An example of an Anti-American protestor
NY Post Link
Now, I will be the first to admit that this guy DOES NOT represent the majority of the views of the war protestors. But, as much as Bush's "war mongering" makes the people who support him seem eager for war to the war protestors, this man's comments, and some support he received during his speech, make the war protestors seem Anti-American to people who support the war. And this guy IS anti-american. I for one think he should be fired. There is a fine line between free speech and free expression of one's views and outrageous, inflamatory comments.
I am not posting this to say that all war protestors are anti-american. I think I need to stress that. But you cannot deny that many are, as this shows.
The fact that the people cheered when he called for an American defeat is disgusting. Whether or not you support the war, if you are an American, then you DO NOT wish defeat upon your country. THAT IS ANTI AMERICAN.
Now, I will be the first to admit that this guy DOES NOT represent the majority of the views of the war protestors. But, as much as Bush's "war mongering" makes the people who support him seem eager for war to the war protestors, this man's comments, and some support he received during his speech, make the war protestors seem Anti-American to people who support the war. And this guy IS anti-american. I for one think he should be fired. There is a fine line between free speech and free expression of one's views and outrageous, inflamatory comments.
I am not posting this to say that all war protestors are anti-american. I think I need to stress that. But you cannot deny that many are, as this shows.
The fact that the people cheered when he called for an American defeat is disgusting. Whether or not you support the war, if you are an American, then you DO NOT wish defeat upon your country. THAT IS ANTI AMERICAN.
Comments
What this does show is that education and intelligence have no bearing on your point of view nor the righteousness of your opinion.
I learned after 9/11 that most of the hijackers had college degrees and came from middle-class income families. It blew away my assumption that education was the key to peace and tolerance. This article furthers my new understanding that income, education, and intelligence don't have the slightest correlation to tolerance, objectivity, or morality.
Amen. A sad but true fact.
2. Some may disagree, but his statements border on treason. They are very, very close. In War, one is not allowed to to provide comfort to the enemy. If he is backing his statements with any action whatsoever...he could be guilty of it.
On the broader issue, I think there are MANY war protesters who have crossed the line. Those who attempt to block military bases really could be tried for treason. One is not allowed to interfere with the military in time of war. Certainly, there are many protesters who are protesting within the bounds of law. I still disagree with them, but that's what great about the country (sorry for the cliche...but it's true
On a personal note, the guy makes me sick. His anti-military comments are the strongest I have heard. People like this guy really do not believe there any threats left in the world and often think we need no military at all. It's a hopeless argument when you engage someone like that. My real problem with campus events like this is that they are all one sided. They are nearly ALL anti-war. Often, the pro-war point of view is completely ignored and openly mocked. It is ironic that many of these discussions take place at "centers of higher knowledge and debate", where the consideration and debate of all positions is supposedly encouraged.
Oh, I forgot, anyone that is academically enlightened must oppose war. That's the message.
Originally posted by pfflam
but, by saying Mogadishu, maybe he is saying that he wants us to kill two thousand for our every one dead?!
but then, that's almost just what's happening...
Originally posted by chweave1
Whether or not you support the war, if you are an American, then you DO NOT wish defeat upon your country. THAT IS ANTI AMERICAN.
I disagree with both of your points. If your country is in the midst of an illegal act (Iran-Contra scandal) you're anti American if you don't wish for the full extent of the law to be used to stop said acts.
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. Some may disagree, but his statements border on treason. They are very, very close. In War, one is not allowed to to provide comfort to the enemy. If he is backing his statements with any action whatsoever...he could be guilty of it.
He can say what he wants and it's not treason unless it essentially directs treasonous acts. You have to commit treason, you can talk about it all you want and you're not actually in the act.
Absolutely true. Given that he is a professor of anthropology at Columbia, I suspect the free world is safe for now.
Originally posted by tonton
Well, if defeat meant pulling out without further casualties, then yeah, that would be a good result. Except that now that we've pissed everyone off, we might as well make sure Saddam is dead first.
I have a legal and moral problem with an entity creating its own mistake, and then profiting from it. It's a bit like the police illegally searching someone, finding something and winning a court case based on what they found in an illegal search.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. He should, in fact, be fired.
2. Some may disagree, but his statements border on treason. They are very, very close. In War, one is not allowed to to provide comfort to the enemy. If he is backing his statements with any action whatsoever...he could be guilty of it.
On the broader issue, I think there are MANY war protesters who have crossed the line. Those who attempt to block military bases really could be tried for treason. One is not allowed to interfere with the military in time of war. Certainly, there are many protesters who are protesting within the bounds of law. I still disagree with them, but that's what great about the country (sorry for the cliche...but it's true
On a personal note, the guy makes me sick. His anti-military comments are the strongest I have heard. People like this guy really do not believe there any threats left in the world and often think we need no military at all. It's a hopeless argument when you engage someone like that. My real problem with campus events like this is that they are all one sided. They are nearly ALL anti-war. Often, the pro-war point of view is completely ignored and openly mocked. It is ironic that many of these discussions take place at "centers of higher knowledge and debate", where the consideration and debate of all positions is supposedly encouraged.
Oh, I forgot, anyone that is academically enlightened must oppose war. That's the message.
Obviously you have forgoten to read the first amendement. You have in the US the right to free speach, even unpopular speach, as long as you do not directly threaten individuals with harm. This guy by no means helped Iraq. If anything he got more people angry at the antiwar movement and thus want to fight Iraq even more.
There is no way this proffessor could provide "comfort to the enemy" since there are no actual Iraqi forces in the US. I am completely against this guys comments but to call his actions almost treasonist is laughble. (Just like changing the name of french fries to freedom fries at the US Capital).
Also University's can only achieve an environment of free academic learning if all ideas are allowed to propegate. The political theorist John Mill points out in On Liberty that the only way to come to the truth is to have all ideas presented openly and debated. By having this guy present his crazy ideas they can be disproven and other arguments can be strengthened.
Notice also that the article says:
The 35-year-old professor's mention of the bloody Somali ambush where American soldiers were dragged through the streets was largely met with silence from the stunned crowd of peaceniks.
So most people there did not share the professor's views.
The New York Times article "Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation" provides a much better look at the antiwar movement in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?UR...al/29PROT.html
Here is a way better picture of what the average antiwar protester looks like:
Originally posted by chweave1
Now, I will be the first to admit that this guy DOES NOT represent the majority of the views of the war protestors.
I've talked to a lot of war protestors who felt that way, on campus at least. Professors AND students. For MONTHS now. And after 9/11, with Afghanistan. He may not be the "mainstream" holdover hippie type or trustfund baby, but he represents a good number.
Scary? You bet.
Originally posted by mrmister
Given that he is a professor of anthropology at Columbia, I suspect the free world is safe for now.
Thank Allah that he isn't a chemistry prof. Or a nuclear physicist. I know some of those, too.
The troops are not there on their own volition...thy are there under orders. Even if those orders are illegal, (and there are many in legal circles who reckon so) the troops are not international/constitutional lawyers and are there under the order of the commander in chief, period. Anti-war sentiments must be aimed it those responsible for starting the war, and never the guys who have to go through hell on earth as a result.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The troops are not there on their own volition...thy are there under orders. Even if those orders are illegal, (and there are many in legal circles who reckon so) the troops are not international/constitutional lawyers and are there under the order of the commander in chief, period. Anti-war sentiments must be aimed it those responsible for starting the war, and never the guys who have to go through hell on earth as a result.
So the troops are unwitting dupes? That's really supportive. The whole "it was an order" thing went out with the Nuremburg trials.
Or maybe the troops don't know any better? Give me a break.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You're much more likely to find not only so-called "liberals," and anti-war protesters in academia, but also a greater percentage of people in that loose group hold more extreme viewpoints like this. The college and university environment cultivates and gives refuge to people like this, both "conservative" (Ted Kazinsky) and "liberal" (this guy) at the fringes of the political and social spectrum.
Yes, but I've never really come across that many vocal/bigotted conservatives in my years and years in academia. I know they're around, but they're hiding it and they're too busy doing work to try to get ahead to get involved with expressing their incidental political views. They're outnumbered about 10:1. At least.
Originally posted by finboy
I've talked to a lot of war protestors who felt that way, on campus at least.
You're a liar. I gaurantee that you have NOT talked to any that have felt that way!
Originally posted by pfflam
You're a liar. I gaurantee that you have NOT talked to any that have felt that way!
OK, you caught me. Not ALL of them were flaming US-haters, just "a lot" of them were flaming US haters. Far too many. Not just now, but since 9/11. The 'serves us right' bunch scares the hell out of me.
Luckily, we live in a meritocracy where these folks won't be able to achieve much and will remain marginalized throughout their lifetimes ... never mind.
Originally posted by finboy
OK, you caught me. Not ALL of them were flaming US-haters, just "a lot" of them were flaming US haters. Far too many. Not just now, but since 9/11. The 'serves us right' bunch scares the hell out of me.
Luckily, we live in a meritocracy where these folks won't be able to achieve much and will remain marginalized throughout their lifetimes ... never mind.
It wouldn't be a meritocracy if they did their jobs very well but were marginalized because they had some extreme political views.