Into the nest

Into the nest
: Lt. Smash, a veteran of the Iraq war, goes to the anti-war demonstrations and interviews the demonstrators. Great reading, through his eyes.

No, I decided to go to the protest because I wanted to learn what this anti-war movement is all about. Why were these people so vehemently opposed to the overthrow of a brutal dictator, and the liberation of 25 million people from under the yoke of tyranny? So I messed up my hair, didn

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    Most people who opposed the invasion of Iraq did so because Bush’s policy of pre-emptive self defense is a sick joke. It’s an abhorrent policy that gives retards like Bush a bs excuse to invade sovereign nations based on lies and propaganda. Iraq was not a threat to the US nor was it involved in supporting acts of terrorism. And the US has no morale authority to decide what form of government other nations will live under.

  • KMK

    How did he get through that interview with a straight face?
    Robert, did you read her interview? 4 years of college and I don’t think she knows anything more about being a socialist then the day she first joined ISO. You would at least think she would have researched it.

  • A_Reader

    Robert, how do you always manage the make the first post. every. time.
    I’m beginning to think you are Jeff’s evil side a la Jeckyll and Hyde

  • JorgXMcKie

    I think the morale (sic) authority should be place with the USO or some similar organization. I know my morale was raised when Bush decided to go after the murdering bastards wherever we can find them. Of course, I assume Robert wants to dismantle the UN, since it was the continuous violation of the Cease-fire Agreement by Iraq that led directly to the resumption of the war declared by the UN in 1991. Those immoraleistic bastards!!

  • Doctor Slack

    Ahh, the “trolling for freaks at a rally” exercise. Do these people think we just don’t know that there are sometimes flakes at public events? To his credit, Smash at least acknowledges the existence of some regular folks there, too, which is more honesty that you usually see from a post like this… but only marginally so.
    Of course, the regular joes who marched also remember the kind of objectionable twits who tended to show up as “counter-demonstrators.” Heh.

  • bob

    Robert said:

      Most people who opposed the invasion of Iraq did so because Bush’s policy of pre-emptive self defense is a sick joke.

    Most people who opposed the invasion were incapable of forming a decent argument in opposition to the war. Hence, ridiculous protests like the one mentioned above. Hence, the “Good soldiers kill their officers,” banner I saw at a rally in Pasadena, CA. Clearly stated hatred of the president was the only unifying theme.

      It’s an abhorrent policy that gives retards like Bush a bs excuse to invade sovereign nations based on lies and propaganda.

    Did I mention hatred of the administration? Anyway, Hussein gave the president that excuse, and congressmen like John Kerry supported the president at the time. And they had the same information the executive office did. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Further, Iraq was not a sovereign country. It hadn’t been since it signed a cease-fire agreement putting it at the diplomatic mercy of the UN. (Mercy which tolerated only so many missteps.) Between no-fly zones and sanctions, Iraq was about as sovereign as a 13-year old is independent.

      Iraq was not a threat to the US nor was it involved in supporting acts of terrorism.

    Bush clearly overstated the case. But we didn’t know whether Iraq was a threat, and Hussein took every opportunity to pose as one. Ultimately, he failed to live up to his end of the agreement.
    As to their support for terrorism, do you discount Hussein’s financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers? Not suicide bombers of Israeli military installations, not only suicide bombers who missed. But suicide bombers who blew up innocent civilians. For however much you disagree with the administration, to say that Iraq didn’t support terrorism is a reckless claim.

      And the US has no morale authority to decide what form of government other nations will live under.

    Moral, not morale. Morale is great – in the military, at least. The authority for invasion didn’t extend merely from Iraq’s dictatorship, but from many other matters. Iraq was already in violation of the original and later cease-fire agreements, was considered by the UN and most involved nations to be in possession of WMD, and it happened to be a dictatorship. To act like these factors don’t exist doesn’t make your argument stronger, just more obvious.

  • superfly

    Robert said “Iraq was not a threat to the US nor was it involved in supporting acts of terrorism.”
    Saddam publicly admitted to paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and to funding terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Iraq was found to be harboring terrorist like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. These are just the actions we know for sure. Plus there is the stuff that is not as known for sure such as Iraq

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >Abu Abbas
    The mere fact that every right whinger needs to include Abu Abbas in their list of evidence shows how weak their case really is. As for the payoffs to the families of suicide bombers, so what. Palestinians are not blowing themselves up because someone is paying them to do so.
    It’s time you right whingers woke up to the fact that your president conned you into a war and that his policy of pre-emptive invasion is isolating America from its allies.

  • Ptolemy

    America has no real allies. Just parasites (i.e. Canada)

  • superfly

    robert good job ducking the question. You said Iraq did not support terrorism. Saddam publicly admitted to funding groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad (which you did not mention in your response). Saddam seems to disagree with you about whether he supported terrorist. Unless neither of you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups.
    And are you denying that Iraq was harboring Abu Abbas? Are you denying Abu Abbas was a terrorist? Or does harboring a known terrorist not count as supporting terrotism?
    I have no problem with people disaggreeing with me about Iraq as long as they are honest about it. I can see why someone could honestly and reasonably be opposed to it. You are not honest about it. Iraq supported terrorism. Iraq was a threat to our military and to our politcal leaders. How much it supported terrorism or how big a threat is debateable as is the sppropriate response to such actions. But the fact that it was a threat and that it did support terrorism is not.

  • http://tvh.rjwest.com HH

    He forgot to make wild eyes and spout “Zeeble bop fickle fackle Bush BUSH BUSH!!!”

  • bob

    There are photos of the San Francisco rally, here. Some are pretty disturbing, so don’t click if you’re about to go pick up the kids.
    Soon after the hate rhetoric of the anti-war protests was first revealed, a meme was produced: those pictures show the oddities of the movement. But look at the pictures I linked to, and tell me where the apprehensive bystanders are. Tell me where the looks of disgust are to be found. Tell me how so much hate can be documented so thoroughly and still denied.
    Now a new meme is being tested, and that is that these rallies naturally attract hate symbolism, but that hatred doesn’t reflect the movement at large.
    But why did the debates for Democrats’ next candidate include many of the memes that were also dismissed as unrepresentative 12 months ago? Always with the responsibility-free introduction, “It’s been said that ..” If that’s so, why are these examples ignored by the mainstream media, instead of addressed openly? What can we expect a year from now?
    These examples are ubiquitous in the anti-war movement. I wish they weren’t, but they are. And pretending they aren’t doesn’t make it easier to ignore them.

  • hen

    the “anti war” rallies are getting smaller and smaller and it only makes sense that the more disturbed members and true believers not over-represent this idiotic movement. that being said, the fact that “normal” people wd march along side people who advocate support of Saddam, Arafat and a nuke rich NK and Iran speak volumes about all involved.
    bobby the mental midget: don’t you get tired of having your ass handed to you on (apparently) a daily basis? i’ve yet to see you make a comment and not get slapped around. what a maroon.
    hey slack what do you find more objectionable: people that hold signs that say “USA” and “Smash left wing freaks” or people that hold signs that say “Zionism=Racism”, “We support our troops when they are shooting their officers” and “I love NYC (especially now that the WTC is gone)”? just curious…

  • onecent

    hen,
    Bobby haunts a multitude of others sites(see Damion Penny’s at present, hoping to direct traffic to his own, it’s his reason for arising in the morning. He tried to make the case(see his blahgg archives)that Zayed was a CIA agent at one time and was banned from posting there. He’s a 24/7 troll.
    Slack is an annoying poseur writing sludge, playing the headgames angle.
    I refuse to respond to either. Save your breath.

  • bob

    Just noticed the double-comment, sorry.
    Onecent, you’ve got a great point. I think it’s important to respond, if for no other reason than to not leave the impression that hatred is okay sometimes. The trick is not to turn rabid in the same way, which includes not double-clicking the post button. ;)

  • Doctor Slack

    Some are pretty disturbing, so don’t click if you’re about to go pick up the kids.
    Yeah, the one with the hula hoopers was pretty disturbing. And nothing strikes fear into my heart like the sight of a group of praying Buddhists or children in pink tutus. Hate to break it to you, bob, but your credibility on “hate rhetoric” just went directly down the tubes — especially given the undifferentiated mass of slogans thrown into your photo essays as examples of “hate.” I wonder: did it occur to you to try actually talking to any of these people?
    (And I notice you didn’t miss the “let’s mock Rachel Corrie” meme. Classy.)
    But look at the pictures I linked to, and tell me where the apprehensive bystanders are.
    When you take the pictures, you of course get to select the targets and exclude any bystanders you don’t want to be seen. So tell me where the honesty is in this statement.
    If it’s like any rally I’ve ever seen, the “bystanders” were probably going about their business and ignoring the kooks. Do you have other advice for them? Maybe they should be starting brawls, or censoring the speech of other people? Smashing their signs, burning their books, stuff like that? What exactly are you recommending? Be specific.
    hen:
    that being said, the fact that “normal” people wd march along side people who advocate support of Saddam
    I remember once marching alongside an Iraqi, named Frank, holding a sign that said “we support the people of Iraq, not Saddam.” At pre-war rallies (I didn’t go out to the March 20th ones) I distinctly recollect large numbers of signs catigating both Bush and Saddam. So I’m never impressed by people who try to talk as though those people should have been ashamed to be there. That kind of talk speaks volumes about someone, alright… but it’s not the protesters.
    My opinion of “Smash left wing freaks” signs is about the same as my opinion of “Zionism = racism” or “Bush=Hitler” signs. Public rallies sometimes attract kooks — this is where that whole “freedom of speech” thingie comes in.

  • bob

    Slack,
    I linked to the pictures, I didn’t take them.
    I attended a pre-war rally and have watched a few others from the sidelines, indistinct but for more the less-professional signs. That takes time, and pre-war protests don’t have it. Rocks don’t take time. The protest was located in the flooded the halls of the school, with students entering class sessions to call for more support. One was arrested for throwing rocks through a window, so the rally turned into a “Free XXX” rally which was no smaller than before the protest. Only louder.
    In other words, kooky mixed with random acts of vandalism mixed with sheer hatred. That’s what I witnessed, and minus the vandalism, that’s what’s been represented in those pictures. And many other pictures. And first-person accounts. A friend of mine was significant in organizing and leading it. I forgive him his hatred of the US for one reason: he’s a native american. We disagree, but I’d drink with him.
    Are there reasonable folks at the rally? That’s like asking whether there are individuals in a mob. Attending the proud hatred of your peers isn’t reasonable. There was no aversion to given hateful signs – in fact, the banner I mentioned was held up by a number of students. Some of the faculty and admin, as well, but they showed up and disappeared.
    If your claim is that I’m misunderstanding, I’m not. Know first, say next. If your claim is that I’m misrepresenting, then that’s useless.
    But if you can say that you walk amongst a crowd fill with hate and just ignore it, I’ve got to tell you, that’s not a compelling response. Try a new crowd.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Shut up, Slack.

  • Doctor Slack

    Shut up, Slack.
    Good to see you displaying your usual level of wit!
    bob, you say that photo essay wasn’t yours? My mistake. You don’t seem to have asked yourself too much, however, about the cherry-picking and indiscriminate lumping of images that went on there. Maybe it’s time you did.
    In other words, kooky mixed with random acts of vandalism mixed with sheer hatred.
    Yeah, forgive me if that impressionistic take isn’t convincing coming from people who are impressed by the cherry-picking of a few kooky signs at a rally. The more time you spend seething and trying to paint everything that goes on at events like that as “sheer hatred,” the more you come off as a joke. And that’s a problem for you, because the days are gone when the only people with direct experience of such rallies were anarchists and twentysomething college students.
    If your claim is that I’m misunderstanding, I’m not.
    Oh, well then that settles it. *rolls eyes*
    But if you can say that you walk amongst a crowd fill with hate and just ignore it, I’ve got to tell you, that’s not a compelling response.
    Why not? I’ve walked past counter-demonstrations seething with far more hate than any antiwar march I’ve ever seen, and ignored them. Do you have a better suggestion? Should I attack morons like that? Shout them down? Be specific.

  • Kat

    How about a demonstration like this–terrorists in Canada demanding an islamic state in Canada? Puke. And idiots like Robert and Slack want to give it to them.
    http://www.makingthelinks.tyo.ca/modules.php?set_albumName=march20th2004&id=4386_G&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

  • Doctor Slack

    Kat: Andrea may not be good for much else, but she can probably help you brush up on your name-calling technique. I notice you’ve managed no fewer than three other fallacies in the space of those two sentences, though. Not bad. I think we need Freeper Awards for Most Dishonesty Packed Into the Smallest Available Space.
    (Heh. I quite liked the “Stop Mad Cowboy Disease” sign on that site, actually.)

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    You’re not worth the effort, Slack. You’re a tedious bore. I can’t even be bothered thinking up names for you. You probably don’t even believe the things you say — you’re just jonesing on all the attention. Yawn, so over it now.

  • bob
      bob, you say that photo essay wasn’t yours? My mistake. You don’t seem to have asked yourself too much, however, about the cherry-picking and indiscriminate lumping of images that went on there. Maybe it’s time you did.

    Slack, I answered that concern earlier: the photos are indistinct from my own experience at rallies. You insisted that I haven’t so much as talk to the folks at; I know some of them personally. You accused me of selectivity; only in my friendship with one of them. Based on those wrong assumptions, you said that I misunderstood. Well, I explained it once, what good would it do to say it again? You just don’t want to hear it, and I’m alright with that.

  • Kat

    These people are not anti-war–they are pro terrorist. I wish they would get the hell out of the USA. Who needs scum like that?
    http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040320/i/r2639341527.jpg

  • Doctor Slack

    You’re not worth the effort, Slack. [squawk squawk squawk]
    Oh, come on, Andrea. You’ve got one last helping of ludicrous bile in you. I just know you do.
    the photos are indistinct from my own experience at rallies
    So, if you talk to someone who’s actually been to a rally, and their experience is distinct from (and broader than) yours, what else do you have on offer? Anything? That’s what I’m asking you.
    I mean, if you just want to blather about your subjective “experience” of this or that pre-war rally, then you have to realize that maybe people will think your bias on the issue is affecting your judgment. It might be helpful for you to be able to answer that charge with something other than “I just know I’m right.”
    You insisted that I haven’t so much as talk to the folks at; I know some of them personally.
    Actually, I wondered if the author of the photo-essay hadn’t bothered to talk to anyone there. I’m pleased that you have one anti-war friend, though. Good for you.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    A sphincter says what?

  • hen

    what? damn you Andrea – tricked me again.
    slack you think “USA” is the signage equal to “We support our troops when they are shooting their officers”??? is that correct? wow.

  • James Stephenson

    But Slack, 9/11 happened because of Saddam period.
    What was the main Objection that OBL had with the USA? American Troops in Saudi Arabia. Why were there troops in Saudi Arabia, oh yeah because Saddam had already invaded 2 of his 5 neighbors and had installed his form of government in one of those. Syria.
    So basically once Saddam was gone, we could move our troops out of SA. Which we have, into Iraq.
    Not that I expect you to answer me, but do you have a stock answer for the above charge?
    What was OBL’s biggest Gripes, American Soldiers in SA. Why were the American soldiers in SA? Saddam.
    So in a cause and effect situation, Saddam caused 9/11.

  • Chrees

    Balboa Park? Isn’t that where the city is trying to get out of their contract that allows the Boy Scouts use of the park?
    Maybe if the scouts don’t say anything about God and claim 9/11 was a good thing, the city will allow them use of the park.

  • Doctor Slack

    A sphincter says what?
    Try again, Andrea. With some feeling this time.
    slack you think “USA” is the signage equal to “We support our troops when they are shooting their officers”?
    hen, you do realize people can just scroll up and see what I’ve written, right? You know that?
    Really, dude. If you’re going to be reduced to stuff like this, you’re better off just going the onecent route.
    Not that I expect you to answer me, but do you have a stock answer for the above charge?
    Do I have a “stock answer”? Heh. Love the “have you stopped beating your wife” construction there.
    Do I have an answer, though? Absolutely. The people who flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon caused 9-11. Saudi Arabia was an excuse, or maybe Palestine was an excuse, or maybe Saddam was an excuse, or maybe the decadence of Western culture was an excuse. From the POV of actually stopping that cell of terrorists from attacking America, chances are that pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia would not have made a lick of difference. So I really couldn’t give a sh*t what their excuse was.
    If you’re attempting to make the point that the existing containment of Saddam wasn’t viable in the long term, you’re absolutely right. You’re also right to think that playing into the hands of the al Qaedist recruitment machine is collossally stupid — and guess what? The transition from merely having troops in an Arab country to conquering and occupying one has been an al Qaedist recruitment bonanza. So, if you’re trying to claim the only logical alternative to containment was the war as conceived by the gang running Bush, you’re dead wrong.
    If it’s never occurred to you that more alternatives were possible than simply the status quo or Bush’s programme, then I’m afraid you just weren’t paying attention. (That link is to a good paper which I flog every chances I get, because some of its recommendations are still relevant today.)

  • Sandy P.

    Robert forgets we have plans to invade Canada. You decided to start killing us, you think you’d be immune?
    That’s my moral authority, Robert. When someone else’s moral authority wants me gone. I’m not ready to go yet.

  • Doctor Slack

    Robert forgets we have plans to invade Canada.
    At this point, I think we should point out that this song was a joke.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    “At this point, I think we should point out that this song was a joke.”
    It was?!?!?!?!? I want my money back!!!!

  • James Stephenson

    What of Libya. See Iraq got Libya to capitulate. And to open up their Nuclear Program. Which in turn leads us to Pakistan, which causes them to open up and real front on the war against Al Quada.
    Without Quadaffi coming clean, and pointing a finger at Khan, do you think we would have Pakistan putting the screws in their Afghan/Paki border?
    And just to think, Iraq could lead to the capture of OBL. Not that you care, because you will go on and on about how Quadaffi was going to come clean, but how do you know. Maybe he just never wanted to be pulled from a hole and given a medical exam in front of the whole world. So if we catch OBL because we invaded Iraq, and Libya gave up the Nuclear trail, that lead to Pakistan and Khan, which then gave us the ability to go into the Tribal area of Paki and get OBL. Would it be worth it then?
    Of course not. Would those Syrians be protesting, would the Iranian students feel as if they have a chance for a free future?
    Of course not. Here is a question Robert, 20 years ago, did you think Reagan and his plan was stupid?
    Because from where I sit, he looks like a Genius. 20 years from now, we can all hope the same thing will be said of George Bush and his plan.

  • http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm Dann

    Dr. Slack -
    I skimmed through that policy paper. Curiously, most of the ‘alternative’ recommendations involve supporting various UN agencies.
    Of course, we already know that one bomb is all it takes to make the UN leave a country. And equally curious some of the concerns have already been addressed by our invasion and liberation of the Iraqi people.
    -Regards

  • Doctor Slack

    So James, with the “Saddam caused 9-11″ line dead, your next excuse is to attribute any positive policy development to the Iraq War no matter how tenuous the connection is, in order to convince yourself that Bush is a “genius.” Good luck with that.
    Question, though. Does that mean we get to attribute all negative developments to Iraq as well? Say, the new outbreak of violence in Kosovo? The deterioration of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Deadly Kurdish riots in Syria? Tension between Uzbekistan and Pakistan? Let me know.
    I’m currently in wait-and-see mode about the overall results of Iraq. Much of the pro-war chatter about the “domino effects” strikes me as grasping at straws. No, it’s not plausible to attribute Qadaffi’s actions to Iraq, since that deal was in the works long before Bush came to office. No, it’s not plausible to attribute Khan and Pakistan to Iraq — and anyone who’s fooled that the scapegoating of one man for Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation activities has addressed that problem is announcing they’re not serious. No, it’s not plausible — in fact I think it’s quite silly and insulting — to attribute the successes and motivation of the Iranian student movement to Iraq. And prepare to be laughed out of any room where you try to claim that Iraq led to OBL’s capture should this actually happen; some people have noticed that only a year after the invasion is the US redoubling efforts to catch him… because needed resources were diverted to Iraq.
    The first apparent case of a genuine knock-on effect from Saddam’s fall could be Syria. How exactly that will play out is hard to know — a lot depends on how Iraq itself plays out. If everything breaks in the US’ favour, Bush could well have his place in history revised from “useless dolt” to “extremely lucky dolt,” and no-one will be more pleased than I. I don’t think it’s as likely as you imagine — and it won’t excuse his various other idiocies, especially not his inaction on al Qaeda when he came to office — but it will, at least, be something.
    Curiously, most of the ‘alternative’ recommendations involve supporting various UN agencies.
    And now that the Bush Administration lads have abruptly learned the usefulness of the UN, maybe they could lead a push to reform that organization and make it a more effective tool for the international promotion of democracy. That’s a worthy objective.
    But then, there’s no reason to think they’d pursue it. We all know their new embrace of the UN is about nothing more than expediency. So maybe it’s worth electing someone who has a genuine shot at updating internationalism.

  • http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm Dann

    Dr. Slack-
    I’ve never asserted that Saddam caused 9-11. Curious habit among the anti-war set….a preference for tossing words in their opponent’s mouths as opposed to discussing the facts as the exist and using the actual statements that have been made.
    Nor did I say that all good things get attributed to our campaign in Iraq AND I’ve never said that there won’t be negative effects. AND I’ve never said that Mr. Bush is a genius. His domestic spending policies are clearly a problem.
    I would assert that our campaign in Iraq has had some positive benefits (i.e. I believe Libya was effected by our actions in Iraq, if only to hasten the pre-existing negotiations) and I would acknowledge some negative effects as well. (turning loose some of the more radical Muslims of the non-terrorist persuasion has introduced some problems for Iraqi women)
    I would also assert the US is not the only moral actor in this mess. We can invade with the purpose of liberation and promotion of small ‘r’ republican values and any number of other nations can work to oppose those objectives. Failure under such conditions is not necessarily indicative of American impotence.
    Equally, success in Iraq will be as a result of Iraqi efforts more than American efforts. They required our help to be free from Saddam. We require their help to build a prosperous nation that enjoys a sound measure of freedom.
    The UN can be useful in certain situations. But history suggests that the UN is particularly ineffective when it comes to purging dictatorial regimes.
    -Regards

  • Doctor Slack

    I’ve never asserted that Saddam caused 9-11.
    I was replying to another poster, Dann, which is why I called him “James.” Please be so kind as to read the posts you’re responding to.
    I would also assert the US is not the only moral actor in this mess. . .
    No kidding. I don’t recall suggesting otherwise.
    The UN can be useful in certain situations. But history suggests that the UN is particularly ineffective when it comes to purging dictatorial regimes.
    The UN wasn’t created for that purpose. If you think a case can be made for reforming internationalism, focussing it on the promotion of democracy and human rights, I’m all for it.

  • http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm Dann

    Dr. Slack-
    My apologies. I suspected inattention on your part, but now see that I was wrong.
    WRT to suggestion that the US is the only moral actor, perhaps I was reading a bit into your comments. I hope that we are given credit and criticism where such is due. The trend lately has been no credit and extra criticism….at least from some people.
    I have no love for “internationalism”. I don’t want my life to be subject to a French veto. I don’t want to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to Kim Jung-Il. I’m not all that enamored with China. The same is true of the mullahs in Iran.
    I am for freedom and welcome all who are similarly minded. The UN is obviously disqualified by their charter.
    -Regards