PDA

View Full Version : Antiwar movement




timosman
06-22-2015, 08:26 PM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

phill4paul
06-22-2015, 08:37 PM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

Ain't got time for that...

http://i2.wp.com/www.deepsouthdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/confederate_flag_burning.jpg?w=1050

wizardwatson
06-22-2015, 08:37 PM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

Moral fiber?

wizardwatson
06-22-2015, 08:39 PM
Ain't got time for that...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k

staerker
06-22-2015, 08:43 PM
The State has a good system going. They know the US population is one of the most easily frightened societies on the Earth, and scary looking enemies boogie men are easy to create.

fr33
06-22-2015, 08:58 PM
The value of the dollar today is backed up by the threat of military force. People can be made to forget about wars when their livelihoods are threatened.

ISCohen
06-22-2015, 09:17 PM
I am not entirely certain an antiwar movement is needed. We are not pacifists and neither is Rand Paul. Rand Paul shouldn't start to get the negative reputation that he is antiwar, because he is very much not so.

Feeding the Abscess
06-23-2015, 03:29 AM
I am not entirely certain an antiwar movement is needed. We are not pacifists and neither is Rand Paul. Rand Paul shouldn't start to get the negative reputation that he is antiwar, because he is very much not so.

Speak for yourself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism


Full Definition of PACIFISM

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

DisneyFan
06-23-2015, 07:20 AM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

There was a big so-called anti-war movement when Bush was in office. Lots of protests, rallies, and the like. It magically disappeared after the 2008 election proving it was really more of a leftist movement than a peace movement.

rich34
07-10-2015, 10:34 PM
There was a big so-called anti-war movement when Bush was in office. Lots of protests, rallies, and the like. It magically disappeared after the 2008 election proving it was really more of a leftist movement than a peace movement.

Exactly, I saw many of these groups while Bush was in office, but the moment Obama took charge they disappeared. I suspect the moment any republican gets back into the White House they'll come out of the wood work again...

timosman
07-10-2015, 11:40 PM
I actually met three Code Pink ladies collecting signatures today. They told me they do it for themselves as nobody really cares about ending the wars. :)

cindy25
07-11-2015, 12:14 AM
without a war tax and a draft no one is effected, and no one cares. also there is little USA involvement these days, few dead.

Ronin Truth
07-11-2015, 07:19 AM
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Ronin Truth
07-11-2015, 07:22 AM
"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War [I]. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives." -- Winston Churchill, 1936 interview

acptulsa
07-11-2015, 07:34 AM
without a war tax and a draft...

This.

Reinstate the draft and it will be 1968 all over again.

Destroy the economy so that young, poor men have nowhere to turn but the Marine Corps, and Boobus just says, 'I guess shit just happened is all.'

Jan2017
07-11-2015, 09:47 AM
Fear-mongering has made it ok for the USA to be the chief exporter of weapons -
$20 billion (total aid) to Israel during the O'Bomber administration is what I just heard this morning on a cablenews.

From an NPR article,
Ike's Warning of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later


"Does the number of warships we have, and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is
larger than the next 13 navies combined — 11 of which are our partners and allies?

Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?

These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."

I hope Rand brings up the cost of military expansion - as Ron Paul did - while setting the tone and ideas for his foreign policy,
in his upcoming first of hopefully many, nationally televised and aired debates.

Christopher A. Brown
07-20-2015, 08:17 PM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

Obama lied. He said he would get out if the Middle East. Now special forces conducts small secret wars. Drones strike targets, or miss them and kill innocents. It's chaos and Americans are afraid of EVERTHING, even agreeing upon the ultimate purpose of free speech. Their own government, their neighbors, only the TV and refrigerator give them solace.

Time for those Americans that ARE NOT of the above, to start a lawful and peaceful revolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution), before the trap shuts.

wizardwatson
07-20-2015, 08:45 PM
Obama lied. He said he would get out if the Middle East. Now special forces conducts small secret wars. Drones strike targets, or miss them and kill innocents. It's chaos and Americans are afraid of EVERTHING, even agreeing upon the ultimate purpose of free speech. Their own government, their neighbors, only the TV and refrigerator give them solace.

Time for those Americans that ARE NOT of the above, to start a lawful and peaceful revolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution), before the trap shuts.

I was planning on responding to you yesterday, got tied up with other stuff.

Was just going to say I have a standing policy not to communicate off public with people online. So it'll have to be in public threads.

