Give peace a chance!
March 5, 2003 11:26 AM   Subscribe

Get your Anti-War on! The definitive strategy guide for achieving everlasting peace. Amazingly, similar stuff is actually happening. Will Bush finally hear?
posted by 111 (33 comments total)
All the funny parodists are against the war.
posted by signal at 11:43 AM on March 5, 2003

I was wondering when someone would bring up the impending war (on Iraq in case you hadn't heard) and that some people are against it! Sounds like a great story we can all discuss rationally! Why haven't we heard of this before?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:52 AM on March 5, 2003

... what impending war? it's already been called "the official unofficial war" by the telegraph - it's on already.
posted by dabitch at 11:56 AM on March 5, 2003

Democracy is a funny thing. Bush recently said in reference to war protesters that he was elected (well, he did say that) to lead and not to be responsive to fous groups. Yet, as in Viet Nam war, when enough folks protest and the nation turns against an act a Leader has chosen to follow, then that leader has to worry about a re-election, usually for himself but sometimes out of loyalty to his party. At that point, Congress and the White House reconsider their course of action taken and possibly look for a way out to sway the electorate. In sum: protests don't truly count untill there are enoughand then when counted they do count.
posted by Postroad at 12:04 PM on March 5, 2003

Is it really a war, or merely an invasion? Nobody is going to "war", that's like saying a 40 year old goes to war with a 2 year old when they misbehave.

And why, oh why, haven't I seen some sort of video clip of George Bush saying "All troops will debark for ground assault. Prepare to target the main WMDs" or something of that sort.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:22 PM on March 5, 2003

Is this war something I need to have a computer to know about? All I have is the Internet, and it doesn't work half the time, I keep getting pornography of naked women spelling filthy words like "SUCKS" and "BUSH" and I just don't understand it at all.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:25 PM on March 5, 2003

"Will Bush finally hear?" You're either an idiot or a troll.
posted by Spacelegoman at 12:38 PM on March 5, 2003

"Will Bush finally hear?" You're either an idiot or a troll.

I'm neither actually, but I'm always happy to see the hysterical, totalitarian anti-war rabble lose their temper and/or expose themselves to ridicule.
posted by 111 at 12:58 PM on March 5, 2003

So that'd be troll then.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:01 PM on March 5, 2003

Excepting signal's wit, this thread is closed for new comments.
posted by zpousman at 1:13 PM on March 5, 2003

I, as an American uncapable of comprehending such things, have lost track of the layers of sarcasm in this thread.
posted by sklero at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2003

So that'd be troll then.

No way. It's not my problem people make fools of themselves and comedians nationwide see through the ineffective antics of the anti-war protests. I do feel free to scorn the lameness of the attempts, but that's me; if you believe not going to school or something like that is a bona fide way to protest, go for it. My own reaction to that is not within anybody's reach, and that's the beauty of democracy and free speech.
posted by 111 at 1:28 PM on March 5, 2003

11 comments, 11 layers of sarcasm. Meanwhile I suppose 111 would believe people are showing support for the war by going on with their everyday lives, obeying orders and not questioning the Bush party-line.

I actually found your post amusing 111. You designed it to look like a anti-war post, but really your just belittling anti-war movement. There may be hope for conservatives with humor after all.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:29 PM on March 5, 2003

You forgot to link to these...
posted by jacobsee at 2:25 PM on March 5, 2003

It's not my problem people make fools of themselves and comedians nationwide see through the ineffective antics of the anti-war protests.

Wow, that's a pretty big overstatement, isn't it? And I agree with your own stated purpose for posting this, 111: You're a troll.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:50 PM on March 5, 2003

hey while we're here, are mefis marching this sat in DC? I'm debating whether to go to that or the 15th one.
posted by condour75 at 3:23 PM on March 5, 2003

Will Bush finally hear?

Gosh, I hope not.
posted by hama7 at 4:39 PM on March 5, 2003

The Horrors of "Peace" by Stephen F. Hayes
posted by hama7 at 5:27 PM on March 5, 2003

We Shell Not Exxonerate Saddam....
Chickenhawks, or ChickenLittles?
Pro-war Demonstrators

Now, in re: the post/poster. My dear PST and Wulfgar, we mustn't call "troll". Instead, may I respectfully recommend this simple exercise:

Click on 111's name. Click on his/her MetaFilter comments list. Make note that only a week or so past, his/her whine concerned the terrible sin of posting about anti-war protests to the front page of MetaFilter. Note the odd anomaly -- to wit; today he/she posts about anti-war protests to the front page of MetaFilter (mas oui!...the very thread we comment within!).

