PDA

View Full Version : Anti-War Protest Photo Albums now ONLINE - LONDON!!


afonso
Feb 15, 2003, 07:55 PM
Hey Guys,

Spent most of the day taking photographs hanging on traffic lights and railings in London, for the Anti-War protest.

More than 1.5 million people were on the street and I think these albums show the spirit envolved.

Thanks again .Mac, Apple and Nikon for making this all possible.

Let me know what you think.

http://homepage.mac.com/afonso

The albums are labeled:

"Anti-War Protest (1/2)" and "Anti-War Protest (2/2)".

xx
Afonso

uhlawboi80
Feb 15, 2003, 08:25 PM
good album, the photos are well taken.

though the first thing i noticed was an American flag (or a home made version) with the words "empty war head" on it.

i dont know what empty was head means, and though i do support free speach to an extreme, i still dont appreciate protestors defaming our flag here or abroad. Especially not in our "greatest ally"

but again, the album itself is put together really well :)

oh and i love the "the only bush i trust is my own" sign. thats great

afonso
Feb 15, 2003, 08:29 PM
i was born in american and yeah, i have to tell you that there's been a growing anti-american sentiment since bush was elected and it's been exponentially rising since the Iraq crisis...

I just report what I see :) If people started burning the flag, a photo would be taken as well :)

Thanks for the kind words about the album :) It was a great day and I am happy with the photos as well :)

uhlawboi80
Feb 15, 2003, 08:36 PM
i totally agree...i wasnt suggesting that you shouldnt have takent he pics at all...just saying i dont like the act :p

alot of us here dont love bush, but he is our president...and despite his return to reagonomics and trying to start another military buildup that will trash our economy..i dont get why people in the UK hate him so much (pre Iraqgate)

oh and what was with the "free palestine" stuff?
i wasnt aware they were incarcerated and WTF does that have to do with the iraq situation?
protestors always muddying their own waters :p

hehe..and the **** blair panner? french connection should sue ;)

afonso
Feb 15, 2003, 08:42 PM
yeah, with 2 million people there's always an excuse to protest against everything else :)

haha :D oh well, fair enough i guess ;)

MrMacMan
Feb 15, 2003, 08:46 PM
I agree with what they said execpt 2 things.

The communist and socialist party banners. I'm to the left, not communist. ;)

And the 'Free Palestine' banners. They aren't being killed. Israel has a right to be there.

G4scott
Feb 15, 2003, 10:25 PM
It's a good thing that some people are very active about their thoughts on the war. I love the bush poster...

I can understand some people's reasons for not wanting to go to war, but some groups just puzzle me... Like green peace. Sure, peace is great and all, but if there is some 'non-peace' now, then it'll ensure more time for peace in the future, so saddam doesn't make his own 'non-peace' and **** everybody else over. It must be understood that the only way to fight evil is with evil actions. Well, it might not be the only way, but it's the quickest, easiest, and most effecient way.

Anyways, these people have their right to protest, and I'm not going to try to stop them.

3rdpath
Feb 15, 2003, 10:39 PM
brilliant pics

and thanks for sharing.

yzedf
Feb 15, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I agree with what they said execpt 2 things.

The communist and socialist party banners. I'm to the left, not communist. ;)

And the 'Free Palestine' banners. They aren't being killed. Israel has a right to be there.

gaza strip

west bank

i assume you have heard of them. those are the major centers of palestinian population within israel.

the jews and the palestinians have been killing each other non-stop for the past decade or so.

all of those bombings in the news are palestinians bombing the jews, who retaliate with tanks and troops and helicopters.

if you choose to be ignorant, that is fine. just keep your mouth closed.

and you wonder why the ENTIRE world looks at Americans (USA residents specificaly) as a bunch of moronic drooling thugs.

uhlawboi80
Feb 16, 2003, 12:26 AM
where to begin, where to begin...

well again...no one is keeping the palestinians where they are. they can leave. Israel and its people have a right to a place to live too.

