• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Foolish WAR protests

stamenflicker

Unregistered
S
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html

Notice the sign this lady is holding. It says, "Are you willing to kill her to get Saadam?"

FACT: She and 500,000 of her children have been killed since 1991 due to sanctions that Saadam continues to not only allow, but invite.

FACT: We kill more Iraqis with sanctions than we ever would with war.

FACT: If these protests were about saving lives, they'd be marching for the removal of Saadam.

FACT: There have been dozens of wars in the last five years, some of which have had death tolls near a million people and we did not see these protests.

FACT: These protests are not against WAR, they are against America.

Flick
 
Apparently, not everyone feels its foolish....

Biggest ever demonstration in the UK

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of London to voice their opposition to military action against Iraq.

Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million.
Click to expand...
 
Instead of calling it an "Anti-War" demonstration... why not call it a "Pro-Starvation and Mutilation" demonstration?

I like John S. Mill on war...

"War is a terrible thing, but it is not the most terrible of things. The sickening, unpatriotic fervor that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse."

Flick
 
Don't bring up starvation, it creates a no-win arguement.

You: But what about the starving Iraqi people
Anti-War Nut: its America's fault their starving
You: Well, Saddam seems to have enough money to build palaces
Anti-War Nut: it doesnt matter, whats matters is..... (insert easily debunkable claim here)

This goes on and on, the point being that the anti-war nut believes that in the end all of his/her flawed arguements together make a compelling case. And so it winds up like this:

You: I have now debunked 110 claims in a row
Anti-War Nut: Doesn't the fact that there are 110 claims startle you? You just don't get it.
You: I guess you're right, one of us surely doesn't get it.
 
Why is it that the same people who say "no war for oil" seem to be just fine with supporting a brutal regime for that same oil? Look at French oil contracts with Iraq and you will see why they do not want a regime change.

And aren't the people who want to give more time for inspections the same people who a couple years ago wanted to lift sanctions? You don't hear a lot of that now, do you?
 
These protests are not anti-war, they are anti-Bush or anti-America.
They are protesting the fact that for the most part they are unimportant and impotent. They are saddened by the fact they have no effect on the outcome of events. Some are there because it looks like more fun being in a loud, contrary gaggle of fools than it would be presenting a strong, silent show of approval and support for the inevitable, much-needed conflict. Many are there because there's a hot girl they want to poke who's involved and this is a good way to get in her pants. Regardless, they are all fools, these protests are a waste of time and effort.
 
FACT: She and 500,000 of her children have been killed since 1991 due to sanctions that Saadam continues to not only allow, but invite.
Click to expand...

Forget the sanctions, this many people have been killed by Saddams own hand. And every day that goes by, more people, his own people, are being murdered, by his hand.

Where are all the protests against this fact?? Its very easy to ignore when the root of the matter is America bashing.
 
Richard G said:


Forget the sanctions, this many people have been killed by Saddams own hand. And every day that goes by, more people, his own people, are being murdered, by his hand.

Where are all the protests against this fact?? Its very easy to ignore when the root of the matter is America bashing.
Click to expand...

Good points. Socialists in Europe and their communist allies have a different definition of humanitarianism. Humanitarianism does not benefit the individual--it benefits the state only.

That is very important to recognize because the aspirations of socialists (true socialists) are doing things "for the people" only in that it will keep non-elected socialist bureaucrats in power. The instant that the bureaucracy no longer needs the support of internal populations, those populations are fed to the wolves. Liberty and the rights of men are always secondary to the socialist state.

The marches today are not in support of the Iraqi people. The reason is that they are just people. Iraq is a socialist Satrap state, so the state is always an ally to A.N.S.W.E.R over moral human rights issues.

That is the delibrate misunderstanding that A.N.S.W.E.R has created because they easily tapped into the socialist ideology of European states.

JK
 
I am still wondering why I saw someone with a "Free Mumia" poster at an anti-war rally. I remember the last big rally in Washington D.C., many of the speakers were speaking of causes other than the war. I think it is just an excuse for alot of people to push their stupid causes.
 
Perhaps if those who are pro-war could appreciate that there are valid anti-war arguments, they might have some chance of winning the debate. Just hurling insults at anti-war folk doesn't work very well.

I agree with many of the claims that Bush/Blair are making. I am sure Iraq does have some WMDs. I agree that Saddam is a very nasty dictator. I would love to have him deposed and replaced with a democratic government. I don't even think the war is primarily about oil - at least for Blair I think he is sincere about his reasons.

But given all of that, I'm still not convinced that war is the right thing to do at this time. My concerns are :
1. Many people may be killed in war (and yes, of course many have already died, but war isn't going to bring them back to life).

2. War could destabilise the region. Just because Saddam is kicked out does not mean a nice democrat is going to replace him (Kuwait still doesn't have democracy and they were on our side and owed us a favour). This could lead to even more suffering and death for the Iraqi people long after the war is over.

3. Rather than a war against terrorism, this could be a war that increases terrorism as terrorists use the best means of defence they have.

I am not saying that these concerns will definitely be proved correct. I might well be shown to be wrong in a year or two, in which case I will happily admit so. But that does not mean that my concerns are stupid, or that I am an "anti-war nut" for having them.

Its really easy to look at problems around the world and think that a good war will fix the problem. Sometimes it does; but sometimes it makes it a lot worse.

I think the pro-war people have identified the problem but do not have the right solution.
 
a_unique_person said:
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.
Click to expand...
Extremist Muslims do not have broad appeal in Turkey. I doubt the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein would change that. And even if it did, the Kemalist military would transform such radicals into dairy products. The Turks take the secular framework of their state seriously. Erdogan, the current de facto leader of Turkey, was jailed for reciting a poem with Islamic content.

I'm not buying that slippery-slope argument. There's popular resentment to a war on Iraq in most European countries, it would be surprising if Turkey was any different. With the added factor of Iraqi Kurdistan, which I believe is their main worry, it's understandable why they would be negative.
 
"Perhaps if those who are pro-war could appreciate that there are valid anti-war arguments, they might have some chance of winning the debate. Just hurling insults at anti-war folk doesn't work very well."

Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.
 
a_unique_person said:
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.
Click to expand...

Well then, we'll carve up Turkey and mop up Greece.

Careful, Shistallini tried it and look what happened to him!!
 
stamenflicker said:
Instead of calling it an "Anti-War" demonstration... why not call it a "Pro-Starvation and Mutilation" demonstration?

I like John S. Mill on war...

"War is a terrible thing, but it is not the most terrible of things. The sickening, unpatriotic fervor that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse."

Flick
Click to expand...

Cute. Is it possible to get any more stereotypically right-wing? :rolleyes:
 
What I havent heard anti war activists address yet(and I'm talking the sincere ones, not the various groups and individuals with anit-American, pro-socialist, or enviremental activist agendas they're attaching to this particular movement), is what do we do when continued efforts to gain our objectives fail? At what point do we say, "He's playing games with us, lying, cheating, and hiding things he agreed over a decade go to accept." Anti-war demonstrators ask, "What do we do when we invade and win?" I ask, "what do we do after another month/year/decade of prevarication, intimidation, and lying, everyone finally agrees that Saddam is/has developed WMD.?"

Of course, if the anti-war proponants are correct, we can afford to play these games, and nothing bad will happen. If the pro-war side is correct, the whole game will come to an end when Saddam or his heirs use those weapons on whatever target they are developing them for, and the victim/victims and allies retaliate.

So, those against the idea of war in the immediate future, what is your take? how long do we give the 'peace process', when do we conceed it has failed, and what do we do when we make that concession?
 
a_unique_person said:
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.
Click to expand...

No problemo

You'd have one more thing to blame the US for.

Then if we decided to go into Turkey and put a democratic government back in place you could march and bitch and say it was all our fault in the first place.

Think of how happy you'd be. :rolleyes:
 
Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844344/posts?page=37

01.jpg


More pics here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844221/posts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom