Redstate

Looks like you have a typo in the last paragraph.  Operation Iraqi Freedom should be Operation Iraqi Hope.

Up all night with crying 3 week old.  I'm already done for and it's only 9:30am.

What's the difference? Hope/Freedom are almost synonyms.

Keep the great and refreshing posts coming. And I like your dose of cynicism. What dosage is it? And where do you buy it? ;0

on October 9, 2002 after an anti-war rally at my college. Sorry it's long, but I thought it was pertinent.

"Today's anti-war rally left me thinking deeper-than-expected thoughts about where I stand on a variety of issues. I had planned to participate, and even skipped class to do so, but once I got there I felt somehow like I didn't belong, despite the fact that I don't agree with the war. And as the clouds of marijuana smoke wafted over the hundred or so people gathered there as I watched, and they chanted "Hey, ho, this fascist war has got to go!" I realized that my instinct had been right--I belonged on the sidelines here. More and more as these supposed allies stated their positions, I found myself in disagreement with them. "Fascist war," they chanted; "End American imperialism," their signs read. Fascism? Imperialism? The words are so tinged with memories of the eradication of those deemed unfit for existence that to use them in this case is an insult to all victims of fascism and imperialism.

...None of this is to say that I don't fairly strongly oppose starting a war unprovoked. But when I see kids in Birkenstocks with plentiful piercings smoking weed and holding posters that mystifyingly read "1984," the tendency is to close my ears rather than open them, and to choose more profitable and more effective routes of opposition. Rallies are nice--you can go and get your picture taken and save the newspaper from the next day in your scrapbook. But they're not going to stop a war, and with unconvincing attention-seeking teenagers yelling about fascism, I don't see any reason why they should."

I still think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq (for the same reason I think we shouldn't have gone to Bosnia, Somalia, etc etc) but these rallies are not worth anybody's time. Counter-protest if you must, but you're only lending legitimacy to what should rightly be ignored.

of this country supports this country."

Several responses.  First, I would hope so.  There may be differing opinions on what "supports this country" means, but I give enough credit to both sides to think that there is honesty and basic patriotism on both sides.  The level of invective around here lately, of course, belies that, but still.

Second, conflating, as you do, "supports this country" with "supports this war" is such blind and fallacious lemmingism that I hope it's a product of being tired.  Opposing the war is not opposing the country -- those of us who oppose the war (and in my case, have from the start -- not because I'm against war, but because this was a stupid war that was started for political and ideological reasons, not our national interest.  I was for the war in Afghanistan and for the first Gulf War) believe that we are "supporting this country" by doing so, because we believe that it is not in our national interest for this war to have been fought or, at this point, for it to continue.  You can continue to paint every war opponent as a Ramsey Clark acolyte or a fan of ANSWER (I am neither, and as a result, will not be attending the protests this week, despite living in the DC area), but that's ridiculous.  Broad segments of the American populace oppose this war, not just the peaceniks who oppose every war.

Which leads to the third point.  Poll after poll after poll shows that support for this war is GONE, flown away, bye bye.  Now we can debate why, and you can argue (as I'm sure you will) that it's the fault of the media.  In this case, I disagree -- the Washington Post, your allegedly "liberal" nemesis, has been for this war from the start, and continues to support it, particularly Fred Hiatt and the rest of the editorial staff.

But either way, the polls are consistent, and the support is gone.  So to argue that it is both unpatriotic and a minority position to oppose this war is absurd.  A solid majority of Americans now believe this is a bad war, and an increasing number believe that troop reductions should begin NOW.  Personally, I'm not so sure about that last one -- I believe that some effort should be found to stabilize the situation on the ground before troop reductions begin, but I'm increasingly in despair that any such stabilization is possible.

Finally, I note that despite falsely claiming that a majority of Americans support this war, that those who oppose the war are all peaceniks and pot-smokers, and that the peaceniks and pot-smokers are a fringe loony group, you have now dedicated 40% of your last ten front-page posts here to said loony group.  Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Plenty of drug use on the right, especially this week.

But to second what LL said above, writing off the protestors as a bunch of dirty hippies, or whatever was originally said, is quite dangerous.  I don't really know anyone who does drugs any more.  I know a lot of working professionals in education, law, medicine, entertainment, etc. who will be protesting.

If this site wants to resort to name calling and accusations of drug use to discredit the 50% of Americans who thought we should never have gotten into this war, or the 59% who think we should reduce troops(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)... well, lets just say, the left is well-armed on that front these days.  

For what it's worth, I'm not saying that war-supporters should keep out or not stage the counter-protest.  I'm just trying to encourage you to raise the level of discourse beyond "societal rejects and dope smoking FM types,"    Which describes not a single protestor I know.  And yes, I know they exist.  They just don't make up the majority of what you are going to see.  

I know you all hate Cindy Sheehan, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't smoke dope, she's a media darling, hardly a societal reject, and frankly, I don't know what FM means.  

I usually check out RS for intelligent debate about the issues, but am sorely disappointed today.  If you take issue with nose piercings or the exhuberant ignorance of college peaceniks, then you'd be better off writing for Rolling Stone than Red State.  If you want to organize a counter protest, then by all means you are free to do so.  But try making a serious case for this wasted war effort -- which will be difficult, I'm sure -- rather than trading on snarky stereotypes.

It is possible to support your country, and support the troops, and still believe that the war in Iraq isn't worth the lives of those troops.

Supporting your country never means blindly supporting whatever actions it is up to, no matter how flawed.

"Make a serious case for this war".  Simple.  It's the people arguing against it who are either ignorant or delusional.  

First of all, if you look beyond the MSM embedded in the Palestine Hotel Bar (writing "stories" with the help of Al Jazeera), the war is going very well.  After 9/11, it would have been criminally irresponsible to leave Hussein's regime in place.  Now it is no more.  The freely elected Iraqi Government is progressing slowly, but is progressing.  It is the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East.  

The only way to beat terrorism is to get to the "root cause".  The root cause in this case is the corrupt dictatorships that encompass the Middle East.  We are rid of one and that example is going to help other countries in that region turn away from terrorism.  There is no other way to do this.  

What strikes me so strongly and what most (substitute: Protestors, Liberals, Left Wingers)don't want you to know about them is that they are towing the party line. Not the Democrat party line mind you, but the Communist/Socialist party line. I believe in keeping my friends close but my enemies closer, so on a weekly basis I go to www.cpusa.org to see what they are saying. it would shock most of us to know that this is their doctrine. Unfortunately, when a conservatist calls a left-winger a communist, it gives them the same credibility as when a left winger compares Bush to Hitler.

Let them protest (who cares) but know them for who and what they are. I don't know anyone who has free time to go to protests. Most people I know are hard working, with families to support and bills to pay. Makes you wonder if they are truly what one poster said they are (hippies, college co-eds and peaceniks) or they are just independently wealthy. If it is the latter, what happened to the Wealthy Conservative?

I would agree that most of the country is broadly dissatisfied with the conduct of the War, but the Peace Movement offers nothing but warmed over Vietnam stuff.

If you ask most Americans if they want us out immediately of Iraq AND Afghanistan, the answer is NO. If you ask most Americans if they want us to turn over those two countries to Osama, the answer is NO. If you ask most Americans if they want us to "negotiate" with Osama and essentially surrender in the Middle East (as proposed in today's LA Times) the answer is NO. Americans despise defeat and surrender, particularly to Osama. Nor do they believe that Saddam was an innocent kite flyer. Nor is the political situation static.

The counter-argument to Bush's policies is one of FDR type massive national mobilization and escalation, decisively crushing our enemies in Syria, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan, plus a national "Manhattan 2.0" project to achieve energy independence through ethanol and massive infrastructure investments to make the country more economically productive and network redundant (thus resistant to economic-aimed terror). This is something that Bush has only recently begun to articulate and I need remind no one here about the popularity of populist style government mobilization.

Unfortunately the Party is led by Cindy Sheehan types and even Bill Clinton fell victim. Opposing military efforts unless it's a "clean" bombing campaign against a hapless enemy like Serbia (coupled with the Clinton-like running away in Somalia) is a recipe for policy and electoral disaster.

The Peace Movement has no answer for bin Laden other than apologize and surrender to him. THAT will not fly.

Well, the ANSWER people have updated their protest. Now the website has "From Iraq to New Orleans....Fund Peoples' Needs...." etc etc. They are also ranting about the Palestinian "right of return", demanding the the US get out of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and that the government stop attacks on "labor" and "immigrants." "Labor", I assume, means the 8% of workers who belong to unions, and "immigrants" is code-speak for "illegal aliens". I will be glued to the TV on Saturday waiting to see the "tens of thousands" marching during their "mass protest". The political rhetoric of the Workers World types is astonishingly 1950s.

for this sort of tripe.

I thought red-baiting went out with the Cold War.  Is your right-wing playbook from 1987 or what?

As to attending protests, it's on a Saturday, for God's sake.  You know, part of that thing called a, what is it now, oh, yes, the WEEKEND.

And either way, one measure of someone's commitment to a cause is whether they're willing to take the time to support that cause.  You may not agree with that cause, but criticizing people for "taking time" to support the anti-war movement is either really dumb or right out of some right-wing talking points list (come to think of it, it's probably both, given the quality of Republican talking points recently).  Is it therefore OK to criticize all the Republicans who attend Bush's pep rallies too?  If not, pray tell what's the difference?

You know, this place used to be a real clearinghouse for interesting information.  Not that I agreed with it, but to know what people on the other side were thinking.  Nonsense like this, however. . . . .

As another poster put it, people come to RS for intelligent discussion of the issues. This sort of name calling is beneith you.

Though it is interesting to note that the war's loudest critics (and people most likely to be at the peace marches) are all confirmed communists.

is a confirmed Communist?

I wasn't red baiting. Have you ever been to the website? Have you read their talking points? I said very clerely that you cannot call them outright communists because you lose credibility, but go to www.cpusa.org and see for yourself.

about weakening support for the war.  New poll out today from Gallup (traditionally among Bush's higher numbers) shows that only 32 percent approve of the President's management of the situation in Iraq, while 67 percent disapprove.  59 percent say the war was a mistake and 63 percent want to see some or all troops withdrawn from the country.

I still don't think the reflexively anti-war crowd is right, but I think Erick and others need to rethink the "only a minority of lunatic left-wingers are against this war" trope.

With all due respect Lefty Lawyer, I don't think this president is fighting this war based on polls. I trust that he believes what he is doing is right, and I agree with him. The insurgency is in a frenzy now because their support is crumbling. The Shiites and Kurds are going to make this work whether the Sunnis like it or not. At some point, there will be nowhere for the Sunnis to go. Pouting and pounding the walls only goes so far. You must know what would happen if we withdrew now. I am 54, and I don't want to see another country abandoned the way we left South Vietnam. We OWE it to Iraq to give them a chance to do this. Saddam was there partly as a result of our policies in the 80s, we removed him, and now we are obligated to stay the course.

everytime I heard this one...

The insurgency is in a frenzy now because their support is crumbling.

I'm not going to argue about your point in general.    I realize my views run against those of most here.    But how many times can you guys go to the "They're desperate NOW" well?

"The poll found decreasing support in Islamic countries for Al Qaida and suicide bombings."

So?

Not really sure how this story applies though. A general opposition to Al Qaeda is not the same as a Iraqi opposition to the insurgents.

I do.

A decline of Islamic state support of Al Qaeda, a large part of the Iraqi insurgency, is indicative and inclusive of Iraqi mindset, no?

As well, support for suicide-bombing is on the decline.  whodathunkit.

in violent opposition to US and Iraqi national forces, however.

It's very simple. I'll explain it so a third grader can understand it (since that seems to be the prevailing mentality of the anti-war liberal left nutcases).

We want to fight over THERE so we don't have to fight them over HERE. Is that simple enough for you?

The terrorists and Islamic extremists want us DEAD, not just Republicans or Democrats, all Americans DEAD. They will do everything in their power to kill us. I think 9/11 speaks for itself about their resolve.

You cannot reason with them, you cannot negotiate with them, you can only KILL them.

We, an when I say we I am speaking for all my brothers and sisters in the U.S. armed forces, are fighting in Iraq to keep the war on terror from returning to the United States. If you ask any member of the military they will tell you it is better to fight THERE than HERE.

You disagree with the war, fine... You have the right to your opinion. But let me show you something. Let's look at Iraq twenty years from now.

If U.S. troops are pulled out now, Iraq will be a hotbed of terrorism with terrorist training camps and a redical Islamic country supported by Iran and Syria. As Iraq falls, so will Afghanistan and more attacks like 9/11 will happen in the U.S. again and again.

If U.S. troops are allowed to stay the course and promote stability to the region, flushing out the foreign insurgents, then you see a prosperous Iraq. You see a democratic Iraq, joined by a democratic Afghanistan and that surge of democracy and freedom spreads to neighboring countries where people vote to be free of hard-line regimes, free of hate and live in peace.

You may think me a dreamer, but this could be the future of the region, if we stay the course and continue the fight. Lives will be lost, absolutely, but that's why I and all the VOLUNTEERS joined the military, to defend our nation.

We believe its a cause worth fighting for. If the majority of the VOLUNTEERS believe that, why can't you?

neo knot is correct. Here's just a few of the organizations that are listed as sponsors or endorsers of this weekend's "anti-war" march:

Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism, Socialist Action, Young Communist League CSU Stanislaus...

Hoo-boy, the fun to be had that day. Cindy Sheehan should feel right at home. Maybe she'll "channel" Casey again for her friends at MoveOn.org, Code Pink, International A.N.S.W.E.R., United for Peace & Justice, Impeach Bush Now, Lambda Rising Gay Bookstore, Not In Our Name, and the D.C. Anti-War Network. Or praise the "freedom fighters" again that killed Casey in a cowardly terrorist attack. Or make some more "choice" remarks on "occupied" New Orleans.

I'm looking forward to standing in support of the troops AND their mission this weekend. For the daily schedule, all directions & maps, and info on housing, go to this page at RightMarch.com. We'll keep it updated as we learn more. -- BG

I'm not going to debate the topic.  

If you think that the terroriss are NOW desperate and on the brink of defeat, good for you.  Personally I've heard that one too many times to believe it.  Someday I'm sure it will be true but I have little reason to believe it right now.

Redstate has always been a site that prides itself on logical and reasoned argument, not name calling and smear-by-association. Everyone reading this understands the fallacy of smear-by-association. They understand that just because [wacko group x] supports a cause, that doesn't diminish the cause. Most of the causes and ideas supported by Redstate members are also supported by wacko groups like the KKK, American Nazi party, etc. The support of those groups in no way diminishes those causes. Nor does the support of wacko groups diminish the cause of the peace movement.

The way to counter the peace movement is not to call people names or engage in smear-by-association. That sort of thing is not only beneath you, it makes it seem like you have no legitimate counter to the peace movement. The right way is to point out what is wrong with the ideas of the peace movement. To insist that it is worth sending our troops to die in battle for the cause of establishing an Islamic Republic in Iraq (or whatever the justification is this week.)

This isn't "smear-by-association". Don't you get it? I lifted those groups names off of the OFFICIAL WEBSITE for this weekend's protests.

I challenge you to look at any official website for the "Support the Troops Weekend" and find "the KKK, American Nazi party, etc." Your argument fails.

It's high time the American people KNEW who was really behind these "peace" demonstrations. Thank God for the Internet. -- BG

on your account a few moments from now, would you care to take the opportunity of your parting to explain:

Most of the causes and ideas supported by Redstate members are also supported by wacko groups like the KKK, American Nazi party, etc.

The point is that the support of one group for a cause doesn't diminish that cause. If the only thing you can do to counter the peace movement is to say that wacky groups support the peace movement, you have no argument - you just have smear-by-association.

The right way is to point out what is wrong with the ideas of the peace movement.

Asscer, you misunderstand. RedState is not the Athenian Forum. It is a Republican community. We are not seeking here to provide a place where our political opponents may engage us in dispassionate discourse concerning the Great Issues Of The Day. That may happen certainly, but it is not our purpose.

Our purpose is to defeat our political opponents, and to do so convincingly. This will occasionally involve the use of a little street theater. I know, it's embarrassing, but this is how the game is played.

We are now less than a week away from one of these events. It is too late to start the persuasion process on a newly-minted rube from the forest. They won't come to our event, and they probably won't go to the Other Guys' event either. So for our purpose in this thread, they are irrelevant.

What we need now are people who already agree on the need for serious action concerning what may well be a nascent clash of civilizations, and at the minimum is a fairly large group of crazy people with no respect for human life and a great deal of money with which to carry out their schemes of death and destruction.

We have sent our armies into the field against such, and we do not wish those armies to be dispirited by people who seem to us to be congenitally disposed towards not defending themselves against anything, and who once again are out there insisting that what we need to do is be nice.

For our purposes here, those people are irrlevant as well. In fact they are our opponents. So we don't care what they think, and in this thread we will not entertain what they think. Nor will we try to persuade them of anything.

Here we will inform the members of our Republican community about an event that is already planned and that they may wish to attend.

We thank you for visiting this thread and wish you success in your future endeavors.

one thing we've discussed here before is that the problem exceeds mere support by the moonbats for the peace movement's causes. They've been put in charge of the whole thing, supposedly because they have the "expertise" to organize these things. If we couldn't stage a counter-protest without calling up the Klan and letting them run the whole shebang, I'd say we'd be in pretty deep trouble, too.

This week in NYC, Ms Sheehan had her microphone taken away. In NYC!!! Someone forgot to tell her, it's ok to protest as long as you have a permit! This one has me giggling.

As to my original point, I am not disparaging free speech at all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if the opinion is disguised as being a "democratic" opinion rather than from the communist party, that bothers me. If you are going to spout communist talking points, call yourself what you are!

the biggest reason they do this, is to recruit people to their cause, who would not normally espouse such an ideology. These young kids are being told it is for "world peace" and "an end to the killing". What ideological kid wouldn't want that. But if you tell them that the world peace you are speaking about can only come about through socialist and communist agenda, they might not be so eager to join you.

In the BEST CASE scenario, we manage to assist in the creation of a pro-US regime in Iraq.  But wait, most of the 9/11 terrorists are from...Saudi Arabia, a US ally.  Zarqawi himself is from...Jordan, another US ally.  So, sadly there is no reason to believe that expending our blood and money to prop up another US ally in the region is going to buy is security.  Moreover, Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorism and it is only a matter of time before they start spreading beyond Tal Afar into the region and beyond.  Finally, if we really wanted to fight them THERE, then we should have first gone after the REAL THEM (remember Osama bin Ladin and Al Quaida?) rather than diverting our efforts into a much costlier and counter-productive adventure in Iraq.

BTW, lots of people in the VOLUNTEER army (i.e, professional) are not in favor of the war.  I know several myself.  They'll do their job because they are pros and their personal feelings against Saddam have nothing to do with why they are there.

of US and allied forces against efforts of terrorist organizations is non-debatable.

FTR, contrary to to popular belief regarding the WAT, I don't believe there will ever be a defining moment of victory, as was Hiroshima during WWII.  This war will be fought the rest of our lives, as it is as much idealogical as anything else.

Bottom line:  The WOT is a matter of Good vs. Evil.  Call me crazy if you like.  Common sense says that, of course, terrorists are threatened of further advancement of their position:  They declared war against the USA and now we're killing them. In droves.  Just as important, we are planting the seeds of Freedom to peoples captive under tyranny for decades.

We will continue to win the battle so long as our resolve remains strong and clear.  

And that is why it really chaps my a** when limp-wristed ninnies incessantly criticize our efforts under the very protection they are provided by our military and the Administration.

Perhaps the critic, though his nit-picking of those who protect him, would prefer jihad in his back yard;  or the pacifist, by hoping for the best, would come to find that those who have sworn to kill him will miraculously change their minds.  Both are foolish.  Both smack of the worst kind of cowardice:  they that not only prefer not to fight for fear that doing so will somehow interrupt their way of life by way of inconvenience, but acute ignorance of the fact that the Calgon Moment they wish not be interrupted has been purchased for them by a brave, nameless warrior who gave his very life to protect it.

Defeat will not happen, save the blood shed and fortitude of those who would refuse to surrender, of those noble enough to stand and fight against an enemy who would attempt, by fear and aggression, to snuff out your very way of life.

Yes, I'm speaking directly to you.  Think twice before you throw rocks.

Go after the real them? that is like trying to hit an ant with a bazooka, the US armed forces are a military unit.  We tried fighting them with police units under the Clinton administration and that resulted in 9/11.  The military is the only viable option so we use our military to go after the only enemy a military can: a soveriegn nation.  Afghanistan was Al-Qaeda's boot camp;  Saddam paid 25k/per suicide bomber (btw, money he probably got from the worthless UN and its corrupt head, Kofi).  If we put democratic nations who are not under dictators in power in the middle east there is a chance that these people who have to live under the whack-job tyrants will be able to free themselves and realize that the west is not the enemy. (BTW again, this is what we did in Japan where the were raised to be militaristic and hate the west)... Terrorism is not going to go away, remember there are exstremists in every religion and the 'jihad' aspect will always remain to some extent, but when normal people are not strained by tyranny to the point they allow themselves to be brainwashed by whack-jobs the problem becomes a gnat a barbecue instead of pit viper.