Also, im sure MrMacman meant that the palestinians arent being sytematically hunted down and killed or held in confinement.

besides, free palestine? maybe you missed your comment. They kill each other. they are as much to blame as the jews are!

and AMERICANS are a bunch of moronic drooling thugs? who the hell are the ones killing each other for the past decade or so?

we may not pay attention to every detail of foreign affairs because we are busy working to support the most powerful nation in the world so it can try to babysit the rest of you who "just kill each other for decades"

kiwi_the_iwik
Feb 16, 2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by uhlawboi80
where to begin, where to begin...

well again...no one is keeping the palestinians where they are. they can leave. Israel and its people have a right to a place to live too.


Jeez - how should I start in answering this one?!?

Well;

It was the British that gave Palestine (not "Israel") to the Jewish people back in 1947, in compensation for the horrendous persecution they endured during WWII.

The Palestinians, the indigenous population of the former Palestine, should NOT have to move out of their own country.

How would you like it if your country was given away - and YOU were evicted; losing your land, your rights and your freedom? I doubt whether you'd like it one bit. You fought hard for your freedom - and I'm betting you'd go down fighting. All these people are asking for is for their rights as individuals. Everywhere else in the democratic world believes in freedom and liberty for all - be they Arabic, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, or anyone else for that matter. Why then, do the Israelis not recognise the PLO as a valid political movement? They choose not to recognise the Palestinians at all - instead, placing them in Palestinian "areas", much like American Indian reservations, and giving them identity cards. They don't even have a vote...

And now, it seems the Palestinians are being ousted from their territories to make way for more Israeli settlers - and it is usually done by force.

I've been to Israel on a number of occasions, and have seen how both sides work. Whilst I'm not an advocate of violence, and even suicide bombings (I've filmed the aftermath of blown-up buses, and bombed-out cafes, seeing what was left of victims being placed in plastic bags - it's not nice...), I can see the despiration of the Palestinians.

For a race of people who have seen so much hardship and atrocities, I find it ironic that the Israelis are turning into everything they hated 60 years ago.

They should know better that persecution is evil... ...shame on them.

macfan
Feb 16, 2003, 03:33 AM
To all who marched on Saturday in support of Saddam: You have reduced the chances that Saddam will be disarmed by some means other than force, instead, you have increased the chances that war will ensue. You have given him aid and comfort in his defiance instead of telling him to comply with the UN and disarm as he agreed to do so many years ago.

Today, whatever your feelings and intentions, you were marching for Saddam.


kiwi_the_iwik,
The Palestinians, the indigenous population of the former Palestine, should NOT have to move out of their own country...

Your statement above contains a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
First, the Palestinian Arabs were not the sole indigenous population in the region. In fact, there was a significant Jewish population in the region for many years before 1948.
Second, there was never a country called Palestine, so to call present day Israel the "former Palestine" a "counrty" is not exactly accurate. The region was dominated by a variety of empires, and it was a province. In the past couple of thousand years, it has not be a independent nation. Romans, Ottoman Turks, and British come to mind just for starters. However, there wasn't an independent Palestine at any point that I am aware of. Go back far enough and there was an indepent Israel, however. Arguing about who was there first is rather pointless.

They choose not to recognise the Palestinians at all - instead, placing them in Palestinian "areas", much like American Indian reservations, and giving them identity cards. They don't even have a vote...

Arab Israelis do, in fact, have the right to vote--even the women! In fact, a number have been elected to the Israeli parliament. The Palestinians Arabs you refer to were not Israeli citizens. They were citizens of the Arab counties that Israel fought in battle and defeated and they lived in areas of land that those countries lost in battle. Why should they be given citizenship in Israel of the right to vote in Israeli elections? Shouldn't they have voting rights in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria rather than Israel? Why are they not welcomed in those countries?

"Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have not looked into the future. They have no plan or approach. They have used the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal." --Ariel Sharon.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

3rdpath
Feb 16, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by macfan
To all who marched on Saturday in support of Saddam: You have reduced the chances that Saddam will be disarmed by some means other than force, instead, you have increased the chances that war will ensue. You have given him aid and comfort in his defiance instead of telling him to comply with the UN and disarm as he agreed to do so many years ago.

Today, whatever your feelings and intentions, you were marching for Saddam.


actually, no i wasn't marching for saddam. your generalizations and "reasonings" are simplistic.

speaking for only myself( a tactic you should explore...), i was marching for tougher more extensive inspections. i was marching in hopes of avoiding a rush to use the milatary instead of diplomacy. i was marching to better inform my elected officials how i feel.

obviously, you have a problem with that. thats your right.

jelloshotsrule
Feb 16, 2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
actually, no i wasn't marching for saddam. your generalizations and "reasonings" are simplistic.

speaking for only myself( a tactic you should explore...), i was marching for tougher more extensive inspections. i was marching in hopes of avoiding a rush to use the milatary instead of diplomacy. i was marching to better inform my elected officials how i feel.

obviously, you have a problem with that. thats your right.

while macfan is generally better spoken than a lot of the folks on here who are pro war, i am afraid he is convinced that people who don't want bloodshed until it's the last option are actually people who love saddam. must be comfy with such a simple view on things.

3rdpath summed up the reasons i supported the march pretty well. unfortunately i couldn't get there in person. but i thank the millions of folks who did get out...

macfan
Feb 16, 2003, 10:51 AM
I am far from pro war. I only want to see war as a last option. However, it is quite clear that the best chance for avoiding war is to present a powerful, united front against Saddam instead of marching around in support of not taking real action against him.

3rdpath,
Your personal motivations are not relevant for the effect of marching. The effect of the protests is to make war more likely, not less likely. In Saddam's mind, which is where it matters most, you were marching for Saddam. You were showing a world divided in facing a tyrant who has defied the UN for more than a decade. A brutal dictator who has shown not signs of cooperation with the UN inspectors unless a figurative knife was to his throat. As counter intuitive as it seems to you, you were, indeed, marching for Saddam.

3rdpath
Feb 16, 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I am far from pro war. I only want to see war as a last option. However, it is quite clear that the best chance for avoiding war is to present a powerful, united front against Saddam instead of marching around in support of not taking real action against him.

3rdpath,
Your personal motivations are not relevant for the effect of marching. The effect of the protests is to make war more likely, not less likely. In Saddam's mind, which is where it matters most, you were marching for Saddam. You were showing a world divided in facing a tyrant who has defied the UN for more than a decade. A brutal dictator who has shown not signs of cooperation with the UN inspectors unless a figurative knife was to his throat. As counter intuitive as it seems to you, you were, indeed, marching for Saddam.

i too believe war should be the last option and thats why i marched. to say " no" to an immediate war is not being pro-saddam. it is not saying no to tougher more vigorous inspections. it is not even saying no to war as a last option....but lets exhaust all peaceful efforts first.

and yes, my personal motivations are very relevant. to say otherwise devalues the of worth every person's opinions, yours included.

and as far as whats in saddam's mind...HTF do you know?

you've been puffing too long on ovi's hookah of omniscience....

G4scott
Feb 16, 2003, 11:32 AM
This is just my 2...

Saddam might see these protests as a rally of support for him and his cause. This would be a bad thing.

The only thing that I can't stand is people blatantly attacking Bush and Blair for no apparent reason. Sure, they are the guys who make some of the top decisions, but criticize their actions, not just the person. If I keep on saying "Bush is a moron", people will see me as a moron. If I say "Bush's actions are moronic because..." and then elaborate, then my message will have some meaning. There are some protesters who have good reasons and a way to back up their protests, but it makes me sick to see people blatantly calling bush stupid and such...

Maybe it's just me...

Oh, and as far as a military buildup trashing our economy- look at what got us out of the great depression...

uhlawboi80
Feb 16, 2003, 12:13 PM
yeah, anyone who has read 1984 knows that war is great for an economy. problem is, our economy goes into debt for wars.

Also, the way bush is approaching it is more like reagan did during the cold war. Reagans build up in the 80's caused the dis-inflation that led to the late 80s early 90s economic slump.

Now we are in deflation which many economists said was coming back in 98 and 99. and its here. Sure, part of it was due to the decrease in military spending, but thats the point. It helps in the short term but everyone who gets a job or opens a factory during a large remilitarization like bush is attempting ends up looking for a job in other sectors once the build up stops.

Wash!!
Feb 16, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


actually, no i wasn't marching for saddam. your generalizations and "reasonings" are simplistic.

speaking for only myself( a tactic you should explore...), i was marching for tougher more extensive inspections. i was marching in hopes of avoiding a rush to use the milatary instead of diplomacy. i was marching to better inform my elected officials how i feel.

obviously, you have a problem with that. thats your right.


When saddam and company nukes or poison one of you precious european cities, then you are going to turn around a beg for the americans to come help you then Bush and the american people are not mindless idiots, lets see how long your peace holds.

jelloshotsrule
Feb 16, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Wash!!

When saddam and company nukes or poison one of you precious european cities, then you are going to turn around a beg for the americans to come help you then Bush and the american people are not mindless idiots, lets see how long your peace holds.

wow. open mouth. insert foot...

3rdpath is american.

3rdpath
Feb 16, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Wash!!



When saddam and company nukes or poison one of you precious european cities, then you are going to turn around a beg for the americans to come help you then Bush and the american people are not mindless idiots, lets see how long your peace holds.

if you're going to imply an insult...at least get your facts right.

i'm un-american....not non-american.:rolleyes:

j763
Feb 16, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
And the 'Free Palestine' banners. They aren't being killed. Israel has a right to be there.

Um... you are aware that over the past two years, five times as many palestinians have died from this conflict than israelis. That's right -- for every one israeli who dies, 5 palestinians die. They are dying!

Israel has a right to be there? About as much right as Italy does to suddenly take back what they had under the Roman empire. I mean, they had that land a few thousand years ago. It's about as solid a claim as Israels.

That's also ignoring the fact that the Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon never flies to any country other than the US for fear of being tried and imprisoned for his crimes against humanity. In sharp contrast, Yassar Araft has won a nobel peace prize.

Also worth noting that the group behind the suicide bombings, HAMAS has received huge funding from the Israeli Government in the past.

It's a wonderful world. (http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php)

GeeYouEye
Feb 16, 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


i too believe war should be the last option and thats why i marched. to say " no" to an immediate war is not being pro-saddam. it is not saying no to tougher more vigorous inspections. it is not even saying no to war as a last option....but lets exhaust all peaceful efforts first.

and yes, my personal motivations are very relevant. to say otherwise devalues the of worth every person's opinions, yours included.

and as far as whats in saddam's mind...HTF do you know?

you've been puffing too long on ovi's hookah of omniscience....

Consider the facts for a second. Saddam is an absolute dictator of a country developing chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons, in violation of 17 UN resolutions. He is concerned first and foremost with self-preservation, and a distant second is getting his WMD programs done in secrecy. With these in mind, it really isn't that much of a leap to realize that if the world looks united and ready to attack, then Saddam will back down and disarm. Believe it or not, a peaceful solution. If we do look divided, Saddam will think that we are not serious about disarming him. Would you? What he doesn't, and I don't think you, realize is that the US, UK, Spain, eastern Europe, etc. will attack without a united country. Wake up and realize that your protests are counterproductive, that you are being played as pawns by the WWP (http://www.nationalreview.com/10feb03/york021003.asp), that the best way of preventing war is to push Saddam up against the wall until he backs down, something which will not happen if the populace looks divided from the government. You, the protesters, are going to be the cause of this war.

MacFan25
Feb 16, 2003, 02:34 PM
Let me just sum my opinion up in a few words:

War should be our last option.


afonso: Great pics! Thanks

GeeYouEye
Feb 16, 2003, 03:29 PM
Ooh... this should be fun...

