AM I the only one who’s noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week. Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won’t bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan – expanding that war. (He’s discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.) And the left’s quiet as a graveyard at midnight.
Hmmm, it is awful quiet all of a sudden.
Bush is on the way out – are your principles leaving with him? Have you stopped to wonder if BHO might not be your LBJ? You told us that “War doesn’t change anything,” and “War is never the answer.” Shouldn’t you be lobbying your candidate to give peace a chance? Shame, shame, shame. You’ve elevated hypocrisy to an art form.
This piece was spot-on-the-money. The anti-war movement’s mantras are silent, and the only explanation is that they were never sincerely anti-war; just political catalysts for expressing an anti-Bush sentiment.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
It’s no secret that the “anti war” or “peace” crowd largely saves their moral indignation to direct at Republicans.
Readers may recall that the “peace” crowd barely made a peep when Bill Clinton was bombing Serbian cities or aspirin factories in Sudan or empty tents in Afghanistan.
And it’s not just because those wars didn’t suffer large numbers of American casualties. The “peace” crowd doesn’t give a fig for our troops as shown by the number of soldiers who have been assaulted by these very same people. Death or injury of U.S. troops are just an emotional card they use to generate support for their cause from gullible Americans who DO care about the troops.
If Obama were elected, the “anti-war” or “peace” crowd would be one step closer to their dream which is world socialism. That’s the goal of the prime drivers in the movement like International ANSWER and other neocommunist groups.
So why protest? Communists don’t care if you fight a war to extend or save world socialism. For proof of that, how many of them protested Soviet and Cuban aggression in places like Afghanistan and Angola?
Interesting selective memory you have there. My recollection is of a large number of Lefties saying, “Why are we in Iraq when our beef is with Afghanistan?” (Then, of course, to be called “liars” by the Right, who said that such a stance was a sham.)
Your description of the “sudden silence” would make sense if the Left were not lying, but, rather actually believed that Afghanistan is where we should have been focusing our attention this whole time.
If it was all about ‘patriotic dissent,’ then is their silence a lack of patriotism, or was their noise?
Disgusting. Here I had believed for years that so many millions (then hundreds of thousands, then thousands) of anti-war activists were at the very least motivated by misled/misplaced patriotic conviction. I’d denied that it was all just Bush Derangement Syndrome, but the silence is deafening.
There are two absolute requirements for being a leftist: utter hypocrisy and thorough shamelessness. This has never changed. It is on view every day in the MSM.
You guys have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time don’t you? Utterlly incapable of any nuance. The are people who oppose both wars, but the vast majority only oppose the Iraq war. This is not a new development.
As a member of the “peace” crowd, let me be the first to say, “End the war. Bring them home.” Vote Obama. And, oh yeah, “Destroy conservatism by any means necessary and I do mean ‘any means.’ Burn down the honky-tonk!”
I thought this was pretty nuanced, “…I had believed for years that so many millions (then hundreds of thousands, then thousands) of anti-war activists …”
I’m not talking about ‘opposing’ an invasion that took place 5yrs ago. I’m talking (and I believe the article is too) about anti-war activists or people who are against war in general.
Additionally, let’s not ignore the opposition to the war in Afghanistan (recall that Democrats put forth an effort to withdraw troops from there after they took Congress-an effort led by Rep Kucinich). There was also widespread opposition to the attack on the Taliban in 2001-in the US tens of thousands took to the streets, Democrats (led by Sen Kennedy) said we were rushing to war, and ought to give the Taliban more time.
In Pakistan hundreds of thousands protested and were arrested en masse.
In the UK, the government collapsed and brought about a change in almost the entire cabinet.
In Egypt, the US embassy was attacked by tens of thousands of protesters and it caught fire.
In Syria, protesters threatened to overrun the US embassy.
In the Palestinian territories, there was dancing in the streets as the planes hit the towers, and as US forces bombed Afghanistan Hamas and other Palestinian leaders tossed their “support” to the Taliban (Yasser Arafat was actually the only one who did NOT).
No, the opposition to this war or that has always been largely Bush-based, not war-based, and as he leaves office we can look forward to a govt controlled by the unchecked/unbalanced power of the DNC in all three branches of govt, and a world that will inevitably demand military action someplace…military action that will not be opposed because it will be Democrats making the call instead of GWB.
The bulk of opposition to war is Bush-based, and is silent now.
The U.S. military has been in Europe and Japan for over 50 years and will be in Iraq for 50 years if there is a U.S. that long. The anti-war demonstrations were nothing more, nothing less than a show of anti-americanism by anti-americans. Under the fold of every anti-american/anti-war demonstration you find funding from communist operations. I remember the promise of communism, ‘we will destroy America from within and never fire a shot’. With the total dedication of most of the teachers/professors supporting that statement, how long can freedom stand.
It’s comical watching the educated elitest, professors, and media hypes do the bidding for communism when in fact they will be the first (under communism) in the mass graves. History proves this, But then only revised history (what they wish had happened, not what happened) is taught in the ‘liberal’ education world.
Mike typed:
It’s no secret that the “anti war” or “peace” crowd largely saves their moral indignation to direct at Republicans.
True except it’s false.
Activities of the anti-war crowd or peace crowd (tens of millions of Americans from all walks of life, as today) during the Vietnam conflict caused LBJ to not seek re-election and caused the defeat of Hubert Humphrey in the November election.
Sadly that helped paved the way for ‘peace with honor’ Tricky Dick and his distinguished presidency.
Scrapiron raved:
‘It’s comical watching the educated elitest, professors, and media hypes do the bidding for communism when in fact they will be the first (under communism) in the mass graves. History proves this, But then only revised history (what they wish had happened, not what happened) is taught in the ‘liberal’ education world.’
Oops.
I think you mean ‘Islamo-Fascism’. Communism was the last ‘threat’. Remember? RR ending the Cold War? Collapse of the Berlin Wall? Etc. Etc.
But the beauty of reactionary rhetoric is how easily one can insert the villain du jour.
Voila!
Every American war is plagued by faux anti-war protesters who are really venting a different kind of political frustration (see also Copperhead Democrats opposition to Lincoln). In this war, the venting is really anti-Bush. In Vietnam, it was probably the most genuine, but to characterize one anti-war movement from 40yrs ago to another of today is only fairly similar-not across the board.
Perhaps the best proof of this point I’m making-and that of the article in the original post-is Mark’s. He states his anti-war sentiment, then goes out of his way to prove that it’s really just a catalyst for his opposition to Republicans (of which the Bush Admin is the stereotype).
When has anyone actually followed Kucinich anywhere? Not quite a groundswell of activity there, eh?
This stuff has nothing to do with the Left in America. You’re discussing Democrats, remember? And anyway: don’t you remember that we don’t care what people in other countries think about us? I thought that that was the whole point of the anti-Obama-speech-in-Germany flap.
O rly?
First of all, you can’t simply make up facts to suit your purposes. Second, what the heck makes you an expert on what Lefties are feeling in our heart of hearts, despite anything we say?
Not on Flopping Aces! The Worldwide Threat Of Communism is alive and well at this site! Mike H.’s America is absolutely terrified of Teh Commies even today, because Cuba seems to be on the verge of destabilizing our society. Mike still posts pictures of the Soviet flag (unused these past seventeen years) when trying to smear commenters he doesn’t like.
Scott typed:
Perhaps the best proof of this point I’m making-and that of the article in the original post-is Mark’s. He states his anti-war sentiment, then goes out of his way to prove that it’s really just a catalyst for his opposition to Republicans (of which the Bush Admin is the stereotype).
Mark had written (re: Republicanism):
“Burn down the honky-tonk!”
‘Proof’ one anonymous poster using the phrase ‘burn down the honky-tonk’!!??
Get serious.
But it is true that a great many millions of Americans would like to see the President and his minions held accountable for their crimes. And what a coincidence so many of the criminals just happen to be Republicans.
Go Figure.
You’re right Arthur-I shoulda typed “example” instead of “proof”
But c’mon…”CRIMES”?
puhlease
The Vietnam anti-war/peace movement should be more properly and accurately scarlet-lettered an anti-draft movement. By the end of 1971, under Nixon, the draft ended. Major peace protests happened throughout 1968 through ’71. The largest, most intense bombing of the war occurred in Christmas of ’72 [Operation Linebacker II]. Any protests? Any peace movement marches? Not a peep. Because those protesting the war knew that they would no longer be called up to serve. Yet we’re to believe that the “peace” movement were anti-war out of altruistic good conscience on behalf of the Vietnam people. No: many were motivated by selfish interests. After the draft ended under Nixon, so too did the majority support for these idiotic marches, which only fueled more violence; not less.
It should also be noted that the candidate who ran as the peace movement candidate was McGovern (wasn’t his campaign slogan something like “Come home, America”?). Between the “Peace without honor” candidate and the “peace with honor” candidate, gee….which choice do you think America opted for? McGovern got crushed in the biggest landslide in history: Nixon carried 49 states, including McGovern’s native South Dakota. I believe there were polls conducted that showed America might have been disapproving of the war, at this point, but they wanted to win it, not lose. And I question whether or not the anti-war protesters were ever popular with the American mainstream majority. And as we discussed a bit before, Richard Nixon committed himself when he became president to the idea of “Vietnamization”, which was to train more and more South Vietnamese troops to become self-sufficient; and consequently, part of the plan was the steady troop withdrawal and intensified bombing. In ’72, when Nixon was running for re-election, and after Operation Linebacker II, he finally got the North Vietnamese onboard with the Paris Peace Accords. Part of the package included two secret agreements: one was billions of dollars in reparations, after the war. But the North did not get it, because they had broken their agreement by invading the South. The 2nd secret agreement was with the South Vietnamese. He gave them a solemn pledge, in writing, that if the North broke agreements, and invaded the South, America would get back in, and provide whatever aid the South needed; even troop support. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Nixon was driven from office by the Watergate scandal (Arthur loves it when I characterize it this way). When the North Vietnamese invaded the South, an unelected President in the form of Gerald Ford pleaded with Congress to enforce our agreements and honor our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies. In 1975, more than one million innocent Vietnamese fled in terror from a massive invasion by the North. Congress and the anti-war movement did nothing to alleviate the suffering.
As a constant reminder of what President Ford deemed to be his failure, he kept the U.S. Embassy (Saigon) stairs in his library. It wasn’t President Ford’s failure: It was America’s failure.
Bush and McCain both want to achieve “peace with honor” in Iraq. Obama hasn’t been left with a choice, but to go along with them, basically riding along on the coattails of the surge (which he opposed) success (and yes, it did contribute to the current trend in success) now that the Democrat/anti-war plan for defeat has been made obsolete in the face of victory.
Thank you Wordsmith.
And isn’t it funny that the anti-draft crowd are now pushing a draft to force people who don’t want to join today’s all volunteer force to serve?
Though something tells me ole Artie, who apparently can remember LBJ’s days in office as if it were yesterday (I was too young, though I do remember the “peace” crowd protesting Nixon who actually DID end the war) thinks we should have a draft too.
wordsmith-
‘Yet we’re to believe that the “peace” movement were anti-war out of altruistic good conscience on behalf of the Vietnam people. No: many were motivated by selfish interests. After the draft ended under Nixon, so too did the majority support for these idiotic marches, which only fueled more violence; not less.’
No indeed. Everyone knows that the aerial bombings. The US atrocities, the millions of Vietnamese civilians killed, the ecological disaster inflicted on the land and tens of thousands of Americans killed as well was the real example of ‘altruistic good conscience on behalf of the Vietnamese people’.
Sorry. Picking up the shovel the French dropped once the hole got too deep for them is best characterized as choosing the wrong side in the wrong war. A filthy colonial war. No more, no less.
Mike-
(I was too young, though I do remember the “peace” crowd protesting Nixon who actually DID end the war) thinks we should have a draft too.
Dick introduced the war to Laos and Cambodia too let’s not forget.
Mike, there’s this thing known as “studying history.” Surprisingly enough, you don’t have to have lived through events to learn about them. Or is all that-there book learnin’ too elitist?
Good one Arthur. “Dick introduced the war to Laos and Cambodia too let’s not forget.” I thought for sure the enemy was there first. Here my history was apparently wrong, and the enemy was never there until the US invaded. Gosh that sounds familiar.
Scott typed:
Good one Arthur. “Dick introduced the war to Laos and Cambodia too let’s not forget.” I thought for sure the enemy was there first. Here my history was apparently wrong, and the enemy was never there until the US invaded.
Your history is a little skewed Scott.
Try this:
William Shawcross, ‘Sideshow’
This should clear up a lot of questions. I found it extremely interesting.
Arthur…isn’t that book in the fiction section?
Do you really believe that the NVA weren’t in Cambodia and Laos for years before the US went in?
WOW
Welp, I looked up your book, ordered it to my local library, and now here’s a look up suggestion for you:
HO CHI MINH TRAIL
Scott: “Arthur” has an amazing propensity to be self deluded and willfully ignorant. It’s been documented many, MANY times back at the home planet.
Scott typed:
Do you really believe that the NVA weren’t in Cambodia and Laos for years before the US went in?
I didn’t say that Scott. I did say Nixon brought the war to Cambodia by way of a ground invasion and widespread aerial bombing.
And actually the Shawcross book is widely considered, outside of the National Review & that crowd, a definitive word on the Cambodian fiasco.
You might be interested to know that Shawcross has been an ardent cheerleader for the ‘allied’ invasion & occupation of Iraq.
Fiction or non?
Mike typed:
Scott: “Arthur” has an amazing propensity to be self deluded and willfully ignorant.
Just doing my job Mike.
Thank you for the kind words.
Keeps me going!
Arthur, NIXON did not bring the war to Cambodia and Laos-the North Vietnamese did w the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and that started way back in 1959. If the enemy didn’t go there first…the war wouldn’t have followed them. Your point is as solid as somehow suggesting Al Queda wasn’t in Afghanistan until the US started bombing in Nov 2001 and then invaded. When nations are at war, wherever one finds the other…there is war.
From what I’ve seen in just the past bit of websearchin, Shawcross is duplicitous on the Iraq War.
Arthur wrote:
Gee, Arthur….what happened when we basically stood back and watched an earlier domino drop on China? 30 million, as a conservative estimate, on lives destroyed in the immediate aftermath of Mao consolidating his rule? Education camps and mass suffering…
American military intervention costs lives, that’s true, Arthur. But what is the price of American non-interventionism on behalf of freedom and democracy, and national security interests? Was the threat of international communism to American security and prosperity merely a figment of our collective imagination?
Ask the Africans
“But what is the price of American non-interventionism on behalf of freedom and democracy, and national security interests?”
Or do the two for the price of 2 rental special at Blockbuster Video where you get Black Hawk Down and its sequel Hotel Rwanda.
Wordsmith typed:
Gee, Arthur….what happened when we basically stood back and watched an earlier domino drop on China? 30 million, as a conservative estimate, on lives destroyed in the immediate aftermath of Mao consolidating his rule? Education camps and mass suffering…
Gee wordsmith, right out of the red-baiter playbook circa 1949.
Take it up with the Nationalists who were so corrupt they couldn’t muster the popular support to defeat a ragtag bunch of communist guerrillas.
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/save/hance/Hance.html
Right. Very Jimmy Carterish of you. What is the price and cost upon the world when we don’t intervene? Are the people of China and Iran far better off, since the rise of communist China and the Khomeinites? Are we, and the rest of the world at large, in a better place today, because the opposing indigenous side was too weak to survive the thrust of Soviet-backed Mao and religious fanatics?
Wordsmith-
Spare me.
China wasn’t ours to ‘win’ or ‘lose’. Nor was Russia.
In fact the arguments about dealing with the Reds had far less to do with those unfortunates overseas than it did with electing Republicans to congress and the White House.
It’s not about American imperialism, Arthur. Intervention doesn’t mean we’re out to “make them ours”.
Fighting communism was rather bipartisan in recognition of its evils. Both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged the threat it posed to the world, prior to the last half of the Vietnam
WarBattle.A nation has a plague-we send doctors
A nation has a famine from drought-we send food
A nation has a tsunami-we send all kinds of help
A nation decends into anarchy or is attacked by a rogue nation…fock’em, let em die
Forgive me.
I should have typed ‘electing conservatives to congress’.
Sadly reactionaries in this era were bipartisan.
And wordsmith the argument was/remains ‘who lost China/ Russia/fill in the blank.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/acheson4.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DD103AF935A25751C0A96F958260
Scott typed:
‘A nation decends into anarchy or is attacked by a rogue nation…fock’em, let em die’
Particularly if the population didn’t have the common sense to live where oil exists or where we could play out our own domestic political conflicts.
So: Iraq was attacked? By which rogue nation? It had descended into anarchy? Really? That’s the first time I’ve heard this one.
Another way you analogy sucks: when we send aid to countries who have suffered natural disasters, we don’t then kill the people and then have the posters on Flopping Aces and Confederate Yankee say, “Sh*t happens. The tsunami shouldn’t have used the people as human shields.”
Yeah, like oil rich Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos?
Don’t get me wrong, oil’s a factor in the invasion of Iraq, but only 1 of many reasons to invade (the last resort as it was). No, you’ve brought us full circle Arthur. The war in Iraq is more about domestic political conflict…hence the silence now that such a conflict (the effort to remove President Bush) has failed and is moot.
Wordsmith hit the nail on the head. For those of you who weren’t old enough to experience the riot at the Chicago Dem Convention in 1968, the popular mantra was “hell no, we won’t go”. I doubt you will hear that in Denver about Afghanistan. By the way, the Tet offensive and the fact that Robert Kennedy was mounting a successful challenge to LBJ were probably bigger factors in the reason LBJ chose not to run in March than anything the anti-draft crowd did.
There were some earlier posts that made it seem like the lefties really didn’t have a problem with our involvement in Afghanistan, but I remember a Los Angeles Times editorial of Oct 26, 2001 that said: “The experts are warning that both the political and military elements of Operation Enduring Freedom are doomed to slip into a quagmire or fail entirely,” Operation Enduring Freedom began Oct. 7, 2001. Two months after the editorial ran, the United States liberated Afghanistan.
I think the reason that Vietnam turned into a quagmire was that LBJ personally micro-managed the military targets, and let the left wing propaganda machine make it appear that we lost the Tet offensive, when the reverse was true. If Obama has his way, we will be fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And the Democratic Party will be hawkish rather than rabidly dove
“If Obama has his way, we will be fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Senator Ted Kennedrunk and the left was using the “quagmire…. another Vietnam” line for Afghanistan weeks after the war started.
When we invaded Iraq Kennedy and friends simply cut out the word “Afghanistan” on their press releases and pasted in Iraq.
Now, Obama wants to continue this “immoral” war in Afghanistan? The same war which Obama claimed our troops were just “air raiding villages and killing civilians?”
No wonder Artie is in such high dudgeon today!
Yeah it was “hell no we won’t go”, but it was also Ho HO HO chi mien. You always knew to stay up wind of these guy’s and gals, the stench from their body’s was only passed by the stench that came from their mouths. Like Arthur stoned, you could not reason with these idiots it was their way or we will stomp our feet and hold our breaths, to this extent nothing has changed.
In early October 2001 RW Apple, one of the chief Editorial Page columnists of the NYT announced that Afghanistan was Bush’s Vietnam.We could never win.Didnt anybody in Bushes govt read history? If memory serves he called Afghanistn a “quagmire
“Two weeks later the Taliban govt collapsed., the Taliban were routed.The left is always in favor of the US losing wars, unless we have absolutely nothing at stake in it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/the-peace-movement-needs_b_114707.html
I can’t believe people love Obama so much.
rest assured…all glory is fleeting
Hi just thought i would let you know naklejki something.. This is twice now ive landed on your weblog within the naklejki last 3 weeks looking for completely unrelated things. Spooky or what?