Indeed. Well so be it then. If you are a pacifist more power to you. If you are a pacifist who pays attention to other countries which arent the lead story on the six o'clock news then all the better. If you're a pacifist that feels that Milosevic and Putin and Saddam and Akayesu and Pol Pot and others past or present are just as worthy of protest as Bush or Blair then you have my respect. But then, I would still say that you fall into the 10% that is earnest rather than the far more massive selectively moral and political protesters who ventured out today. JMNSHOAA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with you completely, insofar as you are trying to point out an the hypocrisy of the modern anti-war folks. Yes. We should oppose all wars. We should oppose all violence. We should not, ever, EVER, send 18 year old kids to the desert to die unless all other options have been exhausted. Ever. And I find it difficult to imagine such a situation without imagining I'm Poland in 1939.
There is always a better way.
And I didn't miss your point. I realize(d) that you were pointing out that the millions of protesters out there today and yesterday seem to have conveniently ignored conflicts elsewhere. I'm with you.
This is one of the reasons I'd grown so angry with the protesters. One cannot pick and choose.
Just to clear this up: You were making an argument about pacificism; I was making an argument about US policy and politics.
War is an abomination. Sometimes you are thrust into the middle of it like for example WWII. But this is one of those new wars that's clearly about something else. That's what makes this potential conflict so bad. The real reasons don't merit the actions. That is if those actions are ever worthy of merit.
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians? How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war? The situation in the Ivory Coast and the involvement of the French? Protests of the actions of those in the Congo? Rwanda of the recent past? The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars? I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.
Most of those people protested against the position of their governements.
it's obvious that there where more protestants in european countries where governement support bush position than the countrie who are against. (roma : 3 millions, madrid 2 millions, london 1 million compared to 200 000 in Paris, and 500 000 in Berlin)
I never heard that the governements supported the rwanda war, the Chechenia war, the congo war .These protest is scheduled against the position of their own governements. Many poeple knows that it's worthless to protest against tyrannic dictatures. Protests have only a weight in democratia.
Concerning the french and ivory coast, i open a thread for you where you will have the opportunity to expose your views.
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me. I put posters up in my college after Saddam gassed the Kurds.
It was 1987, if I remember right. But that was OK, because it was Iran (boo hiss) versus Iraq (vicious dictator but not a mullah) so that was OK. Where was the vociferous anti-dictator rhetoric then?
[quote] <strong> I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Nonsense. For these reasons -
1) Most people were IN FAVOUR of the interventions you mention: they understood the politics and wanted to see dictators ousted and genocide halted. Many people wondered why everyone got so exercised about Kuwait when Bosnia seemed so much worse. Where the intervention in Rwanda was, I don't know. I'd have supported it; many others too.
Many said then that it seemed to be a shame there was no oil in Bosnia. I know I did. How else to explain the shamefully slow intervention then, I don't know.
2) Unlike those wars, this war on Iraq is going to happen despite the will of the majority of voters (outside the US, that is, where I read today that 57% are in favour of war whether or not there's a second UN resolution compared to 9% in the UK) and people protest because they really don't want it. It is a protest inspired by a feeling of helplessness.
3) The consequences of this war will be FAR more serious, for the Middle East and for the West. There will be a US base in Iraq for ever. This is obvious, and it is dangerous. I believe also that Iraqi democrats will be sidelined. The US will get the man they want. (Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but if Iraqi oilfields are privatised in the next two years, I will spend my life in a quest to slap Bush's face.)
4) We feel like we've been lied to about Iraqi weapons and links with terrorist organisations. What Blix said about Powell's 'intelligence' was diplomatic but damning.
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS. (Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?)
Finally, the most senior posts in the Bush administration are filled with former oilmen and women, one of whom armed Saddam in the first place. This is, apparently, 'sound bite politics', so I won't labour the point, but it all adds up to a feeling that this war is unjustified and it's not really 'about' what Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush would have us believe.
Britain's a minor-league power. Without the US we're finished, hence Bush's index finger up our Prime Minister's bottom. Everyone knows it. The UK march was actually patriotic. People want their country back, even if it means we're finished on the world stage.
<strong>2) Unlike those wars, this war on Iraq is going to happen despite the will of the majority of voters (outside the US, that is, where I read today that 57% are in favour of war whether or not there's a second UN resolution compared to 9% in the UK) and people protest because they really don't want it. It is a protest inspired by a feeling of helplessness.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd like to know where you heard that. According to <a href="http://gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp"; target="_blank">this Gallup poll</a> just taken, 39% think we should attack Iraq without a new UN resolution and 34% only if there is a new resolution. It doesn't even give an option for what should happen if a resolution is proposed and fails - presumably it would be much lower.
I have a question for Hassan and the others against the war - under what conditions, if any, would you support military action? What if, as I think will happen in the next couple of weeks, the Security Council passes a war resolution? There's clearly a majority to pass it, and I doubt France will have les boules to veto. I'm sure Russia won't, and China never even shows up for these types of votes.
<strong>Anyone go to one? Is there one in your town? I didn't go to the main one, but there was a smaller one on B'way in NYC so I joined in for awhile. There was also a really cool bike protest going down B'way. Pretty cool and from my point of view very encougaging.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would not think twice about attending or supporting people in voicing concern over us protecting our citizenry.
Someone may have given a speech about it. And I dont doubt that there are some who care. But I think we all also know that if you tried to stage a protest next weekend on the war in Chechnya that you would not get more than 10% of the turnout for the Iraq (principally) protest. You know as much if you are honest with yourself. I can deal with that 10%, the other 90% are full of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They did give loads of speeches about how evil is Israel though. you see- Israel is bad and Sadam is fine.... the world has totally flipped! as if the two can even be remotely comparable...
How true is what you say Colander.... I too can deal with that 10% and hell, I'll even be happy to give them the respect I have for true peace loving total pacifists. but this weekend's marching - its such a mockery and a sham! millions of people marching around the globe to save Sadam's arse I mean WTF??
While I have no will for war and do believe its a very risky proposition I can't stand those sanctimonious voices we hear and the lies they peddle (blood for oil - bush is hitler, etc...etc...) Have any of you anti bush/ anti war anti anti anti people even considered the simple fact that only now, due to the fact that Bush and Blair have been so aggressive towards Sadam he is finally beginning to somehow cooperate? for the first time in 11 years the pressure on him is working - why is that? Only coz these two leaders are willing to go all the way with this guy that only understands force - it's called gun-ship diplomacy and it seems to be doing the trick so whats your problem exactly? are we at war? NO!
I suggest we all wait and see how the next few weeks unravel before we haste to make stupid and shallow judgment on these two leaders who I do believe are only trying to do what they believe is best for the world.
"They (anti-war protests) would probably like to see Saddam deposed as much as anyone, but believe war isn't the best way to achieve it."
Groverat:
"What, then, do they believe is the best way?"<hr></blockquote>
Herin lies the crux of our problem. We need some alternatives, and I for one can't think of any effective ones. I've also yet to see an answer by anyone else.
France proposed:
UN troops accompanying the inspectors. Ok, that's a good start,
More inspectors. Possibly good, I'm not sure if it makes a difference,
More sanctions. Definitely bad because sanctions have been used by Hussein as a political tool and it ust makes us look like the bad guy when more civilians starve,
A law or decree by Hussein aginst the use of bio-chem weapons and such. Worthless drivel. He's already done this and it means nothing, which of course is why he's volunteered this already.
Now, wasn't htere a Saudi proposal at one point or something? What are our alternatives to deposing Hussein by force if inspections can't force full disclosure? I suppose people will say that Iraq already has provided full disclosure, right?
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS. (Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?) <hr></blockquote>
What's all that got to do with Iraq?
Few points:
1. The UN SC resolutions passed about the Israeli Palestinian conflict are non binding resolutions - these are mainly recommendation-like resolutions totally different in nature to the SC resolutions against Iraq. and by the way the Arabs haven't abided by most resolutions about the Arab Israeli conflict as well (few examples that come to mind are 242 and all those recent ones calling for an end to Pali terrorism)
2. Arabs can be as pissed of as they want - hell I'm pissed off at them too, they have been wanting and trying to kill me and my country now for quite some time. I think if anyone has a right to be seriously pissed off its the Israelis.... remember all those nice little wars the Arabs initiated against us in the past 50 odd years? where were all those peace loving marching hoards then?
3. Arabs are hypocrites if they hate the US for supporting Israel, the US also supports Arab countries just as much as it supports Israel. Egypt has a massive US equipped Army and gets 2 billion Aid from the US a year and same goes for Jordan, the gulf states and Saudi. if Arabs are so pissed off at America why not stop taking their money and political support?
4. Occupying regime? I hope you are only referring to the OT and not to the basic existence of Israel - clarification would be welcome here...
at any right - what about Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I mean I know Lebanese mezzes are very good and all, but do they really need to have all those hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops in Lebanon just so that the Lebanese will keep selling them their lovely mezzes and knafeh?
If the Arabs are so peace loving and only interested in ending the occupation of the west bank and Gaza why don't they open an honest dialog with Israel (instead of supporting terror against it) and help their palestinian brothers for real (by giving them real economic support and making them stop their stupid and pointless Intefada of terrorism)? - the one exception to these statements is Egypt where the administration has recently been very diligent in trying to move things forward between the Palestinians and the Israelis although it still peddles extreme anti-semitism to its people on a daily basis.
I think will happen in the next couple of weeks, the Security Council passes a war resolution? There's clearly a majority to pass it, and I doubt France will have les boules to veto.<hr></blockquote>
I'll bet you this: if War actually takes place the French WILL be a part of the coalition that forms and you will see some symbolic french assistance to the war effort! they have too much at stake here they can't afford to loose and leave it all for the UK and US... plus they have brilliantly managed to place them selves as a diplomatic asset that the US must buy if it really ends up going to war - I believe its only a question of price and timing not of principles. also - we all talk about war as if it's a sure thing that bush wants it - I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....
[quote]Most of those people protested against the position of their governements.<hr></blockquote>
Some truth to that as it applies to US, Britain, Spain, Italy etc. On the other hand there were also large protests in countries which have not pledged allegiance to Bush's coalition of the willing. If their govt are opposed to the use of force then they are in agreement with their govts and are not protesting those actions. You might cite smaller protests but I would also point out that 200,000 and 500,000 for instance as you list the figures are still massive protests.
For those who oppose their govts position, why do they object to their govts' position(s)? If you ask many of those people why war in Iraq is wrong or a bad idea or what have you I think they would give a certain set of answers. And I think that in many cases many many of those answers could be equally applied to other conflicts. But from what I have seen people are not willing to apply many of these moral standards to those conflicts if they involve certain characteristics such as a war occuring in Africa being less important than one in say the Balkans or a conflict that does not involve the US. All wars are wrong but wars by the US are "wronger" and African wars are less wrong.
[quote]I never heard that the governements supported the rwanda war, the Chechenia war, the congo war .<hr></blockquote>
No our (Western) govts pretty much ignore the African wars if they have nothing to gain monetarily by involvement. They've given an occasional half hearted scolding to hte Russians but nothing more.
So your moral obligations cease when your govt is in agreement with your position? A lack of support for a war on the part of your govt justifies your and their apathy?
I can only guess at why hundreds of thousands of Germans picketed about a war that Schroeder clearly wants no part of. It's not a protest of the govt so what were the reasons? And which of those reasons were applicable to a US led war on Iraq but were not applicable to say Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Or did I miss where hundreds of thousands of Germans turned out to protest Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait? It has been 12 years but I dont think that such a hting ever happened.
[quote]Protests have only a weight in democratia. <hr></blockquote>
This sounds hopelessly naive or perhaps I'm just too cynical. Protests are only meaningful to politicians in so far as they show which way the wind is blowing and how that is likely to impact the ballot box the next time out. But of course in our modern society we can use scientific polling data which gives them that info anyway. They might have a bit of a residual impact in terms of the dynamics of media and protest interacting but htat would be a trickier subject so lets not get into that. As far as I am concerned a protest has meaning as a way of voicing an opinion or a stand rather than inducing change. Does anyone honestly think that Blair or Howard or Bush or anyone else is going to fundamentally change their position because of a protest? Did the people in Paris or Belgium or Sydney or wherever believe that?
[quote]Me. I put posters up in my college after Saddam gassed the Kurds.
It was 1987, if I remember right. <hr></blockquote>
Well good for you then. I believe it was 88, but I'm not certain either.
[quote]But that was OK, because it was Iran (boo hiss) versus Iraq (vicious dictator but not a mullah) so that was OK. Where was the vociferous anti-dictator rhetoric then?<hr></blockquote>
Dunno. You'll have to ask the vociferous anti-dictator crowd. Where is Scott when he is finally needed for once?
As far as the US govt, I would agree that we have supported many dictators who were scumbags. In some cases the alternatives have been ugly as well so the choices were tough, and in some cases not so much. I'm not proud of it in the same way that I'm sure the French and British are not proud of the even more devastating worldwide effects of colonialism.
[quote]1) Most people were IN FAVOUR of the interventions you mention: they understood the politics and wanted to see dictators ousted and genocide halted. Many people wondered why everyone got so exercised about Kuwait when Bosnia seemed so much worse. Where the intervention in Rwanda was, I don't know. I'd have supported it; many others too.
Many said then that it seemed to be a shame there was no oil in Bosnia. I know I did. How else to explain the shamefully slow intervention then, I don't know.<hr></blockquote>
So they were not pacifists and they wanted to see genocide halted and dictators deposed in those cases. Hmmm. How does that not apply then to Saddam? Dictator? Check. Genocide? Well not in a Rwandan scale but I count at least Kuwaitis, Iranians, Shi'a Muslims, Kurds, am I forgetting anyone else? That would be four genocides plus a fifth for hte general Iraqi genocide taking place due to UN sanctions resulting from his invasion of Kuwait and failure to comply with the terms of peace. You can draw some various distinctions between conflicts, but I don't see how the moral roots are any different.
I'm further puzzled by another hting. We know the US is an oil whore of course. But why then no real intervention by the French or British or Belgians or others? And where was the outrage?