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik

It was the British that gave Palestine (not "Israel") to the Jewish people back in 1947, in compensation for the horrendous persecution they endured during WWII.
Lie #1. The British, along with the oh-so-wonderful UN, partitioned the area that is now Israel, the Gaza strip, and the West Bank, into two countries, one for Arabs, one for Jews. The Jews in the region accepted the plan, which, though the percentages were in favor of the Jews, gave the most fertile land (unless you actually can farm in desert) to the Arabs. The Arabs did not. One day after Israel was declared independent from Britain, the surrounding Arab countries attack Israel... more on that later.
The Palestinians, the indigenous population of the former Palestine, should NOT have to move out of their own country.
Lie #2. There was no such country or region as Palestine, unless you'd care to go back to Roman times again (I thought everyone was against going back that far), with the Syria Palestina province. The area may have been unofficially called Palestine, but it was just another part of the British Mandate, given to it by the League of Nations. As for the Arabs moving out... more on that later.
How would you like it if your country was given away - and YOU were evicted; losing your land, your rights and your freedom? I doubt whether you'd like it one bit.
Lie #3. Or perhaps only 2a. You're right, I wouldn't like it one bit. But that's not what happened. The day of Israel's independence, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (for the uninformed, a major Arab religious leader) called on all Arabs in Israel to leave for the West Bank and Gaza areas, so that in the two week long war to follow, Israel and the Jews could be destroyed without worrying about killing Arabs. In 90+% of cases, Israel BEGGED the Arabs to stay. But who would you listen to? A religious leader, or a government with people your religion tells you to hate? Of course, they followed the Mufti. Two weeks came and went, and the war dragged on. At the end, instead of being destroyed, Israel won. In the meantime, the lands that the Arabs vacated were moved into. From then on, the Arab world has been pushing the lie that every Arab was kicked out, and their lands taken.
You fought hard for your freedom - and I'm betting you'd go down fighting.
Probably true, but the sheep-ple followed their leader to their doom. They didn't fight.
All these people are asking for is for their rights as individuals. Everywhere else in the democratic world believes in freedom and liberty for all - be they Arabic, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, or anyone else for that matter.
And every Arab, and their descendants, and every Arab who swears a loyalty oath to Israel, does have those freedoms. It's the abandoners who are denied those rights. It's like saying the US should give the right to affect policy to every former Brit who left en masse after the Revolution. It's ridiculous. Similarly though, any Brit who moves to the US and becomes a citizen does get to affect policy.
Why then, do the Israelis not recognise the PLO as a valid political movement?
Maybe because the PLO supports terrorism, has no elections, and isn't actually a government? Nah, can't be...
They choose not to recognise the Palestinians at all - instead, placing them in Palestinian "areas", much like American Indian reservations, and giving them identity cards. They don't even have a vote...
See above. Giving those in the West Bank and Gaza the right to vote is ridiculous. You will notice, though you failed before now, however, that once Israel actually annexed the Golan Heights, that the Arabs there were given the right to vote, as well as all the other rights afforded an Israeli citizen.
And now, it seems the Palestinians are being ousted from their territories to make way for more Israeli settlers - and it is usually done by force.
Lie #3. The Arabs are not being ousted. While I don't agree with the settlers, they are not using force. You'll also note that though it doesn't condemn it (a mistake, IMO), it does not condone the settlements either.
I've been to Israel on a number of occasions, and have seen how both sides work. Whilst I'm not an advocate of violence, and even suicide bombings (I've filmed the aftermath of blown-up buses, and bombed-out cafes, seeing what was left of victims being placed in plastic bags - it's not nice...), I can see the despiration of the Palestinians.
Desperation... I'm (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17707) sure (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22856).
For a race of people who have seen so much hardship and atrocities, I find it ironic that the Israelis are turning into everything they hated 60 years ago.
I think I've proved that this isn't the case.
They should know better that persecution is evil... ...shame on them.
No, the shame is on you for not knowing the truth, and spreading these lies. Only with people like you can racism, genocide, and hatred flourish.

kiwi_the_iwik
Feb 16, 2003, 04:31 PM
GeeYouEye -

That's a bit harsh, don't you think?!?

You can't possibly suggest that my views breed genocide, racism and hatred, could you?

I'm so glad you have a sensible spin on this topic, and aren't commited to rash, judgemental statements...



I'd also like to know whether you've actually BEEN there, because being on the ground gives you a much better insight to each side's opinion

It just so happens that the ISRAELIS are playing the unwavering, arrogant and beligerent role in this arena. I'm quite sure there are good and bad on each side - as is in all cases, and in all situations. But for a country such as Israel to be so intolerant of its fellow inhabitants, belittles their justification to never forget the horrific past of the Holocaust. They said those horrors would never happen again - but the "Stormtrooper" tactics of the Israelli soldiers in the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip prove that it could.

They therefore should never let religion stand in the way of peace - Sharon should be extending the hand of friendship and co-habitation, rather than the sharp end of a sword.

3rdpath
Feb 16, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye


Consider the facts for a second. Saddam is an absolute dictator of a country developing chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons, in violation of 17 UN resolutions. He is concerned first and foremost with self-preservation, and a distant second is getting his WMD programs done in secrecy. With these in mind, it really isn't that much of a leap to realize that if the world looks united and ready to attack, then Saddam will back down and disarm. Believe it or not, a peaceful solution. If we do look divided, Saddam will think that we are not serious about disarming him. Would you? What he doesn't, and I don't think you, realize is that the US, UK, Spain, eastern Europe, etc. will attack without a united country. Wake up and realize that your protests are counterproductive, that you are being played as pawns by the WWP (http://www.nationalreview.com/10feb03/york021003.asp), that the best way of preventing war is to push Saddam up against the wall until he backs down, something which will not happen if the populace looks divided from the government. You, the protesters, are going to be the cause of this war.

well you've certainly got some rhetoric there...lotsa words and even a link...

:rolleyes:

"if we look divided"...grasp the reality here...we are divided.
my protest was for tougher vigorous inspections, not this fast paced "war is the easiest solution" mumbo that the bush administration is ramrodding. and lets be honest here...the inspections are really only for publicity. the bush admin. always intended to attack iraq regardless of the inspection outcome. this was verbally stated to british parliament 11/20/02 by the Pentagon's defense policy board chair richard pearle( reported in the mirror).

why can more time only benefit saddam and not our inspectors? its not like he's going anywhere and we've got enough satellites and troops surrounding iraq that he couldn't smuggle out a bottlerocket much less a wmd...if we find the wmd shouldn't we destroy them? whats the use of killing so many innocent people if its not unavoidable?

and as far as your "pawn" tripe...you really ought to be ashamed linking to an article entitled " reds still ". do you have so little understanding of history not to grasp that " mccarthyism" and the " red hunt" that ensued were some of the most vile and reprehensible times of our government. people's lives and careers were ruined simply by rumor or innuendo...mostly based upon the
" you're either with us or you're against us" crap that bush has recently resurrected. its sad that you feel this link somehow substantiates your views and scary that you don't see the horrible history associated with it.

also. who cares who may or may not have organized the rally(s). my reasons for being there were my reasons. i mean, did someone magically cast a "vulcan mind hold" on millions of people across the world and cause them to march for reasons other than their own?

maybe you're a mindless goose-stepper, but don't you dare imply that i am...or that any of the marchers i know are.

and to say that i am somehow the cause of this inevitable war...you have crossed the line.

you are despicable.

modyouup
Feb 16, 2003, 09:18 PM
This may the only time this post is ON TOPIC at the moment so eh what the hell. www.loudandoffensive.com

dermeister
Feb 16, 2003, 09:48 PM
That's right -- for every one israeli who dies, 5 palestinians die. They are dying!

I just have to say, that is the stupidest statement I have ever heard.

You do realize that this is in general due to the fact that in clashes, the israelis usually have much lesser casualties...

Are you SUGGESTING that the IDF purposely try to have higher casualties to EVEN OUT the casualty ratio?

Pathetic.

As for kiwi_the_iwik, please notice that GeeYouEye completely SCHOOLED you. You've been debunked.

:rolleyes:

kettle
Feb 17, 2003, 12:19 AM
One million people demonstrating their fear and concerns for war, half a dozen left wing organisations all trying to claim support, a day of preaching the usual ANTI doing anything, with no debate or suggestion to the matter in hand - what do we do if we DON'T go to war with Iraq.

dermeister
Feb 17, 2003, 01:10 AM
<sarcasm>

I say stall the war with protests long enough for them to finish their nuclear arms and use them on us before doing anything!!! Yeah thats a good plan!!! Screw logic, we need to be sure they have nukes before doing anything hasty... So let them destroy a major western capital first. I'm a naive war protestor, hug me.

</sarcasm>

Backtothemac
Feb 17, 2003, 09:19 AM
sick.

agreenster
Feb 17, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by macfan

First, the Palestinian Arabs were not the sole indigenous population in the region. In fact, there was a significant Jewish population in the region for many years before 1948.
Second, there was never a country called Palestine, so to call present day Israel the "former Palestine" a "counrty" is not exactly accurate. The region was dominated by a variety of empires, and it was a province. In the past couple of thousand years, it has not be a independent nation. Romans, Ottoman Turks, and British come to mind just for starters. However, there wasn't an independent Palestine at any point that I am aware of. Go back far enough and there was an indepent Israel, however. Arguing about who was there first is rather pointless.
Yes, but it still doesnt give Israelis or Palestinians the right to butcher innocent people over it. And since America tends to support Israel, now half the Mid East hates us and wants to destroy us. This whole issue is the root of ALL the f*ckin terrorist attacks.

And dont call Americans brainless ogres (whoever said it) We are intelligent people, and saying that about us is just as stereotypical as anything else. Many of us are well educated in history, and disagree with many of our own political actions.

But the bottom line is: It doesnt matter who is right or wrong anymore, America, Iraq, Israel, Palestinians, or North Korea!

For Christ's sakes, and the survival of the world- stop with the violence!

3rdpath
Feb 17, 2003, 11:26 AM
nice post agreenster.

why is it we don't advocate violence at home, school or work but it seems to be the proper solution when dealing with other countries.

a small act of contrition by the u.s. would go a long way.....

or have we never done anything to stir up this hornet's nest?

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 11:29 AM
i too believe war should be the last option and thats why i marched. to say " no" to an immediate war is not being pro-saddam. it is not saying no to tougher more vigorous inspections. it is not even saying no to war as a last option....but lets exhaust all peaceful efforts first.

and yes, my personal motivations are very relevant. to say otherwise devalues the of worth every person's opinions, yours included.

and as far as whats in saddam's mind...HTF do you know?


Read my post again. It has nothing to do with the "value" of your opinion or worth of anyone as a human being. Your personal motivations are not relevant for the effect that marching has.. They are only relevant for your personal feelings.

One doesn't have to be omniscient to know with a high degree of confidence that the recent protests provide Saddam with the false impression that he might be able to wait this out and stay in power. Whether you were marching for the World Workers Party or Green Peace or People for the Lifetime Tenure of Hans Blix or simply Citizens Against Going to Work Today, you were marching for Saddam.


a small act of contrition by the u.s. would go a long way.....

It will go a long way to getting the Arab states and Palestinians to recognize Israel as a nation? It will go a long way to making Saddam comply with the UN? Doubtful.

agreenster,
It is too much of an oversimplification to say that the Israeli Palestinian issue is the driving force behind anti American terrorism. There's a lot more to it than that. Also, it does matter who is right.

3rdpath
Feb 17, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Read my post again. It has nothing to do with the "value" of your opinion or worth of anyone as a human being. Your personal motivations are not relevant for the effect that marching has.. They are only relevant for your personal feelings.


maybe i should join a public march for policies i really don't agree with...

like they do in repressed tyrannical countries.

:rolleyes:

ahhh, the orwellian hypocrisy....scary.

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 12:54 PM
maybe i should join a public march for policies i really don't agree with...

It looks like you already did. You are opposed to an invasion of Iraq, but the marches make an invasion of Iraq more likely.

Given your username of 3rdpath, maybe you should have considered a thrid path that would allow you to be opposed to war but have the effect of making it clear to Saddam that you do not support him. Maybe you should be signing petitions to send to Saddam asking him to disarm or leave Iraq so that an invasion will not be required. Maybe you should be marching outside the UN and at Iraqi embassies around the world protesting the Iraqi government refusal to cooperate with Dr. Blix and making it clear that continued defiance of the UN will not be tolerated.

kiwi_the_iwik
Feb 17, 2003, 04:32 PM
Like everyone has said in the past - from the UN Weapons Inspectors, right down to the people in this post - Iraq has NOT got the capability to defeat an invading army. Even the Americans are adamant that a war in the Gulf will be short-lived, and that they will emerge victorious.

So, macfan -

Don't think that marching for Peace on Saturday has given Saddam any ideas that he can defeat the might of the US. The marchers are NOT on his side - but are also not on the side of an aggressive approach to an already broken and embattered nation.

UN Weapons Inspections are the only answer - for now. They're also much cheaper, both in saving lives and resources - as a US taxpayer, you may have the money to throw around to pay to invade whichever country that tickles your fancy - I, for one, do not...

...especially when there are far more important things to tackle, such as Health, Education, Employment, Transport, Housing... the list goes on.

Where are your priorities? You're paying for this military outing with money that could be much better well-spent.

Sure. You get rid of Saddam. But perhaps then you have to tackle Iran, Libya, North Korea and China for example - all in the name of freedom and democracy. The wars will never stop until your country lies bankrupt and bleeding. Fix your own economy first - then lead by example. Show how a true free country can work, where no-one lies hungry, or poor, or sick, or uneducated.

Believe me, that will hurt any terrorists more than invading foreign countries - which only succeeds in creating new ones.

Backtothemac
Feb 17, 2003, 04:41 PM
How can you argue that Inspectors are cheaper? Let him develop one nuke. Better yet, just lob some of the VX that we know he has over to Israel in a scud and kill 500,000 people. What would that do to the world economy?

Some of the arguments for "peace" are crazy. That is like saying that Hitler would have stopped. Could we have contained Hitler without war? No. Saddam is the same type of creature, except Saddam will do it through terror groups, and wars of convience for him.

We can have peace through war, and that is how this will have to go down. He will not disarm, so what are you going to do, have inspections forever? They don't stop him from doing what he wants. They are not even a thorn in his side. They are easy, and do not phase him, and since he cares nothing for his own people, the sanctions will not work either.

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 05:10 PM
kiwi_the_iwik,

Don't think that marching for Peace on Saturday has given Saddam any ideas that he can defeat the might of the US. The marchers are NOT on his side - but are also not on the side of an aggressive approach to an already broken and embattered nation.


For Saddam, survival equals victory. He thinks he won the last time round, and from that perspective, he did. He's still there. What the marchers give him is the false impression that he might not have to face the militray power of a US-led coalition against him. By no means am I saying he thinks he will be able to defeat the US coalition in battle because of the marchers. It isn't about what he thinks will happen when an invasion comes, it's about whether he thinks an invasion will come if he doesn't disarm.

Even the weapons inspectors themselves say that they are not the answer if Saddam doesn't cooperate. Saddam hasn't cooperated for 12 years. Saddam isn't cooperating now. Saddam is highly unlikely to cooperate in the future. Thus, weapons inspectors are not the only answer. In fact, they are not really an answer at all.

The economic argument against disarming Saddam is rather flimsy (unless you happen to be French), as is the idea that we will end terrorism by increasing spending on the federal school lunch program or some such nonsense.

Sure. You get rid of Saddam. But perhaps then you have to tackle Iran, Libya, North Korea and China for example - all in the name of freedom and democracy.

Under you scheme, you don't get rid of Saddam. Then you still have to tackle Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea (you can forget about tackling China, they will tackle themselves).

Also, keep your head down and a gas mask handy if you're sent over to the region.

kiwi_the_iwik
Feb 18, 2003, 02:55 AM
I'm going on the NBC warfare training course next week (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical)...

That'll make things hit home, I'm sure. In it they teach you how to survive in the event of an attack - or whether just to put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye (I'm figuring the latter).

:(

trebblekicked
Feb 18, 2003, 04:00 PM
For every reason to start a war, there is a reason not to. There is danger for all of us in both choices. Because the world is dangerous; because we have made it so. When do we stop ourselves? When do we lead by example?