It's not paranoia, if we were actually doing grassroots campaign work or something sure, but not for "weirdness" or because of the boogey men of the internetz. I've had numerous people over the years say "I don't feel comfortable talking about this in public", that's a red flag for me. If you're right with the Lord, there's no reason to hide. Any topic is ok. And those who are fearful will be better off seeing people who aren't afraid speak out.

Just wanted to make that clear.

So anyway, what's up?

Christopher A. Brown
07-20-2015, 08:57 PM
I was planning on responding to you yesterday, got tied up with other stuff.

Was just going to say I have a standing policy not to communicate off public with people online. So it'll have to be in public threads.

It's not paranoia, if we were actually doing grassroots campaign work or something sure, but not for "weirdness" or because of the boogey men of the internetz. I've had numerous people over the years say "I don't feel comfortable talking about this in public", that's a red flag for me. If you're right with the Lord, there's no reason to hide. Any topic is ok. And those who are fearful will be better off seeing people who aren't afraid speak out.

Just wanted to make that clear.

So anyway, what's up?

I understand, I'm actually of the same mind. But you know the opposition is on IRC etc. trying to out maneuver. But you are right, if we got the high ground, it don't matter, and we do,

I have a thread to discuss it, rather than hijack this one. Same thing I've been posting about a lawful and peaceful revolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution).

It's the only real thing going besides partisan investment, which is more than I can stomach at this point. The way I see it, partisanship is leading us into real trouble and the lawful and peaceful revolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution) will eventually be the only real thing left. However, things might be designed so that's it's too late by that time.

The first and most vital thing is the agreement upon the founders intent. You phrased that very well. You agree that was their intent, but not sure whether you side with them or not.

If you don't want to use my thread, for that, maybe start one on that subject.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
07-20-2015, 09:35 PM
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/07/whats_wrong_wit_19.html

Q: What's Wrong With the U.S. Peace Movement?
A: Most of the "antiwar" movement is more concerned with being anti-Republican than anti-war

ClydeCoulter
07-20-2015, 10:01 PM
I think a lot of the "movements" have learned that they will be co-opted by agents provocateur. A "Peace" rally turns into a destruction of property to make them look bad for the cameras.

edit: Because, to the media, a burning cop car is worse than people dying 6k miles away.

anaconda
07-22-2015, 12:34 AM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

T.V., Newsweek, People, and The Council On Foreign Relations won. No more anti-war.

Americans1st
07-22-2015, 08:29 AM
It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

The media is pro war and therefore will not support any movement in that direction.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 08:53 AM
The media is pro war and therefore will not support any movement in that direction.

This forum is part of the media isn't it?


Google definition of "MEDIA"

1.
plural form of medium.
2.
the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively

You just posted a mass message for everyone reading. Therefore you are an agent of the media.

Are you pro-war?

Because I am not, even though I am part of the "media".

Therefore your statement that the media is pro-war is false. The media is filled with pro and anti-war people.

timosman is questioning and you are lying to him. Are you ignorant of the true causes of war and oppression?

So the answer to timosman's question is likely related to lack of a means to determine who is and who isn't pro-war.

We've found it.

brandon
07-22-2015, 09:03 AM
The wars we are in have been massively scaled back to my understanding. The president has negotiated peaceful relations with Cuba and is now working on Iran. Things are better than they were. The peace movement had partial success.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 09:09 AM
The wars we are in have been massively scaled back to my understanding. The president has negotiated peaceful relations with Cuba and is now working on Iran. Things are better than they were. The peace movement had partial success.

Who cares? The question of the thread is where is the movement? And what is lacking in getting it going.

What are we missing?

You've been here almost as long as me. You should be a ninja by now.

I like your signature. Why do you keep it?

I think the opposition would like to make this place a synagogue of Satan.

Too bad the Wizard keeps the flame.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 09:59 AM
There's nothing wrong with people thinking we are nuts. It's a strength in this environment, not a weakness. Those who would seek to destroy us believe that the mentally ill desecrate the objectives by destroying credibility.

But in the empire of lies, controlled by liars, what value is credibility and popularity?

The answer is not to fight the label of "nuts".

The answer is to embrace it and roast yourself in the flame of perfection.

But for now, a little sunlight and fearlessness will do.

Lucille
07-22-2015, 10:05 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwZrtW8CIAAC8Ml.jpg

Republican voters love war so they're a nonstarter. All the left really cares about is redistribution of wealth. If/when there's a Republican in the WH, the left will pretend to want peace again but only because they live to bitch.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 10:15 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwZrtW8CIAAC8Ml.jpg

Republican voters love war so they're a nonstarter. All the left really cares about is redistribution of wealth. If/when there's a Republican in the WH, the left will pretend to want peace again but only because they live to bitch.

And to which of these nonstarter groups do you belong? The anonymous gatekeeper group?

Or do you simply like to go around making blanket statements about imaginary groups of people furthering the group think mentality this movement was predicated on destroying at it's inception.

This thread is about what is missing. Do you have any insight into the problem identified in the OP?

ClydeCoulter
07-22-2015, 10:28 AM
Wiz, you're doing it again. You can't just change what a person "means" in their comment to something you can attack.

When one refers to "media" they are usually, here, referring to the Mass Media. The media that has a loud voice, coordinated across multiple channels feeding propaganda daily.

You know that, but pretend otherwise so that you can attack.

The "mass media" is good at twisting words and ideas, as well as taking things out of context, and there are those that learn to do the same in the "little media mouth".

Americans1st
07-22-2015, 10:39 AM
This forum is part of the media isn't it?



You just posted a mass message for everyone reading. Therefore you are an agent of the media.

Are you pro-war?

Because I am not, even though I am part of the "media".

Therefore your statement that the media is pro-war is false. The media is filled with pro and anti-war people.

timosman is questioning and you are lying to him. Are you ignorant of the true causes of war and oppression?

So the answer to timosman's question is likely related to lack of a means to determine who is and who isn't pro-war.

We've found it.

Oh stop it already. Every media outlet is owned by pro war people. The polite term is Zionist. Every network is pushing the terrorism, Iran nukes propaganda 24/7.

Lucille
07-22-2015, 12:21 PM
And to which of these nonstarter groups do you belong? The anonymous gatekeeper group?

Or do you simply like to go around making blanket statements about imaginary groups of people furthering the group think mentality this movement was predicated on destroying at it's inception.

This thread is about what is missing. Do you have any insight into the problem identified in the OP?

http://33.media.tumblr.com/c63e6d57803c1cfa97677a335abc76f2/tumblr_inline_nqeykblEIG1qiq5w9_500.gif

You need more insight? OK. There is no solution, political or otherwise. The welfare-warfare-police state will continue on until it runs out of money, and nothing short of a mass tax protest will make a damn but of difference (and even then, Americans love war, plus TIIC have the filthy fed and Grandma Yellen et al. to keep it all going). If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
--Alexander Haig
(https://books.google.com/books?id=aImPAAAAMAAJ&q=%22long+as+they+continue+to+pay+their+taxes%22&pgis=1&hl=en)

JK/SEA
07-22-2015, 01:56 PM
the 'media' has sanitized war. Start showing the blood and guts and start a draft and the 'anti-war' peeps might wake up again...

dreaming i know...

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 05:19 PM
Oh stop it already. Every media outlet is owned by pro war people. The polite term is Zionist. Every network is pushing the terrorism, Iran nukes propaganda 24/7.

Is RonPaulForums.com owned by pro-war people?

Simple question. If yes, then why are you here? If no, then you support a lie by stating that every media outlet is owned by pro war people.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 05:21 PM
the 'media' has sanitized war. Start showing the blood and guts and start a draft and the 'anti-war' peeps might wake up again...

dreaming i know...

Ironic that you say you are dreaming.

It implies perhaps you are one of the sleeping people you are referring to.

I'm anti-war. Seems pretty obvious what to do.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 05:29 PM
Wiz, you're doing it again. You can't just change what a person "means" in their comment to something you can attack.

When one refers to "media" they are usually, here, referring to the Mass Media. The media that has a loud voice, coordinated across multiple channels feeding propaganda daily.

You know that, but pretend otherwise so that you can attack.

The "mass media" is good at twisting words and ideas, as well as taking things out of context, and there are those that learn to do the same in the "little media mouth".

So all mass media is pro-war. Then not all media is pro-war. Since not all media is pro-war that can't be the reason that the antiwar movement has not coalesced. We are in a purported anti-war media. And yet where is there an anti-war formation of anti-war belief systems?

What philosophy or ethical system is anti-war that we could rally around.

I'm trying to stay on topic. I gave my opinion in my first post on this thread and it hasn't changed. You all gave your opinions and I'm showing that they lack foundation. The problem isn't because "the media" is to blame. The problem is that those who claim they are anti-war only admire the idea. They don't know what the philosophical or ethical position is or truly requires.

Rand Paul believes this. But even though I don't support Rand really, I still understand his positions better than anyone on this forum.

I'm not changing meaning. I'm forcing you to clarify because being sloppy is evidence that you're simply repeating buzz slogans...

"The media is controlling the universe, we're helpless, derp, derp...."

...instead of thinking critically.

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 05:40 PM
http://33.media.tumblr.com/c63e6d57803c1cfa97677a335abc76f2/tumblr_inline_nqeykblEIG1qiq5w9_500.gif

You need more insight? OK. There is no solution, political or otherwise. The welfare-warfare-police state will continue on until it runs out of money, and nothing short of a mass tax protest will make a damn but of difference (and even then, Americans love war, plus TIIC have the filthy fed and Grandma Yellen et al. to keep it all going). If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
--Alexander Haig
(https://books.google.com/books?id=aImPAAAAMAAJ&q=%22long+as+they+continue+to+pay+their+taxes%22&pgis=1&hl=en)

This is grassroots central. When I say Rand is a liar in Rand Paul Forum I get moderator messages telling me to go away.

Why should it be different in grassroots central when someone is saying that it's all pointless? What is your intent in saying that it is impossible to achieve anything with a movement towards anti-war?

"There is no solution, political or otherwise."

Then why did you join this anti-war movement in 2007? Were you trying to change it into something else? Just trying to understand your intent.

Are you just strictly Nockian and plan to rebuild from the ashes? I know many people around here read like one person, watch a few videos and sit on their duff. Can't judge you really more than the next guy.

ClydeCoulter
07-22-2015, 06:06 PM
So all mass media is pro-war. Then not all media is pro-war. Since not all media is pro-war that can't be the reason that the antiwar movement has not coalesced. We are in a purported anti-war media. And yet where is there an anti-war formation of anti-war belief systems?

What philosophy or ethical system is anti-war that we could rally around.

I'm trying to stay on topic. I gave my opinion in my first post on this thread and it hasn't changed. You all gave your opinions and I'm showing that they lack foundation. The problem isn't because "the media" is to blame. The problem is that those who claim they are anti-war only admire the idea. They don't know what the philosophical or ethical position is or truly requires.

Rand Paul believes this. But even though I don't support Rand really, I still understand his positions better than anyone on this forum.

I'm not changing meaning. I'm forcing you to clarify because being sloppy is evidence that you're simply repeating buzz slogans...

"The media is controlling the universe, we're helpless, derp, derp...."

...instead of thinking critically.

You may need to get a smaller brush to stroke over the forum or persons that you refer to.

Here was my first post, and it has substance, asshole.


I think a lot of the "movements" have learned that they will be co-opted by agents provocateur. A "Peace" rally turns into a destruction of property to make them look bad for the cameras.

edit: Because, to the media, a burning cop car is worse than people dying 6k miles away.

ClydeCoulter
07-22-2015, 06:09 PM
@Wiz,
Where's your "movement" that those that are philosophically pure can join? Are you having a rally, or reaching out to the blind at heart?

wizardwatson
07-22-2015, 06:37 PM
You may need to get a smaller brush to stroke over the forum or persons that you refer to.

Here was my first post, and it has substance, asshole.

Who are you defending exactly? The "group". I'm not interested in the movement "label" but the substance. In the very post you reference you talk about agents. Hence the need to specifically have a method to decide the boundaries of who really is in and who is not.


@Wiz,
Where's your "movement" that those that are philosophically pure can join? Are you having a rally, or reaching out to the blind at heart?

Well, it's officially right here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

If you agreed to the premise, you would be the third one.

Let me ask you this. What do you think-if the philosophy was as sound as I think it is-the magic number of people would be before people on this forum not joined exactly but became "intrigued" enough to actually pay attention and read if there is something to it.

Yes, only two people right now. But we have communicated the premise. It's not hard to see. But it requires an educated mind.

Here are the 8 threads I'm tracking now that this has started.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478636-Recommending-removal-of-RPF-reputation-system-to-minimize-cyber-bullying

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476045-Rebooting-the-constitution-and-starting-a-micronation

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477167-Antiwar-movement

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478542-WizardWatson-s-Magnificent-9-11-Truth-Thread-Tale-of-the-Spooky-Shemitahhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471836-WTC-really-had-concrete-core-(split-thread)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478559-Split-derail-about-immigration

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473730-Constitutional-Intent-Baltimore-thread-split

If this trend actually manifests the actual threads don't matter, but all these are related from my perspective. The main one is Chris'. I'm tracking only these right now as I don't have time to be everywhere. I do browse and comment normally if I have spare time and something clicks. But These 8 I'm focusing on this phenomenon. But the mechanisms of how transparent social networks operate it'd be more efficient I think if the true members were all in the same map/threads. I call it a map to enforce the idea. But just a list of where we try to dominate the narrative.

timosman
04-07-2017, 11:52 PM
Is it time already?:confused: