NationStates Jolt Archive

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

Because all anti-war protesters, let alone the anti war public, are radical anarchists, right?:rolleyes:

Because all anti-war protesters, let alone the anti war public, are radical anarchists, right?:rolleyes:

You're missing the point.

The Nazz has implied more than once that there haven't been any scenes anywhere of any anti-war protesters showing any animosity towards the troops.

Well, here you are.

Lots of continuous spitting going on there Eve. Not.

Now why don't you find pics or vids of this continuous spitting.

As for these protesters...idiotic but it is their right. Whether you like it or not.

Oh...and as for there being 'lots' I only see three people holding the 'fuck the troops' banner. Out of a population of 300 odd million people....3 people = lots.

Amazing.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

You're missing the point.

The Nazz has implied more than once that there haven't been any scenes anywhere of any anti-war protesters showing any animosity towards the troops.

Well, here you are.

You had to make a thread for just that?

Maybe 'Fuck The Troops' is an invitation. Seems rather friendly in that context. :)

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

Quite a character eh... ;)

Finally found some anarchists that hate the military. :eek:

I am so surprised that these people even exist in the US, what was its population again?

Lots of continuous spitting going on there Eve. Not.

Now why don't you find pics or vids of this continuous spitting.

As for these protesters...idiotic but it is their right. Whether you like it or not.

Oh...and as for there being 'lots' I only see three people holding the 'fuck the troops' banner. Out of a population of 300 odd million people....3 people = lots.

Amazing.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

I'm not just talking about spitting - we're talking about protesters who really hate the troops.

Seem to be plenty raising their arms supporting the burning of troops in effigy.

So, even when confronted with photo evidence, you say, "well that's only 3 people".

Are you saying that you'll only take it as proof when there are photos of 300 million people doing it?

Ah - a lame attempt at dodging. This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.

You had to make a thread for just that?

Every time I find something more I'll make another thread.

Quite a character eh... ;)

Finally found some anarchists that hate the military. :eek:

I am so surprised that these people even exist in the US, what was its population again?

So, you're saying they are not anti-war protesters... sorry, they are, even if they are anarchists.

And they hate the troops.

I'm not just talking about spitting - we're talking about protesters who really hate the troops.

Seem to be plenty raising their arms supporting the burning of troops in effigy.

So, even when confronted with photo evidence, you say, "well that's only 3 people".

Are you saying that you'll only take it as proof when there are photos of 300 million people doing it?

Ah - a lame attempt at dodging. This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.
Meh.

Also, rather than being hatred of the troops themselves it could be a reply to the silly notion of 'supporting the troops' considering the neocon interpretation of that involves sending them to be blown up for an unwinnable war.

This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.Since they're anarchists, they would typically hate all agents of the state. Police, military, etc.

You're missing the point.

The Nazz has implied more than once that there haven't been any scenes anywhere of any anti-war protesters showing any animosity towards the troops.

Well, here you are.
Well, you may have noticed that I'm not The Nazz, and if you only want to make and raise issues with him, I suggest you TG him instead. All I will say is that there are dicks on both sides, and you don't have to be Stephen Hawking to work that out.

And my point was that for a right-wing smear this is really quite poor.

There are certainly those who hate the troops on principle. I lump such individuals into the realm of "hate groups".

To be honest with you, I've heard more people yelling "bring the troops home" than "fuck the troops".

Every time I find something more I'll make another thread.

Find more of what?

If you make the strawman any bigger it'll collapse in on itself like a star.

You had to make a thread for just that?
Yes. Because all three of these people prove that the entire anti war campaign is full of people that hate the troops. Not.

Oh, and Eve - do you have a source for these pictures that isn't photobucket?

So, you're saying they are not anti-war protesters... sorry, they are, even if they are anarchists.

And they hate the troops.

Sorry, you are right... (not about me saying they are not anti-war protesters, but that they are anti-war protesters)

There are birds that fly...

Now both of us are right by stating the obvious, without any contribution whatsoever...:D

So, even when confronted with photo evidence, you say, "well that's only 3 people".How many of your fellow Americans are militant anarchists?

Ah - a lame attempt at dodging. This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.Again, how many?

My point? If it's a similar procentage to the racist and fascist cunts in your armed forces, revelling in the thought of killing ragheads, moslems and sandniggers, then what does that make your precious armed forces, by your logic?

Incidentally, I'm an anarchist. I frequently engage in all sorts of activities you'd prolably love to see me shot for. But I don't condemn people for joining the armed thugs of the authorities. I appreciate their motives, I pitty their shortsightedness, and I hate our mutual bosses.

And why did I say that? Because even amongst anarchists, hatred of soldiers is a rare thing.

@ Eve Online, I'm wondering why you think its surprising that out of a population of 300 million theres some people who hate the army ?

I mean, with that many people, theres bound to be someone who hates it whatever the topic at hand is.

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

So you take a small group of the most radical people from one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal states in the union as your example?

Talk about painting with a broad brush...that's like me going to ask some beer-guzzling redneck in Kansas what his opinion on evolution or gay marriage is.

If you make the strawman any bigger it'll collapse in on itself like a star.

This metaphor seemed apt.

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

<snip>

Ok... and what's wrong with that? :confused:

I guess I'm still in shock. I can't believe that there are actually people out there who hate the troops. I'm glad we finally caught them on film. To think they've been skulking about under the radar all this time.
















http://home.planet.nl/~dooij051/super_picket.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/FLHRI-OK/idiot.jpg

Shit! :p

Sorry, you are right...

There are birds that fly...

Now both of us are right by stating the obvious, without any contribution whatsoever...:D
Which is what this is about. Eve Online stating the obvious, trying to prove something completely outrageous, and unprovable to boot. Mainly because it isn't true.

You're missing the point.

The Nazz has implied more than once that there haven't been any scenes anywhere of any anti-war protesters showing any animosity towards the troops.

Well, here you are.
I've implied nothing of the sort and you're a fucking liar. You're extrapolating a statement I made about one specific claim of yours into a claim about all antiwar protesters--a claim you have yet to back up, I might add.

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

The Nazz has implied more than once that there haven't been any scenes anywhere of any anti-war protesters showing any animosity towards the troops.


You mind showing where he implied that DK?

And don't deny you're not DK. Even when you first showed up, you brought his attitude, his character, heck, even his grudges against various members of NSG. Word for word.

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

Probably because Westboro Baptists use those wonderful day-glo signs. :p

Since they're anarchists, they would typically hate all agents of the state. Police, military, etc.

Pretty much.

Probably because Westboro Baptists use those wonderful day-glo signs. :p
The Westboro Baptists hate the troops. Therefore, they are filthy liberals.

*nods*

I've implied nothing of the sort and you're a fucking liar. You're extrapolating a statement I made about one specific claim of yours into a claim about all antiwar protesters--a claim you have yet to back up, I might add.

Amazing isn't it? I notice that Eve was not able to substantiate his spitting claims...am I surprised?

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

What does the atheism have to do with it?

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

good for them.

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

And some of these are probably Christians (whichever flavor), and statists (big government, but the current one isn't to their flavor).

What's your point?

What does the atheism have to do with it?It's a slippery slope thing. Realizing the veneration of fictional authority is pointless, is just one small step short of realizing the veneration of authority in general, is pointless.

OK, so I don't know either, but it's a pretty good try at an explanation, don't you think?

As for these protesters...idiotic but it is their right. Whether you like it or not.


It's also my right to criticise them.

Oh...and as for there being 'lots' I only see three people holding the 'fuck the troops' banner. Out of a population of 300 odd million people....3 people = lots.

Not all 300 million people are anti-war.

