Protest Warrior HQ

It'd be nice if the Bush regime would at least try diplomacy in Africa. Instead, Darfur provoked the Ostrich Crisis Aversion response in our fearless leader...

Apparently it was *your* head in the sand when Collin Powell toured the Darfur region and declared that genocide was being committed.

-Kiamat Dusk

War is like selectively using all caps to emphasize WORDS. It kills thousands of innocent civilians. Oh wait. That's just war.

~Ulrika~

Oooooh, lordy! A declaration! That goes a LONG way towards solving the problem.

This is the kind of bigotry that fuels the whole thing.

Why is an American human better than any other human?

This is the standard kind of "de-humanise the enemy" stuff that has engendered war since cilivisation began.

Well it seems that I don't have to back them up since you have not actually responded to any of them.

The basic rules of argument only suggest that I back something up that is a point of contention or that we are discussing.

Just saying "none of that is true" or "I dont think so" is merely the automatic gain-saying of anothers remarks, not an argument.

Even Monty Python knows that.

Couldn't agree with you more Dianne, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Kiamat isn't interested in reasoned discussion. He simply spews partisan ultra-patriotic rhetoric and then blithely ignores or misrepresents any points to the contrary. His arguments are so cliche that I sometimes think he's trying to parody the right wing. He'll be along any minute to accuse you of treason

Yeah, i know.
He is purposely trolling for angry responses so he can spout off about things.
I saw that in the beginning and promised myself not to post.

But this kind of stuff is so annoying it's soooo hard to keep my fingers off the keyboard.

Hmmm....
Lessee here, lemme break out my Liberal rebuttal checklist here....

When faced with a Conservative opinion Liberals will almost invariably:

1. Shout down the speaker as a bigot.



Check

2. Paint the speaker as a jingoist (the Liberal word patriot).



Check. Only Liberals would turn patriotism into a bad thing then get pissed when you claim they aren't.

3. Refer to the speaker as a Nazi/Facist.

4. Call into question the speaker's intelligence.

Check...but I don't have time to find the quote (I'm in a net cafe atm)

5. If all that fails to shut the speaker up, just start shouting insults.



Check

Well, you guys are right on track. As for my ability to have an intelligent exchange of ideas, I'd point to my Child Support thread as a very good example to the contrary or even the AA thread we had going here. In fact we were having a very civil debate right up til....well-you two came along.

-Kiamat Dusk

Didn't respond? So all the questions I asked weren't a response? Or is it simply that you don't have an answer?

-Kiamat Dusk

If the shoe fits, Kiamat. You spew a jingoistic bigoted worldview and then get called on it. Shocking! [sarcasm]But you're right, it's the labels that are bad, not the narrow minded views being labeled[/sarcasm]

I object to this sweeping generalisation.

I am not a "liberal" and I do not invariably shout about anything.
You started this anger-fest and it is you that continues to steer the discussion towards personal attacks.

Please stop now.

I was not being general I was being very specific.

You made an bigoted remark that personally offended me and I pointed it out.
You have neither apologised nor defended that remark so I can only conclude that you *are* a bigot.

Please apologise immediately.

Funny seeing how this thread was initiated by calling liberals traitors.

While the label may be affectionate on your behalf, I wonder if you are aware of how many times people who have disagreed with this administration have been called that in all seriousness? My husband ended a 20 year friendship with someone because they called him a traitor one too many times because he was not pro Bush. Being a former marine during the Vietnam war and all, this kind of pissed him off.

I have to ask - do you also consider Max Cleland a traitor? John Glenn? Wesley Clark?

Just curious - because these look like men who have given a lot of themselves to this country to me.

Looks to me like labels get tossed pretty frequently over both sides of the fence.

.

Well...

No.

The questions you asked in response could in no way be concieved of as answering the points I raised.
They are in fact just more questions, and mostly unrelated to my points.
This is all pretty obvious stuff.

I dont understand.

None of the facts are on your side at all in this matter.
Why you keep prodding people to bring them up is a mystery.

I suggest you take a break from the war and go to a party or a club this weekend in SL.
Dance around, and have a bit of fun, it might do you a world of good.

I like to dance, but golly gee wiz, from the posts on this thread I have seen, instead of debating about the topics, all that I have seen are just simple ways to try and get argumenitives. Shows a lot doesn't it?

This country right now is heavily devided. It will only get worse. On many issues. The road I see on many of these issues isn't a bright one. My view on discussing topics and shouting at each other because of one's view, is rather a pointless effort, simply because we aren't the ones making the decisions.

Case in point: The Government isn't interested in what the people of the US says, even though we pay their bills.

You can shout, protest, yell, all you want, but no one listens. Granted yes, it can be fun to practice and debate about such topics, it only hurts some people and causes flare ups.

It's not my fault you don't get it. I tend to play at my level and assume everyone else can keep up. I do apologize Kiamat.

I want everyone who reads this thread to know that while I am not an expert on fecal matters, it is my firm belief that Kiamat is actually a human being and not a pile of excrement.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my full-time job of hating America.

Yes, as an American, I feel the lives of my countrymen are more important than those of others just as I value the lives of my family members over those of others. If it comes down to a choice between the life of my child and someone else's, my child is coming home.

My money will go to charities which feed starving American children long before it goes to feed starving children in Africa, and I will feed my children before I feed someone else's.

Now, if I can save both kids-you bet I will. After I've donated to a local charity, I'm happy to donate to international causes. And if I have food to share I have and will do so.

But my country, my family comes first.

This is how I feel and I will not apologize for it.

-Kiamat Dusk

This is sort of a stream of consciousness post so bear with me.

I've been thinking alot about the almost knee jerk reaction Liberals in America have to support America's enemies. I mean really-where does this come from? I have an idea and I want to hear your feedback.

We as Americans love an underdog. You can see it in movies, tv, and books. We love rooting for the little guy. So, what if Liberals have simply taken this a step too far? I mean, as the world's strongest military since WWI, America is clearly the odds on favorite in any conflict-thus making our enemies the "underdog". Perhaps in Liberals this American habit of rooting for the little guy is just overly excited.

If this is a case then the answer may be as simple as a change of view. Take Iraq for instance. They look at this war and see America as a bully, picking on poor, little Iraq. But who is the real underdog here?

America is restricted by its sence of ethics and justice. We will not attack mosques and other holy sites even if our enemy is shooting at us from them. We obey the laws of war while our enemy hides themselves as civilians. Moreover, it is clear that a large part of the world is firmly against us in this endeavor. So who is really the underdog here?

We are. And to a large part-the Iraqi people. More and more its becoming clear that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't natives, but foriegners pouring in from Syria. *Here* are your invaders. *Here* are your empire builders. They don't care about the Iraqi people. *Here* are the ones who are *targeting* civilians. They blow up mosques while we build schools. They blow up oil pipe lines while we turn on the electricity.

The Iraqi people have been the underdogs all along, bullied first by their own governement and now by opportunistic foriegn Jihadists. The same goes for the Aghanis.

So you see, rooting for your country and for the Iraqis and Afghanis *is* rooting for the little guy.

-Kiamat Dusk

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about what the importance of dissent. Time and again I have said that I believe that the right to dissent is the hallmark of a free society. But ,when it comes to war, dissent, like everything, has it's time.

There is nothing un-American or unpatriotic about opposition to war. Who in their right minds wants to send their families and friends off to face death in a foreign land? The time for dissent is in the build up to war. This is the time to write your congresspeople and stage your marches. This is the time to make your feelings known in hopes that you can avert the war.

However...

If, as in this case, the country chooses war, then it is time for unity. We, as Americans, should say with one voice to everyone, "Now that we're in it, we're going to win it." We should band together and do all we can to ensure a swift and decisive victory. And then, once the troops have returned home, then it's time to voice your dissent again by voting against pro-war politicians.

But this is not what is happening. The news sensationalizes stories like Abu Ghraib all the while completely ignoring the tremendous good being done in that country. This is not how you support your troops.


Dissent is good. Groupthink on any side of the issue is bad. But when our country is at war, we need unity above all else.

-Kiamat Dusk

Kiamat, they said the same thing about Vietnam.

If everyone followed your rule, wars would never end.

The biggest problem with Vietnam was our unwillingness to invade North Vietnam and kill the enemy where he lived. Had we not pledged ourselves to stay out of the north (a handicapped imposed by a hand wringing Liberal) then we would have won Vietnam. The same may hold true for Iraq. Clearly a great many of these terrorists we're fighting there now are coming in from Syria. Personally, I think we need to get out of Iraq and push into Syria, even if its some well placed Tomahawks to let Damascus know we're serious.

-Kiamat Dusk

You completely missed the point. My post wasn't about Vietnam, it was about you claiming that once a war is started, it must never be questioned.

I got your point, Hiro. You're missing mine so allow me to reiterate.

Once the war has started we need to fight the WAR not the warfighters. Win the war and sort the blame after the ticker tape parades.

-Kiamat Dusk

*smacks head into wall*

Yes, let's shoot first and ask questions later.

You didn't read the whole thing.

The proper order is:
Ask questions
Shoot (maybe)
Ask questions

-Kiamat Dusk