Media Critics Take a Walk on the Wild Side in France (Part 2)

(Text and photos by Ray D.)

French Party Gets Crashed by Bloggers

All was running as planned for protest organizers at last Saturday’s anti-Bush, anti-USA, Communist-Arab-Pacifist rally in Paris, France. The crowd was being whipped into a fury with shouts of “resistance!” The Communist lead organizer was conducting an interview with a highly receptive group of reporters. And best of all for the marchers…there was no one sympathetic to the USA for miles around…or so they thought…

Surprise! Erik of No Pasaran! singing “America the Beautiful” right in the Commie leader's face! His sign reads: "Sometimes the Cowboy is Right!"

---

(Another posting at Erik's blog on the topic.)

Whoops! This is France buddy…no pro-American demonstrators allowed!
Especially not on D-Day weekend!

Both Erik and I (Ray D.) were involved in a scuffle with protest organizers and were subsequently detained by the French police for disturbing the "Peace." We were both left scratching our heads and wondering: "Where's the love French brothers?"

Here are some more photos: Picture A, Picture B, Picture C

(Here's part 1 of the story)

Comments

[Stacy]

Ray and Erik are my hero's! You really are the French and German Resistance. You are brave and smart and funny. You are brave to enter the belly of the beast. Every day you express your intelligence and humor on your blogs. I hope the French police were kind!

[statler]

Two thumbs up for Erik and Ray! Please leave me a note before your next gig, I'll be happy to join in!

[Ros]

I agree whole heartly with Stacy. Both of you were very brave - thank you for standing up for what you believe inspite of all the intimidation.

[Pato]

Ray and Eric-
Thanks for making the trip to the fetid swamp of welfare-soaked minds that is paris.
I hope both of you properly de-contaminated yourselves upon your arrival back home.
Your actions are noble, your cause a great one.
Can anyone explain why the french cops dress up like 12 yr olds on a camping trip?

[vik]

SAUBERE ARBEIT !!!!

:-)

vik

[Joe2]

Is that "crushing of dissent" that I see?

Well done gents.

[Joe2]

Oh, and if either of you find yourselves in Washington DC, drinks are on me. You've earned it.

[Anne]

Ironic that they were in the piazza where 60 years ago they were liberated.

Never again? Yeah, right!

These idiots are going to get us all killed!

Thanks guys for being brave enough to carry Old Glory - wish I'd been there - maybe next time - for their will be a next time.

[Anne]

Okay so I posted it thrice - just making sure the idiots got the message!!!! lol

PS: I still find it difficult to understand - the Europeans were liberated by many brave men/women from US/UK/Canada etc. - so how come they don't want the same for the Iraqi people?

Note from David: I deleted two of the three identical comments. Hope that's ok...

[Clark]

I blame John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

[Mark]

Alas, it seems to be a counter-demonstration of two. But, you guys are heroes regardless. Way to go!

[Ray D.]

Just to clear things up, there were actually 3 or 4 other French supporters (friends of Erik) along for the fun.

[MattGNYC]

I want to be there next time too! You guys should organize a counter-dem next opp. and we'll charter a plane from NYC and be there next to you. Rational, respectable and a hell of a lot of fun - count me in.

[Downer]

Nice pics! Thanks. Perhaps, the "Naiv-Pazifismos" are supported by the French Government? My assumption. Conspiracy-Theories go around. Nothing surprises me with this people, Germans are almost tame against this. As a German, i hate this arrogant nation. Come, let's go, repaired the Transatlantic-Alliance with so many nations in Europe, but eliminate the Frenchmans.

PS: Ooooooooops! Whats up with ARD? ;-)

ARD bringt eigene Festnahmen-Ente nicht

US-Soldaten sollen im April einen deutschen Luftwaffen-Oberst auf dem Flughafen im afghanischen Kabul in Handschellen abgeführt haben - behauptete die ARD heute. Das Verteidigungsministerium dementierte prompt. Nun verzichtet die Anstalt auf eine Veröffentlichung ihrer eigenen Exklusivmeldung.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,303097,00.html

[Sean]

It's guys like you that remind us in the US why it was worth it 60 years ago.

[Robert Hardy]

Bush doesn't support democracy. Look at the human rights reports of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance is no better then the Taliban, and yet, America is currently supporting the Northern Alliance through money and arms. We are also supporting local warlords in Afghanistan, not because we support democracy, but because we are trying to eradicate Al Qaeda from the country. If we cared about democracy, Bush wouldn't be supporting the Northern Alliance, he woudln't be supporting local warlords, nor would he have supported the overthrow of the democratically elected Aristide in Haiti.

Also, its one thing to show the signs of the protestors, its another thing to give them an opportunity to speak their mind and give specific examples as to why they believe the things they do, something you have not given the protestors an opportunity for in your blog entry. (this is the only entry i've read so far, and the only entry i plan on reading, i came from a link on Andrew Sullivan's site).

[Downer]

Übrigens auch ein sehr interessanter Artikel im britischen "Economist":

Sixty years on

Jun 3rd 2004
From The Economist print edition

The divisions over Iraq must not mark a terminal split between Europe and America

Wenn sie im Einklang miteinander handeln, entfalten die reichen Demokratien eine überwältigende politische und moralische sowie militärische Kraft. Und es gibt vieles, bei dem sie immer noch zusammenarbeiten sollten: Afghanistan zu sichern, Palästina in Ordnung bringen, die Demokratie in der arabischen Welt auszudehnen, den Iran davon zu überzeugen, keine Atombombe zu bauen. Einige Amerikaner denken, sie können das alles alleine. Der Irak hat letztendlich gezeigt, dass Frankreich und Deutschland Amerika nicht davon abhalten können, in den Krieg zu ziehen, wenn es das will. Doch ihre Opposition hat die Nachkriegsaufgabe im Irak sehr viel schwieriger gemacht. Und das ist der Punkt, an dem man anfangen sollte, die Beziehungen zu kitten. Denn trotz aller Vorkriegsdifferenzen haben beide Seiten Interesse daran sicherzugehen, dass der Irak Frieden und Wohlstand genießen kann, und nicht zu einem weiteren terrorzüchtenden, gescheiterten Staat verfällt. Die UNO hat diese Woche eine Übergangsregierung für den Irak ernannt. Welchen besseren Zeitpunkt kann es geben, um die gegenseitigen Schuldzuweisungen beiseitezuschieben und dafür zusammenzuarbeiten?

When they act in unison, the rich democracies deploy overwhelming political and moral as well as military force. And there is much on which they should still co-operate: securing Afghanistan, sorting out Palestine, spreading democracy to the Arab world, persuading Iran not to build an atomic bomb. Some Americans think they can do all this alone; Iraq did after all show that France and Germany cannot prevent America from going to war if it wants to. But their opposition has made the post-war job in Iraq very much harder. And that is where to start mending relations. For all their pre-war differences, both sides have an interest now in making sure that Iraq enjoys peace and prosperity rather than degenerates into another terror-breeding failed state. The UN this week appointed an interim government for Iraq. What better moment to put aside the recriminations and work together for that?

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=2724938

[Downer]

Aus dem aktuellen "Handelsblatt":

Demokratie jetzt
Der Krieg im Irak kann noch gewonnen werden – Es war ein Fehler der Regierung Bush, nicht auf raschere Wahlen zu drängen

Wir wissen nicht, wie nahe die Bemühungen der Vereinigten Staaten im Irak möglicherweise schon sind – einer Niederlage, deren Auswirkungen nicht mehr wettzumachen wären. Wir glauben aber, dass die aktuell in Washington vorherrschende Ansicht, die USA seien bereits gescheitert, viel zu pessimistisch ist. Das gilt auch für die Auffassung, es gehe für die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre Truppen jetzt nur noch darum, sich mit möglichst geringem Schaden aus der Affäre zu ziehen.

Hier handelt es sich um eine Panikreaktion auf die Schwierigkeiten durch den Aufstand in Falludscha und auf die Probleme, die sich den Koalitionstruppen durch die Person des radikalen Schiitenführers Muktada el Sadr stellen. Das ist auch eine kopflose Reaktion auf das Desaster, das durch die Misshandlungen im Gefängnis Abu Ghraib angerichtet wurde.

Wir sind entsetzt über die leichtfertige und verantwortungslose Art, mit der in den USA nun Politiker von der Linken wie von der Rechten suggerieren, wir sollten uns einfach aus dem Irak zurückziehen und das Land zur Hölle fahren lassen. Wir wundern uns darüber, dass dieselben Leute, die sich zu Recht über die von Amerikanern begangenen Misshandlungen irakischer Gefangener beschweren, auf der anderen Seite so unbekümmert vorgehen.

Sie sind dazu bereit, die gesamte irakische Bevölkerung dem wahrscheinlichen Schicksal eines fürchterlichen Bürgerkriegs und einer brutalen Diktatur zu überantworten, die aus einer bewaffneten Auseinandersetzung hervorgehen würde. Diese Art von „humanitärer Haltung“ möge man uns bitte ersparen.

Gott sei Dank sagt US-Präsident George W. Bush, dass er sich nach wie vor dem Ziel verpflichtet fühlt, im Irak den Sieg zu erringen. Gott sei Dank gibt es in der Demokratischen Partei entschiedene und standfeste Politiker wie die Senatoren Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman und Evan Bayh, die sich gegen den wachsenden Lärm in ihrer eigenen Partei wenden, mit dem zum Rückzug der US-Truppen geblasen werden soll.

Aber wir müssen feststellen, dass weit über das Spektrum des linken Flügels der Demokraten oder der Republikaner hinaus, die zum außenpolitischen Isolationismus der Vereinigten Staaten neigen, Vertrauen verloren gegangen ist – Vertrauen darin, dass der Krieg im Irak gewonnen werden kann.

Die Bush-Regierung scheint nicht zu erkennen, wie weit verbreitet die Ansicht ist, dass der Irak bereits verloren sei oder dass er unmittelbar davor stehe, verloren zu gehen. Sie scheint auch nicht wahrzunehmen, wie stark diese Auffassung sich in beiden Parteien, bei Republikanern und Demokraten, verbreitet hat. Deshalb ist der Regierung möglicherweise gar nicht bewusst, wie nah die gesamte Nation daran ist, auf entscheidende Weise ins Lager der Kriegsgegner überzugehen.

In bestimmter Hinsicht ist es gleichgültig, ob die populäre und gleichzeitig elitäre Wahrnehmung der Situation im Irak, wie wir sie beschrieben haben, zu vereinfachend und zu pessimistisch ist. Denn wenn dieser Eindruck weiter um sich greift, kann er die Unterstützung für den Krieg untergraben, noch ehe die wirklichen Geschehnisse im Irak den Beweis dafür liefern können, dass die Auffassung falsch ist.

Deshalb könnte der Irak verloren gehen, wenn die Regierung Bush bei ihrer Einschätzung bleibt, sie könne mit ihrer politischen und militärischen Strategie einfach fortfahren, ohne auf dramatische Weise eine Kursänderung vorzunehmen, ohne machtvolles und sichtbares Handeln, dass den gegenwärtigen Abwärtstrend umkehrt.

Die bisherige Planung der US-Exekutive basiert auf einer Übergangsregierung, die unter Mithilfe des Uno-Sondergesandten Lakhdar Brahimi zusammengestellt wurde und der am 1. Juli die Macht übergeben werden soll. Darüber hinaus besteht die Absicht, sich auf Wahlen im Irak im Januar 2005 vorzubereiten. Diese Planung war vielleicht vor ein paar Monaten noch der damaligen Lage angemessen. Aber sie ist nicht dazu geeignet, mit der neuen Herausforderung fertig zu werden.

Zu den größten Fehlern der Regierung Bush im vergangenen Jahr zählt die Tatsache, dass sie nicht auf wesentlich raschere Wahlen im Irak hingewirkt hat. Es ist wahr, dass viele sowohl innerhalb als auch außerhalb der Regierung lautstark gefordert haben, den Irakern solle mehr Verantwortung übertragen werden – damit war vor allem mehr Verantwortung bei den Kämpfen mit Aufständischen und beim Sterben gemeint. Aber eines der wirklich wichtigen Rechte, das nicht einmal diese Freunde des Iraks den Irakern zugestehen wollten, ist das Recht, die eigene Regierung zu wählen. Das war ein Fehler.

Wir glauben nicht, dass die aktuelle Planung unserer Regierung den Irakern schnell genug die wirkliche Souveränität verschafft. Es ist keine echte nationale Souveränität, wenn ein Beamter der Vereinten Nationen den Irakern sagt, wer ihr nächster Regierungschef sein wird.

Wir bezweifeln sehr, dass die Verkündung der neuen Interimsregierung oder deren Amtseinführung eine so starke Wirkung auf die öffentliche Meinung im Irak haben wird, dass der Effekt neutralisiert wird, den die Fotos der amerikanischen Soldaten ausgelöst haben, die irakische Gefangene misshandelt haben. Und wir glauben auch nicht, dass so, wie die politische Entwicklung sich jetzt abzeichnet, das amerikanische Volk und ihre Vertreter hinreichenden Grund zu der Hoffnung haben, dass in der nahen Zukunft eine entscheidende Hürde genommen werden kann. Die kommenden Wochen sind eine kritische Phase.

Copyright: The Weekly Standard

William Kristol (Bild) ist Heraus- geber des Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan ist Publizist und Mitarbeiter der Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

English Version:

Democracy Now
From the May 17, 2004 issue: The Bush administration seems not to recognize how widespread, and how bipartisan, is the view that Iraq is already lost or on the verge of being lost.
by Robert Kagan and William Kristol

05/17/2004, Volume 009, Issue 34

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/056mvrqy.asp

[Ward Cleaver]

Thanks for your courage and your support. My, how some people forgot who pulled their butts out of the crack - twice. We might think twice about it next time.

[Stacy]

Downer,

You need to go take a look a Bill Kristol's new article in the Weekly Standard titled "Why Bush Will Win".

[Ray D.]

Bush doesn't support democracy. Look at the human rights reports of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance is no better then the Taliban, and yet, America is currently supporting the Northern Alliance through money and arms. We are also supporting local warlords in Afghanistan, not because we support democracy, but because we are trying to eradicate Al Qaeda from the country.

Do you expect democracy to appear overnight in Afghanistan? Bush just has to wave his magic wand and abra-cadabra, democracy! What kind of an argument is that...it is the usual mush-brained leftist BS that has no connection to reality. Let's get serious. The difference is, under the Taliban Afghanistan had no hope of democracy and was ruled by an incredibly repressive fanatic regime that was FAR less tolerant than the current one. Now, with the current regime, the people of Afghanistan have a democratic outlook. Yes, there are warlords, drugs and other problems, but the country was at war for almost 3 decades, you just can't fix all the problems immediately. Germany also didn't turn into a democracy overnight in 1945, it took lots of hard work and money to rebuild.

Also, its one thing to show the signs of the protestors, its another thing to give them an opportunity to speak their mind and give specific examples as to why they believe the things they do, something you have not given the protestors an opportunity for in your blog entry.

Isn't the fact that people like you are allowed to post comments here evidence to the contrary? And I think the signs reflect the point of view of the protestors, otherwise they wouldn't be carrying them by the thousands...but I guess I just don't know-it-all like our enlightened left-wing Euro friends...

[Robert Hardy]

"Do you expect democracy to appear overnight in Afghanistan?"
~Ray D.

Fighting a brutal regime, does not give America the right to support a different brutal regime. You have to remember, America supported the mujahiddin while Afghanistan fought the Soviet Union, this terrorist organization was not democratic, nor a friendly regime to human rights. We are seeing something similar now, with support for the Northern Alliance, which is not that much better then the Taliban. How can we have improvement by simply transferring power to a regime that is slightly better then the totalitarian Taliban? To suggest the Northern Alliance is an improvement towards democracy is to set very, very low standards. When America pulls out of the country, Afghanistan may collapse just like after the Soviet Union left the country, and the increase in drug trafficking and reduced stability can help advance future terrorist causes against America.

Also, when I read the original post, all it was, or all it seemed to be, was the author getting in a slogan battle with the protestors. Slogan battles do nothing, other then make each side lament on the pure stupidity of the other side. What the author did was not heroic, it was not smart/witty, nor was it funny; and yet everyone thinks to the contrary.

"Ray and Erik are my hero's! You really are the French and German Resistance. You are brave and smart and funny. You are brave to enter the belly of the beast. Every day you express your intelligence and humor on your blogs. I hope the French police were kind!"
~Stacy, who forgot to add the stereotypical "lol" at the end of her reply. And don't forget the comments of Pato, Ros and Joe2, who rally behind an obese Ben Affleck in their preteen attempts of praising the popular kid as they try to "crush the dissent".

[syn]

Well Robert Hardy, any suggestion as to how the civilized world can help those less fortunate other than that nasty policy of quietly containing brutal regimes so that cultivated French can enjoy their lavish non-labored lifestyles?

All this crap you are saying now is exactly the same as when oppressed populations in the former USSR were suffering in contained hell surrounded by a wall.

The wall came down. The world is better off.

Here is my suggestion, why not focus all your Afghanistan anger towards the poppyseed junkies buying the shit that supports the Afghanistan warlords.

[Stacy]

Robert,

Are you completely humorless?

When a few individuals stand in front of a mass of demonstrators and loudly question the mobs religiously held "group think" and point out their obvious hypocrisy, yes that is brave and it is funny!

In the '80's as a teen I marched with the nuclear freeze people at our local university (U of MN). I clearly remember the small group of campus Republicans that turned out to counter-protest. At the time I thought they were a bunch of A-holes, in retrospect I laugh (and cry) to realize how right they were and how wrong I was.

There is a time and place for considered debate, confronting a mob in Paris (least we forget our limited history) in not it.

[jjayson]

Oh. You are The Man for today. Hysterically funny.

[Pasha]

This stunt reminds me of Life of Brian when Brian says "You must all be individual" only this is better. Have a big laugh at the left. It's the one thing they absolutely think no one is capable of doing.

[j.pickens]

"Sometimes the Cowboy is Right!"

Oh, Man, that sign must have driven them NUTS!!!!!!
Do you have any video of the encounter?

[Sandy P]

--degenerates into another terror-breeding failed state. --

Because it wasn't that before, was it, The Economist?

I see more MSM isn't reading Iraqi bloggers. Or people who show up at BBCI

[Ray D.]

@ Robert

We are seeing something similar now, with support for the Northern Alliance, which is not that much better then the Taliban. How can we have improvement by simply transferring power to a regime that is slightly better then the totalitarian Taliban? To suggest the Northern Alliance is an improvement towards democracy is to set very, very low standards.

Your premise that the current situation is only slightly better than the Taliban-era is the fatal flaw in your argument. When it comes to human rights and women's rights, the current regime may not be perfect, but it is significantly better than the Taliban. And if you think the current situation is evidence of setting low, low standards, I must say that leaving the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda partners in power would have been the absolute LOWEST of standards and a moral disaster, but that is exactly what people like you were supporting. The same goes for Iraq. Unfortunatley, in the REAL world we sometimes have to choose between two imperfect solutions and select the better one. It was so in WW2 when the US supported Stalin, it was so when the US supported a wide array of anti-communist forces in Afghanistan in the 80s against the Soviet Union's occupation in the context of the Cold War, and it is so now. The world just isn't as black and white as you would like to have it my friend.

When America pulls out of the country, Afghanistan may collapse just like after the Soviet Union left the country

Exactly, that is why America should not pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq until both countries have stable, democratic governments with enough of their own security forces to fend for themselves, and yes, just as it did in Germany and Japan after WW2, that will take time. BTW, the last time I checked, the US still has significant forces in both Germany and Japan.

What the author did was not heroic, it was not smart/witty, nor was it funny; and yet everyone thinks to the contrary.

OK, then why don't you go try stepping in front of a few thousand French anti-US marchers with a US flag, a pro-US sign and a camera my friend...you wouldn't even have the balls to do it I bet. It was our way of saying that this blind and ignorant hate of America WILL NOT GO UNCHALLENGED!

[Erik]

Well, I thought it was funny!

There is a link to a short excerpt of the video on ¡No Pasarán!.

But if you want to see the full-length version, send me an email me from my website and I'll email it to you. Be forewarned that it's 4.2 MB, though.

[WhatDoIKnow]

@Ray and Erik

Good job !!

Funny how aggressive demonstrants hide behind peace slogans... They made "peace" a cheap merchandise and took all the value out of it.

[Joe2]

Robert Hardy: nothing is stopping anyone from posting - that is a silly accusation. If these guys have a position on something, and a blog, they are not required to create posts showing the opinions of people they disagree with. That's something those who disagree should do.
Geopolitics is not playschool, or a meeting of the debating club - US citizens have been picked off by middle east terrorism for years. Don't you think that we should change that? Or is there a scorecard of sentiment in your head that has to remain equal, chere a nation must be required to let its' citizens die - if only to placate your feelings.

Bush's goal is to create a diincetive to terrorists and belligerants. If you're pulling for a world model where malcontents can kill people who are not permitted to defend themselves, them you are mad.

It's IDENTICAL to telling the Allies of WW2 not to retaliate against Hitler because someone might get hurt.

[Noah]

Advice to Erik and Ray: If your courage should ever result in personal injury at one of these demonstrations, do the sensible thing: lie in the street and scream "Help me! I'm an anti-American!" Someone may come to your aid.

[Room 101]

good work fellas..
@ robert:
think about feasability.
you cant invade a country like afghanistan and remove all the warlords...it is not possible. who do you hand power to?
afghanistan is slowly moving into the right direction. all this pessimistic talk of failure is premature.

[Anne]

"OK, then why don't you go try stepping in front of a few thousand French anti-US marchers with a US flag, a pro-US sign and a camera my friend...you wouldn't even have the balls to do it I bet. It was our way of saying that this blind and ignorant hate of America WILL NOT GO UNCHALLENGED!"

Hear! Hear!

Eric and Ray D: Are you Americans? Do you get any comments about flying Old Glory on your patio? How bad is anti-Americanism really (leftie protestors aside)? I read different reports.

[Anne]

Noah: Is that a satire on the BBC guy who lay on the street in Saudi after being shot by what the BBC calls "Freedom Fighters"/"Militants"?

I know he lay on the street crying out in Arabic:
"Help me" "I'm a Muslim" but was totally ignored by the loving, caring and peaceful muslims who watched him lay there in a pool of blood.

[Robert in Mexifornia]

Erik and Ray D., yes, you guys DO have iron balls. Not many would take the risk you did. And like others, I wish I had been there with you. Fine work, men.

[fmj]

@downer

wirklich interessante Geschichte

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,303097,00.html

Sie kursiert mittlerweile auch in anderen Nachrichten und hat mich gleich an den Anschlag auf den klapprigen Autobus auf dem Weg zum Kabuler Flughafen erinnert, in dem vier deutsche Bundeswehrsoldaten in Kabul sterben mussten, weil man ihnen keine gepanzerten Transporter zur Verfügung stellen wollte.

Die erwähnten US-Soldaten haben sich womöglich auch an die Geschichte erinnert und sind vorsorglich eigeninitiativ geworden. Ein Fall echter Kameradschaft.

[Robert Hardy]

Well, this will be my third and final post here. This will also be my longest.

I would like to thank Syn, for he actually asked a decent question, although I’m not going to use his actual words. If you do not like how the war is being waged, what would have been your preferred alternative? I’m basically creating a nice way of phrasing Syn’s question, and it’s a good question but it is easy to answer when people tend to recognize that war is not the only solution. Alternatives do exist, but more importantly, war could not be the answer in this case. First off, the attempts in Afghanistan have decreased the Al Qaeda population in that country, granted, but it has not decreased the population of Al Qaeda. An important concept. Reports are indicating that the terrorist group has simply moved to other countries, and are still as powerful as before 9-11. We do not know if terrorist groups are becoming more popular or less popular, as quoted by the Financial Times,

“The Bush administration's fear that it might be losing the long-term war against Islamic extremism was voiced by Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, who said he did not know if "zealots and despots" were turning out new terrorists faster than the US could capture or kill them.”

In other words, the United States has no measuring stick to see if were winning the war, its merely a guess, a guess with very sketchy and non-reliable evidence, this is a war that can never be won, nor will we know our status in the game. Attacking one country simply forces the organizations to move to another country, and set up shop after the bombing creates a perfect community for drugs and the recruitment of more future terrorists. How can that be a solution?

So what could have been done? Well, I’m going to give what I believe to be an adequate answer but I fear that many "individuals" will push it aside as liberal hippy whining. If you look at terrorist organizations in third world countries, much of their support comes from their humanitarian endeavors. The economies in these countries are down the shitter, and starvation is a problem. Terrorist organizations are willing to provide technology and food in return for anyone who provides loyalty. This idea is similar to what the Nazis did. If you want to end the recruitment of terrorism, decrease the military budget. In 1999 we spent 277 billion, I believe we are currently spending much more money now. Decrease the military budget by 80 (or any arbitrary high number) billion dollars, and give that money to the countries of the Middle East as reparations for our interventions in the past 30 years. Last time I checked, we currently have the technology to feed all 6 billion souls in this world, with a minimum of 2,500 calories per person. So feed the world, guarantee 2,000 calories for each individual in each country, since food is seen as a basic human right by the United Nations. Get other developed countries to join the fight against Hunger, create a market to deal with AIDS in Africa, help treat curable diseases that are incredibly cheap to treat, get all of the rich countries in the world to end all subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products so LDCs can compete in a “Free-Market”, and you will undercut the role of terrorist organization in recruiting individuals, but more importantly you will be fighting for democracy. Why would the population of Iraq then hate us? Iraqi’s are human just like you and me, they respond to incentives, treat them well and they will treat us well. If an individual makes a personal attack on yourself, sit back and analyze what was said and first look to see if you did anything wrong. As long as we bomb their country, and mistreat their prisoners, its going to be very hard to make new friends, wine is better then vinegar. Although, I guess this is just liberal care bear whining. Fine… (While proofreading this, i'm afraid some people may misinterpret me and believe that i Support the atrocity of 9-11, I do not. But we should look at the motives that caused the action.)

Also, Ray D actually tried to debate with me, compared to other individuals. He attacked the premise that the Northern Alliance is not any better then the Taliban. This is what I want, people to attack premises. But Ray D suffers from the paradigm that only two ideas exist in this world, and Americans must pick one or the other. Political stances in America are not summarized by Republicans and Democrats, numerous third parties exist which pick stances that are based on very different paradigms and assumptions; there are infinite solutions to political problems. The world is not black and white as Ray would suggest.

Joe2 fails from simple logic. There is “A” and “B”, and person “C”. Person C criticizes Person A, this does not mean that Person C supports person B. I am person C, America is A, Saddam/Taliban/BinLaden is B. Me criticizing America does not equate to me supporting the Taliban. Also, the analogy to Hitler doesn’t work in this instance. In WW2 we were attacked by a country, now we were attacked by an organization that can operate in any state. This changes the logic to our current situation, and the solution.

Room101 says we invaded, and we must hand power to someone, so who should we? Well, another question that should be raised is, should we have attacked? Since we already did, I guess the immediate question is who to hand power too. Answer: President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. Give the President of the country more power, the local warlords less power. I do not know what Human Rights Watch stance is on giving more power to Karzai, but they do suggest that President Bush should “press for the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the international peacekeeping force currently stationed only in and around the capital, Kabul.” President Karzai should also be pressured to make human rights a centerpiece of his platform.

As a final note, the original question I posed was, does President Bush support democracy?

Well, no one has argued the case of Haiti which I raised. But I do believe the war in the Middle East was done in the name of Neo-Realism, in terms of geopolitical strategy, to create a base of power in the Middle East that can help strengthen our influence on countries in the area to uphold and preserve American strategic and economic interests. This is not synonymous with democracy.

And on censorship, if Ray D was truly smart, he would of taken a video camera and given the “anti-America” protestors a chance to make their claim as to why they “hate America”. Then, he could create rebuttals to each and every claim and post it on his site. My final question for Ray D is, how many people from the “Anti-America” movement did you influence and persuade to switch sides? Reasonable debate is far more effective then just trying to have huge balls, and huge balls does not make one a hero. Its how one decides to use his, um, balls. What Ray D has done, has marginalized the protestors, and simply, I will quote myself from earlier, “make each side lament on the pure stupidity of the other side.” What Ray D has done, which I see almost everywhere, is push the many sides farther away from any middle ground.
I personally believe that dissident voices have been marginalized leading up to the war, and these types of slogan battles which lead to stereotypical conventional views merely helps the suppression of dissidents, and furthers censorship.

[Robert in Mexifornia]

RH, I guess you missed the subtext many of us tacitly understood, that there is no middle ground. France and its Socialist/Communist constituents want the United States to fail in just about every way you can imagine. No, it won't happen. Ever.

[Joe]

@.Robert,

You sound very much like the leftists who some time shows up here with your weak emotional postings totally void of any reality.

I find it interesting in how much time people here try to engage those of your stripe with the dribble you post. You remind me of the likes of CK, jo, and human, and some others.

You are of that school that protests and marches against illness and wants all medical researched stopped because it fails to find cures for all diseases.

You will find in time if you continue to post such mindless comments that the major of people will not respond because your thoughts add nothing but a point of view from the left we are all too familiar with.

As for your champion Aristide, remember Hitler was also elected. Being elected does not add creditability to any leader or make that person a real representative of the people or a good leader. I for one wished that the US had allowed him to be killed. It would have been much simpler.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Posted by: Robert Hardy | Juni 8, 2004 12:35 vorm.
Fighting a brutal regime, does not give America the right to support a different brutal regime.

Robert, you're wrong. Even accepting your argument that the current situation in Afghanistan is the equivalent to the situation under the Taliban, supporting a different brutal regime can be the moral choice.

It's moral, when the new regime has the possibility of lessening its brutality and evolving into a more civilized society. The Taliban had no chance of that. Supporting Pinochet in place of the socialist, Castro-imitating Allende was the right decision. Chile is now a liberal democracy, while Castro's Cuba is approaching Haiti's level of poverty and North Korea's level of individual freedom.

Oh, I don't accept the idea that Taliban and post-Taliban Afghanistan are equal. How do you explain the millions of Afghan exiles, who moved back into Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban? Who would know better the actual conditions? You? Or Afghanis?

[WhatDoIKnow]

Robert Hardy: ...how many people from the “Anti-America” movement did you influence and persuade to switch sides? Reasonable debate is far more effective then just trying to have huge balls...

Without getting personal here, I believe (and I might be wrong) that you live not in a fantasy world, but in a sort of a "wishful thinking" world. Why am I saying that ?

Because you believe that it is possible to have a "reasonable debate"(your words) with people who demonstrate against "American aggression" shoulder to shoulder with supporters of Palestinian "heroes", Iraqi "resistance", communists etc etc.

When you say: What Ray D has done, has marginalized the protestors... you don't realize that those protestors have marginalized themselves a long time ago. Maybe you simply can't see it because you believe that all men are rational and surely there is room for "discussions" with those people, if we just look hard enough.

This is exactly what the neo-left has come to religiously believe. The fact that people like Saddam, Al Qaida & Friends are (according to their own statements) not interested in "discussions" and, in their twisted minds, take this as a weakness to be exploited, is comfortably forgotten and impossible to conceive for the neo-left.

With people like those protestors there really is no middle ground, not because "Bush-talks-in-absolutes", but because it is them who deny the existence of a middle ground.

[Ray D.]

@ Robert

First off, the attempts in Afghanistan have decreased the Al Qaeda population in that country, granted, but it has not decreased the population of Al Qaeda. An important concept. Reports are indicating that the terrorist group has simply moved to other countries, and are still as powerful as before 9-11.

Al Qaeda is still as powerful as before 9-11? They still have the run of a large country and their infrastructure intact and in no way disrupted? Do you know how many top Al-Qaeda people have been captured or killed? Such top leaders simply can't just be "replaced" overnight. As usual, you are making statements with no basis in fact and expecting us to accept them as truth. Your "concept" is a bogus one to say it politely.

So what could have been done? Well, I’m going to give what I believe to be an adequate answer but I fear that many "individuals" will push it aside as liberal hippy whining. If you look at terrorist organizations in third world countries, much of their support comes from their humanitarian endeavors. The economies in these countries are down the shitter, and starvation is a problem. Terrorist organizations are willing to provide technology and food in return for anyone who provides loyalty.

If what you are saying is true, then sub-Saharan Africa should be the center of terrorism, as it is the center of so much poverty. IT's NOT. THE PROBLEM IS FANATICISM, HATE AND INTOLERANCE spread by a willing media in many parts of the world, just as it was with the Nazis. A bad economic situation simply compounds the problem, but it is not the root cause and is usually the result of corrupt Muslim-Arab governments in the Middle East. The US is a convenient scapegoat.

Most of the 9-11 terrorists were not at all poor and from upper or middle class families. I agree that poverty and disease need to be fought worldwide, and as far as I can remember, the Bush administration (unlike European governments) has already pledged billions to fight AIDS in Africa and spends huge sums on aid every year. The problem is that corrupt dictators and governments keep the aid to getting where it is needed, not that the US isn't doing enough to help or is spending too much on other things, i.e. the military.

If an individual makes a personal attack on yourself, sit back and analyze what was said and first look to see if you did anything wrong. As long as we bomb their country, and mistreat their prisoners, its going to be very hard to make new friends, wine is better then vinegar.

So should the Jews have "sat back" and analyzed why the Nazis wanted to kill them all? Can't you accept the fact that many of these Islamo-faschists are motivated by blind hate and intolerance which they see as justified by Islam and even believe they will be rewarded by their atrocities in heaven? You can't negotiate with such people. They are blinded by their own ignorance.

But Ray D suffers from the paradigm that only two ideas exist in this world, and Americans must pick one or the other.

When and where did I say that? More imaginary "facts?"

And on censorship, if Ray D was truly smart, he would of taken a video camera and given the “anti-America” protestors a chance to make their claim as to why they “hate America”. Then, he could create rebuttals to each and every claim and post it on his site.

Unfortunately, I was too busy being hauled away by security and the French police to ask all of the protestors why the "hate America." So much for free speech...

I personally believe that dissident voices have been marginalized leading up to the war, and these types of slogan battles which lead to stereotypical conventional views merely helps the suppression of dissidents, and furthers censorship.

The only "suppression" and "censorship" that I saw was Erik and myself being roughed-up and not even given a chance to express our views. It is interesting how you turn logic on its head though, me getting busted by the French police for trying to speak out is evidence that I am furthering "censorship." It seems that your other arguments are based on the same sort of logic coupled with a series of false assumptions which you expect us to accept as fact.

Well, no one has argued the case of Haiti which I raised.

As for Haiti, we have a similar popular anti-government uprising in Venezuela, do you expect the US to intervene to support an elected government on its way down there as well? In Venezuela, it is a communist government with lots of oil...you'd think the US would invade immediately, after all, it's only in it for the oil, right and this would be such an easy chance to knock-off a communist threat...but the US isn't intervening...so much for that logic.

It is interesting that you are so against US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and yet are ready to invade Haiti to rescue a corrupt government from its imminent collapse.

[WhatDoIKnow]

@ Robert

I would add a few more things to what Ray said. You say: Reports are indicating that the terrorist group has simply moved to other countries, and are still as powerful as before 9-11

"Reports" ??? If you really want to get informed I sure hope for you that you read more than this sort of "reports". I don't know how one could believe such "reports", when the truth is that dozens of AQ leaders have been smoked out and killed AND when AQ doesn't have anymore the huge infrastructure it had when it owned Afghanistan. The credibility of such "reports" is undermined by the facts. Is AQ gone ? No. Is AQ just as strong as it was a few years ago ? No way !

Terrorist organizations are willing to provide technology and food in return for anyone who provides loyalty

Now, this one is a concept so dear to the neo-left, which unfortunately doesn't stand the test of simple logic. Because we should/must apply logic to what we say, right... ? According to this, the people in my native Eastern-European country, which are mostly poor or dirt poor and without hope for a better future, should bomb Western-Europe into oblivion. (They don't even need visas to enter the EU). But this, as you know, doesn't happen.

Criminals from Eastern-Europe do come to Western-Europe, they organize themselves into gangs, they steal, they break the law. But that's pretty much it. Believe me, they are incredibly jealous of the material successes of ordinary Western-Europeans. They are aware of their own poverty and backwardness and they don' like it. So, why don't they bomb Europe ? It would be extremely easy for them, much easier than for Islamists.

It's simple: because it is NOT poverty that leads to criminal terrorist attacks. Sorry, but that's the truth... You can, and most likely will, keep believing what you want, but it won't change the facts a bit.

[Helian]

@Robert Hardy

“What the author did was not heroic, it was not smart/witty, nor was it funny; and yet everyone thinks to the contrary.”

I love this line. It captures the essence of today’s leftist in a single sentence. Today’s leftist ideologues are a lot like yesterday’s Puritans. Gazing down dourly from the “moral high ground,” they’re obsessed with the thought that somewhere, for some reason, someone might be having fun, particularly for some reason they don’t approve of. They grieve that they can’t dictate what is “smart/witty” and “funny” to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world laughs in their faces all the same. Even though he must admit that Erik’s defiance of the anti-American mob took great courage, it goes without saying that Robert Hardy can’t find anything “heroic” about what he did. There are no heroes for todays leftists. One of their favorite pastimes is busily “deconstructing” all the heroes of the past, demonstrating that, because they didn’t conform to some standard or other of the political correctness of today, they deserve to be reviled instead of honored. Indeed, today’s leftists are allergic to heroes. All the real heroes of mankind, those who have truly done the most to promote the welfare of mankind, those whose actions have been most effective in striking the shackles from our spirits and bodies, all are exposed as “villains.” Washington, Jefferson, Voltaire, just fill in the name. All get the same treatment. Indeed, one wonders that the leftists of today can’t feel the “moral high ground” shaking beneath their feet. Don’t they realize that they will surely be “deconstructed” in their turn?

“Look at the human rights reports of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance is no better then the Taliban, and yet, America is currently supporting the Northern Alliance through money and arms.”

This is another classic example of leftist “logic.” It’s as if the whole world were chock full of white knights in shining armor, waiting with baited breath for the signal to ride forth and smite evil, and yet, for some strange reason, the U.S. always allies itself with some perverse dictator or other. Come down from your ivory tower, Robert. There are no white knights in shining armor, and if there were, you wouldn’t recognize them. Anyone who really wants to act to make this a better world is inevitably faced with choices between the lesser of two evils. When they have the courage to make that choice, they inevitably make themselves a target for those who stay behind on the “moral high ground,” convinced that changing the world is merely a matter of engaging the other side in a polite debate. You are wrong, Robert, just as you are almost always wrong when it comes to choices like this. The present government of Afghanistan does not regularly kill 12,000 of its political opponents every year. It does not systematically impose medieval conditions on women and the rest of society. It does not dynamite great monuments that are part of the cultural legacy of all mankind. It does not publicly lop off the limbs of people guilty of petty crimes in soccer stadiums. No opinion poll is necessary to inform us whether the present government of Afghanistan is really “no better” than the Taliban. Millions of Afghan citizens have already voted with their feet. They have returned from the crowded and disease-ridden refugee camps to which they fled out of fear of the Taliban, and have returned to their homes. They no longer face the constant threat of mass starvation.

We have heard Robert’s “logic” many times in the past. If it had prevailed, the world would look more like “1984” than the real 2004. Once upon a time we were told that the Ngo Dinh Diem’s and Nguyen Cao Ky’s were “just as bad as the Communists.” Once again the people of Vietnam upset this pretty “logic” by voting with their feet, fleeing by the hundreds of thousands in rickety boats, preferring starvation or drowning at sea to life under a Communist regime that was “no worse” than its enemies. Once upon a time we were told, famously by Noam Chomsky and friends, that the Lon Nol regime in Cambodia was “no better” than the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Once again the people of Cambodia disproved this “logic” with their feet, and were mowed down in their thousands by their Communist “liberators” as they fled through minefields to escape the holocaust in their homeland. Two million of their countrymen paid with their lives for the fiction that Lon Nol was “no better” than the Khmer Rouge.

“I personally believe that dissident voices have been marginalized leading up to the war, and these types of slogan battles which lead to stereotypical conventional views merely helps the suppression of dissidents, and furthers censorship.”

It’s incredible that people can so isolate themselves from reality. “Dissident voices,” Robert!? Do you really think the people who Erik, Ray and the others stood up against were “dissident voices?” You’re living in a dream, Robert. “Censorship!?” In the matter of opinions about the war and the United States, Robert, the mass media in Germany and France are controlled almost absolutely by people who are ideological clones of the Paris demonstrators. Do you really think the editors of “Spiegel,” “Stern,” “le Monde,” and all the rest are “marginalized dissidents” who are being subjected to “censorship!?” It’s astounding! What will it take before people like you drop your threadbare and transparent mask of victimhood? Should we send David off to the Gulag, or perhaps stand him up against a wall, for his evil “censorship” and “marginalization” of the German mass media? You’re having a problem engaging with reality, Robert. You need to get a clue.

[Sandy P]

--“The Bush administration's fear that it might be losing the long-term war against Islamic extremism was voiced by Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, who said he did not know if "zealots and despots" were turning out new terrorists faster than the US could capture or kill them.”

In other words, the United States has no measuring stick to see if were winning the war, its merely a guess, a guess with very sketchy and non-reliable evidence, this is a war that can never be won, nor will we know our status in the game. Attacking one country simply forces the organizations to move to another country, and set up shop after the bombing creates a perfect community for drugs and the recruitment of more future terrorists. How can that be a solution?--

Sort of like The Cold War?

When will we know we've won? When they snipe at us like Europe instead of killing US.

[Sandy P]

Robert's never visited brain-terminal, otherwise he would have seen lefties explaining their views.

Like I said before, brain-terminal needs to go global.

And Robert, Haiti?

Like Africa, isn't that France's sphere?

[SleepyInSeattle]

Sandy, Helian, by countering his positions you're obviously marginalizing his viewpoint, in effect censoring him and it's just not fair or right to do. Just like what Ray and Erik did to the honorable "dissidents" in Paris which only proved Ray and Erik are no better than the Brown Shirts with their shameful tactics in squashing dissent. Or something.

[Erik S]

Sometimes when I read news accounts of certain events, I get extremely angry. Usually, I first am befuddled or taken aback, and then a cold fury starts welling up inside of me. What I get angry at is what I would call some form of injustice. Injustice that is usually based on self-deception or outright lies. And this has occurred from my earliest childhood.

One of those times was during the Reagan administration, when anti-nuclear protests regularly filled the streets of Europe's cities. All the pacifists' signs, shouts, and chants were against the American missiles. Not a single one was against the Soviet missiles already in Eastern Europe, i.e., the SS-19s and -20s, which were the reason NATO was to install American missiles in Western Europe in the first place. (This is what eventually caused François Mitterrrand to move closer to Reagan and say: The protesters are in the West, the missiles are in the East.)

I remember reading in Le Figaro about one such demonstration of "pacifists" in Paris: One person – one single person! – had decided to carry a sign castigating the Soviet SS-20s. Well, the guy was roughed up by his fellow pacifists and his sign torn up. And a cold fury welled up inside of me…

That is exactly what Ray and I saw (and felt) some 20 years later, in Paris again. "Bush is the nº 1 terrorist" and not a single mention of Bin Laden. Iraq is "under occupation" and not a single word about Saddam Hussein.

And these are exactly the type of people that Mr Robert's say we should conduct discussions with. These are exactly the type of "dissident voices" who, we are assured, would be open to having "reasonable debate" with us.

(Robert continues: "And on censorship, if Ray D was truly smart, he would of [sic] taken a video camera and given the 'anti-America' protestors a chance to make their claim as to why they 'hate America'. Then, he could create rebuttals to each and every claim and post it on his site." The reason they "hate America" is that they have double standards and that their their true purpose is not to have a real debate, nor is it for you — or they! — to try to gain more understanding about a particular subject. The point is to prove — as much to their interlocutors, American or other, as to themselves — the "obvious" fact (in their point of view): that in the final analysis they are ever and always more superior and more advanced than those hopeless Yanks. is not to debate, but to always appear heroic. I have written about this elsewhere.)

So I submit the following: to say that these "dissident voices" would be open to having "reasonable debate" is a lie. Or, to be more precise: Since the people holding these views believe themselves what they are saying, it is a lie to oneself. It is complete self-deception.

By the way, there's a (final) update to the anti-American demonstration crash on ¡No Pasarán!
It's called The Capture of the Enemy Banner.