What does the atheism have to do with it?

Did you read one of the signs that said "No Gods, No Country, No masters"?

That why I said it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

And some of these are probably Christians (whichever flavor), and statists (big government, but the current one isn't to their flavor).

What's your point?

None.

Y'know, it is entirely possible that these particular protesters are fakes. Specifically pro-war supporters masquerading as anti-war in order to demonize their opponents to their peers.

Just like those Republicans who dressed themselves up as Pro-Kerry, Pro-Gay rights supporters in 2004.

Y'know, it is entirely possible that these particular protesters are fakes. Specifically pro-war supporters masquerading as anti-war in order to demonize their opponents to their peers.

*gasp* Ya think? Nah. More likely anarchists.

Every time I find something more I'll make another thread.
Why are you choosing to waste your time here, making threads, when you could be helping defend the troops as I asked you to do? All you have to do is pick up a camera and go to WR and document what you claim to have seen there. If you are so upset over this stuff, then why are you choosing to do nothing about it? Why are you choosing to allow it to continue, instead of doing everything in your power to end it?

I'm not just talking about spitting - we're talking about protesters who really hate the troops.

Seem to be plenty raising their arms supporting the burning of troops in effigy.

So, even when confronted with photo evidence, you say, "well that's only 3 people".

Are you saying that you'll only take it as proof when there are photos of 300 million people doing it?

Ah - a lame attempt at dodging. This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.

Or maybe, these are radical Bush supporters, faking being 'anarchists' to cause bad feeling - just so people like you can claim to have evidence?

I notice they are wearing masks...

*gasp* Ya think? Nah. More likely anarchists.

Why 'more likely'?

Actually, yeah. On further inspection the protesters are wearing masks. Smells like deception to me... You'd think that if they would be showing themselves if they were truly proud of what they were doing.

I personally think these guys are young republicans.

It's also my right to criticise them.

Of course. As it is the right in a democracy to for the people to criticise political leaders.



Not all 300 million people are anti-war.

Never said that.

Sorry...what was the point of your post?

Why 'more likely'?Because those people just aren't clever enough to think that far. At most, they'll dress up some coppers or whatever, and have them try to start violent confrontations with the police or random people, or throw shit through windows and smash cars.

*sighs*

I still remember a demo where undercover coppers threw rocks at some of their unsuspecting collegues, making the collegues called out their names in shock. If only it'd been 5 mins later, it would've been caught on camera. Sadly the only thing that did get caught, was 4 coppers playing dressup, slinking away from a demo under some rather angry glares.

Actually, yeah. On further inspection the protesters are wearing masks. Smells like deception to me... You'd think that if they would be showing themselves if they were truly proud of what they were doing.

I personally think these guys are young republicans.

face masks/covering are common. watch violent demo footage...you'll see plenty of masked people....

Actually, yeah. On further inspection the protesters are wearing masks. Smells like deception to me... You'd think that if they would be showing themselves if they were truly proud of what they were doing.

To be fair, a lot of protesters I've encountered don't actually want to be caught on film supporting their pet cause. As I mentioned on another thread, I used to snap photos of the dillholes who protested outside the clinic I volunteered at, and not one of them appreciated it in the least.

face masks/covering are common. watch violent demo footage...you'll see plenty of masked people....Which could just mean republicans and their ilk, are violent.

Or it could mean radicals are frequntly victims of arbitrary mass-arrests, unwarrented surveilance and potential assassination by rightwing terrorists.

To be fair, a lot of protesters I've encountered don't actually want to be caught on film supporting their pet cause. As I mentioned on another thread, I used to snap photos of the dillholes who protested outside the clinic I volunteered at, and not one of them appreciated it in the least.

Oh right. It's just in Scotland, when we protest, we do it loud and proud. No ridiculous cowardly covering of faces. Unless you're like, a fascist or something similarly unsavoury.

Every time I find something more I'll make another thread.


So you're making him a substitute for muslims then......

Why is that such an issue? What's wrong with hating the military? It seems the rational thing to do, to be honest.

Why is that such an issue? What's wrong with hating the military? It seems the rational thing to do, to be honest.Hating the troops, though, isn't.

Why is that such an issue? What's wrong with hating the military? It seems the rational thing to do, to be honest.


Its an american thing. Nobody wants to be seen to be against the troops.

We Euros can say fuck them all (including the long, the short and the tall) with ne'er a bother though.

Why is that such an issue? What's wrong with hating the military? It seems the rational thing to do, to be honest.
If no (Western) country had a military, say hello to the Global North Korean World Hegemony... since one assumes that many other places will not be so keen to embrace peaceful harmony.

Love it or hate it, the military is just as necessary as any other arm of government. Fine, you may hate it for its role in Iraq and the like, but you can't remove it as an entire institution...

Of course. As it is the right in a democracy to for the people to criticise political leaders.


So saying "it's their right to do it" is a pointless defense, unless I were advocating violating their rights."






Sorry...what was the point of your post?



I was sayoing that the fact there's 300 million people not waving these banners is irrelevant to the issue of "how much they represent the anti-war movement" The question is "how many people are in the anti-war movement and how well do the 3 people represent them"

If no (Western) country had a military, say hello to the Global North Korean World Hegemony... since one assumes that many other places will not be so keen to embrace peaceful harmony.

Love it or hate it, the military is just as necessary as any other arm of government. Fine, you may hate it for its role in Iraq and the like, but you can't remove it as an entire institution...

Never said it wasn't. I don't care about its role in Iraq, or in South Africa, or in Germany, or in Iceland.
I don't approve of any military at all.

Or maybe, these are radical Bush supporters, faking being 'anarchists' to cause bad feeling - just so people like you can claim to have evidence?

I notice they are wearing masks...

Thats quite a stretch,Grave-dont you think?

"Bush supporters" or young republicans,as someone else said, are rarely seen protesting,marching or demonstrating.

They are more often than not,found speaking on cable news shows and in front of audiences at colleges,etc...

By their very nature,I dont think you'll ever catch one burning a flag,or involved in a conspiracy to appear as someone else to make that someone else look bad.

Hating the troops, though, isn't.

No, that's a bit like saying you can hate cars, but you can't object to the combustion engine.

Never said it wasn't. I don't care about its role in Iraq, or in South Africa, or in Germany, or in Iceland.
I don't approve of any military at all.
How can you not approve of something necessary? If you disapprove doesn't it imply you believe it would be better to remove it?

How can you not approve of something necessary? If you disapprove doesn't it imply you believe it would be better to remove it?

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it would be better if we could find a way of avoiding military conflicts and thereby making the military obsolete?

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it would be better if we could find a way of avoiding military conflicts and thereby making the military obsolete?
Ehh, I'm too cynical to consider that possibility. It would be nice to make taxes obsolete too, and I consider them a necessary evil, but I don't disapprove of them or people who work as tax collectors as such.

Ehh, I'm too cynical to consider that possibility. It would be nice to make taxes obsolete too, and I consider them a necessary evil, but I don't disapprove of them or people who work as tax collectors as such.

I don't disapprove of taxes at all. Unless there's a way to abolish all money, they're a very good way to make society function.

Hating the troops, though, isn't.Not for a full-blooded American. What you must understand is that this stems from the fact that unlike in other places of the world, the military hasn't been its own political faction in the US, whereas it has in other parts of the world.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it would be better if we could find a way of avoiding military conflicts and thereby making the military obsolete?

In a perfect society-that would be wonderful. Settling differences by clearly communicating with others, doing unto others as you'd have them do to you.

But-we're talking about humans. And as long as one person is able to pick up a rock or a stick, the weaker one will need to have superior numbers,tactics or weapons to defend himself and preserve his way of life.
Or,just submit to having his head bashed in and his family raped and enslaved, his possessions and property pillaged.

No, that's a bit like saying you can hate cars, but you can't object to the combustion engine.Other way 'round. It's a bit like saying you can hate the combustion engine, but recognize efficient transportation is required to maintain modern societies.

Do you think anarcho-commies and syndicalists flocked from all over Europe to fight in the Spanish Civil War hated themselves and eachother?

Sadly soldiers are necessary. Am army like the one the US boasts, and the political and economic structure that supports it, are not. Hating those things are rather different from hating people willing to defend you from some of your enemies. That they're either too naive or lost not to recognize they become part of the problem in the process, is no grounds for hating them. Informing them, sure, but not hating them.

I don't disapprove of taxes at all. Unless there's a way to abolish all money, they're a very good way to make society function.
If everyone had enough money to pay for all their services it would be better and taxes would be unnecessary. Taxes are needed to provide stuff to people who can't afford it: wouldn't it be better if they could? Of course, this is rather silly and unrealistic.

Actually, yeah. On further inspection the protesters are wearing masks. Smells like deception to me... You'd think that if they would be showing themselves if they were truly proud of what they were doing.

I personally think these guys are young republicans.

Now that you made an allegation, prove it.

Now that you made an allegation, prove it.

You prove they aren't young republicans.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it would be better if we could find a way of avoiding military conflicts and thereby making the military obsolete?

I wi we could but it is not going to happen anytime soon.

If everyone had enough money to pay for all their services it would be better and taxes would be unnecessary. Taxes are needed to provide stuff to people who can't afford it: wouldn't it be better if they could? Of course, this is rather silly and unrealistic.

It would be pointless in many cases.
Or would you want to buy all the roads you use? Would you want to run your own gargabe dump? Would you want to own all the museums you ever want to visit? Would you want to pay the full salary for each and every one of your teachers?
Taxes are first and foremost for things everybody uses and needs, but that are pointless for the individual to own.

I wi we could but it is not going to happen anytime soon.

I know it's not. I'm not that much of an idealist.
But by fully supporting the current system, do you really think you're going to help make changes for the better?

You prove they aren't young republicans.

I don't have to. I did not say that they weren't. You stated that they were and therefor, the burdon of proof is on you. So I'll be waiting for your proof.

It would be pointless in many cases.
Or would you want to buy all the roads you use? Would you want to run your own gargabe dump? Would you want to own all the museums you ever want to visit? Would you want to pay the full salary for each and every one of your teachers?
Taxes are first and foremost for things everybody uses and needs, but that are pointless for the individual to own.
You could always pay for the museums and stuff when you use them. Same with garbage dumps and schooling.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it would be better if we could find a way of avoiding military conflicts and thereby making the military obsolete?

I think it would be better if we focus our attention on realistic and achievable goals and direct our efforts towards those ends, far more good will be done that way instead of wasting our time fantasizing about wonderland and trying to find pink unicorns in a field of daisies...

The day you can stop criminals and crime from existing and can fire all the police officers is the same day that you can stop tyrannical dictators and aggressive governments from existing and you can turn your swords into plowshares. Until then, the only reason you are free enough to espouse your disdain for the military is because the military has already ensured your liberty.

In a perfect society-that would be wonderful. Settling differences by clearly communicating with others, doing unto others as you'd have them do to you.

But-we're talking about humans. And as long as one person is able to pick up a rock or a stick, the weaker one will need to have superior numbers,tactics or weapons to defend himself and preserve his way of life.
Or,just submit to having his head bashed in and his family raped and enslaved, his possessions and property pillaged.

"Might makes right" is a rather poor argument in my eyes. But then again, that's just me.

You could always pay for the museums and stuff when you use them. Same with garbage dumps and schooling.

Well, you're using the garbage dump, and you were using the schools. And paid for it through taxes. So what is the problem?

Well, you're using the garbage dump, and you were using the schools. And paid for it through taxes. So what is the problem?
I don't/didn't use the schools, for starters.

And there is no problem. I don't mind taxes, although I grumble about them (well, I would if I was old enough to pay them :p) like most people do. I'm simply saying that I think the root cause of taxes are people not being able to afford services, and it would be preferable if everyone could, wouldn't it? Thus eliminating the need for taxes.

Well, you're using the garbage dump, and you were using the schools. And paid for it through taxes. So what is the problem?

And what if someone is not using a school or using a garbage dump?

"Might makes right" is a rather poor argument in my eyes. But then again, that's just me.

so...If you're right,but weaker, subjugation makes right?

If you are well intended and live a clean,respectful life, you should still have to submit to someone more aggressive and barabaric?

so...If you're right,but weaker, subjugation makes right?

If you are well intended and live a clean,respectful life, you should still have to submit to someone more aggressive and barabaric?

That's what's happening all over the world, isn't it?

And what if someone is not using a school or using a garbage dump?

Why not use what you pay for?

Why not use what you pay for?
... why be forced to pay for what you don't intend to use?

I guess I'm still in shock. I can't believe that there are actually people out there who hate the troops. I'm glad we finally caught them on film. To think they've been skulking about under the radar all this time.
















http://home.planet.nl/~dooij051/super_picket.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/FLHRI-OK/idiot.jpg

Shit! :p

Clearly all christians hate the troops.

... why be forced to pay for what you don't intend to use?

If you don't want to use the garbage dump here, feel free to go where there are no garbage dumps.

I wi we could but it is not going to happen anytime soon.It's happened before. Why do you think France and Germany are no longer at eachother's throats?

That's what's happening all over the world, isn't it?

Not here.

If you don't want to use the garbage dump here, feel free to go where there are no garbage dumps.
Schools? Hospitals? Public transport? etc. etc.

Schools? Hospitals? Public transport? etc. etc.

Well, found your own country, then. And then you can pay just for what you use.
I daresay you'll find it too much of a bother, though.

Not here.

Last time I looked it did.
IIRC, you live in a fenced-in community for safety these days. If might didn't make right, why would you feel the need for a fence and guards?

Last time I looked it did.
IIRC, you live in a fenced-in community for safety these days. If might didn't make right, why would you feel the need for a fence and guards?

The fence and guards aren't for safety, it's for elitism. Most gated communities don't actually worry about crime, they worry about us lessers getting too close.

It's happened before. Why do you think France and Germany are no longer at eachother's throats?
Isn't a major factor because they spilled far too much blood fighting each other in endless wars and lost the stomach for it? I'm not sure if that's worth it to end a historical spat.
Well, found your own country, then. And then you can pay just for what you use.
I daresay you'll find it too much of a bother, though.
I'm not bitter or angry that I have to pay for things I don't use. I'm simply stating that it would be better if everyone paid only for what they used. I understood it was too much of a bother, which was sort of why I affirmed it was a stupid idea multiple times...

Why not use what you pay for?

I'm no longer using the Elementary, Middle, or High School so why should I be forced to pay the school system for something that I no longer use?

It's happened before. Why do you think France and Germany are no longer at eachother's throats?

Be that as it may but there are others out there who are at eachother's throats.

I'm no longer using the Elementary, Middle, or High School so why should I be forced to pay the school system for something that I no longer use?

Regard it as paying it of. After all, you didn't pay taxes when you were in elementary school, did you?

Be that as it may but there are others out there who are at eachother's throats.

And you have so little regard for humans that you simply assume they'll never ever be able to learn?

Isn't a major factor because they spilled far too much blood fighting each other in endless wars and lost the stomach for it? I'm not sure if that's worth it to end a historical spat.Because they lost the stomache for spilling blood? Doubtful.

Be that as it may but there are others out there who are at eachother's throats.Really? Perhaps they should follow the Franco-German example, n'est-ce pas?

Regard it as paying it of. After all, you didn't pay taxes when you were in elementary school, did you?

WHy should my parents continue to pay it though? BAH!! Forget it. This is highly offtopic.

And you have so little regard for humans that you simply assume they'll never ever be able to learn?

I'm a realist.

I'm no longer using the Elementary, Middle, or High School so why should I be forced to pay the school system for something that I no longer use?So that little Jimmy gets a quality education and is less motivated to burglarize your home later on in life. ;)

Because they lost the stomache for spilling blood? Doubtful.
Why? Wouldn't that be an unsurprising reaction after two bloody world wars in less than 30 years?

Not saying it's the only factor, but isn't it rather significant?

Really? Perhaps they should follow the Franco-German example, n'est-ce pas?

It would be nice but you and I both know it will not happen.

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

One of the greatest things about our nation is that fucktards like that are free to speak their mind. I wonder if they know how lucky they are to be protesting in the USA? I wonder if they appreciate the laws that protect their rights? Anyway, what can you do. Morons will be morons.

Why? Wouldn't that be an unsurprising reaction after two bloody world wars in less than 30 years?

Not saying it's the only factor, but isn't it rather significant?Nah, an unsurprising reaction would be continuing the blood feud. Losing the stomache for bloodshed is a lot less likely than the realization that the bloodshed was senseless and that cooperation was the better idea.

At least I doubt that the French and German students that tore down the border posts after the war were thinking "I'd fight you, but I can't see blood anymore without retching, so let's be friends."

WHy should my parents continue to pay it though? BAH!! Forget it. This is highly offtopic.

Are you saying your parents never went to school themselves? Geez. :rolleyes:

It's not that difficult.

It would be nice but you and I both know it will not happen.You know it will never happen? And you claim to be a realist?

Nah, an unsurprising reaction would be continuing the blood feud. Losing the stomache for bloodshed is a lot less likely than the realization that the bloodshed was senseless and that cooperation was the better idea.

At least I doubt that the French and German students that tore down the border posts after the war were thinking "I'd fight you, but I can't see blood anymore without retching, so let's be friends."
WWI was pretty senseless and didn't achieve an awful lot... I would have thought the popular mood would have been something along the lines of the futility of war and conflict after that.

But meh. You're German and I'm not so you probably know better than I do. Goodnight, all.

Last time I looked it did.
IIRC, you live in a fenced-in community for safety these days. If might didn't make right, why would you feel the need for a fence and guards?

Now we are talking about two different things- You specified the military,which is the topic at hand. That protects me from people in your country,or another,deciding we're fair game and coming here to take advantage of us.

Now,you're bringing up police/private security,which is similar in its role, but from other humans,who happen to live in my country.

You despise the military. Do you also despise police & other people that work in security?

And although I dont owe you any personal explanation of where I live,to further fuel your lopsided argument against me,I'll show you some respect anyway- I found property and built a dream house my wife loves in an exceptionally beautiful area. It happens to be a gated,private community,as are most in this area.

I didnt seek a gated community-I sought something appropriate for my family & my work's needs. It happened to be here.

The fact I save substantially on homeowner's & auto insurance is the icing on the cake for me.

And I dont need any more than myself to protect my family and home. Security for me is just more people to wave to as I pass each day.

WWI was pretty senseless and didn't achieve an awful lot... I would have thought the popular mood would have been something along the lines of the futility of war and conflict after that.

But meh. You're German and I'm not so you probably know better than I do. Goodnight, all.

WW I didn't bring the war home as much as WW II did. WW I still happened somewhere far away... the way most wars do these days for the US.
The moment to realise that war is utterly, totally counter-productive and wrong on all levels usually only comes around once the war hits home. Badly.

WWI was pretty senseless and didn't achieve an awful lot... I would have thought the popular mood would have been something along the lines of the futility of war and conflict after that.

But meh. You're German and I'm not so you probably know better than I do. Goodnight, all.Well, yeah. The situations were similar after both wars in that sense. Major differences were the Versaille Treaty after WWI, which virtually every German despised, and the threat of the Eastern Bloc after WWII.

The fence and guards aren't for safety, it's for elitism. Most gated communities don't actually worry about crime, they worry about us lessers getting too close.

this is an idiotic assumption

this is an idiotic assumption

Ouch!

Ouch!

Sorry-it just is.

I'm by no means "elitist" by any stretch of the word. just an average guy with a family and no strangers wandering around the yard-or school bus stop.

Sorry-it just is.

I'm by no means "elitist" by any stretch of the word. just an average guy with a family and no strangers wandering around the yard-or school bus stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_Community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_Community

this proves what, in one way or another?


I'm in northeastern PA. Our community comes with lakes with sail & rowboats to use and several beaches. The lakes are stocked for those who fish.
there is a golf course. a lodge for invited guests,a club house,playgrounds and many other amenities,which were all certainly more appealing to me than security.

OMG, those pictures of some people not liking the military prove that...
um
well
uh
wait
it's coming to me
oh yes.

It proves that some people don't like the military.

Or is there something else you wish to infer with your post Eve?

Oh right. I get it now. Showing that some people dislike the military somehow, in some weird, convoluted, paranoiac tinfoilhat way 'proves' that absolutely everyone who is against the Iraq war, GWB and who wants firm committment and resolution 'hates' 'our troops' and thus can be summarily dismissed out of hand.
We'll just continue on blindly and stupidly doing the same dumb actions that have have been failing since their inception 4 years ago.
Why?
Cause any other strategy suggested by others couldn't possibly be good cause they 'hate our troops'.
go on, let's all say it one more time cause we need the practise:
'They hate our troops'
Get used to it. It's appears to be the new dittohead catch phrase and no doubt we'll be hearing ad nauseum soon enough.

hope you're having fun in your sandpit Eve.

How has the Iraq war 'failed'?

How has the Iraq war 'failed'?

It hasn't yet but listening to the people here, they think it has failed because of all the terrorism that is in the nation that is mostly Iraqi on Iraqi.

How has the Iraq war 'failed'?

The Iraq War is long over. We won. What we are dealing with right now is our continued occupation of Iraq. This is failing.

The Iraq War is long over. We won. What we are dealing with right now is our continued occupation of Iraq. This is failing.

at least in the minds of some.

at least in the minds of some.

Well if things were going smoothly, why would we need to send more troops there?

at least in the minds of some.

Mainly in the minds of those who can read.

The Iraq War is long over. We won. What we are dealing with right now is our continued occupation of Iraq. This is failing.

Please prove your assertion.

Also: Iraqis civilian and security forces casualties, per month, have been falling ever since the beginning of Bush's troops surge.

American military casualties, per month, are also falling, and are at half the level per month that they were before the beginning of the Bush troop surge.

Further, the majority of IRaqis believe the insurgency is failing.

at least in the minds of some.

Exactly. It's only failing in the minds of those in touch with reality. If you just stop paying attention to what's actually going on and listen to the white house you'll realize it's all going just fine.

at least in the minds of some.

That would depend on how you define your goals. If they included stabilising the area, you failed big time.
If they were only about distracting public attention and making sure you won't run out of enemies anytime soon, it's a huge success.

It's all a matter of where you stand, I guess.

Exactly. It's only failing in the minds of those in touch with reality. If you just stop paying attention to what's actually going on and listen to the white house you'll realize it's all going just fine.

How do you call reducing your own casualties while reducing civilian casualties on your own side and increasing your deployment failure?

What the hell would you call success?

Please prove your assertion.

Also: Iraqis civilian and security forces casualties, per month, have been falling ever since the beginning of Bush's troops surge.

American military casualties, per month, are also falling, and are at half the level per month that they were before the beginning of the Bush troop surge.

Further, the majority of IRaqis believe the insurgency is failing.

For there to be an Iraq War, we would have to be fighting a recognized military force representative of the nation of Iraq. Currently, our troops are engaged in military encounters against insurgents who are not aligned with the recognized government of Iraq. Therefore, there is no Iraq War.

Further, the majority of IRaqis believe the insurgency is failing.

Interesting. can you link me to that?

How do you call reducing your own casualties while reducing civilian casualties on your own side and increasing your deployment failure?

What the hell would you call success?

Because everything I've read about it recently suggests that despite falling casualties the area is just as unstable if not more unstable than it was before.

Please prove your assertion.

Also: Iraqis civilian and security forces casualties, per month, have been falling ever since the beginning of Bush's troops surge.

American military casualties, per month, are also falling, and are at half the level per month that they were before the beginning of the Bush troop surge.

Further, the majority of IRaqis believe the insurgency is failing.

How long will the troop surge continue? Many of our enemies, like the Mehdi army are just laying low until the surge ends. Unless you want to stay in Iraq forever they'll be back.

It's time to shit or get off the pot. If you want to damage the shia militias and sunni insurgents enough so that the Iraqi government can finish them off you need to send a shitload more troops. Over a hundred thousand, not twenty or thirty thousand, to really lock the country down, find and kill the enemy. Otherwise declare victory and leave. Half assing this sort of thing is a waste of my tax dollars and the lives of soldiers.

How do you call reducing your own casualties while reducing civilian casualties on your own side and increasing your deployment failure?

What the hell would you call success?

I would call success a situation where the educated and productive members of Iraqi society aren't mostly in Jordan and Syria because they've given up on Iraq. The surge is too little too late.

For there to be an Iraq War, we would have to be fighting a recognized military force representative of the nation of Iraq. Currently, our troops are engaged in military encounters against insurgents who are not aligned with the recognized government of Iraq. Therefore, there is no Iraq War.

Still, how are they failing?

Also, if the Iraq War is over, hten America already won.


And here's what the Iraqis think

Iraq Anniversary Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html)

Some stats:

Only 17% Iraqis support the insurgency.
56% of Iraqis think Iraq is better off now then under Saddam
70% of Iraqis think Iraq is doing generally well.
48% Iraqis think America was right to invade Iraq (37% disagree, others are ambivalent).

Note MOST IRAQIS ARE OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN INVASION.
Note MOST IRAQIS THINK IRAQ IS NOW BETTER OFF THEN UNDER SADDAM.

How do you call reducing your own casualties while reducing civilian casualties on your own side and increasing your deployment failure?

What the hell would you call success?

If your definition of success is so simple that it defines it as reduction of casualties, then the greatest path to success would be total withdrawl. No people, no casualties.

No, success is not defined by "reduction in casualties" or we'd be out of Iraq entirely. Success is defined by "achievement of goals", and the goal in this situation is a stable Iraq. Every single indicative marker of stability suggests that the region is becomming more unstable, more prone to full out civil war, more plagued by violence, and has more people waiting in the wings. The system only appears stable because the US is propping it up.

Imagine someone holding up a wall that's falling down. You have three options:

1) Build supports for that wall so when the man steps away it will remain standing
2) give up, let go of the wall and have it collapse
3) stand there, forever

#1 is our goal. We are failing that goal. We have added virtually NOTHING to actually let the iraqi government stand on its own. The infrastructure is shit, economy is in the toilet, unemployment is rampant, and they're having a major refuge problem. Their government is shakey and entirely unstable and there is nothing, NOTHING that's going to keep it standing once we get out. And no amount of troop surge is going to change that.

It's not the NUMBER of people we have, it's how effective we're using them to build supports for the Iraqi infrastructure and we are FAILING at this, miserably. So the only method of success, the ONLY true way to define success is to help sure up the Iraqi government and infrastructure so it won't collapse on itself when we leave. And we are not doing this.

And until we actually start doing this, we have only two options. Say fuck it and walk away and let it go to hell, or stay there, forever.

Neither of those really meets any definition of "success" I care to mention.

Still, how are they failing?

Also, if the Iraq War is over, hten America already won.


And here's what the Iraqis think

Iraq Anniversary Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html)

Some stats:

Only 17% Iraqis support the insurgency.
56% of Iraqis think Iraq is better off now then under Saddam
70% of Iraqis think Iraq is doing generally well.
48% Iraqis think America was right to invade Iraq (37% disagree, others are ambivalent).

Note MOST IRAQIS ARE OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN INVASION.
Note MOST IRAQIS THINK IRAQ IS NOW BETTER OFF THEN UNDER SADDAM.

I just now realized I'd answered the wrong question. And yes, we already won the Iraq War. What we're dealing with now is the insurgency.

Ok, so maybe things are going better.

In this case, explain why the majority of the Iraqis oppose the insurgency and most of them think they're better off now then under Saddam?

Under all accounts Mehdi casualties are increasing, American and IRaqi casualites are decreasing.

God, Boris, Is that the way your logic works?

Not even doubting about the data and numbers you posted, to say that most iraqis agree with the american invasion is a bit...stranded.

Still, how are they failing?

Also, if the Iraq War is over, hten America already won.


And here's what the Iraqis think

Iraq Anniversary Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html)

Some stats:

Only 17% Iraqis support the insurgency.
56% of Iraqis think Iraq is better off now then under Saddam
70% of Iraqis think Iraq is doing generally well.
48% Iraqis think America was right to invade Iraq (37% disagree, others are ambivalent).

Note MOST IRAQIS ARE OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN INVASION.
Note MOST IRAQIS THINK IRAQ IS NOW BETTER OFF THEN UNDER SADDAM.


Another little "note" from that poll you might want to mention:

39% support the presence of coalition forces
51% oppose.

So if you look at those statistics together what does it tell you? It tells us perhaps that the majority of Iraqis think that the invasion was right, that life is better, and they're glad saddam is gone. It also tells us that the majority thanks us for our efforts, and would like us to please leave, now

God, Boris, Is that the way your logic works?

Not even doubting about the data and numbers you posted, to say that most iraqis agree with the american invasion is a bit...stranded.

Most Iraqis, when polled by Western media (48%, a plurality, actually), think the invasion was justified. Assuming of course ABC was not bribed by Evil Bush and the Iraqis didn't lie to the pollster.

And here's what the Iraqis think

Iraq Anniversary Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html)

Some stats:

Only 17% Iraqis support the insurgency.
56% of Iraqis think Iraq is better off now then under Saddam
70% of Iraqis think Iraq is doing generally well.
48% Iraqis think America was right to invade Iraq (37% disagree, others are ambivalent).

Note MOST IRAQIS ARE OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN INVASION.
Note MOST IRAQIS THINK IRAQ IS NOW BETTER OFF THEN UNDER SADDAM.

You mean, 'were one year after the war', not 'are now'...

Still, how are they failing?

Also, if the Iraq War is over, hten America already won.


And here's what the Iraqis think

Iraq Anniversary Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html)

Some stats:

Only 17% Iraqis support the insurgency.
56% of Iraqis think Iraq is better off now then under Saddam
70% of Iraqis think Iraq is doing generally well.
48% Iraqis think America was right to invade Iraq (37% disagree, others are ambivalent).

Note MOST IRAQIS ARE OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN INVASION.
Note MOST IRAQIS THINK IRAQ IS NOW BETTER OFF THEN UNDER SADDAM.


