PDA

View Full Version : War protests, do they worK?


peter2002
Feb 15, 2003, 08:52 AM
War protests, do they work? I don't think so. I wonder how these Euros would have liked it if we had waited out WWII? We could have sold oil and coal to Japan and Pearl Harbor would have never happened. There were millions of people led by America First and Charles Lindbergh that believe AH was a great guy and no threat to the USA. What a bunch of ingrates these Euros are. If it wasn't for the USA, the EU would all be speaking German and Russian now.

The protestors protested the Vietnam War for over 15 years and did little to stop the slaughter before it stopped in 1975. Non-violent protests never, ever work, only violent protests. If you have been around long enough, you know it is true - the sword is mightier than the pen. Jesus ain't coming back to save us, Lucifer is really in charge.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=W5JTICVNFNXRWCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=2234397

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030214/wl_nm/iraq_protest_dc_6

Most of these war protestors have been infiltrated with anarchists, environmentalists, folks against Franken food nor SUVs, PETA, gay rights activists, pot legalizers, folks for Michael Jackson and OJ, and every other nut with a lame cause to promote.

By promoting peace, protestors are supporting terrorists and Sadam. This is what Sadam wants. He knows if he strings this stuff out long enough, people will loose interest and he will just go back to his old ways.

While the Euros eat cheese and get their herbal colonics, Sadam continues to build WMDs that he will later use on them or the USA. When he does use them, the Euros will come begging, "Please USA, save our sorry pacifists asses..."

These war protestors are the same people who protested against the USA while hundreds of thousands were put to death in Serbia and Kosovo, the same kind of people who protested while the Vietkong and Cambodia committed genocide on millions, the same kind of people who said that Americans shouldn't go fight in Europe's war in WWII while millions of Jews were gased and burned.

It's easy to walk and protest. The real heroes are the ones that go out and fight the good fight.

Oh and by the way, our military uses Windows and Panasonic ToughBooks in the field. No Macs.

Pete

macfan
Feb 15, 2003, 10:36 AM
Non violent protests do work, particularly when one is protesting against injustice as in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr. However, protesting on behalf of Saddam, a brutal tyrant, is not going to make a difference in this case.

These protests generally function as cardiovascular fitness exercises rather than political events.

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 11:31 AM
Well it seems like it may have worked over here in london!

The rally became very political and according to some news channels here Tony Blairs political future has been brought into question, and this has been one of the most peaceful protests yet largest they've had in london.

wdlove
Feb 15, 2003, 11:35 AM
These protests are very sad, they are anti-US, anti-war, & anti-government! :(

Rower_CPU
Feb 15, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
These protests are very sad, they are anti-US, anti-war, & anti-government! :(

Absolutely not. They are the very epitome of US citizens exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.

If we can't protest against the actions of our governmment, then the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper.

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 12:04 PM
So if they are anti government, why did ken livingstone (lord mayor of london) and Mo Mowlam (Ex cabinet minister) and Tony Ben (Ex Labour MP) all join in????

Most people who were interviewed at the protest here in london said how they were perfectly aware of saddam's evils and that they agreed with what the us did in afghanistan, its just that they don't think diplomatic avenues have been explored enough. They are all very well informed because here in Britain, as long as you don't read the Sun or Daily Mail we are completely free from biased propoganda reporting.

LethalWolfe
Feb 15, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
So if they are anti government, why did ken livingstone (lord mayor of london) and Mo Mowlam (Ex cabinet minister) and Tony Ben (Ex Labour MP) all join in????

Most people who were interviewed at the protest here in london said how they were perfectly aware of saddam's evils and that they agreed with what the us did in afghanistan, its just that they don't think diplomatic avenues have been explored enough. They are all very well informed because here in Britain, as long as you don't read the Sun or Daily Mail we are completely free from biased propoganda reporting.


There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. You can have less biased, more biased and attempts to be unbiased but truly unbiased is a myth.


