Problems in the Anti-War Ranks (an email from their own kind!)

NeedToKnow ^ | 12/19/2002 | various

[dware]

The following email is between members of the anti-war movement, and further proves the fact that they are not interested in real peace, just furthering the causes of the Dim party!!! This stuff just cracks me up - they're MORONS!

BEGIN EMAIL

I'm of the mind that MoveOn has done a lot of good work on this front, as has ANSWER, but the spirit of sectarianism infecting this anti-war movement is beginning to disturb me...

----Original Message Follows----
From: Endsanctions@cs.com
To: iac-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iac-disc.] Sectarianism of MoveOn
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:24:10 EST

Our experience with MoveOn was after the announcement of this summer's hearings in the US Congress on the Bush strategy for "regime change." This Congressional "debate" was initially posed as THE forum that would challenge the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. MoveOn proposed a massive campaign to visit congressional representatives to address the issue of Iraq. It received a broad response. Here in Philadelphia a local activist volunteered to help organize a contingent to Pennsylvania senator Arlen Spector (Republican).

He sent us MoveOn's call organizing people to demand 'Don't Invade Iraq' and invited us to be part of the delegation. We responded that we would like to raise the issue of the war on Iraq with the senator, but this would involve addressing issues far beyond the pro's and con's of the Bush administration's invasion strategy. It involved the question of the sanctions on Iraq, and the continuing bombing campaign on Iraq. He responded that this sounded good, but would check with the national organizers.

For the record, here is the appropriate excerpt from the head of MoveOn recommending that Campaign to End the Sanctions be excluded from the delegation:

"From: Peter Schurman [mailto:pschurman@moveon.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:24 PM

Re. the End the Sanctions folks' concerns, it is important that we all stick to the message of this meeting as designated. Most MoveOn folks simply are not at the same point in awareness and commitment to this issue as the good folks at End the Sanctions. Our goal is to bring more voices to the table, even if their information is incomplete and their message may lack."

END OF EXCERPT

The organizer was so demoralized by this sectarian perspective that excluded opponents of sanctions, that he resigned from the MoveOn venture. By limiting the discussion on Iraq to the debate on the invasion strategy of the Bush administration the MoveOn group deliberately and effectively excluded views of opponents of the sanctions and the ongoing war. They attempted to limit views opposing the Bush plan on Iraq to those who advocating continuing the containment policy of the US against Iraq. ie the position of the Democratic Party.

Bob Allen
Campaign to End the Sanctions

[dware]

MORONS I tell ya!

[dware]

You gotta see this one!

[WOSG]

except end the sanctions is even more to the left ... and even more in the coddle Saddam ... methinks MOveOn wants to stay in complete "political viability" mode, and avoid being out on a political limb ... but you are right that it is nothing but a clintonite operation in service to Democrat skullduggery.

[saxxa]

i don't think this will change many of them...there hatred of , america , the consttution , our freedoms , our brave troops , sucessfull average people of all colors creeds and religions , our president , and the elected government of the united states of america , runs too deep for the most part ......it's pretty sad to hate and despise your own great country so much....but it is goodto see them starting to see the truth ....one by one...

[LiberalBuster]

Indeed. I'm anti-war and I've yet to attend any of the anti-war rallies. They're still made up, primarily, of adolescent leftists who have far too much time on their hand. I'm not the least bit interested in marching with those who want to free a cop killer or promote communism. Geographically, European opposition to this war is as hypocrical as Freeper support for it. Both took opposite sides when Klintoon was bombing the he!! out of Belgrade. You see, military action isn't necessarily bad. It's only bad if your guy isn't the one giving the green light.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Both took opposite sides when Klintoon was bombing the he!! out of Belgrade. You see, military action isn't necessarily bad. It's only bad if your guy isn't the one giving the green light.

Perhaps it is because there was not then, nor is there now, a damn thing in the Balkans that is any of our business nor our interest. Iraq, Iran, Syria, N Korea, are another matter.

[Eaker]

President Bush isn't planning to free Iraq to cover up a gross indiscretion as Clinton was doing.

To compare the two issues is ridicules.

Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker FReeper Status

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."

[dware]

TranquillinoJarales!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn good to see you, bro. It's about time you got over here to FR. How are things?

[Lizard_King]

This discussion really reminds me of the "People's Front Of Judea" scenes in Monty Python's Life Of Brian. They were ahead of their time.

[reformedliberal]

I disagree.

This is exactly the sort of enforcement of views that drove me and many others from the Left in the 1970's. The message and instructions for presenting it come down from on high and no one is allowed to deviate an iota. Enforced consensus. No unsanctioned creativity allowed.

Notice how they shined on the ones who were not on message, praising them for being more aware and enlightened, while enforcing the Party line. Typical.

I am pleased that they are still incapable of understanding how this offends large portions of those who might initially be sympathetic to their cause.

[abclily]

The messages that come down from on high are Hillary Hate for everything that is good about our country.

[expatpat]

Both took opposite sides when Klintoon was bombing the he!! out of Belgrade.

Serbia was no threat to the United States, whatsoever; Sadam is. That's why we were against Clinton's war with Yugoslavia. No hypocrisy.

[=Intervention=]

Oh please. What was the rationale for bombing Serbia? Nothing but trumped up phantom massacres, which evaporated under investigation. Saddam's crimes are well known, documented, and inescapable. For 10+ years he hasn't agreed to the terms of surrender he signed. He's screwed with the Oil for Food program, continued to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, and so on. The reason why conservatives took the opposite side in Kosovo are legion -- among them 1) no evidence 2) no compelling American interest. Take a look at Salman Pak and tell me Saddam isn't in bed with Al Quadia. It's also reprehensible to tar everyone else as a hypocrite based on sheer conjecture.

[sauropod]

"Geographically, European opposition to this war is as hypocrical as Freeper support for it. Both took opposite sides when Klintoon was bombing the he!! out of Belgrade. You see, military action isn't necessarily bad. It's only bad if your guy isn't the one giving the green light."

You are full of prunes! I opposed Bosnia and Kosovo actions. Why is it that if we are pro-war in Iraq we are "hypocritical?"

Methinks you paint with too broad a brush.

[Crusader_062002]

Check out www.indymedia.org, these knuckleheads are disorganized, disinformed, and disinfranchised. Much like Al Qaida the only reason they still have a foot to stand on is their massive financial backing.

[Crusader_062002]

Oh yeah, and I fully supported actions in Kosovo and Bosnia, just not the halfa@#ed sterile way they were carried out by a President who wasn't willing to risk the lives of good and willing men to accomplish real good.

[LiberalBuster]

>>Serbia was no threat to the United States, whatsoever;
>>Sadam is. That's why we were against Clinton's war
>>with Yugoslavia. No hypocrisy.

That would certainly explain why FReepers were gung-ho for conducting a war against Iraq during the Clinton years ... NOT. The reality is that the only reason you've had a renewal of sentiment against Iraq is because the current adminstration (that you blindly support) has suddently brought it front and center. If Sadaam was such a threat before, why haven't we heard FReepers declare how important it was to nip this problem in the bud? Instead, we had focus on Clinton's sex life and other peripheral issues. Democrats are hypocrites. And, so too, are Republicans. I'm tired of the double-standards and hypocrisy from both sides.

[expatpat]

Clearly you are a socialist -- easy to tell from your resort to ad hominem attack. Go back to DU, where that's acceptable.