Moore advocated klling American troops? I missed that. When? (If you can't give me a cite, how about enough context to narrow down a Google search.)
I'm also a bit confused as to whether your initial "anti-American" comment was in response to the quote from number_12 or to anniemal's first comment. (If it was in response to the quote, I think you're missing much of the point. If it was a response to anniemal's comment about patriotism, then it sounds like each of you is complaining about particular bad behaviour that some of the folks you disagree with do, writing in a way that makes it sound as though you believe that behaviour is typical (whether you really think that or not), then reading each other's words in just that way and reacting defensively with more bad behaviour waved about as examples to support your first statements.)
In addition, I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time. It's perhaps not as easy a stance to clearly identify in a five second newsclip as the other examples being held up as "pure" positions (clearly America-loving but opposed to a specific policy, or clearly anti-American), but it's an important one to take note of.
Of course, if the policies person A is protesting are ones that person B perceives as deriving inevitably from what person B considers core elements of Americanism, then person B is likely to see person A as un-American even though person A is every bit as America-loving as person A and merely has a different idea of which characteristics are essentially American and which are merely "policy".
Which in turn makes number_12's exercise interesting, illuminating, and probably important: these opponents are themselves citizens. Citizens protesting. Not alien protest-creatures who just happen to be working in America. The other side in an internal decision-making process, not the nation's enemies.
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." Michael Moore..
So clearly he wants the people who are blowing up civilians and american troops to win. Because in the eyes of Moore they are the future of Iraq.
"But protest is as patriotic as you can get, right? As a protestor, I must object to being dubbed "un-american" I am a citizen,"
My referance is toward types of protest. In this he states as a protestor I must object to be being dubbed "un-american". Well purhaps it is a leap to say un-american is anti-american but it is not much of a leap. My point was their are types of protest that are anti or un american. That if one engages in those types of protest then one does deserve the label there of. Protests that target the nation and not the issue or policy could count as such.
"I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time."
I accually agree with you. As I had said a number of times it is fine to protest policy. But as a point of fact certain kinds of protest should be labeled for what they are anti-american. Targeting the flag is to target a symbol of america as a nation and not a policy. So when one burns a flag one is in fact saying either I hate flags or I hate america. But I also stated that to hate america is fine also. Just like I have the right to hate you should also.
In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong.
"So clearly he wants the people who are blowing up civilians and american troops to win. Because in the eyes of Moore they are the future of Iraq."
Say what?! Maybe I'm missing important clarifying context, but the bit you quoted does not imply that. He voiced an opinion about their role and made a prediction. I didn't see Moore's desire expressed there.
If a few weeks ago I had said (rather than silently thought) that the Ravens would not get into the playoffs, would you construe that as rooting against them?
Further, if my understanding of Moore's position is correct (that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place), then even if he'd rather see us pull out than "win" [separate debate there], that doesn't mean he wants soldiers to die; it means he see their deaths as the result of bad policy decisions.
And apart from the above, nowhere in what you quoted did he encourage others to kill American soldiers. He's not promoting anything of the sort!
The only way he can be seen as promoting that is if someone is trying to spread the "anyone who opposes the war is anti-[soldier|American]" meme to demonize those who disagree on a matter of policy -- propogandists. In short, you appear to have just what anniemal complained about and you claimed not to do! You just inserted a fallacious "anti-soldier" step in there before continuing to the unAmerican bit.
Did you drink the Kool-Aid?
"In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong."
Actually, even then he's right: they're still citizens doing the objectionable and/or violent protesting. He didn't say you had to agree with them or accept their methods, only to remember that this particular "they" is a subset of "us". I don't read him as saying that we should be "so open-minded that our brains leak out", only that it's useful to remember this bit of perspective.
"The only way he can be seen as promoting that is if someone is trying to spread the "anyone who opposes the war is anti-[soldier|American]" meme to demonize those who disagree on a matter of policy -- propogandists. In short, you appear to have just what anniemal complained about and you claimed not to do! You just inserted a fallacious "anti-soldier" step in there before continuing to the unAmerican bit."
When it comes to war you have to be very careful on how you protest. In Moore statement he lifts up as honorable those who are killing our troops. This is supporting the enemy. Treating them as the hero and thusly justify there killing of the US troops and the Iraqi's that support them. Tell me this if some one beats the @#%# out of you and then I tell you that that guy was right to do so.. even more so while he is still beating on you would you say he was on your side?
As for violent protest... well that is fine as long as the government can violently put it down. But suspect you would have a problem with that. No issue out there today can justify a violent protest. If you become violent you then justify the government becomeing violent in return.
...that it's incredible that you don't realize it. Moore is not holding up these people as honorable, he is pointing out that others regard them in that light. In attempting to warn his country of this fact, and others, he is in fact as much a patriot as you seem to think he is not. Too bad we "have to be careful" these days.
No were in his letter did he mention that he was trying to put it in the light of how they thought.
The real test is if he would go to iraq and say this to the troops. I think he would be lucky to get out alive and whole. Have you noticed he has never tried to address the troops? Wonder why?
If I get drunk and start beating the crap out of somebody who called me a rude name, are you "taking his side" if you try to hold me back and tell me I'm out of control and going too far?
The main reason you have to "be careful how you protest" a war is that pro-establishment hawks quick to wrap themselves in the flag will raise spurious accusations against you, not because it actually helps enemy soldiers kill our kids.
(no subject)
I'm also a bit confused as to whether your initial "anti-American" comment was in response to the quote from
In addition, I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time. It's perhaps not as easy a stance to clearly identify in a five second newsclip as the other examples being held up as "pure" positions (clearly America-loving but opposed to a specific policy, or clearly anti-American), but it's an important one to take note of.
Of course, if the policies person A is protesting are ones that person B perceives as deriving inevitably from what person B considers core elements of Americanism, then person B is likely to see person A as un-American even though person A is every bit as America-loving as person A and merely has a different idea of which characteristics are essentially American and which are merely "policy".
Which in turn makes
(no subject)
So clearly he wants the people who are blowing up civilians and american troops to win. Because in the eyes of Moore they are the future of Iraq.
"But protest is as patriotic as you can get, right? As a protestor, I must object to being dubbed "un-american" I am a citizen,"
My referance is toward types of protest. In this he states as a protestor I must object to be being dubbed "un-american". Well purhaps it is a leap to say un-american is anti-american but it is not much of a leap. My point was their are types of protest that are anti or un american. That if one engages in those types of protest then one does deserve the label there of. Protests that target the nation and not the issue or policy could count as such.
"I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time."
I accually agree with you. As I had said a number of times it is fine to protest policy. But as a point of fact certain kinds of protest should be labeled for what they are anti-american. Targeting the flag is to target a symbol of america as a nation and not a policy. So when one burns a flag one is in fact saying either I hate flags or I hate america. But I also stated that to hate america is fine also. Just like I have the right to hate you should also.
In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong.
a correction
(no subject)
Say what?! Maybe I'm missing important clarifying context, but the bit you quoted does not imply that. He voiced an opinion about their role and made a prediction. I didn't see Moore's desire expressed there.
If a few weeks ago I had said (rather than silently thought) that the Ravens would not get into the playoffs, would you construe that as rooting against them?
Further, if my understanding of Moore's position is correct (that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place), then even if he'd rather see us pull out than "win" [separate debate there], that doesn't mean he wants soldiers to die; it means he see their deaths as the result of bad policy decisions.
And apart from the above, nowhere in what you quoted did he encourage others to kill American soldiers. He's not promoting anything of the sort!
The only way he can be seen as promoting that is if someone is trying to spread the "anyone who opposes the war is anti-[soldier|American]" meme to demonize those who disagree on a matter of policy -- propogandists. In short, you appear to have just what
Did you drink the Kool-Aid?
"In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong."
Actually, even then he's right: they're still citizens doing the objectionable and/or violent protesting. He didn't say you had to agree with them or accept their methods, only to remember that this particular "they" is a subset of "us". I don't read him as saying that we should be "so open-minded that our brains leak out", only that it's useful to remember this bit of perspective.
(no subject)
When it comes to war you have to be very careful on how you protest. In Moore statement he lifts up as honorable those who are killing our troops. This is supporting the enemy. Treating them as the hero and thusly justify there killing of the US troops and the Iraqi's that support them. Tell me this if some one beats the @#%# out of you and then I tell you that that guy was right to do so.. even more so while he is still beating on you would you say he was on your side?
As for violent protest... well that is fine as long as the government can violently put it down. But suspect you would have a problem with that. No issue out there today can justify a violent protest. If you become violent you then justify the government becomeing violent in return.
You are so close...
Re: You are so close...
The real test is if he would go to iraq and say this to the troops. I think he would be lucky to get out alive and whole. Have you noticed he has never tried to address the troops? Wonder why?
Re: You are so close...
You're awfully quick to ascribe your own interpretation of his motives to him, with no more evidence.
(no subject)
The main reason you have to "be careful how you protest" a war is that pro-establishment hawks quick to wrap themselves in the flag will raise spurious accusations against you, not because it actually helps enemy soldiers kill our kids.