anti-war protests [Archive] - Yellowworld Forums

VV o n g B a

02-15-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by anne@Feb 15 2003, 11:43 PM
So what if there was an Iraqi flag? Unless you talked to the person waving that flag, you don't know what s/he represents. It was a peace rally and the people there were asserting their rights to free speech. The person with that flag could be waving it to represent the Iraqi citizens who against the war. It could represent the innocent victims in Iraq. It could also represent the innocent victims/casualties from Dubya's dear old dad's unnecessary Gulf War. It's not necessarily a representation for Sadaam. Bottom line- there are many Iraqis who are against the war and waving the Iraqi flag does not necessarily mean pro-Sadaam. I mean, waving the American flag does not necessarily represent pro-Bush or pro-war. If I hold up an American flag at an anti-war rally or any other occasion, I am asserting my civil rights, my right to protest and my right to free speech.
yeah, it is free speech. no doubt. but what does the flag represent to most ppl? it represents iraq. by waving the flag, u show support for iraq. i can see anti-war, but not pro-iraq.

its just like waving the confederate flag around. yeah, maybe it has lots of other meanings. but the one most prominent to most ppl is slavery. thats what they think about when they see it. i just find waving the iraqi flag around to be in bad taste.

achtungbaby

02-15-2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 15 2003, 11:06 PM
yeah, it is free speech. no doubt. but what does the flag represent to most ppl? it represents iraq. by waving the flag, u show support for iraq. i can see anti-war, but not pro-iraq.

So what does burning an American flag mean to you? Is it more against the people or the government?

Napoleon Chynamite

02-16-2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 15 2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 15 2003, 11:06 PM
yeah, it is free speech.  no doubt.  but what does the flag represent to most ppl?  it represents iraq.  by waving the flag, u show support for iraq.  i can see anti-war, but not pro-iraq.

So what does burning an American flag mean to you? Is it more against the people or the government?
I think burning the American flag to most Americans does not mean as much because as BTR has kindly pointed out to me in the past, Americans take their citizenship for granted the most and do not have as much true national pride. I for one don't really know what it's like to feel proud to be either an American or someone with Chinese ethnic roots. Pride isn't something you should force and search for if it's not already there.....I dunno....??

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 16 2003, 12:02 AM
I think burning the American flag to most Americans does not mean as much because as BTR has kindly pointed out to me in the past, Americans take their citizenship for granted the most and do not have as much true national pride.
I would disagree. Flag burning is always a very contentious freedom of speech issue in this country.

I personally don't see anything wrong with protestors showing up with Iraqi flags because: 1) displaying the flag can certainly be interpreted as a show of support for a country's people, not necessarily its government; 2) I don't have any particular ill-will towards Hussein anyway. Yes, he's a dictator, yes he's used chemical weapons on his own people and the Kurds, but he's still never presented a direct threat to American national security.

Napoleon Chynamite

02-16-2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 12:11 AM
I would disagree. Flag burning is always a very contentious freedom of speech issue in this country.

I personally don't see anything wrong with protestors showing up with Iraqi flags because: 1) displaying the flag can certainly be interpreted as a show of support for a country's people, not necessarily its government; 2) I don't have any particular ill-will towards Hussein anyway. Yes, he's a dictator, yes he's used chemical weapons on his own people and the Kurds, but he's still never presented a direct threat to American national security.
Well ok yeah...I'm sure it is. But I still think that for many of us, we as Americans feel that burning the flag is a horrible thing only because we have been taught that it is taboo by society, and not because many of us truly see freedom vanquishing before your eyes every time we see the stars and stripes go up in flames......maybe I just hang around the wrong people :confused:

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:17 AM

don't have any particular ill-will towards Hussein anyway. Yes, he's a dictator, yes he's used chemical weapons on his own people and the Kurds, but he's still never presented a direct threat to American national security.

I disagree. I think that when almost everybody, ranging from Bin Laden to neighboring nations to the US, feels that Saddam needs to go, I think he's got a pretty bad reputation. The only question is what is the right method of removal? Personally, I think Bush is between a rock and a hard place because if terrorsim happens, it will be his fault regardless. Terrorism hits, and there is no war, then he'll be attacked for being a wuss. If terrorism happens after war, he'll be labeled as provocating it. Despite all the peace protests, there hasn't been a clear answer as to what the better alternative is.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 16 2003, 12:15 AM
Well ok yeah...I'm sure it is. But I still think that for many of us, we as Americans feel that burning the flag is a horrible thing only because we have been taught that it is taboo by society, and not because many of us truly see freedom vanquishing before your eyes every time we see the stars and stripes go up in flames......maybe I just hang around the wrong people :confused:
But regardless, it's still a touchy issue. The reason why I bring up flag burning is because people who often do it claim to be patriots who love their country and people but hate the practice of their government.

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:19 AM

But I still think that for many of us, we as Americans feel that burning the flag is a horrible thing only because we have been taught that it is taboo by society, and not because many of us truly see freedom vanquishing before your eyes every time we see the stars and stripes go up in flames

I don't think its about freedom burning up per se. I think its more that its the sense of true hatred. Flags represent the essence of the country, and what better way than to burn it. I would be upset over flag-burning because its knocking our country.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 12:17 AM
I disagree. I think that when almost everybody, ranging from Bin Laden to neighboring nations to the US, feels that Saddam needs to go, I think he's got a pretty bad reputation. The only question is what is the right method of removal? Personally, I think Bush is between a rock and a hard place because if terrorsim happens, it will be his fault regardless. Terrorism hits, and there is no war, then he'll be attacked for being a wuss. If terrorism happens after war, he'll be labeled as provocating it. Despite all the peace protests, there hasn't been a clear answer as to what the better alternative is.
Well it's the combination of what direct threat he presents and at what cost to remove him -- but still, what direct threat does he post to the United States? Osama bin Laden, sure. But when has Hussein ever threatened to invade the United States? He's a despot, no question, but there are plenty of them in history who we've tolerated because they not only didn't represent a direct threat to our security, but to our interests as well.

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:25 AM

So the answer is just to let him be? I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with leaving a regime that will only get worse with the rise of his son, who is notorious for being even more aggressive.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 01:57 AM
So what does burning an American flag mean to you? Is it more against the people or the government?
depends on who's doing the burning. in the US its against the gov't. elsewhere, its either against the gov't or against the idea of america including its ppl.

the US flag has lots of meanings, but most of those meanings are already known to ppl b/c they see it used everyday or burned every other week.

the iraqi flag just means iraq (the nation) to me and i would assume most other ppl who don't see it very often. its a shitty nation. why support a shitty nation? i have no problem w/ ppl saying they are against the deaths of civilians or something but if i were at the protest, i would feel somewhat traitorous waving that flag. in fact, i would rather see a burning US flag than the iraqi flag being waved around. again, i'm not saying these ppl don't have a right to do it, but just that i don't like the ideas that spring to mind when that action takes place. i would rather not associate myself w/ those particular protestors.

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:32 AM

what direct threat does he post to the United States?

This is a pretty interesting question regarding American policy. It's one of the problems of being a top dog. Again, its another damned if you do and damned if you don't problem. Its almost like the concept of wealthy people. If they don't help, they are seen as scrooges and bad for society. If they do help, its either seen as not enough help or just simple patronizing. In fact, I've read articles saying how if the US had decided to help China earlier when Japan attacked, the war would not have lasted as long. Yet, Japan's attacks were not seen as a direct threat to the US. Only until we were attacked did we respond, and it was seen as self-serving since we could have mobilized earlier.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 02:19 AM
I would be upset over flag-burning because its knocking our country.
really? i think its a pretty meaningful way of protest. i don't really get offended at all if its americans burning american flags. if its other countries tho, i just think they are being childish and ignore it.

anne

02-16-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 16 2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 12:11 AM
I would disagree.  Flag burning is always a very contentious freedom of speech issue in this country.

I personally don't see anything wrong with protestors showing up with Iraqi flags because: 1) displaying the flag can certainly be interpreted as a show of support for a country's people, not necessarily its government; 2) I don't have any particular ill-will towards Hussein anyway.  Yes, he's a dictator, yes he's used chemical weapons on his own people and the Kurds, but he's still never presented a direct threat to American national security.
Well ok yeah...I'm sure it is. But I still think that for many of us, we as Americans feel that burning the flag is a horrible thing only because we have been taught that it is taboo by society, and not because many of us truly see freedom vanquishing before your eyes every time we see the stars and stripes go up in flames......maybe I just hang around the wrong people :confused:
Burning the flag is seen as taboo because the people who want us to think within the box (or not think at all) tells us so. In the past, the burning of the American flag for most symbolized protest against Government bureaucracy and policies. I don't think people who burn flags are unpatriotic -- it's a very serious message to the government that we don't like what they are doing to the nation and its people. It is a more extreme form of free speech and will always be debated, but that's the whole point -- to get the message across.

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:39 AM

really? i think its a pretty meaningful way of protest. i don't really get offended at all if its americans burning american flags. if its other countries tho, i just think they are being childish and ignore it.

I'd be upset because it is our flag. I guess I've been indoctrinated to put belief in the flag and what it means. So, its not just the American flag, but any flag in general. I would not like it if people were burning Iraqi flags for that matter.

I don't think people who burn flags are unpatriotic -- it's a very serious message to the government that we don't like what they are doing to the nation and its people.

But what about other countries that burn our flag? In terms of reciprocation, you don't see Americans burning oter countries flags when they were upset with the country.

anne

02-16-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 12:29 AM
depends on who's doing the burning. in the US its against the gov't. elsewhere, its either against the gov't or against the idea of america including its ppl.

the US flag has lots of meanings, but most of those meanings are already known to ppl b/c they see it used everyday or burned every other week.

the iraqi flag just means iraq (the nation) to me and i would assume most other ppl who don't see it very often. its a shitty nation. why support a shitty nation? i have no problem w/ ppl saying they are against the deaths of civilians or something but if i were at the protest, i would feel somewhat traitorous waving that flag. in fact, i would rather see a burning US flag than the iraqi flag being waved around. again, i'm not saying these ppl don't have a right to do it, but just that i don't like the ideas that spring to mind when that action takes place. i would rather not associate myself w/ those particular protestors.
Consider the opposite and ask how the general Iraqi people interpret the symbolism in their flag. Each country has its own set of cultures/belief systems which affects how we interpret our respective national symbols. I am sure there are other debates around the world right now about how it disgusts and annoys them to see people waving American flags at their respective anti-war protests, because many see the US as the unfair and greedy "big brother."

anne

02-16-2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 12:39 AM

I'd be upset because it is our flag. I guess I've been indoctrinated to put belief in the flag and what it means. So, its not just the American flag, but any flag in general. I would not like it if people were burning Iraqi flags for that matter.

But what about other countries that burn our flag? In terms of reciprocation, you don't see Americans burning oter countries flags when they were upset with the country.
Yeah we just bomb their country, send in our troops and steal their oil. We trained and funded their rebels to fight and help us get oil... and look where that got us.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by anne@Feb 16 2003, 02:40 AM
Consider the opposite and ask how the general Iraqi people interpret the symbolism in their flag. Each country has its own set of cultures/belief systems which affects how we interpret our respective national symbols.
i don't really care how the iraqi's interpret their flag. its how the americans and other western nations that are protesting that matter b/c the protests are made for western consumption. if these protests were for iraqi consumption, then it would matter.

I am sure there are other debates around the world right now about how it disgusts and annoys them to see people waving American flags at their respective anti-war protests, because many see the US as the unfair and greedy "big brother."
there's ppl waving US flags at these protests? how odd. i would think they'd rather burn the flag than wave it. why the hell are they waving it? that would indicate to me that they support the US and its policies.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 12:25 AM
So the answer is just to let him be? I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with leaving a regime that will only get worse with the rise of his son, who is notorious for being even more aggressive.
Are you talking about Iraq or the U.S.?:)

kangal

02-16-2003, 12:53 AM

wow, me and vvongba are in agreement for once =)...and i meant Iraq....nice spin :P

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 12:39 AM
In terms of reciprocation, you don't see Americans burning oter countries flags when they were upset with the country.
That's cuz we just burn them :D

anne

02-16-2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 12:51 AM
i don't really care how the iraqi's interpret their flag. its how the americans and other western nations that are protesting that matter b/c the protests are made for western consumption. if these protests were for iraqi consumption, then it would matter.

there's ppl waving US flags at these protests? how odd. i would think they'd rather burn the flag than wave it. why the hell are they waving it? that would indicate to me that they support the US and its policies.
At the rally today, there was a woman making a clear statement that she was a British citizen against the war. There are many American citizens overseas. If I was, say in Australia, I would participate in a rally holding up a sign with the American flag and make visual statement that I am an American citizen opposed to the Bushwacked policies and war. I want other people in the world to be very aware that there are millions of Americans who don't agree with the war.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 02:54 AM
That's cuz we just burn them :D
that actually touches on another point i think is interesting. other countries burn the US flag cuz they think it's important. the US doesn't burn flags cuz they don't give a rats ass about other countries. and when we do, we can pin it down to a dictator or two and then we do stuff to their faces.

we can look past flag identity b/c no other nation represents what the US represents. their flags can't compete in terms of meaning.

and vic, don't be so surprised. even the ACLU sometimes works w/ christian groups when they have common interest. :) and i'm sure our interests converge on more than just one or two issues.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 12:51 AM
that would indicate to me that they support the US and its policies.
I think I can love my country while disagreeing with its government.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by anne@Feb 16 2003, 03:02 AM
If I was, say in Australia, I would participate in a rally holding up a sign with the American flag and make visual statement that I am an American citizen opposed to the Bushwacked policies and war.
excuse me, but this is VERY different than "waving a flag." making a sign w/ a flag and words will mean something totally different than holding a flag and waving it around vigorously.

kangal

02-16-2003, 01:08 AM

i'm going to try to bring this back to an issue i was curious about....what are our other options regarding iraq? like i've said, i still don't like letting him or his sons be....even if we were to leave iraq alone, that would not stop the threat of terrorism...in fact, it might show weakness as the terrorists will realize that the threat of further action is strong enough to stop the american military machine....thus, further terroist acts, in there mind, could lead to greater concessions....i think that by leaving saddam in power, itd be a victory for the terrorists everywhere...

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:02 AM
their flags can't compete in terms of meaning.
So...their flags have the meaning that only we imbue with them?

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:09 AM

By the way, when I said 'we burn them,' I didn't mean we burn flags, I meant the the U.S. literally burns other states:)

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 01:08 AM
i'm going to try to bring this back to an issue i was curious about....what are our other options regarding iraq? like i've said, i still don't like letting him or his sons be....even if we were to leave iraq alone, that would not stop the threat of terrorism...in fact, it might show weakness as the terrorists will realize that the threat of further action is strong enough to stop the american military machine....thus, further terroist acts, in there mind, could lead to greater concessions....i think that by leaving saddam in power, itd be a victory for the terrorists everywhere...
I heard an idea floated around today, one that's been floated in liberal circles a lot, I'm sure:

What if President Bush had intended to invade Iraq right after 9/11, that, in his war on terrorism, the U.S. decided to invade Iraq right after Afghanistan?

Scary thought.

kangal

02-16-2003, 01:13 AM

What if President Bush had intended to invade Iraq right after 9/11, that, in his war on terrorism, the U.S. decided to invade Iraq right after Afghanistan?

More detail please? I'm a bit confused. And thanks. The one thing about the war protests is that there isn't a voice for another solution, so I'm all ears when theres logical alternatives.

anne

02-16-2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:05 AM
excuse me, but this is VERY different than "waving a flag." making a sign w/ a flag and words will mean something totally different than holding a flag and waving it around vigorously.
well, if i go to another country soon, just for you, I will wave that American flag without a clear sign at a peace rally. To me, I interpret anyone at a peace rally to be supporting peace. One exception to that assumption is if they are obviously with a group of people disseminating pro-war materials in protest of the peace rally. if it's not the latter, then I don't care what flag they're carrying, waving or shaking-- they are making their own anti-war statements. You and I can debate or speculate all we want, bet we'll never know because we didn't talk to the Iraqi-flag-waving person.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 03:08 AM
So...their flags have the meaning that only we imbue with them?
in terms of making a point.... yes. and when u say "we" i am assuming u mean the industrialized countries that have weight to throw around. and this only pertains to what we in the 1st world countries see on tv.

i mean, honestly, does the flag of morocco mean anything to u? or even better, france. if someone were burning their flag, i just wouldn't care very much. their flag doesn't mean anything to me except that it is a country. their country doesn't stand for anything special that i can think of. and since our opinions are the ones that matter (we can vote bush out or keep him in) then their flags have only the meaning that we imbue them with in terms of a protest campaign.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 16 2003, 03:08 AM
i'm going to try to bring this back to an issue i was curious about....what are our other options regarding iraq? like i've said, i still don't like letting him or his sons be....even if we were to leave iraq alone, that would not stop the threat of terrorism...in fact, it might show weakness as the terrorists will realize that the threat of further action is strong enough to stop the american military machine....thus, further terroist acts, in there mind, could lead to greater concessions....i think that by leaving saddam in power, itd be a victory for the terrorists everywhere...
i think this should be an either or situation. either we leave the mid east alone, or we go in there full bore. if we go in iraq, we should use that situation to overthrow the iranian regime, pull out of saudi arabia and let their leaders institute political reforms and do whatever else we can to make sure those countries get democratic gov'ts.

once other islamic countries see that democratic society can actually work in the mid east, then osama will be out of recruits.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:17 AM
i mean, honestly, does the flag of morocco mean anything to u? or even better, france. if someone were burning their flag, i just wouldn't care very much. their flag doesn't mean anything to me except that it is a country. their country doesn't stand for anything special that i can think of. and since our opinions are the ones that matter (we can vote bush out or keep him in) then their flags have only the meaning that we imbue them with in terms of a protest campaign.
The flag of Morrocco wouldnt' mean anything to me -- unless someone from there bombed LAX or something.

Will we ever stop Al Qaeda? I don't think so. And it's probably because we still have this notion that we can stomp and root out evil when we want -- or, I would go so far to argue -- because our opinions are the only ones that matter. I dont' want to have to wait for a Vietnam to occur for us to be a bit more humble on the international scale.

kangal

02-16-2003, 01:29 AM

think this should be an either or situation. either we leave the mid east alone, or we go in there full bore. if we go in iraq, we should use that situation to overthrow the iranian regime, pull out of saudi arabia and let their leaders institute political reforms and do whatever else we can to make sure those countries get democratic gov'ts.

once other islamic countries see that democratic society can actually work in the mid east, then osama will be out of recruits.

i think that right now bush is going for the all-out option which as its clear benefits and detractions...but what about the "leave them alone" option? while the benefits are semi-peace, i still see the harms of leaving the mid-east alone as being greatly outweighing the supposed "peace"

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:30 AM

We'll never leave them alone. From the looks of it, we'll be toppling them regime by regime.

Here's slightly off-topic question: are there any differences you see between Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 03:30 AM
We'll never leave them alone. From the looks of it, we'll be toppling them regime by regime.

Here's slightly off-topic question: are there any differences you see between Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
err, osama doesn't kill his own ppl and actually seems to have ideals.

kangal

02-16-2003, 01:40 AM

QUOTE (achtungbaby @ Feb 16 2003, 03:30 AM)
We'll never leave them alone. From the looks of it, we'll be toppling them regime by regime.

Here's slightly off-topic question: are there any differences you see between Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

err, osama doesn't kill his own ppl and actually seems to have ideals.

no, they both seem to have ulterior motives that are not good for anybody but themselves

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:33 AM
err, osama doesn't kill his own ppl and actually seems to have ideals.
But who do you think can be reasoned with?

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 03:46 AM
But who do you think can be reasoned with?
thats easy... saddam. he wants to live. u can always bargain when there is something to trade.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:51 AM
thats easy... saddam. he wants to live. u can always bargain when there is something to trade.
And this is why I don't think Sadaam is a 'direct threat'...(off-topic)...anyway.

kangal

02-16-2003, 01:54 AM

neither is easy to negotiate with....saddam's got a son so at least the tyranny will run....no worries about death...and why would you want to bargain with saddam??

rakovlam

02-16-2003, 09:12 AM

So what if there was an Iraqi flag? Unless you talked to the person waving that flag, you don't know what s/he represents. It was a peace rally and the people there were asserting their rights to free speech. The person with that flag could be waving it to represent the Iraqi citizens who against the war. It could represent the innocent victims in Iraq. It could also represent the innocent victims/casualties from Dubya's dear old dad's unnecessary Gulf War. It's not necessarily a representation for Sadaam. Bottom line- there are many Iraqis who are against the war and waving the Iraqi flag does not necessarily mean pro-Sadaam. I mean, waving the American flag does not necessarily represent pro-Bush or pro-war. If I hold up an American flag at an anti-war rally or any other occasion, I am asserting my civil rights, my right to protest and my right to free speech.

Many articles tell me that most Iraqi-Americans are for war. Like Cuban-Americans who like to see Castro go down, the reason many Iraqis are here is because they wanted to escape Saddam's tyranny. You, by saying that only that only American troops killed Iraqi citizens, ignore that fact that Saddam is the biggest murderer of Muslims in the world. Personally, I think every time a an anti0war protester calls for peace, he's indirectly helping Saddam stay in power (remember my post about Saddam's "salute" to the peace movement?)

Fine, I apologize for calling anti-war protestors idiots. But in another post someone called NY Post readers illiterate (which I am a new reader). And are cheap shots forbidden towards people outside of this forum?

Well it's the combination of what direct threat he presents and at what cost to remove him -- but still, what direct threat does he post to the United States? Osama bin Laden, sure. But when has Hussein ever threatened to invade the United States? He's a despot, no question, but there are plenty of them in history who we've tolerated because they not only didn't represent a direct threat to our security, but to our interests as well.

Well, he has threatened to invade the entire Middle East (invasion of Kuwait). God knows what he can do with a majority of the world's oil supply in his control. It doesn't have to be a direct threat to the US. For instance, we had the Cold War because the Soviet Union threatened all of Europe. Foreign policy is driven towards the interest of the country exclusively.

I want other people in the world to be very aware that there are millions of Americans who don't agree with the war.

That's great, but 69% of Americans support President Bush on military action against Iraq. Those millions you talk about are all flash (pardon the pun) but no substance. The rest of us would rather simply turn on our headlights or vote Republican.

pfc beansprout

02-16-2003, 10:27 AM

That's great, but 69% of Americans support President Bush on military action against Iraq. Those millions you talk about are all flash (pardon the pun) but no substance. The rest of us would rather simply turn on our headlights or vote Republican.

dunno bout thist stat......was it WITH or w/o UN backing? besides, the polls after this weekend should shake things up.........

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 16 2003, 09:12 AM
Fine, I apologize for calling anti-war protestors idiots.  But in another post someone called NY Post readers illiterate (which I am a new reader).  And are cheap shots forbidden towards people outside of this forum?

Elizabeth's quote in the other thread:
Ah, the New York Post. At last a newspaper that caters to the willfully illiterate.

So relax.

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 16 2003, 09:12 AM
Well, he has threatened to invade the entire Middle East (invasion of Kuwait).

He doesn't have the capacity to invade anyone at this point. Lob a few empty warheads? Maybe.

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 16 2003, 09:12 AM
It doesn't have to be a direct threat to the US.  For instance, we had the Cold War because the Soviet Union threatened all of Europe.  Foreign policy is driven towards the interest of the country exclusively.

I happen to be of the opinion that the Cold War was a waste of time. We placed our national interests all around the globe in order to contain communism.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 01:51 PM
I happen to be of the opinion that the Cold War was a waste of time. We placed our national interests all around the globe in order to contain communism.
i'm not sure i understand your entire argument. are u saying that the cold war was wasteful for both sides or just for the US? i would agree if u mean both sides, but i totally think that if the US let the soviets have their way, that the world would look much different today. domino theory? it proved correct.

without reagan and his mad star wars scheme which put us into massive debt, the soviets would probably still be around. i still don't know if star wars was a masterful bluff or he really thought it would work.

achtungbaby

02-16-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 16 2003, 01:01 PM
i'm not sure i understand your entire argument. are u saying that the cold war was wasteful for both sides or just for the US?
It was wasteful for both sides. How many people died so that communism or capitalism would be contained?

What I'm saying is that the scope of our engagements needs to be clearly defined and if there's loss of life involved, the justification needs to be greater.

tapestrybabe

02-16-2003, 02:11 PM

as a participant of the nyc march... i agree with ism's observation about the waving of the iraqi flag... and i think its different actually being a participant of the march than just being a mere spectator and just watching it on the news... cuz in the context of it all... with the waving of the flags... and also with their signs... expressing how they have family and friends in iraq.. it just gives it a whole new sentiment to it all...

also,... while there were definitely ppl there who did indeed identify themselves as iraqis... i dont think there were nearly as visible as the white majority...

and i got a flier at this march... and on feb 20th in ny... there's gonna be a Day of Solidarity event with Muslim, Arab and South Asian Immigrants...
http://www.geocities.com/feb20nyc/
http://bluetriangle.org/home.htm

and on the 21st... they're gonna hold a demonstration outside the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) building... and i'll just write the list of demands their asking for at this time... that they wrote on the flier...

-Stop Special Registration
-Stop the Detention and Deportations
-Stop the repression of immigrant communities...
-Stop racial profiling of arabs, muslims, south asians and all communities of color
-Stop all attacks on civil liberties...
-End all repressive "Anti Terrorism" legislation...

kitty

02-16-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 16 2003, 09:11 AM
I heard an idea floated around today, one that's been floated in liberal circles a lot, I'm sure:

What if President Bush had intended to invade Iraq right after 9/11, that, in his war on terrorism, the U.S. decided to invade Iraq right after Afghanistan?

Scary thought.
I've been thinking that since this whole war with iraq thing happened. If you think back, we finished with afghanistan, and suddenly iraq is brought to the limelight. I still can't remember why... but I do know that we're only now getting "evidence" that iraq is at all related to al qaeda. You must remember that osama and sadam don't exactly get along... It certainly feels like bush is still grasping at straws to try and prove any relation.

And I have yet to hear a good argument from pro-war people... Please keep it coming.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 04:36 PM

I was at the embassy in tokyo and I was rather disgusted at the turnout. All these people wanna say that Japan is against the war in Iraq but there was a turnout od maybe 100 people in front of the embassy. Most of the people there were anti-us japanese people, chanting Yankee go home, waving iraqui flags, and asking the US not to murder innocents like in all its wars in the past, starting with hiroshma.

One dude had a sign that said the USA killed 2 million innocent Koreans in the Korean war. However I pointed out to him that that was actually the TOTAL dead total in the war, civillians and military combattants, and killed by all parties involved, not just the USA. I was there because I think this war is wrong, but the people there wanted to hijack the protest to talk about the US military in Japan and Korea and some of them even tried to interfere with people laying flowers down for the people who died in the space shuttle crash.

There were more people showing up for the "peace walk" (if you want to call it that) but during the walk peole handed out fliers saying that the only way we can stop the war mongering USA is to kill innocent american children, so they know how it feels. Others shouted yankee go home at me, and at the mcdonalds i was standing in front of.

This is bullshit.

kitty

02-16-2003, 04:41 PM

just to be a devil's advocate, one could argue that b/c of us approach to foreign relations and its need to involve itself in everyone else's affairs, it indirectly was to blame for the 2 million who died in the korean war...

but this is all just to be contrary :)

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 12:41 AM
just to be a devil's advocate, one could argue that b/c of us approach to foreign relations and its need to involve itself in everyone else's affairs, it indirectly was to blame for the 2 million who died in the korean war...

but this is all just to be contrary :)
Okay well if you want to pass the blame like that, by saying the USA is responsible for south Koreans killing chinese, or for Chinese killing south Koreans, or for North Koreans killing brits, or for North Koreans killing entire towns when someone refused to make a statement of loyalty to Kim Il Sung, then you are blind.

You could use the same argument to say that actualy the USA was not to blame for the Korean war at all, but rather it was the Japanese, who felt a need to create an East Asian co-prosperity sphere and have Korea be the backbone of it. If Japan had never conquered Korea and left it alone, then there would habve been no need to divide it.

Furthermore, you can also blame Hitler for getting his ass kicked by the soviets on the eastern front, because if the soviets were still fighting with the germans at the time that the USA defeated Japan, then there would have been no need to divide Korea. The USA would have accepted surrender from all JApanese troops in the region, instead of sharing that responsibility with the Soviets.

Now back to what you are saying. You can use the argument also to say that the USA saved south Korea from starvation, tyranny, and misery. Over 2 million Koreans have already starved to death in the last 5 years thanks to mr Kim Jong Il. Countless others have been wrongly imprisoned, tortured, executed, put in labor camps, etc, because of the stalinist government run by Kim Il Sung and his son. How many more Koreans would have died if all of Korea was North Korea?

Fuggit, lets all just be isolationists and let the rest of the world care for itself. People hate you when you help them, and they hate you when you don't help them, so why help them?

kitty

02-16-2003, 05:14 PM

BTR, calm down.... I prefaced everything i said with the fact that i don't REALLY believe it... (to a large extent i know what you're saying to be right). I just personally feel like the world would be a much more peaceful and happy place if the us of a would just leave well enough alone on the foreign front. it's not the world's policeman, at least no one appointed the u.s. to that position. but, really, i was just pointing out the reason why i think someone might have said the u.s. killed 2 million in korea. i have to be honest and say i don't know much about the korean war, i just know that osama isn't entirely off when he says he has beef with american foreign politics, and a lot of people are ignoring it.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 01:14 AM
BTR, calm down.... I prefaced everything i said with the fact that i don't REALLY believe it... (to a large extent i know what you're saying to be right). I just personally feel like the world would be a much more peaceful and happy place if the us of a would just leave well enough alone on the foreign front. it's not the world's policeman, at least no one appointed the u.s. to that position. but, really, i was just pointing out the reason why i think someone might have said the u.s. killed 2 million in korea. i have to be honest and say i don't know much about the korean war, i just know that osama isn't entirely off when he says he has beef with american foreign politics, and a lot of people are ignoring it.
Okay so you are an isolationist.

America can't be isolationist again. It is impossible. American isolation is what allowed Hitler to gain territory in Europe. It also allowed Japan to get a huge chunk of China.

I'd be all for taking care of the domestic problems first before dispatching money and soldiers everywhere else. But I am slightly afraid that chaos would ensue if we just let the rest of the world fend for themselves.

For one, there would no longer be any Taiwan, that would be an immediate effect. War would instanly erupt on many other fronts too.

kangal

02-16-2003, 05:26 PM

And I have yet to hear a good argument from pro-war people... Please keep it coming.

No good arguments? If you want, you could read this thread and see what VVongba and I have posted. Unless you don't think that Saddam or his children are threats, there is total justification for war. Also, I think that by leaving Iraqa alone, it is a victory for the terrorists. If we show that a threat of further attacks is strong enough, then that will only show that terrorism is working and that we are in fear. In fact, I haven't heard a feasilble argument against war.

It was wasteful for both sides. How many people died so that communism or capitalism would be contained?

What I'm saying is that the scope of our engagements needs to be clearly defined and if there's loss of life involved, the justification needs to be greater

I think that countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, East Germany and the rest of the Eastern Bloc appreciate the fall of Communism. Also, without big bad USSR, it has helped change China's policies into more capitalistic and less oppressive terms.

kangal

02-16-2003, 05:27 PM

Fuggit, lets all just be isolationists and let the rest of the world care for itself. People hate you when you help them, and they hate you when you don't help them, so why help them?

Exactly. And that will make things good, right?

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 01:27 AM

Exactly. And that will make things good, right?
Absolutly not! But at least they would have to find something besides uncle sam to blame for their problems.

kitty

02-16-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 01:26 AM

No good arguments? If you want, you could read this thread and see what VVongba and I have posted. Unless you don't think that Saddam or his children are threats, there is total justification for war. Also, I think that by leaving Iraqa alone, it is a victory for the terrorists. If we show that a threat of further attacks is strong enough, then that will only show that terrorism is working and that we are in fear. In fact, I haven't heard a feasilble argument against war.

It was wasteful for both sides. How many people died so that communism or capitalism would be contained?

What I'm saying is that the scope of our engagements needs to be clearly defined and if there's loss of life involved, the justification needs to be greater

I think that countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, East Germany and the rest of the Eastern Bloc appreciate the fall of Communism. Also, without big bad USSR, it has helped change China's policies into more capitalistic and less oppressive terms.
kangal and all-

I didn't mean to imply that you guys are stupid or anything, I just haven't been convinced yet. I was mostly thinking of pro-war people in my classes who just think sadam is stupid and needs to die... I really just want to hear what you have to say. If you took offense, I'm sorry. Stupid typing on my part.

BTR-

As far as being an isolationist, I think you're taking what I have to say to the extreme. I believe in peaceful trade between countries and certainly diplomatic talks between them. But I don't believe in America going wherever the hell they feel like and wreaking havoc. We have no right to do it. And rather than say how much nicer things are because we did (what-if arguments simply don't apply in history, because we have no idea how things would've turned out), i'd like to know why you feel we have the authority to go about dictating how other countries should run their governments.

kangal

02-16-2003, 05:48 PM

No offense taken, but you don't think that sadddam or mainly his son is a great enough threat to need removal at some point? The rest of the world doesn't want war, but that doesn't mean they don't want to see Saddam go. Its just that he won't leave without any force.

kitty

02-16-2003, 05:58 PM

Ideally, Sadam wouldn't be in power, but I don't know if killing a whole lot'o folk is the solution. And, do we know how Sadam's kid is going to be? Behavior isn't genetic.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 01:58 AM
Ideally, Sadam wouldn't be in power, but I don't know if killing a whole lot'o folk is the solution. And, do we know how Sadam's kid is going to be? Behavior isn't genetic.
Yea seriously. It's not like Kim Jong Il is half the man his father was. That is unless torture and killing of innocents is a measure of a man, in which case Kim Jong Il is twice the man his father was.

Perhaps behaviour is not genetic, but growing up in a certain situation will instill behavior in a child.

VV o n g B a

02-16-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 16 2003, 07:58 PM
Ideally, Sadam wouldn't be in power, but I don't know if killing a whole lot'o folk is the solution. And, do we know how Sadam's kid is going to be? Behavior isn't genetic.
hehe. u have no idea. :)

Here's a small taste of Uday. (http://espn.go.com/oly/bloodontherings.html)

kangal

02-16-2003, 07:10 PM

yeah, uday's not a good kid....you know he's trouble when espn gets in the mix ...heres another link showing that uday would only bring more strife to the mid east....here (http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-32/reg/uday_hussein_wants.htm)

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 03:10 AM
yeah, uday's not a good kid....you know he's trouble when espn gets in the mix ...heres another link showing that uday would only bring more strife to the mid east....here (http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-32/reg/uday_hussein_wants.htm)
I'm not sure how giving the Palestinians weapons to fight against Israeli who are killing them for protesting is a horrible thing... sure it would escalate the war, but it's not like the Israeli are all on the moral high ground here. I remember a whole lot of headlines that involved several Palestinians getting killed in unnecessary shows of force by Israeli police.

And as for the other article, it's reported by ESPN, which unless i'm severly mistaken is a U.S. channel/affiliate and the U.S. ain't too Sadam-friendly. And most of the evidence is 'alleged'... which doesn't hold up in a court of law.

I'm certainly not trusting Uday's competence as a good leader, but still, how's killing up a whole bunch'o folk gonna help? And if that's okay, what should people do if we're unhappy with Bush? (Osama wasn't too thrilled about American leadership and he killed a bunch of folk too...)

kangal

02-16-2003, 07:23 PM

hmm...i think comparing bush to uday and osama is a bit out there...while there's questions as to bush's policies, i don't think that he's anywhere close to authorizing civilian jets being flown into civilian centers or beating up the USA soccer team for not winning the world cup....and in regards to a court of law, this was testimony from the people who were beaten...and i think it is saying something when his own countrymen are attempting to remove him from power...

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 03:23 AM
hmm...i think comparing bush to uday and osama is a bit out there...while there's questions as to bush's policies, i don't think that he's anywhere close to authorizing civilian jets being flown into civilian centers or beating up the USA soccer team for not winning the world cup....and in regards to a court of law, this was testimony from the people who were beaten...and i think it is saying something when his own countrymen are attempting to remove him from power...
But after all, you have to give Uday the benefit of the doubt, I mean, he is not white afterall, so that makes him less prone to opress people.

LOL

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:34 PM

I'm not saying that Bush is anywhere on that level, but I'm asking what kind of precedence we're setting if one country can go kill a lot of civilians just because theydon't like the leadership of the other country. Bush is waging a war against Iraq because he wants to depose Sadam. And Osama killed people because he doesn't like Bush (or America in general)... Morally, what's the difference? It's not as if Bush's administration is innocent of killing people.

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 17 2003, 03:33 AM
But after all, you have to give Uday the benefit of the doubt, I mean, he is not white afterall, so that makes him less prone to opress people.

LOL
I never said I thought only whites could oppress.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 17 2003, 03:33 AM
But after all, you have to give Uday the benefit of the doubt, I mean, he is not white afterall, so that makes him less prone to opress people.

LOL
I never said I thought only whites could oppress.
Sarcasm.. sorry. It wasnt directed at you.

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:41 PM

oh, sorry... that was kinda confusing... :P my bad.

rakovlam

02-16-2003, 07:42 PM

As far as being an isolationist, I think you're taking what I have to say to the extreme. I believe in peaceful trade between countries and certainly diplomatic talks between them. But I don't believe in America going wherever the hell they feel like and wreaking havoc. We have no right to do it. And rather than say how much nicer things are because we did (what-if arguments simply don't apply in history, because we have no idea how things would've turned out), i'd like to know why you feel we have the authority to go about dictating how other countries should run their governments.

Well, we've tried that with Iraq for over 12 years and that didn't work quite well. Peaceful disarmament? Never happened. Oil for food? Just another cash cow for Saddam's palaces and weapons. Inspectors? :lol:. If "what if arguments" don't apply, who are we to attempt to predict the future? If the US really does what it wants, Iraq and North Korea would be parking lots for Disneyland and Walmart by last year. The US is actually going trying to get thorugh to the UN for permission, despite the embarrassing record of the UN. Why do we have the right to dictate how other governments work? Because their government is trying to take down ours. The world almost allowed Hitler and his Holocaust to finish the job. It did nothing when there were massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia. It could have surrendered to the Communists 50 years ago if it wasn't for our influence. The US has a responsibility in protecting the oppressed because no other country does it. The US stressed that war is the last resort. What do you know, we've exhausted all other options, we have no other choice. I much as I hate death and destruction, I can't bear the prospect of the consequences of doing nothing at all. I live 50 miles from the WTC. I go to NY occasionally. There were many attacks on Americans before 9/11. Today, I still cannot believe that doing nothing after all those other attacks led to that.

Personally, I think the protests over the weekend lacked a single good argument (or even lack of an argument for those who just enjoys bashing Bush). For oil? If the Bush administration ever had a hand on Iraq's oil, it would the deathblow of the Republican party. I know many would want to see Bush with Iraqi oil on his hands cough* cough* Democrats. If we really wanted oil, we could A) lift the bans on tapping offshore and onshore deposits such as ANSWR B) lift the sanctions on Iraq thus legalizing what France, Russia, and China is doing right now. C) for those who really hate Bush, attack a much more weaker country (Saudi Arabia). Every damn intellegence agency in the world knows Iraq has WoMD. It's Iraq's role to cough them up. No, Saddam is not only bad, he's an evil bastard that killed millions of his own people and million of Iranians and Kuwaitis in wars he started in his conquest of the Middle East. War against Islam? The US is the biggest protecter of Muslim, bigger than the Islamist states that oppress its own people. The US protected Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia from Milosevic. We're protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq. We saved Muslims in Afghanistan from the Taliban. We're about to save Muslims in Iraq and perhaps Iran. It makes me sick that every day passes and Saddam is still in power killing his own people and blaming the US for it. It sickens me that anti-war protestors, good intentioned they may be, are indirectly helping Saddam stay in power.

I'm glad the US, instead of the Soviet Union or any other country, is the shining light of freedom through, not only its image, but its actions around the world.

Peace, but only after we finished our job.

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:46 PM

A lot of countries have little or no love for the U.S., and it's not unfounded. The U.S. hasn't given the world much reason to like it, because after all, we're the one's trying to strong-arm foreign nations into doing what we want. Iraq and N. Korea are simply saying they don't want to be strong-armed. Why haven't we considered getting rid of our (much more sizeable) nuclear arsenal?

rakovlam

02-16-2003, 07:50 PM

Oh boy, this may sum up the message of the protests. Did you know the majority of the protests were orginized by Communists or organizations affiliated with Communists?

"Rarely has a war crime been set out as openly before the eyes of the entire world as the imminent war against Iraq. For several months the US government has been demonstrating its determination to invade this impoverished nation, place it under American military rule and seize its oilfields. Military preparations are proceeding strictly according to schedule. Everything else—Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, for which there is no credible evidence, the resolutions and debates in the United Nations Security Council, the UN inspections—is just propaganda for the purpose of manipulating and deceiving public opinion.

The war against Iraq is threatening all of humanity with a catastrophe. With its ruthless course of action, American imperialism is aggravating tensions between different nationalities and religions. The conquest of Iraq will not satisfy Washington’s appetites. It will further whet them.

The war against Iraq is the opening shot of an eruption of militarism that threatens to end in a world conflagration.

Millions of people will express their concern and opposition on February 15 and 16. Europe is likely to experience the largest anti-war demonstrations in its history. We welcome these protests. They show that the overwhelming majority of the world’s people are opposed to war.

However, these protests will not alter the fact that Washington decided on war long ago. While people are taking to the streets in unprecedented numbers, the countdown to war is inexorably proceeding. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the war cabal in Washington will not be impressed by public opinion in America or around the world.

This imperviousness is not due to any inherent strength of the Bush administration. The US president owes his office not to a democratic majority, but to vote-rigging and a politically motivated court decision. The relentless media propaganda notwithstanding, there is no enthusiasm for war among the American people.

In a column published in the New York Times last week, Thomas Friedman, himself a vehement proponent of war, acknowledged that there is an “incredibly narrow base of support that exists in America today for this audacious project.” He wrote: “I’ve had a chance to travel all across the country since September, and I can say without hesitation there was not a single audience I spoke to where I felt there was a majority in favor of war in Iraq.”

This broad opposition to war has, however, found no organized political expression. The Bush administration can afford to ignore the opinion of the majority because the paralysis of the workers movement ensures that it will encounter no serious political resistance."

more here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/demo-f12.shtml)

kangal

02-16-2003, 07:53 PM

Why haven't we considered getting rid of our (much more sizeable) nuclear arsenal?

Well, we have destroyed several through our pacts with Russia. But, by getting rid of our arsenal, that would not lead to any other countries following suit. You think that N. Korea and Iraq would say "yippee...US has no nukes, we'll stop building ours now, too!" Heck no. I think that'd make them even more willing as we'd be defenseless.

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:54 PM

Are you trying to combat my argument with a McCarthy-esque "Commie" scare? I'm from Canada, I have a socialist bend. Oh no... scary.

kitty

02-16-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 03:53 AM

Well, we have destroyed several through our pacts with Russia. But, by getting rid of our arsenal, that would not lead to any other countries following suit. You think that N. Korea and Iraq would say "yippee...US has no nukes, we'll stop building ours now, too!" Heck no. I think that'd make them even more willing as we'd be defenseless.
Well, many say that they built nukes to try and fight U.S. strong arming so I believe that if we disarmed, as part of a pact with the rest of the world, yes, they would be less inclined to build nukes, but that would never happen for many reasons. Basically I'm saying the U.S. message is hypocritical UNLESS they disarmed.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 03:46 AM
The U.S. hasn't given the world much reason to like it, because after all, we're the one's trying to strong-arm foreign nations into doing what we want.

Are you trying to combat my argument with a McCarthy-esque "Commie" scare? I'm from Canada, I have a socialist bend. Oh no... scary.
So.. if you are canadian... um.. who is we?

I'm confused.

kitty

02-16-2003, 08:22 PM

I'm from Canada by birth, but for the sake of ease I refer to America as "we"... not "you"... I've been living here for the past four years, so I feel familiar (enough) to talk about American politics... but I'm not discounting the fact that the society I grew up in has a vastly different approach to a lot of things, making me sit a little further left than your average American.

BeTheReds

02-16-2003, 08:46 PM

I remember a canadian contingent in the protest this weekend saying things like:

THE USA has over 800 FOREIGN BASES to protect their business interests. What kind of business is that? Meanwhile CANADA has none, yet we do international business just fine. We don't have foreign military bases to strong arm the world like the USA does.

But the argument falls down when you point out that the whole reason why Canada has no foreign bases protecting their business interests is because the USA does it for them. Morons.

Anyway I understand where you're coming from, but I am not always gonna agree with you. Especially when you try to defend dictators, and when you say you think the world is benevolent enough to take care of itself without the USA.

kangal

02-16-2003, 08:47 PM

yeah...ditto here kittygirl...much apologies for being so antagonistic at times....oh..and no canuck bashing here kids...thatd fill a whole other thread, "eh?" =)

kitty

02-17-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 17 2003, 04:46 AM
I remember a canadian contingent in the protest this weekend saying things like:

THE USA has over 800 FOREIGN BASES to protect their business interests. What kind of business is that? Meanwhile CANADA has none, yet we do international business just fine. We don't have foreign military bases to strong arm the world like the USA does.

But the argument falls down when you point out that the whole reason why Canada has no foreign bases protecting their business interests is because the USA does it for them. Morons.

Anyway I understand where you're coming from, but I am not always gonna agree with you. Especially when you try to defend dictators, and when you say you think the world is benevolent enough to take care of itself without the USA.
I guess we're just gonna have a difference of opinions. I'm not defending dictators, but I'm also saying that I don't think the US of A singlehandedly has the right to be the policeman... because policemen, by definition, get leniency with the law and who are we to appoint ourselves as the once exception to the rules when the world doesn't even have a set of rules and morality to follow. I just think, for the most part, Americans forget that the rest of the world has just as much a right to free trade, free gov't, free speech, as any other country. Osama had a problem with America, okay... and he killed a bunch 'o folk because of it, which is completely unacceptable. So we go try to kill him, sure, but have we stopped to ask ourselves WHAT it is that we do that pisses him off? Preventative measures rather than reactive measures is what I'm advocating.

kitty

02-17-2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 04:47 AM
yeah...ditto here kittygirl...much apologies for being so antagonistic at times....oh..and no canuck bashing here kids...thatd fill a whole other thread, "eh?" =)
:D hey... I know the U.S. national anthem now, which is more than I can say for a lot of Americans. :) Thanks, kangal. :P

deez nuts

02-17-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 16 2003, 11:22 PM
I'm from Canada by birth, but for the sake of ease I refer to America as "we"... not "you"... I've been living here for the past four years, so I feel familiar (enough) to talk about American politics... but I'm not discounting the fact that the society I grew up in has a vastly different approach to a lot of things, making me sit a little further left than your average American.
It's ok I luv Canadians.

rakovlam

02-17-2003, 08:51 AM

I guess we're just gonna have a difference of opinions. I'm not defending dictators, but I'm also saying that I don't think the US of A singlehandedly has the right to be the policeman... because policemen, by definition, get leniency with the law and who are we to appoint ourselves as the once exception to the rules when the world doesn't even have a set of rules and morality to follow. I just think, for the most part, Americans forget that the rest of the world has just as much a right to free trade, free gov't, free speech, as any other country. Osama had a problem with America, okay... and he killed a bunch 'o folk because of it, which is completely unacceptable. So we go try to kill him, sure, but have we stopped to ask ourselves WHAT it is that we do that pisses him off? Preventative measures rather than reactive measures is what I'm advocating.

I talked about Cincinatti right? If any policeman there is caught doing anything remotely racist, there goes their career. Oh, we're Americans damn it. We can do many things the rest of the world is incapable of because in the end we're gonna be right (kinda like me). And we do think about why Osama is mad at us. But after thinking about it for about 5 seconds, we go out and make sure he and his brethren is sent to hell. It's the true the world has a right to free speech, free government, and free trade; if only they would actually give it to their people. Technically, the US did "force" Germany and Japan into a democracy. The US had an occupation force and they made them give their people rights and made them renounce war (in Japan's case). What the US is doing is to its own interest. If you want to see police action, the French just helped broker a peace deal down in the Ivory Coast. It called for power sharing with the rebels and it was so unpopular that most in the Ivory Coast denounced the French and called on the US to support them. Now we know how many are grateful of the US unlike soem other nations. What the US does is exercising its sovereignty while it still has it. They are using their priviledge as a free nation rather than listening to some unelected bureaucrats in Brussels or to some dictatorships based in a building in NY.

VV o n g B a

02-17-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 17 2003, 10:28 AM
I guess we're just gonna have a difference of opinions. I'm not defending dictators, but I'm also saying that I don't think the US of A singlehandedly has the right to be the policeman... because policemen, by definition, get leniency with the law and who are we to appoint ourselves as the once exception to the rules when the world doesn't even have a set of rules and morality to follow.
mmm... i've already written on this somewhat in earlier threads, but u just contradicted yourself. if u say that there are no rules and there is no right or wrong, then the US can do whatever the hell it pleases and what makes it happy without regards to the effects on others. why? B/C THERE ARE NO RULES.

so... either way, america has a "right" to interfere. either there are certain rules which govern behavior of countries, and america, being the most powerful country will be able to make most of the rules and push others into observing it... or there aren't any rules. in which case the US, again being the most powerful country, can do most of what it wants regardless of what other countries want or think.

the only thing here that favors your argument and wouldn't be a contradiction would be if there WERE rules and morality but the US decided not to force its own rules upon others. but it would be a conscious decision NOT to use the power that u have available.

I just think, for the most part, Americans forget that the rest of the world has just as much a right to free trade, free gov't, free speech, as any other country.
america wants all countries to have these things. the countries the US happens to be against are the ones that violate these principles the most. do u think any of the countries of the "axis of evil" have free gov't or free speech? or that n.k. has free trade? hardly.

the problem that i see with the US is that it doesn't observe its principles enough. for monetary reasons, it will overlook certain foibles of other countries (saudi arabia) and that makes the US vulnerable to a principled attack.

Preventative measures rather than reactive measures is what I'm advocating.
i don't necessarily disagree with u on this statement, but i'd just like to point out that the bush administration thinks they are taking preventative measures rather than reactive.

kitty

02-17-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 17 2003, 04:52 PM
mmm... i've already written on this somewhat in earlier threads, but u just contradicted yourself. if u say that there are no rules and there is no right or wrong, then the US can do whatever the hell it pleases and what makes it happy without regards to the effects on others. why? B/C THERE ARE NO RULES.

so... either way, america has a "right" to interfere. either there are certain rules which govern behavior of countries, and america, being the most powerful country will be able to make most of the rules and push others into observing it... or there aren't any rules. in which case the US, again being the most powerful country, can do most of what it wants regardless of what other countries want or think.

the only thing here that favors your argument and wouldn't be a contradiction would be if there WERE rules and morality but the US decided not to force its own rules upon others. but it would be a conscious decision NOT to use the power that u have available.

america wants all countries to have these things. the countries the US happens to be against are the ones that violate these principles the most. do u think any of the countries of the "axis of evil" have free gov't or free speech? or that n.k. has free trade? hardly.

the problem that i see with the US is that it doesn't observe its principles enough. for monetary reasons, it will overlook certain foibles of other countries (saudi arabia) and that makes the US vulnerable to a principled attack.

i don't necessarily disagree with u on this statement, but i'd just like to point out that the bush administration thinks they are taking preventative measures rather than reactive.
I guess what I'm saying is that there are no rules of morality, i.e. what america thinks is right isn't necessarily what's right for another country or another culture, so america has no 'right' to go in and enforce rules that are not on paper.... basically america thinks it's reinforcing rules that don't exist, so in that sense, it can but it doesn't have a 'right' to...

and i don't buy the 'america wants what's best for others' argument. that's what i call american propaganda to validate the otherwise brutal killing of a foreign civilian population. Because, let's face it, if we wanted what was best for people, we would probably not be going around killing folks just to get better oil prices. Or if what we really wanted was "American values for the entire world" (re: cultural imperialism from above paragraph), then we would be interfering in the politics of a lot of countries and cultures that we LEAVE alone, because they don't pose us a threat. International relations and international law is all about selfish benefit.... and b/c of that, the U.S. *does* stick it's nose into other people's affairs, but it shouldn't.

Sorry if I was unclear before... I'm not entirely on top of things right now :P

kangal

02-17-2003, 09:41 AM

[/QUOTE] guess what I'm saying is that there are no rules of morality, i.e. what america thinks is right isn't necessarily what's right for another country or another culture, so america has no 'right' to go in and enforce rules that are not on paper.... basically america thinks it's reinforcing rules that don't exist, so in that sense, it can but it doesn't have a 'right' to[QUOTE]

Yes, that I defintely agree to. The whole instance of the Vietnam War was a debacle as the term "Ugly American" was developed. I studied how AMericans in S. Vietnam basically lived in their own little America and had no contact with the natives. In my opinion, that was foreign policy at its worst. We did try to push our morals and beliefs on an unwilling nation. But, I believe that we have done much good, too. I still think that the Korean War was a good effort on our behalf. If you look at the two nations, its obvious that S. Korea is much better off not being Communist. I guess I am just very hopeful that we can go into Iraq and have policy the right way. Although Afgahnistan is still a question mark, we have not imposed our ways onto their culture. I think our objective was to rid Al-Qaeda, and them let them do the rest in terms of rebuilding.

Also, going back to the Cold War issue, it seems to me that everyone wanted to BE like America. When Soviet leaders visited the US, they were amazed by supermarkets and malls. I can't blame a nation for feeling the need to stick there nose in when its been called for help so many times. How is a nation supposed to know when they are to help, and when not? If you say respond that we are to act only when asked to, doesn't that make us a pretty arrogant and isolationist country?

shaka.brah

02-18-2003, 07:11 PM

Instead of protesting President Bush, maybe someone should protest Saddam .... I mean he has been screwing around fot the last 12 years. Saddam signed off on the UN resolutions 12 years ago and has yet to comply ... Why no protests against Saddam ????? If Saddam had complied with the UN mandates he signed 12 years ago, this problem would not exist today ...

pfc beansprout

02-18-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Feb 18 2003, 10:11 PM
Instead of protesting President Bush, maybe someone should protest Saddam .... I mean he has been screwing around fot the last 12 years. Saddam signed off on the UN resolutions 12 years ago and has yet to comply ... Why no protests against Saddam ????? If Saddam had complied with the UN mandates he signed 12 years ago, this problem would not exist today ...
man...u got it all figured out.....

-come on now, like saddam is running a Q & A session...our democracy allows us to voice our oppinion and (hopefully) sway our elected officials...yes he's been dickin around for 12+ years now, but why all of a sudden NOW we bust his chops? yes, 9-11 made us vulnerable to shit, but remember...saddam did NOT do it and where is this "evidence" he is linked to terrorist networks? and that ricin (sp?) scare in europe 2 or so weeks ago? he was supposibly linked too....man, come on colin, quit tryin to tag saddam w/bullshit..what's that word?...yeah, P-R-O-P-O-G-A-N-D-A...........(boy, i hope i spelled that right :D)

shaka.brah

02-18-2003, 07:51 PM

You're right "pfc beansprout" Someone should have busted Saddam's chops when he kicked out the inspectors in '98 ..

kangal

02-18-2003, 08:01 PM

...saddam did NOT do it and where is this "evidence" he is linked to terrorist networks?

the problem with certain anti-war people is that i don't think that even if there is a smoking gun, they will be satisfied into going into war....i think saddam cound walk on tv and say he organized the whole 9-11, and there might still be anti-war protests like there were in afghanistan....

pfc beansprout

02-18-2003, 08:51 PM

the problem with certain anti-war people is that i don't think that even if there is a smoking gun, they will be satisfied into going into war

...the problem with certain pro-war mongers is that they will go invade a country killing thousands without a smoking gun............

shaka.brah

02-18-2003, 10:21 PM

"pfc beansprout" Where are the weapons that Saddam had when he kicked out the inspectors in '98 ??? The weapons were there then, where are they now ???? Underground caves maybe ???? The problem with the anti-war clowns, is that they beleive Saddam is clean ....

pfc beansprout

02-18-2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Feb 19 2003, 01:21 AM
"pfc beansprout" Where are the weapons that Saddam had when he kicked out the inspectors in '98 ???  The weapons were there then, where are they now ????  Underground caves maybe ????  The problem with the anti-war clowns, is that they beleive Saddam is clean ....
~to address the accountability for their weapons: i nor you can answer that. for the time being, only iraq can answer that...BUT, isn't that why we have inspectors? they are looking for this "smoking gun." many european countries are in favor of drastically increasing the number of inspectors. why won't we let them do their job? is saddam such an immediate threat we that we have built up 100k+ troops in that region? trust me, having even a tenth of that would be less costly-in terms of dollars and lives, then invading. you think that joker is stupid enough to strike/associate w/an attack while under a microscope? what do we have to lose? going to war, we are losing heavy in public opinion (world and domestic), money (turkey is trying to pimp us already), even more mid-east instability, and more importantly, the lives of thousands. what's the rush?

regarding if he is "clean"...i doubt that...us anti-war 'clowns' wouldn't necessarily believe he is clean...but personally speaking, not an "immediate threat" as he is made out to be............

kangal

02-18-2003, 10:42 PM

those are good points PFC...but i'm just wondering when time is up? maybe its above our heads, but i just don't feel comfortable letting him cement his position in power along with his son....i think if anything, the US has been plagued with always acting late on foreign policy....

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 19 2003, 01:42 AM
those are good points PFC...but i'm just wondering when time is up? maybe its above our heads, but i just don't feel comfortable letting him cement his position in power along with his son....i think if anything, the US has been plagued with always acting late on foreign policy....
true...but don't u think thousands of lives are worth the wait? :( :cry: :frown: we got saddam by the balls...he ain't goin no where....

VV o n g B a

02-19-2003, 06:41 AM

one potential problem that may crop up after the war is the accountability of these weapons. if we take out the regime that hid the weapons, couldn't a few deranged individuals dig up whatever weapons there are secretly and sell it to terrorists, and no one would ever know?

FlareZz

02-19-2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by pfc beansprout@Feb 18 2003, 10:33 PM
what do we have to lose? going to war, we are losing heavy in public opinion (world and domestic), money (turkey is trying to pimp us already), even more mid-east instability, and more importantly, the lives of thousands. what's the rush?

i would simply like to point out that in wishing to go to war as soon as possible, Bush, in his perspective, can actually be trying to save lives.

If Bush assumes that there WILL be war and that the US will win the war, The assumptions is a very important starting position here, then the quicker the US can get in, the less time Iraq has to prepare his strategies and weapons to kill more US troops. And not just the lives of troops, but also of the ppl of iraq since it does seem like one of the strategies of iraq will be to draw the war into the towns and cities. The more time iraq has to prep, the more bloody it will become for both sides.

If u don't work under those two assumptions, then naturally you are not gonna come to the same conclusions

kitty

02-19-2003, 10:58 AM

And, they interned a bunch of Japanese Americans, betting that they would save the U.S. from a debilitating internal attack by these 'foreigners on home soil'.... please, whatever happened to those american ideals we tout so much? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to civil rights? Does it not matter if it's not white middle-class Americans whose lives are at stake?

FlareZz

02-19-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 19 2003, 10:58 AM
And, they interned a bunch of Japanese Americans, betting that they would save the U.S. from a debilitating internal attack by these 'foreigners on home soil'.... please, whatever happened to those american ideals we tout so much? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to civil rights? Does it not matter if it's not white middle-class Americans whose lives are at stake?
errr....i never said that war is the way to go or that i supported it, i simply said IF we go by the ASSUMPTION that if the US does go to war, speed can save lives of US TROOPS and CIVILIANS of IRAQ. I never mentioned anything about whats right and whats wrong, i think you taken my comment out of context there.

kitty

02-19-2003, 11:48 AM

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought when you said "if" you meant, assuming the war is right... anyways, I've heard this argument a lot and sorta jumped the gun. :( my bad...

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by FlareZz@Feb 19 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by pfc beansprout@Feb 18 2003, 10:33 PM
what do we have to lose?  going to war, we are losing heavy in public opinion (world and domestic), money (turkey is trying to pimp us already), even more mid-east instability, and more importantly, the lives of thousands.  what's the rush?

i would simply like to point out that in wishing to go to war as soon as possible, Bush, in his perspective, can actually be trying to save lives.

If Bush assumes that there WILL be war and that the US will win the war, The assumptions is a very important starting position here, then the quicker the US can get in, the less time Iraq has to prepare his strategies and weapons to kill more US troops. And not just the lives of troops, but also of the ppl of iraq since it does seem like one of the strategies of iraq will be to draw the war into the towns and cities. The more time iraq has to prep, the more bloody it will become for both sides.

If u don't work under those two assumptions, then naturally you are not gonna come to the same conclusions
war's war....mad people are gonna die.............don't get me wrong, i'm really not usually a pacifist (sp?), but i strongly believe this war is BS

shutter

02-19-2003, 12:11 PM

I think it's important to point out the distinction between support for Sadaam Hussein vs support for the Iraqi people. I would find it highly unlikely that folks at an anti-war rally would be supporting Sadaam Hussein.

This whole debate seems similar to the polarized perspectives many media outlets are pushing. Is it me, or is it a bit conspicuous that the pro-peace/anti-war rally stories are often juxtaposed with pro-troop demonstrations. Since when was the pro-peace/anti-war movement against soldiers defending our rights to protest, etc?

rakovlam

02-19-2003, 02:16 PM

rakovlam

02-19-2003, 02:18 PM

...the problem with certain pro-war mongers is that they will go invade a country killing thousands without a smoking gun............

"A gun will only smoke after is was fired" - anyone who knows what guns do

ism

02-19-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 19 2003, 05:16 PM
Yeah, but no one at the rallies really asked Saddam to disarm or stop killing his own people. It's mostly "blame America for this mess" attitude.
Well, since you weren't at the rally and are completely relying on right-wing media to get your news, that perception is quite understandable. It's pretty much a given that the situation in Iraq is not a desirable situation, I think everyone agrees on that, and that needn't be said. If you want to spin anti-war as pro-Saddam, that's your perogative, but it's getting pretty tiring.

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 02:31 PM

Yeah, but no one at the rallies really asked Saddam to disarm or stop killing his own people. It's mostly "blame America for this mess" attitude.see...here's somethin that i've very much questionable about.....out of curiousity, could you please refresh my memory (not tryin to be sarcastic)...i know he gased the curds and whatever...but the curds turned on him during the gulf war. these were no long saddam's 'people.' not to say it was justified, but when the media/admin often says he "kills his own people"....what exactly are they referring to? thx

kangal

02-19-2003, 02:33 PM

see...here's somethin that i've very much questionable about.....out of curiousity, could you please refresh my memory (not tryin to be sarcastic)...i know he gased the curds and whatever...but the curds turned on him during the gulf war. these were no long saddam's 'people.' not to say it was justified, but when the media/admin often says he "kills his own people"....what exactly are they referring to? thx

here (http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_02/alia/a2020814.htm)

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 02:33 PM

"A gun will only smoke after is was fired" - anyone who knows what guns do

honestly though...like i said earlier...this kinda thinking will get thousands killed.....are iraqi lives less valuable than american?

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 02:34 PM

thx kangal...hmmmm..but i'm sure these atrocities (sp?) happen in many places of the world...hmmm...thx for link though..still gotta research it :blush:

rakovlam

02-19-2003, 02:43 PM

Kurds, Shiites, various ethinic minorities (Assyrians, Memonites, etc.) political activists, their families... the point of the no-fly zones is to protect the Kurds and the Shiites from Saddam.

Well, since you weren't at the rally and are completely relying on right-wing media to get your news, that perception is quite understandable. It's pretty much a given that the situation in Iraq is not a desirable situation, I think everyone agrees on that, and that needn't be said. If you want to spin anti-war as pro-Saddam, that's your perogative, but it's getting pretty tiring.

I saw the news (read it, talked about it), there were no signs that said "Saddam disarm and avoid war" or "Saddam, please comply to the UN". And when Saddam himself takes delight in the anti-war protests and believes its helping him win the war against "US aggression" then something is wrong.

pfc beansprout

02-19-2003, 02:43 PM

ok..quick rant that i don't wanna make a new thread...here's usatoday.com headline on iraq...

from title page:

Saddam: No peace 'at any cost'

Saddam: Peace 'at any cost' unacceptable
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Saddam Hussein declared Wednesday that Iraq wants peace — but not at the price of its dignity and independence.

U.N. inspectors search a construction site north of Bagdhad on Wednesday.
By Ahmad Al-Rubaye, AFP

The Iraqi leader told a visiting delegation of Russian lawmakers, including Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, that if the United States carries out its threat to attack, Iraq will, "triumph over it, God willing."

"Iraq doesn't want war," he said. But he added that peace "at any cost" was not acceptable. "We shall not relinquish our independence, our dignity and our right to live and act freely."

Even as Saddam spoke, U.N. weapons inspectors hunted for banned Iraqi missiles, visiting at least three sites involved in making rockets and their components.

The United Nations has not yet said whether it will insist that Iraq modify its Al Samoud 2 missiles, whose range has been found to exceed the 94-mile limit imposed by U.N. resolutions, or will require they be destroyed.

Under a 1991 Security Council resolution, all proscribed weapons systems must be destroyed or "rendered harmless."

During a visit to Baghdad in January, chief arms inspector Hans Blix said the Iraqis suggested that when they fitted guidance and control systems and other devices to the missiles, they would be weighed down and fly within the legal distance.

Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, was asked Tuesday night what Iraq would do if told to destroy the missiles. He refused to answer, saying the question was too hypothetical.

Destruction of the Al Samouds would rob Saddam's army of a potentially valuable military asset at a time when nearly 250,000 American and British troops have massed in the region in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq.

The United States and Britain, which accuse Iraq of concealing weapons of mass destruction, plan to press this week for a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to disarm Iraq, U.S. and British diplomats say.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they expected the negotiations to be wrapped up by the time Blix delivers his next report on Iraq — March 1.

Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the inspectors in Baghdad, said the inspectors there already have identified and tagged 380 rocket engines which Blix said were illegally imported by Iraq for use in the al Samoud missiles.

A U.N. spokesman said Wednesday that inspectors were tagging more missiles.

The Iraqi Information Ministry said the weapons inspectors on Wednesday visited the al-Mamoun missile fuel plant and al-Karama complex, which manufactures missile components and guidance systems.

It said the experts also went to "Al Samoud site" and a military site in the al-Taji area north of Baghdad. Inspectors who visited a military unit in al-Taji earlier this week were seen by journalists examining Al Samoud missiles, but it was not immediately clear whether it was same site visited Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, U.S.-British coalition warplanes patrolling the southern "no-fly" zone early Wednesday targeted an Iraqi mobile air defense radar and a mobile multiple-rocket system, the U.S. military said. The targets were near Basra, approximately 250 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Two no-fly zones were declared after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Iraq's Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north from Saddam's forces.

Iraq was having trouble meeting another U.N. demand: encouraging scientists involved in weapons programs to grant private interviews to inspectors from UNMOVIC, the U.N. Monitoring and Observation Commission led by Blix.

Ueki told reporters Tuesday that only three of 30 scientists invited since the inspectors returned to Iraq in November have been willing to talk to UNMOVIC without a tape recorder — a condition the inspectors insist on because they believe it will make the scientists more candid.

The three scientists who gave interviews were suggested by the Iraqi government — not requested independently by the U.N. team, Ueki said.

A separate team of U.N. nuclear inspectors has conducted more interviews but allowed the scientists to record them. On Monday, those inspectors interviewed Saad Ahmed Mahmoud, deputy director-general of the al-Rasheed Co., which makes rocket motors and infantry rockets.

Addressing a news conference on Tuesday, Mahmoud denounced the interview, calling it unjustified because it "came from a political decision imposed by the United States."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...2-19-iraq_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-19-iraq_x.htm)

----->just outta curiousity, you don't think the media is protraying a War, war, war! situation? man, soo biased....

shaka.brah

02-19-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by ism@Feb 19 2003, 10:30 PM
Well, since you weren't at the rally and are completely relying on right-wing media to get your news, that perception is quite understandable. It's pretty much a given that the situation in Iraq is not a desirable situation, I think everyone agrees on that, and that needn't be said. If you want to spin anti-war as pro-Saddam, that's your perogative, but it's getting pretty tiring.
I haven't heard ONE protester comdemn Saddam for NOT abiding by the cease fire rules he signed off on 12 years ago ... If you're not pro-Saddam, have the peaceniks prove it ..... Prove it by condeming Saddam for NOT agreeing to the terms set forth by the UN .... As far as I am concerned, I'm glad President Bush is putting pressure in the UN to force Saddam to dissarm ....

achtungbaby

02-19-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Feb 19 2003, 06:30 PM
Prove it by condeming Saddam for NOT agreeing to the terms set forth by the UN .... As far as I am concerned, I'm glad President Bush is putting pressure in the UN to force Saddam to dissarm ....
Okay, here goes: Saddam sucks ass. He is a liar. He is deceitful.

And now we have to sacrifice American soldiers by sending them around the globe to fight a war the world doesn't want us to fight because of this?

shaka.brah

02-19-2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 20 2003, 02:37 AM
Okay, here goes: Saddam sucks ass. He is a liar. He is deceitful.

And now we have to sacrifice American soldiers by sending them around the globe to fight a war the world doesn't want us to fight because of this?
Good, now that we have that out of the way, protest the UN for NOT enforcing the countless resolutions Iraq did not abide by .....

achtungbaby

02-19-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Feb 19 2003, 06:53 PM
Good, now that we have that out of the way, protest the UN for NOT enforcing the countless resolutions Iraq did not abide by .....
Okay: the U.N. sucks for tolerating Saddam for years and implementing embargos that only hurt the Iraqi people.

ism

02-19-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Feb 19 2003, 09:53 PM
Good, now that we have that out of the way, protest the UN for NOT enforcing the countless resolutions Iraq did not abide by .....
The UN is made up of member nations, any one of which on the Security Council can effectively prevent a resolution from being enforced. It is almost laughable that Bush is red in the face when the U.S. has the largest debt towards the UN and has blocked other resolutions from being enforced. Don't protest the UN, protest the individual member nations.

ism

02-19-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 19 2003, 05:43 PM
I saw the news (read it, talked about it), there were no signs that said "Saddam disarm and avoid war" or "Saddam, please comply to the UN". And when Saddam himself takes delight in the anti-war protests and believes its helping him win the war against "US aggression" then something is wrong.
Saddam taking delight is Saddam's propaganda. If there was a pro-war rally, Saddam would spin that as "Look at these infidels that wish us harm," which would help him just as much to win the war against "US aggression." By your logic, being pro-war would be just as wrong.

rakovlam

02-19-2003, 08:02 PM

Okay: the U.N. sucks for tolerating Saddam for years and implementing embargos that only hurt the Iraqi people.

Nope, it's Saddam that's hurting the Iraqi people. If you check out the conditions of Iraqis living in the no-fly zone (and out of Saddam's reach), you'll see a great improvement in health and prosperity.

Saddam taking delight is Saddam's propaganda. If there was a pro-war rally, Saddam would spin that as "Look at these infidels that wish us harm," which would help him just as much to win the war against "US aggression." By your logic, being pro-war would be just as wrong.

That makes no sense. I doubt that Saddam is sleeping well when you've got all of America wanting his head. And why would he show footage that makes people think "the Americans are coming to liberate us". I highly doubt that.

Don't protest the UN, protest the individual member nations.

But who made the rules that let Libya be head of Human Rights Commission, Iraq head of Disarmament, and Syria head of the Security Council. Maybe the next time the UN should only let actual democracies into their democratic orginization. Who made the US contribute more money than any other nation but lets them only one vote in an assembly? And who allows the UN to be one heck of an anti-semetic orginization? The UN is a joke and its gonna be irrelevent if it doesn't enforce its own resolutions.

If I was protesting an individual nation, I'd choose Iraq instead of popular targets such as the US, Britain and Israel.