Check out this interview with some of the anti-war demonstrators from last weekend. :)
Printable View
Check out this interview with some of the anti-war demonstrators from last weekend. :)
Yep, those are some of the real brain trust in the world...
And they wonder why no one at the top is listening..... ;)
Of course this is a edited video, who knows what he cut out. I am sure if he heard a decent argument from someone who had actually put some thought into it (you and I both know there are a lot of stupid people out there, both liberal and conservative), he would have left it on the cutting room floor to push his point.
I'm still waiting for a "decent argument".
Well my argument wouldn't be made against war, or the need for it, if need be I think going into Iraq might be necessary. My only qualm as of right now is evidence, I haven't been persuaded by Powel or anyone that there is a need to go in at this time, and especially not alone. The US should never start a war without UN backing. I think it would be political suicide for Bush without it. He and American would be seen by the worlds eyes, now matter the outcome, as the bully.
I also don't think Saddam is cooperating as much as he should, but I do think there is progress, we have U2 fly overs now and we do have some interviews being done to our specifications, but I think inspections need more time. How much more time, well that I don't know, but it needs to be enough to persuade countries like France, Germany, Russia and China to come to an agreement.
There is a saying here, that a father says to his son: "Haz lo que yo digo no lo que yo hago" (Do as i told not as i do), everyone has an "agenda" even the good ol' USA.
A good deal is when BOTH parties think they screw each other on a deal. That is what we need here.
Why a country 1,000,000 miles away hates so much the USA being that far appart? What would America be without wars? would your economy be the same?
People outside the USA have so much questions about why you act the way you do? and let me tell you, sometimes if it stinks like chicken, taste like chicken, acts like a chicken, What is it? Probably a chicken....Meaning if 70% of the world thinks the US are inconsiderete people that only take for granted what they have and what they want, 70% of the world are probably right.
You guys probably have the power to take on the world? But why do you have it since you are disarming the entire rest of the world? what a Wacko like Saddam can't get to office in the USA sooner or later? A Wacko can't be part of NATO? Extremist do exist in the entire world, We need a middle point.
Decitions should be made with the brain not the heart no matter what is in the past or future, is not a metter of pride or Honor, it's a matter of doing the right thing.
A policy of containment is a big loser...doubly so with a loose cannon like Saddam Hussein.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
Well my argument wouldn't be made against war, or the need for it, if need be I think going into Iraq might be necessary. My only qualm as of right now is evidence, I haven't been persuaded by Powel or anyone that there is a need to go in at this time, and especially not alone. The US should never start a war without UN backing. I think it would be political suicide for Bush without it. He and American would be seen by the worlds eyes, now matter the outcome, as the bully.
I also don't think Saddam is cooperating as much as he should, but I do think there is progress, we have U2 fly overs now and we do have some interviews being done to our specifications, but I think inspections need more time. How much more time, well that I don't know, but it needs to be enough to persuade countries like France, Germany, Russia and China to come to an agreement.
As far as needing UN backing - I don't think I could possibly disagree more.
Libya is due to be heading up the UN Human Rights commission. Iraq is scheduled to lead the committee on disarmament. The UN is a meaningless institution. This sad episode is merely the latest in a long line of disappointing performances (Bosnia, Somolia, anyone?)
The US should act in it's own best interest. Sometimes that means working with the rest of the world, but sometimes it means ignoring the bureaucracy and going with those allies who are willing. Getting the entire world to agree on anything is impossible.
By the way, where did you get the idea that we were going to "go it alone"? There are many counties that support action - including most of Europe.
Finally, about Saddam - he's doing what he always does...give just enough to drag the situation along without ever actually complying fully.
That my Friend is just the problem, everybody best interest. My Best interest are probably not the same as yours, then you are going to kick my ass for that? Or do I attack your friends and family for out personal best interest? Is not right either way.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Squidly
The US should act in it's own best interest.
By go it alone, I meant without UN support.
I really don't feel threatened by Iraq at this time, I think right now he is under enough control to allow further investigation as to what he really has. What if did go in there, bomb the crap out of the country, turn everything upside down and find nothing? Opps, sorry about that.
I feel much more threatened by the million plus man army over in N. Korea.
If you're a murderous dictator that seeks to invade neighboring countries, then yes, I'd say "my" best interests will collide with "yours".Quote:
Originally posted by [AK?]Pancito
That my Friend is just the problem, everybody best interest. My Best interest are probably not the same as yours, then you are going to kick my ass for that? Or do I attack your friends and family for out personal best interest? Is not right either way.
Invading Iraq without France's support is not exactly going in alone. And what difference does it make, anyway? The UN has proven once again that they are completely irrelevant; they will always favor terrorists and murderous totalitarian dictators over America because they are jealous and resentful. And what has France done for us since we liberated them from Hitler? They will oppose us at every turn until we need to save their asses.
Here in Reno, one of the nicest restaurants in town, the Chophouse, dumped several thousand dollars worth of French wine into the gutter right in front of a bunch of America-hating, Bush-bashing protestors gathered before the legislative building across the street. I think that sentiment is increasingly common among Americans, and I personally believe we should not do business with France for the time-being.
By the way, in case you liberals have forgotten, the primary role of the US government is to protect its people from harm. That means taking out dictators who will likely provide terrorist networks with weapons of mass destruction to be used against US citizens. The stakes are much too high to give people like Saddam Hussein, who has defied the rest of the world and your precious UN without fail, the benefit of the doubt. We cannot afford another 9/11, much less a 20 megaton nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan (which would, by the way, flatten every building in Manhattan and kill millions). Bush would really be committing political suicide if he allowed such an atrocity to happen.
I'm surprised that folks continue to question the existence of WMD's in Iraq. But if you don't trust the US, or the photos of the dead Kurds and Iranians, the UN itself estabilished their existence in the 90's. The numbers you hear quoted are mostly from UN reports.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
By go it alone, I meant without UN support.
I really don't feel threatened by Iraq at this time, I think right now he is under enough control to allow further investigation as to what he really has. What if did go in there, bomb the crap out of the country, turn everything upside down and find nothing? Opps, sorry about that.
I feel much more threatened by the million plus man army over in N. Korea.
But lets play this out - if Iraq has no WMD's, why the resistance at every turn?
Saddam can end this all right now by simply delivering on any of the 17 or 18 UN agreements since 1991 that he has ignored. If he had no weapons of WMD he could easily prove it - while humiliating Bush (and probably costing him re-election.)
The only reason inspectors are even in the country right now is because of the threat of force.
Appeasement leads to misery. We appeased North Korea, made them *promise* that they wouldn't build Nukes, but they went ahead and did it.
And now we have a mess. History is loaded with examples...do we really need another example in Iraq?
because they are bush-bashing that makes them American-Haters?
Have you seen the signs? Have you heard the vitriol being spewed by the protestors? Find one who can make a good argument against going to war without bashing Bush or blaming America for everything that is wrong in the world. Most of the protestors are young anarchist gutter punks and other young people just looking for something to bitch about. They are desperate to preserve the flame that their parents lit during Vietnam, and this is the new Vietnam War that hippie-wannabes have been waiting for.
Most of the demonstrations have been sponsored by Socialist party groups like "ANSWER." They aren't Anti-War demonstrations (where are the signs demanding that Saddam comply?) They are anti-Bush demonstrations.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
because their are bush-bashing that makes them American-Haters?
The anti-American aspect comes when you realize that they are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Evidence this.
I agree some signs go to far, calling for impeachment, comparing Bush to Hitler, but I could care less about view points like that. Of course, we have people here on this board comparing Clinton to the likes of Hitler, and Stalin in terms of Gun Control. I know that's a completely different subject, but its equally idiotic and worthless.
I think the one country that surpises me by saying give Saddam more time is Germany. Who knows better what happens when the rest of the world lets a crazy little dictator go unchecked better than Germany. Hitler went unchecked, I hear all these people saying give them more time, when is enough deadlines come and gone enough. When he decides to take over a neighboring country and then they cry for the US to help them. Comparing the US to Saddam is absloute insanity, yes we have similar weapons, we also have checks and balances to prevent something like that happening here. I just have absolute contempt for people who ask for US aid be it militarily or monetarily and then turn around and say that we are wrong for doing the same thing in another part of the world that we have done for them at one time or another. Bottom line is not everyone is going to agree but what it comes down to it "protect your own". If this really is about oil then why are we not attacking Venezuela as we get 27% of our oil from there and approx 11-16% depending on what source you refer to from the middle east.
Palooka I would loved to have been there to watch that. Maybe they should have poured it over the protestors heads instead. ;)
France and Germany have deep, DEEP finacial ties to Iraq. It behooves both of them to keep Saddam in power. Both sold Iraq nuclear equipment and other arms. France has a lucrative oil agreement with the country.
http://www.right-thinking.com/images...bless_iraq.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images...ush_hitler.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images.../bushitler.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images...ney_hitler.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images...am_elected.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images/uploads/9.jpg
http://www.right-thinking.com/images/uploads/2.jpg
If this was really only about oil, why didn't we just stay in Iraq after the Gulf war?Quote:
Originally posted by [AK?]Gunny Highway
line is not everyone is going to agree but what it comes down to it "protect your own". If this really is about oil then why are we not attacking Venezuela as we get 27% of our oil from there and approx 11-16% depending on what source you refer to from the middle east.
If this was really only about oil, why don't we simply lift sanctions against Iraq?
If this was really only about oil, why don't we simply take over Kuwait? We have
almost 100,000 troops there now, and they can't stop us.
I was at the rally on Sunday here in San Francisco, and yes I saw a lot of stupid signs I don't agree with, but like I said before I don't really care. Those people are in the minority. Most of the people speaking were not supporters of Bush (obviously), but it wasn't just a Bush bashing, it was about trying to prevent a war. If you could prevent a war, wouldn't you?
That would depend on the war. I think some wars are justified, and some are vital (like this one for example.)
So even if we could get Saddam to leave, exiled over to some other country, then help install a new more democratic government, you would still think a war in Iraq vital?
No, of course not. If he decides to leave, the need for a war goes away.
(Why don't the "anti-War" protestors consider this? Where are the anti-Saddam signs?)
I don't consider it very likely that he'll decide to "go away" though.
I'm having trouble understanding the liberal perspective on the war. I understand the hard-core commies, but the squishy ones baffle me.
Suppose that tomorrow you turn on the TV and learn that a bomb has gone off under a US skyscraper and killed thousands of innocent people. Or suppose that someone opens a canister of VX nerve agent downtown in a US city. Kill them however you want. Again we have proof that the attackers are muslims with funding, training and other support from governments in the Middle East.
How many dead bodies will move the squishy liberals? Will ten thousand do? A hundred thousand?
There has to be a number out there somewhere. There has to be a quantity of death that will wake up the squishy liberals and make them realize that when American lives are threatened, we really don't care what France thinks.
I know what the hard-core liberals think. They understand that the natural consequence of government omnipotence is death on a massive scale, which is what happened in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.
But the squishy liberals don't think that. They see themselves as compassionate and morally superior. They care more than we do. Their intentions are so pure that they really don't believe or understand that their ideas kill people. But at some point the body count gets their attention. At some point they see the truth. How many of us have to die before they reach that point?
If you don't think that liberalism kills people (and 100 million dead under communism isn't enough), ask yourself: What would happen if there were no liberals? What would happen if the US and UN were politically unified behind the war? There would be no war. Saddam would surrender right now. The only real effect of the anti-war protests is to encourage Saddam to fight harder and kill more soldiers on both sides.
I hope that three thousand civilians dead plus a couple hundred combat casualties in Iraq is enough blood for them. But I doubt it. No matter how many tons of VX we find in Iraq, the liberals will keep fighting to keep the US weak, so that more will die.
Which was proposed by the US and none of the "dissenters" have accepted this as a legitimate solution. Because no matter if it's war, coop, or voluntarily leaving... the reasons that France (other than being Wusses in general :P ), Germany & Russia are against this war will remain - the loss of "business" with the current regime.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
So even if we could get Saddam to leave, exiled over to some other country, then help install a new more democratic government, you would still think a war in Iraq vital?
I think Squidly and Palooka have summed all this up pretty well but the one point I want to comment on is this "proof" that everyone seems they think they are "entitled" to. What makes you think we should, or even deserve, to have classified information given to you and the rest of the world including Iraq?? Why would anyone with any level of intelligence expect that?? I don't think you really WANT to know what many in the military and government know about Iraq. We elect and appoint people in these positions to make these decisions for us. It's what our government is based on - representation.
Perhaps if you were over there watching the Kurds and other ethnic minorities dying and bleeding out their eyeballs after being gassed by their own leader.. you might have a different point of view of "he hasn't done anything to us".
"Peace Loving Iraqi People" says Saddam - Is this the same people that invaded Kuwait and gassed their own population?
What I love is the narrow mindedness of "anti-war" protesters. If we said "OK - We'll give him more time to comply. It's only been over 12 years and he hasn't done so yet... but we'll wait around while he hides these weapons under ground and move them around the country". We'll continue with inspectors and sanctions while he sells the oil to build his palaces and military build up while his people starve to death and no medicine. Then when he, god forbid, uses them and thousands of people are dead or critically altered for life... these SAME PEOPLE will be screaming "If you knew about this, Why didn't you stop him?!?!?!!?".
It's the same with these countries who decry us as the enemy and war mongers, yet their governments and people sure have no guilty conscience in taking the millions of dollars in aid we provide. Trust me, this world would be a disaster if the US adopted anything close to an isolationist on foreign policy.
You can always avoid war by surrendering. You can always avoid war by agreeing to become a slave.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
If you could prevent a war, wouldn't you?
For example, it's very peaceful in North Korea. There is no threat of civil war. Of course, the people are reduced to eating grass and rats. Anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader is tortured and killed after watching his extended family be tortured and killed. But it's very peaceful.
Squidly and I love to disagree but this is one issue that we are absolutely in agreement on. So if we can agree on anything then it must be a just cause.;) I see you quoted me but were you adding to my post or did you misread what I posted?
Just some more interesting news Iraqi cargo ships
I am obviously not going to make any head way here, nor do I really care, I was just stating what I think. We will just have to agree to disagree.
As for that video, I still think he likely just used what footage he wanted to push his point. Can we at least agree on that as a possibility?
It's definately a possibility, but it's also a possibility that the majority of the people protesting can provide no reasonable resolution as an alternative to war.
I was simply adding to your thoughts...Quote:
Originally posted by [AK?]Gunny Highway
Squidly and I love to disagree but this is one issue that we are absolutely in agreement on. So if we can agree on anything then it must be a just cause.;) I see you quoted me but were you adding to my post or did you misread what I posted?
Certainly it's a possibility. However this interview underlined the same type of stammering non-answers I continue to get every time I confront someone who claims to be "against the war."Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Pixelsponge
I am obviously not going to make any head way here, nor do I really care, I was just stating what I think. We will just have to agree to disagree.
As for that video, I still think he likely just used what footage he wanted to push his point. Can we at least agree on that as a possibility?
My personal experience dovetails precisely with the contents of that video.
PS: I do like that one guy's suggestion that we send in James Bond though... :D
IMHO, this war against Iraq is over oil. Iraq's ability to project power against the US is minimal, and I haven't seen any proof that Iraq has anything to do with Muslim fundamentalists.
If we are indeed the self appointed global "good guys", where were we during the genocide in Rwanda?
What about apartheid South Africa? I didn't see the marines moving in to take care of that situation. Can you argue the majority of people in that country were not oppressed?
We've also supported our share of slime balls not too long ago, including Marcos in the Philippines, and Pinochet in Chile.
Going back a bit futher, keep in mind that the Vietnam war was caused, in part, by the US support of French colonial rule against the wishes of the native people.
Going way back, the Spanish American War and the Mexian American War could be characterized as American land grabs. Our good friends in Cuba today have us to thank for their independance. I think is dangerous to assume that our might makes someone elses right.
Why don't we go after China? They have an 'evil' communist government, there are examples of oppression, and they certainly have weapons of mass destruction. I don't see any reason that China shouldn't be on the axis of evil, other then they have a very formidable military force.
Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Hale
I haven't seen any proof that Iraq has anything to do with Muslim fundamentalists.
There's that "proof" argument again. So it's reasonable that every American be shown actual proof of everything?? Absolutely ridiculous.
BTW - If you haven't seen prove of their ties to Muslim Fundamentalists Hale, sorry.. but you are blind. Saddam himself prints in his newspapers he will pay $20,000 to the family of all suicide bombers who attack Israel.
If we are indeed the self appointed global "good guys", where were we during the genocide in Rwanda?
Good question... ask the wonderful UN that everyone says we have to abide by, or better yet - the President at the time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/
What about apartheid South Africa? I didn't see the marines moving in to take care of that situation. Can you argue the majority of people in that country were not oppressed?
It was a little before my time, but I don't recall them invading other countries, having weapons of mass destruction, or gassing their own people. I don't recall them having 12 years under UN sanctions and mandates that they failed to yield to and ignore.
Lets try and keep apples to apples.
We've also supported our share of slime balls not too long ago, including Marcos in the Philippines, and Pinochet in Chile.
"The enemy of your enemy...."
Going back a bit further, keep in mind that the Vietnam war was caused, in part, by the US support of French colonial rule against the wishes of the native people.
Going way back, the Spanish American War and the Mexian American War could be characterized as American land grabs. Our good friends in Cuba today have us to thank for their Independence. I think is dangerous to assume that our might makes someone elses right.
Again.. keep the argument on the same level. Using your 'logic' - any war that ever happened would justify any other war.
Why don't we go after China? They have an 'evil' communist government, there are examples of oppression, and they certainly have weapons of mass destruction. I don't see any reason that China shouldn't be on the axis of evil, other then they have a very formidable military force.
Once again.. not within the same circumstances but if they invaded Tawain.. you would see that reaction.
IMHO: This war is just the Bush family's shot at fame. It will do nothing to help our economy, except drive our nation's debt further into the whole. Clinton had us on a rebound of not spending a lot of money, and reinforcing things like SS and Medicare. Bush is destroying all of that, his deficit for this year alone is over 10 Billion dollars, not including the cost of War. If Bush truely wants our economy to rebound he will get out there and create jobs, not create war.
Yeah, you're right, Slaughter. So what if Saddam supplies terrorists with weapons of mass destruction which are then used against Israel and the US as long as our economy is good and Bush isn't practicing deficit spending. I would suggest looking way back to the attack on 9/11 (which is hard, I know; it was so long ago and so insignificant), which cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars (yes, hundreds of billions). Consider that only a few buildings and three thousand people were destroyed (no big deal, right?), yet it came close to crippling the US economy. Now consider what would happen if Manhattan were flattened, killing millions of people. The US economy would be utterly obliterated, which would lead to the collapse of the world economy and the starvation of billions of people. Maybe all the "give peace a chance" brain-washed liberal mush-mouths would change their tune then. If you really want to give peace a chance, you should be demanding that Saddam disarm and step down, because that is the only scenario that would allow us to avoid war.
Oh, and by the way, Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with our economic prosperity in the 90s. You can thank the Reagan tax cuts, signed into law in 1981 (before you were a gleam in your father's eye), for that. Also, war time is usually very good for the economy, evidenced by the 50s and 60s.
I'm flabbergasted at some of the stuff that I'm reading. I can't believe that people actually think that the President is pursuing this action simply out of ego.
I can't believe people actually think that this action is solely being taken for Iraq's oil.
I posted on that topic earlier...what's the response?
I can't believe that people believe the sort of logic that states that if you make a mistake in foreign policy in the past you must forever function in handcuffs because of it.
I can't believe that people don't realize that the French - the folks that we supposedly desperately need on our side - supported the murderer of Rwanda are alone in military action in the Ivory Coast, and UNILATERALLY destroyed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior.
I really can't believe that we're supposed to hang our hat on the rulings of the UN when they stood by and watched as the attrocities of Somolia and Bosnia went down.
--
Note: Political discussions can get heated - please don't take any of this stuff personally.
We're talking ideas here, not personal attacks.
On a side note I am totally addicted to 3-D Pong
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/pong.html
Can't top 300 points, but I am just warming up.
**Standing Ovation**
:D
Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Palooka
Yeah, you're right, Slaughter. So what if Saddam supplies terrorists with weapons of mass destruction which are then used against Israel and the US as long as our economy is good and Bush isn't practicing deficit spending. I would suggest looking way back to the attack on 9/11 (which is hard, I know; it was so long ago and so insignificant), which cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars (yes, hundreds of billions). Consider that only a few buildings and three thousand people were destroyed (no big deal, right?), yet it came close to crippling the US economy. Now consider what would happen if Manhattan were flattened, killing millions of people. The US economy would be utterly obliterated, which would lead to the collapse of the world economy and the starvation of billions of people. Maybe all the "give peace a chance" brain-washed liberal mush-mouths would change their tune then. If you really want to give peace a chance, you should be demanding that Saddam disarm and step down, because that is the only scenario that would allow us to avoid war.
Oh, and by the way, Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with our economic prosperity in the 90s. You can thank the Reagan tax cuts, signed into law in 1981 (before you were a gleam in your father's eye), for that. Also, war time is usually very good for the economy, evidenced by the 50s and 60s.