Lethal

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 12:38 PM
I think they do let leaders know how the public feels to a degree, but also i see these as buying time for saddam which any way you look at it is not good for the U.S. or the world. We all know he must go, but then you would think these same demonstrators must know that someone like saddam wont go and when he is forced out he will be more then happy to take down as many of his own people as he can. What Leader would want to put innocent people on top of known target sites. This is horrible and shows the type of killer the world is dealing with. I have a acre plus of land and could bury a rock in it and challenge everyone out there to find it and you couldnt unless i wanted you to. The same goes for all this stuff we know he has and unless he wants the inspectors to find it they never will! This is the worlds problem and see no way of disarming him other then by force. The world has seen enough wars but if the world dont do something with tyrants like saddam and the crazy korean there can only be more wars in the worlds future. Act now at small costs,act later at huge costs.---costs meaning lives

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 12:49 PM
yeah, i know its not completely unbiased, of course not, Its biased towards the opinion of the writer, I'm talking about the newspapers not supporting the government in every decision they make. Which, from my experience, is what CNN is like in the USA. The same problem does exist here. The less educated citizens of Great Britain tend to read the daily mail and the sun, because they are tabloid sized and written in a very easy to read style. The fact that they are owned by a large media group who have dealings with the government mean that they say what they say in order to gain some advantage. And their readers follow blindly cos they don't know any better. Fortunately this does not work with a lot of people in this country, so they read other papers like the Independent which is very independent! lol

What I'm saying is a lot of reporting in America, may not be government lead and biased towards the government, but it tends to be very patriotic and this may be while a lot of Americans don't except the war protesters opinions because they are told on a day to day basis that war is a good idea. In some other threads, I was flamed for being anti-war, and I was given lots of Rhetoric about Saddam being evil, and the US being great cos they go round sorting the world out and giving loads of aid. All of which is true but you have to be outside the country to see from a perspective of your own and not of Bush's perspective.

I think I made a valid point some how, although it seems an incoherent rant! :D

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 12:53 PM
Dont Hurt Me's signature
Remove Saddam, I here he uses windows!

LOL, doesn't the Bush Administration use windows too. Oh and the US military too! Worse than that still, the US houses the evil tyrant Gates himself and refuse to let him go down in their own courts let alone international courts! :D :D :D :D

LethalWolfe
Feb 15, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
yeah, i know its not completely unbiased, of course not, Its biased towards the opinion of the writer, I'm talking about the newspapers not supporting the government in every decision they make. Which, from my experience, is what CNN is like in the USA. The same problem does exist here. The less educated citizens of Great Britain tend to read the daily mail and the sun, because they are tabloid sized and written in a very easy to read style. The fact that they are owned by a large media group who have dealings with the government mean that they say what they say in order to gain some advantage. And their readers follow blindly cos they don't know any better. Fortunately this does not work with a lot of people in this country, so they read other papers like the Independent which is very independent! lol

What I'm saying is a lot of reporting in America, may not be government lead and biased towards the government, but it tends to be very patriotic and this may be while a lot of Americans don't except the war protesters opinions because they are told on a day to day basis that war is a good idea. In some other threads, I was flamed for being anti-war, and I was given lots of Rhetoric about Saddam being evil, and the US being great cos they go round sorting the world out and giving loads of aid. All of which is true but you have to be outside the country to see from a perspective of your own and not of Bush's perspective.

I think I made a valid point some how, although it seems an incoherent rant! :D

I understand what you are saying. I usually try to rotate thru news sources 'cause that's the only way I feel I can get an accurate portrial of what's really going on.

Your point of view on American media is interesting because I usually feel that American media is typically liberal and questioning and/or unsupportive of the majority of decissions/policies that the federal government makes (assuming a Democrat is not in office).


Lethal

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984


LOL, doesn't the Bush Administration use windows too. Oh and the US military too! Worse than that still, the US houses the evil tyrant Gates himself and refuse to let him go down in their own courts let alone international courts! :D :D :D :D All those window users just dont get it, well just goes to show that enough money and lawyers can get you out of anything!

macfan
Feb 15, 2003, 01:39 PM
A rational look at the situation reveals that:

1. Saddam is a tyrant, in defiance of the UN resolutions for 12 years, and his time is up.
2. He will be disarmed either by outside military force, an internal coup, or he will go into exile.
3. The best solution is exile. The next is internal coup, and finally an outside military force.
4. Marching through through the streets of the world's cities protesting the possibility of the disarming of Saddam with an outside military force, and reaction from France and Germany that more time is needed to prove that Saddam isn't cooperating, does not make such action less likely, but more likely. This is because not having a united front against Saddam only adds to his delusion that he can remain in power. It may also make those who might wish to remove him internally lose heart.

