How to deal with protestors

[GSF]

I just read this on another site and thought that some of you would enjoy it.

With all this talk of whether the war is "right", many of us will encounter

so called "Peace Activists", who from the safety and shelter of western

democracies that protect their right to free speech (no matter how

misguided) will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating

against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001 and from using

force ,when necessary, to enforce standards of conduct the U.N. (and various

other hypocrite countries) only pay lip service to, and from removing

tyrants who actually oppress their subjects. It is interesting that many

such activists are not content to rely on the force of argument to persuade

us in the marketplace of ideas but instead resort to traffic blockades and

other disruptive tactics which are a far cry from the orderly democratic

process they purport to espouse.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most people don't know

how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of

their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a

conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will

tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who

tyranize others, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use

many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the

nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and

they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about

more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if

they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks,

they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must

lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much

harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot

realizes one must strike back or keep getting hit in the nose. There is

really no difference between an individual attacking an innocent victim or

terrorists attacking a nation or a tyrant subjugating people. It is

unacceptable and must be dealt with.

Unfortunately at a very high cost. We owe our brave service men and women a

huge debt for what they are about to sacrifice to secure a peaceful future

for us and our children and for children a world away who have yet to

experience freedom.

[Ancalagon the Black]

That's so great! And such a thoughtful, constructive method of inquiry.

Here's an equally brilliant plan i came up with. I had this old drinking buddy who used to get a little crazy and hit women when he had a bit too many beers--but he was really fun to hang out with, so we had some good times. I kinda lost touch with him, but then i learned that he had had kids and was being abusive towards them. Also, this other random guy sucker-punched me outta nowhere, so i was pretty mad to begin with. Thus, i concocted a scheme:

1) Break down my ex-friend's door and immediately kill a couple of his kids. Explain to the corpses how much better off they'd be once i offed their dad.

2) Take a few swings at my ex-friend. Maybe they connected, maybe they didn't. Not really sure. But they were REALLY HARD SWINGS, so he probably got scared and ran away.

My friends told me i was being a total jerk, but screw 'em. What kind of friends try to tell you when they think you're wrong? In the future, i'm only going to hang out with sycophants and yes-men.

[Guest Matt Kyriacou]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That's so great! And such a thoughtful, constructive method of inquiry.

Typical left wing sarcastic drivel.

It's not surprising that you are from the left coast.

[chunky Salsa]

I hear the first one and laughed...The second is funny too:laugh:

[Catullus]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Here's an equally brilliant plan i came up with. I had this old drinking buddy who used to get a little crazy and hit women when he had a bit too many beers--but he was really fun to hang out with, so we had some good times. I kinda lost touch with him, but then i learned that he had had kids and was being abusive towards them. Also, this other random guy sucker-punched me outta nowhere, so i was pretty mad to begin with. Thus, i concocted a scheme:

1) Break down my ex-friend's door and immediately kill a couple of his kids. Explain to the corpses how much better off they'd be once i offed their dad.

2) Take a few swings at my ex-friend. Maybe they connected, maybe they didn't. Not really sure. But they were REALLY HARD SWINGS, so he probably got scared and ran away.

My friends told me i was being a total jerk, but screw 'em. What kind of friends try to tell you when they think you're wrong? In the future, i'm only going to hang out with sycophants and yes-men.

The main problem with this argument is that the actions within the analogy do not correspond with their real-world equivalents. The moral and ethical questions which seem to lie behind the argument can best be assessed by examining the first action.

1) Break down my ex-friend's door and immediately kill a couple of his kids. Explain to the corpses how much better off they'd be once i offed their dad.

Presumably, this is a reference to Iraqi civilian casualties.

However, Saddam Hussein has killed somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 Kurdish civilians in the Anfal genocide campaign in the north, and around 100,000 Shi'ite Southern Marsh Arabs in the south.

Additionally, opponents of the regime have been, and continue to be, tortured and killed in numbers which are unlikely ever to be known with accuracy.

There is no prospect of the US and its allies inflicting casualties on Iraqi civilians in numbers anywhere near those which Hussein has, and there is an excellent chance that Hussein would kill more Iraqi civilians if left in power than the allies could removing him. Additionally, the US action will have the rather fortunate (for the people of Iraq) result of removing Saddam Hussein from power and so preventing him from carrying out further such campaigns and killings. This should be locked in for the future if the US establishes a democracy in Iraq - for those who think this is naive, it's worth noting that, in every "sovereignty-breaching" action the US has taken since the end of the Cold War, it has created a democracy. Examples range from political minnows such as Haiti to such strategically significant states as Afghanistan.

A large number of people oppose military action on the grounds that they are opposed to war, and support peace. This is an artificial dichotomy. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not in a state of peace; it was a tyranny, in a state of war between its dictator and its people. This is not peace; it is a cycle of violence which can only be broken by the removal of Hussein. This is no prospect of this being accomplished by any means other than military.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand innocent civilians. There is no reason why, simply because he is a head of state or because he lives in a country with no developed legal system, he should be treated differently from any other mass murderer. Regardless of whether this is the motivation behind the allied action, the end result will be a significant improvement in the lives of the people of Iraq.

And that's worth fighting for.

P.S.: Just like to note, as an Australian, how proud I am of our forces risking their lives in Iraq and the Gulf. We're only a small country, so we don't get the press that the US and the British do, but we realise that the cause is just and we're putting our money where our mouths are.

[GSF]

Originally posted by Catullus

A large number of people oppose military action on the grounds that they are opposed to war, and support peace. This is an artificial dichotomy. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not in a state of peace; it was a tyranny, in a state of war between its dictator and its people. This is not peace; it is a cycle of violence which can only be broken by the removal of Hussein. This is no prospect of this being accomplished by any means other than military.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand innocent civilians. There is no reason why, simply because he is a head of state or because he lives in a country with no developed legal system, he should be treated differently from any other mass murderer. Regardless of whether this is the motivation behind the allied action, the end result will be a significant improvement in the lives of the people of Iraq.

And that's worth fighting for.

P.S.: Just like to note, as an Australian, how proud I am of our forces risking their lives in Iraq and the Gulf. We're only a small country, so we don't get the press that the US and the British do, but we realise that the cause is just and we're putting our money where our mouths are.

Wise words Catullus. Unfortunately, there are many that can't wrap their brains around what you are saying. My understanding is that the Aussie forces are playing a crucial role in the efforts in Iraq. You should be proud.

[Art]

There are many reasons given for going to war with Iraq. Some of these reasons are, to me, very compelling. Others are much less so. It's much the same with the reasons against going to war that people who are against the action give. Some are compelling. Others less so.

On a scale, in the "for" column, the rationale that Saddam's regime is in violation of the terms of its own surrender, and possessing agents, both chemical and biological, that could find their way into terrorist attacks in this country is where I was persuaded that we had to make this effort.

I'm not concerned with tenuous links between 9-11 and Iraq. I'm not really concerned even by the fact that Saddam's Iraq has become a relatively safe haven for fleeing terrorists after 9-11. No other "for" reasong given really matters to me. I don't believe it's humanitarian in nature or that we care one bit that Saddam has killed his own people. That's just dressing the left should be eating up to latch onto, but, as a member of the right, I don't believe it is our place to enter any nation fully or in part on humanitarian grounds. If we were to do that we'd be a constantly in action military in the future and we'd have to explain the history of inaction in the past.

I think it is politically smart for the right to have latched onto this point, since it is a point the left typically would embrace. But, it's not moving or meaningful to me.

On the against side, the absolute over-the-top weakest position against this war is any commentary about the U.N. This is followed closely by the statements that Iraq was once a country we propped up.

The most persuasive reason against going to war are the true idealogues. That war is simply never the answer. As wrong as that answer is, it is a "true" reason to be against this action because it is a fundamental belief and respectable for that person to believe. That is why the first post in this thread is funny because there is a time where non-violence simply needs to end and violence needs to commense. That first post has been around for several years in one form or another.