Are you really quoting a 4 year old poll as an indication of the situation today?

So if you look at those statistics together what does it tell you? It tells us perhaps that the majority of Iraqis think that the invasion was right, that life is better, and they're glad saddam is gone. It also tells us that the majority thanks us for our efforts, and would like us to please leave, now

Actually, no.

The poll lists a number of people who would like the US to ''leave now".

All 15% of them.

There's a detailed table there.

Are you really quoting a 4 year old poll as an indication of the situation today?

Why not? It's one of the latest polls available.

Unless ABC or a reliable news organization went and asked the same question in 2006 or so.

Latest Iraq polls I found are from 2005.

If your definition of success is so simple that it defines it as reduction of casualties, then the greatest path to success would be total withdrawl. No people, no casualties.

No, success is not defined by "reduction in casualties" or we'd be out of Iraq entirely. Success is defined by "achievement of goals", and the goal in this situation is a stable Iraq. Every single indicative marker of stability suggests that the region is becomming more unstable, more prone to full out civil war, more plagued by violence, and has more people waiting in the wings. The system only appears stable because the US is propping it up.

Imagine someone holding up a wall that's falling down. You have three options:

1) Build supports for that wall so when the man steps away it will remain standing
2) give up, let go of the wall and have it collapse
3) stand there, forever

#1 is our goal. We are failing that goal. We have added virtually NOTHING to actually let the iraqi government stand on its own. The infrastructure is shit, economy is in the toilet, unemployment is rampant, and they're having a major refuge problem. Their government is shakey and entirely unstable and there is nothing, NOTHING that's going to keep it standing once we get out. And no amount of troop surge is going to change that.

It's not the NUMBER of people we have, it's how effective we're using them to build supports for the Iraqi infrastructure and we are FAILING at this, miserably. So the only method of success, the ONLY true way to define success is to help sure up the Iraqi government and infrastructure so it won't collapse on itself when we leave. And we are not doing this.

And until we actually start doing this, we have only two options. Say fuck it and walk away and let it go to hell, or stay there, forever.

Neither of those really meets any definition of "success" I care to mention.


Notice that poll is 3 years old?

Why not? It's one of the latest polls available.

Unless ABC or a reliable news organization went and asked the same question in 2006 or so.

Latest Iraq polls I found are from 2005.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55?bcsi_scan_67B5BE173D771E18=0

Knock yourself out mate. The front page has one released a couple of days ago.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55?bcsi_scan_67B5BE173D771E18=0

Knock yourself out mate. The front page has one released a couple of days ago.

Ah the power of self delusion eh?


Here's a poll that is on CNN, it was on their front page yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.poll.ap/index.html

I'm guessing she didn't search for polls too hard.

How can you not approve of something necessary?

The Military is one of the most dangerous arms of any government. QED Thailand, Brazil in 1964...

Clearly all christians hate the troops.

Exactly. ;)

How has the Iraq war 'failed'?

How has it 'succeded'?

How has it 'succeded'?

It's not over yet, is it?

Ah the power of self delusion eh?


Here's a poll that is on CNN, it was on their front page yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.poll.ap/index.html

I'm guessing she didn't search for polls too hard.


I ran a Google search. And I'm a 'he'.

I ran a Google search. And I'm a 'he'.

Oddly enough so did I. I typed 'Iraq polls' into it and the site I gave you was the second hit.

What the hell did you search for?

It's not over yet, is it?

No. That's true. It isn't over; we haven't completely destroyed our reputaion yet. :p

Why not? It's one of the latest polls available.

Unless ABC or a reliable news organization went and asked the same question in 2006 or so.

Latest Iraq polls I found are from 2005.

Actually there were 4 polls put out within the last week. One pearl of information was that only 18% of Iraqis trust US led forces. From March 18, 2007.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2038378,00.html&ei=7gIARtCnA5HIggSHkZCUDw&sig2=qS6bNoSw2XbmEYSF9cZmCQ&e=14823&sa=X&oi=news&ct=result&cd=3&usg=__vR6p9N3kjwnS9xQ01hPQGZNEh0U=

60% think Iraq war was wrong according to poll

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm

BBC poll comparing 2003 data, 2005 data, and 2007 data directly opposing your position.

March 20, 2007, Oh shit, that's today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm

You need to learn how to work "the google" better

I ran a Google search. And I'm a 'he'.

I didn't, I read the news, and the train wreck that is Iraq takes up a ton of news space.

Oh...and as for there being 'lots' I only see three people holding the 'fuck the troops' banner. Out of a population of 300 odd million people....3 people = lots.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

I find it rather amusing that they hide their faces, too. Very Hamas. Well done.

You need to learn how to work "the google" better

You need to learn how to work the forum better -- you know, how to link without breaking the bleedin' page? :rolleyes:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why KSp stopped going to protests. No matter how many sane, stable, and generally moral people attend them, the press always finds the ten fuck-ups who are just there to protest Capitalism, government existing, and/or the fact that not everyone believes in Spare Change to take the pictures of. It doesn't hurt that the organizers are almost all hippies of some degree too.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

does anyone know what the circled A and E stand for?

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

does anyone know what the circled A and E stand for?

The A is almost certainly meant as an anarchist symbol. The E, I do not know.

The A is almost certainly meant as an anarchist symbol. The E, I do not know.

Maybe it's supposed to be an Ecstasy tablet.

Maybe it's supposed to be an Ecstasy tablet.

That would explain why they want to fuck the troops.

I think it would be better if we focus our attention on realistic and achievable goals and direct our efforts towards those ends, far more good will be done that way instead of wasting our time fantasizing about wonderland and trying to find pink unicorns in a field of daisies...

The day you can stop criminals and crime from existing and can fire all the police officers is the same day that you can stop tyrannical dictators and aggressive governments from existing and you can turn your swords into plowshares. Until then, the only reason you are free enough to espouse your disdain for the military is because the military has already ensured your liberty.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

Athiesm has nothing to do with those people and you know it.

I'm not entirely sure about Anarchists, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Athiesm has nothing to do with those people and you know it.

I'm not entirely sure about Anarchists, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Did you even read the sign they were holding. No Gods, No country, no masters.

Not only is the sign completely atheistic but it is also completely anarchist.

You need to learn how to work the forum better -- you know, how to link without breaking the bleedin' page? :rolleyes:

quick call 911 for the wambulance. :fluffle:

Who gives a fuck? Why even post this?

Why do I get the feeling that some of these are athiests and anarchists?

because even you apparently have some basic reading comprehension abilities when you really apply yourself

Who gives a fuck? Why even post this?

EO wanted to point out how people who are anti-war are un-American devils and pro-war people are more like Jesus or something. You got me!:p

Who gives a fuck? Why even post this?

DK wanted to point out that there are occasionally bad people around, and for once they're not all conservativs.

In regards to getting rid of the millitary, not only is it insanely retarded when you are certainly not neutral and have vasts amounts of enemies, it will also cripple the economy for some countries, for instance the USA. Yes I know that sounds like a stupid thing to say since the military is a substantial part of the budget, but theres a lot more to it then that.

Incidentally, I'm an anarchist. I frequently engage in all sorts of activities you'd prolably love to see me shot for. But I don't condemn people for joining the armed thugs of the authorities. I appreciate their motives, I pitty their shortsightedness, and I hate our mutual bosses.

And why did I say that? Because even amongst anarchists, hatred of soldiers is a rare thing.

though over here we've got this constant glorification of war and militarism and fucking deification of soldiers that some of our anti-militarism is bound to spill over a bit into the 'fuck the troops' territory. it's a convenient counter-phrase, really.

me, i'm more of a "we support the troops when they shoot their officers" kind of guy.

