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.
This is not so simple, some anti-war people are anti-Bush for sure, but some others have others reasons, perhaps a lot of differents reasons.
And how do you explain that they are anti-Bush ? i can understand that they are anti-american, because the left winged europeans are anti-americans, but why anti-Bush ?
This is not so simple, some anti-war people are anti-Bush for sure, but some others have others reasons, perhaps a lot of differents reasons.
And how do you explain that they are anti-Bush ? i can understand that they are anti-american, because the left winged europeans are anti-americans, but why anti-Bush ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anti-Bush in the sense that Bush represents everything they hate about America. Bush is simply the focal point for them to point their histility towards. You will notice a large number of their slogans disparage Bush, instead of the US directly. You will find most will readily agree that they are anti-Bush, in fact they hide their anti-Americanism behind that claim.
Anti-Bush in the sense that Bush represents everything they hate about America. Bush is simply the focal point for them to point their histility towards. You will notice a large number of their slogans disparage Bush, instead of the US directly. You will find most will readily agree that they are anti-Bush, in fact they hide their anti-Americanism behind that claim.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think for my part that Bush is really impopular outside US. Perhaps the most impopular US president outside US for the last tvo decades ( i have not advice for the sixties and the seventies : i was too young). Why Bush is unpopular is an another debate, but i think he is really unpopular outside US.
My personal feelings are : first before being elected he appears to me (at the light of some media) not very bright, then i appreciate very much the magement of 9/11 and afghanistan (i will give him an A). Then i was disapointed by his speech of axis of evil (perhaps it's an american Franck way of speaking opposed to the hypocrite way of speaking of europe) but i did not appreciate it, coming from an important (the more) world leader. I did not appreciate either his management of the Iraq thing. That's why he is not my most popular US president. However i am not an US citizen and my opinion is irrelivant, Anyway we speak only here of public opinion. I just wanted to point out that my lack of sympathy with Bush has nothing to do for me with an anti-US thing. Certainly a large number of the poeple who protested are anti-bush, the traditional anti-american people, but you will fool your-self if you think that it's only limited to these ones.
<strong>Perhaps the most impopular US president outside US for the last tvo decades ( i have not advice for the sixties and the seventies : i was too young). Why Bush is unpopular is an another debate, but i think he is really unpopular outside US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. is really unpopular outside the U.S. and even was in the days of foreign-policy-fiend Bill Clinton.
Also:
Did you know that Clinton referred to Iraq as being part of an "unholy axis" in 1998?
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.
That you reduce the possible options to three is a worrying glimpse of your worldview. Option one, war. Option two, war if we can prove Iraq broke the resolution that we claim means we are allowed to go to war. Option three, anti-american zealot.
--------------------
Someone, groverat I think, is asking how the anti-war protestors would 'end this thing'.
End what? What simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white scenario do you think is going to be finished by a war?
Did you miss the memo about the never-ending war on terror? I'm sure W mentioned it once or twice, maybe you weren't paying attention.
It will be the start, far more than it will be the end, for everyone except the hundreds of thousands that will die in the conflict.
I personally want to know how spending hundreds of billions of dollars sending allied troops to kill and be killed far from home became the default option.
----------------------
So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.
<strong>You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Frankly, I hope you realize that absolute pacifism cannot hold sway here. War is a last resort. But for pacifists, there's no point in arguing, is there?
[quote]<strong>Someone, groverat I think, is asking how the anti-war protestors would 'end this thing'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So ignore them and they'll go away? Are you really this naive?
<strong>End what? What simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white scenario do you think is going to be finished by a war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reign of Saddam Hussein as brutal dictator of Iraq will be ended by a war.
[quote]<strong>Did you miss the memo about the never-ending war on terror? I'm sure W mentioned it once or twice, maybe you weren't paying attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stay on subject.
[quote]<strong>It will be the start, far more than it will be the end, for everyone except the hundreds of thousands that will die in the conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The start of what?
That argument would be a lot more compelling if hundreds of thousands Iraqis haven't died because of the sanctions designed to avoid military conflict. But they have died and suffer and will die and suffer so long as there are sanctions.
[quote]<strong>I personally want to know how spending hundreds of billions of dollars sending allied troops to kill and be killed far from home became the default option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you didn't finish the thought, "because the default option..." what?
What do you do instead of war? Do you inspect while Saddam is uncooperative? Do you lift the sanctions?
I just want to add that we went to a local rally here in Buffalo, NY. About 300-400 people braving 10deg.F (-12 deg.C) weather, several busloads of people had gone to the NYC rally (400 miles away).
people from all walks of life, short speeches, very much on topic. I was glad to see that the usual suspects didn't co-opt the rally to get some other message out.
The rally focussed on how morally wrong it is to bomb civilians and accept that as "collateral damage", that bombing Iraq WILL NOT make the United Satates any safer and that you have some arrogant bastards with a black-and-white understanding of world politics and very questionable motives in the White House.
In response to an earlier post to this thread: I was also glad to see people with American flags at our little rally (the right way up), since I feel very strongly that it is our patriotic duty to question what the administration is doing. And the higher "level of discourse" (as coined by groverat), meaning acknowledging that many things about our country are good, but this military aggression isn't, is very much present among American anti-war activists with placards reading "Not in our name".
I could now rattle off a long list of facts and logical conclusions here, e.g. unability of FBI and CIA to link Al-Quaeda to Iraq for 15 months after 9/11 (until Tenet caved in to White House pressure last week ;-), other countries in violation of U.N. resolutions, dealings of members of the current administration in the past and their consequences, un-accuracy of the "precision bombing" in Gulf War 1 (remember that ONE clip CNN kept showing over and over again of an air-to-surface missile hitting a bunker?) and its consequences - and if provoked enough I will ;-) - but for now it shall suffice to state that:
(a) The USA are not any safer now than in September 2001, or February 1993 (WTC bombing)
(b) attacking Iraq and killing Iraqi civilians (besides being morally repugnant and making u sno better than terrorists who fly planes into buildings) will play into the hands of Muslim extremist organizations and will "create" many more terrorists.
(c) we have a dangerous idiot in the White House.
Bush jr gave one of his ridiculous speeches a few days ago "... we've hauled in thousands of terrorists, they're off the streets... [and the world's safer place already]".
What the people in this administration are very slow to grasp is that religion-based terrorism is VERY different from secular terrorism as seen in Europe in the 1970's (Italy's Red Brigades, Germany's Red Army Faction, France's Action Directe) or in the United States more recently (bombing of federal Building in OK City). In those cases the number of people involved in the organization was finite, and they could be hunted down, decimated, forced to give up.
Not in this case, there are 1 billion Muslims on this Earth, most of them no different from you and I as far as goals in life: live in peace, raise a family and provide for them, live happily. You wage an unjust war against Muslim civilians, and you will push a certain segment of the population into extremism and get a lot of volunteers to "die for the cause"... what would it take to paralyze the united States? Half a dozen terrorists walking into assorted malls or movie theaters with explosive belts? Get real...
A very positive effect of the peace rallies that I have noticed by now (1 day after): U.S. Broadcast TV News (NBC, CBS, ABC) are all of a sudden giving a significant amount of airtime (60+ secs!) to local groups opposed to the war or, e.g., a bunch of U.S. Christian ministers tarveling to Iraq despite a travel ban (this can actually carry jailtime and fine!) and talking about how people have been affected by the bombings (Gulf War 1 and sporadic bombings since) and how children are dying from the sanctions, etc., whereas before they had simply played cheerleaders for the Bush administration (well, they still are, for the most part).
Let's hope there is some "intelligence" in the White House after all and they stop this madness...
just a thought... As no-one questions that Saddam Hussein is a f**king bastard who needs to go, why not the following: lift the economic sanctions and not attack Iraq, so Iraqi civilians will be spared.
Improve our UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and just take out Saddam and his entourage. It can be done, as evidenced by the recent UAV attack in Jemen, just wait for the right moment and get him.
Enough high-level Iraqi officials have fled the country to tell us who else needs to be taken out, and since the Iraqi people are now sufficiently well fed due to the lifting of the sanctions, they can focus their minds on the future of their country...
You think the French would allow the UN to sanction the assassination of one of their best business partners? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Oh btw when that fails to work ... what then? More "international pressure"?
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firstly, where did I 'struggle' to provide 100% proof? At least you admit that regardless of proof, you would be against a war. Some people of character have thought in the past that somethings are worth fighting for. For you, I guess, nothing is worth going to war. If everyone in the world thought as you did, it would be a great place. Unfortunately, in the real world, there will always be evils worth fighting against. Fortunately, there will also be people willing to fight against them.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
That you reduce the possible options to three is a worrying glimpse of your worldview. Option one, war. Option two, war if we can prove Iraq broke the resolution that we claim means we are allowed to go to war. Option three, anti-american zealot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or option 4, in your worldview, get together, sing some songs, chant some witty slogans and accomplish nothing but inactivity. Again, fortunately, in the past, others have had the backbone to fight for things worth dieing for, and left you the freedom to protest. In fact, the country you live in owes it's freedom to people willing to die, not just chant, sing and burn flags.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So long as others are around to protect your freedoms with force.
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the type of arrogant, ignorant and contrite comment I constantly see from the 'war mongering folks' in the US. It's been answered 1000 times over.
Go do whatever you like. But when you're ready to, please explain how the US is empowered to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Of course that's a loaded question because we all know that the US isn't legally, morally or by any other stretch of the imagination empowered to do what it's about to do. Some of you just don't care. Some of us do.
It's not about 'no war at any cost.' That's such a tired, thoughtless strawman argument it's sad to see people still attempting to use it in an intellectual discussion. It's demeaning to yourself and your arguments.
The US could be threatening to raise tariffs on goods from Andorra because Andorra skipped out on their UN dues. Well, it's not the job of the US to enforce the UN's policy. It's the UN's job. It only happens that war is more urgent because potentially hundreds of thousands will die in the process while very few of the very few in Andorra would perish if we raised tariffs.
But in either case it's the principle behind the issue. The same ones that are the basis for both the US Constitution and the UN Charter. Might is not right. Military might cannot be a factor in diplomacy. Reduce yourselves to the level of moronic beasts if you so choose, but don't drag myself or my country with you.
So long as others are around to protect your freedoms with force.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Our freedoms have yet to be threatened by Saddam. Pre-emption is not allowed nor should it ever be. Liberty is founded on that principle. You're free until you cross the line. Once the line is crossed, you're accountable. Never before.
Sorry it sucks for you 'war mongering folks' but such is law and I hope you're never able to change it.
The U.S. is really unpopular outside the U.S. and even was in the days of foreign-policy-fiend Bill Clinton.
Also:
Did you know that Clinton referred to Iraq as being part of an "unholy axis" in 1998? </strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry, but I have to correct you, groverat:
The United States were much more popular (at least in Europe) before Bush jr. took office.
I regularly read (present and past tense) German and French news, and while there always may have been certain reservations, many Europeans had high regard for both Clinton and Gore personally and their administrations. As ineffective as the middle east peace process may seem in hindsight since Intifada 2 broke out in Palestine, there still was appreciation that Clinton/Gore were actively seeking a peaceful solution. I of course cannot speak for Muslim countries, and only know second-hand from American Muslims that there was outrage about the sanctions and the occasional bombings in Iraq, non-prevention of slaughter in Bosnia, etc.
So while the United States wouldn't have won a popularity contest in Muslim countries before Bush jr, I'm assuming that the antipathy reached a fevered pitch with his stupid remarks about a "crusade", etc.
I also think that most Muslims were equally shocked by footage of 9/11, maybe because they wouldn't want something like this to happen to even their worst "enemy". Disliking a country and taking to actually harm people of this country are far, far apart.
Two anecdotes in that vein, found in articles in the months after 9/11/2001:
An Iranian cleric said that they, too, were in shock and felt sympathy for the victims of 9/11, so that for two weeks they refrained from their "traditional" ending of the Friday prayer which included a line "And death to the USA".
Drinking a Coca Cola, a Pakistani stated that: "American products are sweet, Anerican foreign policy is bitter."
<strong>You think the French would allow the UN to sanction the assassination of one of their best business partners? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get your facts right, French exports to Iraq are less than 0.2% of their total exports.
About your signature line "Free Speech": I hope you didn't fail to notice that freedom of the press/free speech was one of the first things to fall by the wayside after Sept.11
It's not about 'no war at any cost.' That's such a tired, thoughtless strawman argument it's sad to see people still attempting to use it in an intellectual discussion. It's demeaning to yourself and your arguments.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may be a tired thoughtless arguement, but when discussing it with some people, it comes up:
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox: <strong>
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox: <strong>So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
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.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is not so simple, some anti-war people are anti-Bush for sure, but some others have others reasons, perhaps a lot of differents reasons.
And how do you explain that they are anti-Bush ? i can understand that they are anti-american, because the left winged europeans are anti-americans, but why anti-Bush ?
<strong>
This is not so simple, some anti-war people are anti-Bush for sure, but some others have others reasons, perhaps a lot of differents reasons.
And how do you explain that they are anti-Bush ? i can understand that they are anti-american, because the left winged europeans are anti-americans, but why anti-Bush ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anti-Bush in the sense that Bush represents everything they hate about America. Bush is simply the focal point for them to point their histility towards. You will notice a large number of their slogans disparage Bush, instead of the US directly. You will find most will readily agree that they are anti-Bush, in fact they hide their anti-Americanism behind that claim.
<strong>
Anti-Bush in the sense that Bush represents everything they hate about America. Bush is simply the focal point for them to point their histility towards. You will notice a large number of their slogans disparage Bush, instead of the US directly. You will find most will readily agree that they are anti-Bush, in fact they hide their anti-Americanism behind that claim.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think for my part that Bush is really impopular outside US. Perhaps the most impopular US president outside US for the last tvo decades ( i have not advice for the sixties and the seventies : i was too young). Why Bush is unpopular is an another debate, but i think he is really unpopular outside US.
My personal feelings are : first before being elected he appears to me (at the light of some media) not very bright, then i appreciate very much the magement of 9/11 and afghanistan (i will give him an A). Then i was disapointed by his speech of axis of evil (perhaps it's an american Franck way of speaking opposed to the hypocrite way of speaking of europe) but i did not appreciate it, coming from an important (the more) world leader. I did not appreciate either his management of the Iraq thing. That's why he is not my most popular US president. However i am not an US citizen and my opinion is irrelivant, Anyway we speak only here of public opinion. I just wanted to point out that my lack of sympathy with Bush has nothing to do for me with an anti-US thing. Certainly a large number of the poeple who protested are anti-bush, the traditional anti-american people, but you will fool your-self if you think that it's only limited to these ones.
<strong>Perhaps the most impopular US president outside US for the last tvo decades ( i have not advice for the sixties and the seventies : i was too young). Why Bush is unpopular is an another debate, but i think he is really unpopular outside US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. is really unpopular outside the U.S. and even was in the days of foreign-policy-fiend Bill Clinton.
Also:
Did you know that Clinton referred to Iraq as being part of an "unholy axis" in 1998?
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.
That you reduce the possible options to three is a worrying glimpse of your worldview. Option one, war. Option two, war if we can prove Iraq broke the resolution that we claim means we are allowed to go to war. Option three, anti-american zealot.
--------------------
Someone, groverat I think, is asking how the anti-war protestors would 'end this thing'.
End what? What simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white scenario do you think is going to be finished by a war?
Did you miss the memo about the never-ending war on terror? I'm sure W mentioned it once or twice, maybe you weren't paying attention.
It will be the start, far more than it will be the end, for everyone except the hundreds of thousands that will die in the conflict.
I personally want to know how spending hundreds of billions of dollars sending allied troops to kill and be killed far from home became the default option.
----------------------
So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.
War (what is it good for?)
Oh no-there's got to be a better way
Say it again
There's got to be a better way-yeah
What is it good for?
War has caused unrest
Among the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die?
War - huh!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War - huh!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Yeah
War - I despise
'Cos it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers how
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said
War - huh!
It's an enemy of all mankind
No point of war
'Cos you're a man
Give it to me one time-now
War has shattered
Many young men's dreams
We've got no place for it today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord, there's just got to be a better way
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War
War
War - Good God, now
Now
Give it to me one time now
Now now
What is it good for?
<strong>You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Frankly, I hope you realize that absolute pacifism cannot hold sway here. War is a last resort. But for pacifists, there's no point in arguing, is there?
[quote]<strong>Someone, groverat I think, is asking how the anti-war protestors would 'end this thing'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So ignore them and they'll go away? Are you really this naive?
<strong>End what? What simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white scenario do you think is going to be finished by a war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reign of Saddam Hussein as brutal dictator of Iraq will be ended by a war.
[quote]<strong>Did you miss the memo about the never-ending war on terror? I'm sure W mentioned it once or twice, maybe you weren't paying attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stay on subject.
[quote]<strong>It will be the start, far more than it will be the end, for everyone except the hundreds of thousands that will die in the conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The start of what?
That argument would be a lot more compelling if hundreds of thousands Iraqis haven't died because of the sanctions designed to avoid military conflict. But they have died and suffer and will die and suffer so long as there are sanctions.
[quote]<strong>I personally want to know how spending hundreds of billions of dollars sending allied troops to kill and be killed far from home became the default option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you didn't finish the thought, "because the default option..." what?
What do you do instead of war? Do you inspect while Saddam is uncooperative? Do you lift the sanctions?
people from all walks of life, short speeches, very much on topic. I was glad to see that the usual suspects didn't co-opt the rally to get some other message out.
The rally focussed on how morally wrong it is to bomb civilians and accept that as "collateral damage", that bombing Iraq WILL NOT make the United Satates any safer and that you have some arrogant bastards with a black-and-white understanding of world politics and very questionable motives in the White House.
In response to an earlier post to this thread: I was also glad to see people with American flags at our little rally (the right way up), since I feel very strongly that it is our patriotic duty to question what the administration is doing. And the higher "level of discourse" (as coined by groverat), meaning acknowledging that many things about our country are good, but this military aggression isn't, is very much present among American anti-war activists with placards reading "Not in our name".
I could now rattle off a long list of facts and logical conclusions here, e.g. unability of FBI and CIA to link Al-Quaeda to Iraq for 15 months after 9/11 (until Tenet caved in to White House pressure last week ;-), other countries in violation of U.N. resolutions, dealings of members of the current administration in the past and their consequences, un-accuracy of the "precision bombing" in Gulf War 1 (remember that ONE clip CNN kept showing over and over again of an air-to-surface missile hitting a bunker?) and its consequences - and if provoked enough I will ;-) - but for now it shall suffice to state that:
(a) The USA are not any safer now than in September 2001, or February 1993 (WTC bombing)
(b) attacking Iraq and killing Iraqi civilians (besides being morally repugnant and making u sno better than terrorists who fly planes into buildings) will play into the hands of Muslim extremist organizations and will "create" many more terrorists.
(c) we have a dangerous idiot in the White House.
Bush jr gave one of his ridiculous speeches a few days ago "... we've hauled in thousands of terrorists, they're off the streets... [and the world's safer place already]".
What the people in this administration are very slow to grasp is that religion-based terrorism is VERY different from secular terrorism as seen in Europe in the 1970's (Italy's Red Brigades, Germany's Red Army Faction, France's Action Directe) or in the United States more recently (bombing of federal Building in OK City). In those cases the number of people involved in the organization was finite, and they could be hunted down, decimated, forced to give up.
Not in this case, there are 1 billion Muslims on this Earth, most of them no different from you and I as far as goals in life: live in peace, raise a family and provide for them, live happily. You wage an unjust war against Muslim civilians, and you will push a certain segment of the population into extremism and get a lot of volunteers to "die for the cause"... what would it take to paralyze the united States? Half a dozen terrorists walking into assorted malls or movie theaters with explosive belts? Get real...
A very positive effect of the peace rallies that I have noticed by now (1 day after): U.S. Broadcast TV News (NBC, CBS, ABC) are all of a sudden giving a significant amount of airtime (60+ secs!) to local groups opposed to the war or, e.g., a bunch of U.S. Christian ministers tarveling to Iraq despite a travel ban (this can actually carry jailtime and fine!) and talking about how people have been affected by the bombings (Gulf War 1 and sporadic bombings since) and how children are dying from the sanctions, etc., whereas before they had simply played cheerleaders for the Bush administration (well, they still are, for the most part).
Let's hope there is some "intelligence" in the White House after all and they stop this madness...
(edited for spelling)
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: mw ]</p>
Improve our UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and just take out Saddam and his entourage. It can be done, as evidenced by the recent UAV attack in Jemen, just wait for the right moment and get him.
Enough high-level Iraqi officials have fled the country to tell us who else needs to be taken out, and since the Iraqi people are now sufficiently well fed due to the lifting of the sanctions, they can focus their minds on the future of their country...
Oh btw when that fails to work ... what then? More "international pressure"?
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. The fact that you would struggle to do so just makes it more laughable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firstly, where did I 'struggle' to provide 100% proof? At least you admit that regardless of proof, you would be against a war. Some people of character have thought in the past that somethings are worth fighting for. For you, I guess, nothing is worth going to war. If everyone in the world thought as you did, it would be a great place. Unfortunately, in the real world, there will always be evils worth fighting against. Fortunately, there will also be people willing to fight against them.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
That you reduce the possible options to three is a worrying glimpse of your worldview. Option one, war. Option two, war if we can prove Iraq broke the resolution that we claim means we are allowed to go to war. Option three, anti-american zealot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or option 4, in your worldview, get together, sing some songs, chant some witty slogans and accomplish nothing but inactivity. Again, fortunately, in the past, others have had the backbone to fight for things worth dieing for, and left you the freedom to protest. In fact, the country you live in owes it's freedom to people willing to die, not just chant, sing and burn flags.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So long as others are around to protect your freedoms with force.
<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>
This is the type of arrogant, ignorant and contrite comment I constantly see from the 'war mongering folks' in the US. It's been answered 1000 times over.
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html"; target="_blank">Here's</a> yet another explanation for the intellectually challenged 'war mongering folks' in the US. Go read the comments from Senator Byrd that were posted by jimmac.
Go do whatever you like. But when you're ready to, please explain how the US is empowered to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Of course that's a loaded question because we all know that the US isn't legally, morally or by any other stretch of the imagination empowered to do what it's about to do. Some of you just don't care. Some of us do.
It's not about 'no war at any cost.' That's such a tired, thoughtless strawman argument it's sad to see people still attempting to use it in an intellectual discussion. It's demeaning to yourself and your arguments.
The US could be threatening to raise tariffs on goods from Andorra because Andorra skipped out on their UN dues. Well, it's not the job of the US to enforce the UN's policy. It's the UN's job. It only happens that war is more urgent because potentially hundreds of thousands will die in the process while very few of the very few in Andorra would perish if we raised tariffs.
But in either case it's the principle behind the issue. The same ones that are the basis for both the US Constitution and the UN Charter. Might is not right. Military might cannot be a factor in diplomacy. Reduce yourselves to the level of moronic beasts if you so choose, but don't drag myself or my country with you.
<strong>
So long as others are around to protect your freedoms with force.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Our freedoms have yet to be threatened by Saddam. Pre-emption is not allowed nor should it ever be. Liberty is founded on that principle. You're free until you cross the line. Once the line is crossed, you're accountable. Never before.
Sorry it sucks for you 'war mongering folks' but such is law and I hope you're never able to change it.
<strong>
The U.S. is really unpopular outside the U.S. and even was in the days of foreign-policy-fiend Bill Clinton.
Also:
Did you know that Clinton referred to Iraq as being part of an "unholy axis" in 1998?
sorry, but I have to correct you, groverat:
The United States were much more popular (at least in Europe) before Bush jr. took office.
I regularly read (present and past tense) German and French news, and while there always may have been certain reservations, many Europeans had high regard for both Clinton and Gore personally and their administrations. As ineffective as the middle east peace process may seem in hindsight since Intifada 2 broke out in Palestine, there still was appreciation that Clinton/Gore were actively seeking a peaceful solution. I of course cannot speak for Muslim countries, and only know second-hand from American Muslims that there was outrage about the sanctions and the occasional bombings in Iraq, non-prevention of slaughter in Bosnia, etc.
So while the United States wouldn't have won a popularity contest in Muslim countries before Bush jr, I'm assuming that the antipathy reached a fevered pitch with his stupid remarks about a "crusade", etc.
I also think that most Muslims were equally shocked by footage of 9/11, maybe because they wouldn't want something like this to happen to even their worst "enemy". Disliking a country and taking to actually harm people of this country are far, far apart.
Two anecdotes in that vein, found in articles in the months after 9/11/2001:
An Iranian cleric said that they, too, were in shock and felt sympathy for the victims of 9/11, so that for two weeks they refrained from their "traditional" ending of the Friday prayer which included a line "And death to the USA".
Drinking a Coca Cola, a Pakistani stated that: "American products are sweet, Anerican foreign policy is bitter."
<strong>You think the French would allow the UN to sanction the assassination of one of their best business partners? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get your facts right, French exports to Iraq are less than 0.2% of their total exports.
About your signature line "Free Speech": I hope you didn't fail to notice that freedom of the press/free speech was one of the first things to fall by the wayside after Sept.11
<strong>
So long as others are around to protect your freedoms with force.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure this questions was asked in this thread already, but I'll have to ask again: Now who's freedom is Iraq currently threatening?
Watching too many replays of Bush saying "They hate our freedom."?
<strong>
It's not about 'no war at any cost.' That's such a tired, thoughtless strawman argument it's sad to see people still attempting to use it in an intellectual discussion. It's demeaning to yourself and your arguments.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may be a tired thoughtless arguement, but when discussing it with some people, it comes up:
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox: <strong>
You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox: <strong>So to sum up, and answer both of you. Put me and Edwin Starr down for Option 4, no war, no way, no how.</strong><hr></blockquote>