Foolish WAR protests

[stamenflicker]

Cute. Is it possible to get any more stereotypically right-wing?

Not my words friend. The rest of the quote, in the setting of nationalism and patriotism, says such anti-war individuals, "owe their freedom to better men than themselves."

Again, not my words. And I'm not totally sure I agree with them.

The entire "WAR" thing is a difficult call. But once the call is made, I think its foolish to dilly-dally around about it. You just cause more suffering by waiting-- psychological and other. The world made their call with resolution 1441. It was difficult, but the call was made. Now a few folks want out, I'm not convinced that is wise.

My 2.3 cents

Flick

 

[Erik]

ROTFLMAO! I'm going through this one in exactly this way. Come to think of it, almost every argument on the topic goes this way, starvation or otherwise.

Don't bring up starvation, it creates a no-win arguement.

You: But what about the starving Iraqi people
Anti-War Nut: its America's fault their starving
You: Well, Saddam seems to have enough money to build palaces
Anti-War Nut: it doesnt matter, whats matters is..... (insert easily debunkable claim here)

This goes on and on, the point being that the anti-war nut believes that in the end all of his/her flawed arguements together make a compelling case. And so it winds up like this:

You: I have now debunked 110 claims in a row
Anti-War Nut: Doesn't the fact that there are 110 claims startle you? You just don't get it.
You: I guess you're right, one of us surely doesn't get it.

 

[iain]

What I havent heard anti war activists address yet(and I'm talking the sincere ones, not the various groups and individuals with anit-American, pro-socialist, or enviremental activist agendas they're attaching to this particular movement), is what do we do when continued efforts to gain our objectives fail? At what point do we say, "He's playing games with us, lying, cheating, and hiding things he agreed over a decade go to accept." Anti-war demonstrators ask, "What do we do when we invade and win?" I ask, "what do we do after another month/year/decade of prevarication, intimidation, and lying, everyone finally agrees that Saddam is/has developed WMD.?"

Good point Rose, one that deserves an answer. For myself, I don't think war is always wrong or that a war against Saddam would always be wrong. I was in favour of the action against Afghanistan, for example.

It may well be the case that war is the right thing to do at some time in the near future; I dont agree that it is the right thing to do now.

I also don't really understand the argument that it has to be now. Why not say that it had to be a year ago, or two years ago, or five? Why is Saddam suddenly more dangerous now than he was then? Because Bush and Blair say he is? The pro-war folk seem to want to create an alternate reality where there has been some big change in Iraq which suddenly makes it worse than all the other nasty dictatorial states. There hasn't; the change has been in the West.

Douglas wrote
Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.

That's pretty much what I mean Douglas. Show me where I demonstrated a "cowering fear" or said that we should do nothing (not going to war is not the same thing as doing nothing). And yes, generally speaking war is bad. Not going to war may be worse in some situations, in which case war is the lesser of two evils, but I don't believe that war is a good thing.

 

[Guest]

StamenFlicker :

I must admit I was a little surprised to see your post.

I think the demonstration in London was too big to be categorised as simply anti-American. It was anti-war, anti-Blair and also anti-American, in different degrees for different people. The speakers in Hyde Park also represented a vast array of opinions, from an evangelising Jesse Jackson to the playwright Harold Pinter who simply stood there, glared, and said "America is being run a bunch of criminal lunatics. Tony Blair is a hired Christian thug. This war against Iraq is an act of pre-meditated mass murder."

I'll let you guess where I stand.

Geoff.

 

[Dazza]

StamenFlicker :

I must admit I was a little surprised to see your post.

I think the demonstration in London was too big to be categorised as simply anti-American. It was anti-war, anti-Blair and also anti-American, in different degrees for different people. The speakers in Hyde Park also represented a vast array of opinions, from an evangelising Jesse Jackson to the playwright Harold Pinter who simply stood there, glared, and said "America is being run a bunch of criminal lunatics. Tony Blair is a hired Christian thug. This war against Iraq is an act of pre-meditated mass murder."

I'll let you guess where I stand.

Geoff.

You must have got up early to have got to Hyde Park in time to hear Harold Pinter.

I was at Blackfriars at 12.30, but the crowd was so huge that I didn't pass Big Ben until 3pm! It took a few short cuts to get me to Hyde Park in time to hear Jesse Jackson speak.

You're right about what the march was about. I've been on a few following the same route and this is BY FAR the biggest march I have ever seen. The diversity of the crowd was amazing. The usual suspects from the far left were there, a few worrying people carrying pictures of Saddam, but the vast majority were just ordinary people who don't think Blair is listening to them and wanted to make their voices heard.

