[quote] Tony Blair's days are numbered, he has not got the backing of the people that elected him (I being one of them) so therefore his actions are undemocratic <hr></blockquote>
Could you you explain your definition of democracy to me? By the way he has my backing- I don't want to be congratulated by Tariq Aziz.
I marched: all the way from Shaftesbury Avenue to Hyde Park. Took three hours to get there in the freezing cold, but I marched! Oh yes.
Yes indeed, there was rhymed chanting, and on this point I'm in total agreement with Groverat. Like white people with dreadlocks who play the digeridoo, and jugglers, rhymed chanting on protest marches should be frowned upon. Perpetrators then beaten. I did not join in.
Still, though, it is my sombre duty to record here what the chants were.
(To the tune of 'Who Let the Dogs Out?'):
WHO LET THE BOMBS DROP?
-BUSH, BLAIR, SHAR-ON!
GEORGE BUSH, WE KNOW YOU:
DADDY WAS A KILLER TOO!
BUSH, BLAIR, CIA-
HOW MANY BABIES DID YOU KILL TODAY? (This one really is shit.)
1-2-3-4:
WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOODY WAR!
There was a little bit of 'What about the poor ikkle Iraqi babies?' about, which is plainly foolish, since Saddam's already responsible for about 50,000 Iraqi deaths since he's been in power I understand: getting rid of the bastard will make me very, very pleased, for one, whatever happens after the war. (I know, I know...) The 'Smoke Bush, Not Babies' poster was about the best of a bad bunch.
GWBush got a bad time of it, I'm afraid. 'The only Bush I trust is my own' was one of the wittiest posters; there were posters aplently of GW and Tony kissing. 'Mad Cowboy Disease' with a picture of the President dressed up like a cowboy with a big smartbomb under his arm was a corker.
However: it wasn't really an anti-American demonstration. (I remember last year the guy who got the most applause was some American guy who said 'The American people are not bad people! The American people are a generous people! as part of his speech'). No-one picketed the US embassy. I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse, but it was far, far more aimed at GWB, and Tony Blair, specifically.
For many people there was a link between the Palestinian occupation and the war: there were plenty of 'Solidarity with Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' placards.
I saw fewer 'No War for Oil' posters this time round. I did see a big banner that said 'HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?'
I've been going on peace marches in the UK since I was about eight, I suppose, and I know very well that this demonstration will make no difference at all. I reckon there were about 1,000,000 people (organisers say 2m, way too much, Police say 750,000, closer but no way) and it felt good all the same.
My march finished when we got to Hyde Park. Rallies are boring. My brother and I ducked off behind the Hilton and found a swanky Lebanese restaurant with waiters in bow ties and everything. We had mezzes - whitebait (yum), foule-masdamas (nice), fried halloumi (underdone) and hummus around little cubes of lamb kibbeh (unusual), and then a big plate of lamb shawarma.
Then, armed with my new SonyEricsson T300, I set off back into the rally to find my girlfriend, who is American, and very attractive. "No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]! No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]!" she chanted when you saw me, and then she put her cold hands on to my back underneath my jumper.
She hadn't eaten so went off to... a nice Lebanese café off Oxford Street where she ordered oh you don't really care do you?
Anyway. Er... 1 - 2 - 3 - 4! TONY BLAIR IS BUSH'S...
I cycled home all the way along Picadilly (long, long, broad avenue all the way from Picadilly Circus to the arch at the junction of the Strand, Buckingham Palace Road and Hyde Park Avenue) in the middle of the road, past marchers straggling home and roadsweepers.
Well it seems like people are doing this all over. There was an anti war protest on Campus today where I work. It kind of reminds me of the good old days. I marched in the moratorium during the Vietnam war in 69. I was in high school at the time ( which they let out early that day ) and we marched through the very same campus where I work now. A person was reading the names of the americans who died there. It was just something we saw along the way through campus. It's my understanding the reading went on all day with people taking turns. I hope we don't ever have to repeat this.
It seems like a lot of your voting constituents don't want this. Are you listening Mr. Bush?
Of course the answer is no. That's ok though he's virtually guaranteed his defeat in the next election.
The scary thing is maybe he knows this and is trying to do as much damage as he can before he's gone. :eek:
<strong>These protestors should also protest about North Korea's threats of war and Russia's war on Chechyna (not sure how to spell).
They are too bias towards the United States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I agree with ether one or their motives but, one is a reaction to what we've been doing the other is political. We're in it for the oil ( and of course the distraction from more domestic problems ).
If you want to know why I think this Bush's actions are wrong, I think Senator Byrd summed it up nicely last Wednesday :
" To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. "
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.
My major problem with this war issue is that if we were going to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we do it years ago?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That questions been answered a million times over. You may not like the answer. It may not seem like a good reason but anyone paying any attention at all knows what the reason was.
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Before tens of thousands of iraqi kids died and countless others having suffered irreparable developmental delays due to malnutrition. Years ago, an attack likely would have been met with support by the iraqi people, but now? After years of suffering, it's too little too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Getting rid of Sadam would hardly be "too little". It would be a "good start".
<strong>I marched: all the way from Shaftesbury Avenue to Hyde Park. Took three hours to get there in the freezing cold, but I marched! Oh yes.
Yes indeed, there was rhymed chanting, and on this point I'm in total agreement with Groverat. Like white people with dreadlocks who play the digeridoo, and jugglers, rhymed chanting on protest marches should be frowned upon. Perpetrators then beaten. I did not join in.
Still, though, it is my sombre duty to record here what the chants were.
(To the tune of 'Who Let the Dogs Out?'):
WHO LET THE BOMBS DROP?
-BUSH, BLAIR, SHAR-ON!
GEORGE BUSH, WE KNOW YOU:
DADDY WAS A KILLER TOO!
BUSH, BLAIR, CIA-
HOW MANY BABIES DID YOU KILL TODAY? (This one really is shit.)
1-2-3-4:
WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOODY WAR!
There was a little bit of 'What about the poor ikkle Iraqi babies?' about, which is plainly foolish, since Saddam's already responsible for about 50,000 Iraqi deaths since he's been in power I understand: getting rid of the bastard will make me very, very pleased, for one, whatever happens after the war. (I know, I know...) The 'Smoke Bush, Not Babies' poster was about the best of a bad bunch.
GWBush got a bad time of it, I'm afraid. 'The only Bush I trust is my own' was one of the wittiest posters; there were posters aplently of GW and Tony kissing. 'Mad Cowboy Disease' with a picture of the President dressed up like a cowboy with a big smartbomb under his arm was a corker.
However: it wasn't really an anti-American demonstration. (I remember last year the guy who got the most applause was some American guy who said 'The American people are not bad people! The American people are a generous people! as part of his speech'). No-one picketed the US embassy. I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse, but it was far, far more aimed at GWB, and Tony Blair, specifically.
For many people there was a link between the Palestinian occupation and the war: there were plenty of 'Solidarity with Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' placards.
I saw fewer 'No War for Oil' posters this time round. I did see a big banner that said 'HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?'
I've been going on peace marches in the UK since I was about eight, I suppose, and I know very well that this demonstration will make no difference at all. I reckon there were about 1,000,000 people (organisers say 2m, way too much, Police say 750,000, closer but no way) and it felt good all the same.
My march finished when we got to Hyde Park. Rallies are boring. My brother and I ducked off behind the Hilton and found a swanky Lebanese restaurant with waiters in bow ties and everything. We had mezzes - whitebait (yum), foule-masdamas (nice), fried halloumi (underdone) and hummus around little cubes of lamb kibbeh (unusual), and then a big plate of lamb shawarma.
Then, armed with my new SonyEricsson T300, I set off back into the rally to find my girlfriend, who is American, and very attractive. "No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]! No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]!" she chanted when you saw me, and then she put her cold hands on to my back underneath my jumper.
She hadn't eaten so went off to... a nice Lebanese café off Oxford Street where she ordered oh you don't really care do you?
Anyway. Er... 1 - 2 - 3 - 4! TONY BLAIR IS BUSH'S...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No harsh words for Arafat, Husain or bin Laden? No holding the arab anti-semetic dictatorships to account? Pro-Saddam left meets the anti-Jew left? Oooops I mean "Israel".
<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.
Sadly it seems that war is a way of life with our " human elightened culture ". What we're talking about here is we have a choice to do this deed now or to consider the long term coseqences of our actions and to perhaps find another solution. And believe me when I say this will have many more far reaching consequences than the conflicts you have been talking about. And they aren't the ones that Bush is advertising.
No harsh words for Arafat, Husain or bin Laden? No holding the arab anti-semetic dictatorships to account? Pro-Saddam left meets the anti-Jew left? Oooops I mean "Israel".</strong><hr></blockquote>
The rhetoric machine is glowing red. Perhaps ou should let it rest for a couple of days.
The fate of the Chechnian people was on the agenda here as it always is in events like this. And also the fate of the people of the former Soviet states that live under dictatorship backed up by the coalitition states in the war in Afghanistan.
[quote]The fate of the Chechnian people was on the agenda here as it always is in events like this. And also the fate of the people of the former Soviet states that live under dictatorship backed up by the coalitition states in the war in Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>
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>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly, very few. But then, that was 20 years ago, and Hussein was our buddy back then, since in the 80s it was uncool to align yourself with a fundamentalist Islamic country like Iran. We've changed our tune since then.
By the way, far from legitimizing our current invasion, our failure to invade back then implicates us in the past crime.
<strong> [quote]How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war?<hr></blockquote></strong>
From where I was, quite a few. There was a massive gathering when I was in college to protest the war in Iraq. There were protests in Europe, as well. But because Hussein had *invaded* another country, there was a more clear justification. The problem with the current anti-war crowd is that they don't seem to have changed their tune.
As for Chechnya...that was 5 years later. And completely unrelated (unless you consider that the entire thing was about an oil pipeline). And there was no NATO involvement. No one invaded. This was Russia trying to stop a breakaway republic. Not that it wasn't completely deplorable; it's just that your mentioning it is a red herring.
<strong> [quote]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?<hr></blockquote>[QB]
More red herrings. Not that I'm suggesting they're acceptable; they're just completely unrelated to the matter at hand. And the French have been complete bastards in Africa for a couple of hundred years now. The situation in the Ivory Coast is absolutely horrible, and I hope for a quick and peaceful resolution to the conflict there. Rwanda? If there was ever a situation where the US should have gone it, that was it. 800,000 people SLAUGHTERED (at a minimum...one million, others argue) while we stood by and did NOTHING? Unconscionable.
But again, not related to Iraq.
[QB] [quote]The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was NATO, not the US. And the Balkans are of particular significance, considering that's where WWI started. And while we're at it, the entire time that Clinton was attempting to sell the US on the importance of sending US troops into the region, people like Limbaugh were arguing that he was merely attempting to divert attention from domestic issues. They were mounting, in other words, the same arguments that the democrats are making now about the war in Iraq.
The difference, of course, is that in the Balkans, people were pulling fillings out of corpses to make bullets, and Milosovec was killing people by the thousands.
We're invading because....why again? Hussein is a "bad, bad man"?
<strong> [quote]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>
I have to admit that I agree with you, here. I oppose all wars. I oppose all actions that involve sending young folks off to die.
There is always a better way.
And if the US's foreign policy hadn't been such a disaster over the past two years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, then, do they believe is the best way?
[quote]<strong>Thousands of Iraqi people have already been killed by Saddam, killing hundreds if not thousands more during a war isn't really going to help them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about the hundreds of thousands that have reportedly died from sanctions?
torifile:
[quote]<strong> After years of suffering, it's too little too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't make sense.
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I've seen one of those on the streets in Iraq.
trickfall:
That's very clever. How much do you think you know about the situation?
[quote]Sadly, very few. But then, that was 20 years ago, and Hussein was our buddy back then, since in the 80s it was uncool to align yourself with a fundamentalist Islamic country like Iran. We've changed our tune since then. <hr></blockquote>
Yes so the US was aligned with Saddam. How does that relate to my point about protesters who claim moral outrage at US conduct yet to bother to give a **** at similar reprehensible conduct when taken by others?
[quote]By the way, far from legitimizing our current invasion, our failure to invade back then implicates us in the past crime.<hr></blockquote>
As you'll note I didn't take a position on the invasion of Iraq in this thread. So I'm unclear as to why you are trying to refute the idea that the past legitimizes a current invasion when I did not suggest that.
[quote]From where I was, quite a few. There was a massive gathering when I was in college to protest the war in Iraq. There were protests in Europe, as well. But because Hussein had *invaded* another country, there was a more clear justification. <hr></blockquote>
It appears as though you are talking about people protesting Desert Storm/Shield when you talk about protesting the war in Iraq and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait blunting those protests because it gave a firmer argument for a defensive war than the present circumstances. That's not what I am talking about. I am asking why those same people who were out there today protesting the horrors of war, the death and destruction, the imposition of a pupper govt from another country etc etc were not out there protesting Saddam Hussein when he was doing as much to Kuwait. What is the distinction, moral or political or whatever that makes one POTENTIAL war action objectionable enough for millions to mass while few if any did as much in the other case? I can certainly see differences based on national factors; a Kuwaiti would understandably place more import on a war in Iraq than say the Chechnyan situation. But I see no reason why for example the people in a third party country ought to treat it differently. Which reasons for the objections to war and subsequent protests apply for one but not the other? There is a national political argument that can be made to some extent but at the end of the day the moral argument is the grounding for the political position and I do not see how action on one but indifference on the other can be grounds for anything other than my conjecture that many many many people are full of shit.
[quote]As for Chechnya...that was 5 years later. And completely unrelated (unless you consider that the entire thing was about an oil pipeline). And there was no NATO involvement. No one invaded. This was Russia trying to stop a breakaway republic. Not that it wasn't completely deplorable; it's just that your mentioning it is a red herring. <hr></blockquote>
Again you are missing the point. Other Wars no major protests. Or perhaps someone can link an article from a credible source talking about hundreds of thousands massing in the same cities we saw today to protest those conflicts. What makes this war not worthy of being noticed by those who were out there today but a POTENTIAL war in Iraq is worthy of protest?
[quote]More red herrings. Not that I'm suggesting they're acceptable; they're just completely unrelated to the matter at hand. And the French have been complete bastards in Africa for a couple of hundred years now. The situation in the Ivory Coast is absolutely horrible, and I hope for a quick and peaceful resolution to the conflict there. Rwanda? If there was ever a situation where the US should have gone it, that was it. 800,000 people SLAUGHTERED (at a minimum...one million, others argue) while we stood by and did NOTHING? Unconscionable.
But again, not related to Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
Again, where were the protests about what was going on in Rwanda? Why do Europeans protest Bush for example or Blair but no one bothers to protest any of the numerous African thugs who have done far worse? There are several answers to this, but some of them might make some of our friends who doth not protest enough uncomfortable.
[quote]That was NATO, not the US. And the Balkans are of particular significance, considering that's where WWI started. And while we're at it, the entire time that Clinton was attempting to sell the US on the importance of sending US troops into the region, people like Limbaugh were arguing that he was merely attempting to divert attention from domestic issues. They were mounting, in other words, the same arguments that the democrats are making now about the war in Iraq.
The difference, of course, is that in the Balkans, people were pulling fillings out of corpses to make bullets, and Milosovec was killing people by the thousands.<hr></blockquote>
See above.
I think you must have me confused with a Republican or something. Or with someone who had stated positions on these wars in this thread. Tsk Tsk, it says right there under my name that I live in Seattle so I'm obviously not a Republican or I would be living in Redmond.