The second post here seems to want to throw, in a wild analogy attempting to stick some of the weakest counters to our action in some compelling correlation that falls flat. In my view the most correct, and meaningful -- meaning it's not simply wrong on the face of it as the "war is not the answer" crowd -- is that there is no link to 9-11, and the war on terror should be our immediate priority. Some of this rationale was diminished when Muhammed was caught a couple of weeks before this started since it was clear we were still prosecuting that war and it was going well.

Whether there is or isn't, it is clear that link is stretched and seemingly added in by those for the war to see what sticks to the wall. Both sides seem to be giving a variety of reasons this action is appropriate or not. Unfortunately for MY side of the equation, offering multiple reasons lessens the one that should matter.

Politically Bush played this poorly because by offering so many different reasons to go to war he hid the one reason that most Americans would embrace and he's allowed the left's many counters -- that would exist no matter what -- more meaningful because they now counter direct statements as to why we are taking this action.

Bush should have stuck with the notion that this action is to protect Americans. It is to prevent the possibility of Saddam's regime supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and leading to a 9-11 type attack tipped with such weapons. The argument should have been this all along. That it wasn't has fed the opposition and while the nation is presently for this action, if it stretches out much beyond a few months, it'll turn ugly because people won't have a true principle to be guided by and that will alter public opinion substantially.

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That's so great! And such a thoughtful, constructive method of inquiry.

Here's an equally brilliant plan i came up with. I had this old drinking buddy who used to get a little crazy and hit women when he had a bit too many beers--but he was really fun to hang out with, so we had some good times. I kinda lost touch with him, but then i learned that he had had kids and was being abusive towards them. Also, this other random guy sucker-punched me outta nowhere, so i was pretty mad to begin with. Thus, i concocted a scheme:

1) Break down my ex-friend's door and immediately kill a couple of his kids. Explain to the corpses how much better off they'd be once i offed their dad.

2) Take a few swings at my ex-friend. Maybe they connected, maybe they didn't. Not really sure. But they were REALLY HARD SWINGS, so he probably got scared and ran away.

My friends told me i was being a total jerk, but screw 'em. What kind of friends try to tell you when they think you're wrong? In the future, i'm only going to hang out with sycophants and yes-men.

Piss poor analogy. By the way, @ssholes on the left coast and the French don't count as "friends."

[Darth Tater]

escholz et al,

I think you misunderstood the second analogy. The person kicking the door down would be S. Hussien but Ancalagon the Black didn't finish it.

Some of the ex-friend's neighbors (the US and our coilition) sees the event and calls the police (the UN in the analogy). After the police refuse to do anything, what are the neighbors to do?

Still, if he wanted to write a better analogy, the ex-friend would be the one who killed the children.

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by OPM

escholz et al,

I think you misunderstood the second analogy. The person kicking the door down would be S. Hussien but Ancalagon the Black didn't finish it.

Some of the ex-friend's neighbors (the US and our coilition) sees the event and calls the police (the UN in the analogy). After the police refuse to do anything, what are the neighbors to do?

Still, if he wanted to write a better analogy, the ex-friend would be the one who killed the children.

That sounds about right. :thumbsup:

[Ancalagon the Black]

Hi, Art! Good to hear from you, and thank you for the (speaking unsarcastically) considered, well-reasoned post.

The first post offered a ridiculous situation that sought to evoke amusement by serving up an image of beating up a stupid, clueless, blindly idealistic moron. Well, that's great, but it appeals (for humor, I know, I know) pretty viscerally to a whole bunch of qualities that we don't normally perceive as desirable--namely, mindless aggression and flat-out exasperation with an entire segment of the American population. In return, I posted something equally silly: an analogy that is by no means robust enough to stand up to thoughtful argument, but is a similarly unthinking gut reaction that much of the left actually has toward the war.

Several posts here are just name-calling and wholesale condemnation of a geographical region, which is just a bit ludicrous. A little more thinking and a little less feeling, please.

Art, i believe that you're a marvelous spokesman for a consistent and clear conservative point of view. Bush and certain members of the right should never have tried to portray this as a humanitarian war; furthermore, they made a big mistake in trying to associate bin Laden with Saddam or insisting that Saddam has nuclear weapons. (He may or may not.) The reasons you give are far more defensible.

