Sheehan Arrested in DC

[Killfile]

Cindy Sheehan has been arrested for demonstrating without a permit in front of the White House. It was a media circus, with her supporters chanting "The whole world is watching" while she and about 20 other people were dragged off by the Capital Police for printing and some other minor charges.

Note: CNN and other sources say the DC police, but the distinction is important. While both are under the control of the Federal Goverment, the Cap police report directly to the (Republican dominated) Congress, and have jurisdiction over the Congressional grounds and quite a lot of the surrounding area. This includes the Oval and the White House environs. Thus, it is likely that the arrest was preformed by the Capital Police rather than the DC Metro Police.

Images are too grany to tell.

[ucrzymofo87]

i don't think she is a big deal. Her views are extremely radical and out of the mainstream of reasonable thought and debate.

[arke]

i don't think she is a big deal. Her views are extremely radical and out of the mainstream of reasonable thought and debate.

....What?

[Killfile]

I'm gonna side with Arke on that one.

Sheehan objects to the war in Iraq. She's not alone. According to an AP/USA today poll run on Sept 18:

65% of Americans think we're spending too much money in Iraq
67% Disapprove of the way W. is handeling the Iraq war.
1% Are unsure about how they feel on Iraq, making the issue a very mainstream one.
59% Think the invasion was a mistake
66% Think some form of troop withdrawl (in part or in whole) is necessary
23% of Republicans think W is mishandeling the situation in Iraq. Nearly a quarter of his own party.
50% Think we should have stayed out of Iraq. The same percentage belives that Iraq will NEVER become a stable democracy
75% Belive that no clear plan exists for getting US troops out of Iraq
40% of Republicans belive that some form of withdrawl is in order. 74% of Democrats

As far as funding goes:
90% Disapprove of cuts to domestic programs to pay for Iraq
77% Would be unwilling to hike taxes to payfor the Iraq war


Source[/url]

[Loeviz]

Damn they´ve arrested her.. That´s kinda a little stupid to arrest her now, if they where gonna do it they should´ve done it right away (I´m not to sure who she is, but isn´t she the one camping outside off the white house, that was in one off Michael Moores movies??)

[ucrzymofo87]

Many presidents have had to make unpopular decisions regarding war. Abraham Lincoln instiuted the draft in 1862, and that was met with riots in New York City. Far worse than any protest we've seen in this day and age. The United States ultimately defeated the Confederacy.

Ronald Reagan refused to cave to popular opinion in the US when the majority of Americans favored a nuclear freeze with the Soviet Union. His approval rating dropped below 40% in 1983. Reagan built more nuclear weapons and the US went on to win the Cold War.

Now, George W. Bush made the unpopular decision to go to war and he is subjected to protests, such as Lincoln and Reagan were. I think the President is going to follow their examples and ultimately this war will end with victory for the United States.

[Loeviz]

I cant see Bush settle the war before Bush´s Term is over. He´ll just scoop it over on someone elses shoulders to deal with

[MrFelony]

So the cold war was won because we had more nuclear weapons eh? thats some dumb logic if you ask me

[ucrzymofo87]

So the cold war was won because we had more nuclear weapons eh? thats some dumb logic if you ask me

if you think about it, that is how we won the Cold War. Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet Union could not keep up with the United States economically and militarily. The doctrine of "peace through strength" was how the Cold War was won.

We strengthened our military muscle so that the US could negotiate with the Russians from a position of strength not weakness. It was not only nuclear weapons but also the economic might of American was far supirior to the Soviet economy. the US won the Cold War a) by strengthening our defenses i.e. nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, and the strategic defense inititave and b) by being economically supirior to the Soviet Union

[Skullkracker]

that's similar to how we learned it
the struggle to overpower th USA was too great for the Sovjet Union and ultimately it's internal and external anomalies made the whole big structure crumble
it was just not meant to last

[Killfile]

I think comparing Bush to Regan, or either of them to Lincoln is a bit premature. Lincoln held together a country under the most traumatic legitimacy crisis in its history and managed to put into place policies that largely reconstituted the union after that crisis.

Regan's cold war policies are still up for a great deal of debate. I'm not the only Cold War historian that thinks that Gorbachev, not Regan, decided the outcome of the Cold War.

Even so, Reagan's decision to push the Soviets on nuclear arms isn't the same and Bush's decision to go into and stay in Iraq. The Soviets had as many as 30,000 nuclear weapons pointed at the United States. There was a very real threat of the total annihilation of the US.

Iraq, in contrast, had an air defense system that consisted of teenagers with rocks and a strategic weapons delivery system that looked suspiciously like loading up a boat with plastique. Comparing the Iraq war to the Civil War or the Cold War is disingenuous. It is more accurately compared to US intervention in Guatemala, Panama, or Nicaragua.

This is a dirty little war. The difference is that rather than leave the place to fester, Bush has decided to occupy - and thus presents a large target to a local resistance.

I think the proximity of Reagan in history makes it difficult to judge, but I find it unlikely that in 50 years time, we will consider him amongst the pantheon of great presidents as we do FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson. Bush, I suspect, will be relegated to the dust bin of history.

[Eldo]

Cindy Sheehan has been arrested for demonstrating without a permit in front of the White House.

You need a permit for protesting in front of the White House? A permit for a protest? Wow, that's some warped logic there, didn't know you needed a permit for that. I just found that funny, heh.

I agree with you, Killfile, past presidents like Reagan and Lincoln aren't exactly the best analogous examples to Bush.

[ucrzymofo87]

I think comparing Bush to Reagan and Lincoln is actually somewhat accurate.

Detractors called Lincoln a "baboon," "a tyrant," "white-trash," and "infantile."
Detractors called Reagan a "moron," "an idiot," and "an amiable dunce."
Detractors today call Bush "stupid," "retarded," "a tyrant," and "a moron."

When presidents are in power, they are often treated poorly. It isn't until after they leave office that opinions of them begin to improve and turn to a more positive note. (Jimmy Carter is a good example).

I think the current war isn't as much a Nicaragua or a Panama, but more of a Barbary Coast. In 1803, Jefferson sent troops to Africa to take out pirates who were terrorizing American ships in the Mediterranean. (Some call this America's first war on terrorism). That operation was a success, as I think Iraq will eventually be if we do not leave prematurely.

[MrFelony]

well thats how any famous figure goes. you might as well compare bush to most renowned artists who aren't really loved or appreciated until after their death. the only thing that makes those comparisons special is that they are presidents. and i just think the cold war was pretty fuckign dumb. I mean, with 10,000 nukes you could smash anyone pretty fucking bad, if not the whole world. lets say that the 10,000 top cities were taken out...pride and arrogance is such a terrible thing.

[Killfile]

As I'm not a huge fan of Reagan's I'm simply going to run with the Lincoln side of this.

Lincoln lead the country at the height of a legitimacy crisis. Despite that, and the shambles of a Union he had to work with, he kept the country together.

Bush, in contrast, was presented on Sept 11, 2001 with the most unified electorate the USA has experienced since December 7, 1941. Despite this, Bush leaves with the nation more divided than when he arrived.

Lincoln was the greatest social reformer of his time. He moved to eliminate slavery despite the unpopularity of his policy. He expanded the rights of the individual, backing the 14th Amendment which incorporated the Bill of Rights upon the States (which is why your state can't restrict your freedom of speech).

Bush has moved to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. He has publicly backed policies which would enact state sponsored religious ceremonies in public places. He has encroached upon the civil liberties of the country - supposedly to make its citizens safer, but, as Katrina demonstrated, the expanded powers of the Federal Government are mostly useless.

Lincoln, even today, stands for the basic precepts of the Enlightenment in our government. His legacy was a country taking its first fledgling steps towards the ideals first set forth by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal.

Bush's legacy is already established - one of corporate cronyism, arrogance, ineptitude, and violence. Under his presidency the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer, and the corporation ever more powerful. America exits the Bush presidency closer than ever to the despotic state she revolted against some 230 years ago.

Other than that, yea, he’s exactly like Lincoln. I mean, he's got a big hat and everything.

[Wandering_Mystic]

I think comparing Bush to Reagan and Lincoln is actually somewhat accurate.

Detractors called Lincoln a "baboon," "a tyrant," "white-trash," and "infantile."
Detractors called Reagan a "moron," "an idiot," and "an amiable dunce."
Detractors today call Bush "stupid," "retarded," "a tyrant," and "a moron."

When presidents are in power, they are often treated poorly. It isn't until after they leave office that opinions of them begin to improve and turn to a more positive note. (Jimmy Carter is a good example).

I think the current war isn't as much a Nicaragua or a Panama, but more of a Barbary Coast. In 1803, Jefferson sent troops to Africa to take out pirates who were terrorizing American ships in the Mediterranean. (Some call this America's first war on terrorism). That operation was a success, as I think Iraq will eventually be if we do not leave prematurely.

I thought I might add in here that your logic of comparing presidents based on how people viewed them is inherently flawed. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Every president in history has received criticism, yet not nearly every president was competant or later commonly viewed as a "good" president. Sure they're all fruits, but a lot of them are completely different in philosphy and actions, like Lincoln and Reagan: two completely different presidents. Like Killfile, I think comparing Bush to Lincoln is completely out of the question, they are like night and day. Actually, I would in fact say Bush is a lot more like Reagan, but then, I view Reagan as being a alzheimer-ridden foolish puppet of a president. The man was a moron, and never truly held the reins of power. He was a freaking actor, for Chrissakes, and a lousy one at that.

Anyway, that's not really my point. My point is, it feels like you're pulling comparisons out of your ass, because to me it sounds as if you might be saying "Hey, water is blue like the sky, so I guess that means we can breathe water too" The comparisons are just sooo loosely strung together. Before you compare wars, make sure you know more about what the countries and situations involved. It sounds like you really just think that the Barbary Coast deal is like Iraq because 1) we went all the way over there, and 2) it was called by some the first war on terrorism. You already have your facts misplaced there, because our current war on Iraq was never truly about terrorism (Saddam was never a threat to us, had no desire or real capacity to harm us, and himself hated Al-Qaeda, as was proven countless times before and during our war with Iraq).

Didn't mean to sound too aggressive or anything, so don't take anything personally. But I hope you can see at least how superficial your comparisons are. That and I have to admit I got kind of peeved to see Carter and Bush/Reagan in the same post

[Balor645]

Ronald Reagan refused to cave to popular opinion in the US when the majority of Americans favored a nuclear freeze with the Soviet Union. His approval rating dropped below 40% in 1983. Reagan built more nuclear weapons and the US went on to win the Cold War.

The cold war was won to what avail? The collapsed soviet union and its stocks of weapondry was were Osama, and all kinds of other tyranical leaders got their goods from. Not to mention our space program has come to almost a complete stop now that we have no one to compete against.

If I had it my way, I'd trade having the soviet union as an enemy over some dinky suicidal terrorists anyday. Least they had a brain in there head and could be negotiated with.

-=Edited By Killfile to include Double Post Text=-

Bush's legacy is already established - one of corporate cronyism, arrogance, ineptitude, and violence. Under his presidency the poor have gotten poorer, the rich richer, and the corporation ever more powerful. America exits the Bush presidency closer than ever to the despotic state she revolted against some 230 years ago.

Other than that, yea, he’s exactly like Lincoln. I mean, he's got a big hat and everything.

Heh, corporate power. Kinda reminds me of Final Fantasy 7, a corporation becomes the government, and everyone but them live in poverty. And of course Shinra make it's money off the energy buisness.

And the Terrorist group Avalanche are the good guys...

Don't think I'd go so far as to call Bin Laden good. But interesting how that game made in 98' would have so many parallels to today and maybe even our future.
-=End Edit=-

[ucrzymofo87]

The cold war was won to what avail?

How about the fact that nearly a billion human beings can now vote and determine their own destiny and system of government?

How about the fact that millions of innocent people are no longer being imprisoned and killed in the gulags?

How about the fact that Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland now regard the West as a friendly partner with which to do business and conduct international affairs?

That is to what avail the Cold War was won.

[psi29a]

Balor: double posting is evil, please edit your first post to include the second. Thanks

-=Edit by Killfile=-
Fixed it for him
--K
-=End Edit=-

[Ayanami]

As I'm not a huge fan of Reagan's I'm simply going to run with the Lincoln side of this.

I am not a huge Reagan fan either, I think he was a complete idiot, so comparing Bush to him does nothing for me. As for Lincoln compared to Bush, give me a break, do you think that we will look back on this whole mess 50 years from now and say it was the right thing to do? Yeah right, this shit is the new Vietnam.

[Killfile]

How about the fact that millions of innocent people are no longer being imprisoned and killed in the gulags?

A minor historical correction: the GULAG (it's an acronym) more or less wrapped up with Stalin's death, with the system shutting down for good in 1960 under MVD order 20.

Roughly 1.6 Million died in the GULAG - though, because its prominance overlaps Stalin's great purges and great terror, the number is sometimes amended up to include the casualties from those actions - bringing to total closer to 2.4 Million.

As much as we associate Communism with Stalin, it's important to avoid pinning everything that happened under Stalin (or Mao) on the Communist system as a whole. This is not to say that these were not oppressive governments, but that Mao and Stalin's rules were uncharacteristicly bloody and repressive, even for the Bolshivik system.

A similar analogy would be to say that Capitalism fails as an economic system because of the economic collapse under Hoover or that the Democracy is evil because it gives rise to genocidal facist dictators like Hitler.