My Problem With The Protests

[Thanz]

I find it quite perplexing that you are using North Korea as an example in favour of your arguments for war. Well, I guess it is not an argument for the war, but an argument against those who are against the war. However, my puzzlement remains. The argument you present here:

As to "who are they?" simple, the folks in the streets professing their concern for innocent people. I do not believe them. Plain and simple. Their lack of outrage for bigger atrocities while working up a full head of steam on this one leaves me asking why?

can be easily modified to apply to the Bush administration.

"As to "who are they?" simple, the folks in the Bush administration professing their concern for Saddam and WMD. I do not believe them. Plain and simple. Their lack of outrage for bigger atrocities and threats while working up a full head of steam on this one leaves me asking why? "

Similarly, from your first post (modified by me):

"Where is the outcry from the Bush administration? Where is the military presence? Why is the US not going to North Korea to go to war to stop this mad man? Why do we not demand that something be done about this? And it is not just North Korea. Regimes throughout Africa are so oppressive that their people suffer on an almost daily bases. Where is the outcry from Bush against those governments? Why is the US not doing something about that?"

People in this forum have questioned the efficacy of protest, and whether any amount of protest will do any good. The US, on the other hand, is insisting that it can effect change and doo good in other countries. Why are they ignoring NK? Why go after Saddam, and leave a greater threat alone? The US CAN do something about it, and isn't. That is a far worse misdeed than someone not protesting the same actions, when that protest may have little effect (if any).

 

[shanek]

Shanek: I agree collateral damage is ugly. But in the long-run I think overthrowing Sadam will do Iraq more harm then good.

Did you really mean to say that, or did you mean the other way around?

Don't be an absolutist, sometimes you must commit some evil to promote the greater good.

On that, we agree; my problem is I don't see any "greater good" coming out of this.

 

[RandFan]

I find it quite perplexing that you are using North Korea as an example in favour of your arguments for war. Well, I guess it is not an argument for the war, but an argument against those who are against the war. However, my puzzlement remains. The argument you present here:

Why are you perplexed? It illustrates the hypocrisy so well. I can't imagine why it would be a puzzlement to you. Millions of innocent people are dead and are dying and there is no international furor. Yet when the possibility of a war that could hurt or kill thousands of people (many of who are suffering and dying at this very moment) are put in harms way there is a world wide outcry. It doesn't square IMO. I hope that clears up the confusion.

I understand your point but I think Shanek makes the better argument. Those that are supporting the president make the argument "hey Saddam is hurting people" so what? Well it should be a consideration but it can't be the overriding one or we would have to go elsewhere wouldn't we.

"As to "who are they?" simple, the folks in the Bush administration professing their concern for Saddam and WMD. I do not believe them. Plain and simple. Their lack of outrage for bigger atrocities and threats while working up a full head of steam on this one leaves me asking why? "

Rings flat. Saddam invaded Kuwait and the United States with an international coalition evicted him. His willingness to invade a neighbor and his willingness to engage in a scorched earth policy made Saddam unique. The international community felt that he was a serious threat. His WOMD put him at the forefront for action. The UN passed a resolution and Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. He has yet to live up to either agreements. There are specific reasons why the US is taking up this action at this time.

"Where is the outcry from the Bush administration? Where is the military presence? Why is the US not going to North Korea to go to war to stop this mad man? Why do we not demand that something be done about this? And it is not just North Korea. Regimes throughout Africa are so oppressive that their people suffer on an almost daily bases. Where is the outcry from Bush against those governments? Why is the US not doing something about that?"

We do have plans for dealing with North Korea. Because they have Nuclear weapons or actions will be different.

There are no similar reasons for the protestors. Sorry but the analogy just doesn't work IMO.

People in this forum have questioned the efficacy of protest, and whether any amount of protest will do any good. The US, on the other hand, is insisting that it can effect change and doo good in other countries. Why are they ignoring NK? Why go after Saddam, and leave a greater threat alone? The US CAN do something about it, and isn't. That is a far worse misdeed than someone not protesting the same actions, when that protest may have little effect (if any).

We are not ignoring NK they are not the priority at this time. You can argue that they should be but you can't argue that there will be no action in the near future.

I on the other hand can assure you that there will be no action on the part of the protestors toward those suffering in North Korea.

Furthermore no one has addressed why there was no similar outrage to the US killing innocent people in Kosovo and Bosnia.

 

[dsm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Problem With The Protests

I have a theory that I will give after some responses.

And your theory is?

I'm still leaning toward the news media as being at fault.

 

[Doctor X]

That is what THEY want you to think. . . .

--J. "Clear off! Nothing to see!" D.

 

[Ed]

I think the problem is tthat the left has not given utterance to any outrage regarding NK, at least that I am aware of. Naturally, SA was a major target. Perhaps socialist/stalinist governments are proof against critisism by the left. it sure seems that way.

If you want to commit atrocities, broadly speaking, be either a black african government or have a people's paradise. Wonder why that is.

 

[dsm]

That is what THEY want you to think. . . .

But aren't THEY US? Aren't WE THEM?

Or maybe it's just a matter of perspective...

 

[dsm]

I think the problem is tthat the left has not given utterance to any outrage regarding NK, at least that I am aware of.

Perhaps that's because the right has not voiced any radical policy for dealing with the NK so the left is willing to "wait and see".

Naturally, SA was a major target.

SA?!?

 

[Bjorn]

And it is not just North Korea. Regimes throughout Africa are so oppressive that their people suffer on an almost daily bases. Where is the outcry against those governments? Why are not people doing something about that?

Why, it is simple, because no one cares enough to do something about it. That is a simple fact. When they do care enough they will do something about it.

But Randfan, there are people here crying out against all the things that you mention, and all those you don't, like the treatment of farm animals or the killing of seals or how we get cancer from cellphones and Oswald was not alone.

There is just toooo many causes one could support actively (or protest against), and pure old clever marketing/PR decides what cause gets the coverage. In other words, the anti-war organisators were clever.

Maybe the easy march against a potential war in a far-away country is easier to market (and a lot more fun to participate in) than helping out in a freezing cold shelter for the homeless.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Problem With The Protests

And your theory is?

I'm still leaning toward the news media as being at fault.

All good things come to those who wait.

 

[Smalso]

Bump, because I want to subscribe to this thread so I don't lose track of it.

edit: (This may be another of RandFan's ten-pagers.)

 

[Frank Newgent]

If Bush turned totalitarian dictator and China and the EU planned on overthrowing him,would you back them? Even if there was "collateral damage." I would.

You mean he isn't and they're not?

Will you be going for Ashcroft or Rumsfeld first?

 

[a_unique_person]

I think the problem is tthat the left has not given utterance to any outrage regarding NK, at least that I am aware of. Naturally, SA was a major target. Perhaps socialist/stalinist governments are proof against critisism by the left. it sure seems that way.

If you want to commit atrocities, broadly speaking, be either a black african government or have a people's paradise. Wonder why that is.

maybe because we don't need to. NK seems to be getting plenty of attention from other countries, without any need for urging.

 

[RandFan]

But Randfan, there are people here crying out against all the things that you mention, and all those you don't, like the treatment of farm animals or the killing of seals or how we get cancer from cell phones and Oswald was not alone.

What's that, Oswald was not alone? Get out, where did you here this?

There is just toooo many causes one could support actively (or protest against), and pure old clever marketing/PR decides what cause gets the coverage. In other words, the anti-war organisators were clever.

It's not enough to go to work, be a good citizen and pay your taxes. You must be part of a "cause". I chose "stop women from putting on makeup while driving". We meet once a month in bob's garage, we play pool and drink beer. It's a great cause but I fear we are not making progress. Unless you count the size of our belly’s protruding over our belts.

Hey Jedi, if your interested we are looking for members.

 

[Guest]

I chose "stop women from putting on makeup while driving". We meet once a month in bob's garage, we play pool and drink beer. It's a great cause but I fear we are not making progress.

You have a problem with women farding in their cars?

 

[rikzilla]

I think the problem is tthat the left has not given utterance to any outrage regarding NK, at least that I am aware of. Naturally, SA was a major target. Perhaps socialist/stalinist governments are proof against critisism by the left. it sure seems that way.

If you want to commit atrocities, broadly speaking, be either a black african government or have a people's paradise. Wonder why that is.

Ed,

It's because the leftists are still holding out hope that Kim Jong Il's "obvious" deity will one day be appreciated worldwide.

-zilla

 

[gnome]

Perhaps socialist/stalinist governments are proof against critisism by the left. it sure seems that way.

If you want to commit atrocities, broadly speaking, be either a black african government or have a people's paradise. Wonder why that is.

Rest assured--I will disprove your fear by counterexample.

I am on the left, and I oppose stalinist governments on general principle, and oppose any government that commits atrocities.

I bet lots of liberals will agree with that, do you want us to sound off?