Seems she's caterwauling in praise for the "grownups" and dissing the war protestors who are '"tantrum throwing dissidents" or '"sulking teens." Ms. Parker attempts to disparage those who disagree with her by referring to protesters as "teenagers" while pro-war supporters such as she are "adults." Perhaps this eases her conscience as she struggles to find real reasons to defend her pro-war position against millions who joined together in the biggest peace demonstration in world history. The problem with her premise, however, and this really is stating the obvious, is that these aren't teenagers screaming, "I hate you." These are adults - some of the most sane, intelligent, committed adults on the planet. Labeling all those opposed to the war as teenagers means she thinks people like Bishop Desmond Tutu, President Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II are teenagers. These are all great people who have protested against this war. I am comfortable with my conscience about my stand against this war, and I feel even better knowing I stand beside these great "teenagers" as opposed to standing along side adults like Kathleen Parker, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. :m: Peace.
grrrrr the bottom line is: if war happens, what choice do we have concerning it.....nothing, absolutely nada, zip, zero... everyone can whine about it till doomsday(no pun intended) but...if it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
What if the protestors really were all teenagers, what if adults were the extreme minority. Would it make a difference? Would we be opposing our adult overlords, or merely trying (in vain) to save lives? Teenagers, like myself, can be major dumbasses at times, in fact, it is my belief that there is not a teenager on Earth that is not at least somewhat of a dumbass--but that does not mean that we are wrong when it comes to standing against war, even if we don't have the backing of those that are more mature than ourselves. I feel completely powerless, and I am. I cannot vote. I won't be able to in time for the next presidential election. And ya never know, that may be the last one...
well, some of them are sulking teens... not that i think the majority of the anitwar people are, but i do know of a number of people who are all "Protest? Cool! I'll be there!...what are we protesting again? maybe it'sjust cause i'm in a very politial and liberal town
"Bishop Desmond Tutu, President Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II are teenagers" I'm no Jimmy Cartah fan, but should we really include Nelson in the mix anymore? Mandela was a great terrorist and a brilliant fighter against the terror in Africa - but now he seems like nothing more than a hypocrit and a maniac. Come on, Goofy; calling America the most terrorist nation of the twentieth century? Nelson said if any nation of the last hundred years had done terrible things it was America. Please. He went on to comment that a war in Iraq would be a holocaust. Mandela is no whiny teenager - but he certainly plays favourites. He's always had the good sense to turn away from the wrong-doings of people who've helped him.
Those are the type of people that think that just because I'm a teenager, I do not have an intelligent opinion about anything.
Hmm.. I have a feeling that we're being a little subjective here. Instead of thinking about what was said, you're siezing on the negative aspects of how it was said. If you read it again, without confirmation bias, you'll see that what she actually said was This is not an indictment against teenagers. It is an indictment against a subset of teenagers, who act in this manner. And it is, in my opinion, a valid point. Regardless of the authors' personal opinions, what she has said can be read outside of any ad-hominem arguments to discredit it. Again, a valid point. Now, there are of course people who do actually think, search for information, and present it in defence of their own pro-peace arguments. And I'm not referring here to those who search out news reports of 100,000 protesters marching and pointing to it saying "see! the majority!". Appeals to the majority bear no weight. You have to admit, a large proportion of people are simply jumping on the peace bandwagon because something bothers them. Not that they have any factual information about it, but "something" is wrong, and they take to the streets. Or, of course, because it's fun to protest against the big bad government. Then there are those who like to feel they are a part of the decision making process, and if they don't have any power individually, they'll join that which gives it to them in one form or another. Either way, a large proportion of protesters can be as dismissed as easily as you guys dismiss those who don't have anything against this war. Perspective. An argument commonly dismissed by anti-war protesters. The dichotomy here is that in avoiding war, you're condemning thousands of innocents to death anyway, or at the very least misery. So you cover your own fear of losing what you have, or your ideals against violence, by saying that we "don't have the right to interfere". Some of you would be willing to let others die to save your own conscience against sacrificing a few to correct the situation. In answer to the above, you'll say "prove that these regimes are killing people". You cop out of making a decision, and cover it as a moral decision in itself. I consider this cowardly. To have a set of morals which doesn't mesh with current "popular opinion" must be difficult. If taken as meaning that, and only that, then it is true. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with a politician saying they're trying to be honest about what they think? I've seen several of you hailing your own "honest politicians" because they stand up for what they believe is right... do you then condemn others who do the same because they don't see things as you do?
Well damn, teenagers should protest, because they are going to be the ones doing the actual fighting, not the crotchety old man in the corner whining.
Good point, however: it is true that the older people have been around much longer than us young people have. They know what their talking about. They've seen wars before, and they've fought in wars before. This is nothing new to them. Just because we have the ability to fight doesn''t mean that we have the knowledge to not fight. Does that make sense?
Tyler How unfortunate, once more, that the pro-war movement reduces its opponants to the level of the mentally disturbed, corrupted youth or simple minded imbiciles. Mandela was recognized throughout the world for his deeds and all of a sudden, he's given some pro-war individuals problems, he becomes old, have brain dead and not such a great guy after all? Tyler please, Prisme