In regards to getting rid of the millitary, not only is it insanely retarded when you are certainly not neutral and have vasts amounts of enemies, it will also cripple the economy for some countries, for instance the USA. Yes I know that sounds like a stupid thing to say since the military is a substantial part of the budget, but theres a lot more to it then that.

Explain Switzerland.

Did you even read the sign they were holding. No Gods, No country, no masters.

Not only is the sign completely atheistic but it is also completely anarchist.

That's because anarchists are, by definition, godless. That's not to say they're atheists, who believe there -is- no god, but rather they rebel against him whether he exists or not.

Explain Switzerland.

Read the word some. Switzerland are protected by the rest of europe anyway.

Read the word some. Switzerland are protected by the rest of europe anyway.

And nearly all of their males are in the armed forces :D

Don't mess with the Swiss.

Read the word some. Switzerland are protected by the rest of europe anyway.

Do you guys know that Switzerland is actually amongst one of the militarized countries in Europe? They have quite a big army.

Do you guys know that Switzerland is actually amongst one of the militarized countries in Europe? They have quite a big army.

In terms of infantry i believe. But im not so sure.

In terms of infantry i believe. But im not so sure.

As far as I know, every male must serve in the military and they each have a gun to take home as well.

DK wanted to point out that there are occasionally bad people around, and for once they're not all conservativs.


or muslims. Don't forget the muslims...

As far as I know, every male must serve in the military and they each have a gun to take home as well.

Cool :cool:

Cool :cool:

Indeed. I wish we had something like that here in the states. Home invasions will plummet as everyone will have a gun to defend their homes :D

Indeed. I wish we had something like that here in the states. Home invasions will plummet as everyone will have a gun to defend their homes :D

I wasn't aware that home invasion was that big a problem in the US. It's certainly not something I read a lot about locally.

Don't mess with the Swiss.
Yeah, or they will pretend to lose all your money.

Indeed. I wish we had something like that here in the states. Home invasions will plummet as everyone will have a gun to defend their homes :D

There are roughly 300 murders a year by the use of military weapons that are held at home.

http://www.swisspolitics.org/de/news/index.php?page=story_inhalt&story_id=7356954

Personally I'd be wishing for something else. Not that you can even begin to comprehend what I am talking about.

That's because anarchists are, by definition, godless.

not by definition. while i find them strange, there are religious anarchists. and not just neopagans either.

Thats quite a stretch,Grave-dont you think?

"Bush supporters" or young republicans,as someone else said, are rarely seen protesting,marching or demonstrating.

They are more often than not,found speaking on cable news shows and in front of audiences at colleges,etc...

By their very nature,I dont think you'll ever catch one burning a flag,or involved in a conspiracy to appear as someone else to make that someone else look bad.

I'm just saying - the photos we have seen are circumstantial evidence, at best.

Is faked protestors much further of a stretch than a collective gathering of 'anarchists'?

Masking up at protests and anti-working class reactionary shit like "Fuck The Troops" is why I hate most anarchists.

I'm an anarchist, by the way.

Masking up at protests and anti-working class reactionary shit like "Fuck The Troops" is why I hate most anarchists.

I'm an anarchist, by the way.

"Fuck the Troops" isn't 'anti-working class'...

"Fuck the Troops" isn't 'anti-working class'...

I'd say it is, considering the demographics of the armed forces. "Fuck The Military" I can get behind, but "Fuck The Troops"...nah.

I'd say it is, considering the demographics of the armed forces. "Fuck The Military" I can get behind, but "Fuck The Troops"...nah.

Not at all - 'Fuck the Troops' is entirely non-classist. It is uniformly opposed to 'troops', no matter what their origins.

Maybe most of 'the Troops' are 'working-class', but to say that, therefore, attacking 'the troops' is the same as attacking the working-class... is the same as saying throwing bricks at the police is the same as throwing bricks at white christian america.

We don't have a draft (yet). People who are soldiers right now, are soldiers by choice. If you have a problem with the current war, or the current military policy, it is not unreasonable to see 'the Troops' as willingly complicit.

Am I the only one who is fighting the temptation to start posting pictures of the kent state shootings and start a thread called "Pro-war protesters: Mindless killing machines"?

Because it would be just as absurd is this thread

In the case of Eve Online vs. Sanity, the result seems in no doubt.

I'm not just talking about spitting - we're talking about protesters who really hate the troops.

Seem to be plenty raising their arms supporting the burning of troops in effigy.

So, even when confronted with photo evidence, you say, "well that's only 3 people".

Are you saying that you'll only take it as proof when there are photos of 300 million people doing it?

Ah - a lame attempt at dodging. This is proof that some anti-war protesters are doing exactly what was denied about Vietnam war protesters - some of them really, really do hate the troops - it's not just about the war.

These are radical anarchists. There about as many of them in this country as there are radical neo-nazis. Don't be a fucking moron. You're just making yourself look foolish.

These are radical anarchists. There about as many of them in this country as there are radical neo-nazis. Don't be a fucking moron. You're just making yourself look foolish.

Well, he's an honest man.

Does anybody else think that we should switch the anti-war protesters from Vietnam and the anti-war protesters from Iraq? (no not from the countries, I mean the time period)
It'd make a lot more sense to me at least.

It amuses me greatly that EO has done almost nothing to defend his position in this thread, but found the time to make another thread to ignore.


Also, does anyone know where he got those photos yet, I may have missed it in the course of the thread.

I don't "hate the troops" as a group. I hate when their leaders are incompetent and give them unconscienable orders. I hate when bad apples enlist because they're trigger-crazy and want to go kill 'them foreigners.' And what I'm really starting to hate those "support the troops" yellow ribbon bumper magnets, because for one, they seem like an easy cop-out (it's too *easy* to pay your $5 or $10 or whatever, stick it on your bumper, and then never give another thought to people being maimed and killed for what may or may not be a just cause) and they don't address the issue of whether the *politicians* sending the troops abroad are in the right or not.

Canada has troops in Afghanistan, and I 'support' them. To me, supporting them means wanting them at home, ready to protect the country from assault. Supporting the troops means I don't want people who enlisted to protect their country thrown into harm's way abroad-- where their actions may or may not be doing us any real, practical good-- by politicians who get to sit safely behind guards and fences back home.

It amuses me greatly that EO has done almost nothing to defend his position in this thread, but found the time to make another thread to ignore.


Also, does anyone know where he got those photos yet, I may have missed it in the course of the thread.


No, he just went back to whining about "liberals" and muslim bashing

Wtf is an E in a circle? :confused:

Wtf is an E in a circle? :confused:

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION NOW!

I don't know. :p

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

And I'm sure these represent anyone who disagrees with the war, right, Eve?

Man how can those people make such statements or denigrate the troops in any way.

The troops are just young men and women obeying orders.
Sure some of them have been caught torturing and murdering people
but they haven't all been caught doing these things

And I say if war criminals aren't actually caught,
with incontrovertible evidence available,
torturing and murdering then they should have the full support of people who are against war, torture and murder.

Is it a bad thing that I laugh when I see these pictures?

Meh, they're a bunch of stupid-ass anarchists. Such is life.

some of them really, really do hate the troops

So?

Wtf is an E in a circle? :confused:

I'm not positive that the A stands for Anarchist like most of the people around here are thinking, I think the A and the E go together, for; Atheist Ethics, like from the book, The End of Faith. In which the author says that Atheists need to strive to end all religion AND start by removing all tolerance for religion and the religious... Just a guess.

I'm not positive that the A stands for Anarchist like most of the people around here are thinking,

Have you ever been to a leftist protest in your life?

