O/T. The March Against The War. [Archive] - Skymouse Panty Wetting Message Board

Holly

Mon, 17 Feb 03, 12:40 AM

Actually, I even though I'm pretty disullusioned with all politicians, I have to say I was impressed by the March. I wasn't impressed by Blair's speech. In some respects, I think he scored an own goal by what he said. I can't see how he can justify an invasion and a war just to free a country from an evil dictator. No matter how right the ideals are in doing that, I don't believe it justifies war. And I think most people of my generation believe that and are very worried about the consequences.

Then again, I am still undecided because I know that Saddam is playing a game with the west and will continue to do so. I'm also convinced that he will harm his own people in his attempts to stay in power. BUT..... I just can't bring myself to believe that it justifies a war, the loss of innocent lives and all instability that it will bring to the middle east.

There....surprised? The one and only politics post you will ever get from me!

Holly x

jezbera

Mon, 17 Feb 03, 1:42 AM

To Holly:
Never say never! Your post- although on political thread- is very good. I couldn´t say it better!!! images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

WD12

Mon, 17 Feb 03, 8:45 AM

There are still so many unanswered questions.

The first one that comes to my mind is how does a really smart guy like Blair get sucked into this posistion by a country hick (of course, he's not that, he only plays one on TV) like G W Bush?

Someone, somewhere, and I don't mean Saddam, is hiding something. No doubt Saddam is hiding stuff too, but he's not the force about to engage in a war of preemption.

Colin Powell, a man I have immense respect for, in his presentation to the UN mainly showed evidence that "could" justify the posistion of the administration. It "could" if they had any hard facts to back it up!

I am immensely conflicted over this. In general, I'm against war, especially one that has not been proven to be justified in the view of the world population. But then there's the "Blair" factor. I'm not a brit but I don't think this is a stupid guy. He must know something we don't know if he's totally behind an invasion of Iraq. C'mon Tony, give it up. If GW won't, you should.

We all know that if Iraq actually did something provocative, like invade Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again we could level Iraq within minutes, or, showing our softer side, simply mount another "mother of all battles" that Saddam called down upon himself last time and simply wipe out his armed forces.

So, why are we rushing into this? It really seems like there is a timetable to be met here.

Hmmm. The presidential election cycle is already in play. Several Democratic hopefulls have already filed. No Republican is willing to go up against the Bush jugernaut. And a jugernaut it is.

For those of you in other parts of the world, you should know this. American Presidents are limited to two terms of 4 years each. Failing to secure a second term generally means your Presidency was a failure.

Let's check the record;

Unprecendented unemployment since Bush took office.

Unprecedented failure of the stock markets since Bush took office.

Unprecedented business failures since Bush took office.

(Unprecedented relationships with major energy companies, all located in Texas, since Bush took office) <In quotes because we all want to keep that quiet images/smiles/icon_wink.gif >

Unprecendented tax cuts for those who can most afford to pay taxes.

I will admit one thing, the collapse of the Internet economy is not the administrations' fault. It's the fault of really rich people who borrowed against the equity of their workers and investors. Hmmm. I wonder if that might be an issue Republicans would understand.

Do I sound pissed off? I sure hope so! Do I sound unpatriotic? I sure hope not.

The US is a wonderful country with millions of wonderful citizens, from all ethnicities.

I'm willing to stand up for all our country represents, in the finest sense. I'm not so sure the current administration is representing the finest ideals of it's citizens.

I'm no longer sure this is all about oil. I am now 50/50 oil or re-election.

Please chime in.

WD

Anonymous

Mon, 17 Feb 03, 10:33 PM

Hi WD,

I think your analysis got it just about right. Another point to note is that Richard Perle and some others were advocating attacking Iraq years ago - 9/11 just gave them the excuse - even if a very feeble one!

David

Estelle

Mon, 17 Feb 03, 11:03 PM

I'm not so sure that Our Tony is such a smart guy, WD. A few years back I may have thought so but not now. I mean, how do you account for his belief that lies and spin will get him out of holes like the ones created by Jo Moore, for instance? That whole Moore/Sixsmith/Byers saga was so ridiculous and so AVOIDABLE. Ditto his decision to reemploy Mandelson. Ditto The Millenium Dome....and on...and on.

I f he ever was smart then he really seems to have lost it since he gained power.

Anonymous

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 1:25 AM

Well, I sure hope you were all out four years ago protesting against NATO action in the former Yugoslav republic. Again, I just get tired of the duplicity. Are we against war? Or just wars started by Republicans we don't like?

Just looking for some intellectual honesty here.

Oh, one other point: does it make sense that the only kind of talk a despot like Maddas will understand is uncompromising threat? Yet all the voices raising up against military action...well, Saddam can rest easy that you'll undermine that effort. And, thus, ironically, you will force the issue--we will have to go to war, because our gambit will fail, because he can see you all on CNN, basically rooting for him.

