Why no dissent ?

#16 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 07:17:23 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

Quote:

Why would we want protests from students still in college?

Desperation !!!

#17 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

Thumper wrote:

Quote:

We cannot prevent Islamic rule in Iraq. We are merely postponing the
outcome. If the Iraqis want Islamic rule they will simply wait until
we leave. We are an occupying powere. It's absurd to think that by
giving the Iraqis a chance to choose democracy, they will simply
choose it.

Since the majority of Iraqis are followers of Islam, it would be
Islamic rule. What is meant by the term Islamists is that the priests
would be in almost complete control. The Iranians are finding out that
is not a good situation, and Iraqis would probably reject that type of
control given a choice.

--
Ron

#18 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:48:47 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Quote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

Emily

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"....Where would the leaders of campus protest come from? For if they
are less likely, given the rise of neoconservatism, to come from ranks
of activist Jews, it is even more implausible to imagine them emerging
from the remains of the WASP establishment, whose children are not the
academic and social leaders on the nation’s elite campuses. It is
perhaps only slightly more likely to come from the new Asian immigrant
groups, who are generally still focused on professional advancement or
purely ethnic concerns. And only the wooliest of neo-Marxist romantics
can see it emerging from the poor or working classes...."

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_04/article.html

#19 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

<emily@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oq55c15od3hn8hftedtfgil19k6o437pmh@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:48:47 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com
wrote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

Emily

The main reason is that today we have nothing more than a bunch of
frightened cowards, afraid to stand up for what they believe. We have people
screaming that the flag amendment violates their 1st amendment rights yet
they are too afraid to burn one, they do their screaming on the internet
hidden by a phony name and are afraid to write letters to their
representatives for fear of being confronted by some sinister force. We have
a population that falls for the politicians favorite weapon, divide and
conquer and thus fall into pissing matches with each other over nothing more
than the fact one appears to be a democrat while the other appears to be a
republican. The politicians laugh all the way to the bank while patting each
other on the back for what a brilliant fund raising maneuver the latest
divisive issue they came up with turned out to be.

--
Jim Kooperford
Kooperford Farms
Pasture Pure Poultry,
Pork and Produce

#20 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 06:53:12 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:

Quote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

The protests against the Vietnam war had teach-ins that criticized US
foreign policy in a somewhat consistent way. Current criticism is
centered around previous US efforts to subvert democracy in MidEast
causing the rise of Islamists (people who believe in theocratic rule).

What democracy exists in the Middle East for us to subvert? Is there
another democracy besides Israel?

Quote:

Since I have a relative being called up for Iraq duty, I would like see
the troops brought home, but I fear that Islamist rule in Iraq is not
in the interests of the people of Iraq, or the world as a whole.

I would have preferred they'd never gone. Do you seriously believe
that after we leave, whenever that is, that our idea of democracy is
going to persist in Iraq? Most of the Iraqis are Muslims. Muslims
believe in theocratic rule. They have no law other than Islam.

Quote:

A co-worker who is currently stationed in Iraq has been sending
information back on the development of the court system there. He sees
real progress being made.

Could you elaborate on that?

Emily

#21 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:19:32 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Quote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

Emily

I believe you are right. But that only explains the lack of concern
about the war. What about issues in general ? Why are all the
"usual suspects" so happy with the actions of government in general ?
Could it be that they feel they are now directing the events ?

You'll have to tell me who mean by "usual suspects" in this context.
The best I can determine, the people who are even moderately happy
with the current administration are the far right wing wingnuts, large
corporations, diehard Republicans, and bin Laden. Did I forget
anyone?

I think the masses who don't protest don't because they know they
don't understand the issues and have no solutions, so they blindly
hope that our elected leaders will act in their behalf. Poor deluded
souls. A lot of people are far more interested in Tom Cruise's
meltdown or whether Brad and Angelina are a hot item than they are in
what the government is doing to them. And if they're even remotely
interested in anything broader, it's the hot button items gay marriage
and reproductive choice.

There are those of us who are convinced that Bush is the worst thing
the Fates have inflicted on us in a couple of hundred years, but don't
see any hope that anything is going to change anytime soon. He has
Congress on his team, and if possible, he'll have the Supreme Court
tilted further to the right. Shrub can't get another four years, but
Rove may be able to work his magic and get Jeb elected next. If not
Jeb, someone else cut from the same cloth. It's just overwhelmingly
depressing.

Emily

#22 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 06:53:12 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:

Quote:

emily@nospam.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:48:47 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com
wrote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

The protests against the Vietnam war had teach-ins that criticized US
foreign policy in a somewhat consistent way. Current criticism is
centered around previous US efforts to subvert democracy in MidEast
causing the rise of Islamists (people who believe in theocratic rule).

Since I have a relative being called up for Iraq duty, I would like see
the troops brought home, but I fear that Islamist rule in Iraq is not
in the interests of the people of Iraq, or the world as a whole.

We cannot prevent Islamic rule in Iraq. We are merely postponing the
outcome. If the Iraqis want Islamic rule they will simply wait until
we leave. We are an occupying powere. It's absurd to think that by
giving the Iraqis a chance to choose democracy, they will simply
choose it.
Thumper

Quote:

A co-worker who is currently stationed in Iraq has been sending
information back on the development of the court system there. He sees
real progress being made.

#23 06-29-2005, 11:05 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 07:17:23 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

Quote:

Why would we want protests from students still in college? They
haven't the maturity or experience to know much of anything and they
proved that in the 60's and 70's. Probably the poorest way to change
the opinion of the general public is through protests and
demonstrations. They turn far more people against whatever the protest
is for. We are still getting repercussions in our society from the
60's chaos.

Maturity and experience isn't what it's cracked up to be. By the way.
where did you get the idea that protests turn more people away from
the cause? Is that just your pre-disposition to accept the government
line? Without protests, blacks would still note have the right to
vote.
Thumper

#24 06-29-2005, 05:30 PM

On 29 Jun 2005 07:17:23 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

Quote:

Why would we want protests from students still in college? They
haven't the maturity or experience to know much of anything and they
proved that in the 60's and 70's. Probably the poorest way to change
the opinion of the general public is through protests and
demonstrations. They turn far more people against whatever the protest
is for. We are still getting repercussions in our society from the
60's chaos.

They're the age group that's going to get killed.

I like something I heard lately that Frederick the Great supposedly
said, that if soldiers thought for themselves, it would be impossible
to assemble armies.

#25 06-29-2005, 05:33 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:30:41 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 29 Jun 2005 07:17:23 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

Why would we want protests from students still in college? They
haven't the maturity or experience to know much of anything and they
proved that in the 60's and 70's. Probably the poorest way to change
the opinion of the general public is through protests and
demonstrations. They turn far more people against whatever the protest
is for. We are still getting repercussions in our society from the
60's chaos.

They're the age group that's going to get killed.

Indeed. As I learned from one of my sons, when you draw No. 35

in the draft for the VietNam war it tends to focus your interest
on what the hell that war is all about.

#26 06-29-2005, 05:39 PM

On 29 Jun 2005 08:16:23 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Thumper wrote:

We cannot prevent Islamic rule in Iraq. We are merely postponing the
outcome. If the Iraqis want Islamic rule they will simply wait until
we leave. We are an occupying powere. It's absurd to think that by
giving the Iraqis a chance to choose democracy, they will simply
choose it.

Since the majority of Iraqis are followers of Islam, it would be
Islamic rule. What is meant by the term Islamists is that the priests
would be in almost complete control. The Iranians are finding out that
is not a good situation, and Iraqis would probably reject that type of
control given a choice.

Finding out what? How do you know that? Not everyone in the world
believes in the same things we do. That's the first lesson the USA
should learn. Americans have a great deal of dificulty looking t
things from other's perspectives.
Thumper

#27 06-29-2005, 06:28 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:55:02 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

Quote:

emily@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:svc5c1pbn3v45uukjh9mg3celi24ojcc7i@4ax.com...
On 29 Jun 2005 06:53:12 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com
wrote:

This is a pretty good article that sums up why we will have no 1960s
style dissent over the war policies of GW Bush. ---Gary James

Hmm, the author doesn't mention what I'd consider by far the most
important reason -- we don't have a draft these days. If we did, I
suspect there'd be a lot more interest on college campuses.

The protests against the Vietnam war had teach-ins that criticized US
foreign policy in a somewhat consistent way. Current criticism is
centered around previous US efforts to subvert democracy in MidEast
causing the rise of Islamists (people who believe in theocratic rule).

What democracy exists in the Middle East for us to subvert? Is there
another democracy besides Israel?

Since I have a relative being called up for Iraq duty, I would like see
the troops brought home, but I fear that Islamist rule in Iraq is not
in the interests of the people of Iraq, or the world as a whole.

I would have preferred they'd never gone. Do you seriously believe
that after we leave, whenever that is, that our idea of democracy is
going to persist in Iraq? Most of the Iraqis are Muslims. Muslims
believe in theocratic rule. They have no law other than Islam.

So, let me see. You think it is okay for a leader of a country to kill,
arrest, torture his own people, while we debate the need to go to war or not
to go to war with that country? So, we should not have gone to war in
Yugoslavia to "end" the suffering of the muslims in that country? As for
whether democracy will work or will not work, one thing I am certain of, it
will not work if the people do not have a chance at tyring out this concept
called "democracy". Time will be the proof of whether they will succeed or
not.

I think we should refrain from invading countries which haven't
killed, arrested, or tortured us. I think we have an abysmal record
of propping up, or selecting, or aiding and abetting, or maneuvering
into power various dictators/leaders because we thought it was in our
best interests, only to find out that we were once again wrong. You
are aware that we treated Saddam like our good buddy when he was
fighting Iran, aren't you?

And even if I thought it was a good idea to police the whole world,
where would we get the troops to invade the countless countries where
people are seriously mistreated by their leaders? And the money?

Emily

#28 06-29-2005, 07:04 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:27:03 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:56:51 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:54:19 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:27:32 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:38:48 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:40:18 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:33:16 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:30:41 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 07:17:23 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

Why would we want protests from students still in college? They
haven't the maturity or experience to know much of anything and they
proved that in the 60's and 70's. Probably the poorest way to change
the opinion of the general public is through protests and
demonstrations. They turn far more people against whatever the protest
is for. We are still getting repercussions in our society from the
60's chaos.

They're the age group that's going to get killed.

Indeed. As I learned from one of my sons, when you draw No. 35
in the draft for the VietNam war it tends to focus your interest
on what the hell that war is all about.

Ah, yes. Feb 2. That was a good day. Conceived in early May.
Wanna tell us the hour :-)

BTW, if a person has your birthdate and he knows what county you
were born in, he can get your SS#. Just a thought.

Oooops ! I meant to type Feb 4.

Either way, you have left me cold on this one. My son was
born in November.

November 2, was # 34.

I was wrong earlier. May 7 was #35

http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/Datafil...ftLottery.html

There were several draft lotteries, Gary.

Maybe so, but that's the one that everbody I knew was concerned with.
After that the low numbers continued dodging the draft ala Bush and
Clinton and the high numbers got on with their lives.

http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72...ry%202,%201972

#29 06-29-2005, 07:04 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:39:45 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:56:51 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:54:19 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

Either way, you have left me cold on this one. My son was
born in November.

November 2, was # 34.

I was wrong earlier. May 7 was #35

http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/Datafil...ftLottery.html

There were several draft lotteries, Gary.

You are right. How does 11-21-1951 sound ? That must have been
your first.

No. To both questions.

#30 06-29-2005, 07:04 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:54:19 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

BTW, if a person has your birthdate and he knows what county you
were born in, he can get your SS#. Just a thought.

And in case that is true, that is why I won't tell you my son's

exact birth date. You could figure out where he was born from something
else I had written along the line, and look up his SS#. Which could
unlock his enormous bank account to you and more. Not that I don't
trust you, Gary, not to do such nefarious things, but one can't be too
safe these days, can one?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Clarence Thomas dissent in property rights ruling	Rickie Dunbar	Retirement	4	06-24-2005 11:03 AM