Do you support Cindy Sheehan's antics in protesting the war in Iraq?

[Saboteur]

Liberals were all over them, too.
"Free speech" is OK so long as it's speech liberals agree with - said liberals don't say a word when EMINEM or Kayne West do such things.

How one sided of you...

And liberals did speak out on EMINEM when he preached hate against gays and women.

You're right and wrong at the same time.

Could you explain what you mean?

 

[Goobieman]

How one sided of you...

But not of you? LOL

And liberals did speak out on EMINEM when he preached hate against gays and women.

Hoe about when he preached hate aganist GWB?
Oh wait... its OK to hate him...

Could you explain what you mean?

You said:
You know, I've come to realize that our biggest enemy is ourselves. If we keep in-fighting we'll (the U.S.) just get left behind with nothing but a bankrupt economy and a starving military force stranded in the middle of the middle east.

You're right that (sometimes) our biggest enemy is "ourselves", in that -some- people won't put partisan politics behind them.

You're wrong regarding a bankrupt economy and leaving a starving military force.

 

[Saboteur]

But not of you? LOL

Hey, I'm selfish.

Hoe about when he preached hate aganist GWB?
Oh wait... its OK to hate him...

It's okay to hate Clinton and Carter and Nixon too.

You said:
You know, I've come to realize that our biggest enemy is ourselves. If we keep in-fighting we'll (the U.S.) just get left behind with nothing but a bankrupt economy and a starving military force stranded in the middle of the middle east.

You're right that (sometimes) our biggest enemy is "ourselves", in that -some- people won't put partisan politics behind them.

Well that's a problem when it's our elected representatives who are holding on to partisan politics, Like Bill Frist and Harry Reid. The people on the other hand are just annoying, especially the pundits.

You're wrong regarding a bankrupt economy and leaving a starving military force.

Well I'm no economist but I think it was a bad idea to borrow money from China. Also I have a friend that recently returned from Europe, our dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be over there.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

During the Vietnam war, the antiwar movement was primarily based upon a desire to limit the loss of life rather than a support for communism.

When Cindy first came to public attention, it appeared thet her message was much like the dominant message during the Viet Nam era and she was approaching the situation based upon that simple message -- that she was a mother greiving for her son and didn't want more American's suffering the loss of loved ones. That is a respectable position as far as I'm concerned.

Once Buddy Spell got ahold of her, though, her rhetorec has shifted from that original message and she is now a spokesperson for the radical left, espousing knee jerk leftist dogma that goes well beyond the greiving for her son and has entered the territory of fifth column anti-americanism. I do not support that at all.

I think it is possible to be against the war without being against America, but few people in this particular anti-war movement seem to have figured that out.

I have to disagree with you on this one the leaders of the Anti-war movement were decidedly pro-Communism and North Vietnam, from Noam Chomsky to Jane Fonda they were clearly on the side of the North Vietnamese.

 

[Mikkel]

I have to disagree with you on this one the leaders of the Anti-war movement were decidedly pro-Communism and North Vietnam, from Noam Chomsky to Jane Fonda they were clearly on the side of the North Vietnamese.

How about some empirical evidence, buddy.

 

[Gardener]

I have to disagree with you on this one the leaders of the Anti-war movement were decidedly pro-Communism and North Vietnam, from Noam Chomsky to Jane Fonda they were clearly on the side of the North Vietnamese.

Jane Fonda was not a leader in the antiwar movement. What she did was stupid, and I will certainly admit that her actions would represent all that annoys me in today's antiwar movement if she was really representative, but she was only a gadfly who would not have received such attention were she not a starlet.

As for Chomsky, you certainly won't get any beef out of me in terms of what he represents, for his apologia in regards to the Khymer Rouge is reprehensible. I don't think you should confuse his influence today with his influence 40 years ago, though, and I might point out that his
"Perspectives on Viet Nam" did not appear until 1969.

It is an easy matter to pick out Noam Chomsky or Jane Fonda and say "see -- this is the Vietnam antiwar movement". Just as easily, one can select Fred Phelps as the representative of the right. The relevant question isn't really so much "are they part of.....", for Phelps is certainly part of right and Chomsky the left, but the better question to ask is "to what degree are they representative?".

The Vietnam anti war movement was a grass roots affar for the most part. There was certainly a small minority of communist sympathizers because they are, indeed, part of the left, but just as Phelps is part of the right, I refer to the more relevant question posed above. The most influential portion of the vietnam antiwar movement were homegrown organizations like the S.D.S and FSM. Tom Hayden and Mario Savio were far more influential than Noam Chomsky, who was quite little known outside his primary field of linguistics at that time, and the rallies against the vietnam war at the time were rallies against the Vietnam War and not exercises in promoting communism. This is a far cry from today, when international ANSWER is the biggest single player and the antiwar movement is joined at the hip with visciously antisemitic groups espousing all sorts of rhetorec that goes well beyond objecting to the war.

I realize this sounds like ancient history to you, but I was there at the time and I attended the rallies, and today's antiwar movement is very different from the one 40 years ago.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How about some empirical evidence, buddy.

Noam Chomsky: Viet Cong Cheerleader

"Yesterday and today, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments.

"We also saw the ruins of dwellings and hospitals, villages mutilated by savage bombardments, craters disfiguring the peaceful countryside. In the midst of the creative achievements of the Vietnamese people, we came face to face with the savagery of a technological monster controlled by a social class, the rulers of the American empire, that has no place in the 20th century, that has only the capacity to repress and murder and destroy.

"We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and defiant, and carved on the bills above we read the words, 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.

"This is my first visit to Vietnam. Nevertheless, since the moment when we arrived at the airport at Hanoi, I've had a remarkable and very satisfying feeling of being entirely at home. It is as if we are renewing old friendships rather than meeting new friends. It is as if we are returning to places that have a deep and personal meaning.

"In part, this is because of the warmth and the kindness with which we have been received, wherever we have gone. In part, it is because for many years we have wished all our strength and will to stand beside you in your struggle. We are deeply grateful to you that you permit us to be part of your brave and historical struggle. We hope that there will continue to be strong bonds of comradeship between the people of Vietnam and the many Americans who wish you success and who detest with all of their being the hateful activities of the American government.

"Those bonds of friendship are woven of many strands. From our point of view there is first of all the deep sympathy that we felt for the suffering of the Vietnamese people, which persists and increases in the southern part of your country, where the American aggression continues in full force.

"There is, furthermore, a feeling of regret and shame that we must feel because we have not been able to stop the American war machine. More important still is our admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.

"But, above all, I think, is the feeling of pride. Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will. Decent people throughout the world see in your struggle a model for themselves. They are in your debt, everlastingly, because you were in the forefront of the struggle to create a world in which the chains of oppression have been broken and replaced by social bonds among free men working in true solidarity and cooperation.

"Your courage and your achievements teach us that we too must be determined to win--not only to win the battle against American aggression in Southeast Asia, but also the battle against exploitation and racism in our own country.

"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.

"While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements. Thank you."

- Noam Chomsky, originally delivered on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi while he was visiting North Vietnam with a group of anti-war activists. Broadcast by Radio Hanoi on April 14, and published in the _Asia-Pacific Daily Report_ of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Jane Fonda was not a leader in the antiwar movement. What she did was stupid, and I will certainly admit that her actions would represent all that annoys me in today's antiwar movement if she was really representative, but she was only a gadfly who would not have received such attention were she not a starlet.

As for Chomsky, you certainly won't get any beef out of me in terms of what he represents, for his apologia in regards to the Khymer Rouge is reprehensible. I don't think you should confuse his influence today with his influence 40 years ago, though, and I might point out that his
"Perspectives on Viet Nam" did not appear until 1969.

It is an easy matter to pick out Noam Chomsky or Jane Fonda and say "see -- this is the Vietnam antiwar movement". Just as easily, one can select Fred Phelps as the representative of the right. The relevant question isn't really so much "are they part of.....", for Phelps is certainly part of right and Chomsky the left, but the better question to ask is "to what degree are they representative?".

The Vietnam anti war movement was a grass roots affar for the most part. There was certainly a small minority of communist sympathizers because they are, indeed, part of the left, but just as Phelps is part of the right, I refer to the more relevant question posed above. The most influential portion of the vietnam antiwar movement were homegrown organizations like the S.D.S and FSM. Tom Hayden and Mario Savio were far more influential than Noam Chomsky, who was quite little known outside his primary field of linguistics at that time, and the rallies against the vietnam war at the time were rallies against the Vietnam War and not exercises in promoting communism. This is a far cry from today, when international ANSWER is the biggest single player and the antiwar movement is joined at the hip with visciously antisemitic groups espousing all sorts of rhetorec that goes well beyond objecting to the war.

I realize this sounds like ancient history to you, but I was there at the time and I attended the rallies, and today's antiwar movement is very different from the one 40 years ago.

Come on man it was Fonda, Chomsky, and Abbie Hoffman, they were the leaders of the anti-war movement and if they weren't then who was?