Antiwar Protesters Shut Down SF Federal Building

clueless in SF writes:
>>"One of the workers told me this looks like the early >>days of the Vietnam war," said organizer Medea >>Benjamin of Global Exchange. "The difference is, >>this time we're going to stop the war before it >>starts."

So you heard from a 3rd party that may or may not have been around when the DEMOCRATIC leadership of this country decided to fight a war by proxy...If the polls were up..send support..if the polls were down...abandon the troops..

As a Vietnam vet, all i can say is...F*ck you all !!

clueless in SF writes:
>>"One of the workers told me this looks like the early >>days of the Vietnam war," said organizer Medea >>Benjamin of Global Exchange. "The difference is, >>this time we're going to stop the war before it >>starts."
Great research there airhead...Hey, I'm convinced...this must be another vietnam..somebody said so...just like Afghanistan was...you pull that spectre out of the closet so often that it is laughable...

So you heard from a 3rd party that may or may not have been around when the DEMOCRATIC leadership of this country decided to fight a war by proxy...If the polls were up..send support..if the polls were down...abandon the troops..

As a Vietnam vet, all i can say is...F*ck you all !!

Why do you think it will shock us by telling us the Democrats started Viet Nam. We already know they stand for the same things as the Republicans. Didnt the majority of Democracts in the Senate vote for a war they know the US cant win?

As for Afghanistan, last I looked, theUS seems to be starting to lose that war. Bin Laden and Omar are in Pakistan and the fundamentalists made huge gains in that countries elections. After a war in Iraq (which the US can "win" relatively quickly but will kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians) Im guessing Pakistan will be ready to put a fundamentalist in power via election or coup. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons but it has openly tested them and had recently tested missles that are far better than anything Iraq could ever have hoped to develop. And aside from Pakistan fundamentalists seem to be gaining power in places like Indonesia, Chechenya, and the Phillipines. They even made huge gains in the elections in Morocco and Turkey!

So yes, this isnt Viet Nam. In the short term few Americans may die in a US air assault on Baghdad but in the long run the whole world faces an increase in terrorism and the REAL risk that through the increase in antiAmerican sentiment following an attack on Iraq, terrorists will gain access to weapons of mass destruction. Viet Nam never threatened the Continental US, this threat will.

And to make our lives even more miserable, one can expect a complete revocation of civil liberties following any new attack on the US. The Bush administration has shown itself too stupid to deter attacks in the US (by threatening the very communities that it needs information from) , so the most a crackdown in the US will do is create even more violent domestic resistance by those who will not stand for a real attack on our freedoms (probably elements of the radical left and radical right).

So why exactly do people support a war on Iraq? And why the hell would any veteran support a war with no clear endgame? Even the head of the CIA even seems to be against this war.

But, logic never works with the right. its always a question of good guys and bad guys, blind trust in leadership, and a tendency to support anything the "Left" opposes.

We are marching down a road that will make the earth look like a living hell and all the right can do is wave flags and act self righteous about a war in Afghanistan that accomplished nothing. The Cold War is over, its time to wake up!!

It's not that i support invading Iraq...I just get tired of the same old slogans from the anti-everything coalition....No answers..just rhetoric

I do agree that religious fundamentalism is the clear and present danger here...and that is not the issue in Iraq (currently)....although Sadaam probably is using these fundamentalist groups to extract revenge on us...A post-war Iraq and almost all other regimes in the area could topple and become Theocratic at any time...

After reading about our plans to occupy Iraq and institute a Military government like we did in Japan and Germany, I have to wonder if anybody in DC has a clue...this is unlike any conflict that we have ever been involved in...this is a religious war that has no borders...they will never accept anything that has the taint of us infidels...you will never be able to install a western style government there...not one that will last...

Our only solution is to disengage ourselves with the area.....Whatever it takes..no matter the costs...develop an alternative to oil....hydrogen fuel cells..or whatever...

But...the ensuing decline of the economies in the region might be enough for them to declare a jihad on us for abandoning their only source of income..

can't win

This is a much larger problem than the hare-brained protesters understand. It's more complex than the Vietnam vets understand. Vietnam was war that the U.S. was instructed not to win. It was the result of a decade of appeasement.
Under Clinton, we had a different decade of appeasement, giving strength to terrorism. France opposed the defense against Iraq. Fine. The French should be the first to die when Islamist terrorists resume their killings.

Ironically, the most liberal among the Americans, who clamor for equal rights and higher standards of living, don't care the least that Islamic nations routinely rape and torture their own people. They are only too happy that they share a common hatred for America. So, I wonder why the peacenik doesn't go the Cat Stevens route and simply become a mindless Muslim fundie.

I do not believe that physically blocking someone is all that nonviolent, considering that anti-abortion protestors could do the same thing and claim they are being 'non violent', physiclly blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, which would be rather silly.

the ends never justify the means.

I do not believe that physically blocking someone is all that nonviolent, considering that anti-abortion protestors could do the same thing and claim they are being 'non violent', physiclly blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, which would be rather silly.

the ends never justify the means.

I do not believe that physically blocking someone is all that nonviolent, considering that anti-abortion protestors could do the same thing and claim they are being 'non violent', physiclly blocking the entrance to abortion clinics, which would be rather silly.

the ends never justify the means.

This would depend on how you are blocking them. Anti-abortion activists block people by physically and socially threatening them and have even used bombs and murder in their cause. So, it is quite easy to see that this is violence. Now a group which, say, lies down in front of cars in order to block them - well this is not violence, although you might call it undue interference or even a form of taking oneself hostage. Its a pretty simplistic concept, violence. It is the direct application of physical force to another living being with the intention of causing harm or injury. It is NOT vandalism, which is destructive force against inanimate objects, nor can any form of interference which does not involve physical harm to another living being be in any way, shape, or form construed as violence.
It never ceases to amaze me how difficult a time the right wing has with understanding the most simplistic concepts that the rest of us understood before we stopped playing in the sandbox.

...so breaking windows (ala Seattle WTO protests) as widely ballyhooed by the mainstream media as "violent" is not violence, altho in acts of this kind innocents may be unintentionally injured by flying glass, etal; but most often it is the protestors with legitimate grievances who become the victims of OFFICIAL violence, like the anti-war demonstrators thrown thru plate-glass doors in Grand Central Station in NYC back "in the day" or on the streets of Cicago thru hotel windows and doors...there is meaning in the name "Star Bucks" so true revolutionaries don't patronize any Bucks businesses...long live the Shmoo who shall inherit the Earth!

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. This is a partial definition of the word violence. It has always applied to actions taken against things as well as people (including ideas). Vandalism can be violent or not. What a silly reaction to a fair comparison, as if this movement does not have its violent extremists.

You are an excellent propagandist though; anyone reading your post without reflection would think you actually knew what you were talking about.

Where were you hippie fucks when Bill Clinton sent our armed forces to Haiti? Or how about when he said that we needed to go occupy Bosnia for "a few months", but we ended up being there for 4 years? Or how about when he sent our boys to Somalia and they got murdered and dragged up and down the streets of Mogadishu while the whole fucking world was watching on TV? Were you guys protesting? OF COURSE NOT. You are only protesting because there is a Republican in office.

And why do you give a shit if we enter Iraq and replace Saddam Houssein? Saddam is a known murderer, theif, tyrant, oppressor, dictator and terrorist. By resisting the Bush Administration's plans to replace the Houssein rigime, you are esencially defending a murderering terrorst. WHY? Houssein has had way too many fucking chances, and he is WAY PAST DUE for replacement. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

And who fucking cares if this *IS* about oil? Why should a tyrannical 'leader' like Saddam Houssein be allowed to control and influence any amount of the region's oil? I hope we fucking take Saddams oil away and pay the citizens of Iraq a fair price for it.

Which leads me to my next point - The citizens of Iraq also stand to gain from the replacement of Saddam Houssein. They stand to gain freedom from murder and oppression. They stand to gain a better way of life. They stand to gain participation in a free market where their skills and ideas are worth financial security and wealth for their families.

And what about terror? None of you fucking liberal idiots have the fainest clue what it is going to take to protect innocent people from terror. Terror is happening almost every day, and the only way to stop it is to weed it out at its source. Leaders like Yasser Arafat and Saddam Houssein LIE to the media when they say that they have no control over acts of terror on their soil. It is by definition a lie because they are dictators - nothing happens in their countries that is not under their control or beyond their knowledge. Not to mention the question of where the money comes from that supports terror. It's not cheap to run around the world and blow things up. "Leaders" like Arafat and Houssein most certainly support terror and need to be taken from power and replaced.

Why don't you just admit it: You are protesting because there is a Republican in the White House, not because you particularly know a fucking thing about freedom, democracy, history, terror, money, oil or logistics. Most of you are just liberal 'carbon copies' who only go out to protest our President because all of your fucking friends do. It's 'cool' to be an anti-American degenerate loser in the Bay Area.

I see you are entertained by the Sock puppets
in Washington. Do us a favor, forget the
Republicrats or the Democans they aren't worth
spit until they realize WE THE PEOPLE are the
ones who give them (or don't) legitimacy.
Protest is as AMERICAN as you can get.
Do you need to post in red? How about puce
or umber? I like green, myself.

Please reset to black it's
hurting my eyes.

Let's hear it for the courage of "antiwar" protesters! Not only do they dare to dissent in a country so repressive that they might actually have to face CRITICISM, but they aren't afraid of the elements either. "An estimated 450 people braved chilling winds to walk a half-mile from Market Street to the [federal] building on Golden Gate Avenue, where the protesters gathered for a long night of protest songs, anti-war strategy sessions and speeches," the Contra Costa Times reports from San Francisco. The protesters "braved chilling winds" on Thursday, when, according to the National Weather Service, the low temperature in San Francisco was a frosty 55 degrees. Wow, that's so cold, the lawyers had their hands in their own pockets! Well, OK, maybe not, but I hope the antiwar guys at least wore sweaters.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/4261935.htm

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Monterey/rtp02/2002-10-10-

Meanwhile, perhaps the most prominent American yet has signed the "Not in Our Name" petition urging regime continuation in Iraq. I refer, of course, to Mickey Mouse. Also on the list: Youliberal Idiotsare Sowrong (what an unfortunate name for an antiwar activist!) and Sad Misguided Souls.

http://www.nion.us

we really like our labels here-- good way to get a handle on the world... develop informed, empassioned opinions. Doesn't matter what you call the means if the result is building a state of fear-- to voice opinion, or in terms of living environment. Especially given the track record of our nation-states, picking a political team doesn't shield you from the atrocities committed by yours or the other team, no? Just my take on it-- we're in the same boat

1. Regime change is against the UN charter. This is a stated goal of the current administration regarding U.S. intentions in Iraq. (Additionally, the UN is not a military body and can't take any military action, as the United States is requesting.)

2. In public letters to the current administration, CIA director George J. Tenet has explicitly stated that invading Iraq will make matters worse and increase the probability of terrorist incidents in the United States.

3. One cannot take the moral highground in saying that Saddam kills his own people (the kurds in Northern Iraq) and we must stop him. The United States has outwardly supported (financially and militarily) the Turkish government in fighting the same groups of Kurdish Nationalists in Southeastern Turkey since shortly after the end of WWII.

jth