got links for that one? i have a hard time believinng it's anything more than idealistic students with more time than real life experience on their hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll see what I can dig up. The "not in my name" is the best example.
[quote]International Answer, of course, is a front for the Workers World Party, which, as Kelly notes, split from the Socialist Workers Party over the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary--which the WWP supported. "The left," Kelly notes, "has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants."<hr></blockquote>
I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.
So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.
I forgot the other piece of the puzzle. International A.N.S.W.E.R. is the group that organized the "peace" marches several weeks ago across the country.
Oh and of course the LIBERAL media never tell you any of this. Had there been a pro war rally sponsored by .. say Israel ... you know it would have been disclosed.
I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.
So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.</strong><hr></blockquote>Who cares about these freaks . . . I don't. they have nothing to do with what I thinnk and with what the majority of people I know think.
THey are teh typical bunch of losers that pop out of the wood work whenever there are demonstrations .. . they try to hijack the proceedings and damage cop cars . . . losers
but the message that they are trying to hijack is not therefor wrong
This whole thing with Iraq has been a great education for me in what Henry Kissinger calls statecraft. We were attacked by Al Qaeda. When was the last time Bush talked about bin Laden? I heard on the radio last night that the last time was last July. Iraq has done nothing to the US. There is no credible evidence that they intend to do anything to us. In fact, the intelligence reports that have come out have said that Saddam has stuiously avoided any connections with terrorists. Yet, the administration has steadfastly beat the drums of war against Iraq.
Durng the Senate debate some Republican senators made outrageous statements. The lady senator from Texas said we had to destroy Iraq before they destroyed us! On a good day, if everything went perfectly Iraq might be able to set off a small bomb in the US. However, there is no way in the world they could come close to destroying us. Another senator from NY claimed that Iraq would fly crop duster like plains to the Atlantic seaboard and gas Americans. Talk about flights of fantasy. But that kind of baseless rhetoric does seep in. I heard of a recent poll in which roughly half of Americans thought that Saddam was involved with the attack on the twin towers. In fact, Saddam is at odds with Al Qaeda, he being secular and Al Qaeda being religious fanatics. In addition, Iraq has been tightly monitored for the last 11 years, their air force has been decimated, and our military has been keeping them under close observation.
The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat? Why the focus on Iraq when objectively they don't seem to pose a grave and imminent threat?
I think that Bush and his cohorts are trying to establish the Amerian Empire. They will conquer Iraq and use it as a forward base to conquer or control the rest of the Middle East. If they take over Iraq then Syria, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be easy pickings. Cheney et al wrote a paper for an Israeli think tank a few years back that outlined just this plan. So far they seem to following the outline.
The final question is what happens to the US? Will we have another presidential election? What if we get close to the next election and there are new "terrorist" attacks allowing Bush to declare some kind of emergency and suspend the elections? Is this so far fetched? Recall than in the Reagan administration Ollie North testified that they were drawing up plans for suspending the constitution in case there were some kind of large scale emergency.
[quote]In fact, Saddam is at odds with Al Qaeda, he being secular and Al Qaeda being religious fanatics.<hr></blockquote>
True, Saddam's party is secular, but the story is more involved than that. Ever since Intifada II, Saddam has been steadily lending more and more support to religious and anti-Israel fanatics. He's been in a bidding war with the Saudi Wahhabis over who can give the most money to Palestinian suicide bombers. He's been nurturing the Islamic fanatics in Northern Iraq (even the NYT has reported on the battles between Kurds and Saddam-backed Islamists). Saddam will do whatever he can to raise his profile and gain support among outsiders - and now, that mean supporting the Islamic fanatics that twenty years ago he was massacring. Bad timing for him.
[quote]The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat?<hr></blockquote>
Doesn't the anti-war posse like to go off about addressing the "root causes" of terrorism? That killing a few al-Qaeda won't solve the problem? You know what? They're absolutely right. Attacking Iraq is all about confronting the root causes of terror: hopelessness and oppression leading ordinary folks to become nihilistic religious fanatics, supported by the oil revenue of governments afraid to confront them. Those governments must go, and be replaced by liberal(er) systems that allow people the freedom to live normal lives. That poor sop at RAND who got fired for his Pentagon briefing got it just right: Iraq, then Saudi, then Egypt. Let Palestinians escape their refugee camps and receive money for building rather than destroying, and maybe that conflict will die out. Invading Iraq is a far-sighted strategic act, not a tactical act to destroy weapons. Of course, we can't admit the real target of all those Marines in the Gulf is Saudi Arabia, so Iraq's WMD make a nice pretext.
<strong>Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Us anti-war people disagree. Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.
This argument is of course, another feeble strawman argument. "You don't really believe what you're saying, you believe [completely implausible stance]. And since you believe this [completely implausible stance] we're not going to take you seriously. We're just going to go ahead and do whatever we want because your [completely implausible stance] is a joke."
[quote] Attacking Iraq is all about confronting the root causes of terror: <hr></blockquote>your answer to this shows me just how little you understand even the basic notion of the problem.....
[quote]your answer to this shows me just how little you understand even the basic notion of the problem.....must go<hr></blockquote>
I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror. Or that giving people prosperity, hope, and freedom is the right presciption. Insults aside, shall we start a new "root causes of terror" thread, or are you just going to be a tease?
<strong>Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not a war of aggression, but holding to that assertion constitutes a strawman argument all on its own. At the heart of the matter is a breached peace treaty. Thus any war that precipitates is simply a resuming of hostilities, not the initiation of a fresh new war.
My earlier point stands that even if the most damning evidence is presented, there will be the anti-war crowd that will simply adapt a different reason to not war. Granted, not everybody has the same reasons, and some are more rational than others. However, you simply cannot deny that there are those out there who argue and debate strictly to support an agenda, not to respond to the facts in hand.
<strong>resuming of hostilities </strong><hr></blockquote>
Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.
There isn't any.
We're instigating a new battle if we go to war without the U.N. I'm sorry, it's just true. Do that, and we'll deserve whatever repercussions we receive. Any act after that point will be retaliation.
<strong>Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The UN is a useless and irrelevant organization. The US should never let its hands be tied by the despots and dictators that are in charge there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.
Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I think this post pretty much sums up the arguments for going to war.
"We can and no one can stop us. It doesn't matter [i]why[/], just that we can. Might is right! Might is right!"
Welcome back to the Middle-Ages everyone. Glad to see how enlightened some of us are after that pesky old Renaissance.
Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice spin. Blair seems to be hand in hand with Bush. You saw the press conference right? "Weeks not months".
What do you mean "without the support of the world"? The US has many countries that support it on Iraq. Or are you saying that the UN is the only organization that can speak for the world?
Comments
<strong>
got links for that one? i have a hard time believinng it's anything more than idealistic students with more time than real life experience on their hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll see what I can dig up. The "not in my name" is the best example.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002948"; target="_blank">Here</a>
[quote]International Answer, of course, is a front for the Workers World Party, which, as Kelly notes, split from the Socialist Workers Party over the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary--which the WWP supported. "The left," Kelly notes, "has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants."<hr></blockquote>
I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.
So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.
Oh and of course the LIBERAL media never tell you any of this. Had there been a pro war rally sponsored by .. say Israel ... you know it would have been disclosed.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>Here we go. It's International A.N.S.W.E.R. A front group for the Workes World Party.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002948"; target="_blank">Here</a>
I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.
So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.</strong><hr></blockquote>Who cares about these freaks . . . I don't. they have nothing to do with what I thinnk and with what the majority of people I know think.
THey are teh typical bunch of losers that pop out of the wood work whenever there are demonstrations .. . they try to hijack the proceedings and damage cop cars . . . losers
but the message that they are trying to hijack is not therefor wrong
Durng the Senate debate some Republican senators made outrageous statements. The lady senator from Texas said we had to destroy Iraq before they destroyed us! On a good day, if everything went perfectly Iraq might be able to set off a small bomb in the US. However, there is no way in the world they could come close to destroying us. Another senator from NY claimed that Iraq would fly crop duster like plains to the Atlantic seaboard and gas Americans. Talk about flights of fantasy. But that kind of baseless rhetoric does seep in. I heard of a recent poll in which roughly half of Americans thought that Saddam was involved with the attack on the twin towers. In fact, Saddam is at odds with Al Qaeda, he being secular and Al Qaeda being religious fanatics. In addition, Iraq has been tightly monitored for the last 11 years, their air force has been decimated, and our military has been keeping them under close observation.
The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat? Why the focus on Iraq when objectively they don't seem to pose a grave and imminent threat?
I think that Bush and his cohorts are trying to establish the Amerian Empire. They will conquer Iraq and use it as a forward base to conquer or control the rest of the Middle East. If they take over Iraq then Syria, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be easy pickings. Cheney et al wrote a paper for an Israeli think tank a few years back that outlined just this plan. So far they seem to following the outline.
The final question is what happens to the US? Will we have another presidential election? What if we get close to the next election and there are new "terrorist" attacks allowing Bush to declare some kind of emergency and suspend the elections? Is this so far fetched? Recall than in the Reagan administration Ollie North testified that they were drawing up plans for suspending the constitution in case there were some kind of large scale emergency.
True, Saddam's party is secular, but the story is more involved than that. Ever since Intifada II, Saddam has been steadily lending more and more support to religious and anti-Israel fanatics. He's been in a bidding war with the Saudi Wahhabis over who can give the most money to Palestinian suicide bombers. He's been nurturing the Islamic fanatics in Northern Iraq (even the NYT has reported on the battles between Kurds and Saddam-backed Islamists). Saddam will do whatever he can to raise his profile and gain support among outsiders - and now, that mean supporting the Islamic fanatics that twenty years ago he was massacring. Bad timing for him.
[quote]The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat?<hr></blockquote>
Doesn't the anti-war posse like to go off about addressing the "root causes" of terrorism? That killing a few al-Qaeda won't solve the problem? You know what? They're absolutely right. Attacking Iraq is all about confronting the root causes of terror: hopelessness and oppression leading ordinary folks to become nihilistic religious fanatics, supported by the oil revenue of governments afraid to confront them. Those governments must go, and be replaced by liberal(er) systems that allow people the freedom to live normal lives. That poor sop at RAND who got fired for his Pentagon briefing got it just right: Iraq, then Saudi, then Egypt. Let Palestinians escape their refugee camps and receive money for building rather than destroying, and maybe that conflict will die out. Invading Iraq is a far-sighted strategic act, not a tactical act to destroy weapons. Of course, we can't admit the real target of all those Marines in the Gulf is Saudi Arabia, so Iraq's WMD make a nice pretext.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
<strong>Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Us anti-war people disagree. Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.
This argument is of course, another feeble strawman argument. "You don't really believe what you're saying, you believe [completely implausible stance]. And since you believe this [completely implausible stance] we're not going to take you seriously. We're just going to go ahead and do whatever we want because your [completely implausible stance] is a joke."
Your strawman argument is a joke.
must go
I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror. Or that giving people prosperity, hope, and freedom is the right presciption. Insults aside, shall we start a new "root causes of terror" thread, or are you just going to be a tease?
<strong>Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not a war of aggression, but holding to that assertion constitutes a strawman argument all on its own. At the heart of the matter is a breached peace treaty. Thus any war that precipitates is simply a resuming of hostilities, not the initiation of a fresh new war.
My earlier point stands that even if the most damning evidence is presented, there will be the anti-war crowd that will simply adapt a different reason to not war. Granted, not everybody has the same reasons, and some are more rational than others. However, you simply cannot deny that there are those out there who argue and debate strictly to support an agenda, not to respond to the facts in hand.
<strong>resuming of hostilities </strong><hr></blockquote>
Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.
There isn't any.
We're instigating a new battle if we go to war without the U.N. I'm sorry, it's just true. Do that, and we'll deserve whatever repercussions we receive. Any act after that point will be retaliation.
<strong>Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On this point, we are in total agreement.
<strong>The UN is a useless and irrelevant organization. The US should never let its hands be tied by the despots and dictators that are in charge there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.
<strong>
Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I think this post pretty much sums up the arguments for going to war.
"We can and no one can stop us. It doesn't matter [i]why[/], just that we can. Might is right! Might is right!"
Welcome back to the Middle-Ages everyone. Glad to see how enlightened some of us are after that pesky old Renaissance.
<strong>
Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice spin. Blair seems to be hand in hand with Bush. You saw the press conference right? "Weeks not months".
What do you mean "without the support of the world"? The US has many countries that support it on Iraq. Or are you saying that the UN is the only organization that can speak for the world?