I do believe that it's appropriate and fruitful to consider whether Bush's means are the most effective ways to deliver a more secure America. And i certainly don't think that the matter is closed to debate.

Catullus--i'm glad you support your government. And i appreciate your willingness to react with thought and consideration. Keep in mind that you are in a minority in your own country. The Howard government--and the Liberal party in general--is in a state of chaos right now, and Labor (hey, why do you guys drop the "u" from the party when you use it in common writing?) is salivating. Howard has admitted that he has no intention of listening to public opinion on this one, which infuriates many of your compatriots. I've spent eight months of the last year in Australia, and Australians seem pretty unhappy with their leadership right about now.

Also, Art has done a good job refuting many of the points you bring up. This war is not being fought for humanitarian purposes, and we shouldn't dress it up that way. It's too easy to shoot down such claims. (By the way, nowhere did i mention that the US is going to inflict anywhere near as many casualties on Iraqis--Kurds included--as Saddam has). But a historical and current examination of US motivations and actions points clearly to different reasons for the war--reasons which Art has already outlined.

[Catullus]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Catullus--i'm glad you support your government. And i appreciate your willingness to react with thought and consideration. Keep in mind that you are in a minority in your own country. The Howard government--and the Liberal party in general--is in a state of chaos right now, and Labor (hey, why do you guys drop the "u" from the party when you use it in common writing?) is salivating. Howard has admitted that he has no intention of listening to public opinion on this one, which infuriates many of your compatriots. I've spent eight months of the last year in Australia, and Australians seem pretty unhappy with their leadership right about now.

Also, Art has done a good job refuting many of the points you bring up. This war is not being fought for humanitarian purposes, and we shouldn't dress it up that way. It's too easy to shoot down such claims. (By the way, nowhere did i mention that the US is going to inflict anywhere near as many casualties on Iraqis--Kurds included--as Saddam has). But a historical and current examination of US motivations and actions points clearly to different reasons for the war--reasons which Art has already outlined. [/b]

Ancalagon, I think that one of us may have misunderstood the other. I certainly don't believe that the motivation behind this war is a humanitarian one - if America went around deposing dictators for that reason, then there wouldn't be any left, and we'd all be standing with our hands joined around the Great Big Democracy Christmas Tree :high: . Personally, I believe that the main motivations are a general American desire to limit the potential for accidental (in all likelihood, in this case - Saddam is a secular Ba'athist, and, as such, both a foe and target of fundamentalist terrorist actors) leakage of WMD material to terrorists, and a desire on the part of the "neo-conservative" (I suspect a misnomer, but that's another argument) moralists within the Republican foreign policy community, centred around figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, to attempt to remake the region in America's image - but again, that's an argument for another time.

I took your post as encapsulating the main argument which is being run against the war over here, which is the moral case: essentially, that war is wrong generally, and this war specifically. I was not attempting to address American motivations in response, but to argue that the morality of the situation lies on the side of military action. If I misunderstood the purpose of your post, I apologise .

I was well aware that my views lay in the minority in Australia, but things have changed since the war actually began - as has happened to a lesser extent in Britain, opposition to the war is being met by a feeling of support for the troops. And my feelings about Howard are mixed, in the extreme. On the one hand, he believes that he's doing the right thing, and, like Blair in Britain, is prepared to wear a high political price to do it. On the other hand, this is only the third time I can think of when he's made a stand on an unpopular issue - he's shown a fair tendency to play to the polls in government.

On the third hand, the Labor Party is in such disarray here, riven between the almost entirely contradictory views of its two main support groups (tertiary-educated professionals and blue-collar unionists) that he could probably invade New Zealand (a funny little island next door to us, for those not in the know) and establish a cult of Himself there and still not have to stress too much :laugh: .

[NavyDave]

I like the way the huge guy in Chicago dealt with them when they were blocking the road.

Got out of his car and commenced to whalin on a dozen of them mind you that the guy could be a bouncer or "Customer Service" on the Sopranos.

I'd probably keep moving forward toward the crowd in the Navigator blasting either some old Marilyn Manson, Onyx or other That N**** is Crazy music