Inquire about the poster's talent for conversation out of both sides of his/her mouth. Chuckle. Rinse hands of any mincemeat that may cling.

('Course, this inquiry is suitable for so many of our friends who demand certain partisan limits on expression here on MetaFilter or in America. Speaking of which, where's the goddamn "posse" today? Must have the day off....gotta be the only reason they didn't "posse" this post, right? Right?)

posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:36 PM on March 5, 2003

American pilots dropped leaflets telling us to start an uprising against Saddam. And we did. We sacrificed. I lost three family members. Fifteen days later the American Army was removed from the South, and left us to face Saddam alone. Now, I'm willing to go with the American Army. But what happened in 1991 must not happen again."

SUCKER! I guess the argument now is that an entire nation that believes in the evil of its leader can't revolt and take power. So these poor little puppies come to the US to fight for it. What ROT. This psuedo-argument/appeal to morals by emotion is coming from the same Republican crowd that wants America to close its borders.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2003

war by nando costa
posted by specialk420 at 7:18 PM on March 5, 2003

posted by hama7 at 7:52 PM on March 5, 2003

Jesus marimba, hama7! That article reads like Dianetics. If you accept the premiss that the US has a responsibility to control globalization as a security measure then I'm sure it makes some sense. But no proof or valid argument is given to support that premiss; it's just accepted as prima facie. Hey, here's a thought: How'sa 'bout we let people control their own destinies, just like the Declaration of Independance describes, instead of coming up with "security" based justifications for how we have to control the functions of the people on planet Earth. I know, I know, that just means I'm not hip to the new Bushie Imperial paradigm, but gosh-darn-it, I just don't see why Washington should have real ownership of strategic security for the rest of the fucking world, which is exactly what Mr. Barnett's treatise argues for.

Guess what, sparky, we don't own the world, and those marginalized by not having American citizenship have been trying to tell Bush that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:54 PM on March 5, 2003

The Pentagon's New Map as seen by the Simpsons.
posted by condour75 at 9:28 PM on March 5, 2003

and what wulfgar! said. The only thing scarier than that article is the idea that there are people, in charge, who might actually see that delirious, fear-driven grab for global power as in-line with the values of our founders.

It is a dark time for the Republic.
posted by condour75 at 9:41 PM on March 5, 2003

Honest George's car lot.
posted by homunculus at 9:43 PM on March 5, 2003

Did you mean 'premise'?

I don't necessarily agree with, or think it's a good idea, or even possible for the U.S. to consider what the article describes, but it does raise some interesting points and questions on stability and violence.

Frankly, I don't see 'globalization' as the responsiblity of the U.S., nor do I really understand the point of it, nor do I think Americans are willing to fund it. But is there a viable alternative within the next century? And if so, what is it?

Also, why was that article featured in 'Esquire' magazine?

the same Republican crowd that wants America to close its borders.

Good idea! How about protecting them while were at it, and eliminating the birth=citizenship law that is so often and easily abused.
posted by hama7 at 11:21 PM on March 5, 2003

It's not my problem people make fools of themselves and comedians nationwide see through the ineffective antics of the anti-war protests.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You know, if you spend all your time bleating about how the protests are ineffective, it just shows that they're rattling you.

As for hama7's 'Gosh, I hope not.' Well, I'd hope not also, since it would give Kim Jong-Il the perfect chance to add a little bit of entertainment to your daily life and wipe the smirk from your face. Except that the wonderchicken would suffer too from such amusements: so, I'll temper my wicked thoughts.

eliminating the birth=citizenship law that is so often and easily abused.

Yeah, I can see you leading the SWAT team up the birth canal to arrest those felonious foetuses who are consciously abusing the citizenship that you demean a little more with each breath.
posted by riviera at 3:46 AM on March 6, 2003

those felonious foetuses

There may be no interest in conversation here, but the citizenship by birth laws which England and Australia had, but outlawed, should be under serious consideration for moratorium in the U.S. As mentioned, there are throngs of abusers of this law and thousands of women who come to the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving birth and obtaining U.S citizenship for their children, and not another country on the planet has anything even resembling it.

Would you send a "SWAT team up the birth canal" in South Korea, Japan, or Thailand? Certainly not. Birth does not equal citizenship, no more than a blood donation equals a driver's license.
posted by hama7 at 4:24 AM on March 6, 2003

FYI: Premiss is an variant spelling of premise, generally used in the context of formal logic. Here's a link.
posted by condour75 at 5:13 AM on March 6, 2003

« Older No One Hollerin' Goat   |   I think he wants to believe Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments