-
Website
http://www.urbanconservative.com/ -
Original page
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/03/18/breaking-news-bay-area-anti-war-protest-planned-in-san-francisco/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
So I searched 'conservative blog' on google, and this was the first search site on the list.
Is this all that happens? You post insulting nonsense that doesn't even pretend to be a cohesive argument? All I see here is that someone knows how to find a news story, associate it with things conservatives find negative (even if their is no evidence to support such an association), and then throw in a few insults.
I mean, both sides have blogs of this low quality, but that this was the first one to come up is just shocking...
Really, what's do damn SHOCKING about this blog. What was so shocking that you added this no-value comment to this blog? What do you expect to be here? A cohesive argument between who? You and me?
I'd take the previous comments with a grain of salt.
It's quite possible that the 'peace activists' aren't aware of the terroristic activity that Hamas and Hezbollah indulge in.
Having lived decades in and near academic enclaves, I know the sort of selective information vacuum that can exist there.
Then again, I just come here for the laughs.
I am glad that my little blog can add so much comedic value to your miserable life.
You want civil discussions? Go to the WSJ. This blog is one man's opinion and other's opinion about my opinion. Deal with it.
- U
Lay off a little bit. Sit back and listen to what some of the more thoughtful people have to say from both sides. Maybe a little bit of good will come out of being silent for awhile.
These protests are a very poor way to spend time, effort and money. The people who agree simply sit back and agree and those who don't agree get angry and much less likely to agree or even listen to what is being said. Maybe if ideas were implemented in a more rational and thoughtful way they might be listened to every once in awhile.
Subcribed to feed and added to blogroll...
And slinging insults doesn't make your voice heard, understand that this is a country of free will and although someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them stupid, or uneducated on the issues.
People can indeed organize for change and express an opinion; woman’s and civil rights were important outcomes no doubt.
The “pro-dimmie” remark here was specific to the subject matter of the post, nothing more or less; anti war protests espousing quasi neo-Marxist elements of the anti-military (anti-American) left.
Finally, the word dimmie (spelt dimmy at dictionary.com) springs to mind when reflecting on the authors comments, "holding anti-Israel banners proudly showing their support for “peaceful” organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah." Now that's dim...
Where did I say that this demonstration was a waste of time and money? Would you have the same opinion if the protest happened on the doorsteps of Planned Parenthood?
Of course we have these rights to protest, assemble, free speech, etc. I am glad that we do and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. But most people forget how these rights came to fruition or how they are protected. You (not you personally, well maybe I don’t know) criticize and spit and the same people who are risking their lives for your right to do so. It’s those men and woman flying the jets and tanks that should be bitching, but they don’t!
-ConservativeUnderFire
Iran is Shi’ite dominated. The Maliki government in Iraq is Shi’ite dominated, thus the close connections between Al Maliki and Iran as witnessed during the congenial meetings recently between Al Maliki and Ahmadinejad of Iran. As Joe Lieberman whispered to McCain this week when McCain failed to understand that Iran was Shi’ite dominated and Al Qaeda is Sunni dominated, there is no love lost between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda.
So who is the US now arming in an effort to bring stability to Iraq? The Sunnis, the party of Al Qaeda. That’s right, we’re arming the guys affiliated with Al Qaeda in an effort to counter the growing influence of Iran in Iraq’s Shi’ite led government. And at a cost of 4000 lives and $12 billion a month, you are paying for the whole sorry thing!
As reported today by Selig S. Harrison, director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy:
“Until now, I was told, Iran has been actively helping the United States to stabilize Iraq during the “surge” by reducing its weapons inputs to Shi’ite militias, including the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who has ordered a cease-fire under Iranian pressure. But the message was clear: Unless Petraeus drastically cuts back the Sunni militias, Tehran will unleash the Shi’ite militias against US forces again and step up help to Maliki’s intelligence service, the Ministry of National Security. The United States has created a rival agency under Sunni control, the National Intelligence Service.
“The tensions building between the Maliki government and the Bush administration over Iran’s role in Iraq were underlined recently when Maliki, with visiting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran at his side, said that Iran “has been very helpful in bringing back security and stability to Iraq.” Two days later, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the retiring deputy commander of US forces in Iraq, criticized Iran for continuing to “train surrogates, fund surrogates, and supply weapons to them.”
“The burgeoning US-sponsored Sunni militias so far number some 90,000 US-equipped fighters who are each paid $300 a month. This is euphemistically called the “Sunni Awakening.” The militias pose a growing challenge to the dominance of Maliki’s predominantly Shi’ite army, with its authorized strength of 186,000. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the key Shi’ite leader backing Maliki, has repeatedly complained that “weapons should be in the hands of the government only, and the government alone should decide who gets them. The alternative will be perpetual civil war.”
“Iran’s former deputy foreign minister, Mahmoud Vaezi, told me that arming the Sunnis “suggests to us that the US is deliberately seeking to keep them strong enough to undermine al-Maliki and contain our influence. It will be impossible for us to cooperate in stabilizing Iraq if this goes on. If you shift power to the Sunnis, then some Shia groups will say, ‘If we can get more power through terrorist tactics, why not?’ ”
“President Bush attempts to justify an indefinite US military occupation of Iraq as a counter to Iranian influence. But the reality is that Iran will have dominant influence in Iraq whether or not a stable government emerges in Baghdad and whether or not US forces remain. History and ethnic arithmetic make this the inescapable legacy of the US invasion.
“Shi’ites make up 62 percent of the Iraq population. Yet for five centuries, the Ottoman and British invaders who preceded Saddam Hussein, using classic divide-and-rule tactics, installed successive Sunni minority governments to contain the Shi’ite majority. By destroying the Sunni-dominated Hussein regime, Bush gave the Iraqi Shi’ites an unprecedented opportunity to rule that they are now determined to exploit.”
So we have switched from our strategy of arming both sides in the Iraq civil war, now we are backing the guys nominally aligned with Al Qaeda so we can counter Iran’s growing influence in Iraq. Despite the wonderful rhetoric from the impotent Bush yesterday, this is what our Iraq strategy has wrought, and what our boys are dying for.
Instead of defending ourselves from Al Qaeda we have painted ourselves into a corner where we need to fund people aligned with Al Qaeda, the guys who attacked us on 9/11, in order to counter the influence of Iran in the region. Any you guys say we’re winning?
Wow, I step away for a few days and come back to see you filled with rage (and thus making less sense).
I respect that we have different views on whether we should be continuing the war efforts, but what concerns me is your frequent habit of reminding people about how much you appreciate the rights we have in this country ... while condemning groups who exercise those freedoms when you disagree with the cause. We can't have these rules and then pick and choose when we apply them. I think protesters on both sides get it wrong, and while I would like for many of them to shut up I also respect the slippery slope that creates.
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."
That's a movie quote from a fictional democratic president. Can you name the movie?
Rage? You call that rage? I only get filled with rage when people call me names on this blog; and when I read quotes from Michael Douglas of all people. Let me leave you with a quote Suburban, which I think is more suitable for this conversaiton.
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? … I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”
All I ask is that these so called protesters show some respect. Is that too much to ask, or is that another violation of their civil liberties? By condemning these people, am I not exercising my right to free speech?
THEY ARE RUINING THIS NATION, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY.
Do you mean "suitable" in that it drives home the hypocrisy of your entire argument? Sure, you are free to voice your annoyance over the war protestors ... just as they are free to voice their annoyance over the way our government has handled this war.
Either everyone gets to bitch or no one does, and I think we can all agree that we don't want a country where no one gets to voice their thoughts. The difference here is that they are bitching about a cause they believe in (right or wrong) and you are bitching about them bitching. Sure that might also be a cause in your eyes, but one that doesn't really get us anywhere. There will always be people who want to express opinions that we don't agree with, but if that's the case we should counter with reasons why we think they are wrong .... not just rant that we don't like them and feel we are furthering the debate.
And I think it's funny that you seem upset that I would quote "Michael Douglas" when he's just an actor performing the words written by Aaron Sorkin ... the same guy who wrote the monologue you decided the quote. Funny though that you are quoting the bad guy from the movie to support your argument. Sure it is one of the greatest movie moments ever, but Jessup is supposed to represent a leader who has let his power and authority go completely to his head.
With any luck, UrbCon ... will have a long and prosperous career teaching typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Columbo School for Women. Thank you for playing "Should We or Should-We-Not Follow the Advice of the Galacticly Stupid".
Can we first of all stop calling this a war in Iraq because that is not what it is. Congress did not declare war, therefore it is not war it is a military action.
Second of all, Are you really any safer now that there are troops in Iraq? Do you sleep better at night thinking that what happened couldn't happen again just because we put troops in Iraq. And you call us the the ones without a clue. You and I both know that if someone really wanted to attack us, they would find a way. We are not stopping terrorists in Iraq, but rather creating them by occupying a country that is not ours.
As to your Hitler comment, it was not the conservatives of our country who brought us into that war but rather kept us out of it. Conservatives in that era wanted noting to do with other countries problems. I suggest you study your history before making such hateful comments.
The fact is that this is a country that was founded on the idea of a peaceful society, where all could live as they choose, believing what they choose, speaking what they choose. The Iraq's have the same rights. They don't have to like us or want to be like us. And you trying to force them only makes things worse. We were brought into this war with the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction, which we all know do not exist there. The US government went against the U.N., a group started by the U.S. that when it doesn't give the results we want, we ignore.
No one, has the right to take human life. And we certainly don't in Iraq or anywhere in the world. This is not an eye for an eye and if you believe that thats the way it should be, then you are terrorist nad you are completely unamerican.
As a San Francisco-living and working- conservative, I'm not going to chime in on the rhetoric amongst you folks: I've learned to keep a tight lip here (how's that for free speech?). However, in SF, these protests are not just some concerned mothers, or peaceniks; these are professional protesters endlessly protesting anything that remotely resembles the Establishment. I've walked outside my work to see "anti-war" protests that were merely an excuse to libel Israel and support Palestinians, Tibetans, Transexuals, or anything that's anything. Check out www.zombietime.com to see the nonsensical nature of these daily excursions.
These demonstrations and protests are just one thing that we do to bring awareness to issues. If you ever attend one instead of watching from office windows, you might get the chance to see that.
You want to talk about a skilled based society. What do you do that is so specialized and skilled that this country needs you. Do you work at a desk, in a cubicle, do you wear a suit and type memos on a computer all day. Let's then talk about the highly skilled workers who have no work like the ones in the auto industry. Highly trained skilled workers that keep you safe and looking sporty while your flying down the highway, but where are their jobs. Oh thats right, your lovely conservative president let the companies build the factories overseas, in countries where they can pay horrible wages and not get in trouble. Skill based society my ass.
You see the Daily Show making fun of them? Classic.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?v...
It only makes sense for multi nationals to set up shop over seas, they can pay less, offer 0 benefits and supply less then glamorous working conditions. Capitalism at its finest. Being originally from a city dominated by manufacturing, I know way too many people that brag of their union days. Days that consist of playing cards, watching tv, and gambling on horse races while making 65/hr.