David Horowitz, an anti-war icon of the Vietnam has something to say to those of you who think we should protest this particular one: "I know a thing or two about college protest --- and this time the students are dead wrong" AS a former antiwar activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at UC Berkeley in 1962, I appeal to all those young people who are participating in antiwar demonstrations on college campuses now to reconsider. The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war. Since the war ended in 1975, North Vietnamese generals have said that they knew they could not defeat the U.S. on the battlefield, so they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Viet Cong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact that Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to finish it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and tens of thousands of Americans is on the hands of the antiwar activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the communists. The second effect springs from the prolonging of the war, and that was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in reeducation camps of hundreds of thousands more and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called antiwar movement of the 1960s. I say "so-called" because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by the U.S. war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a communist victory. Today, the same people and their followers are organizing campus demonstrations against America's effort to defend its citizens against the forces of international terrorism and anti-American hatred responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. I know better than most the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to dissent. But I also know that there is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy and sabotage of the nation's defenses. In the 1960s and 1970s, the tolerance of anti-American hatreds was so high that the line between dissent and treason was erased. Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason by publishing classified government information in Ramparts magazine. I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons, to advance the cause of social justice and peace. I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did--especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of Indochina who suffered grievously from our support for the communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by the U.S. to the poorest and most humble of its citizens and how rare its virtues are in the world at large. If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant toward the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks. I appeal to those of you who are attacking your country, full of self-righteousness, who, like me, may live to regret what you have done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So keep at it guys. Osama is counting on you.
I read that in the Chronicle a few weeks ago. I thought it was excellent and I meant to post it here, but I forgot. Thank you for posting this. I think that about sums it up.
I think it is important to distinguish treason and lawful dissent. I believe Jane Roe or whoever is now for the anti-abortion lobby as well. Basically, to me the arrogant self-righteous do as the arrogant self-righteous do, doesn't matter if they are liberal, conservative, or change between them. It's like the alcoholic who rails against responsible drinkers. Or like our favorite ex-TV personality Mrs. Laura. I don't take these guys collective comments as worth the paper or airwaves they take up.
I agree, but that does not mean that their logic should be immediately discarded. Everyone has a right to their opinion, as well as the right to publicly express it as long as it's done peacefully. But if your protests jeopardize our military and get Americans killed (or in this case American civilians), or cause us to lose a war (Vietnam was very winnable), then that is treason.
And here I was thinking that the reason we didn't win in Veitnam was that we backed a brutal dictator who didn't have the support of his people, went in without clear goals or objectives, had no understanding of how to fight a war in Asia and eggregiously mismanaged and misused American troops and weapons in Vietman. Silly me, and all along it was some long-haired guys with slogans and colorful signs.
Um, not in my book. Vietnam was a political mistake we tried to cover up and ended up getting our military deeper into it. We lost thousands of soldiers lives that never should have been lost because of politicians <i> misjudgements </i> (being generous here) and the majority of protesters (NOT the one's who gave away military secrets, that is a different story) are pretty much historically validated in terms of the logic of their reasons, and in terms helping lead to us getting out of there before more lives were lost. Also, the idea American prostesters was the primary reasons for us "losing the war" rather than events, peoples, armies, etc, actually over there in Southeast Asia is just such a stretch. But that is different thread.
Horowitz is a former hippie war protesting liberal who found religion and became a far right conservative. Conservatives often use him as a symbol for why the hippies were wrong, but if you look to the other hippies of that era, the vast majority are still the same. Horowitz is an exception to that rule. His views on this and on his own protests are not that surprising considering his change in viewpoint.
What can we do about terrorism? Part one The ground rules for fighting terrorism Harry Browne Friday, October 5, 2001 This 3-part series will propose the actions I believe our government should take to fight terrorism. Before looking at those proposals, however, we need to establish some ground rules. Perfection Isn't an Option Rule #1: No solution is going to be perfect. Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world. It has bullied smaller countries, imposed new governments upon people who didn't want them, and demanded that other governments do what our government wants. It's unrealistic to think that there's anything that can be done now to quickly undo all the ill will. I have been criticized for dwelling on what our government has done that led to the terrorist attacks. But if we don't understand what provoked this, we can't evaluate any response to it — and we can expect that the faulty policies will continue and provoke more such attacks against Americans. Foreign Policy Is the Issue Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world who don't believe in killing non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims have been killed in Arab terrorist attacks, just as non-Muslims have. In an interview conducted by John Miller for Esquire magazine in February 1999, Osama bin Laden said: "This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves." The fact that bin Laden uses bad means to achieve his ends doesn't excuse our own government's mistakes; nor does it justify our government doing the same things he does. Bombing Doesn't Work Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it. Our government has bombed Libya, Iraq, the Sudan, and Afghanistan, among other countries, supposedly to teach terrorists a lesson. But the bombings haven't caused terrorists or foreign governments to change their policies. This Is a Crime, Not War Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. War is by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused. Calling the present situation a war is an excuse to impose wartime policies against Americans and foreigners — including violations of the Bill of Rights and killing foreign civilians. Because the September attacks were a crime, the government's job is to locate and bring to trial any perpetrators who didn't die in the attacks. If some of them are located in foreign countries, our government should request extradition — not threaten to bomb the foreign country if we don't get our way. If not all the criminals are found and brought to trial, it doesn't mean that bombing innocent people would have brought the criminals to justice. Reverse Positions Rule #5: If you think you or America is entitled to something, reverse the positions and see how you'd react. If Afghanistan doesn't turn bin Laden over to our government, ask yourself whether you'd want your government to turn you over to the Iranian government if it accused you of a crime. If you don't think that American troops in almost a hundred foreign countries are a source of resentment, ask yourself how you'd feel if Chinese troops were stationed in America. If you believe America has a right to bomb foreign countries for the actions of a few, ask yourself whether you'd want foreign governments to bomb your city because of something Bill Clinton did. (Haven't we already established that the terrorists were wrong to act upon their hatred for American foreign policy by killing innocent civilians?) Government Is Incompetent Rule #6: Government does not do anything well — even those functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The government has the Constitutional authority to operate a Post Office. But if it's urgent that a package get to the other side of America by tomorrow morning, will you trust the Constitutional Post Office or will you use Federal Express? Don't assume that just because the government has the legal authority to do something that it will actually succeed. So be careful what you ask for. What Is the Object? Rule #7: There's no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world. Terrorists have existed since Biblical times. There will always be such criminals — people who will kill innocent bystanders to make a social or political statement, or to bring pressure on a government to change its policies. Saying that terrorism will be eradicated is not only unrealistic, it is asinine. It indicates that the speaker shouldn't be trusted in anything else he says. What is realistic is the goal of reducing considerably the threat of terrorism against the U.S. In my next two articles, I'll present proposals for achieving this.
puedlfor: While governmental legitimacy did have something to do with Viet Nam, I prefer to think that it was more a case of an inability to strike at the source of VC funding and supply in China. As long as the VC were adequately supplied and committed to fighting a guerilla warfare, they couldn't be defeated. The government made the right decision in not striking back at China. Losing a small, isolated, regional conflict was one thing... going to war with China was quite another. Even a victory would have been far more costly than Viet Nam.
Harry Browne? Give me a break. Government ill will? obl's biggest hang-up is that INFIDEL Americans have troops, especially FEMALE troops in a country that invited us in. This problem is based on religious fanatacism, not one of our government's (many) mistakes. What about bombing doesn't work? 'Libya, Iraq, the Sudan, and Afghanistan' Well, lets see, Afghanistan is a work in progress. Sudan was one building (and a mistake), if I recall so it is an outlier. Libya; heard much from them last 10 years? Iraq; invaded any other countries lately? Why not ask the Kuwaitis if it helped. Serbia; leaving Bosnia alone? I won't even continue, waste of time.
Just curious Jeff (or anyone else).... What far right conservative turned liberal does the left use as a symbol for why conservatives are wrong?
interesting piece i found...the author of it is a bloody racist bigot b*stard but the information is solid so enjoy. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Israel invaded Lebanon. Perhaps 3000 Kuwait civilians died in the initial war with Iraq. 40,000 Lebanese died from the time of the invasion through the occupation. Iraq disobeyed UN resolutions to leave Kuwait. Israel disobeyed UN resolutions to leave Lebanon. (for 18 years) Iraq broke international conventions on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Yet Israel is a far greater offender, having one of the greatest stores of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world Iraq refused UN inspections. Israel has always refused UN inspection. For these violations we bombed Iraq. In response to Israel's crimes, America just continued to send more billions of dollars.
Apples and oranges. Did Kuwaiti terrorists attack Iraq? Israel (at least in their eyes), took defensive actions. Iraq took offensive actions. Comparing Iraq and Israel is equally ludicrous. Did Israel use chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Do you think that Iraq would hesitate to use nukes? I haven't heard of Israel using any of weapons of mass destruction.
mass destruction causes a large group of people to die right? israel did that with both palestinians and lebanese. does israel have nukes? yes does iraq have nukes no iraq believed kuwait was part of iraq. israelis believe palestine is part of their god given terroritory same thing. iraq didn't kill as many people as israel did. iraq didn't murder people in UN camps. israel did
Can't think of any off hand, though from my own experience I was fairly ideological conservative (libertarian really) as an adolescent and I am now a "moderate" in terms of the spectrum of 1st world democracies (which makes me left of center in the US). Jeff pegged my assumptions about Horowitz were accurate and I didn't even know anything about him. Essentially the type who has to be one extreme or another to let them feed their need for self-rightousness, or maybe in more gentle terms because of they can't tolerate any level of ambiguity. I am sure their are examples that went from the right to the left, maybe William Jennings Bryan. How about some of the supreme court appointes of conservative presidents this century?
Excellent analogy on our hypocritical foreign policy. Main reason Iraq was bombed was to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, two of our bigger oil suppliers. Few people know that Kuwait had been in a dispute with Iraq over some pipelines and some land. Also, the Gulf Was was supposed to catapult the economy and Bush Sr. was supposed to gain high approval rating- both were temporary.
Senescence is rarely paired with clarity of mind. However, I have held a dying man's hand. That man certainly showed more compassion than I've mustered lately.
Desert Scrar, David Brock is an example of a conservative that has turned and is now a liberal. He initally wrote a book on behalf of the conservatives to smear Anita Hill when she accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Later realized he was being used and fed misinformation by those conservatives he trusted. He has spoken out about this and other matters. Generally it is much easier to get a platform and funding if you want to put out conservative ideas. During the early Reagan era it was a cottage industry and many young right wingers were able to get 'IPO" money to try to start college newspapers and think tanks. See: http://www.salon.com/politics/red/2001/06/27/blue/ Also see: - - - - - - - - - - By Daryl Lindsey and Kerry Lauerman May 17, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- Conservative writer David Brock received nearly $40,000 from the American Spectator's Arkansas Project, project records show, despite claims by Spectator editors that Brock had nothing to do with the controversial Clinton-bashing project. Brock moved to the center of the drama over President Bush's solicitor general nominee, Ted Olson, when he told a Judiciary Committee staffer and the Washington Post that Olson was integral to the Arkansas Project -- the American Spectator's aggressive investigations into the private life of President Clinton, funded with roughly $2 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife -- despite Olson's claims to the contrary. http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/17/brock/
Baqui99, Excellent analogy? boy stated that Iraq believed Kuwait was part of Iraq? Isn't that just a angle Saddam used to claim right to Kuwaiti oil? That's good logic? And why would you mention that Iraq and Kuwait where in a dispute over pipelines? If we have such a dispute with Mexico, should we invade, rape, murder and plunder? Yee haw. The President gaining in the polls is a tired story. George Sr. could not have committed ground troops without strong public support. Iraq made certain that he had that. Others in the ME may have associated with the Iraqis better because the Kuwaitis are so rich, but does that make Iraq's actions right? Thats just disgusting. I no longer will waste my time 'discussing' Iraq and Israel with boy since he is so biased and close-minded, but I find it disturbing that a second individual here feels that Iraq is such a sweetheart.
Bush had huge approval ratings during the Gulf War...I remember when it was thought that no Dem could stand a chance against him...the idea that it was a tool for re-election, though, is silly. In all cases, Americans have very short memories, Bush would have had to do it much closer to the election for it to be a real tool, as was typical, his popularity went down and Clinton stormed in with an amazing campaign. Incidentally, Kuwait had been stealing oil (slant drilling with equipment obtained from the US) from Iraq. A few weeks before Iraq invaded, they asked the US what the reaction would be, "no problem" was the response. I guess that changed when oil fields were set ablaze. That whole conflict could have been avoided (which would have either not created or delayed Sep 11) if countries would look to diplomatic avenues first (I am speaking of Iraq first and then the US in their initial consultation, Kuwait, etc... Sometimes other people make me sad.