It seems clear to me that unless there is a very clear UN mandate in a second resolution, Blair will not support a war. He's not a fool and he's not about to commit political suicide.

If he agrees to the bombing of Iraq without that second resolution, his premiership won't last out the year!

 

[Guest]

Dazza :

Blair will not support a war. He's not a fool and he's not about to commit political suicide.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately I think that even though he knows precisely how unpopular this will make him he is going to support the war anyway. If he withdrew British support then Bush could go it alone but at a political price too high to be worth paying. Blair could stop this war. History will not look kindly on him if it all goes pear-shaped.

If he agrees to the bombing of Iraq without that second resolution, his premiership won't last out the year!

No. He will be replaced by Gordon Brown or David Blunkett.

 

[Guest]

Actually, as I look around at the political fallout of Saturdays action I begin to wonder whether there is a real change occuring. Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle and company had already decided to attack Iraq by 12/9/01. Everything else has just been an exercise in trying to do so without looking like a Pariah State. But I don't believe they realised just how difficult it was going to be to get people to support their war of vengeance - and that is what it is - it is vengeance for 9/11 regardless of the fact Saddam has got BUGGER ALL to do with Al-Qaeda. They are having much more difficulty than they expected with NATO, with the UN with the EU and with public opinion across the world. And I do not sense that the peace movement is crumbling - it is defiant and growing and it is increasingly obvious that Bush and Blair are losing the propaganda war. I'm not sure we can prevent this war - I am beginning to hope we CAN - but I sure that we can make the political cost to Blair and the international reputation of Bush/America high enough for this to be a turning point in history. I think this is the beginning of the end for American Imperialism.

As for YOU Stamenflicker - If this was was really about saving the lives of starving children then why was it not considered until 12/9/01? What about all the other places in the world where there are starving children? HOW MANY DEATHS FROM STARVATION AND DISEASE COULD BE PREVENTED ACROSS THE THIRD WORLD IF THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THIS WAR WERE SPENT ON FOOD, SANITATION AND MEDICINE?! EH? I expect mindless imperialistic violence and double-standard morality from GEORGE W CRIMINAL LUNATIC, not from an intellectual Christian.

 

[Segnosaur]

As for YOU Stamenflicker - If this was was really about saving the lives of starving children then why was it not considered until 12/9/01? What about all the other places in the world where there are starving children? HOW MANY DEATHS FROM STARVATION AND DISEASE COULD BE PREVENTED ACROSS THE THIRD WORLD IF THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THIS WAR WERE SPENT ON FOOD, SANITATION AND MEDICINE?! EH? I expect mindless imperialistic violence and double-standard morality from GEORGE W CRIMINAL LUNATIC, not from an intellectual Christian.

A couple of notes:

- You talk of saving lives in the 3rd world by spending money on food, sanitation and medicine. However, remember, there is food available to many of these countries. However, because its genetically modified, they would rather let their people starve. In other cases, lives could be saved, but the countries are not run by people who are actually interested in allowing international aid. In order to get the aid to the people, you'd have to send in armed forces, which again is war.
- Invading Iraq will help save innocent Iraqi lives in the long run (since sanctions will be lifted.) But I do believe that there is an element of self preservation in attacking Iraq (they have supported terrorists in the past), that just doesn't exist when you consider the cases of contries in sub-saharan africa (where they don't seem to be interested in causing global trouble)

 

[rikzilla]

Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844344/posts?page=37

More pics here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844221/posts

hilarious!

but sadly true....

So Geoff,

Did you take that hard look around? Did you see the "usual suspects"...the communists, anarchists,..."scary people holding pics of Saddam??" Sounds like you did unless you are legally blind. See any communists? Well...if you were listening to Jesse Jackson at least you were hearing one.

What I find very telling Geoff is what was NOT happening. Anti-war protests all around the world...but (outside of Baghdad) not the Arab world. Maybe it's because they are scared of Saddam? Maybe it's because they have repressive regimes that don't allow protests....maybe a little of both.

A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy.

-zilla...awaiting patiently to be picked apart!

(Damn Geoff,...perhaps we ought to go back to discussing philosophy??)

Still friends??
-Rick

 

[iain]

A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy.

A peaceful, democratic Iraq would be a great idea; I doubt many people would disagree with that. (Whether it would ever join with Israel is another matter - not sure about that one). The question is how best to encourage that Iraq to come about. Somehow I don't think that what Bush et. al. are proposing will do the trick.

 

[Guest]

Rik

See any communists?

I'm not sure I'd know what one looks like, Rik. They looked like a cross-section of completely normal British people. It was a truly representative slice of Britain. As i tried to say before - the whole concept of 'communism' has basically become part of history these days. If people are worried about extremism it is right wing groups they worry about, not the left. It's not just me - if I started talking about "commies" most people would think I had developed some sort of psychiatric problem. Seriously.

A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy.

I'm not even sure that democracy is compatible with Islam. I do not think you can impose democracy on an Islamic state and expect it to work.

And if you want to show Palestine self-government you'd better do something about the convicted war criminal running Israel.

 

[Q-Source]

I'm not sure we can prevent this war - I am beginning to hope we CAN - but I sure that we can make the political cost to Blair and the international reputation of Bush/America high enough for this to be a turning point in history. I think this is the beginning of the end for American Imperialism.
[/B]

There is no beginning of the end of USA-Imperialism, Geoff.

Unfortunately those bastard imperialists have people eating from their hands. And the worst of it, is that they have convinced most of those hungry countries that they are doing the right thing.

 

[rikzilla]

There is no beginning of the end of USA-Imperialism, Geoff.

Unfortunately those bastard imperialists have people eating from their hands. And the worst of it, is that they have convinced most of those hungry countries that they are doing the right thing.

Yeah...by feeding them.....

Bad capitalists!!!

Geoff,...what about the "scary people holding pictures of Saddam"?? See any of them?

Working in DC I've seen protest marches come and go...the constants are the amount of anarchists, communists, and college kids out looking to score some pot or meet women.

But Geoff, honestly...part of the reason why I'm so hung up on communists is that they are obviously out there, but you can't talk about them or you're crazy!. Why is that? Why is it that you can have aromatherapy candles and dilligently check your horoscope in the UK...but if you talk about communism you're a paranoid nut?I mean.. when the wall fell they didn't all just cease to exist did they?

No, they just reinvented themselves as "socialists". A.N.S.W.E.R. (Jesse Jackson's bunch) fancy themselves socialist, but are indeed linked to the WWP (Worker's World Party)....shhhh they're commies! You may not know what one looks like....well they don't look much different from anyone else....you listen to them, they don't call each other comrade anymore either. They're just extreme socialists....and you've got a $hitload of 'em over there. Here they just carry Che Guevara posters....'cause he's the James Dean of communism or somesuch and it looks cool I guess???

Our communists aren't terribly serious...that's because they know they have no chance to get elected to anything more important than dog catcher... Even Lyndon LaRouche gets more of his groupies elected these days than communists can.

Anyway,...I hope you had fun. You're as wrong as you can be on Iraq, but you obviously enjoy exercising your right to free speech. It would do well for you and everyone else to remember that in a communist dictatorship that right would be an early casualty.

Go here to see how much YOU may have in comon with THEM.

-zilla

 

[Q-Source]

I was talking metaphorically. I thought it would be obvious

USA Imperialism has taken control of natural resources in some poor countries, they go there and invest their money. They exploit cheap labour and make people believe that they are paying a fair wage. Of course, poor countries need their money, but the cost that they have to pay for it (pollution, exploitation, economic and political subjugation) is very high.

Q

 

[Guest]

Rik

Anyway,...I hope you had fun. You're as wrong as you can be on Iraq, but you obviously enjoy exercising your right to free speech. It would do well for you and everyone else to remember that in a communist dictatorship that right would be an early casualty.

You never did comment on the Nixon admininstrations assassination of the President and removal of an ELECTED communist government in Chile, or the resulting 17 years of torture, disappearances and general oppression under the brutal military dictatorship of the US-approved General Pinochet.

Geoff.

 

[originalgagster]

Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear

Yeah, because it takes such guts to rant for war on the internet 6000 miles away from the conflict. I wish i was as brave as you.

 

[Douglas]

Is that it? An attack based on my military status? Textbook 101 Pussy Lefty!
If opining on anything depends on direct participation the world would be an awful quiet place.

 

[iain]

Is that it? An attack based on my military status? Textbook 101 Pussy Lefty!
If opining on anything depends on direct participation the world would be an awful quiet place.

I believe it was you who accused me of cowardice, you textbook Pussy Lefty

 

[originalgagster]

Is that it? An attack based on my military status?

Nope, based on your comment in this thread.

 

[Kodiak]

Forget the sanctions, this many people have been killed by Saddams own hand. And every day that goes by, more people, his own people, are being murdered, by his hand.

Where are all the protests against this fact?? Its very easy to ignore when the root of the matter is America bashing.

The Iraqi people are forbidden, under punishment of death, to protest against Saddam...