Did you read the sign?

They're anarchists. There's no question about it.

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg



That is sick! And just plain wrong. I hope some troops run into them!

Have you ever been to a leftist protest in your life?

Did you read the sign?

They're anarchists. There's no question about it.

Like this sign:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Atheist.jpg

I still think they might be Atheist Ethics like I said before, (Or Atheist league of Earth or Atheist Earth, but I've never seen the Earth shown as an E in a circle before and they have their own logos already, so I'm guessing it's not that.)

Poot, with all due respect, if you don't know protest cuture, you're talking out of your ass. The circled "A" means one thing (other than, "Look, media, I want Attention!"): Anarchism. It isn't that there aren't other words that start with "A", it's just that they don't matter.
'
Anarchists are one of the many reasons I no longer protest. I go to these things, and they end up being more about a bunch of stupid shit than they are about the war. I oppose the war, but at the protest two days ago in Seattle, it seemed more like a yearly gathering of conspiracy theorists. The groups that sponsor them are never sane, moderate groups, and the protesters are loons of the worst kind.

Needless to say, it really pisses me off that the best representation available is crazies like the people in Code Pink or the Green Party or the Youth Against War and Racism.

Edit: And that's what we call a Black Bloc. It's traditional Anarchist protest bullshit.

if they are so proud of what they are doing in those picture and they really stand be hind the idea, then why are they all covered up? :confused:

if they are so proud of what they are doing in those picture and they really stand be hind the idea, then why are they all covered up? :confused:

The ones with the masks are taking part in one of the many different Anarchist protest styles. They cover their faces for intimidation's sake and because it means the cops won't target them later (as cops do have a wont to do).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bloc

The ones with the masks are taking part in one of the many different Anarchist protest styles. They cover their faces for intimidation's sake and because it means the cops won't target them later (as cops do have a wont to do).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bloc

in my opinion they are just a bunch of cowards, if they really stood behind their ideas they would be willing to risk getting thrown in jail or arrested.

in my opinion they are just a bunch of cowards, if they really stood behind their ideas they would be willing to risk getting thrown in jail or arrested.

Having been arrested and thrown in jail for participating in a sit-in (unmasked), I think these guys have the right idea. Ditto the people who come equipped with breathing apparatus.

Having been arrested and thrown in jail for participating in a sit-in (unmasked), I think these guys have the right idea. Ditto the people who come equipped with breathing apparatus.

each to their own i guess

Oh, and I really seriously dig their slogan, "No Gods No Country No Masters". How thoroughly refreshing.

Is faked protestors much further of a stretch than a collective gathering of 'anarchists'?
that raises an interesting point:
What do you call a collective gathering of anarchists?

My guesses are:
A Diatribe of Anarchists; or
A Harrangue of Anarchists.

can anyone else come up with better?

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

I agree with the bit about no masters, no country, which would imply I also agree with the idea of no military. I can only hope one day people will be civilized enough to realise the military is a bunch of crap.

that raises an interesting point:
What do you call a collective gathering of anarchists?

My guesses are:
A Diatribe of Anarchists; or
A Harrangue of Anarchists.

can anyone else come up with better?



How about a Nescient of Anarchists?

FYI, not to be a grammar nazi, but it's Harangue..One r not two.;)

How about a Nescient of Anarchists?

FYI, not to be a grammar nazi, but it's Harangue..One r not two.;)
Anarchists can't spell. I thought everyone knew that.

and your collective term is just downright nasty!

Anarchists can't spell. I thought everyone knew that.

and your collective term is just downright nasty!



nescient is too harsh? For those who don't know, I assume you do know what it means.

nescient is too harsh?
well, if not harsh then can we agree that it's a tad opprobrious?

well, if not harsh then can we agree that it's a tad opprobrious?



Saying fuck the troops is opprobrious, what I suggested was veracious.;)

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.Maybe I'm missing something, but... who cares?

So there are some anti-war demonstrators who hate the troops. To tell you the truth, if I hear too many more stories about soldiers raping and murdering the people they are supposed to protect (or torturing and humiliating the people they are supposed to guard), I may burn a uniform or two myself.

I mean, seriously... our military is not exactly in "best foot forward" mode at this point.

Does anyone know what the circled A and E stand for?

The Circle-A is actually an "A" inside an "O"--taken together, a monogram signifying the anarchist slogan "Anarchy is order."

There is some dispute about the "E," but most likely the original intention was "Equality."

Now we are talking about two different things- You specified the military,which is the topic at hand. That protects me from people in your country,or another,deciding we're fair game and coming here to take advantage of us.

Now,you're bringing up police/private security,which is similar in its role, but from other humans,who happen to live in my country.

You despise the military. Do you also despise police & other people that work in security?

And although I dont owe you any personal explanation of where I live,to further fuel your lopsided argument against me,I'll show you some respect anyway- I found property and built a dream house my wife loves in an exceptionally beautiful area. It happens to be a gated,private community,as are most in this area.

I didnt seek a gated community-I sought something appropriate for my family & my work's needs. It happened to be here.

The fact I save substantially on homeowner's & auto insurance is the icing on the cake for me.

And I dont need any more than myself to protect my family and home. Security for me is just more people to wave to as I pass each day.

I didn't mean to attack you personally, I'm sorry if it came across like that.
What I was trying to point out was that, apparently, there are enough people who feel insecure enough in their own country, in their own homes, to give rise to communities such as these. And I, personally, don't feel it's right that people should be forced to feel that way.

It might just be me, after growing up in Germany in the 80s who feels that way, Germany having a long history of employing its police and military against its own population as much as against any perceived enemy. I grew up learning to distrust people who wear uniforms and carry guns, as they are not around to help you. They're around to follow orders.
One of the reasons I love living in Ireland so much is the simple fact that only a very small number of elite units of the gardai carry guns. So, to me, there's less reason to be scared of them, and I can feel a lot more at ease.
While I understand that some protection is unfortunately necessary, I still prefer to keep it at an absolute minimum. Mostly because those people who proclaim to protect me usually do anything but.

These are radical anarchists. There about as many of them in this country as there are radical neo-nazis.

i don't know - we can get a thousand of us out on short notice in most of the major cities, while the nazis seem to have a hard time with numbers greater than 50 at their major planned events

in my opinion they are just a bunch of cowards, if they really stood behind their ideas they would be willing to risk getting thrown in jail or arrested.

considering how frequently we get illegally arrested anyways, perhaps we really do and really are


also, the masks give us superpowers
http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/5/5705.jpg

It's people like that who completely discredit pacifism for the rest of us. They need to learn that pacifism isn't just about not going to war; it's about learning to accept and live peacefully with all kinds of people, including people who do things you disagree with. I'm very vehemently against the military, and yet I've had several perfectly respectful meals with members or former members of the armed forces. And I certainly have no intention of setting anybody on fire. How hypocritcal would that be?

It's people like that who completely discredit pacifism for the rest of us.

what makes you think them to be pacifists?

I'm very vehemently against the military, and yet I've had several perfectly respectful meals with members or former members of the armed forces.

This must be some form of vehemence that manifests itself politely, between courses. How... illuminating.

And they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

For those who say that there aren't anti-war protesters who hate the troops, wish them ill, and want to hurt them, there seem to be plenty in Portland.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland1.jpg

And...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t48/eveonline_bucket/portland2.jpg

Bunch of morons.

I am tempted to throw in my two cents, but it would probably be rather dangerous, so I won't.

what makes you think them to be pacifists?

Indeed, there is, after all, a difference between opposing the self-serving wars of the state and supporting a war against capitalism and government.