<strong>I do think however that he [Bush] is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with that. At least I think that's what Powell's approach is, why he's being very aggressive about his, and isn't too phased by the recalcitrance at the UN at this point.
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians? How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war? The situation in the Ivory Coast and the involvement of the French? Protests of the actions of those in the Congo? Rwanda of the recent past? The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars? I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.
Exactly the point. These protesters will onlt protest if the war involves the US and maybe the UK. Any number of nations can commit atrocities and killings..you will not see any of these protesters out on the streets for those. They claim they are anti-war and not anti-American, by saying "oh we love the American people, it's the leaders we hate", yet again, they do not and will not take to the streets for other wars and acts of violence. At least have the balls to admit why you are out there. Admit you are anti-American, or anti-western or anti-establishment, but don't copout and say you are anti-war, cuz you are obviously not. and they call Bush a hypocrite.
3) The consequences of this war will be FAR more serious, for the Middle East and for the West. There will be a US base in Iraq for ever. This is obvious, and it is dangerous. I believe also that Iraqi democrats will be sidelined. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Iraqi democrats sidelined more than they are now?
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
4) We feel like we've been lied to about Iraqi weapons and links with terrorist organisations. What Blix said about Powell's 'intelligence' was diplomatic but damning.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honesty at this point would show that given 100% irrefutable evidence of Iraqi violation, most of these people protesting would still be convinced to oppose the war. Throw a few meaningless slogans and witty mottos up on placards and you would still get these people out on the streets.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, how is this related. UN resolutions against Isreal were non-binding. The US aids Palestinians more than every Arab country combined. Should that make Jews angry?
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
(Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, honesty would show that the Arabs hate the US not for supporting what is seen as an occupying regime, they hate the US for supporting a Jewish state in their midst. Atleast admit that much fact, that the presense of a Jewish state, that the Arabs have been unable to destroy because of US assistance is the reason for most Arab animosity towards the US. Bullsh!t about the OT being the primary reason just doesn't wash, as the feelings go back further than that.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Finally, the most senior posts in the Bush administration are filled with former oilmen and women, one of whom armed Saddam in the first place. This is, apparently, 'sound bite politics', so I won't labour the point, but it all adds up to a feeling that this war is unjustified and it's not really 'about' what Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush would have us believe.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on, even the protests seemed to be promoting less the simpletons idea that it is about oil.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Britain's a minor-league power. Without the US we're finished, hence Bush's index finger up our Prime Minister's bottom. Everyone knows it. The UK march was actually patriotic. People want their country back, even if it means we're finished on the world stage. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How are you finished without the US? Canada is even more intertwined with the policies of the US, but that doesn't mean bending over to them. However, being independant of them doesn't automatically mean opposing them, as you would imply.
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[typicalanti-americanooopsimeananti-warduschbag] I think a diplomatic solution should be tried. That hasn't been done. All Bush wants is war and oil. There's been no public debate about this. This war will kill zillions of people according to {insert anti-american "human" rights group here}. Internalional law says whatever I make it up to say so Bush is wrong and needs to be tried as a war criminal. Husain was the democratically elected ruler of Iraq and we have no right to blah blah blah[/typicalanti-americanooopsimeananti-warduschbag]
The U.S. has initiated a course of action that will demolish the power structure in Middle East as we now know it. This action, if successful, will provide the US., Israel?s ally, with total dominance over Syria/Lebanon via OIL. It will eject France from the Area, and will complete the surrounding of Iran to isolate it. It will also eliminate a major player in the war on terrorism. By losing Iraq, and the drying of its source of funding thereafter (both military and financial) from Iran via Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah?s days will be coming to an end. Hopefully with France out of the way, this will occur all the quicker.
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you will find them strangely quite on this question. Calling them anti-war is a farce. If they would simply and honestly admit that they are taking action solely because they are anti-American, then a meaningful dialogue might be able to take place. But, they don't want meaningful dialogue. They simply want to rant and rave about the evils of the Bush administration. They have no other solution than "let the UN handle it", unless of course the UN sides with the US, then the UN is simply acting as a US dog, much as the UK must be. If leaving it to the UN means nothing is done, then so be it, as long as the US is opposed.
- I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....
<strong>also - we all talk about war as if it's a sure thing that bush wants it - I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....</strong><hr></blockquote>I really don't think so. I think this has been on the agenda from the git-go. I think some in the administration (i.e., Powell), agree with you, but there were lots of signs a year or so ago that others in the administration wanted to attack Iraq without the UN.
Comments
<strong>
Indeed. Well so be it then. If you are a pacifist more power to you. If you are a pacifist who pays attention to other countries which arent the lead story on the six o'clock news then all the better. If you're a pacifist that feels that Milosevic and Putin and Saddam and Akayesu and Pol Pot and others past or present are just as worthy of protest as Bush or Blair then you have my respect. But then, I would still say that you fall into the 10% that is earnest rather than the far more massive selectively moral and political protesters who ventured out today. JMNSHOAA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with you completely, insofar as you are trying to point out an the hypocrisy of the modern anti-war folks. Yes. We should oppose all wars. We should oppose all violence. We should not, ever, EVER, send 18 year old kids to the desert to die unless all other options have been exhausted. Ever. And I find it difficult to imagine such a situation without imagining I'm Poland in 1939.
There is always a better way.
And I didn't miss your point. I realize(d) that you were pointing out that the millions of protesters out there today and yesterday seem to have conveniently ignored conflicts elsewhere. I'm with you.
This is one of the reasons I'd grown so angry with the protesters. One cannot pick and choose.
Just to clear this up: You were making an argument about pacificism; I was making an argument about US policy and politics.
Don't worry. We agree, in the end.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians? How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war? The situation in the Ivory Coast and the involvement of the French? Protests of the actions of those in the Congo? Rwanda of the recent past? The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars? I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most of those people protested against the position of their governements.
it's obvious that there where more protestants in european countries where governement support bush position than the countrie who are against. (roma : 3 millions, madrid 2 millions, london 1 million compared to 200 000 in Paris, and 500 000 in Berlin)
I never heard that the governements supported the rwanda war, the Chechenia war, the congo war .These protest is scheduled against the position of their own governements. Many poeple knows that it's worthless to protest against tyrannic dictatures. Protests have only a weight in democratia.
Concerning the french and ivory coast, i open a thread for you where you will have the opportunity to expose your views.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me. I put posters up in my college after Saddam gassed the Kurds.
It was 1987, if I remember right. But that was OK, because it was Iran (boo hiss) versus Iraq (vicious dictator but not a mullah) so that was OK. Where was the vociferous anti-dictator rhetoric then?
[quote] <strong> I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Nonsense. For these reasons -
1) Most people were IN FAVOUR of the interventions you mention: they understood the politics and wanted to see dictators ousted and genocide halted. Many people wondered why everyone got so exercised about Kuwait when Bosnia seemed so much worse. Where the intervention in Rwanda was, I don't know. I'd have supported it; many others too.
Many said then that it seemed to be a shame there was no oil in Bosnia. I know I did. How else to explain the shamefully slow intervention then, I don't know.
2) Unlike those wars, this war on Iraq is going to happen despite the will of the majority of voters (outside the US, that is, where I read today that 57% are in favour of war whether or not there's a second UN resolution compared to 9% in the UK) and people protest because they really don't want it. It is a protest inspired by a feeling of helplessness.
3) The consequences of this war will be FAR more serious, for the Middle East and for the West. There will be a US base in Iraq for ever. This is obvious, and it is dangerous. I believe also that Iraqi democrats will be sidelined. The US will get the man they want. (Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but if Iraqi oilfields are privatised in the next two years, I will spend my life in a quest to slap Bush's face.)
4) We feel like we've been lied to about Iraqi weapons and links with terrorist organisations. What Blix said about Powell's 'intelligence' was diplomatic but damning.
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS. (Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?)
Finally, the most senior posts in the Bush administration are filled with former oilmen and women, one of whom armed Saddam in the first place. This is, apparently, 'sound bite politics', so I won't labour the point, but it all adds up to a feeling that this war is unjustified and it's not really 'about' what Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush would have us believe.
Britain's a minor-league power. Without the US we're finished, hence Bush's index finger up our Prime Minister's bottom. Everyone knows it. The UK march was actually patriotic. People want their country back, even if it means we're finished on the world stage.
<strong>2) Unlike those wars, this war on Iraq is going to happen despite the will of the majority of voters (outside the US, that is, where I read today that 57% are in favour of war whether or not there's a second UN resolution compared to 9% in the UK) and people protest because they really don't want it. It is a protest inspired by a feeling of helplessness.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd like to know where you heard that. According to <a href="http://gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp"; target="_blank">this Gallup poll</a> just taken, 39% think we should attack Iraq without a new UN resolution and 34% only if there is a new resolution. It doesn't even give an option for what should happen if a resolution is proposed and fails - presumably it would be much lower.
I have a question for Hassan and the others against the war - under what conditions, if any, would you support military action? What if, as I think will happen in the next couple of weeks, the Security Council passes a war resolution? There's clearly a majority to pass it, and I doubt France will have les boules to veto. I'm sure Russia won't, and China never even shows up for these types of votes.
<strong>Anyone go to one? Is there one in your town? I didn't go to the main one, but there was a smaller one on B'way in NYC so I joined in for awhile. There was also a really cool bike protest going down B'way. Pretty cool and from my point of view very encougaging.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would not think twice about attending or supporting people in voicing concern over us protecting our citizenry.
<strong>
Someone may have given a speech about it. And I dont doubt that there are some who care. But I think we all also know that if you tried to stage a protest next weekend on the war in Chechnya that you would not get more than 10% of the turnout for the Iraq (principally) protest. You know as much if you are honest with yourself. I can deal with that 10%, the other 90% are full of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They did give loads of speeches about how evil is Israel though. you see- Israel is bad and Sadam is fine.... the world has totally flipped! as if the two can even be remotely comparable...
How true is what you say Colander.... I too can deal with that 10% and hell, I'll even be happy to give them the respect I have for true peace loving total pacifists. but this weekend's marching - its such a mockery and a sham! millions of people marching around the globe to save Sadam's arse
While I have no will for war and do believe its a very risky proposition I can't stand those sanctimonious voices we hear and the lies they peddle (blood for oil - bush is hitler, etc...etc...) Have any of you anti bush/ anti war anti anti anti people even considered the simple fact that only now, due to the fact that Bush and Blair have been so aggressive towards Sadam he is finally beginning to somehow cooperate? for the first time in 11 years the pressure on him is working - why is that? Only coz these two leaders are willing to go all the way with this guy that only understands force - it's called gun-ship diplomacy and it seems to be doing the trick so whats your problem exactly? are we at war? NO!
I suggest we all wait and see how the next few weeks unravel before we haste to make stupid and shallow judgment on these two leaders who I do believe are only trying to do what they believe is best for the world.
"They (anti-war protests) would probably like to see Saddam deposed as much as anyone, but believe war isn't the best way to achieve it."
Groverat:
"What, then, do they believe is the best way?"<hr></blockquote>
Herin lies the crux of our problem. We need some alternatives, and I for one can't think of any effective ones. I've also yet to see an answer by anyone else.
France proposed:
UN troops accompanying the inspectors. Ok, that's a good start,
More inspectors. Possibly good, I'm not sure if it makes a difference,
More sanctions. Definitely bad because sanctions have been used by Hussein as a political tool and it ust makes us look like the bad guy when more civilians starve,
A law or decree by Hussein aginst the use of bio-chem weapons and such. Worthless drivel. He's already done this and it means nothing, which of course is why he's volunteered this already.
Now, wasn't htere a Saudi proposal at one point or something? What are our alternatives to deposing Hussein by force if inspections can't force full disclosure? I suppose people will say that Iraq already has provided full disclosure, right?
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS. (Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?) <hr></blockquote>
What's all that got to do with Iraq?
Few points:
1. The UN SC resolutions passed about the Israeli Palestinian conflict are non binding resolutions - these are mainly recommendation-like resolutions totally different in nature to the SC resolutions against Iraq. and by the way the Arabs haven't abided by most resolutions about the Arab Israeli conflict as well (few examples that come to mind are 242 and all those recent ones calling for an end to Pali terrorism)
2. Arabs can be as pissed of as they want - hell I'm pissed off at them too, they have been wanting and trying to kill me and my country now for quite some time. I think if anyone has a right to be seriously pissed off its the Israelis.... remember all those nice little wars the Arabs initiated against us in the past 50 odd years? where were all those peace loving marching hoards then?
3. Arabs are hypocrites if they hate the US for supporting Israel, the US also supports Arab countries just as much as it supports Israel. Egypt has a massive US equipped Army and gets 2 billion Aid from the US a year and same goes for Jordan, the gulf states and Saudi. if Arabs are so pissed off at America why not stop taking their money and political support?
4. Occupying regime? I hope you are only referring to the OT and not to the basic existence of Israel - clarification would be welcome here...
at any right - what about Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I mean I know Lebanese mezzes are very good and all, but do they really need to have all those hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops in Lebanon just so that the Lebanese will keep selling them their lovely mezzes and knafeh?
If the Arabs are so peace loving and only interested in ending the occupation of the west bank and Gaza why don't they open an honest dialog with Israel (instead of supporting terror against it) and help their palestinian brothers for real (by giving them real economic support and making them stop their stupid and pointless Intefada of terrorism)? - the one exception to these statements is Egypt where the administration has recently been very diligent in trying to move things forward between the Palestinians and the Israelis although it still peddles extreme anti-semitism to its people on a daily basis.
I think will happen in the next couple of weeks, the Security Council passes a war resolution? There's clearly a majority to pass it, and I doubt France will have les boules to veto.<hr></blockquote>
I'll bet you this: if War actually takes place the French WILL be a part of the coalition that forms and you will see some symbolic french assistance to the war effort! they have too much at stake here they can't afford to loose and leave it all for the UK and US... plus they have brilliantly managed to place them selves as a diplomatic asset that the US must buy if it really ends up going to war - I believe its only a question of price and timing not of principles. also - we all talk about war as if it's a sure thing that bush wants it - I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Some truth to that as it applies to US, Britain, Spain, Italy etc. On the other hand there were also large protests in countries which have not pledged allegiance to Bush's coalition of the willing. If their govt are opposed to the use of force then they are in agreement with their govts and are not protesting those actions. You might cite smaller protests but I would also point out that 200,000 and 500,000 for instance as you list the figures are still massive protests.
For those who oppose their govts position, why do they object to their govts' position(s)? If you ask many of those people why war in Iraq is wrong or a bad idea or what have you I think they would give a certain set of answers. And I think that in many cases many many of those answers could be equally applied to other conflicts. But from what I have seen people are not willing to apply many of these moral standards to those conflicts if they involve certain characteristics such as a war occuring in Africa being less important than one in say the Balkans or a conflict that does not involve the US. All wars are wrong but wars by the US are "wronger" and African wars are less wrong.
[quote]I never heard that the governements supported the rwanda war, the Chechenia war, the congo war .<hr></blockquote>
No our (Western) govts pretty much ignore the African wars if they have nothing to gain monetarily by involvement. They've given an occasional half hearted scolding to hte Russians but nothing more.
So your moral obligations cease when your govt is in agreement with your position? A lack of support for a war on the part of your govt justifies your and their apathy?
I can only guess at why hundreds of thousands of Germans picketed about a war that Schroeder clearly wants no part of. It's not a protest of the govt so what were the reasons? And which of those reasons were applicable to a US led war on Iraq but were not applicable to say Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? Or did I miss where hundreds of thousands of Germans turned out to protest Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait? It has been 12 years but I dont think that such a hting ever happened.
[quote]Protests have only a weight in democratia. <hr></blockquote>
This sounds hopelessly naive or perhaps I'm just too cynical. Protests are only meaningful to politicians in so far as they show which way the wind is blowing and how that is likely to impact the ballot box the next time out. But of course in our modern society we can use scientific polling data which gives them that info anyway. They might have a bit of a residual impact in terms of the dynamics of media and protest interacting but htat would be a trickier subject so lets not get into that. As far as I am concerned a protest has meaning as a way of voicing an opinion or a stand rather than inducing change. Does anyone honestly think that Blair or Howard or Bush or anyone else is going to fundamentally change their position because of a protest? Did the people in Paris or Belgium or Sydney or wherever believe that?
[quote]Me. I put posters up in my college after Saddam gassed the Kurds.
It was 1987, if I remember right. <hr></blockquote>
Well good for you then. I believe it was 88, but I'm not certain either.
[quote]But that was OK, because it was Iran (boo hiss) versus Iraq (vicious dictator but not a mullah) so that was OK. Where was the vociferous anti-dictator rhetoric then?<hr></blockquote>
Dunno. You'll have to ask the vociferous anti-dictator crowd. Where is Scott when he is finally needed for once?
As far as the US govt, I would agree that we have supported many dictators who were scumbags. In some cases the alternatives have been ugly as well so the choices were tough, and in some cases not so much. I'm not proud of it in the same way that I'm sure the French and British are not proud of the even more devastating worldwide effects of colonialism.
[quote]1) Most people were IN FAVOUR of the interventions you mention: they understood the politics and wanted to see dictators ousted and genocide halted. Many people wondered why everyone got so exercised about Kuwait when Bosnia seemed so much worse. Where the intervention in Rwanda was, I don't know. I'd have supported it; many others too.
Many said then that it seemed to be a shame there was no oil in Bosnia. I know I did. How else to explain the shamefully slow intervention then, I don't know.<hr></blockquote>
So they were not pacifists and they wanted to see genocide halted and dictators deposed in those cases. Hmmm. How does that not apply then to Saddam? Dictator? Check. Genocide? Well not in a Rwandan scale but I count at least Kuwaitis, Iranians, Shi'a Muslims, Kurds, am I forgetting anyone else? That would be four genocides plus a fifth for hte general Iraqi genocide taking place due to UN sanctions resulting from his invasion of Kuwait and failure to comply with the terms of peace. You can draw some various distinctions between conflicts, but I don't see how the moral roots are any different.
I'm further puzzled by another hting. We know the US is an oil whore of course. But why then no real intervention by the French or British or Belgians or others? And where was the outrage?
I should have more comments but perhaps later.
<strong>I do think however that he [Bush] is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with that. At least I think that's what Powell's approach is, why he's being very aggressive about his, and isn't too phased by the recalcitrance at the UN at this point.
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.
<strong>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians? How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war? The situation in the Ivory Coast and the involvement of the French? Protests of the actions of those in the Congo? Rwanda of the recent past? The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars? I can respect those who show a conciousness of all wars if they want to do so on a consist basis. But many of these people are of the view that all wars are wrong but some wars are not worthy of noticing or protesting if the media doesn't put them on the front page everyday and if they don't involve the US.
