Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by vniow, Mar 28, 2003.
"violent anti-war protest" Gee imagine that...
That's a way to get your message across. Blow stuff up in the name of peace.
Thats so much better than blowing up stuff for the name of the good the the people?
Hm... Bush wants peace using war... and now anti-war people use similar tactics.
Yeah, look at it that way.
We achieved peace through going to war in WW2. Macman, do you feel war is ever justified?
"Peace" protestors are denoucing violence with violence. Ironic, hypocritical, and pointless. That's like PETA beating animals to death to protest animal cruelity.
The first rule of effective protesting is to not engage in the same act that you are currently protesting.
Lets take a look at WW2 (why? I dunno)
A) The axis bombed the hell us.
B) Hitler lead Nazis to take over the world. Global control, killing a whole religion off, you know what? I'm jewish and german so screw you if you say jews had it coming or some BS.
Lets not look at the most obvious differences:
A) Iraq didn't attack us, ever. No, never, no they don't have weapons that can reach us, no, your thinking about N. Korea
B) Iraq has not invaded or made actions to invade another country since the first gulf war.
I think that would be obvious.
Maybe I can restate my statment.
Thats like bush wanting peace for a nation we are currently crushing. (crushing can be substutited for bombing, destroying ... etc...)
This is what I want: promote Peace with sending aid. No, sure we hate the regime, I hate the regime.
But again, how do you get peace? Is it bombing... or is it what am i searching for uh...
PEACE. When is the last time that worked lets see... South Africa... All of the countrys at the fall of the soviet union... many many other places.
I'd read somewhere that the "grenades" actually turned out to be tear gas canisters that protesters threw back at the police, so any argument about this being another example may be moot.
...I agree that sometimes non-aggressive means can bring about a just peace. But not every time. Do you honestly believe that Saddam's regime would meet the justice it ought to if not forced?
I agree that as far as we know, Iraq presents no immediate, direct threat. But as much noise as Kim Jong Il is making, I don't believe that he'll be stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. I think Saddam Hussein, however, given the means, would. His contempt for the US was made quite obvious when Iraq's flag was the only one not lowered around the UN after 9/11. It seemed almost obvious to me that Iraq would have had something to do with it. That we've found no direct evidence to support that yet has not completed abated my suspicions.
Another point to make here is that after 9/11, Pres Bush & Co. got criticized for not doing anything to prevent the attacks. Well, now they are. And the world is condemning them. It seems like no matter what Bush does, he gets criticized. He can't take a dump without someone accusing him of ulterior motives. I don't completely trust the man, especially with his lax treatment of our northern and southern borders. But I also don't believe that he deserves the global condemnation he's receiving for his attacking Saddam, either.
The world should be morally outraged at Saddam Hussein. If not for murdering his own people, then for the environmental raping shortly after Gulf War I. But the world says nothing, does nothing. Instead, they attack us for trying to put an end to it. Sorry, but this just doesn't smell right to me.
Re: Mr Macman,...
What WOULD "abate your suspicions"? Why WOULD he lower his flag? Get real. You (and we) were bombing his country on a daily basis at the time.
Re: Mr Macman,...
MrMacman why do you keep bringing up Bush when all I'm talking about is the irony (and hypocrisy) that some "peace" protestors (not just these Columbians but others as well) resort to violence while chanting "peace not war." I guess they just don't have a very strong belief in the cause they are protesting for.
Many people are opposed to this war, not just those opposed to all wars. You don't have to be a pacifist to be in favour of international law.
You summed it up well skunk.
Lethal, the reason that he brings up bush, is because many of the protests are directly aimed at bush and its because of his decisions over his entire term as president that he is hated and not trusted by the world. Yes you can argue that his decisions were the right one, but he has not carried out his decisions in the right way, maybe the war on iraq is the right hting to do, you can argue that, but i don't see how you can argue that the way bush is handling it and the way he is going to war on iraq is the right way.
I'm not sure who said it on these boards (I think it was Taft) but bush has surrounded himself with people who think in the exact same way as him and people who are yes men, now thats why he has said things in speeches that were dissastrous, such as when he used the word "crusade" when refering to the conflict in Afghanistan, because his "advisers" are no better than him.
Yes, it was Japan who attacked us. But why the hell did we also go after Germany. After all Hitler did nothing to us?
Yeah right, you claim its alright to go after Hitler because of mass killings and global control. What about Hussein. Saddam has killed thousands of fellow muslims and invaded both Iran and Kuwait in the past twenty five years. It aint global control but it sure looks like regional control to me.
Iraq has been attacking our planes in the no fly zone for the past ten years. They support terrorists like Abu Nidal. They have WMD's. There are reports that Hamas and Al Quaeda and in Iraq right now fighting against us. Can you guarentee me that a madman like Saddam will not give WMD's to some rogue group? I am not willing to take that chance. Would you rather have thousands of American's dead in a terror attack first before we go on the attack?
Yes, Iraq has not attacked another country since Kuwait. So What??? They are currently developing and hiding WMD's. UNSCOM had catalogued tons of nerve and vx gas in 1998. Now the WMD's are all missing. What do you think Saddam will do with these weapons? For a country not planning agression, why have these weapons programs continuing to operate?
why do i feel like mrmacman never knows what he is talking about, maybe because he is 15. thats why i dont start bring ww2 into this because im only 17 and ive only had a couple of years of history and there is still much to learn.
Hitler declared war on us before we declared war on him. Look it up.
Hitler also unleashed his U-Boats on U.S. merchant ships. I just don't think the historical evidence supports the evidence that we declared war on Hitler because of "mass killings". And yes, we were afraid of global control by Germany and Japan. They were allied, exchanging military intelligence and assistance, Japan had just bombed us, and Hitler declared war on us. Only then did we declare war on Germany.
Look, whatever our country does, it does for its own interests. We fight brutal dictators when it suits our interests. We support brutal dictators when it supports our interests. I suggest you read more accounts from more neutral countries that were on the sidelines or in the crossfire of our global adventures. They have a totally different perspective on American foreign policy and use of power.
You are right about his one. We did declare war on Germany right after Italy and Germany delclared war on us. The fact of the matter is that what the Germans did to us is nothing compares to what Japan did to us in Pearl Harbor.
Maybe we could of resolved the conflict with Hitler peacefully? We could of sat around the table and sang Koom Bah Yah. We could have reasoned with him...find out why he hated us so.
Seriously thought, the decision to goto war against Fascism in WW2 was the right decsion. If The US forces find WMD's in Iraq after the liberation, history will have proven the US right. If we find nothing there will be serious egg on our faces.
America does only acts in its best interests. In this case it is to protect our national security against the terror of WMD's. If there was no 9-11 we would not be going to war with Iraq. 9-11 showed us that what those people who hate us could do to us.
And there is no question about it, Saddam hates our guts.
Any Columbian Has The Right To Be Mad At Any American
We have allowed our government do DESTROY these South American countries through our fear of progressive government and our "War on Drugs" during which we have subsidized the rape and murder of tens of thousands of farmers and their families.
Re: Any Columbian Has The Right To Be Mad At Any American
Our meddling in Latin America goes back, long, long, long before the "War on Drugs" or even Communism. After all, it was with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that the U.S. claimed dominion over the entire Western Hemisphere. We've always supported brutal dictators because they were usually easy to buy off. We'd much rather have a pliant dictator that will do whatever we want rather than those pesky democracies that may or may not do what we want them to do...
More direct evidence, after an exhaustive investigation.
You just described the possible motive.
If there was no 9-11 we would not be going to war with Iraq. 9-11 showed us that what those people who hate us could do to us.
And there is no question about it, Saddam hates our guts.
So then, wouldn't we all be better off if there was no reason for Saddam and the rest of the world to hate the US in the first place?
Hitler and Saddam don't have much in common. WW2 doesn't justify GW2.
if i'm not mistaken.... didn't we support iraq when they fought iran??? hmmmmm
Yes, crapped on our rugs by adopting the philosophy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But that doesn't mean that we should allow that crap to forever remain on that rug.
Depends on how justified that hate is. I think some of it is and some of it isn't. Hence, I think the visceral hatred is the result of bad propaganda and the need for a scapegoat. But some anger towards the US I do understand. We seem to like making deals with the devil, and this has continually come back to bite us in the rump. Either the devil we made the deal with does, or the people under his oppression do. This is a foreign policy issue that seriously needs to be rethought.
Hmmm... well, I got some news for ya. The Baath party comes from a movement called "Pan-Arabism", which is not unlike the master race philosophy perpetrated by Hitler.
Secondly, Saddam Hussein is not militarily powerful like Hitler because the US and UN didn't repeat the same mistakes made by the world in the late 1930s--you know, appeasing him--you know, that thing everyone wants to do now? Can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler got the A-bomb first? Imagine Hussein with one. Where would it go? How would it get there? Hitler would be bold and just launch them. But Hussein would be more insidious and use spies/terrorists to smuggle them in.
Both were/are dictators who have no regard for human life, and who want power. Lots of it. Neither man could/can be reasoned with because he was/is single-mindedly focused on his own self-centered aggrandisement.
There are differences, no question. But Saddam Hussein, to some, is a Hitler-in-the-making. The idea here is, do you want to take the chance that he won't smuggle a nuke into your city someday? I personally do not want to take that chance. Some in the US (and around the world) obviously do.