Where are the other vocal protests?

[Badger]

There is a lot of focus on protests against the US involvment in Iraq.

How come no one mentions anything about the Ivory Coast, or North Korean threats to lob nukes around at the drop of a hat?

Is that stuff ok?

I raise this issue as the inconsistency/bias of people really irks me. If you're against war, violence, and threats, come out against all of 'em.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What inconsistency?

Although a few people may be against any war, no matter what, this is not generally the case. Most people differentiate between wars. A person might support war A, but not war B, depending on the reasons or consequences of each war.

I assume you were against a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US. If you are now in favour of a war with Iraq, does that mean you are inconsistent? Does that make you a hypocrite?

 

[Badger]

Danish, you assume, which may generate a misunderstanding. So to clear it up, I'll state for the record:

I'm against dictatorships no matter when and where they are. I support methods of restoring and implimenting individual freedoms, based on my analysis of their costs/benefits.

It doesn't matter if it's with regards to North Korea, Tibet, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Cuba, or anywhere else. The methods and means required in each case may differ, but I support the aim.

My frustration is with people making a big deal out of Iraq, and none out of Saudi Arabia. My frustration is with France exercising it's veto against the US while sending troops to the Ivory Coast. With Germany threatening veto when they had first hand experience with a guy like Saddam Hussein.

Are we going to support China if they exert pressure on North Korea, while maintaining their currently inauspicious human rights record?

Is it too much to expect consistency from people?

This is just my venting thread, I guess. Feed the badger if you must.

 

[Advocate]

What inconsistency?

Although a few people may be against any war, no matter what, this is not generally the case. Most people differentiate between wars. A person might support war A, but not war B, depending on the reasons or consequences of each war.

I assume you were against a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US. If you are now in favour of a war with Iraq, does that mean you are inconsistent? Does that make you a hypocrite?

So you favor war as long as the US is being attacked (as North Korea has threatened to do). Is that the difference? If not, then why are you protesting the US plans for war with Iraq but not the North Korean threats of war against the US?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Badger:

I'm against dictatorships no matter when and where they are.

Generally, I agree.

I support methods of restoring and implimenting individual freedoms, based on my analysis of their costs/benefits.

While I agree with the goal, I wouldn't automatically support any old method. Torture, carpet bombing of civilians, things like that would make me take pause.

It doesn't matter if it's with regards to North Korea, Tibet, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Cuba, or anywhere else. The methods and means required in each case may differ, but I support the aim.

See above.

My frustration is with people making a big deal out of Iraq, and none out of Saudi Arabia.

I agree. Why can't Bush see this?

My frustration is with France exercising it's veto against the US while sending troops to the Ivory Coast. With Germany threatening veto when they had first hand experience with a guy like Saddam Hussein.

I don't want to go through all the reasons for or against war with Iraq. There are enough threads on that topic. I'll just point out that Germany doesn't have a veto.

Are we going to support China if they exert pressure on North Korea, while maintaining their currently inauspicious human rights record?

You can't start wars with all the countries whose leadership you don't approve of. It just isn't possible, at least not without resulting in large unpredictable side effects.

There are many ways to influence countries, aside from war.

Is it too much to expect consistency from people?

No, it isn't. Only from politicians.

This is just my venting thread, I guess. Feed the badger if you must.

Your venting is understood. It's nice to have this board where we can vent, isn't it?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Advocate:

So you favor war as long as the US is being attacked (as North Korea has threatened to do). Is that the difference? If not, then why are you protesting the US plans for war with Iraq but not the North Korean threats of war against the US?

How did you come to these ridiculous conclusions?

 

[Advocate]

Advocate: How did you come to these ridiculous conclusions?

The original quote was:

How come no one mentions anything about the Ivory Coast, or North Korean threats to lob nukes around at the drop of a hat?

And your response:

Although a few people may be against any war, no matter what, this is not generally the case. Most people differentiate between wars. A person might support war A, but not war B, depending on the reasons or consequences of each war.

That made it sound to me like you are pro-war in those cases but anti-war in Iraq. From your most recent post, I am guessing that this was not the meaning you intended. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion. This is an emotional issue on all sides and your response took me by surprise. Could you clarify why it is that you don't consider those other conflicts worthy of protest?

 

[subgenius]

There is a lot of focus on protests against the US involvment in Iraq.

How come no one mentions anything about the Ivory Coast, or North Korean threats to lob nukes around at the drop of a hat?

Is that stuff ok?

I raise this issue as the inconsistency/bias of people really irks me. If you're against war, violence, and threats, come out against all of 'em.

Your post also raises the issue of why the administration isn't taking a stronger position against N. Korea, for example when they're threatening to torch NYC and have the apparent nuclear capability to do it.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Where are the other vocal protests?

Your post also raises the issue of why the administration isn't taking a stronger position against N. Korea, for example when they're threatening to torch NYC and have the apparent nuclear capability to do it.

why take a stronger stance on NK? We've gone through this extortion with them before. They realize they're sinking and they make threats. Their threats also include paranoid delusions of US plans to launch nukes at them. It's their way of saying help us feed our people. We've been there and done this with them before and so we know we don't need a military build up there. Words will fix that one. And if they don't fix it like they have in the past then we'll hit them hard and end it that way once and for all.

 

[DrBenway]

Re: Re: Where are the other vocal protests?

Your post also raises the issue of why the administration isn't taking a stronger position against N. Korea, for example when they're threatening to torch NYC and have the apparent nuclear capability to do it.

I think we're not going toe to toe with N Korea right now cuz we're kinda busy at the moment. We're hoping that if we drag our feet, China and Russia will exert some pressure on NK. We're hinting that we'd support Japan's efforts to defend itself by a pre-emptive strike if China doesn't do something.

One of the advantages of dragging your feet: other interested parties get off their asses and do something. I wish we'd been able to play that game with the Iraq situation a little better. No such luck though.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Where are the other vocal protests?

One of the advantages of dragging your feet: other interested parties get off their asses and do something.

He shoots, he scores. Great point. The reason we hear so much about the US, either positive or negative, is that for all it's alleged obesity issues, the US does get off it's ass and do something.

 

[Badger]

Re: Re: Where are the other vocal protests?

Your post also raises the issue of why the administration isn't taking a stronger position against N. Korea, for example when they're threatening to torch NYC and have the apparent nuclear capability to do it.

That is exactly the opposite of my point to starting this thread.

You ask "why isn't the administration taking a strong stand?" and I ask "why aren't the protesters denouncing North Korea for its chest thumping?"

I don't know if you meant to do it, but it seems to me that you perfectly illustrated what is meant by damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[DrBenway]

Re: Re: Re: Where are the other vocal protests?

That is exactly the opposite of my point to starting this thread.

Sorry to wander off topic.

The answer to you question: America is the current bad guy in the world for a lot of people. That's why it becomes the focus of protest more than other nation states.

I am aware that America has done and is still doing things worthy of criticism. However, I'm not convinced the U.S. is as scary as many people seem to feel.

A lot of the stuff being said about the U.S. in other countries really stuns me. Who was that French guy who wrote a book on the best seller list in France, claiming the crash into the Pentagon was a hoax? And what about that other European country where a group of citizens are preparing for a U.S. invasion? And the fully debunked "zionist and CIA plot" behind 9/11 is pretty popular in the Middle East still, even among educate people (so I'm told).

Well, if people will believe an ex-ballroom dancer talks to dead people, they'll believe anything.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Advocate:

That made it sound to me like you are pro-war in those cases but anti-war in Iraq. From your most recent post, I am guessing that this was not the meaning you intended. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

No problem.

This is an emotional issue on all sides and your response took me by surprise.

I too find that emotions seem to be overrepresented vis-a-vis facts.

Could you clarify why it is that you don't consider those other conflicts worthy of protest?

There still seems to be some confusion. I never said which (if any) of the mentioned conflicts I found worthy of protest.

DrBenway:

A lot of the stuff being said about the U.S. in other countries really stuns me. Who was that French guy who wrote a book on the best seller list in France, claiming the crash into the Pentagon was a hoax?

The world is unfortunately full of people who will believe in just about anything. I don't find it any more stunning that this book became a bestseller, then that John Edward has a prime time show talking to dead people.

BTW, the book was slammed by most of the French media as paranoid and comparable to the Roswell alien cover-up theory.

And what about that other European country where a group of citizens are preparing for a U.S. invasion?

I expect you are thinking of the protest group in the Netherlands who wish to protest the US statement (law?) that they would use military force to extract any US citizen brought before the International Criminal Court (located in the Netherlands).