UofM-Dearborn ALL anti-war?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Arya
Hussain is a tyrant, but he is no worst then other tyrants we have supported, such as Suharto, noriega, Shah of Iran, Pinochete, etc.

Funny how you created such a beautiful mix of names there. But you're wrong about at least one of them. Arya, I've read a lot of your comments about Iraq. You manage to duck out quite frequently when certain facts and questions are presented to you. Very few people can defend not going to war because they simply do not know enough about the region - they're "bandwagon fans". However, if it is in your view that war and violence are not acceptable, that that's a respectable position on its own.

How does everyone feel that groups like this get a ton of funding from outside sources? Outside sources could mean groups/charities/trusts/etc. with questionable ties from outside the US. Oh and I guarantee that a good chunk of their members are not US citizens as well - so at a public U.S. university, essentially whose views would be represented by such statements?

-Rudey
--Real

[damasa]

Once again, totally feeling Rudey's comments.

On that note, what does everyone else feel about our government training Iraqi exiles, from what I've heard, as many as 3,000?

I just hope something like this doesn't come back to haunt us in the future.....thoughts anyone?

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey


Funny how you created such a beautiful mix of names there. But you're wrong about at least one of them. Arya, I've read a lot of your comments about Iraq. You manage to duck out quite frequently when certain facts and questions are presented to you. Very few people can defend not going to war because they simply do not know enough about the region - they're "bandwagon fans". However, if it is in your view that war and violence are not acceptable, that that's a respectable position on its own.

How does everyone feel that groups like this get a ton of funding from outside sources? Outside sources could mean groups/charities/trusts/etc. with questionable ties from outside the US. Oh and I guarantee that a good chunk of their members are not US citizens as well - so at a public U.S. university, essentially whose views would be represented by such statements?

-Rudey
--Real

True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, but I do get information from sources which few people get. Not talking about CIA stuff, but other sources. Though the CIA info easier to get then u think. This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea. however, thinking bout it, i don't think any university, unless there is a majority vote from the students, staff, faculty and alumni, should consider themselve either pro or against the war. And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? Restricing the voice of anybody used to be accepted, back when the constitution only applied to White, Christian, Land Owning member of the staes. We have evolved, though our foreign policy have devolve. Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby.

Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada. Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN) But as I and many have argued, international law only exist for those without a nuclear weapon.

And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader? Suharto and his holocust of over 250,000 East Timorese (which we not only supported but funded and armed and trained. With the military back in power in that country, we want to start trainig them again. So much for beacom for democracy and freedom)? Noriega? (trained by School of America now changed to something else, but still functioning)? They are all tyrans, despotic, scumbags. But hey, they're our scumbag.

[ZZ-kai-]

Sorry DeltAlum, I didn't get through your whole message because it was just too dang long...ha ha

Anyway, I don't disagree with any of you who think we may be jumping too quick, or being the international bully. But, I still think that we, the public, do not know 1/3 of what truly is going on in these situations. Christ, imagine if we did, the whole fricken country would be up in arms. "Holy cripes eh, the North Koreans have nukes that could reach the USA in 5 hours, I better build a bomb shelter and get a gas mask".

I have faith in my government, my President and those who serve in our armed forces, that if the right thing is to go to war, then I support it 100%. If you cannot support our country in these times, I suggest moving to Iraq and living their under their regime and then protest it.

Someone in this world has to supress the governments that "try to rule the world". Sadly enough, if it were allowed, countries today would still beat up their neighbors just to take their land. The USA is not bullying the world or trying to rule the world, we are just basically monitoring it and making sure crap doesn't get out of hand.

I refuse to be that group that says "Meat Tossers" in PCU.

If its not war, then its red meat and if its not red meat, its anti-abortion and if its not anti-abortion its war again....protest shmotest.

My two cents.

PS, oh yeah, as for training those other groups...I think its a bad idea. Didn't we do that for the Taliban decades ago when they were fighting the Russians? That blew up in our faces.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Arya


True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, but I do get information from sources which few people get. Not talking about CIA stuff, but other sources. Though the CIA info easier to get then u think. This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea. however, thinking bout it, i don't think any university, unless there is a majority vote from the students, staff, faculty and alumni, should consider themselve either pro or against the war. And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? Restricing the voice of anybody used to be accepted, back when the constitution only applied to White, Christian, Land Owning member of the staes. We have evolved, though our foreign policy have devolve. Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby.

Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada. Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN) But as I and many have argued, international law only exist for those without a nuclear weapon.

And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader? Suharto and his holocust of over 250,000 East Timorese (which we not only supported but funded and armed and trained. With the military back in power in that country, we want to start trainig them again. So much for beacom for democracy and freedom)? Noriega? (trained by School of America now changed to something else, but still functioning)? They are all tyrans, despotic, scumbags. But hey, they're our scumbag.

"True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, "

Wrong.

"but I do get information from sources which few people get."

I spend several hours a day, every day, reading these kinds of analyses. I am willing to bet that you have patted yourself on the back with this remark - but either way, it makes no difference in my conversation with you whether you got your information from a source a lot of people have access to or very few people have access to unless you had top secret clearance (in such a case, I wouldn't believe you'd be spewing info on GC so that's not an option).

"This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea."

That's not the best criticism to make. Arab speaking agents have a good role to play in Pakistan since many people speak Arabic.

"And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? "

Citizenship does matter in the case of a public AMERICAN university. Your example of Republicans and Democrats does not apply here for that reason.

"Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby."

There is a difference between an international organization that is composed of views from all places and a public Michigan university.

"Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada."

You're making this too easy. I don't care about Grenada right now. I care about Iraq and the resolutions, including the specific type of resolutions, that have been passed in regards to it.

"Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN)"

While, I don't mind talking about foreign policy, I feel there is no point to it right now. Bringing up that you're speaking with diplomats doesn't really make your point more valid simply because you are not Kofi Annan.

"And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader?"

The Shah of Iran was not democratically elected, since he was a monarch, but he was more benevolent than you could understand. People who had know nothing about this man, nothing about this country, and nothing about this region sure did love to attack him however. And most people believe that his son will be the next ruler of Iran - democratically elected and all - after the toppling of a cruel regime that rode into power on protests of abuse.

And Damasa, I don't like the idea of putting weaponry into the hands of any government that is vulnerable.

-Rudey

[PM_Mama00]

Originally posted by PM_Mama00


In terms of this petition, how would you feel about an organization gettin the OK to say that your WHOLE university is anti-war, and are any other campuses experiencing this?

I know that this is a touchy subject for some, but please keep the subject matter on the above question.

Uhmmm..... just thought I'd refresh what I originally posted. Please leave your war debate on the other thread that talks about war.... I just asked a question.

Altho Rudey, I do agree with you.

[Kevin]

We've actually discussed a few of U of M's policies in one of my classes. One that got me.. and you can correct me if this is wrong is that a professor can be fired or severely disciplined for using language that "disempowers" females... Such as saying "mailMAN".

If this is the case, I can really see how such a silly idea as an entire campus declaring themselves "anti-war" could fly. They wouldn't be the first though. I seem to recall a few left-coast schools declaring themselves anti-war it seems just as soon as they possibly could following the 9-11 attacks.

I support the students for standing up for something they believe in.. I don't agree with them.. But their cause is noble. Their methods however give cause for concern. I'm always troubled by groups that think that only THEY have a legitimate right to free speech. When they want to get their opinion out that's fine... It troubles me that they want to silence and disempower those that take a pro-war stance though. Everyone has the right to be heard.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ktsnake
It troubles me that they want to silence and disempower those that take a pro-war stance though.

As well it should. You are absolutely right.

It's only fair to point out, though, that the peace movement during the Vietnam conflict was battered by the government and the "Love it or leave it," faction in the country.

Both patriotism and dissent can be useful in keeping the country on the right path.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Both patriotism and dissent can be useful in keeping the country on the right path.

There is nothing wrong with being a patriot, being a blind patriot, that is supporting your country no matter what, is as dangerous as being a traitor.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Arya


There is nothing wrong with being a patriot, being a blind patriot, that is supporting your country no matter what, is as dangerous as being a traitor.

A little to "black and white," I think, Arya. As used, the word IS is pretty all encompasing. It seem to leave no leeway for differences in situation.

If you had said "being a blind patriot CAN BE as dangerous," I could pretty much agree. In many cases.

Having no tolerance for dissention would have been repugnant to the spirit of the creators of the Constitution and the founding fathers of the country, I believe.

Remeber that many who came to this country, and framed our form of government, did so in order to escape the tyranny of another government. Many still considered themselves "loyal subjects" of their former Monarch/Country/Government. I suppose they really did, "Love it or Leave it," but I think that in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, they hoped that nobody else would ever have to make that choice.

That's why I have little tolerance for people who hide behind that phrase as opposed to listening to a different side of a political arugement.

Isn't Freedom of Speech another way of saying Freedom of Opinion -- and taking it a step farther in allowing those opinions (no matter who disagrees) to be verbalized with a fair amount of impunity?

[vamom11]

Remember Folks, the military doesn't make the policy. My fear is that we are swinging back to the same attitude toward the solidiers, sailors and Marines that we had during Vietnam. These young men and women have volunteered to serve their country and deserve our respect no matter how we feel about the war. My son has made the choice to serve in the Navy and unfortunately, he's noticed a subtle shift in attitudes when he's wearing his uniform. That should never happen. He and others have taken a harder path and deserve more from the people of county he's sworn to protect.

Getting off my soapbox now

[KappaKittyCat]

Hello, 5-year-old thread!

But I was interested, so I did some follow-up research and learned that this anti-war resolution at UM-D did indeed pass.

http://media.www.themichiganjournal....n-359067.shtml

It also looks like they were not alone. This article - http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=448 - contains a list of all universities who, as of 3/30/03, had or were considering such resolutions.

For what it's worth.

[PM_Mama00]

I never saw that article or heard about it. I'll have to read it when I get a chance. Thanks for posting!

PS. Those who heard about the footbaths at UMD.... they're in.