community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
support war? here's your draft card.
Today's anti-war demonstration marched past Carnegie Mellon University's fraternity houses, and Delta Upsilon made their political views known by nearly brawling with marchers. The frat house made signs like "More Bombs = Cheap Oil" and "I Drive an SUV."
Conflict didn't escalate into violence, but nobody was especially prepared with responses to entirely unintelligent statements.
Perhaps next time, we can get together a little street theater involving somebody wearing a cheap suit and carrying a brief case. When someone screams to nuke Iraq, we'll hand 'em a quality (fake) draft card and suggest that they go themselves.
[of course followed by an in-depth and intelligent discussion of the consequences of war, eh?]
oh those boys
by benjamin Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 7:35 PM
here's a snapshot of the delta upsilon boys.
for a larger picture, click here
The people on either side of this issue are extremely distant, and don't understand each other real well. If something like this happens again, rather than facing off and trying to drown each other out, I think it would be a good idea to invite them to a spontaneous, civilized debate, right then and there. I don't mean this to criticize the way the people in the march reacted; I was there and I did the same thing. In the future, however, a LESS confrontational tactic might be more effective. Just an idea.
Eggs and TP
by Evan N Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 8:10 PM
I say we hook up their frat house Devil's Night style with some good old eggs and TP :)
by -- Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 8:16 PM
Just reading the signs and having been there to experience those kid's attitudes, there was not any opportunity for any sort of debate. They were belligerent and aggressive (Anti-War activists confronted them on their views and violent message, yes, but the frat folks started pushing and what have you). I do like the draft card idea though, that's hot.
agression is not safe
by Hami Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 9:52 PM
I was also in the march when we hit the frat house and I totally disagree with the tactics used by both sides. If we respond to the frat boys' agression with our own yelling and swearing how can we have a civilized conversation?
I'm with Hami
by Sam Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 9:56 PM
I joined the anti-fratboy contingent at first, hoping to have a civilized argument with one of them. Then I realized they were beyond reason...
more about this frat
by not a frat boy Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 11:00 PM
If we can't get through their heads, we may as well mock them...
Just so everyone knows, this frat (Delta Upsilon) is the very same involved in the vandalism of the "lobster house" art project last spring.
In addition, from an internal bboard at CMU last year:
--- Forwarded message begins here ---
A member of Delta Upsilon was
attaching landmarks to their globe. I overheard one side of his
"Hey guys, is St. Lois east or west of the Mississippi? Well what state is
it in? But is that east or west? No, fuck YOU. Yes, it does matter,
we've gotta get this thing on tonight. Well fuck you then. No, fuck YOU.
Guys, why is it that with a 50 thousand dollar booth budget we don't have a fucking map?"
Ah, frats. Yet another source of mindless entertainment.
by rlf Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 11:12 PM
Just as a note of support since it seems to have gotten drowned out, I love the draft card idea.
Mad props to the guy late in the march (squill section) who asked the chicken hawk student on the sidewalk who was shouting pro-war slogans at us if he'd like to go enlist to fight this war he seems to love so much.
by commentorite Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 11:18 PM
i think a possible way to respond to this sort of thing is by integrating them into our protest, whether they like it or not. maybe some clever chats and signs like: "frat boys for peace", "counterprotesters for peace", "warmongers for peace", "hecklers for peace", and that kinda thing. or maybe by joining THEIR protest, "frat boys for world war 3", "nuclear holocaust is the only war to peace", etc. or maybe even negating both sides, a simple: "no war, no peace". avoiding conflict and division is in my opinion a necessity for any kind of debate, as long as both sides are so extremely polarised neither will listen to the other. and perhaps eventually each side might realise that they are talking about a bunch of crazy things and that they arent supporters of different ideas, but humans with invented opinions. what do you think might happen, if instead of yelling at them, we all stood unconfrontationally amongst eachother? i think they might be rather confused, perhaps a more preferably starting point than strife.