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly the point. These protesters will onlt protest if the war involves the US and maybe the UK. Any number of nations can commit atrocities and killings..you will not see any of these protesters out on the streets for those. They claim they are anti-war and not anti-American, by saying "oh we love the American people, it's the leaders we hate", yet again, they do not and will not take to the streets for other wars and acts of violence. At least have the balls to admit why you are out there. Admit you are anti-American, or anti-western or anti-establishment, but don't copout and say you are anti-war, cuz you are obviously not. and they call Bush a hypocrite.
<strong>
3) The consequences of this war will be FAR more serious, for the Middle East and for the West. There will be a US base in Iraq for ever. This is obvious, and it is dangerous. I believe also that Iraqi democrats will be sidelined. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Iraqi democrats sidelined more than they are now?
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
4) We feel like we've been lied to about Iraqi weapons and links with terrorist organisations. What Blix said about Powell's 'intelligence' was diplomatic but damning.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honesty at this point would show that given 100% irrefutable evidence of Iraqi violation, most of these people protesting would still be convinced to oppose the war. Throw a few meaningless slogans and witty mottos up on placards and you would still get these people out on the streets.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
5) The US has used its veto against implenting UN resolutions against Israel dozens of times in the last ten years alone. The hypocrisy is awful, and for Arabs it is worse than you know. People are very, very angry, and they don't need OBL to stir them up. THEY HAVEN'T FOR YEARS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, how is this related. UN resolutions against Isreal were non-binding. The US aids Palestinians more than every Arab country combined. Should that make Jews angry?
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
(Please understand that many Arabs hate the US because of its military and economic support for what is perceived as an occupying regime. People actually have SYMPATHY for the Arabs outside the US. Can you believe it?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, honesty would show that the Arabs hate the US not for supporting what is seen as an occupying regime, they hate the US for supporting a Jewish state in their midst. Atleast admit that much fact, that the presense of a Jewish state, that the Arabs have been unable to destroy because of US assistance is the reason for most Arab animosity towards the US. Bullsh!t about the OT being the primary reason just doesn't wash, as the feelings go back further than that.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Finally, the most senior posts in the Bush administration are filled with former oilmen and women, one of whom armed Saddam in the first place. This is, apparently, 'sound bite politics', so I won't labour the point, but it all adds up to a feeling that this war is unjustified and it's not really 'about' what Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush would have us believe.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on, even the protests seemed to be promoting less the simpletons idea that it is about oil.
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Britain's a minor-league power. Without the US we're finished, hence Bush's index finger up our Prime Minister's bottom. Everyone knows it. The UK march was actually patriotic. People want their country back, even if it means we're finished on the world stage. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How are you finished without the US? Canada is even more intertwined with the policies of the US, but that doesn't mean bending over to them. However, being independant of them doesn't automatically mean opposing them, as you would imply.
<strong>To all anti-war folks:
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[typicalanti-americanooopsimeananti-warduschbag] I think a diplomatic solution should be tried. That hasn't been done. All Bush wants is war and oil. There's been no public debate about this. This war will kill zillions of people according to {insert anti-american "human" rights group here}. Internalional law says whatever I make it up to say so Bush is wrong and needs to be tried as a war criminal. Husain was the democratically elected ruler of Iraq and we have no right to blah blah blah[/typicalanti-americanooopsimeananti-warduschbag]
As an aside:
The U.S. has initiated a course of action that will demolish the power structure in Middle East as we now know it. This action, if successful, will provide the US., Israel?s ally, with total dominance over Syria/Lebanon via OIL. It will eject France from the Area, and will complete the surrounding of Iran to isolate it. It will also eliminate a major player in the war on terrorism. By losing Iraq, and the drying of its source of funding thereafter (both military and financial) from Iran via Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah?s days will be coming to an end. Hopefully with France out of the way, this will occur all the quicker.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>To all anti-war folks:
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you will find them strangely quite on this question. Calling them anti-war is a farce. If they would simply and honestly admit that they are taking action solely because they are anti-American, then a meaningful dialogue might be able to take place. But, they don't want meaningful dialogue. They simply want to rant and rave about the evils of the Bush administration. They have no other solution than "let the UN handle it", unless of course the UN sides with the US, then the UN is simply acting as a US dog, much as the UK must be. If leaving it to the UN means nothing is done, then so be it, as long as the US is opposed.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
- I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the one billion $ question. I sincerely hope you are right, but i lack of telepathical powers, so i could not reply.
<strong>also - we all talk about war as if it's a sure thing that bush wants it - I don't think he is so resigned to go to war - I do think however that he is sure that without a massive threat Sadam will not budge! hence why the extra aggressive rhetoric....</strong><hr></blockquote>I really don't think so. I think this has been on the agenda from the git-go. I think some in the administration (i.e., Powell), agree with you, but there were lots of signs a year or so ago that others in the administration wanted to attack Iraq without the UN.