And you are rooting for him, whether you like it or not. Esp. those of you who claim you're concerned about "stability" in the ME. I guess 50 years ago, you’d be claiming Hitler brought stability to the Weimar republic. (Then again, I guess that is pretty much what Neville Chamberlain thought--a fine conservative, eh?)

I don’t necessarily think that Bush et al are being 100% honest with us. But I don’t necessarily have any reason to believe he’s not doing the right thing, either. For the record, I supported Clinton’s wars, too.

Estelle

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 2:32 AM

There you go again. "A vote for peace is a vote for Saddam". THAT'S the dishonest tendentious rubbish. And the parallels with 1938 are just not there. Saddam is not currently invading other countries. Bush is. Remember Afghanistan? If there are any parallels then maybe we should cast Bush in the aggressor role. Germany in 1938 had a growing and powerful army and air force. Iraq has a wrecked economy, a wrecked army and a few missiles with a range of 90 miles.

Afghanistan? Yes I know The Taliban were a bunch of evil shits (any woman would know that,it was us they were oppressing) but I doubt whether the 20000 men,women and children who died in the air war would thank the Anglo-American Axis for "liberating" the survivors only to hand them over to a bunch of murderous warlords with a proven track record of torture, extortion and death. The burka may have largely vanished from Kabul but it is still required attire in much of the rest of the country. Liberation? What liberation?

As for Serbia/Kosovo - yes I agree something had to be done. I don't think that indiscriminate air war was the way but I can't say I have an easy alternative either. But then, something should have been done much earlier when Milosovich invaded first Slovenia, then Croatia and then Bosnia. But that didn't suit the Anglo-American axis, did it? Remember Srebrenicia? Twice as many died there as died in NYC on Sept 11th.

Have you no better argument than accusing us of siding with Saddam? If you haven't then you certainly have not made the case for war.

Larry Lamb

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 10:32 AM

Hmmm, funny you talk of siding with Saddam - how vocal were you when Rumsfeld and Cheney were arming him? Come on, let's be completely blunt here - if there is anything that has given him succour and encouraged him to be a murderous tyrant and if there is ONE thing that has ensured war would be necessary, it is the support of the US and UK (and others like France) governments for his regime, arming him and allowing him his genocide UNTIL it infringed on their interests.

You can try and stick that label of appeasers on us as much as you like, but it fits MUCH better on you and those you now support.

And what is more, you wore it for longer when we were DEMANDING an end to the arms trade, an ethical foreign policy, respect for ALL human rights ALL across the world.

Nope, if there is one thing dictators know, that sustains them in their disgusting behaviour, it is the knowledge that when leaders claim to be waging war for humanitarian needs, it is BULLSHIT.

God, I hate appeasing weasels!

images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

Larry Lamb

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 10:46 AM

<blockquote>quote
But your alternative for Iraq is "do nothing," I guess. Serbia...unknown better alternative than air war. Iraq...do nothing. OK, that's consistent.

A. We were saying do something a LONG time ago with both - this historical amnesia of yours really is disingenuous - as though tyrants and dictators suddenly turn bad and their armers and supporters and appeasers in the West had no idea UNTIL they decide to wage a "humanitarian" war. And you can bet all the supporters of such an option now will strangely revert to their laughable realpolitik view once the war is won and the Iraqis/Kosovans/Afghans bombed to liberation. Yes, even as we speak the great humanitarian Blair (no Republican he!) is allowing Mugabe to attend a conference (despite 5 million being on the verge of starvation - more than Saddam ever killed, why are we not invading there FIRST!?!?), is arming the Israelis who mercilessly slaughter innocent Palestinians in wild and indiscriminate bombings of blocks of flats, is not invading North Korea, a dictatorial regime with his own people having suffered EVEN LONGER than the Iraqis and one that we KNOW has WMD. So, don't give me this crap that this war is humanitarian because the ACTIONS prove the WORDS are just SPIN.

B. Alternatives - well, duh, don't give them the weapons in the first place, don't encourage them, don't support them, don't be hypocrites, don't play politics with people's lives, don't ignore world opinion all the time, show that loving and caring side in other aspects of how you govern so that such heart-bleeding now doesn't seem like so much bullshit, give aid, lots of aid, don't let the opposition groups down because they aren't YOUR dictator and might oppose your policies and when it comes to air war, such a BLUNT instrument, show the fucking courage of your convictions and allow for SOME losses on your own side - or do you also subscribe to the view that an American life is worth more than an innocent Kosovan or Iraqi or Afghan? See why we think your argument stinks? Because it is hypocritical, unthinking, ignorant (of the past), self-centred and convenient as one to try and persuade those of us who were against appeasement when you were still supporting dictators against other enemies.

Nope, it just doesn't wash. The position of the murderous dictator's right hand man still fits you better!

Anonymous

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 10:50 AM

I think one of the greatest problems is that none of us here really know the full story. No doubt Blair and Bush are party to intelligence which, by virtue of it's sensitivity, cannot enter the public domain and probably won't do for another thirty years if ever - assuming that the present crisis is resolved. There may well be a very real and significant threat. Equally, there may be other agendas which it is politically expedient for Bush and Blair to pursue. I think it was David who very shrewdly pointed out that 9/11 probably gave impetus to sentiments which were already latent. Also Bush is at the mid-term point of of his presidency and what he does now could impact on his chances of re-election. The same is true for Blair if he wishes to follow the modern fashion of having a four rather than a five year parliamentary term.

At the moment I wouldn't wish to be either of them. It must be genuinely difficult to know what to do for the best.
images/smiles/icon_razz.gif images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Anonymous

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 3:09 PM

<blockquote>quote
Have you no better argument than accusing us of siding with Saddam?

I made the case for why I think you're siding with Saddam. I said, we may very well just be posturing. But we have to posture in a believable and consistent way, for the gambit to work. Otherwise, we have to follow-thru--which means, no more posturing, we go to war. Ironically, this means I am the true anti-war crucader--I want to see Madass back down. But he won't, if he knows he can count on you.

<blockquote>quote
Saddam is not currently invading other countries.

Right, we'll just hang around and wait till he does that again for it to be OK, how's that? Shall we wait for N. Korea to nuke S. Korea, too?

<blockquote>quote
I don't think that indiscriminate air war was the way but I can't say I have an easy alternative either.

But your alternative for Iraq is "do nothing," I guess. Serbia...unknown better alternative than air war. Iraq...do nothing. OK, that's consistent.

<blockquote>quote
Yes I know The Taliban were a bunch of evil shits (any woman would know that,it was us they were oppressing)...The burka may have largely vanished from Kabul but it is still required attire in much of the rest of the country.

Good Lord, now you've co-opted Afghanistan as some kind of fem-lib issue, and decided the war was a failure because your western cultural imperialism hasn't been uniformly enforced in women's dress. The Taliban oppressed a lot more than just women, BTW. Ask artisans, intellectuals, and everyone who wasn't a Pashtun.

And, uh, we did not hand the country over to war-lords. We established a government that had been in exile, and are now assisting in putting down the warlords and the remnants of the Taliban.

<blockquote>quote
Bush is [invading other countries]. Remember Afghanistan?

I sure do...one of the countries that essentially declared unprovoked war on us and killed thousands of innocents, and attacked our military. I guess we should have just done nothing? Just like your country does when the IRA blows up something, eh?

Europe wasted untold joules of energy in the 1980's protesting the US's cold-war nuclear policies and our stance against the USSR. If we had listened to you all and immediately disarmed, the Soviet Union would still be around. Instead, we followed through on our principles, and we won.

Sometimes the correct path is NOT the one of least resistance.

Anonymous

Tue, 18 Feb 03, 10:43 PM

Hi Adrian,

No, we obviously don't know the full story, but we do know that some of Bush's advisors have been advocating another war on Iraq for years. We also know that the Republicans helped arm and support Saddam and Osama Bin Laden (in the fight with the USSR). We also know that Tony Blair promised us all a dossier prepared by the security services on why we needed to attack Iraq. It later turned out that this dossier had been written by a student years before and just pinched off the internet! That does not give me great confidence in either of their judgement!

David

Estelle

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 3:00 AM

Reply to "Libertarian"

I said that Iraq is not currently invading other countries. True. He is not even threatening to do so. If mere possession of WMDs implies aggressive intent then what does that say about US and UK?

Those of us who oppose war are not "siding with Saddam". This is spurious argument and you know it. We are claiming that aggressive war is a very poor means of helping either ourselves or the Iraqui people. In the mid nineties (I forget the exact date) there were uprisings against Saddam all over Iraq. They asked US and Europe for help. Our governments did nothing. Saddam crushed them. Who "sided with Saddam" then?

My example about the burka was not intended to be a comment on contemporary fashion trends in Afghanistan. The burka is a potent symbol of the oppression of women by this strand of Islam (not the strand prevelant in Iraq, incidentally). That oppression still exists outside of Kabul. The current "leader" of Afghanistan may be doing his best but a war and 20000 deaths later his "rule" extends not much beyond Kabul. Is that successful war? 20000 deaths for one liberated city and its hinterland?

Yes, I know the Taliban oppressed non Pashtun men as well as women. Non Pashtun men, women and children were also very effectively oppressed by their "own" leaders. There are no easy answers and war is a very misguided attempt to manufacture one.

We do NOT advocate the path of "least resistance". We are just looking for other ways to resist, that's all. We have no easy answers either, but at least we're trying.

Estelle

Estelle

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 3:09 AM

I really notice that this thread and "O/T anti war demos" are staying relatively clear of personal abuse and put downs. We disagree but at least we're talking.

I really hope we can keep it that way. Can I suggest that if anyone posts personal abuse or name calling he is just met with a chorus of brief "shut ups" and no responsive abuse. If we can't keep the peace and negotiate here, what chance do we stand out there?

Anonymous

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 5:36 AM

I marched on the weekend too. Over one thousand people from my conservative little valley got together and marched down the main street. Not as many as in London or Sydney, or in any way significant to the rest of the world, but it was one of the most moving things I've been a part of.

I wasn't marching in support of Sadam or against George Bush, I marched because the pathetic excuse my country (Australia) has for a leader, decided to send our kids to the Middle East on the whim of another country. If any parallels to earlier wars are relevant its to Vietnam; Slimy politicians sending kids to a pointless conflict for the sake of a few votes and kudos from the powerful. This time we have a primeminister who was re-elected for kicking boat people in the balls, only too eager to commit to any action in the Middle East (or anywhere else), because he thinks he's on another winner. Unfortunately any issues of right and wrong are irrelevant in political decision-making. Its all about votes and leaving your otherwise forgettable mark on the world stage. Ordinary people are concerned with right and wrong, with truth and lies, with justice and injustice and use these as the basis for forming our opinions. Our leaders do not.

The most moving thing about the peace march I went to was the contribution made by the local aboriginal elders. These are people who have been discriminated against all their lives, who have yet to see any meaningful steps taken towards reconciliation by Australian governments, yet they still found it in their hearts to bless all those who marched with a smoking ceremony. Powerful and unforgettable.

Anonymous

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 7:20 AM

I've never been hot on politics, so I'll ask the most important question regarding those who took part in the march - did anyone see any good sightings? All those people with no toilets, something must have happened somewhere.

Aloo

Estelle

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 2:40 PM

Prawnboy - Thank you for that post. Especially for your appreciation of participation by Aboriginal people. This really is an international and cross-cultural coalition - people of every nationality, race, gendr, gender-orientation, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, age etc etc. Can the International Coalition To Make War say the same?

Anonymous

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 11:25 PM

I Normally wont get into a debate over whos right or wrong. Being in the military myself I can see just how things are when a man and his family with a morgage and car payment and more is called up to duty after serving several years reserve. I doubt they ever thought they would be called, thus attending tkose reserve meetings and taking that govt check for it was just a little spending money.Now they got to produce what they were paid for. I dont like it.
I dont know but that Saddam has some bio-chemical stuff stored someplace, or why would they be buying all those chemical combat suits? There is a lot of stuff unaccounted for that didnt go away after the war in '91.
I dont blame Bush for that, he wasnt in power, but the previous adminstration sort of let things go a bit I think and didnt do anything after daddy Bush left office.
Yet, the first time a scud lands on a country with a dirty nuke bomb, or chemical agent then the wining will start why didnt someone do something? I remember Hitler, and how they let him run his armies thru Europe and killing millions of jews. I remember twice the bombing of the Trade Centers, trhe second one was successful. There are many foreign peoples that were let into our country that are up to no good. We made a lot of mistakes there too.
Im not in favor of any military action, just yet. I prefer to let the inspectors do their job. What they are looking for is there someplace probably buried. However we must act before the weather starts to get very hot and thats why Saddam is stalling. I sort of remember some European countries that do a lot of business with Iraq also, so I wonder if thats their main objection of removing that cowardly dictator?
Its goona happen soon, one way or the other, we will fight 0r something will happen.
Lets hope for the best. Lets support or men and women in the armed forces,, Not LIKe "Nam.

Anonymous

Wed, 19 Feb 03, 11:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by <Michale M.>:
I remember Hitler, and how they let him run his armies thru Europe and killing millions of jews.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, and this is so completely different that is a fatuous example. In 1939, Hitler had been building UP his armies for years, he had invaded various countries and was actively aggressive. With Saddam, his army is a ragtag bunch of no-hopers who will desert at the first opportunity (hopefully and probably), he has stopped his territorial ambitions (even recognizing Kuwait as sovereign last year) and he is not preaching world domination like Hitler was.

<blockquote>quote
There are many foreign peoples that were let into our country that are up to no good

I hate to be the one to tell you this but your entire country, the USA, is full of foreigners. The very few remaining indigenous people (look it up in a dictionary) have been systematically slaughtered and cleansed from the land by your forebears and their comrades in arms. First you recognize the abhorrence of Hitler's ideology against the Jews and then you come pretty close to espousing it (as in an objectification of the 'other') yourself.

<blockquote>quote
Lets support or men and women in the armed forces,, Not LIKe "Nam

Actually, as Vietnam is now accepted as a war that should never have been fought and that all those who died in it died in vain, the people who opposed the war showed more concern and more care for the armed forces than did their rulers and commanders. Those of us who oppose a war now ARE supporting the armed forces. We are supporting their right NOT to be tools of unthinking and shortsighted and ignorant selfish politicians. We want them to LIVE and not to die in vain, or for someone else's vanity and pride. That is better support than just accepting without qustion that their deployment is right. Read the Wilfred Owen (soldier in WW1) poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" and start to understand that being against war is not to be against soldiers.

I know, it's all going way over your head. Like many a good military man, when the orders are given, you obey them, UNQUESTIONINGLY. That, alas, is part of the problem!

Anonymous

Thu, 20 Feb 03, 6:59 PM

My friends, there's no intelligence agency of any government which does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Let's not forget this. We've even had some of these big-hearted, well-intentioned, super-patriot, anti-war protesters post here and express concern about going to war with Iraq because, if we do, Saddam might release his weapons of mass destruction on our troops.

Wait a minute, what weapons of mass destruction? You protesters are going to have to get your story straight. He doesn't have anything worth being concerned about so what could he possibly unleash against our troops? I mean come on, folks! Don't get suckered and roped in by this PR battle here. The press and Saddam Hussein are playing you like Stradivarius.

I have a friend named Tom from Durham, North Carolina who admitted to me that no protestors are making any demands on Saddam Hussein because "no one's pretending Saddam Hussein is reasonable."

That just said it all! No demands are made on Hussein, because he's not reasonable. Yet, he has weapons of mass destruction. So let's protest Bush and appease the unreasonable danger monger? Boy, you people are being duped. It's so sad. The more you protest, the more you stretch this thing out and delay, and the more you aid Saddam Hussein.

If you really want to avoid war, you would be calling for him to step aside. If Saddam Hussein left Iraq, there would be no war. This is why I say that these protests aren't really anti-war. They are anti-Bush.

Anonymous

Thu, 20 Feb 03, 7:05 PM

To WD12

Let's check the record;

Unprecendented unemployment since Bush took office.

Unprecedented failure of the stock markets since Bush took office.

Unprecedented business failures since Bush took office.

(Unprecedented relationships with major energy companies, all located in Texas, since Bush took office) <In quotes because we all want to keep that quiet >

All of the above were set in motion during the Clinton administration and Bush inherited it. You are not fooling anyone with that.

Unprecendented tax cuts for those who can most afford to pay taxes.

This class warfare card has been overplayed. The rich already bear the highest tax burden. Bush's tax cuts made the gap even wider so that middle income families are not taxed as heavily. But then again the democrats think someone who makes over $50,000 per year is rich. Give me a break.

I will admit one thing, the collapse of the Internet economy is not the administrations' fault. It's the fault of really rich people who borrowed against the equity of their workers and investors. Hmmm. I wonder if that might be an issue Republicans would understand.

This is my favorite. The failure of the internet economy was due to flawed Clintonomics that overvalued the market. The bubble started to burst before he even left office.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 2:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by <Anti_AOL>:
That just said it all! No demands are made on Hussein, because he's not reasonable. Yet, he has weapons of mass destruction. So let's protest Bush and appease the unreasonable danger monger? Boy, you people are being duped. It's so sad. The more you protest, the more you stretch this thing out and delay, and the more you aid Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>

OR

As we all know the SECOND Saddam uses those weapons he is NUKED, so the one thing this powerhungry dictator will never accept is the DEFINITIVE end of his rule. Unlike Al Qaeada or Hitler, he does not have a world domination strategy or a religious ideology that demands he slaughters everyone who disagrees with him outside his powerbase (ie Iraq), so the one thing GUARANTEED to make him use his WMD is when he knows that whatever he does, he is a GONER.

Is it appeasement to use containment - to ensure that Iraq cannot be belligerent and aggressive but not topple Saddam (don't get me wrong, that would be fab but if it is tried from outside, it makes his use of those weapons (which would kill more Iraqis and more alliance soldiers than any containment) much more likely).

Secondly, even if people felt they would prefer Bush's rule to Saddam, to allow the Bush administration the green light for pre-emptive attacks - let us be frank:

WHERE DOES IT END?

Let me put it very clearly - you will ALWAYS find nations antipathetic to the USA and in these days there are few nations in the world that do not have some terrorists in their borders - so where does he stop.

Let us hear you be honest, Anti_AOL, and admit that North Korea is MORE belligerent, DEFINITELY has more weapons, and more lethal ones including NUKES and HAS PUBLICLY threatened the USA even if they just impose sanctions.

So, who exactly is doing the fucking appeasing here - BUSH and AMERICA. They are saying very clearly that they will only attack nations weaker, less belligerent and less well armed. THAT, buddy, is APPEASEMENT.

The biggest threat to peace is a nation with AWESOME might that only uses it like a playground bully, that goes for a doctrine of pre-emption (based on scant facts and highly inconsistent) and brooks no opposition.

Saddam is evil and odious, but that is plain and clear for all to see. The US uses weasel words to justify total war, ad nauseam.

And it does make the whole world sick.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 2:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by <Anti_AOL>:
Wait a minute, what weapons of mass destruction? You protesters are going to have to get your story straight..<hr></blockquote>

What? As opposed to the warmongers whose reasons vary:

democracy in the Middle East
deal with terrorism
deal with WMD
oil
human rights of Iraqis
regime change
vengeance for Bush Snr
United Nations must be upheld
pre-emption

all of which have been mentioned at various points by various pro-war fanatics and when rebuffed, they move onto a different argument!

You tell us exactly why you want war and we will give you a better reason why it would be wrong.

And guess what? WE are right, which is why the world is getting LESS keen on war as time goes on!

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 5:35 AM

Most of the American Media covered the Londen demo positively saying the crowd was a million people
crying out for peace and saying no to war. But it turns out that was not the real agenda of many if not most of the crowd(Not talking about you personally). Below is quotes from the Village Voice article on the demonstration. The voice is a New York alternative weekly. They are put it mildly not Pro Bush,Pro Republican and pro war.
"Just overhead were a million signs and banners, and Iraqi, Pakistani, and Palestinian flags ("You won’t see a Union Jack," a friend said. "It’s considered really right-wing and jingoistic").
For Americans, that the day’s agenda seemed more concerned with Palestine than the impending war may have been disconcerting (some local editorials cautioned the protestors against conflating the issues). One American protestor tried in vain to get her little stars and stripes to be seen above the sea of Palestinian flags"

The most often used quotes since the whole thing started are either "Why now","What's the rush".
The argument of many is that we should give the inspectors more time then if that does not work
then attack. A very interested party gave his slant on this debate.
"We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street."
-- Saddam Hussein, Interview with Egyptian weekly, Al Usbou, November 2002.
Again as I asked you on another thread you have to consider the what would happen if you force Bush to stop as much as if he goes thru with it (granted
Bush's whole persona and history makes that almost impossible).

Farkenleaker

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 6:26 AM

Anti_AOL must be rather young. Unprecedented unemployment? I don't think so. I'll take today in a heartbeat over the Carter years when we had 10 to 15% unemployment *and* 20% inflation. The "unprecedented" unemployment was the late 1930s when fully 24% were unemployed.

RDJay

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 9:05 AM

<Anti_AOL> wrote:

<blockquote>quote
My friends, there's no intelligence agency of any government which does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Let's not forget this.

Here we go again with more Bushisms. You should get a job as GWB's speech writer. What an easy gig! Write one speech with half a dozen redneck-sounding sound bites and then have George keep delivering it over and over every couple of days or so.

So, how do you KNOW Iraq has WMD? Have you seen any? Have you talked to any agents who have seen them? Seen their satellite photos? Verified their authenticity? Talked with eye witnesses?

No, you are taking Bush and Blair and the media's word for it, merely assuming that if they say it, it must be true.

Call me a skeptic, but I don't make those kind of assumptions. I know propaganda and bullshit when I hear it, and there's enough of it coming out of the White House to make me willing to wait until hell freezes over for irrefutable evidence before I accuse Saddam of anything.

I'm not saying he doesn't have WMD. I'm just saying we don't KNOW whether he does or not. I suggest we find out...BEFORE we blow him and the people of Iraq off the map; before we turn the terrorists loose on civilians all over the world; before we allow burning oil fields to wreak havoc with the environment; before we allow millions of Kurdish refugees to die of starvation and disease in their futile attempt to get into countries that turn them away; before we plunge our nations so far into debt that we will never again see black ink in our lifetimes; before we, potentially, light the fuse for worldwide economic collapse or (heaven forbid) plunge us into World War III with NO ALLIES!

Is Saddam really THAT much of a threat? Possibly. But I'm betting not. Being under as much scrutiny as he is right now, the chances are exactly SLIM and NONE that he will do anything aggressive toward anyone--unless we push him into a defense posture. Left alone, WMD or not, he is not nearly the threat to world peace that Bush is. Iraq, for now, is contained. So, let's trust the inspectors to keep an eye on things, quit worrying about Saddam, and get back to dealing with the terrorists, N. Korea and the other REAL problems.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 12:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by <Fillherup>:
Most of the American Media covered the Londen demo positively saying the crowd was a million people
crying out for peace and saying no to war. But it turns out that was not the real agenda of many if not most of the crowd(Not talking about you personally). Below is quotes from the Village Voice article on the demonstration. The voice is a New York alternative weekly. They are put it mildly not Pro Bush,Pro Republican and pro war.
"Just overhead were a million signs and banners, and Iraqi, Pakistani, and Palestinian flags ("You won’t see a Union Jack," a friend said. "It’s considered really right-wing and jingoistic").
For Americans, that the day’s agenda seemed more concerned with Palestine than the impending war may have been disconcerting (some local editorials cautioned the protestors against conflating the issues). One American protestor tried in vain to get her little stars and stripes to be seen above the sea of Palestinian flags"<hr></blockquote>

Yes, we've had that slur here but there are two crucial points to be made (and probably ignored by you because, no fault of your own, the perception of the Israel/Palestine issue is so different in the US):

1. The vast majority of the crowd were NOT carrying pro-Palestinian banners - what made the march so big and so powerful was precisely because it was NOT the usual suspects (the extreme left, the anti-Americans etc.). It was FULL of midddle England (known as mainstream British opinion)

2. However the banners that did mention Palestine said simply:

NO WAR ON IRAQ
Justice for Palestine

With the former larger than the latter. The reason for this is very simple - many of the criticisms made of Iraq (ignoring UN resolutions/having secret WMD programmes and allowing no inspections/threatening and invading their neighbours/human rights crimes/attacking entire populations) can be made of Israel, and have been for LONGER. Thus the plea for justice for Palestine is simply that the US and UK are being hypocritical and secondly that UNTIL there is justice for the Palestinians, many countries in the Middle East will remain deeply suspicious of the US and its motives. Iraq is as big a problem as it is BECAUSE there is no justice for the Palestinians. Imagine how it must feel as a Muslim to see your fellow believers subjected to the sort of treatment and conditions that Palestinians are and for their just human rights to be so ignored and trampled on by the US in its support for Israel.

In short, Justice for Palestinians was a plea for EVENHANDEDNESS. One which will not only be ignored but spun as some sort of anti-Semitism by an America that cannot see the wood for the trees with regard to this particular issue.

The hypocrisy of the US and UK in their assertion that Iraq is flouting the UN when Israel with the support of America has been doing it for a LOT LONGER and in all the SAME areas as Iraq is why some people who cared marched under that banner. They were still a minority in the total amount of marchers and it is simply UNTRUE to claim otherwise.

Not that it surprises us that many do. Aspersions of anti-Semitism are easy to fling and instantly give the spouter a feeling of moral superiority. Most of those that do don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 4:07 PM

To Voter.

Those are all valid points in the case for action and when combined make a very good case for war. Also, none of them have been rebuffed.

Remember no good ever comes from war except

The United States Gaining it's freedom
The ending of slavery in the United States
The end of Jewish oppression by the Nazis and the ensuring of independence for many european countries.
The fall of communism.
The liberation of Kuwait.

Just to name a few.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 4:17 PM

To Farkenleaker

First I will admit that yes I am rather young but not nearly nieve (except when it comes to the spelling of that word) I have lived in Italy, and Germany; and traveled extensively throughout the world and seen many cultures that have contributed to my persona as a whole. I will not take it as an insult though.

Secondly, I think you mistook me when I said the following: Unprecendented unemployment since Bush took office.

That was a quote from WD12 I pasted in and was trying to rebuff by saying that that began during the Clinton administration. I agree with you even more about the overwhelming ineptitude of the Carter administration and do believe that he was quite possibly one of the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune to elect.

One final thought about Carter. The Democrats love to say that the Republicans are all for the rich and just keep the poor man down. During the Carter administration as you pointed out; due to interest rates being astronomical and the economy much much worse than it is right now, only the rich could afford to invest. So many of the democrat's constituents were struggling to survive it wasn't even funny. That is just a small tidbit that might make democrats think before playing that card again.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 4:26 PM

The United States is NOT going to use nuclear weapons on Iraq. Even if he unleashes his chemical and biological arsenal. We do not need to. It is as simple as that.

By the way to all of you "War for Oil" sloganeers out there, I ask this question. Did we take Kuwait's oil? Did we take Iraq's oil the last time? Did we take Afghanistan's vast Natural gas deposits? The answer is no. Where is the proof (since you seem to need it so badly when it comes to a known funder of terrorists and someone who has used chemical weapons on his own people) that we are going to take their miserable oil.

By the way, who was the other dictator who killed 4 million Jews using chemical gasses? It wasn't Hitler was it? And you have the unmitigated audacity to say there is no comparison?

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 4:33 PM

If the Palestinians want justice they should stop murdering women and children. I understand that many innocent Palestinians have died at the hands of the Israelis as well but there is a difference. The Israeli Army attacks military targets and does not intentionally seek out places populated by civilians unlike the Palestinians. They call themselves warriors but they are merely cowards. If they assaulted the Israeli military they would face an ignominous defeat. Oh wait, that is exactly what happened when they attacked Israel without provocation many years ago. I guess they didn't learn their lesson. The truely sad part is that each Sadaam funded terrorist that blows himself up in the name of the Palistinan cause is actually damning that cause. The ones who are really suffering at the hands of Hamas and other such scumbag fanatics are the Palestinian innocents. Kind of ironic.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 4:58 PM

This just has so many facets and I must congratulate everyone on the stimulating discussion. I hope nobody minds if I make another point. I know my political viewpoints are not very popular but someone has to be willing to stand behind his/her convictions.

I just wanted to say to all who make the argument that we were the ones who armed Sadaam... We were by no means the only ones. The French and Russians played a huge hand in it as well. America is by no means blameless especially when it comes to contributing to the Iraq crisis. However the current president had nothing to do with any of that. All I am saying is give the guy a chance,he is only trying to do the right thing. I understand that everyone is happier being lied to and that is why Clinton was so loved but it is much more mature to accept responsibility and face the reality of the situation.

On that note, I DO feel that North Korea is a much bigger threat than Iraq for obvious reasons, and it is my belief that the Bush administration feels that way as well. However I think everyone on this board will agree (whether you think it is right or wrong) that victory in Iraq will be relatively swift. We will then be able to focus our full attention on North Korea without having to worry about Sadaam. Another plus is that the Iraqi funding of Palistinian terrorism will stop and you will see a dramatic decrease in suicide bombings. (That is my prediction. Please refer back to this post in the future whether I am right or wrong. It will make for some interesting O/T discussion)

Lastly, and I have said this before; N Korea is like a child and Bush is doing the right thing by temporarily depriving it of the attention it so craves. Their entire motivation behind all this nonsense is to get more American food. More American money. And most importantly, more American OIL! So I say Let the baby sit in his shitty diaper for awhile and think about what he is doing.

Anonymous

Fri, 21 Feb 03, 9:43 PM

It always makes me laugh how some Americans make so much of the difference between Republican and Democrats when it is perfectly obvious to any intelligent observer that because of the way politics works, is funded and who bothers with it (less and less) that they are just two sides of a very similar coin. Whether it is all Clinton's fault or all Bush's, whether one works for the rich and the other for the poor (Clinton working for the poor!! Gimme a break!), frankly is just a pathetic sideshow, they are as bad (or as good depending on your minute degree difference over minute little details) as each other.

Rather like people claiming Blair is not like Thatcher (he has done things even she would not have dared do), it is just irrelevant hot air of navel gazing political kids and pygmies.

But then maybe that is what one would expect to find on this board!

Anonymous

Sat, 22 Feb 03, 11:48 AM

To Justice for Palistinians:
The main reason Iraq and Bin Ladin are problems are not the Palistinan Issue but because they are Saddam Hussian and Bin Ladin. If the land we now call Isreal was instead Palistine right now Saddam Hussian would still be interested in bieng king of the whole region and Bin Ladin would still be doing what he is doing trying to get an Islamist world. For both of them
the Palastinians are a tool to be used to get thier main objectives. If this problem did not exist they would find something else. I am here going to repeat some things I said in November since there are new readers. The reason the Palastinian issue is so usefull is that it hides the real tool bieng used hatred of the west. If Isreal was a muslem country doing what it doing to Christians or Jews or other muslems its every action would not be gone over with the preverbial fine tooth comb. Check out Sudan if you do not believe me. But you say every Iraqi action is bieng looked over would not the Muslem Isreal. Isreal of course does not have oil.
Isreal existince brings up memories of the crusades. And of course the crusades had nothing to do with America but were totally European in origin. I know cheap shot but to hard to resist. For Bin Ladin the fight against the crusaders is the reason he is doing what he is doing. Saddam is anything but religious so this imagery is totally a political tool.
To Anti-Aol: I hope you are right about it bieng a swift war but I have some doubts. In this our critics are more then right we are cocky many times underestimate the the enemys intelligence and and thier belief in what they are doing. See Vietnam and 9/11

Anonymous

Sun, 23 Feb 03, 3:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by <Fillherup>:
And of course the crusades had nothing to do with America but were totally European in origin. I know cheap shot but to hard to resist. For Bin Ladin the fight against the crusaders is the reason he is doing what he is doing. <hr></blockquote>

Man, you really are DUMB. That was no cheap shot, it was a STUPID shot! The reasons the crusades were totally European in origin is that America as we know it didn't fucking exist then! AMERICA as we know it now is pretty much totally European in origin, indeed it was the religious extremists, the Puritans, who sailed on the Mayflower as the founding fathers, who organized wholesale ethnic cleansing of the 'savages' from their native land, who supervised witch hunts, and who even now have a fucking President who thinks of a war on terror as a battle between good and evil and refers to it as a CRUSADE, the dumbass that he is! One could even use the same phrase you did about Bin Laden: "the fight against the crusaders (or 'infidels' as he calls them!) is the reason he is doing what he is doing."

Sure, Europe was responsible for the HISTORICAL crusades but it got over that whilst it is AMERICA who is responsible for the MODERN crusades!

IN ADDITION, the reason the Israel/Palestine issue is central is it adds fuel to the fire. 'Draining the swamp' includes dealing with the issues that lend support to the extremist views of Bin Laden and which, in closed countries such as those of the Middle East, whip up support for him. Without resolving the Israel/Palestine issue, the rest is just a sideshow and pointless.