• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When troofers attack!

Wow, so it's 1933 in Iran and 1970 in Parkland, WA. Did Dr. McCoy shoot up another hypospray full of cordrazine and go day tripping again?
 
negativ said:
Wow, so it's 1933 in Iran and 1970 in Parkland, WA. Did Dr. McCoy shoot up another hypospray full of cordrazine and go day tripping again?
Click to expand...

How dare you disrespect the memory of Edith Keeler.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I'm willing to bet portions of my own anatomy that one or more of these guys are "truth" seekers.
Click to expand...

Wonder if we're going to see the Weather Underground reform, the 'peace' movement seems to have taken most of it's cues from the Vietnam era, so it's not too surprising that the "Kill for Peace" thing appears to have started again.
 
Four yahoos with a pistol against a lone, unarmed man. And a getaway car idling beside them. Don’t you admire their courage?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I'm willing to bet portions of my own anatomy that one or more of these guys are "truth" seekers.
Click to expand...

There's something odd about this story. Perhaps it's just that I don't want to believe that even anti-war extremists would attack a soldier in uniform, but it seems just a little too pat to me.
 
Graham2001 said:
Wonder if we're going to see the Weather Underground reform, the 'peace' movement seems to have taken most of it's cues from the Vietnam era, so it's not too surprising that the "Kill for Peace" thing appears to have started again.
Click to expand...

This is just silly. "Kill for Peace" was never a Weather Underground slogan. It was something that Vietnam War protesters claimed summed up the US Govt.'s policy in Vietnam. The Weather Underground saw itself as the vanguard of an armed revolution ushering in a Marxist paradise. Sure they thought Vietnam was bad, but to suggest that they were in some way the vanguard of the 60's peace movement is as stupid and offensive as saying that the KKK is the vanguard of the Republican Party because they both oppose illegal immigration.

It is equally silly to suggest that the contemporary peace movement is "taking most of its cues from the Vietnam era." Other than the fact that they both resort to protest marches, do you have anything at all to back that statement up? The 60's peace movement was rooted in university campuses and entwined with a much broader counter-cultural ferment. You'd find it hard to find more than a poster or two on most university campuses today.

Finally--it is absurd to suggest that random killings of National Guardsmen was ever part of the Vietnam era peace movement. I will be surprised if this news report turns out to be the whole story, and if it does, I will be astounded if you can find me so much as one legitimate representative of contemporary anti-war movements who doesn't condemn the act as an outrage.
 
Brainster said:
There's something odd about this story. Perhaps it's just that I don't want to believe that even anti-war extremists would attack a soldier in uniform, but it seems just a little too pat to me.
Click to expand...

We don't know it was political, Tacoma can be a pretty rough city, even for non-military types.
 
Yoink said:
This is just silly. "Kill for Peace" was never a Weather Underground slogan. It was something that Vietnam War protesters claimed summed up the US Govt.'s policy in Vietnam. The Weather Underground saw itself as the vanguard of an armed revolution ushering in a Marxist paradise. Sure they thought Vietnam was bad, but to suggest that they were in some way the vanguard of the 60's peace movement is as stupid and offensive as saying that the KKK is the vanguard of the Republican Party because they both oppose illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Many of the people in Weatherman were absolutely in the vanguard of the '60s peace movement. In fact, Weatherman was formed from a offshoot of the SDS, one of the major student antiwar groups.

It is equally silly to suggest that the contemporary peace movement is "taking most of its cues from the Vietnam era." Other than the fact that they both resort to protest marches, do you have anything at all to back that statement up? The 60's peace movement was rooted in university campuses and entwined with a much broader counter-cultural ferment. You'd find it hard to find more than a poster or two on most university campuses today.
Click to expand...

I think that's the effect of no draft for the most part. To the extent that the peace movement is taking it's cues from the Vietnam era, that's probably because it's made up of many of the same people.
 
Brainster said:
Many of the people in Weatherman were absolutely in the vanguard of the '60s peace movement. In fact, Weatherman was formed from a offshoot of the SDS, one of the major student antiwar groups.
Click to expand...

Sure--but they thought the bulk of the peace movement was a bunch of hopeless "liberals" (remember back in the day when that was the favorite left-wing term of abuse?) who were mistaking a symptom for a cause. The Weathermen weren't focused on stopping the Vietnam War--they wanted to overthrow the Government. Yes, they would have stopped the war, but only as one part of a radical reinvention of the entire structure of US society. (Well, to say what they "would have" done is absurd when we're talking about a bunch of self-deluding masturbatory fantasists, but add in "had they actually had a chance of doing anything other than killing a few harmless people").

To suggest that the contemporary anti-war movement is a descendent of the Weathermen is just stupid smearing-by-association. The vast majority of the 60s peace movement did not condone the actions of the Weathermen, and the vast majority of contemporary peace activists do not share any of the political goals of the Weathermen.
 
Yoink said:
Sure--but they thought the bulk of the peace movement was a bunch of hopeless "liberals" (remember back in the day when that was the favorite left-wing term of abuse?) who were mistaking a symptom for a cause. The Weathermen weren't focused on stopping the Vietnam War--they wanted to overthrow the Government. Yes, they would have stopped the war, but only as one part of a radical reinvention of the entire structure of US society. (Well, to say what they "would have" done is absurd when we're talking about a bunch of self-deluding masturbatory fantasists, but add in "had they actually had a chance of doing anything other than killing a few harmless people").

To suggest that the contemporary anti-war movement is a descendent of the Weathermen is just stupid smearing-by-association. The vast majority of the 60s peace movement did not condone the actions of the Weathermen, and the vast majority of contemporary peace activists do not share any of the political goals of the Weathermen.
Click to expand...

Well, I think some of the folks in the "leadership" of the peace movement are the usual gang of idiots--check out the charming folks at International ANSWER, who have organized many of the protests. Not quite Weatherman, certainly except that they'd probably agree with them on everything except the use of violence. It's an offshoot of the Socialist Workers' Party, most of whom denounced the Soviet crackdown in Hungary in 1956; the ANSWER folks are the splinter that approved of the tanks rolling into Budapest.

If your point is that the vast majority of the people protesting the war then and now weren't hard core radicals, I agree. But a heck of a lot of the people who were on the stage were and are.
 
Yoink said:
To suggest that the contemporary anti-war movement is a descendent of the Weathermen is just stupid smearing-by-association. The vast majority of the 60s peace movement did not condone the actions of the Weathermen, and the vast majority of contemporary peace activists do not share any of the political goals of the Weathermen.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that, though thanks to my poor phraseology it may have appeared so.

That said it is quite clear that the current Iraq/Afghanistan 'Peace' movement is directly or indirectly descended from the Vietnam 'Peace' movement of the 60's/70's. As I mentioned in this earlier thread some protesters actually used Vietnam era slogans and at the core both movements (at least to me) seem to have the same basic and flawed assumption at their heart.

Which is that simply pulling US/Allied troops out of the affected countries will immediately bring about peace. In the case of South Vietnam we all know what happened in 1975 (though in my case it was glossed over in school and I had to learn about it myself). In the case of Iraq, simply pulling out the 'Westerners' is not going to do anything about Iran or Syria both of whom have much to benefit about the current state of affairs.

Similarly the message of both 'peace' movements can be expressed in the following very cynical fashion:

Why should westerners die to give a bunch of Gooks (1960s/70s)/Dirty Arabs(2000s) the slightest chance at bettering their situation.As a final point, while I did not support the invasion of Iraq, I do believe that to simply 'bring the boys' back is not going to fix the current mess. Sorry for going off topic like this but I thought I'd try and make myself clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom