to do so just because you asked, and (c )you say I proved your points but you don't say how so.

If you take anything with you at all from our little debate, make it this: for any opinion that you have, you must have some logical reasoning and thought behind it to justify said opinion. That is not just for the purposes of this debate, but for all opinions that you will ever have.

Good luck on your finals.

Everyone here seems well read in the scriptures of their particular leaning, so I'm not going to jump into the details of their frays.

Going back to the original question posed...

Protesting is a right given by freedom of expression. If people are peaceful in their protests, I think it's fine. If people are destructive, disruptive, and trampling the rights of other people, I think it all goes too far. A protestor in San Francisco threw acid in a cop's face. Not justifiable. And yes, there are some cops who have gotten out of hand, and there are plenty of good cops who just help to keep the peace and there are good and bad protestors.

Celebrities have every right to the same freedom of expression. Because they are so public, we all get to know their opinions and because we also have freedom of expression, we can reject their entertainment value in protest of their opinion.

If I were a businessman in Hagerstown and went on NBC 25 and made a comment that angered you, would you shop at my business? Maybe you would, but maybe you would choose to go across the street to my competitor because he kept his opinions to himself and so you have no ill will against him.

The Dixie Chicks have their right to their say. Consumers have the right to burn their Dixie Chick CDs if they are angered by their public stance on something. Personally, I don't take celebs very seriously. Most have less education that I do, and live in an unrealistic world anyway. Actors and actresses have value to me only as performers, not as policy-makers or rational idea-formers.

And off topic, there is one response to something someone said about hating the Bush daughters. Maybe it was a joke, but what the heck is all the hoopla about the Bush daughters? Gee, they got caught underage drinking in a bar with fake IDs... Do you equally hate the teen girls in the Midwest who were drinking from two kegs of beer and beating each other up? Do you also hate all the kids underage drinking here in Hagerstown, and in Maryland, and all over the country? Just how much do you really feel you know about the Bush daughters aside from what bad press they are given? Of course it is your freedom to form judgements against people you don't know, just as I do now. But I will exercise my freedom of expression by expressing a modicum of restraint.

tiredone -- I didn't say that I hated the Bush twins, I said "they make my skin crawl", basically to add a bit of comic relief to my long-winded rant. But yes, from what I see in the press, and from the transcripts and police reports that I've read, they sound like spoiled brats and I don't like spoiled brats. I also don't like teenage girls that bully each other in the Midwest or anywhere else, since you mentioned it.