rainman::|:|
Feb 15, 2003, 02:08 PM
gay rights activists aren't some "nut[s] with a lame cause". just because it's not important to you doesn't mean other people's lives aren't hugely affected.

it's not whether or not it works. it's whether or not you sat by watching something happen that you're against, or you protested and did the best you could do.

pnw

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
gay rights activists aren't some "nut[s] with a lame cause". just because it's not important to you doesn't mean other people's lives aren't hugely affected.

it's not whether or not it works. it's whether or not you sat by watching something happen that you're against, or you protested and did the best you could do.

pnw How the hell did we go from war protest to gay rights?

rainman::|:|
Feb 15, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
How the hell did we go from war protest to gay rights?

he mentioned it, among others, in his original post, listing them among other lame causes.

i bet there's some medicinal marijuana users out there in a great deal of pain, and for them marijuana rights isn't a "lame cause".

i personally can't get married. not a "lame cause" to me.

animals are abused horrifically in other countries, in ways you can't imagine, i bet to them PETA isn't a "lame cause"

he seems to think that because he doesn't have the motivation to go protest something, it's "lame". so peter2002, what do you want all these people to do? just sit back and take it, not voicing their opinions?! how the hell do you think civil rights, women's sufferage, and all those other injustices have been cured?

that's right, PROTESTS drew attention to their cause.

:mad:
pnw

G4scott
Feb 15, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
A rational look at the situation reveals that:

1. Saddam is a tyrant, in defiance of the UN resolutions for 12 years, and his time is up.
2. He will be disarmed either by outside military force, an internal coup, or he will go into exile.
3. The best solution is exile. The next is internal coup, and finally an outside military force.
4. Marching through through the streets of the world's cities protesting the possibility of the disarming of Saddam with an outside military force, and reaction from France and Germany that more time is needed to prove that Saddam isn't cooperating, does not make such action less likely, but more likely. This is because not having a united front against Saddam only adds to his delusion that he can remain in power. It may also make those who might wish to remove him internally lose heart.

The only problem is getting somebody to replace Saddam that doesn't hate the rest of the world, and rise as the super power in the middle east. Saddams children will have to be exiled too. He's tried to kill two of his children, and the majority of him are worse than Saddam himself. It's like that guy in North Korea. He took over his father's position, and has gone bonkers. Saddam is already bonkers, and his children are much worse...

I have mixed feelings about war with Iraq, and now with North Korea posing a threat to the US, the UN is going to be tied up between two tyrants- one crazy guy who we all know has nukes, and one crazy guy with children who god knows whwat he has...

kiwi_the_iwik
Feb 15, 2003, 03:04 PM
I was in London this morning from 6am - and went live at 7am to cover the marches from the Embankment for my network. I was simply amazed at the turnout by the public - young and old, rich and poor - all side-by-side in solidarity against war in the Gulf. There must've been over a million protestors filing past us, making their message felt.

All they are asking for is for the UN weapons inspectors to be able to do their job, without the added pressure and threat of a US-led force invasion.

They have the right - after all, it was they who elected the leaders as their representatives, and therefore it should be they who are to be listened to by those elected officials, if said officials wish to remain in office...

My reporter was totally unbiased, and called it as she saw it. We interviewed Jesse Jackson, Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone - and many protestors. All said the same thing - Say "NO" to War". So therefore, how biased can you possibly be?

Tony Blair was at his Party Conference in Glasgow - he thought it prudent enough to mention in his speech (obviously from seeing the growing anti-war support in the Capital, and around the world) that UN weapons inspections must continue unabated if the situation is to be diffused.

I'd call that a back-down - in any language - leaving George "Dubya" out in the cold...

zoetropeuk
Feb 15, 2003, 04:05 PM
as an Australian with German and Polish ancestors who were imprisoned in concentration camps during WWII to see a nation of people (British and Australian) that owe their freedom to the US turn around and show utter contempt.
If it wasn't for the United States then Britain as we know it would not exist. If the Nazi's had taken Britain during WWII then who knows where it could have lead.

I think it is very short sighted to oppose this war in anyway. We can not afford to take the risk and let Iraq become more of a threat than they already are.

It disgusts me to hear of 2 million hypocrites marching against this war, in London. Where are they when thousands of East Timorese are massacred. Where are they when thousands of Rwandans are tortured, massacred and raped. It's just that it's COOL to protest war, and EASY.
There are more casualties from starvation and disease every single day then will be a result of a war against Saddam.

These protestors are not concerned for the deaths of innocent people. If they were so concerned with human suffering do you think there would be homeless people begging for money in tube stations, f@ck off, of course there wouldn't.

I blame the people that marched today for the f@cked up planet that we live on today. I watch these very same people ignore the homeless with contempt in there eyes every single day. Why, all of a sudden are they so god damn concerned with people thousands of miles away.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE. Why don't they give a damn normally. It really makes me feel sick in the stomach.

If they stop this war, and if ten years down the track Saddam nukes another nation then I bet they won't apologise to the innocent victims , families or friends or even admit that they were wrong.

The really sad fact is that most people that I've spoken to today saw it as a social gathering, a day to get out in the fresh air and chill with their buddies. I don't think a single one of them thought about the repercussions of their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers and I'm certainly not perfect. I just don't want to bring my children up in a world like the one we have now. How can we think it's right to pay a person 3M a year to kick a piece of leather into a net when people are kicked onto the streets for not paying a credit card bill ? I don't understand what kind of person can evict a family from their own home. We as the human race need to be more understanding and forgiving.

Enough of my off topic ranting, I could go on for days but I think I'll leave it here... bombs away !

Judo
Feb 15, 2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by macfan
A rational look at the situation reveals that:

1. Saddam is a tyrant, in defiance of the UN resolutions for 12 years, and his time is up.
2. He will be disarmed either by outside military force, an internal coup, or he will go into exile.
3. The best solution is exile. The next is internal coup, and finally an outside military force.
4. Marching through through the streets of the world's cities protesting the possibility of the disarming of Saddam with an outside military force, and reaction from France and Germany that more time is needed to prove that Saddam isn't cooperating, does not make such action less likely, but more likely. This is because not having a united front against Saddam only adds to his delusion that he can remain in power. It may also make those who might wish to remove him internally lose heart.

Rational???

1. UN resolutions don't seem to mean to much to suppoters of the invasion anyway. I don't think you can really use that one.

2. Or by the threat of...

3. But who's gonna take over. A US appointed leader or a leader ellected by the people of Iraq?? Either way I'm guessing there's gonna be some crazy and angry people who will be out to get America.

4. The protests are against an (at the moment) uneccasary invasion, not of the disarming of Iraq.

LethalWolfe
Feb 15, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik

All they are asking for is for the UN weapons inspectors to be able to do their job, without the added pressure and threat of a US-led force invasion.



And the irony there is that w/o the threat of a US-led force invasion there would be no inspectors back in Iraq.

And to stay on topic I do think preaceful protests work. Do they work overnight? No, but they bring attention to a cause. And if they can get enough sustained attetion things will start to change.


Lethal

beatle888
Feb 15, 2003, 04:37 PM
YEA BOYEEEEEEE

NOW GO PUT ON YOUR GI JOE UNIFORMS
AND SLIT SOME THROATS YOU POOR MOFO.

think about it just a wee bit longer and see
that its people like you that keep putting us
in posistions like this. the big dog wants the
bone. god we are so infantile as a race.

if you want to fight a war...why dont you fight
agaisnt the rotten state of society. the cycle
of abuse that fuels crime and hate. unless
you cant see it, can you?

.

" And to stay on topic I do think preaceful protests work. Do they work overnight? No, but they bring attention to a cause. And if they can get enough sustained attetion things will start to change."


didnt you say that the vietnam protests didnt
stop the war even though they were at it for
fifteen years?

i dont know, im going. i dont have the answers
but killing is not one of them im sure.

p.s. i never played with G.I. Joe

LethalWolfe
Feb 15, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
didnt you say that the vietnam protests didnt
stop the war even though they were at it for
fifteen years?


No I didn't. Someone else posted that. Regarding those protests though. Did they stop the Vietnam war? No, but ever since then people have always thought twice before sending troops in because they didn't want "another Vietnam." Many things socially and militarily were learned from Vietnam. So, in an indirect way, those protests did work.


Lethal

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk
as an Australian with German and Polish ancestors who were imprisoned in concentration camps during WWII to see a nation of people (British and Australian) that owe their freedom to the US turn around and show utter contempt.
If it wasn't for the United States then Britain as we know it would not exist. If the Nazi's had taken Britain during WWII then who knows where it could have lead.

I think it is very short sighted to oppose this war in anyway. We can not afford to take the risk and let Iraq become more of a threat than they already are.

It disgusts me to hear of 2 million hypocrites marching against this war, in London. Where are they when thousands of East Timorese are massacred. Where are they when thousands of Rwandans are tortured, massacred and raped. It's just that it's COOL to protest war, and EASY.
There are more casualties from starvation and disease every single day then will be a result of a war against Saddam.

These protestors are not concerned for the deaths of innocent people. If they were so concerned with human suffering do you think there would be homeless people begging for money in tube stations, f@ck off, of course there wouldn't.

I blame the people that marched today for the f@cked up planet that we live on today. I watch these very same people ignore the homeless with contempt in there eyes every single day. Why, all of a sudden are they so god damn concerned with people thousands of miles away.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE. Why don't they give a damn normally. It really makes me feel sick in the stomach.

If they stop this war, and if ten years down the track Saddam nukes another nation then I bet they won't apologise to the innocent victims , families or friends or even admit that they were wrong.

The really sad fact is that most people that I've spoken to today saw it as a social gathering, a day to get out in the fresh air and chill with their buddies. I don't think a single one of them thought about the repercussions of their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers and I'm certainly not perfect. I just don't want to bring my children up in a world like the one we have now. How can we think it's right to pay a person 3M a year to kick a piece of leather into a net when people are kicked onto the streets for not paying a credit card bill ? I don't understand what kind of person can evict a family from their own home. We as the human race need to be more understanding and forgiving.

Enough of my off topic ranting, I could go on for days but I think I'll leave it here... bombs away ! What is wrong with these people is they have their head up their A _ _ when it comes to Saddam. Thats why we are there to help them pull it out!

beatle888
Feb 15, 2003, 05:10 PM
sorry lethal,

for mistaking you for the originator of this
post. bad navigating skills on my part :D

ANYWAY the guy that DID start this post...
oh damn, i dont even think i'd talk to him if
i was drunk and bored at a party. i'd rather
put on a lamp shade and dance around naked.

he doesnt even seem to know WHY people
protest.....LOOK UP THE WORD. And yes
it does have an affect. Maybe not the kind
that you (the originator of this post) has been
taught to crave. I mean your not going to see
smoke and fire and little kids flesh being torn
from them as their heads explode. There
mothers face just two inches two the right.
Safe for now but horrified and in shock.
Your sick....go play with your g.i. joes.
you power hungry mofo. Im out.This world
sucks on a level I can barely describe. im just
gonna get my kicks before the whole **** pile
comes down.



OH AND ANOTHER THING (DAMN *****
PISSED ME ALL OFF :D )

IF YOU THINK THE PROTESTER WHO SO
HAPPENED TO BE A MONK, THAT SET HIMSELF
ON FIRE AND SAT THERE PRAYING WHILE HE
BURNED, NOT EVEN MOVING A MUSCLE WAS
ALL IN VAIN THEN YOU HAVE NO HEART.

DONT YOU GET WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO
TELL YOU? TRYING TO TELL ALL OF US?

NO MATTER HOW HARD THINGS ARE, NO
MATTER WHAT YOUR PAIN OR TROUBLE,
YOU CAN STILL BE FREE FROM IT.

i dont know, never mind.
p.s. that happens to be one of my all time
favorite pictures. that monk trying to show
us, help us understand the best he could. and
knowing how we LOVE drama, he sets himself
on fire and sits down peacfuly in protest.

you cant even come close to the unerstanding
it would take to commit such an act. the only
reason why we war is because of power. we
just cant leave the other guy alone.


oh yea whats next. north korea, with china
backing them. and who ever else see's us as
a meddling bully? world war three before the
PPC970 :( i hope not....i wanna see what
these chips can do:p

macfan
Feb 15, 2003, 06:16 PM
Rational???

1. UN resolutions don't seem to mean to much to suppoters of the invasion anyway. I don't think you can really use that one.

2. Or by the threat of...

3. But who's gonna take over. A US appointed leader or a leader ellected by the people of Iraq?? Either way I'm guessing there's gonna be some crazy and angry people who will be out to get America.

