Millions around the world

[RogueMartian]

Well if anyone has read any national newspaper today, they will notice that it is filled with photographs and news of the international anti-war protest. 375,000 protested in New York, 750,000 in London, 650,000 in Rome, and tens of thousands in other cities around the United States and Europe.

I know that the Bush administration is foaming at the mouth to go to war against Iraq....but come on! Does anyone else think that Bush should take..you know.. a HINT!!

I'm not a fan of Hussein by any means, but without a clearly defined purpose and what we will do once Saddam is out of power, what's the point?

[Zach Logan]

What, I dont get it.... :rolleyes:

[Pilmedium]

Those numbers make up a small fraction of the populations. Then again, not everyone against the war would bother to protest. By the way, why is Rome involved? :yawn:

[RogueMartian]

The Pope called up Rome's little meeting. I think Rome and London had the biggest ones. Though I don't know how big the one in France was, but I heard France's was the meanest towards the U.S.

[Jedigreedo]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
[B]Well if anyone has read any national newspaper today, they will notice that it is filled with photographs and news of the international anti-war protest. 375,000 protested in New York, 750,000 in London, 650,000 in Rome, and tens of thousands in other cities around the United States and Europe.B]

How many of those weren't just going to impress a boy/girl? ;)


Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.

I don't know what they're hearing, but if Saddam were to destroy the U.S., if he was able to then he would move on to other countries. (Who's gonna protect ya now, France? ;)) and soon the world will be known as Saddam land. All America wants to do is take out Saddam so he won't hurt people who don't have to be hurt. Yeah there could be innocent casualties and such, but for crying out loud, imagine what would happen if he had some huge plan baking, and Bush backing off helped unleash it? There is no such thing as a clean war, but if Saddam leads us into one, which you KNOW he would do if he got nukes, then it would be even bloodier.

Sorry, had to rant there, the idea of people who claim to be in the interest of the people, are protesting to stop something that would help people. They ask for the impossible, and illogical.

[James]

Originally posted by Jedigreedo
How many of those weren't just going to impress a boy/girl? ;)


Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.

I don't know what they're hearing, but if Saddam were to destroy the U.S., if he was able to then he would move on to other countries. (Who's gonna protect ya now, France? ;)) and soon the world will be known as Saddam land. All America wants to do is take out Saddam so he won't hurt people who don't have to be hurt. Yeah there could be innocent casualties and such, but for crying out loud, imagine what would happen if he had some huge plan baking, and Bush backing off helped unleash it? There is no such thing as a clean war, but if Saddam leads us into one, which you KNOW he would do if he got nukes, then it would be even bloodier.

Sorry, had to rant there, the idea of people who claim to be in the interest of the people, are protesting to stop something that would help people. They ask for the impossible, and illogical.

A rants good for you! Seriously I don't think Saddam poses much threat in any of the fields you suggest. He has a tiny country with very little international power. Terrorism is of course a possibility, but I think it's unneccesary to give the man more credit than he's worth. I think North Korea should be of more concern if you are looking at conflict.

As I've said before, I think there is a humanitarian issue which must be considered. That is the main question I'd pose to bother protesters and those pro war.

[TimTwoFace]

Originally posted by Jedigreedo

Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.


We still don't know that he is going to start a war. That's the big problem, here. You can't go to war to prevent another war from happening - no one knows if it's even going to happen. The only preventative measures that can be taken are heightening security back home, and sending the UN inspectors in to do their job.

Sadly, most of the time you have to wait for an attack to be made in order to go to war. That's why the first Gulf War was justified, why both World Wars were justified, the war in Afghanistan was justified - but this one isn't. Not yet.

As for the flag-burnings in Canada - I never saw them myself, but I know there is a huge amount of animosity towards the US for being so war-crazy. And isn't North Korea a bigger threat anyway? They're the ones that keep saying that they're gonna bomb the west at the moment, not Iraq.

-Tim

[Jedigreedo]

Originally posted by SJJ
Terrorism is of course a possibility, but I think it's unneccesary to give the man more credit than he's worth.

Underestimating people however did give us Pearl Harbor and the WTC Tower attacks, we shouldn't take a third strike at it.


Originally posted by SJJ
As I've said before, I think there is a humanitarian issue which must be considered.

Yeah, just think of the fire hazards those burning flags made during the rallies... ;)

[Salvor]

Read this post, then answer the question below.


Originally posted by Jedigreedo
Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.