[quote]I have to admit that I agree with you, here. I oppose all wars. I oppose all actions that involve sending young folks off to die.<hr></blockquote>
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.
Comments
Could you you explain your definition of democracy to me? By the way he has my backing- I don't want to be congratulated by Tariq Aziz.
Yes indeed, there was rhymed chanting, and on this point I'm in total agreement with Groverat. Like white people with dreadlocks who play the digeridoo, and jugglers, rhymed chanting on protest marches should be frowned upon. Perpetrators then beaten. I did not join in.
Still, though, it is my sombre duty to record here what the chants were.
(To the tune of 'Who Let the Dogs Out?'):
WHO LET THE BOMBS DROP?
-BUSH, BLAIR, SHAR-ON!
GEORGE BUSH, WE KNOW YOU:
DADDY WAS A KILLER TOO!
BUSH, BLAIR, CIA-
HOW MANY BABIES DID YOU KILL TODAY? (This one really is shit.)
1-2-3-4:
WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOODY WAR!
There was a little bit of 'What about the poor ikkle Iraqi babies?' about, which is plainly foolish, since Saddam's already responsible for about 50,000 Iraqi deaths since he's been in power I understand: getting rid of the bastard will make me very, very pleased, for one, whatever happens after the war. (I know, I know...) The 'Smoke Bush, Not Babies' poster was about the best of a bad bunch.
GWBush got a bad time of it, I'm afraid. 'The only Bush I trust is my own' was one of the wittiest posters; there were posters aplently of GW and Tony kissing. 'Mad Cowboy Disease' with a picture of the President dressed up like a cowboy with a big smartbomb under his arm was a corker.
However: it wasn't really an anti-American demonstration. (I remember last year the guy who got the most applause was some American guy who said 'The American people are not bad people! The American people are a generous people! as part of his speech'). No-one picketed the US embassy. I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse, but it was far, far more aimed at GWB, and Tony Blair, specifically.
For many people there was a link between the Palestinian occupation and the war: there were plenty of 'Solidarity with Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' placards.
I saw fewer 'No War for Oil' posters this time round. I did see a big banner that said 'HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?'
I've been going on peace marches in the UK since I was about eight, I suppose, and I know very well that this demonstration will make no difference at all. I reckon there were about 1,000,000 people (organisers say 2m, way too much, Police say 750,000, closer but no way) and it felt good all the same.
My march finished when we got to Hyde Park. Rallies are boring. My brother and I ducked off behind the Hilton and found a swanky Lebanese restaurant with waiters in bow ties and everything. We had mezzes - whitebait (yum), foule-masdamas (nice), fried halloumi (underdone) and hummus around little cubes of lamb kibbeh (unusual), and then a big plate of lamb shawarma.
Then, armed with my new SonyEricsson T300, I set off back into the rally to find my girlfriend, who is American, and very attractive. "No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]! No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]!" she chanted when you saw me, and then she put her cold hands on to my back underneath my jumper.
She hadn't eaten so went off to... a nice Lebanese café off Oxford Street where she ordered oh you don't really care do you?
Anyway. Er... 1 - 2 - 3 - 4! TONY BLAIR IS BUSH'S...
I cycled home all the way along Picadilly (long, long, broad avenue all the way from Picadilly Circus to the arch at the junction of the Strand, Buckingham Palace Road and Hyde Park Avenue) in the middle of the road, past marchers straggling home and roadsweepers.
No cars, buses or taxis.
Bliss.
It seems like a lot of your voting constituents don't want this. Are you listening Mr. Bush?
Of course the answer is no. That's ok though he's virtually guaranteed his defeat in the next election.
The scary thing is maybe he knows this and is trying to do as much damage as he can before he's gone. :eek:
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
They are too bias towards the United States.
<strong>These protestors should also protest about North Korea's threats of war and Russia's war on Chechyna (not sure how to spell).
They are too bias towards the United States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I agree with ether one or their motives but, one is a reaction to what we've been doing the other is political. We're in it for the oil ( and of course the distraction from more domestic problems ).
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
" To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. "
###
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
<strong>...
My major problem with this war issue is that if we were going to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we do it years ago?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That questions been answered a million times over. You may not like the answer. It may not seem like a good reason but anyone paying any attention at all knows what the reason was.
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Before tens of thousands of iraqi kids died and countless others having suffered irreparable developmental delays due to malnutrition. Years ago, an attack likely would have been met with support by the iraqi people, but now? After years of suffering, it's too little too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Getting rid of Sadam would hardly be "too little". It would be a "good start".
<strong>I marched: all the way from Shaftesbury Avenue to Hyde Park. Took three hours to get there in the freezing cold, but I marched! Oh yes.
Yes indeed, there was rhymed chanting, and on this point I'm in total agreement with Groverat. Like white people with dreadlocks who play the digeridoo, and jugglers, rhymed chanting on protest marches should be frowned upon. Perpetrators then beaten. I did not join in.
Still, though, it is my sombre duty to record here what the chants were.
(To the tune of 'Who Let the Dogs Out?'):
WHO LET THE BOMBS DROP?
-BUSH, BLAIR, SHAR-ON!
GEORGE BUSH, WE KNOW YOU:
DADDY WAS A KILLER TOO!
BUSH, BLAIR, CIA-
HOW MANY BABIES DID YOU KILL TODAY? (This one really is shit.)
1-2-3-4:
WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOODY WAR!
There was a little bit of 'What about the poor ikkle Iraqi babies?' about, which is plainly foolish, since Saddam's already responsible for about 50,000 Iraqi deaths since he's been in power I understand: getting rid of the bastard will make me very, very pleased, for one, whatever happens after the war. (I know, I know...) The 'Smoke Bush, Not Babies' poster was about the best of a bad bunch.
GWBush got a bad time of it, I'm afraid. 'The only Bush I trust is my own' was one of the wittiest posters; there were posters aplently of GW and Tony kissing. 'Mad Cowboy Disease' with a picture of the President dressed up like a cowboy with a big smartbomb under his arm was a corker.
However: it wasn't really an anti-American demonstration. (I remember last year the guy who got the most applause was some American guy who said 'The American people are not bad people! The American people are a generous people! as part of his speech'). No-one picketed the US embassy. I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse, but it was far, far more aimed at GWB, and Tony Blair, specifically.
For many people there was a link between the Palestinian occupation and the war: there were plenty of 'Solidarity with Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' placards.
I saw fewer 'No War for Oil' posters this time round. I did see a big banner that said 'HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?'
I've been going on peace marches in the UK since I was about eight, I suppose, and I know very well that this demonstration will make no difference at all. I reckon there were about 1,000,000 people (organisers say 2m, way too much, Police say 750,000, closer but no way) and it felt good all the same.
My march finished when we got to Hyde Park. Rallies are boring. My brother and I ducked off behind the Hilton and found a swanky Lebanese restaurant with waiters in bow ties and everything. We had mezzes - whitebait (yum), foule-masdamas (nice), fried halloumi (underdone) and hummus around little cubes of lamb kibbeh (unusual), and then a big plate of lamb shawarma.
Then, armed with my new SonyEricsson T300, I set off back into the rally to find my girlfriend, who is American, and very attractive. "No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]! No war on [mildy embarassing pet name for Hassan]!" she chanted when you saw me, and then she put her cold hands on to my back underneath my jumper.
She hadn't eaten so went off to... a nice Lebanese café off Oxford Street where she ordered oh you don't really care do you?
Anyway. Er... 1 - 2 - 3 - 4! TONY BLAIR IS BUSH'S...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No harsh words for Arafat, Husain or bin Laden? No holding the arab anti-semetic dictatorships to account? Pro-Saddam left meets the anti-Jew left? Oooops I mean "Israel".
<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>
Sadly it seems that war is a way of life with our " human elightened culture ". What we're talking about here is we have a choice to do this deed now or to consider the long term coseqences of our actions and to perhaps find another solution. And believe me when I say this will have many more far reaching consequences than the conflicts you have been talking about. And they aren't the ones that Bush is advertising.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
" Getting rid of Sadam would hardly be "too little". It would be a "good start".
__________________
If only it was just about that.
<strong>
No harsh words for Arafat, Husain or bin Laden? No holding the arab anti-semetic dictatorships to account? Pro-Saddam left meets the anti-Jew left? Oooops I mean "Israel".</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Pro-Saddam left" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The rhetoric machine is glowing red. Perhaps ou should let it rest for a couple of days.
The fate of the Chechnian people was on the agenda here as it always is in events like this. And also the fate of the people of the former Soviet states that live under dictatorship backed up by the coalitition states in the war in Afghanistan.
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>How many of these people were protesting when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or Iranians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly, very few. But then, that was 20 years ago, and Hussein was our buddy back then, since in the 80s it was uncool to align yourself with a fundamentalist Islamic country like Iran. We've changed our tune since then.
By the way, far from legitimizing our current invasion, our failure to invade back then implicates us in the past crime.
<strong> [quote]How about hit the streets to protest Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? How many are protesting the Chechnyan war?<hr></blockquote></strong>
From where I was, quite a few. There was a massive gathering when I was in college to protest the war in Iraq. There were protests in Europe, as well. But because Hussein had *invaded* another country, there was a more clear justification. The problem with the current anti-war crowd is that they don't seem to have changed their tune.
As for Chechnya...that was 5 years later. And completely unrelated (unless you consider that the entire thing was about an oil pipeline). And there was no NATO involvement. No one invaded. This was Russia trying to stop a breakaway republic. Not that it wasn't completely deplorable; it's just that your mentioning it is a red herring.
<strong> [quote]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?<hr></blockquote>[QB]
More red herrings. Not that I'm suggesting they're acceptable; they're just completely unrelated to the matter at hand. And the French have been complete bastards in Africa for a couple of hundred years now. The situation in the Ivory Coast is absolutely horrible, and I hope for a quick and peaceful resolution to the conflict there. Rwanda? If there was ever a situation where the US should have gone it, that was it. 800,000 people SLAUGHTERED (at a minimum...one million, others argue) while we stood by and did NOTHING? Unconscionable.
But again, not related to Iraq.
[QB] [quote]The US/NATO war in Kosovo? The various other conflicts and demagogues of the Balkans wars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was NATO, not the US. And the Balkans are of particular significance, considering that's where WWI started. And while we're at it, the entire time that Clinton was attempting to sell the US on the importance of sending US troops into the region, people like Limbaugh were arguing that he was merely attempting to divert attention from domestic issues. They were mounting, in other words, the same arguments that the democrats are making now about the war in Iraq.
The difference, of course, is that in the Balkans, people were pulling fillings out of corpses to make bullets, and Milosovec was killing people by the thousands.
We're invading because....why again? Hussein is a "bad, bad man"?
<strong> [quote]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>
I have to admit that I agree with you, here. I oppose all wars. I oppose all actions that involve sending young folks off to die.
There is always a better way.
And if the US's foreign policy hadn't been such a disaster over the past two years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Cheers
Scott
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]</p>
<strong>Jimmac thank you for posting Senator Byrd's words.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're welcome!
Words to live by ( hopefully ).
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, then, do they believe is the best way?
[quote]<strong>Thousands of Iraqi people have already been killed by Saddam, killing hundreds if not thousands more during a war isn't really going to help them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about the hundreds of thousands that have reportedly died from sanctions?
torifile:
[quote]<strong> After years of suffering, it's too little too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't make sense.
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>I did see a 'RESIST AMERICA' banner, though, and a HUGE American eagle with stars-and-bars wings covered in blood and a little Union Jack on its arse</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I've seen one of those on the streets in Iraq.
trickfall:
That's very clever. How much do you think you know about the situation?
t.fall
Yes so the US was aligned with Saddam. How does that relate to my point about protesters who claim moral outrage at US conduct yet to bother to give a **** at similar reprehensible conduct when taken by others?
[quote]By the way, far from legitimizing our current invasion, our failure to invade back then implicates us in the past crime.<hr></blockquote>
As you'll note I didn't take a position on the invasion of Iraq in this thread. So I'm unclear as to why you are trying to refute the idea that the past legitimizes a current invasion when I did not suggest that.
[quote]From where I was, quite a few. There was a massive gathering when I was in college to protest the war in Iraq. There were protests in Europe, as well. But because Hussein had *invaded* another country, there was a more clear justification. <hr></blockquote>
It appears as though you are talking about people protesting Desert Storm/Shield when you talk about protesting the war in Iraq and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait blunting those protests because it gave a firmer argument for a defensive war than the present circumstances. That's not what I am talking about. I am asking why those same people who were out there today protesting the horrors of war, the death and destruction, the imposition of a pupper govt from another country etc etc were not out there protesting Saddam Hussein when he was doing as much to Kuwait. What is the distinction, moral or political or whatever that makes one POTENTIAL war action objectionable enough for millions to mass while few if any did as much in the other case? I can certainly see differences based on national factors; a Kuwaiti would understandably place more import on a war in Iraq than say the Chechnyan situation. But I see no reason why for example the people in a third party country ought to treat it differently. Which reasons for the objections to war and subsequent protests apply for one but not the other? There is a national political argument that can be made to some extent but at the end of the day the moral argument is the grounding for the political position and I do not see how action on one but indifference on the other can be grounds for anything other than my conjecture that many many many people are full of shit.
[quote]As for Chechnya...that was 5 years later. And completely unrelated (unless you consider that the entire thing was about an oil pipeline). And there was no NATO involvement. No one invaded. This was Russia trying to stop a breakaway republic. Not that it wasn't completely deplorable; it's just that your mentioning it is a red herring. <hr></blockquote>
Again you are missing the point. Other Wars no major protests. Or perhaps someone can link an article from a credible source talking about hundreds of thousands massing in the same cities we saw today to protest those conflicts. What makes this war not worthy of being noticed by those who were out there today but a POTENTIAL war in Iraq is worthy of protest?
[quote]More red herrings. Not that I'm suggesting they're acceptable; they're just completely unrelated to the matter at hand. And the French have been complete bastards in Africa for a couple of hundred years now. The situation in the Ivory Coast is absolutely horrible, and I hope for a quick and peaceful resolution to the conflict there. Rwanda? If there was ever a situation where the US should have gone it, that was it. 800,000 people SLAUGHTERED (at a minimum...one million, others argue) while we stood by and did NOTHING? Unconscionable.
But again, not related to Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
Again, where were the protests about what was going on in Rwanda? Why do Europeans protest Bush for example or Blair but no one bothers to protest any of the numerous African thugs who have done far worse? There are several answers to this, but some of them might make some of our friends who doth not protest enough uncomfortable.
[quote]That was NATO, not the US. And the Balkans are of particular significance, considering that's where WWI started. And while we're at it, the entire time that Clinton was attempting to sell the US on the importance of sending US troops into the region, people like Limbaugh were arguing that he was merely attempting to divert attention from domestic issues. They were mounting, in other words, the same arguments that the democrats are making now about the war in Iraq.
The difference, of course, is that in the Balkans, people were pulling fillings out of corpses to make bullets, and Milosovec was killing people by the thousands.<hr></blockquote>
See above.
I think you must have me confused with a Republican or something. Or with someone who had stated positions on these wars in this thread. Tsk Tsk, it says right there under my name that I live in Seattle so I'm obviously not a Republican or I would be living in Redmond.
[quote]I have to admit that I agree with you, here. I oppose all wars. I oppose all actions that involve sending young folks off to die.<hr></blockquote>
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.