4. The protests are against an (at the moment) uneccasary invasion, not of the disarming of Iraq.



Yes. A rational look at the situation.
1. It remains a fact that Saddam has been in continual defiance of the terms that ended the shooting in 1991. It doesn't matter whether you think these resolutions mean much to Bush or Blair. They say that these resolutions matter, and they are taking actions as though the resolutions matter. Therefore, from a practical, rational standpoint these things do matter.

2. It remains a fact that Saddam is highly unlikely to change his position on WMDs as long as he is in power. The threat of force has the inspectors back in, but we aren't seeing substantive cooperation. In any event, the idea that the threat of force might force him to comply reinforces the argument that the protesters are merely bolstering Saddam's hopes that he might not be attacked and therefore shouldn't disarm.

3. Who's going to take over? There are any number of possible transitional governments. Uncertainty about the future government of Iraq is no justification for leaving the current one in place.

4. The protesters are against many things. Some are merely old style communists as evidenced by the old Soviet symbols at the march in Rome. Some are pacifists. Some just like to protest. Some are 1960s retreads trying to recapture their moment in the sun. In the US, many are afraid that somehow the right to an abortion is threatened, so they protest against Bush. It does not matter if they think they are protesting against an unnecessary invasion. The effect of their protest is to make an invasion even more necessary to effect the disarming of Saddam. I did not see any signs in the coverage of these protests that said: "Saddam, 12 years is long enough" or "Saddam, Disarm NOW!" or "Cooperate with the Inspectors." There were no chants of "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Saddam's weapons 'ave got to go!" Whether they want to be or not, the protests have the effect of supporting Saddam.

For all of you who were out there marching, you may have just destroyed what little chance there was for a peaceful disarmament of Saddam's Iraq. Good job. When the bombs start to fall and the innocent die, remember that you had a small part in ending what little hope there was to avoid it. However, don't feel too bad. He wasn't likely to cooperate anyway.

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk
as an Australian with German and Polish ancestors who were imprisoned in concentration camps during WWII to see a nation of people (British and Australian) that owe their freedom to the US turn around and show utter contempt.
If it wasn't for the United States then Britain as we know it would not exist. If the Nazi's had taken Britain during WWII then who knows where it could have lead.

I think it is very short sighted to oppose this war in anyway. We can not afford to take the risk and let Iraq become more of a threat than they already are.

It disgusts me to hear of 2 million hypocrites marching against this war, in London. Where are they when thousands of East Timorese are massacred. Where are they when thousands of Rwandans are tortured, massacred and raped. It's just that it's COOL to protest war, and EASY.
There are more casualties from starvation and disease every single day then will be a result of a war against Saddam.

These protesters are not concerned for the deaths of innocent people. If they were so concerned with human suffering do you think there would be homeless people begging for money in tube stations, f@ck off, of course there wouldn't.

I blame the people that marched today for the f@cked up planet that we live on today. I watch these very same people ignore the homeless with contempt in there eyes every single day. Why, all of a sudden are they so god damn concerned with people thousands of miles away.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE. Why don't they give a damn normally. It really makes me feel sick in the stomach.

If they stop this war, and if ten years down the track Saddam nukes another nation then I bet they won't apologise to the innocent victims , families or friends or even admit that they were wrong.

The really sad fact is that most people that I've spoken to today saw it as a social gathering, a day to get out in the fresh air and chill with their buddies. I don't think a single one of them thought about the repercussions of their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers and I'm certainly not perfect. I just don't want to bring my children up in a world like the one we have now. How can we think it's right to pay a person 3M a year to kick a piece of leather into a net when people are kicked onto the streets for not paying a credit card bill ? I don't understand what kind of person can evict a family from their own home. We as the human race need to be more understanding and forgiving.

Enough of my off topic ranting, I could go on for days but I think I'll leave it here... bombs away !

I think you are really missing the point. A point thats been made several times in this thread. Yet so much of your other stuff makes sense! Maybe some people were there cos its cool, of course, thats bound to happen. Also lots of people won't be there because its considered uncool. I know my house-mates are pro-war but they also share about a brain-cell between them. They laugh at me when I said I was going to the march. BTW they also use windows, and despite me personally witnessing several times windows has cocked up and refused to work properly, and having seen my dual 1 gig in action they still think windows is the best operationg system invented.

Anyway, everyone I spoke to was there for the real reason and was very pleased with the outcome!

And as for your bit about contempt for the US. Just beacuse they saved ouir asses a long time ago doesn't mean we should follow them blindly into a war. I mean we are dealing with the same country but not the same people! and its like the old saying. If the USA jumped under a bus, should we do it too??

Let me reiterate for you. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO GETTING RID OF SADDAM, ITS JUST THAT WAR IS THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO DO IT!!!! and thats my final word on this topic.

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 07:51 PM
double post......

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984


I think you are really missing the point. A point thats been made several times in this thread. Yet so much of your other stuff makes sense! Maybe some people were there cos its cool, of course, thats bound to happen. Also lots of people won't be there because its considered uncool. I know my house-mates are pro-war but they also share about a brain-cell between them. They laugh at me when I said I was going to the march. BTW they also use windows, and despite me personally witnessing several times windows has cocked up and refused to work properly, and having seen my dual 1 gig in action they still think windows is the best operationg system invented.

Anyway, everyone I spoke to was there for the real reason and was very pleased with the outcome!

Let me reiterate for you. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO GETTING RID OF SADDAM, ITS JUST THAT WAR IS THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO DO IT!!!! and thats my final word on this topic. why dont all you activist just ask him to leave? in fact you can even have the UN draft up another resolution and pat yourselves on the back. Resolutions 1-14 have been ignored, oh wait a minute with the US about to blow his A_ _ to ALLAH they have started to corporate sort of --said blix. but now with the activist it will be more of the same. Resolution 15 Saddam please take yourself out of power! There iam sure that has now done it, we can all live in peace.

amnesiac1984
Feb 15, 2003, 08:08 PM
okay this, will be my last psot on this topic. Saddam may be using this to reassure his people are not being killed but I think he knows that he cannot ignore the resolutions for much longer.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
okay this, will be my last psot on this topic. Saddam may be using this to reassure his people are not being killed but I think he knows that he cannot ignore the resolutions for much longer. Saddam has never cared for his people nor anyone elses. when will the world wake up to this?

MyLeftNut
Feb 15, 2003, 09:13 PM
As an Australian I dont agree with you zoetropuek. What the f*&^ has World war II got to do with this? Of course people are appreciative of the Americans coming to their aid in the war but it is my understanding that they fought for our right to CHOOSE. Thats what democracy is about. We would owe them an even greater debt if we did not exercise that right and let ourselves be hoodwinked into a calamitous war that may kill more people than it saves...

There is always the risk that Saddam would rearm but we can keep him at bay with UN inspections etc...at the moment Saddams only weapon of mass destruction is in between his legs.
Lets not get other Islamic peoples involved by making him a matyr.

yosoyjay
Feb 15, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. You can have less biased, more biased and attempts to be unbiased but truly unbiased is a myth.


Lethal

Well this may be true, the UK true is tremendouosly more balanced and professional than their American so-called peers.

yosoyjay
Feb 15, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Saddam has never cared for his people nor anyone elses. when will the world wake up to this?

The world knows this. When will you realize that everybody already knows this?

yzedf
Feb 15, 2003, 11:52 PM
the usa did wait on ww2. wiated until japan bombed the snot out of hawaii.

ww2 did not start at the end of 1941 when we entered the war.

but i do agree, anit-war protests don't carry much weight in the usa.

yosoyjay
Feb 16, 2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
I wonder how these Euros would have liked it if we had waited out WWII? We could have sold oil and coal to Japan and Pearl Harbor would have never happened.


Without those damn French & Spanish the US would never exist. The point? None of this is pertinent to the current situation. Likewise, much of what you say offers no credence to your argument and paints you as pompous and long-winded.

I'd like to add just a few quick opinions:
1. You're attempt to discredit certain groups by marginalizing them is pathetic.
2. Peaceful civil disobedience has and can work. Examples being civil rights, women's suffrage, Indian independence, the concept of a two day weekend... All of which are hardly trivial.
3. All peaceful means of disarmament should be exhausted before the use of force.

Sol
Feb 16, 2003, 12:29 AM
I too have my doubts about so-called peace protests. Of course war is ugly and peace is prefered but pushing that message does not exactly add to the Iraq debate which is a lot more complicated. How can anyone protesting this weekend say that they are for peace after years of Israel stretching its muscle in the Middle East with the help of US money? Those protesting this weekend are playing right into politicians' hands. They give political amunition to the impotent opposition parties who offer us too little too late with their supposed sympathy for our troops going into war.

zoetropeuk
Feb 16, 2003, 05:37 AM
What the f*&^ has World war II got to do with this?

Ask my 85 year old great grandmother that. She thankfully is still alive and still suffers from the effects of being in a concentration camp during WWII.
You have to understand that being allies or somebody's friend holds a certain amount of responsibility.
Our friends and allies often do things that we ourselves find irresponsible or even downright stupid. But being their ally means that we are there to support them. We are not somebody's friend when it suits us or when it is easy for us. Sometimes we have to support friends and allies in difficult times whether we agree or not.
Because if we don't support them, don't be surprised that the next you want their support they tell you to f@ck off.

amnesiac1984
Feb 16, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk


Ask my 85 year old great grandmother that. She thankfully is still alive and still suffers from the effects of being in a concentration camp during WWII.
You have to understand that being allies or somebody's friend holds a certain amount of responsibility.
Our friends and allies often do things that we ourselves find irresponsible or even downright stupid. But being their ally means that we are there to support them. We are not somebody's friend when it suits us or when it is easy for us. Sometimes we have to support friends and allies in difficult times whether we agree or not.
Because if we don't support them, don't be surprised that the next you want their support they tell you to f@ck off.

You have some very odd ideas about friendship zoetrope! If a friend was doing something stupid and silly, you would not support them no matter what. Sometimes giving someone tough love is the only way to make them see the error of their ways. A true friend will support you but also try to guide you and keep you from making mistakes, you think we are doing America a favour by being their minions? Maybe but it doesn't reflect friendship, if so it is very one-sided.

Stelliform
Feb 16, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk


Because if we don't support them, don't be surprised that the next you want their support they tell you to f@ck off.


...

Rower_CPU
Feb 16, 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
I guess the problem is that this is our war. The question we americans face is, will life for us ever return to the innocence we had before 9/11. The fact is, it is not going to. Is getting rid of Saddam a step towards the peace Americans enjoyed. Yes it is. (in explanation, he is the most likely person to resort to terrorist activities against Americans.) Is it the last stop for us? No it is not.. . .

This puzzles me. What are you basing your assumption on that Saddam is the "most likely person to resort to terrorist activities againt Americans"? Last I checked, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups were in much better position to attack the US than Saddam.

Originally posted by Stelliform
Terrorists hide behind anti-war activists. It is an ingenious scheme. Since Terrorist networks work without a country, the military has a hard time opposing these jokers. And when a military makes moves against them, there will be protests and indecision. After all, what has Iraq done against the US? Iraq didn't attack us. Its people are to poor to do that. Did Saddam initiate September 11? No one knows, or will ever know. But the world sees America attacking poor little Iraq. Not America preventing an attack leading to a loss of nearly 3000 civilian lives.

Again, this is quite a claim to make without any sort of substantiation. What's your source for terrorists hiding behind anti-war activists? Why have people suddenly forgotten about Osama bin Laden, the man behind the 9/11 attacks? Saying Saddam may have initiated the attacks is a transparent attempt to justify military action against him.

So preventing the possibility of a couple thousand people from being killed is worth putting hundreds of thousands of troops and cvilians in certain danger? Now that's fuzzy math.

Stelliform
Feb 16, 2003, 07:44 PM
...

Rower_CPU
Feb 16, 2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
On a final note and totally off topic... Isn't it great that we live in a nation that allows us little folk to have discussions of this kind? To protest war, or complain about the protestors. To complain about the president, or to defend him. Regardless of expense, the american people deserve the freedoms granted to us by our forefathers. The questions that we get to debate is, does this military action serve to maintain our freedoms? Does it infringe upon the freedoms of others? Do we have the right to grant citizens of another nation these freedoms, or by virtue of their birth nation, are they not allowed these freedoms?

You don't have to answer those questions. Just food for thought.

I'll answer them anyway. :)

I completely, 100% agree with you here. I'm very proud of the personal freedoms we enjoy thanks to the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution. And I hate to see these freedoms fall by the wayside during times of war.

Ostensibly, yes, military action in this case would "protect" our freedoms from a threat in Iraq...if such a threat clearly existed. That is what these people have been protesting. Not whether Saddam has been a bad boy and deserves a spanking, but whether there is no other course but military action.

As for whether or not people of other nations have the same freedoms as we do, I point you to this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.