Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

You go, guy!

At least the demonstrations are having the hopefully beneficial effect of letting us know who the fifth columnists are in our midst, so they can be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

Or a political party with some support in the community, depending whether or not this war will be blessed by the UN. Only 6% opf Australians support attacking Iraq without UN approval, yet it is the federal government's policy. On the other hand if the attack on Iraq was blessed by the UN just over 60% of the public would support it. Australians even those of a conservative nature have more faith in international institutions like the UN and ICC than Americians do, Most people who support the Republican party think these institutions are either not in USA's best interests or working (or plotting) aganist the USA.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

Or a political party with some support in the community, depending whether or not this war will be blessed by the UN. Only 6% opf Australians support attacking Iraq without UN approval, yet it is the federal government's policy. On the other hand if the attack on Iraq was blessed by the UN just over 60% of the public would support it. Australians even those of a conservative nature have more faith in international institutions like the UN and ICC than Americians do, Most people who support the Republican party think these institutions are either not in USA's best interests or working (or plotting) aganist the USA.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

I can't accept the fact that 30% of the Australian public who under any means do not want US and/or Australia attacking Iraq are Trotskyite Marxists.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

I can't accept the fact that 30% of the Australian public who under any means do not want US and/or Australia attacking Iraq are Trotskyite Marxists.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Most people who support the Republican party think these institutions are either not in USA's best interests or working (or plotting) aganist the USA.

Said people remember the virulent anti-Americanism of the UN during the Kurt Waldheim years, and fully realize (and expect) that it can and will happen again, with the ICC quite possibly being staffed with such 'disinterested' parties as the North Koreans, Cubans or Libyans. Not to mention the Iraqis or Iranians. While those who would wish to come to our defense are shut out as 'lap-dogs of American Imperialist Aggression'.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Most people who support the Republican party think these institutions are either not in USA's best interests or working (or plotting) aganist the USA.

Said people remember the virulent anti-Americanism of the UN during the Kurt Waldheim years, and fully realize (and expect) that it can and will happen again, with the ICC quite possibly being staffed with such 'disinterested' parties as the North Koreans, Cubans or Libyans. Not to mention the Iraqis or Iranians. While those who would wish to come to our defense are shut out as 'lap-dogs of American Imperialist Aggression'.

At least the demonstrations are having the hopefully beneficial effect of letting us know who the fifth columnists are in our midst, so they can be dealt with.

At least comments like this let us know who the fascists are in our midst, so that we can defend ourselves against their attempts to "deal with" the nation's "undesirables."

At least the demonstrations are having the hopefully beneficial effect of letting us know who the fifth columnists are in our midst, so they can be dealt with.

At least comments like this let us know who the fascists are in our midst, so that we can defend ourselves against their attempts to "deal with" the nation's "undesirables."

Moan and whine about the fact that the antiwar movement includes a smattering of extremist leftists all you like. The fact remains that only in their wildest wet dreams do the WWPers have adherents in numbers such as showed up to protest today. And they know it, even if you don't seem to.

They may be helping organize the effort, but those participating are a much broader spectrum of the public. That is a fact you cannot ignore, and in fact you're not ignoring it: you're trying to defuse it by labelling 'em all as Maoists. But all you're doing is making yourselves look hopelessly paranoid.

Moan and whine about the fact that the antiwar movement includes a smattering of extremist leftists all you like. The fact remains that only in their wildest wet dreams do the WWPers have adherents in numbers such as showed up to protest today. And they know it, even if you don't seem to.

They may be helping organize the effort, but those participating are a much broader spectrum of the public. That is a fact you cannot ignore, and in fact you're not ignoring it: you're trying to defuse it by labelling 'em all as Maoists. But all you're doing is making yourselves look hopelessly paranoid.

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to.... talking down to me is not neccessary..... I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

you've not used the internet much, have you?

Originally Posted by Suz X

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source

awwwww....


TK

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to.... talking down to me is not neccessary..... I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

you've not used the internet much, have you?

Originally Posted by Suz X

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source

awwwww....


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

Clearly, the Democrats don't think so. Their frontrunner, Joe Lieberman, is indistinguishable from Bush on the war.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

Clearly, the Democrats don't think so. Their frontrunner, Joe Lieberman, is indistinguishable from Bush on the war.

A bit of an overstatement, Dominic, but close enough to true that Lieberman won't remain the front-runner for long.

A bit of an overstatement, Dominic, but close enough to true that Lieberman won't remain the front-runner for long.

[quote="TrollKing"]

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to.... talking down to me is not neccessary..... I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

you've not used the internet much, have you?

Originally Posted by Suz X

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source

I did get the impression that Eli sounded a little condescending in his reply to Suz X, but that should not be surprising on a site like this. Troll King has a point. If one is used to internet discussion, then it follows one is also used to their views being picked apart and even outright flaming (you don't have to like it, though).

Suz X, don't be afraid to keep posting. Do what my mother used to tell me to do when I was afraid of what other people would think--imagine they're all a bunch of cabbageheads.

[quote="TrollKing"]

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to.... talking down to me is not neccessary..... I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

you've not used the internet much, have you?

Originally Posted by Suz X

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source

I did get the impression that Eli sounded a little condescending in his reply to Suz X, but that should not be surprising on a site like this. Troll King has a point. If one is used to internet discussion, then it follows one is also used to their views being picked apart and even outright flaming (you don't have to like it, though).

Suz X, don't be afraid to keep posting. Do what my mother used to tell me to do when I was afraid of what other people would think--imagine they're all a bunch of cabbageheads.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

I looked into this question when I was trying to decide what I think about this whole war business.

I was pretty satisfied that the supporters of the mass protests yesterday come from quite a number of different groups that tend to disagree about everything under the sun except the possible war with Iraq. I do not doubt that the workers of the world were there, but so were people from Pax Christi (did I spell that right?), the Green Party, labor unions and other organizations formed for the express purpose of opposing this particular war. The whole thing looked a bit like Seattle in 1999.

I am not sure what I think is best with this war. I have a lot of reservations about it: concerns about destabilization of the middle-east, what we are getting ourselves into if we pre-emptively strike and then get stuck with occupation duty, the cost in both lives and material, how it will effect the economy. At the same time, I have no love at all for Saddam and I do think the mid-east would be better off without him.

I did not feel comfortable going out to join the protest at the Truman gate to the air base here, however, because although I have reservations about this war at this time, I do not agree with the overall anti-military tone of the protests as I hear them. I think that de-militarizing is exactly the wrong signal to send at this point when it is US military power that we are depending on to keep what Thomas Friedman calls the "Superempowered Angry Men" in check.

However, I strongly disagree with Dominic's opinion that the protestors are anti-American. They are not that at all. In fact, they, those of us in the middle and those who are promoting this war are all acting out of interest in their best vision of America. It is most American to want this country to live up to its ideals.
Tanks running over protesters is not an American ideal!

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

I looked into this question when I was trying to decide what I think about this whole war business.

I was pretty satisfied that the supporters of the mass protests yesterday come from quite a number of different groups that tend to disagree about everything under the sun except the possible war with Iraq. I do not doubt that the workers of the world were there, but so were people from Pax Christi (did I spell that right?), the Green Party, labor unions and other organizations formed for the express purpose of opposing this particular war. The whole thing looked a bit like Seattle in 1999.

I am not sure what I think is best with this war. I have a lot of reservations about it: concerns about destabilization of the middle-east, what we are getting ourselves into if we pre-emptively strike and then get stuck with occupation duty, the cost in both lives and material, how it will effect the economy. At the same time, I have no love at all for Saddam and I do think the mid-east would be better off without him.

I did not feel comfortable going out to join the protest at the Truman gate to the air base here, however, because although I have reservations about this war at this time, I do not agree with the overall anti-military tone of the protests as I hear them. I think that de-militarizing is exactly the wrong signal to send at this point when it is US military power that we are depending on to keep what Thomas Friedman calls the "Superempowered Angry Men" in check.

However, I strongly disagree with Dominic's opinion that the protestors are anti-American. They are not that at all. In fact, they, those of us in the middle and those who are promoting this war are all acting out of interest in their best vision of America. It is most American to want this country to live up to its ideals.
Tanks running over protesters is not an American ideal!

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Originally Posted by In November, Marc Lamb

From the Alexa web traffic report:

[img]http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=1y&u=fourthturning.com/forums/search.php?show_results=topics&search_author=*&sor t_by=0&sort_dir=DESC&search_time=2&u=[/img]
3 mos. Avg. 635,117
3 mos. Trend 283,025 (down)

I recall the days when 30-40 people were surfing this site, at any given moment. Today there are typically 2-6.

Conclusion: What a boring 4T, huh?

Latest numbers from Alexa:
3 mos. Avg. 112,582
3 mos. Change 296,403 (up)

Hey folks, that's a change of a whopping 253% in upward traffic movement!

Conclusion: What an exciting 3T, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by In November, Marc Lamb

From the Alexa web traffic report:

[img]http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=1y&u=fourthturning.com/forums/search.php?show_results=topics&search_author=*&sor t_by=0&sort_dir=DESC&search_time=2&u=[/img]
3 mos. Avg. 635,117
3 mos. Trend 283,025 (down)

I recall the days when 30-40 people were surfing this site, at any given moment. Today there are typically 2-6.

Conclusion: What a boring 4T, huh?

Latest numbers from Alexa:
3 mos. Avg. 112,582
3 mos. Change 296,403 (up)

Hey folks, that's a change of a whopping 253% in upward traffic movement!

Conclusion: What an exciting 3T, huh? :wink: