# March on the Pentagon



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

In a bizzare and surreal turn of events, I found myself in D.C. on Saturday marching on the pentagon to end the war.

I have several activists in the family, and one of them, my nephew, called me up friday night and asked if I wanted to road trip to DC for the protest. I knew there was a pro war group who was going to be there as well, so I decided it would be good to get a perspective from both sides, and I agreed to go along for the ride.

So I arrived in D.C. at approximately 9am on saturday after a night of travel...  There was, of course a huge protest march, and a large group of anti-protest protesters.  I couldn't get close to the latter, as I approched them a D.C. riot cop shoved me away from the line, so I moved on further down.  I approached one of the bikers who were "hired" by the Government to provide security (why they hired a biker gang is beyond me, perhaps that was just propganda by the anti-war protesters, and they weren't hired, or maybe they were...) and said "Hey man, I'm not against the war, can I join you guys?" and was grabbed from behind by another Riot cop, shoved into a group of protesters walking down the street twords the Anti-war protest and told if I stopped Marching I would be arrested.  So I followed the general ebb and flow down to the anti-war march, while being called a coward and a homosexual by the People lined up against the protest, to where socialists of all kinds were selling (?) socialist newspapers for a dollar, and hawkers sold everything from anit-war buttons to signs denouncing bush.  Someone noticed my lack of Propaganda and offered me a free button.  Speeches were made, and a march ensued on the pentagon.  I wandered along with the crowd taking pictures of protesters and riot cops... It was a very surreal experience... and in the process discovered somthing odd about the licence plates on the cars in D.C.:

Did you know thier tagline is "Taxation without Representation"?

Absence of the word "No".  Just "Taxation without Representation"

Somthing to think about.

I did learn quite a bit from the experience... about both sides of the argument, just as I had hoped for. While I was disturbed by the amount of socialist propaganda going around, and I did grab a couple of socialist newsletters to read. Interesting, if, in my opinion, slightly misguided political ideas.  I met some oldskool Yippies, some who claimed to have been present when they levitated the pentagon, and who claimed to be friends with Abbey Hoffman.  I would reccomend the experience to anyone who's ideas are set in stone, on either side, as well as to anyone who is on the fence... 

I'm resizing and uploading photos now, when the are done I will post a few.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 18, 2007)

_and in the process discovered somthing odd about the licence plates on the cars in D.C.:

Did you know thier tagline is "Taxation without Representation"?

Absence of the word "No". Just "Taxation without Representation"

Somthing to think about.
_

That's a complaint of the citizens of D.C.  They pay federal taxes but do not have representation in the federal government, hence the statement "Taxation Without Representation" is accurate and is a rueful protest comment on D.C license plates


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

Here are some Photos from the March


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

And just a couple more


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Mar 18, 2007)

That is one of the beauties of this country.  So many different ideologies marching, everyone got heard and no one got hurt.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> That's a complaint of the citizens of D.C.  They pay federal taxes but do not have representation in the federal government, hence the statement "Taxation Without Representation" is accurate and is a rueful protest comment on D.C license plates



I see... it struck us as very odd.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Mar 18, 2007)

Now I have to say anyone who considers G.W. Bush to be worse than Mao or Stalin does not have a very good grasp on reality.  Or is seriously lacking in their education.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

Looks like most of them were protesting barber shops and razors.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 18, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Now I have to say anyone who considers G.W. Bush to be worse than Mao or Stalin does not have a very good grasp on reality.  Or is seriously lacking in their education.



I agree.

I also found the wide variety of issues represented to be interesting.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Now I have to say anyone who considers G.W. Bush to be worse than Mao or Stalin does not have a very good grasp on reality.  Or is seriously lacking in their education.



There were some very Strange cats there... but on the flipside there were some fairly well educated, well informed and generally realistic people there as well.

Blotan, the same can be said on both sides... you should see the bikers who were there to "Stop" the protest.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> There were some very Strange cats there... but on the flipside there were some fairly well educated, well informed and generally realistic people there as well.


 
Thank you. 

I was going to point out that the images you post are a 'self-selected sample' of images. I would imagine that a wide spectrum of people would attend such a protest. You, like the rest of us, would probably take pictures of those things that interested you. Often times, it is the fringes that are most interesting.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Thank you.
> You, like the rest of us, would probably take pictures of those things that interested you. Often times, it is the fringes that are most interesting.



This is quite true... I took some pics of the general masses as well, but did not post them, as they were not the most interesting pics in the group.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 18, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Now I have to say anyone who considers G.W. Bush to be worse than Mao or Stalin does not have a very good grasp on reality. Or is seriously lacking in their education.


 
So very true - there's no way of comparing the murderers of tens of millions to ANY American leader, past or present. That being said, I do consider Bush to be one worst presidents in a long time (he's tied, IMO, with LBJ).

One thing that always annoys me about the far left is to see Che Guevara photos, t-shirts stickers etc. Guevara was a ruthless killer and proponent of a totalitarian system, Communism, that has killed far more folks in the past century than any other ideology and thus he is no role model, IMO, for anyone.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> One thing that always annoys me about the far left is to see Che Guevara photos, t-shirts stickers etc.



There was a LOT, a LOT of socialist party stuff going around, and many of the Che Guevara posters you see were being distrbuted by the same guys handing out copys of the "Revolution" newsletter, which is a socialist publication.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 18, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> There was a LOT, a LOT of socialist party stuff going around, and many of the Che Guevara posters you see were being distrbuted by the same guys handing out copys of the "Revolution" newsletter, which is a socialist publication.


 
That's a major reason why, although I have been opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, I avoid such demonstrations and limit my activism to writing letters to my elected representatives and supporting sites that carry a message against this war. I do NOT want to be aligned with the far left anymore than I would wish to be aligned with the far right.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2007)

Sorry, My mistake Voice of Revolution was the Marxist paper i got.​


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 19, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> there's no way of comparing the murderers of tens of millions to ANY American leader, past or present.


That is absolutely true! Sometimes I believe present day citizens of most countries do not study their history enough to have anything valid to say about wars, politics, or international affairs. We all know there is corruption in the leadership of most any country, and in both major parties of American politics, but it is wise, in these troubled times, to not lose sight of who really are the good guys and the bad guys, and realize that we are not going to win against terrorists, or survive against a "jihad," without getting our hands dirty.



Jonathan Randall said:


> That being said, I do consider Bush to be one worst presidents in a long time (he's tied, IMO, with LBJ).


 
Well, I personally disagree with this.  While I do not agree with everything President Bush has said or done, nor the way he presents himself when speaking, I believe he is doing what is best for America, and for other nations who believe in democracy in the long run.  Wars are not pretty, nor desirable by decent people.  However, to avoid war when pursuing a just cause in the over-view is foolish, and futile.

Consider General George Washington, who led a rebellion against a legal authority. He made many mistakes as a military leader, but his fortitude, and stubbornness kept him going until victory made him a hero and our first President. Abraham Lincoln (#16) sent union soldiers to kill fellow Americans in order to squash a rebellion in the southern United States. One of the main issues contested - - slavery. Not weapons of mass destruction, nor mass murder of an entire race, but owning people for slave labor. An unpopular decision, but Honest Abe stuck to his guns on the issue.

And let us not forget the tough decision that Harry S. Truman (#33) had to make when he authorized to dropping of two bombs on Japanese cities that killed millions of people, and animals. All this to end a war that we did not want to be in, in the first place. What would have happened if the U.S. did not join the Allied forces to stop Hitler. France refused to help their neighboring countries when Hitler invaded in the 1930s. Then Hitler proceeded to invade France.

If Hitler had his way, Americans would all be speaking German today. If the Japanese had their way, Americans would all be speaking Japanese by now. If Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and these insurgents in Iraq had their way all Americans would be dead. They don't care if we leave Iraq or not, they still want us all dead, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that.

These rallies are good, if nothing more than to prove we are a true democracy. You couldn't have gone to this protest in many other countries without a high risk of being killed (typically by government officials).

Cheers to America for not being like those other countries.

Cheers to President Bush for not being a wimp. 
(Inarticulate goof-ball, maybe - - but not a wimp!)  

Last Fearner


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

Lots of potentially volatile material here, most of which I'm going to stay well away from as I'm already 'wound up' with some work related stress right now.

However, quick question, I've heard several mentions of Communist/Socialist groups being active and propogandising around such issues as the one this thread is about.  At the risk of being off-topic, can someone explain to a far away Englishmen what these groups think they're going to achieve?  I don't know if they've noticed but every major player on the world stage that has tried Communism either has abandoned it or is in the process of abandoning it.  I hardly think that the major protagonist of Communist regimes is going to change it's economic system because a few 'socialist' newspapers get shoved in peoples faces.

One other aside, you chaps do realise that your major ally (i.e. us ) technically has a 'socialist' government?  I think perhaps we're using the same word to mean different things and would welcome any light that can be shed into this corner :tup:>


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> At the risk of being off-topic, can someone explain to a far away Englishmen what these groups think they're going to achieve?



Permanent, worldwide revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a beautiful, neverending era in a worker's paradise.

Things are not going according to plan.



Sukerkin said:


> I don't know if they've noticed but every major player on the world stage that has tried Communism either has abandoned it or is in the process of abandoning it.



Ask most Marxists about this, and they will tell you that the countries in question didn't implement "real" Marxism.  They have a point, in that a corrupt oligarchy wasn't in Marx's game plan.  However, they don't seem to realize the massive problems inherent in achieving a "real" communist system without getting the above oligarchy or similar problems.  Anarchists are even worse in this regard.  Just because it worked in small communes for a few years, or in the countryside during the Spanish Civil War, doesn't mean it will work in all places for all time.



Sukerkin said:


> I hardly think that the major protagonist of Communist regimes is going to change it's economic system because a few 'socialist' newspapers get shoved in peoples faces.



Same for any activist groups, really.  Do you think the world will stop eating meat because PeTA parades around naked models?  Not likely.  



Sukerkin said:


> One other aside, you chaps do realise that your major ally (i.e. us ) technically has a 'socialist' government?  I think perhaps we're using the same word to mean different things and would welcome any light that can be shed into this corner :tup:>



This is a truth best ignored, everyone knows those Brits and Continentals are a bit off.  :flame:


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

ROFL

Cheers for that *EH*, I needed a grin after a long hard day at the capitalist grindstone .

My first degree is in Economics, so I'm fairly up to speed on how the different socio-economic systems are grounded.  My question was really rather more weighted towards the 'why' such activist groups persist in pursuing a lost cause, when all they really achieve is to undermine the credability of any other 'cause' they latch themselves on to?

Definitely new thread material I think before we get taken outside and given a right good moderating .  Unless of course the thread-meisters feel that this is close enough to topic to remain?


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2007)

Just remember one thing, guys: every communist puppet state set up in Europe following WWII wiped out the local socialists _before anyone else._ And the stalinists made common cause with the facist Phalange in Spain during the Civil War to destroy the anarcho-syndicalists at Barcelona. For that matter, the first _non_-absolutist/despotic regime in Russia in several hundred years, following the overthrow of the Czar, were the social-democratic Mensheviks, and guess what happened to them when the Bolsheviks became the _next_ absolutist/despotic regime? Karensky fled to the West one step ahead of the OGPU, and... well, the rest is history, as they say.

With a record like that, it's a baaaad idea to equate communist/Stalinist regimes with socialist movements. What usually happens is that the former wind killing off the members of the latter. On the other hand, in the rare instances in which socialist regimes come to power, communist parties typically thrive....


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> My first degree is in Economics, so I'm fairly up to speed on how the different socio-economic systems are grounded.



Sorry! 



Sukerkin said:


> My question was really rather more weighted towards the 'why' such activist groups persist in pursuing a lost cause, when all they really achieve is to undermine the credability of any other 'cause' they latch themselves on to?



I don't know for sure, but I would bet the explanation is highly psychological and is found in certain types of people.  For instance, I feel passionately about a few things, but I would never join an activist group or go to a march - just isn't how I roll.  On the other hand, I think most of us can think of the "joiner activist" type we have met from time to time.  It doesn't even have to be political - most of us have probably met the slightly unhinged person that has to organize and do everything at work, or at church, etc.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> On the other hand, I think most of us can think of the "joiner activist" type we have met from time to time.  It doesn't even have to be political - most of us have probably met the slightly unhinged person that has to organize and do everything at work, or at church, etc.



I'd agree with that, and also add that it seemed a lot of them were there less for the issue and for the march, but to pass out their goods and spread _their_ word... they just latched onto the closest minded group there, so they could pass out flyers and newspapers.


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 19, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> that we are not going to win against terrorists, or survive against a "jihad," without getting our hands dirty.



i'm not clear as to what you mean by dirty hands-- torture? but if you mean people will die in a war-- that' not getting one's hands dirty. we don't train our soldiers to be dirty. we train them to fight, kill and capture the enemy. nothing dirty about that (unless you're a pacifist, then it's all dirty i guess.)





> Well, I personally disagree with this.  While I do not agree with everything President Bush has said or done, nor the way he presents himself when speaking, I believe he is doing what is best for America, and for other nations who believe in democracy in the long run.  Wars are not pretty, nor desirable by decent people.  However, to avoid war when pursuing a just cause in the over-view is foolish, and futile.



what again was the just cause in the case of Iraq? or for that matter in Grenada or Panama?

and why isn't this democracy building not being applied to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Qatar, Egypt, Morroco, etc? and why is Blair having tea with Gaddafi these days?



> Consider General George Washington, who led a rebellion against a legal authority. He made many mistakes as a military leader, but his fortitude, and stubbornness kept him going until victory made him a hero and our first President. Abraham Lincoln (#16) sent union soldiers to kill fellow Americans in order to squash a rebellion in the southern United States. One of the main issues contested - - slavery. Not weapons of mass destruction, nor mass murder of an entire race, but owning people for slave labor. An unpopular decision, but Honest Abe stuck to his guns on the issue.



isn't it always ironic that Washington is the guy that the insurgents and alqeada leaders compare themselves too.  (Mao, Ho Chi Mihn as well)-- and think about what you wrote "against a legal authority"?  

but this is apples and oranges anyway-- at the time of the invasion, Saddam was saying  he had no probs with us and wanted to kill alqaeda too. Not one iraqi leader or spokesperson was advocating an attack on the US (israel, eh, that's another story.)




> And let us not forget the tough decision that Harry S. Truman (#33) had to make when he authorized to dropping of two bombs on Japanese cities that killed millions of people, and animals. All this to end a war that we did not want to be in, in the first place. What would have happened if the U.S. did not join the Allied forces to stop Hitler. France refused to help their neighboring countries when Hitler invaded in the 1930s. Then Hitler proceeded to invade France.



what does that have to do with iraq?-- as ludicrous as it is to compare bush to hitler-- it's silly to compare WW2 and Nazi Germany to the fight against alqaeda and the iraq war. and btw what neighboring nations did France refuse to help? Austria?  Spain was neutral... that leaves... who?

for some one advocating a lesson in history...



> If Hitler had his way, Americans would all be speaking German today. If the Japanese had their way, Americans would all be speaking Japanese by now. If Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and these insurgents in Iraq had their way all Americans would be dead. They don't care if we leave Iraq or not, they still want us all dead, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that.



again-- you have no idea what you're speaking about --Hitler didn't want US speaking german (he held out for awhile on the promise that the US would  stay out of the war and later work with him)-- Japan's Military Junta merely wanted control of China--- after the US/England/Dutch cut off steel shipments that fueled their war machine-- they attacked Pearl Harbor thinking it would cause the US to negotiate a deal... big mistake. In any case- they had no plans on ruling the USA.

the Taliban and Saddam weren't interested in killing Americans-- they were happy in their little nests-- BUT Osama wanted to kill westerners to drive them from the holy lands-- after that, he promised that all hostilities would end. not saying he can be trusted but his stated goal was not world domination.



> These rallies are good, if nothing more than to prove we are a true democracy. You couldn't have gone to this protest in many other countries without a high risk of being killed (typically by government officials).



--- but that's recent history- go back to the 60s and before-- we were a democracy that shooting protesters wasn't out of line-- or beating and waterhosing them.



> > Cheers to President Bush for not being a wimp.
> > (Inarticulate goof-ball, maybe - - but not a wimp!)
> >
> > Last Fearner
> ...


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 20, 2007)

jazkilojok,

You  raised some interesting points and asked clarification on valid  issues  from what I had said.  I was all set to share with you  what I meant by each  item, and why these are my own personal beliefs,  but then I read this:



jazkiljok said:


> for  some one advocating a lesson in history...
> 
> again--  you have no idea what you're speaking about --


 
I  find this comment and type of debate rude and very disrespectful,  thus I  have no intention of addressing your post further.  This  is why I usually do not  post in the political threads of MT, because  people have starkly divided, and  very strongly held views about  politics and the war in Iraq.  This is fine,  except that I do  not participate in conversations that do not respect the  opinions  and viewpoints of others, as much as they may differ from yours.

I  am 47 years old.  I grew up during the Vietnam war.  I have studied  history, warfare, and I do know what I am speaking about, so your  comment is not  only rude, but incorrect.  I can determine when  someone is "anti-Bush" and  that's fine.  A comment was made that  he is one of the worst Presidents in  history, and I don't agree.   I believe the war in Iraq was justified, and  necessary, and I  wouldn't mind discussing the details of those issues, but not  in  a disrespectful manner.  I am a Martial Artist, and I come to Martial  Talk to  discuss with Martial Artists who debate with respectful  discourse.

jazkilojok, I see you have been a  member here at MT for longer than I have,  and that you spend a  greater percentage posting in the political threads.  Thus  I  shall leave these debates to you and yours.

May the wars be shorter, and the peace be longer for neither lasts forever! :asian: 

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 20, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> jazkilojok,
> 
> You  raised some interesting points and asked clarification on valid  issues  from what I had said.  I was all set to share with you  what I meant by each  item, and why these are my own personal beliefs,  but then I read this:
> 
> ...



you are right, i was rude. for that i apologize. and yes, i do find these discussions drawing more comment and observation from me of late-- not that i don't enjoy reading many of the posts in the MA side but with so many martial artists sharing similar opinions; i always find myself echoing an already stated viewpoint or see that others have better information. But don't think i'm not an avid reader of martial art discussions--- especially in arts i'm not familiar with-- many smart and talented martial artists post on these forums.

i hope you forgive the unintended tone of my comments-- my distaste for Bush who i consider inept and ineffectual got the better of me there.



> May the wars be shorter, and the peace be longer for neither lasts forever! :asian:



:asian:


----------



## Ray (Mar 20, 2007)

I just think it's nice that grandparents {who grew up in the Viet Nam era} can spend time walking {to the pentagon} with their grandchildren.


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 20, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Did you know thier tagline is "Taxation without Representation"?
> 
> Absence of the word "No". Just "Taxation without Representation"


 
You were definitely in D.C. then.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 20, 2007)

I had heard that counter-protestors actually outnumbered war protestors. Would you consider that statement to be accurate?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I had heard that counter-protestors actually outnumbered war protestors. Would you consider that statement to be accurate?



No.  They had a LARGE group, but from what I saw, it was not larger.  But then again, I cannot be sure... as I said, when I approached them and asked to join their side of the rally, I was snatched up by the cops and told to move along.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 20, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> That is absolutely true! Sometimes I believe present day citizens of most countries do not study their history enough to have anything valid to say about wars, politics, or international affairs. We all know there is corruption in the leadership of most any country, and in both major parties of American politics, but it is wise, in these troubled times, to not lose sight of who really are the good guys and the bad guys, and realize that we are not going to win against terrorists, or survive against a "jihad," without getting our hands dirty.


Yes. Have those pesky proponents of the constituion learned nothing from our glorious campaign against the Indians?


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 21, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> you are right, i was rude. for that i apologize.
> 
> i hope you forgive the unintended tone of my comments--
> 
> :asian:


 
Absolutely. Apology accepted. Thank You. :asian:

CM Eisenhart


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 21, 2007)

OT (again ) but the exchange of views ending with *LF*'s last post is one reason why I love coming here to *MT*.

One member was brusquer than he intended, apologised for it and the gracious acceptence puts an end to it.

Excellent :applause: and deep :rei: to you both.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 25, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96usnj2BW20&mode=related&search=


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2007)

*Blotan*, I know that it is possible to say 'what other source have we got!?' but taking any news story as representing anything like reality these days is a leap of faith.

I'm not looking to get into an argument about the whole emotive, economic, 'back story' to the conflcit and it is obviously going to be true that anyone stuck in the firing line is not going to be thrilled at public protest at the reason for their being there.  That's especially true for Americans with the disgraceful treatment of Vietnam veterans weighing on their soldiers minds.

I just wonder if your point would be better made if you supported the link (to an NBC soundbite) with a little clarifying text?  The soldiers comments, I think, are what you intend your point to be i.e. don't criticise your governments decisions because it offends those who are fighting in your name.  

But that should not be a factor when individuals are deciding in their own consciences whether or not they *agree* with what is being done in their name.   You let that go and all the 'alarmist' talk you hear about the illusionality of American Liberty and Civil Rights will come to be reality sooner than you think.

I have no illusions about our 'freedom' over here in England.  We have no constitution to defend and we are subjects rather than citizens.  So we know we have no rights other than those that are allowed us.  You chaps had a chance to have a proper republic with real, monitored, democracy.  From an outsiders perspective, you're letting it slip away from you as you are carried along on a wave of patriotic fervour.

By no means should a citizen of a country supposedly governed under the auspices of the Constitution you have (had?) be content with "My country right or wrong".  It was to escape the trap of thoughts like that that you fought the War of Independence.

I hold up my hands in an "I Know" kind of way because I am English rather than American, so my words probably carry the weight of the photons that bear them.  I guess I'm saying use both you mind and your heart when deciding on things - and if you still think the same way then that's all anyone can ask of you.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 25, 2007)

Point is..I was a soldier too. Unless you were a serviceperson, or have a close relative who is one. SPARE me the "bring our boys home from this unjust war" crap. Listen to their own words. Most of these "peace protesters" are out there to grind their political axes. Concern for "our boys"?....pfffft! At least be honest of your intentions. If I was over there, losing buddies and doing the best I could Id resent every insinuation that my sacrifice was "worthless" or that we were "losing". Our military is not "losing" our politicians maybe, but not our soldiers.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 25, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I did learn quite a bit from the experience... about both sides of the argument, just as I had hoped for. While I was disturbed by the amount of socialist propaganda going around, and I did grab a couple of socialist newsletters to read. Interesting, if, in my opinion, slightly misguided political ideas.  I met some oldskool Yippies, some who claimed to have been present when they levitated the pentagon, and who claimed to be friends with Abbey Hoffman.  I would reccomend the experience to anyone who's ideas are set in stone, on either side, as well as to anyone who is on the fence...



If you were surprised by the Socialist presence at the rally, you should read the book _Unholy Alliance- Radical Islam and the American Left_ by David Horowitz- who is himself one of the founders of the New Left movement in the 60s.

The communist community in America has always been against America using violence, even to defend itself. Horowitz documents how just days, even hours after 9-11 they were gearing up to try to convince the world that American should take no action against those that commited the acts. They oppose the war in Afghanistan, or us doing anything to defend outselves.

But of course, they do not get much popular support if they openly took that path. So they take the popular causes that meet their goals and try to lure folks into supporting them. In the first few protests, the 'peace' groups that organized them allowed folks whose ideology were expressed by banners that read, "We support our troops when they kill their officers." Of course, that was bad press and I am sure that even though the same people are in charge of the the protest you went to, they keep a much blander public face.

Even when they try to oppose the actions in Afghanistan they try to couch it in excuses rather than saying that they oppose any military action. They are not quite honest in that regard. A few air strikes have killed innocents, so they want to get rid of all air strikes and hobble our troops. Or they point to the abuses by some of the Afghan government and try to use that as an excuse to pull out rather than prop up a corrupt regime. But they were against any action at all from the very beggining as detailed by Horowitz- who also links the names of a lot of them with early moves to the more influential movements now.

A lot of people at the rally were probably there just to oppose Iraq, but if you got involved with the upper level organizers you will probably find quite a few who would have let slip that they oppose our actions in Afghanistan, etc if they thought you were one of them.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 25, 2007)




----------



## Marginal (Mar 26, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Point is..I was a soldier too. Unless you were a serviceperson, or have a close relative who is one. SPARE me the "bring our boys home from this unjust war" crap. Listen to their own words. Most of these "peace protesters" are out there to grind their political axes. Concern for "our boys"?....pfffft! At least be honest of your intentions. If I was over there, losing buddies and doing the best I could Id resent every insinuation that my sacrifice was "worthless" or that we were "losing". Our military is not "losing" our politicians maybe, but not our soldiers.


I honestly do not understand the concept of winning or losing in situations which net the US no strategic gain whether the objectives are met or not. 

A bad call's a bad call. Doesn't matter if you call yourself the good guy and frame it against a meaningless conflict in the context of a war against a evil yet nonexistant entity (Islamofacism for example), if you threaten to lose, or twist the desire to redeploy assets into a slap in the face of the troops. Serve your country. Make an actual sacrifice and stand up for the nation's principles, and its security at the very least if you're going to claim you're defending the country. Granted, that does bear the risk of admitting that sometimes soldiers get screwed, but claiming that you either support the wars or else you're taking away from the sacrifices of the troops is no more meaningful humanitarianism than the people wanting the troops out of harm's way in a pointless war.


----------