I don't know what they're hearing, but if Saddam were to destroy the U.S., if he was able to then he would move on to other countries. (Who's gonna protect ya now, France? ;)) and soon the world will be known as Saddam land. All America wants to do is take out Saddam so he won't hurt people who don't have to be hurt. Yeah there could be innocent casualties and such, but for crying out loud, imagine what would happen if he had some huge plan baking, and Bush backing off helped unleash it? There is no such thing as a clean war, but if Saddam leads us into one, which you KNOW he would do if he got nukes, then it would be even bloodier.

Now count aloud the IF's in that post.
Count them ONLY ONCE; do not go back and count them again.
How many are there?


Ok, sorry, just kidding, but I guess it helps make myself clear. :)

Like SJJ said, there's no proof that Saddam has the means to do what you think he can do. UN inspectors haven't found any truly dangerous weapon, and Saddam is starting to cooperate some more. So war, right now, shouldn't be an option.

And YES Tim, I'm so with you on this one. North Korea is led by a dangerous dictator, who has the nuclear means to "destroy the US", who has threatened to use these weapons on several occasions, and the US doesn't seem to give a damn! Quite a contradiction if you ask me...

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Jedigreedo
How many of those weren't just going to impress a boy/girl? ;)


Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.
Attacking Saddam can also start a bigger war

[DJ Raza]

Seriously, I think they're screwed up. Yeah they have a right to an opinion, but burning flags (happened in Canada) and such is ridiculous. If we don't get the first strike at Saddam, then he will lead us to a war and there will be many more casualties, maybe even another Pearl Harbor/WTC Towers sort of thing, and if he goes nuclear, it'll be even worse.

Exactly.


I don't know what they're hearing, but if Saddam were to destroy the U.S., if he was able to then he would move on to other countries. (Who's gonna protect ya now, France? )

Hopefully, not America. I personally resent any association with France now at any costs, and I can only hope our nation would sit idle.


and soon the world will be known as Saddam land. All America wants to do is take out Saddam so he won't hurt people who don't have to be hurt. Yeah there could be innocent casualties and such, but for crying out loud, imagine what would happen if he had some huge plan baking, and Bush backing off helped unleash it?

I haven't seen an "anti-war" person think about or even acknowledge that yet. They're too busy saying "war kills innocent people" to think about anything else such as logic and the possibilities of what Saddam might be capable of.


Sorry, had to rant there, the idea of people who claim to be in the interest of the people, are protesting to stop something that would help people. They ask for the impossible, and illogical.

That's because most of them are illogical and have an impossible attitude all on their own.


Seriously I don't think Saddam poses much threat in any of the fields you suggest.

But what if he does?

You shouldn't immediately underestimate your enemy, should you?


He has a tiny country with very little international power.

People said the same thing about Japan in WW2, and what did they do?

Don't underestimate a country simply because of its size. He also does have some international power through oil contracts with France, Russia and China (who are all opposing this war quite actively, I wonder why?).


Terrorism is of course a possibility, but I think it's unneccesary to give the man more credit than he's worth. I think North Korea should be of more concern if you are looking at conflict.

NK has admitted that they have weapons and didn't lie about it like Saddam did.

Also, do you honestly think the U.S. won't deal with NK after Iraq?


As for the flag-burnings in Canada - I never saw them myself, but I know there is a huge amount of animosity towards the US for being so war-crazy. And isn't North Korea a bigger threat anyway? They're the ones that keep saying that they're gonna bomb the west at the moment, not Iraq.

When did they say they were going to attack the west?

Any sites with legitmate verification of this?


Now count aloud the IF's in that post.
Count them ONLY ONCE; do not go back and count them again.
How many are there?

Oh, I know!

The answer is: Less "if"'s than France put in their oil contracts with Iraq.

Maybe if France made a few more "if"'s in their contracts with Iraq, then they'd be able to legitimately breach contract rather than opposing the war so much right now (which I also think is pretty much the only reason they are opposing it so much).


And YES Tim, I'm so with you on this one. North Korea is led by a dangerous dictator, who has the nuclear means to "destroy the US", who has threatened to use these weapons on several occasions, and the US doesn't seem to give a damn!

As I said before, do you actually think after the U.S. resolves whatever is going to happen in Iraq, you don't think NK is next?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DJ Raza

Hopefully, not America. I personally resent any association with France now at any costs, and I can only hope our nation would sit idle.
That's real immature of you.



I haven't seen an "anti-war" person think about or even acknowledge that yet. They're too busy saying "war kills innocent people" to think about anything else such as logic and the possibilities of what Saddam might be capable of.