Stupid frat boys
by Sam Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 11:39 PM
yea i talked to one of those drunken frat boys.....he didnt have much to say other than "kill arabs." i guess hating people is justification for going to war......(not)
Stupid frat boys
by Sam Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003 at 11:40 PM
yea i talked to one of those drunken frat boys.....he didnt have much to say other than "kill arabs." i guess hating people is justification for going to war......(not)
all that they want is to piss people off
by dudeman Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 12:07 AM
if ya'll were to have ignored them, then their actions would have been useless. instead they got what they wanted....marchers to get angry and irate. i kept moving and i'd like to praise everybody else who did as well. word.
by Daniel Papasian Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 8:25 AM
There is truth to the idea that we should have ignored them. I know a few of us, myself included, were leaving the march at this point in time (I live on campus, I was tired, etc.) and we just ended up across the street from the frat boys, and allowed ourselves to be provoked.
Tim Vining eventually talked me into going, but I regret staying- the day had me riled up and the fact that the frat boys were threatening anti-war people with THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE (heard: "We're bigger than you" and "we can beat you up!") caused me to get angry, and stand with one hand giving the middle finger and the other giving the peace sign. This was just what they wanted, however.
People should realize that this wasn't a legitimate counter-demonstration, it was just an attempt to piss people off.
by Sam Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 9:38 AM
Yeah, but could they beat up 1,000 of us? ;-)
Applications for pro-war folks
by geckodru Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 9:50 AM
The fraternity intended to make people angry. With a large crowd of people, this is not a difficult task. Some people approached the puerile boys who had gathered with their inflammatory signs to talk or argue or convince or reprimand them for their drunken fraternity antics. Arrogance wants attention. Ego does not understand rebuke. Quickly people were shoving back and forth.
A large number of people involved in the protests do not have an interest specifically in Peace. There are people who consider this another step in a revolutionary process by which the entire infrastructure of the dollar and pound hegenomy will be torn down. For those who are primarily interested in Peace. Aggressive posturing, shoving people around and offering to fight fist to fist is not peaceful!
I moved up with the crowd; I wanted to get at the front of the crowd. There is no reason for people to get injured, especially not because of a few immature slogans shouted by not-so-bright drunken teenagers. The crowd quickly swallows people. I had a bike and was not able to get to where I could do anything at all. Thanks to the young woman who finally gestured the marchers back to the streets.
There is no reason for crowds to gather to violently face off against one another. That is war. That is what we are protesting against!
There are many ineffectual ways of dealing with people. Argue and debate do not work, if nobody listens. Yelling slogans at each other does more to assure each side that they have nothing in common than to engender dialogue. An effective way to approach an entrenched ideologue is by soliciting them with the very absurdities of their own beliefs. If a person's gut feeling has them hanging off a bridge ready to leap, they are not always aware of where they stand.
There is still a need for vocal confrontation when presented with a status quo that is entirely devoid of reason. Marching, civil disobedience and well-worded editorials are examples of directed, effective confrontation that have a positive effect. A possible way of confronting the Anti-protest folks would be to stop into the USMC, Army, Air Force and Navy recruitment centers to collect enrollment applications. When people who are pro-War (or in the case of most of these people, anti-Protest) confront the crowd, hand them the forms. Here are few canned slogans to go with the forms:
"Don't be a hypocrit, sign up. Your country needs you now."
"You're too late for the invasion, but there's still time to join the occupation force."
"Remember, 'you can be all you can be.' The army needs violent, hateful people just like you."
"Sign waving is for hippies. It's time you grabbed a gun."
If the person is older, or a veteran, let them know that they can have several forms to pass out themselves. They should be proud to have their sons, daughters, nieces and nephews enrolling for them.
The negative side effect of this is that there are plenty of people who would gladly take the form, sign-on and join the war. These people are not amongst the majority, and are not even amongst a majority of those people shouting the loudest for the war. It's not a reasonable goal to convince everyone to act peacefully instead of upon their first base, rash response, or to convince someone that their long held beliefs, gut feelings and how they define themselves as an upstanding person are out of touch with reality. (Welcome to why we have a society.)
If we manage to slow rash action long enough that people have to think about what they do, then that's a success. If we manage to push those who have insane beliefs into the open where those around them become disillusioned with those insane beliefs, then that's a success. If those who we disagree with are willing to question not only our beliefs, but their owns, then we've succeeded.
I am one of the people who attends peace demonstrations as part of a larger revolutionary process, so I'm going to address my concerns primarily to like-minded protestors.
What did we see in those frat boys? Like all of you guys above pointed out, it was arrogance, but also I think a rather hopeless point of view on human nature. As I said, the ideological opponents here don't have any understanding of each other. The frat boys erronesouly (I HOPE) assumed, without even having encountered one of us and leveled with us, that we could not be reasoned with. They weren't interested in making in a rational argument, and they did not try.
I disagree wholly with the attitudes and opinions expressed by those frat boys the other day, including this apparent judgement on human nature. It seems to me that any sort of popular, decentralization movement is based upon the assumption that people can cooperate and and come to a concensus at this level, without a hierarchy imposing decisions from above. It's my opinion that human beings are capable of conducting themselves in such a way, and therefore don't need even a representative form of goernment. It's true that the frat boys made themselves very easy to dismiss, but I personally think it would have been worth it to try not to. By responding in kind, we displayed our OWN arrogance. Whether we like it or not, conservatives see the anti-war movement as a knee-jerk liberal farce put on out of a sense of party obligation, and in retrospect I wonder if we passed up a really good oppertunity to conduct ourselves with respect for their points of view and prove them WRONG.
I want to reiterate that I don't intend this as a condemnation of anyone at this or any anti-war demonstration I've attended. I've talked to a lot of people in the crowds at these things, and on the whole they're almost all (with the exception of as few as literally one or two) really good people. Forgive me for grammar/spelling mistakes.
Eggs? No thanks...
by animal_liberationists_for_peace Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:25 PM
eggs are the byproduct of industrialized cruelty. i don't know if i'd support trashing their house anyways, cause it would probably be counterproductive and wouldn't really communicate any peaceful message, but should anybody decide to do something, please make sure what you're doing isn't victimizing animals.
for more info, please come to the meatout events on thursday march 20. http://www.pitt.edu/~animals/meatout.html
peace for perverts
by throbber Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 11:39 PM
Ill be having my meatout at the vegan dinner. Ill have my meatout under the table. Who wants some extra protien in their dothead soup???
The other side...
by frat guy Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 12:40 AM
You think our signs are outrageous, what about yours? "Impeach Bush"? that is the most unfounded and idoitic statements that I have ever heard. If you didn't want George W. Bush to be your Commander in Chief, then you shouldn't haven't elected him, or maybe voted. I truly wonder how many of the all the ralliers out base you decions on fact, rather than you idealism. Voter Turnout for the 2000 US Presidential Election was 51%. If more of you activists had made your peace then, maybe Al Gore would be in office (I voted for him). You had your chance, you lost.
In addition, just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't mean anyone is going to listen to you.
And your ideas of a decentralized government? That is idiocracy. My question to you is: Who will protect you? Unlike you, not everyone in the world is peaceful, including governments.
In closing, for your sake, I hope you accept the fact that there will NEVER be peace.
Great Idea Emma
by R Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 5:52 AM
Yeah your draft card idea is brilliant EXCEPT for the fact that we dont need to be "handed draft cards" We actually step up to help the country when in need (not heckle starbucks employees). Case in point, our brother General Tommy R. Franks, Commander in Chief United States Central Command. Not to mention our other brothers activated for duty.
I'm of the opinion that human behavior is governed by a complex interaction between instinctual drives and learned responses (sort of like Skinnerean conditioning), all of which usually pull each other in opposite directions. The following is an oversimplification, but I just use it to illustrate my point of view, not necessarily to prove it: it seems to me that the economic system we currently use forces one instinctual aspect of human behavior (the drive to accumulate resources for survival) against the other (an inherent compassion for other members of one's social group). I actually don't think our form of government is a cause of this, but rather is caused by it. The real origin, I think, is capitalism. We're encultured to compete with one another for money, the means of survival, and also that other people don't deserve to survive if there is no work for them to do. Now this might sound crazy to you, but I don't think it's necessary that people should work in order to get things. I could write a lot about this, but I'd only be repeating things I've read elsewhere, so instead I'll just point you to elsewhere. It's a short and very interesting, whether you agree with it or not. I like this article because it encapsulates the argument in favor of a leisure society, however Wilson's specific model for such a society is a little on the crazy side. If you're interested, there's a ton of other articles proposing economic systems we could institute right now that don't rely on sci-fi stuff like intelligent robots and super-advanced cybernetics.
Anyway, post-modern sociologists have been saying for years that large-scale crime is a product of capitalism, and that international aggression is caused by competition among nations for resources. Just think about the simple fact that Islamic terrorists are poor and American businessmen are rich, or that France buys oil from Iraq. All this stuff isn't a matter of ideals of Freedom or whatever else, it's about humanity being split into factions over material resources. This war, for me, is a minor issue, and I don't march because I want this particular war not to happen, but because I want to change the world order of Third World dictators (or even a Third World) vs wealthy imperialists.
Damn, Ken. I said a similar thing in another post.....I agree with you wholeheartedly. Competition for resources is what generates action from the microlevel to the nation-building level. But i do not have faith that any experiment that you propose could work outside of a thought-experiment. Some of our behaviour is Skinnerian and can be conditioned and changed to think this way, but the instinctual animal human cannot. See Maslow's Heirarchy of needs and progress from there.
We are entirely too frail of a "people" to be restrained enough to use abundant resources to better ourselves. Look at the subculture of the welfare state. The section 8 housing residents have access to many opportuinities to "right-so-called-wrongs" or whatever....do they take advantage of them? Do they stop drinking? The more entrprenurial people ensconced in the welfare state, regardless of color, creed, or whatever, will begin to SELL. Basic human greed and capitalistic instinct.
by V Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 11:41 AM
As one of my brothers has mentioned in several threads, the draft card idea seems great, but it's unnecessary. We are a step ahead of you, as our brothers actively join the military and make sacrifices to protect your freedoms, including the freedom to stereotype them and insult them anonymously online. Think of our brothers who have been activated and are in the Middle East now before you talk about how they are stupid, drunk, overpriviledged jerks.
by None Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 1:49 PM
The frat boys were beyond reason??? And you dont feel that you having a march without a permit and disrupting peoples lives is not beyond reason??? Get a clue asshole. Your both beyond reason. You cant grasp the fact that more people would be behind your cause if you would stay out of traffic and out of their way.
protestors are full of shit
by none Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 1:57 PM
I dont understand how you hold an Anti-War march with a group of Anarchists who have said on public news that they are for a war. It just doesnt make sense. I think that you people have nothing better to do. If you were really against the war you would protest on the sidewalk so that people can hear your message without just getting pissed at you for disrupting their way to work, hospital appointment. And if you were really true to your ideas you would not march with Anarchists who have publicly stated that they want a war so that it will bring the downfall of the civilization. You people just dont make any sense.
This just comes down to a difference of opinion then, George. Human behavior is extremely complicated, and at this point neither of us nor anyone else can claim to know (not even in a relative sense of knowledge) what causes people to act the way they do, or how they would act given different circumstances. I'm of the opinion, first of all, that we can satisfy Maslow's lower needs for ALL people through better technology (which is already available) and a more efficient redistribution based economy. I think that cooperation is deeply ingrained in our neurobiology, and that people are only encouraged to hoarde material goods because they have to "earn" them in our present system. Of course, I could be wrong, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a culture of leisure would not only work, but work better.
That was actually me who said that on TV. I was attempting to satirize the pro-war position, and I never told them I was an anarchist, but rather a nihilist.
In short, the anarchists at the marches do NOT actually support the war, and in the future don't expect that someone on TV billed as an anarchist actually speaks for any of them, let alone the entire group.
This is ridiculous
by fraternities are great Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 3:57 PM
Just as the anti-war protestors excersized their right to freedom of speech so did the pro-war protestors gathered on the lawn of Delta Upsilon. It is completely absurd that some people who post on this thread feel the need to make up lies, and resort to stereotypical information about people in fraternities. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you had done your homework, you would realize that Delta Upsilon is made up of a brotherhood that is comprised of people from many races including african americans, arabs, hispanics, and people with all heritages. In an earlier post a person claimed that we shouted "kill arabs." This is a fallacy. We have a right provided to us by the constitution that allows us to speak our mind without consequence. What happened to this. The fact that the two sides of the argument are diametrically opposed, does not mean that you have the right to spin information based incorrect information. None of our members were drunk during the demonstration, so to use stereotypical information that is not grounded in reality means that you have not thought about your argument enough to make it a coherent one. So who is the druken idiot now? Next time remember that everyone in this country has a right to express their views.
by fraternitiesrule Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 5:38 PM
I didn't want to say anything, but since you mentioned it,I did feel bad for the self-loathing Arab at your little circle jerk, I guess if Ariel Sharon can act like a Nazi, an Arab can act like an oxygen-starved FAUX news pundit, with a bunch of other pampered twits..
Be glad your house is made of bricks.
Something you should know
by Z Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 5:55 PM
Before the events on Sunday I had some faith in the peace movement. I felt that the people involved really did care for the peace and well being of others, and were actually people of peace themselves. Having been there on Sunday to see them, and more importantly having seen their reactions and posts since on the bboards, I can say that I am fully disillusioned.
Granted, not everyone from the anti-war protest acted like a jackass, in fact it was the minority. It was clear though that a substantial contingent was there simply to disrupt peoples' lives in whatever way they could (blocking streets, spitting on people with opposed views, flipping dumpsters, harassing people in stores)
The reaction on the bboards since has been no less embarassing for the peace movement. Stereotypes and name-calling abound. Practically any time a valid point could have been made, an insult was thrown instead. Conversely, the pro-America/pro-DU posts have generally been reasoned and polite.
Peace people - next time you are about to post, refer back to what I've said here and think, "Am I helping my cause or hurting it?" If you still feel the need to throw baseless insults around and exaggerate the events of Sunday, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Support our troops.
I concede to that point, Ken. The technology does exist to satisfy all basic needs. And I do think that we are hardwired to co-operate. I hope the human race gets to that point.
But to put this best possible course of action into motion....that is the task that is herculean.
But I am grateful for the actual, nice and respectful discussion. That is rare ON BOTH SIDES.
Have a good night.
by Ken Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 11:42 PM
If we were hard-wired to cooperate, I think we'd be living in a completely different world.
You're right, but the thing is that our "hard-wiring," our biological cybernetics, are much more complicated than just cooperation. We have a lot of other instinctual values, like our own individual biological survival, etc. Plus, as materials become more scarce, the group with which we associate ourselves and thus are driven to cooperate with shrinks. In even the diluted form of capitalism that we live under, the market laws of supply and demand make commodities and "necessities" ALWAYS ALREADY scarce, so the group to which our instincts latch on shrinks down to our immediate families, if even that! Now if even the comforts of the middle class were produced in surplus and were readily available for free (and believe it, we could do that), we wouldn't automatically be set to compete with each other, and our neurobiology would be, in a sense, free to stress the cooperative elements of our inherited behavior.
by T.S. Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003 at 5:23 PM
I commend the brothers of DU and all that participated in the anti-anti-war protest efforts. It is clear to many of you, and by now should be clear to all, that it was less a pro-war rally (a misnomer in itself) than it was an anti-anti-War rally. I commend them not on their serious political statemets (almost nonexistent), but on the sheer amusement they gave me. "I Drive an SUV!" To think any of you took their protest so seriously.... hah. Their ridiculous statements and blind mockery of your positions are no worse than the misinformation spewed forth from the more far-left propoganda included in your marches.
Before any of you offer to send me a draft card, be assured I have already been in the service for nearly 3 years. I'm not pro-war anyway, although I support this action. My biggest fears involve the difficult reconstruction of Iraq. We may be able to stop Saddam from oppressing his own people, but we may not be able to stop bitter ethnic groups from oprressing each other after he is gone. Anyways... all of this meanders off the topic of the current thread....
They cannot learn.
by Henry Case Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003 at 5:33 PM
Disclaimer: this is being spilled out rather quickly, so I am not being too careful for correctness. I just wanted to comment on this real quick and come back and refine later. :-)
People like those in this picture, mocking peace and exulting war, cannot be reasoned with through debate, or any kind of reason. It's not because they are stupid or unable to learn. It's a matter of indoctrination. Consider all the forces that shape the average American.
- Society honors the bully and scorns the bullied with the simple explination that if people don't like you, you're somehow disfunctional or flawed. This encourages the "tougher than thou" mindset present in even the most mild warhawks. The attitude that it's OKay to beat up other people for whatever reason you may have is widespread.
- Materialism is forced upon Americans at every turn. Buy this, buy that. We're a society of machine-like consumers. People have to have whatever the commercials say they must have (regardless of necessity), and if they didn't get it from the commercial, then it's from peer influence. Take a look at the SUV maddness. 99% of the drivers in SUVs *need* a compact car.
- Disembodiment from the rest of the world. Plain and simple, the vast majority of Americans have no international awareness. They make the conceptual mistake that "America" is a planet, not a country on a planet. We're in our own little world here. The end result is zero understanding , compasion, and tolerance of our neighbors on planet earth.
- Myopia is also encouraged by our culture. Most people think that an action will have an immediate event or consequence. We're constantly driven by an "instant gratification" mentality. "I want to get drunk NOW", "I want to get laid NOW", "I want to buy this NOW". This is evident in excessive boozing, the rapid spread of STDs, massive credit card debt, and so forth. What I believe this causes is a failure to see the interconnectedness between all the forces shaping our world. They don't see how the Bush administration's policies affect the big picture with our civil liberties. They do not see how the money they spend on gas for their SUV eventually finds its way into the hands of terrorists (do they know where most of our oil comes from)?
People working for peace have either ignored or overcome many of these negative influences. That's why they care about the suffering of people in far off countries. That's why this sort of thing matters to them. For the people in the picture, Iraq is nothing. They are entirely unable to grasp that Iraqis are *people*, living and breathing just like they are. Iraqis are some abstract thing, far away, on another world. What happens to those people has absolutely no immediate impact on them, and so they do not care. Just so long as they can buy stuff and syphon pleasure off whatever they may encounter in life, they're happy. So naturally, they're going to hate what our system calls our enemies without a second thought. "You mean I can't buy my [something]!? Bomb them!"
For those that would like some insight, a program on the Discovery Channel " What were the roots of 9/11" airs tonight Wed. 3/26 at 10:00 PM. It should provide some insight to how the US is viewed in the Middle East.
Please watch if you can.
Before you pass judgement
by Observer of the clash of protestors Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 1:52 AM
I am a student at CMU and I happened to be walking near the fraternities when I saw what was taking place that Sunday and decided to stick around and watch what would happen. What I observed, as a thrid party observer, was apalling. The DU fraternity brothers did have rather ridiculous and exaggerated signs that I am sure you have heard of 100 times by now. However, not once did I see them leave the private property of the grass in front of their house. However, I did see the anti-war protestors move from the street onto the sidewalk and onto the fraternity's private property. Verbal assaults from both sides ensued but I did not hear the DU's and brothers from other fraternities that were present shout individual threats but mostly chants that were just as ridiculous as their signs. It was very amusing to me because the anti-war protestors took the fraternity brothers as a real threat to their cause, were as it seemed to me as the brothers wanted more to just annoy the protestors, just as the protestors annoyed hundreds of motoriscts that day. What was most disturbing to me was not the flicking off going on both sides or even the yelling or even anything the DU brothers did but rather that some of the antiwar protestors not only spit on brothers from the DU house, with no physical provocation, but were also spitting on the American flag that was beingly proudly waved by one brothers. I wasnt for either side to begin with, if anything I was against to war before what I saw, but after seeing the actions and tempers of the participants of a so-called "antiwar" protest, I felt somewhat ashamed to have the same principle belief as them in terms of the war. It seemed that they would have gotten their point across much more clearly if they had simply ignored the fraternity boys and kept walking on their route. Instead, what precipitated neither helped their cause or themselves. Looking at the fraternity brothers afterwards, they were all very happy and laughing, compared to the antiwar protestors who appeared truly angry. Before they acted, the protestors maybe should have thought of the true intent of the brothers(which is easy to say in retrospect) but after what actually took place it seems like the fraternity brothers involved achieved what they were trying to do and the protestors showed they werent as peaceful and antiviolence as they had advertised.
by owned Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 4:03 AM
First off, there were only 500 anti-war protesters, if that. The majority of the anti-war people were woman, or very femine men. Since all the frat boys were "drunk" you have to add up their eagerness to fight, their beer muscles, and their experience fighting. They would have easily destroyed all of the pro-war people, All the cops would have done is sit around and cheer for the Frat guys. Same thing they did as they left and honked for them.
The fact that most of the people on this site can't see that the "pro war rally" was actually an anti anti war rally shows that these people aren't capable of figuring things out for themselves and just follow what the media tells them.
The signs were directly making fun of the protestors for their extreme views.
Most of the brothers of Delta Upsilon are anti war, but they support this country no matter the situation.
Get your facts straight before you follow blindly.
by Brother Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 5:25 AM
for the record, there was not a single drunk brother from DU on that front lawn. Greek Sing was the night before and most people were incapable of drinking that day.
For America Now
by For America Now Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:36 AM
What is a greek sing? Is that the sound fresman make when you first rape them? Is it the whining sound you make to the cops because protesters walked across CMU (not DU) lawn? Most of us here are unfamiliar with your brand of homoerotic bonding rituals.
I for one walked right through CMU's yard that you pampered little twits, and none of you said a word to me. The only resistance I met was the plainclothes cop who bumped into me at the corner.
See you at spring carnival.
Why We Must Fight — and Now!
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett
Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.
Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."
Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.
Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.
Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.
It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators.
In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.
We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.
This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."
Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.
Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.
We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton’s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.
In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.
by bLing Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 12:22 PM
Greek sing is CMU's largest frat/sorority philantropy event you ignorant shit. i'd expect that type of ignorance coming from anti-war, anti-state, anti-american bitches like you. shut up.
by Fer Amaraca Now Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 3:27 PM
So it is about anal sex and date rape? Why would I know about anything so stupid and petty
by jwg Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 3:31 PM
"... but they support this country no matter the situation.
Get your facts straight before you follow blindly."
Wow, did you even read that before you typed is, that is some funny shit right there!
by Ken Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:51 PM
This Fer Amaraca Now guy is nothing but a detriment to those who are sided against the fraternity. His comments are so ridicously stupid, that one would
think he was one of those who he is fighting against.
Supporting and following are two different things. One can hope the best for our troops, but still not want to go to war. So no, it's not "funny shit." People always bring up that same point when someone mentions that they support our country.
Most of the anti war protesters are blind followers because they protest only because they want to be heard. A lot of them have no idea what's going on, but just think "oh yea fighting is bad, war bad" when obviously it's required in some situations. We can't just send in more and more inspectors when obviously they weren't going to be able to search the places they needed to.
Maybe I'm being extreme, but look at Nazi Germany, it was the result of one man gaining power while the rest of the world turned a blind eye.
by Travis Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 8:09 PM
PATRIOTISM, n. 1) The inability to distinguish between the government and one's "country"; 2) A highly praiseworthy virtue characterized by the desire to dominate and kill; 3) A feeling of exultation experienced when contemplating heaps of charred "enemy" corpses; 4) The first, last, and perennial refuge of scoundrels.
PATRIOT, n. A dangerous tool of the powers that be. A herd member who compensates for lack of self-respect by indentifying with an abstraction. An enemy of individual freedom. A fancier of the rich, satisfying flavor of boot leather.
-- from The American Heretic's Dictionary edited by Chaz Bufe (See Sharp Press)
I can't remember who said it, but "Saddam Hussein is to Hitler, what Oasis is to the Beatles".
The Bush gang's imperial designs, as well as the hyper-nationalism(tribalism) exhibited by creepy Hitler Youth-like groups such as your own, are a different story altogether. Such blind obedience to pampered, fundamentalists, brought about the horrific events of 9/11. The only difference between Bush & his former business associate, bin Laden, is that Bush shaves, and bin Laden has some combat experience, they are both terrorists. The agressive policies of Bush and Hussein both endanger the lives of their own populations. The irony of the Deserter in Chief, whining about the war crimes of others, is more than I can take. For him to pretend he understands international law, let alone exhibitis a willingness to adhere to it, is the comedy hit of the season. He thinks Geneva Convention is a cream ale. How many death warrants did he sign in Texas? What about all the video of those poor bastards at Gitmo?
You seem like a nice enough kid, Ken, and not as oxygen-starved as some of your freeper buddies who spam here regularly, but you may want to keep in mind that most of what is on TV is make believe. Before you hit me with some snappy comeback about a liberal media, keep in mind that there were 13,000+ major articles about the moderate Republican, Clinton's alleged draft dodging, but only 49 articles about Bush's 18 month period of wartime desertion. The majority of what you see on TV is controlled by only five media conglomerates, all of whom profit direcly from war.
I don't feel all that threatened by a bunch of confused little rich kids, pretending to be conservative gangster rappers, but apparently some others on these boards do, and will waste lots of energy arguing with, insulting nd plotting against your kind. Not everyone who is against imperialism is a pacifist.
by Ken Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 2:40 AM
It seems like generalizations can't escape even the more intelligent posts.
If identifying with an abstraction is a sign of a lack of self-respect, then what are those who are fighting to stop the war fighting for? Aren't the basic beliefs that they are expressing examples of abstract ideas?
One would have to be naive to believe that this war is only about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Of course the oil has importance. Fact is though, democracy has been shown to work better than dictatorships, and thus if Saddam is removed, not only will America benefit, but so will the Iraqi people. The sanctions will be lifted and trade will commence once again.
I'm not going to go as far as insulting anyone, but I do think there are those who are definitely misinformed if even informed at all in the anti-war camp.
Lastly, I hardly think a fraternity could be compared to Hitler-youth. That sort of uniformity would be hard to find.
by Travis Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 5:46 AM
Pardon the generalizations, the electronic format seems to encourage them. The intent was not the all too common personal attack, but concern over the jingoistic mini-Nueremburg pep rallies and cookouts, which attract hundreds every weekend.
The anti-war movement encompasses the entire spectrum of the political landscape. From right-wing paleo-conservatives, and big "L" Libertarians to left-field newspaper-peddling socialists and the creepy A.N.S.W.E.R. Stalinists, as well as anarchists, neither left nor right, although sometimes erroneously lumped in with the left. All of whom have their own reasons to oppose this war There is no one basic belief, and falling into the latter category, I find many of their dogmas as boring and unflattering as your own.
The oil is secondary to the perpetual war doctrine of the Bush gang. The Pax Americana. Knee deep in shit, and eyeing up Syria and Iran. When you say democracy, do you mean another US installed dictator, or the choice between a pro-abortion, anti-gun candidate or the anti-abortion pro-gun candidate, who is magically qualified to speak for everyone in an arbitrary, imaginary line on a map, or small non-hierarchial, autonomous communities? Most likely a., and more of the same for the Iraqi people, the ones who survive. Hats off to the Shi'a who fought both Iraqi and British forces in the south, they aren't kidding themselves. Invading Iraq will not make my life better in any way, shape or form. There are worse things than war, and they all follow war. Fuel is expensive because of the war and the sanctions.
I wasn't comparing your fraternity to the Hitler Youth, I was referring to your American fan club. It seems kind of redundant and frightening, as is any kind of ultra-nationalism. Despite the hierarcial structure and exclusive policies of fraternities, they are theoretically working semi-autonomous communities(in the very loosest sense of the term, it's a bit of a reach, I know), and that's never a bad thing.