That's because most of them are illogical and have an impossible attitude all on their own.
Do you think we can win a war of ideas with force? The British Empire couldn't, China couldn't , Soviet Union couldn't.

What makes the US so special that it would be any diffent. After Saddam we might have a decent democracy there for about a few years then bam back to square one.

After this war there will be another war then another then another till either US become enlightened and flight back with ideas & pacifism or the US eventully falls.

[DJ Raza]

That's real immature of you.

That or I'm logical... remember... "everyone's opinion is the truth" or something like that...


Do you think we can win a war of ideas with force?

Yes.


The British Empire couldn't, China couldn't , Soviet Union couldn't.

British Empire != United States

China != United States

Soviet Union != United States


What makes the US so special that it would be any diffent.

Oh, I don't know... maybe our track record?

Its not like we have never won a war with force before.




After Saddam we might have a decent democracy there for about a few years then bam back to square one.

At least a world threat will be eliminated. Of course, I doubt anyone will thank the U.S., but like I said... I personally don't care what other countries think of us.


After this war there will be another war then another then another till either US become enlightened and flight back with ideas & pacifism or the US eventully falls.

Unless we're attacked with nuclear weapons, don't be worried about the U.S. falling.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DJ Raza


British Empire != United States

China != United States

Soviet Union != United States

Oh, I don't know... maybe our track record?

Its not like we have never won a war with force before.

You miss the point, never in the history of the world has any nation won a war of ideas with pure force. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas.


At least a world threat will be eliminated. Of course, I doubt anyone will thank the U.S., but like I said... I personally don't care what other countries think of us.
Iraq a would threat? That's like saying Italy was a world threat in WWII


Unless we're attacked with nuclear weapons, don't be worried about the U.S. falling. Gandhi broke the British Empire with pacifism so I think the US empire is not as indestructible as you seem to think.

[Outlander00]

This whole idea of "pre-emptive strike" without the international approval just reaks of bad consequences in a different way. Who is to say, if we do go into Iraq against the UN's wishes, that now China will invade Taiwan and claim "pre-emptive strike" because they feel threatened (if anyone doesnt know the history of the region, its very long winded :p)? Or, perhaps, India launching a nuke at Pakistan (or vice versea) and claiming the same thing. Or any number of countries who have turmoil with each other?

I dont think the administration realizes what Pandora's box they would open if they decide to go in alone, minus the major black eye in the opinion of the international community.

As a founding member of the UN, we must set an example... If you want to go, then wait until the UN sanctions it.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by TimTwoFace
We still don't know that he is going to start a war. That's the big problem, here. You can't go to war to prevent another war from happening - no one knows if it's even going to happen. The only preventative measures that can be taken are heightening security back home, and sending the UN inspectors in to do their job.

Sadly, most of the time you have to wait for an attack to be made in order to go to war. That's why the first Gulf War was justified, why both World Wars were justified, the war in Afghanistan was justified - but this one isn't. Not yet.

As for the flag-burnings in Canada - I never saw them myself, but I know there is a huge amount of animosity towards the US for being so war-crazy. And isn't North Korea a bigger threat anyway? They're the ones that keep saying that they're gonna bomb the west at the moment, not Iraq.

-Tim

Two things - officials from the Canadian military forces are currently meeting with US Military officials and are planning the role that Canada will play in any potential war in the Persian Gulf.

The idea that the war isn't justified can be seriously questioned. By breaking the cease fire agreement hasn't Saddam essentially broken the only agreement that allowed him to remain in power? By failing to stop supporting terrorism hasn't he doubly violated Resolution 687? By failing to list all of his weapons onto his nations official declaration hasn't he once again violated an official UN Resolution, in this case Resolution 1441?

This is only a small list of the many violations that Saddam has already committed. His blatant mistreatment of his own people, his funneling of UN based monies into weapons programs and his support of homocide bombers in Israel makes him a dangerous threat. When this is coupled to possessing the weapons of mass destruction that he has it becomes an even more dangerous situation.

I think a third thing that we must seriously analyze though is the effectiveness of pre-emptive action. In 1967 the nation of Israel was being faced with a huge threat when the nations of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq began mobalizing their troops for an assault on Israel. Prior to this Israel had tried negotiations with these countries in an effort to stop any potential attack but on June 5, 1967 Israel launched an offensive - giving them an upperhand on the conflict and eventually leading to an Israeli victory in which they also formed a peace agreement with Egypt. Had they not acted in their own defense it is very possible that the nation of Israel would have been overrun but by attacking first they were able to keep their aggressors off-guard and establish an upper hand. The situation of today has shown that diplomacy has failed with Saddam and that he is building a catalog of weapons and has failed to account for many of these weapons while providing terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam with others. Waiting has only allowed Saddam to build these weapons arsenals and they could be used against American troops in the region or against our Allies - a possibility that the US doesn't want to eventually be proven as a reality.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Outlander00
This whole idea of "pre-emptive strike" without the international approval just reaks of bad consequences in a different way. Who is to say, if we do go into Iraq against the UN's wishes, that now China will invade Taiwan and claim "pre-emptive strike" because they feel threatened (if anyone doesnt know the history of the region, its very long winded :p)? Or, perhaps, India launching a nuke at Pakistan (or vice versea) and claiming the same thing. Or any number of countries who have turmoil with each other?

I dont think the administration realizes what Pandora's box they would open if they decide to go in alone, minus the major black eye in the opinion of the international community.

Well Pre-emptive defence is already a no-no as that is what the Nazi's pleaded in their defence of WWII. Basicly they said that if they didn't invade those nations their secuirity would have been at risk.

Deja vu huh?

[Salvor]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
The answer is: Less "if"'s than France put in their oil contracts with Iraq.

Maybe if France made a few more "if"'s in their contracts with Iraq, then they'd be able to legitimately breach contract rather than opposing the war so much right now (which I also think is pretty much the only reason they are opposing it so much)
Ok this is the kind of argument that US tv seems to be very proud of... while it doesn't lead us anywhere! Here in France, the US is accused of wanting to attack Iraq in order to be the one who grants these contracts. If you want to level criticism at France on economic grounds, think about the much worse criticism you can level at the US on the same grounds!

[DJ Raza]

You miss the point, never in the history of the world has any nation won a war of ideas with pure force. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas.

The war with Iraq is linked to the war on terrorism, but they are two separate wars.

So if I missed your point, what was it?

Are you talking about the war with Iraq or the war on terrorism?

They are two different wars, and this thread is about protesters against the war with Iraq. Which was what I was talking about when you quoted me and started mentioning the British Empire, China, etc.


Iraq a would threat? That's like saying Italy was a world threat in WWII

There's a difference... a big one. It is already suspected that Iraq has nuclear weapons, and there is no definite answer that anyone can give that how much they have. His country may be small, but its big enough to conceal enough nuclear weapons to irraticate human existence. I'm not saying he has that much, but it is very possible.

Italy did not by any means have a chance at irraticating human existence, so how is Iraq now like Italy in WW2?


Gandhi broke the British Empire with pacifism so I think the US empire is not as indestructible as you seem to think.

Its not indestructible, but it would take quite a lot.

I also extremely doubt pacifism will work with Saddam, just like it wouldn't work with Hitler. I believe only force will work at this point.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DJ Raza

The war with Iraq is linked to the war on terrorism, but they are two separate wars.

So if I missed your point, what was it?

Are you talking about the war with Iraq or the war on terrorism?

They are two different wars, and this thread is about protesters against the war with Iraq. Which was what I was talking about when you quoted me and started mentioning the British Empire, China, etc.Both are wars of ideas. Saddam wants his people to be ignorant masses (kinda like Zombies).

Bin Ladden wants the people of Iraq to be semi-ingorant massess
He wants them to think but not too much that they question his movement

US is not in this idea battle field. They hope Democracy would just appear without enlightning the massess.

see the problem



There's a difference... a big one. It is already suspected that Iraq has nuclear weapons, and there is no definite answer that anyone can give that how much they have. His country may be small, but its big enough to conceal enough nuclear weapons to irraticate human existence. I'm not saying he has that much, but it is very possible.

Italy did not by any means have a chance at irraticating human existence, so how is Iraq now like Italy in WW2?
You have a point but other then that Iraq is still a small player in a bigger war just like Italy was a small player in WWII



I also extremely doubt pacifism will work with Saddam, just like it wouldn't work with Hitler. I believe only force will work at this point. Why? Gandhi thought pacifism would have been better and he had a point. The vast majority of Germany turned and didn't want to see what they were doing even lied to them selves. Yes there was a few sickos but most knew what they were was wrong so they looked the other way. So like Gandhi said all that had to be done is prevent them from looking the other way.

If the Germans couldn't belive they did what they really did until after the war think what would happen if that truth was always there and they couldn't escape it. If the German people's spirt broke Hitlers power would have came crashing down.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
At least a world threat will be eliminated. Of course, I doubt anyone will thank the U.S., but like I said... I personally don't care what other countries think of us.

Ugh... and this attitude is why people are the way they are...

Youre foolish (not logical... foolish) to think this and, because of that, negates any piece of logic you have on the topic.

We live in a world now where that attitude will put us in a rather disavantegous situation which I dont want to see my country put into. Its reckless and not without dire consequence. With an attitude like that we are no better than Saddams regime and/or President Kim's stance on the atomic situation.

You might as well say "screw the world because we are Americans" because thats where youre stance is going at this point...

[DJ Raza]

Ugh... and this attitude is why people are the way they are...

No, first of all you've said this EXACT SAME THING before, and you're still not understanding me.

When I say "I personally don't care what other countries think of us", I'm talking about the countries that dislike or hate us. Also those that try to comment on anything that doesn't pertain to them.


Youre foolish (not logical... foolish) to think this and, because of that, negates any piece of logic you have on the topic.

That's only your hollow opinion in which you suggested nothing to prove that I have no "logic", that I'm being "foolish", or whatever other excuse you want to throw at me.

Until you supply something to support your opinion...

Your comment = Void to me


We live in a world now where that attitude will put us in a rather disavantegous situation which I dont want to see my country put into.

Please don't tell me you're about to leave then.


Its reckless and not without dire consequence. With an attitude like that we are no better than Saddams regime and/or President Kim's stance on the atomic situation.

So I'm equal to Saddam and Kim now?


You might as well say "screw the world because we are Americans" because thats where youre stance is going at this point...

Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. You read my mind totally.

Ever thought of starting a psychic hotline?

Just an idea...

[DJ Raza]

You have a point but other then that Iraq is still a small player in a bigger war just like Italy was a small player in WWII

Well, that's true, but just because Iraq is a small player, doesn't mean its not a player at all. Just because it may be small doesn't make it anyless of a player. And also just because its small, doesn't make it uncapable of massive attacks.


Why? Gandhi thought pacifism would have been better and he had a point. The vast majority of Germany turned and didn't want to see what they were doing even lied to them selves. Yes there was a few sickos but most knew what they were was wrong so they looked the other way. So like Gandhi said all that had to be done is prevent them from looking the other way.

How do you suggest we keep them from turning the other way then?

Like I said, I'm open to "anti-war" ideas. If you have a possibly solution, by all means let me know.

[RogueMartian]

When I say "I personally don't care what other countries think of us", I'm talking about the countries that dislike or hate us. Also those that try to comment on anything that doesn't pertain to them. What country in the world isn't affected by us? If we have a recession, the rest of the world has a recession. The coutries that are against us attacking Iraq are also members of the United Nations. Not to mention, it is a very selfish opinion to say "screw the dissenters". You may disagree with them, but that does not make their opinion less valid.
Please don't tell me you're about to leave then. Ugh, I hate this old fashioned "america, love it or leave it" attitude. Its what idiot Hawks said during Vietnam. The whole point of free speech and elections by the people is that not only are we allowed to question our leaders, but we are absolutely OBLIGATED to. Do you honestly believe that Bush is going to war to free Iraq's people? I guarantee you that he is not. If we attack Iraq and oust saddam we will install a puppet leader that will give us oil while secretly stockpiling weapons and allowing terrorist to set up camp there. Why not? That's exactly what our so-called "friends" in the middle east do. Bush doesn't give a damn about the people of Iraq, he wants to show the world that he is the big boss and he wants to help his oil buddies from his home state.
Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. You read my mind totally. So let me get this straight. Because we're americans we're allowed to go around the planet doing as we damn well please, and we don't have to listen to the opinions or welfare of the other 6 billion residents? WOOHOO!!! Damn, I was always raised to respect my fellow man and that I had to be responsible for my actions. Phew, thanks for clearing that up for me.

As for my idea for anti war. I have a wonderful Idea. Rather than bombing people who already have nothing, lets leave them alone. Lets spend our money creating environmentally clean power sources so that the middle east can be free to develop on its own. Without american money from oil, their terrorists will have no funding and their people will be able to focus on something other than how they are being exploited by us and see that they are really being exploited by their own greedy leaders.

[DJ Raza]

Ugh, I hate this old fashioned "america, right or wrong" attitude. The whole point of free speech and elections by the people is that not only are we allowed to question our leaders, but we are absolutely OBLIGATED to. Do you honestly believe that Bush is going to war to free Iraq's people? I guarantee you that he is not. If we attack Iraq and oust saddam we will install a puppet leader that will give us oil while secretly stockpiling weapons and allowing terrorist to set up camp there. Why not? That's exactly what our so-called "friends" in the middle east do. Bush doesn't give a damn about the people of Iraq, he wants to show the world that he is the big boss and he wants to help his oil buddies from his home state.

I said that because I was referring to all the "anti-war" people that say "Well, the government is totally wrong! I'm moving to another country"...

I was actually suggesting that Outlander did NOT say he was about to leave.


So let me get this straight. Because we're americans we're allowed to go around the planet doing as we damn well please, and we don't have to listen to the opinions or welfare of the other 6 billion residents? WOOHOO!!! Damn, I was always raised to respect my fellow man and that I had to be responsible for my actions. Phew, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Um, I'm sorry you can't pick up on sarcasm, but I wasn't being serious. I thought the italicized "exactly" would have given it away.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Just curious, but don't you guys get tired of saying the same things over and over again to each other every day?

*Shrug*

[RogueMartian]

You're right, we should just stop public debate and discuss something more interesting. So who else can't wait for Fox's next reality TV show?

[DJ Raza]

Just curious, but don't you guys get tired of saying the same things over and over again to each other every day?

Eh, a little. I never was much of a quitter though... although I probably should walk away since basically everyone disagrees with me... then again I'm no quitter and I'll love my country forever regardless of what anyone can say on some forum... debate is heathy though... and entertaining...

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Just curious, but don't you guys get tired of saying the same things over and over again to each other every day?

*Shrug*
lol you read my mind...

[DJ Raza]

As for my idea for anti war. I have a wonderful Idea. Rather than bombing people who already have nothing, lets leave them alone. Lets spend our money creating environmentally clean power sources so that the middle east can be free to develop on its own. Without american money from oil, their terrorists will have no funding and their people will be able to focus on something other than how they are being exploited by us and see that they are really being exploited by their own greedy leaders.

They'll still get money for oil from other countries like France, Germany, Russia, China, etc.

We only get about 5% of our oil from the Middle East. If we just diassociated with them, they wouldn't be losing much money from us.

Your idea doesn't solve the problem though. Saddam would still be in power and if we withdrawl altogether, he could make as many weapons as he could afford.

How does this solve anything or even seem logical?

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
No, first of all you've said this EXACT SAME THING before, and you're still not understanding me.

When I say "I personally don't care what other countries think of us", I'm talking about the countries that dislike or hate us. Also those that try to comment on anything that doesn't pertain to them.



That's only your hollow opinion in which you suggested nothing to prove that I have no "logic", that I'm being "foolish", or whatever other excuse you want to throw at me.

Until you supply something to support your opinion...

Your comment = Void to me



Please don't tell me you're about to leave then.



So I'm equal to Saddam and Kim now?



Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. You read my mind totally.

Ever thought of starting a psychic hotline?

Just an idea...


How can anyone remotely claim they are making a logical (let alone rational) statement, when their isolationist attitude is exactly the stance that lead to World War II. This isn’t the 1930's anymore, when we thought we had the luxury of keeping to our selves… until Japan struck a preemptive blow. Studying history and social sciences a little more closely will help you realize that.

The current problem we face with potential allies against Saddam is one caused by the image and attitude this administration projects to the world. Their ‘cowboy’ attitude leaves us open to major criticism by countries we should rely upon for commerce, mutual assistance, and as political allies in the world forum. We can not "forget" those who disagree with us because we are hell-bent on taking on an individual who, a year ago, did not appear to concern this bunch in the White House. He’s just easier to find and eliminate than bin Laden.

And to answer your qestion, Raza... Yes I am leaving! But because I'm going to live with my girlfriend, who lives in Canada :D

[DJ Raza]

The current problem we face with potential allies against Saddam is one caused by the image and attitude this administration projects to the world. Their ‘cowboy’ attitude leaves us open to major criticism by countries we should rely upon for commerce, mutual assistance, and as political allies in the world forum.

That's what I meant though when I said I don't care what other countries think of us. I just disregard their criticism. I do. I didn't say all of America should, but *I* do.

Here... I'll give you the quote from where I originally said I don't care what they think of us: "Myself, personally, I could care less what everyone thinks about us. As long as there's still trading of imports and exports, I really don't care what other countries say about us."


We can not "forget" those who disagree with us because we are hell-bent on taking on an individual who, a year ago, did not appear to concern this bunch in the White House. He’s just easier to find and eliminate than bin Laden.

Still, I'm not mocking or harassing my government because they're finally getting around to something they should have a long time ago. I think they should have finished this and took Saddam out during Desert Storm. The government thought otherwise at the time, but I don't hold it against them now.

I want to see Saddam out of power because he is a threat to America, his own people, most nations on the planet and bascially human existence in general. I have felt that way for more than the past decade. Nothing has changed.

[JustJack]

....who else thinks this is the funniest thread ever?

Just the back and forth...everyone's argueing the same exact points, but by "different perspectives"...and...the drama of it all. It's just funny.

.........maybe we should go to war. The sooner the human race is wiped out...clearly...the better.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DJ Raza

How do you suggest we keep them from turning the other way then?

Like I said, I'm open to "anti-war" ideas. If you have a possibly solution, by all means let me know.

I guess you mean for Iraq since

a)WWII is going of topic and
b)it is a wee bit too late for a pasifist solution to WWII

Okay Iraq is actully easier then Nazi Germany.
Why becouse face it the average quality of life of the average Iraq citizien is crap.

So first the hard part getting the people to open their eyes and make the connection of their living contitions and Saddam.

Saddam's line is that is due to sanctions. Thus the job would be to get the people of Iraq to connect the sanctions to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and that it was an illegal war plus their lifes were not that great before the war.

Saddam's US bashing can easily be counter with the Saddam being a puppet of the US before the gulf war.

Once the people of Iraq start thinking and questioning its down hill from there.

General Strikes, if Saddam retaliates then all the Iraq people have to do is go and pray instead of protest. It would make it harder for Saddam to get troops to kill them plus I really don't think Saddam is stupid enough to do that since the praying will make people like Bin Ladden and his buddies think its their uprising and well killing them would bring their wrath onto Saddam (got to admit Bin Ladden can do much more crueler things to Saddam then the west can)

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by JustJack
....who else thinks this is the funniest thread ever?

Just the back and forth...everyone's argueing the same exact points, but by "different perspectives"...and...the drama of it all. It's just funny.

.........maybe we should go to war. The sooner the human race is wiped out...clearly...the better.

Actually, I like that idea more... Time for the dogs and cats to take over! :p

[Nightflower]

Wasn't this a thread about the protests? There's already several about why the US should or shouldn't go to war.

Anyway, I saw a ton when I was in NYC with my boyfriend. Also a lot of cops in riot gear. Some of the protestors had cool costumes on. There were also a couple of dogs and little kids dressed in sandwich boards, which was kind of... well, iffy, I think. There were some really outrageous signs like "George Bush is the Anti-Christ" and "There's a village in Texas missing an idiot". They were funny, but they're not likely to make anyone support their cause.

I asked some protestors for directions and they were pretty nice.

Anyway.... none of this "Your comment = void to me" stuff. No snide remarks insinuating someone you disagree with had no point. It's rather disrespectful, and it is possible to debate this stuff without becoming hostile and getting the other side hostile.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Anyway, I saw a ton when I was in NYC with my boyfriend. Also a lot of cops in riot gear. Some of the protestors had cool costumes on. There were also a couple of dogs and little kids dressed in sandwich boards, which was kind of... well, iffy, I think. There were some really outrageous signs like "George Bush is the Anti-Christ" and "There's a village in Texas missing an idiot". They were funny, but they're not likely to make anyone support their cause.

I asked some protestors for directions and they were pretty nice.


I wonder how many were hometown as opposed to out of towners... Probably the ones with the costumes or outrageous signs were out-of-towners (the ones that were nice were probably hometown crowd :D).

[The Guitar Slayer]

Off-topic response: Actually, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen so the US could get involved in WWII to help out Britain. If he just plunged in without that event, the public would have raked him over hot coals for getting them involved in a war they didn't have any interests in.

Anyway, on topic with the protests. Rome is where the Vatican, the Pope's turf, is at. The Catholic Church is a big-time pacifist when it comes to the usage of nuclear weapons, considering the fact that not only would we wipe out the country, but neighboring ones as well with the debris and also make the land undevelopable indefinitely (Chernobyl, anyone?).

If the draft was still instituted, I'd be walking down the line with everybody else. However, since it's completely voluntary, I'm not completely and totally flat-out against military action. But then again, as long as there is war, there will be lives lost...and nobody better start telling me that an Iraqi life is worth less than an American.

On December 10, there was a big civil protest where a lot of people didn't go to school and work. I was debating it constantly. Do I walk off campus? Dare I be charged for truancy? Two days before was Buddha's Enlightenment, John Lennon's death, and Jim Morrison's birth, real big anti-war folk, so I was really agonizing over it. I did go to school the next day, but was very vocal about it.

I'd protest if I was able (being underage, not being able to drive, and having a very pro-war father), but until I get out of the house, it isn't feasible.

And in regard to the "love it or leave it"...I'd leave it when that attitude was taken. I'm for the ideals this country was founded upon, not what it has turned into.

[James]

Originally posted by Jedigreedo
Underestimating people however did give us Pearl Harbor and the WTC Tower attacks, we shouldn't take a third strike at it.


As GS just said, Pearl Habour was an interesting one. While there is evidence the President knew before hand, the gabbled and slow method of communication meant that by the time it was confirmed, it was too late.

The lack of a central intelligence unit within the US at the time was the major factor. All the pieces were there, but because of rivally between military quarters, the parts of the puzzle were never co-ordinated until too late.

Regardless, Japan made no secret of it's intent, and the US was aware. Japan had even sent a declaration that was to arrive prior to the attack. It was the US intelligence which is generally considered ultimately to blame for the surprise. Depends who you read as to what you garner from the evidence. A fascinating off topic!

As for the WTC, again there was clear evidence that was ignored prior to the attack. I don't think there either compare to Iraq. The capabilties of Japan to not compare to Iraq, and an act of terrorism are not stopped by attacking the country.

I'm not issuing this as evidence for either the pros or cons for going into Iraq - clearly everyone has a POV which looks doubtful to change - but just that I think it's important to keep the country in perspective when evaluating your opinion. That is how blunders are made and the wrong countries get too much attention and inadvertantly let other dangers passed unnoticed. You talk about being surprised if we don't keep a close eye on Iraq. You may find it's the wrong country an another poses a greater threat... *shrug* That's happened before!



Yeah, just think of the fire hazards those burning flags made during the rallies... ;)

Very drool! :D

[Lucky Bob]

I think the protests were a large part anti-american. While I have no problem with a dissenting opinion against war, I do have a problem with swastikas on American flags and effigies of Pres. Bush being portrayed as various types of a moron, Nazi, or other such nonsense. But what made it even worse was when they kept saying that the protests were NOT pro-Saddam, anti-Bush, or anti-American. Maybe quite a few didn't have those feelings, but the majority of those I saw on the news seemingly did.

Besides, if they are so anti-war, why didn't they provide solutions to the problem? Why not go with the most obvious one? Why didn't someone stand up and plea for Saddam to step down? Why didn't I see one person encouraging Hussein to hand over the weapons? That would end the war right there.

Also, for the protests to not be pro-Saddam, I find it funny that Saddam thanked the protestors right afterwards.

In short, I think that the majority of the protestors were acting out of anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism rather than on the anti-war platform. But, that's my opinion based on what I've seen.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by The Guitar Slayer
Off-topic response: Actually, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen so the US could get involved in WWII to help out Britain. If he just plunged in without that event, the public would have raked him over hot coals for getting them involved in a war they didn't have any interests in.



I've heard that debated back and forth a lot, and the argument's very convoluted about whether he did or not. I think it's a case where nobody knows for sure and people need to get all of the info surrounding it and decide for themselves. (Sorry, but I had to point that out. Back on topic.)

[ccffan01]

No one wants war except the United states, pathetic. I can't believe they are pursuing this.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by ccffan01
No one wants war except the United states, pathetic. I can't believe they are pursuing this.

You failed to mention the forty other nations that have already announced that they too will stand with the US in any Iraqi conflict and have agreed with the US that the UN needs to either impose their resolutions or be found irrelevant by their own inaction.

-Joe!

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
You failed to mention the forty other nations that have already announced that they too will stand with the US in any Iraqi conflict and have agreed with the US that the UN needs to either impose their resolutions or be found irrelevant by their own inaction.

-Joe!


You fail to see that the people aren't the ones that are making the decisions. While the countries say that they are backing the United States the people definitely are not.

[TimTwoFace]

Originally posted by ccffan01
You fail to see that the people aren't the ones that are making the decisions. While the countries say that they are backing the United States the people definitely are not.

True, but if enough citizens of those said countries rise up against their own government, then the government may back down, in the interests of their own people.

-Tim

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by ccffan01
You fail to see that the people aren't the ones that are making the decisions. While the countries say that they are backing the United States the people definitely are not.

In many cases you would be mistaken on this aspect as well. While some of the countries remain split on their views about the war many of these nations also have the strong support of their citizens on supporting this war.

-Joe!