I enjoyed your discussion very much, I just finished my page yesterday, Please check tenormin picture webpage devoted to tenormin picture. use of phenergan webpage devoted to use of phenergan. !

Iran with an Islamic terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.

Here is an exmple why: TEHRAN, Iran -- Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at a Tehran cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.

The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel.

A spokesman, Ali Mohammadi, described the group meeting Thursday as the "first suicide commando unit," though another official has claimed members already have carried out attacks in Israel.

"Sooner or later we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands," Mohammadi said.

-----------

If only 200 show up out of a population of 60 million, doesn't that also demonstrate they're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

What do you do when 200 terrorists are ready to die for their cause?

Accommodate them.

I'm sorry but the ideology of Islamofascism is a culture and religion stuck in the darkness of the 12th Century that has not undergone a period of reformation or enlightenment. This is no religion of peace that sanctions the slaughter of innocents.

(Islamonazism and Islamofascism are terms used to describe the use of Nazi and/or fascist terminology, beliefs and propaganda by Islamic religious and political leaders, generally manifesting itself in calls for the destruction of the world and it's "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.)



Iran,a known terrorist state is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We can worry about "Iranian democracy" later. First comes the safety of America,our allies and our interests. Destroy the mullahs...strike Iran now!

The future of Iran has major strategic policy consequences for the US in this region. A majority of the Iranian people who consider themselves Persian and not Arabic, would overthrow this radical Islamic theocracy if given a chance


The fact remains that Ameica's war against Islamic terror is the whole world's war against Islamo_Fascism and Islamic terrorism.

The fact is that Islam is pure evil dressed up as "peaceful" by some muslims.


Deal with the facts. Muhammad child raped a 9 year old little girl when in her own words was still playing with her dolls.

Then there is Muhammad slaughter of the entire male population of a tribe in Medina. Not to mention his muslims terrorist being told to kill his political enemies including an old man and a women with children. because those bad folks made fun of his pagan moon god cult.

Then there is Muhammad's muslim terrorist killing and stealing from Mecca caravans during the pagan Ramadan. They were told to bring back 20% of the stolen goods to Muhamhead to please allah of course.

And how do you like the koran telling men to beat their wives? It even tells the kind of stick to use.

Then there is the koran's promises of virgins, endless drunkeness (rivers of wine) and homosexual peophilia (young boys as fine as pearls).

Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.
In Islam All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed.As long as the Koran exists, Islam will continue to oppress, murder, enslave, threaten, lie and terrorize innocent people.

When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Ayatollah Khomenni comes to mind. How would an Iranian be treated if he spoke out about Khomenni ? Amnesty International just reported that many political prisoners have been executed in Iran.
His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.

Hizbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups for example knows exactly what they are doing. They know it is cold-blooded murder that they are committing upon Muhammad's request.

With the Islamic terrorists , "enemy personnel" can be anyone from an English Hi humanitarian worker in Iraq, an Indian Kafir(Infidel who doesn't believe in Allah), a Russian,A communist, An Algerian muslim kid, a Dutch filmmaker(van Gough) or Jewish toddler. In short, the enemy is anyone not a Muslim(or sometimes a muslim) who does not believe the world is destined to be ruled by Islam.

Just wanted to invite all to the "IN THE NEWS BOARD". We talk about all to Kobe, Scott Peterson, The war, Hurricanes, some just post a joke. Would love to have you stop by now and then. Hope to see you, just click on the link. In The News.

http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/yf6n5CMKrr4mf

Actually, it's been over a year between meaningfull posts :) Wow.. Again.. wow :)

Wow :) This thread is still alive? 5 months between posts! Sheesh. That alone merits a reply, however flamish-warish-trollish it might be :)

I didn't see the video though. I didn't see all the pictures of the iraky(sp) prissoners that the senate(?) saw and refused to show the world because they would enflame hatred and violence against the US. We've been told that these pictures, or some of them, are fare worse than the ones that the media has. I'll reserve my judgment untill we can see the whole picture (never?). Nobody deserves that kind of treatment, american or otherwise, whatever the situation. The bible seems to be held in high esteem by a lot of US-americans. You know, "GOD bless america" and all of that? What does it say about violence and vengeance in there? Turn the other cheek?

Ah heck ... here's my opinion : I am, and always have been anti-war.

Does that mean I won't punch you in the face if you punch me first? Probably not :) That would be okay right? I'd be defending myself after all! (in real life, I'd probably be too stunned to act back :p) But what if I was the school bully and you punched me first because I bullied you around? Would that be ok? Would I then be the victim? It all depends on who you think shot the first shot. Nobody ever thinks they shot first, and everyone thinks that the other side is evil. That's the problem with vengeance and with war in general. Do you know of a situation where vengeance actually is the end of a situation? It's an evil self-feeding infinite loop :)

There has got to be a better solution than war. There just *has* to be.

That's it for me. I have to go back to work.

Flame away! (it's an hopeless discussion anyway, for both sides).

after seeing the video all u foold still anti war? wat kinda shit was that... all the al qaeda fuks should be shot healed then shot again and again and again and bush has to stop being a lil pussy if he gives a threat and a demand follow throw with it...

انا اخنث كل امريكي وامريكيه

Edited by author 04-17-2003 12:44 AM
"the most powerful military force in the world"
"the only one that has ever used nukes"
 the one that invades countries"
"despite international outcry"
"the one that says it's fighting for freedom"
"while it locks away it's own citizens and censors it's press"
"the one that develops, markets, sells, and uses weapons of mass destruction"

i try not to insult people by calling them "trolls" because it is counterproductive to a discussion but - you are an idiot. there is so much garbage you just spouted out that i don't know where to begin. theres a false high moral ground you gleefully take by 'attacking the man' when you obviously don't know shit from shinola. without living under a totalitarian regime you are without any knowledge of what it is like and like a buffoon, you attack the freedoms you are allowed by democracy... demoicracy that had to fight through challenges like an attack by a twisted sadistic regime like Togo's Japan. A regime that spread bubonic plaque on innocent people and performed ghastly human experiments.

back to the history books for you!

i can only assume the mention of Palestine set you off. I have a beef with Palestine it is true. the beef comes in two words - Kurds and Tibetans.

Both are a noble people who suffer from having their land occupied. Both have people disapear off the street. Both are robbed of their culture, oppressed, denied liberty or equal rights and denied a country of their own much like the Palestinians. Thing is, neither uses suicide bombers. The Kurds are even smack dab in the middle of terrorist centra, but they are human.

The Palestinians were given what they wanted in 2000. they were offered a bigger country than ever offered before with internationally recognized borders and a seat at the UN. Clinton called their bluff. Why? Because even if they weren't happy with the offer - ironing out an agreement means making a counter offer and they didn't even do that. They saw they could get what they asked for and they walked away from the negotiations- because (!) what they really want is to exploit and kill their deprived people(the children most of all) and call them 'martyrs'.

I ask you: WOULD THE TIBETANS OR THE KURDS TURN DOWN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND A SEAT AT THE UN?

The Palestinians hold the key to the first step in bringing peace to that region, but it is so obvious that they do not want it. Israel are bastards it is true, but the Palestinians are monsters- how can you in good concience turn away from peace?

The Tibetans and the Kurds deserve better and the Palestinians get what they get.

"...sick death cult called Palestine..."

One could easily call the most powerful military force in the world, the only one that has ever used nukes, the one that invades countries that it feels threatened by despite international outcry, the one that says it's fighting for freedom while it locks away it's own citizens and censors it's press, the one that develops, markets, sells, and even uses weapons of mass destruction, a "sick death cult", too. But that would make them a troll, like this hornsofthedevil character. And replying to trolls is just a waste of time.

 "The people selling the weapons are, in many cases, the same people selling the news"

this is the same preposterous crap that i hear all the time. that the people at the news are selling us propaganda. okay, so the news here is hysterical and bombastic in its slant. it stirs up fear and fear puts asses in seats. but to say that NBC is a puppet of the arms industry is ridiculous. i know people who work for NBC. I know people in prominent positions at CNN(if you lived in Atlanta at one point, you will know someone at CNN) and these people went into the business to be journalists. they are just like you and me. they have hopes and dreams and a concious and there are tons of them employed. there are mistakes, oversights, bad journalism and flat out yellow journalism that occurs, but your proposal ios a conspiracy theory- no more. to think that thousands of people will lay down there love of what they do in this free country to lie for the weapons industry ..and on top of it all, for not that much money either! working in a news agency gives you a wealth of sources from all corners of the world and you put forth the fantastic idea that they are slanting the information they get to boost profits in weapons production. it is without validity.

"the only single force thats responsible for that many deaths in Iraq are international sanctions."

another conspiracy theory spun by the antiwar(stalinist worker party based A.N.S.W.E.R.) contingent. Saddams regime had sanction placed upon it that were again APROVED BY THE ENTIRE UN. these were food for oil programs that sent medical supplies and food to Iraq for their oil. But we are all supposed to believe that food and medical supplies in mass quantities have killed thousands of children. It is a lie. Let me tell you why there is so much death of the innocent in Iraq: Saddam Hussein was reselling the food and medical supplie to Syria and the sick death cult called Palestine while his own people starved. Remember when the weapons inspectors first went into Iraqin November? They searched one of Saddam's fifty palaces and were flabbergasted by the wealth and opulence on display. It was all over the news(google search should find it). The reason for the reaction was because that palace didn't exist when they were last there. He built it during the nineties with money he was making off of reselling the food and medicine meant for his people. Sanctions did not kill children in Iraq, Saddam Hussein did. Keeping his people in line with mild starvation is a lesson he learned from his idol Joseph Stalin.
 
 "You need to get it through your skull that war is actually not a good default course of action."

There are just so many damn examples of that NOT being the case that we could go on forever. I mean, if war is not a good course of action, perhaps we should have never been in Korea? After all, look at the terrible difference we made - free and prosperous life in the south with a thriving economy and excellent quality of life while in the North, all the money the state has is put towards weapons and military while its people literally dig ditches for food.

i'm sticking by the simple fact that all free countries had to fight for their freedom. i wasn't happy that we had to go into Iraq. I think the whole thing could have been avoided if France Germany and Russia had signed on instead of putting their own profits first. it would have been the entire world against Saddam and it is arguable that he would have stepped aside. if anything, they are accountable for this mess as well.

I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, horns, but I will later. For now I'm just going to pick a couple points:

how exactly are we making money off of going into Iraq [?] I think if we wanted to make money and have cheap oil, we would have lifted the sanctions aginst Saddam and bought all the oil we wanted.

Oil is but one small part of the equation. The real money to be made is in selling weapons to the U.S. government, and getting contracts to rebuild shit after they blow it up. The people selling the weapons are, in many cases, the same people selling the news (and, as such, heavily influencing public opinion). (GE(NBC)) sells expensive bombs to the US government. When they drop bombs, and need to buy more, GE makes money. Thats why it's in their financial interest to make sure the public supports war, and make sure the right people get elected (through our wonderful legalized-bribery system called campaign contributions ). I'm sure you're aware of the Haliburton contract(s?) for large undisclosed sums of money; the fact that the Vice President was their CEO, and they're still run by the administration's friends seems a bit relevant.

How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq?
The immediacy of the situation in Rwanda makes it different. I still don't really support the U.S. intervening; I simply said that the case for intervention was a little bit more valid there. Saddam hasn't recently indicated that he was going to step up his evil actions; he was continuing to do the same things he'd done for years. And he wasn't killing millions of people; the only single force thats responsible for that many deaths in Iraq are international sanctions.

Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened.
I don't know what Chomsky said, but there were thousands killed in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...002/0831brahimi.htm
(weather it was committed by US troops, or, as in the case above, by their allies with their protection, doesn't make the people any less dead or put the us any less at fault)

Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued
I don't know a lot about this issue, but I was under the impression that it was being built. Heres what a quick google search turned up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.
Where did I say that? You still seem under the delusion that if I don't support bombing a group, I actually support them. You need to get it through your skull that war is actually not a good default course of action.

ah, i've already wasted longer than I intended replying to you. i'm done for now..

wow.
"our politicians all making a (financial) killing in the (human) killing business"
how exactly are we making money off of going into Iraq. I think if we wanted to make money and have cheap oil, we would have lifted the sanctions aginst Saddam and bought all the oil we wanted. we could have done that right?
But no you are holding our morality against us. you see the sanctions(you previously decried) were approved UNANIMOUSLY by every nation in the UN. The threat of military action against Iraq was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the UN(15-0). So besides being blindsided by nations who arguably were looking out for their own interests and not for those of the Iraqi people, how can you say that the action is across the board "illegitimate".

"I do think, though, that the U.S. is hardly qualified to bring people to a war crimes court that it itself doesn't recognize for it's own people."
I personally don't think that we should sign onto that war crimes court. The reason being that if we do, the cards are unfairly stacked against us. The European nations you so gleefully align yourself with are all dependent on the military might of the United States. Never in the history of the world has there been so many countries reliant on one for their security. the argument that they do not want us there should not be put forth here either my friend. any one of those countries can ask us to take our personel from the military bases. They do not because they want our protection. With more military in other countries defending their sovereignity, assisting with crisis, backing up action againt ethnic violence, now we are to be subject to a war crimes tribunal that we did not have a real hand in designing? Its like an employee telling a boss how much that boss should make. i'm not saying we should dictate the terms solely(it needs to be revised), but there are many countries that claim to be part of this wolrd community who are not democratic. we don't take orders from countries that don't represent their people. i happen to agree with that.

"military action in Iraq... has mostly killed honorable people"
REALLY!!! WOW!?? you have a soft spot for fascism huh? there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence from Iraqis that the Fayadheen, paramilitary forces and republican guard were some of the most bloodthirsty animals ever seen in our time. cutting off the heads of women in the street, torturing indiscrimnately, raping girls in front of their parents and cutting the tongues out of those who speak out. This is from the mouths of all of the Iraqi people. Do you have the audacity to say that you know what that regime was like more than the people who live there? I don't give a flying fuck if those forces are killed because they could have given up and taken part in a democracy at any time. you pity their fate? why? Are you getting your news from www.Indymedia.com? that would explain a lot.
Just how do you justify classifying our troops as "Christian invaders partaking in an action that is religiously motivated" when our record shows quite the opposite. Our attack of Japan did not turn it into a "little american colony" nor did action in Panama, Grenada, Germany, or Bosnia(of which the US contributed more troops, money, ships, and planes than any other nation). You are making a BLIND ASSUMPTION based on some kind of adolescent viewpoint - that behind every conceded good there is an evil lurking and behind every truth there is a lie. Name a country we attacked for "religious" reasons in the last 20th century.

Yeah, Rwanda. Its funny how Clinton is considered the "good" president when he was downright cowardly when facing the events of Rwanda(i didn't hate Clinton-i consider myself neither dem or rep). Fact is, there are so many facets of your stand against this war that through hindsight you conveniently omit when mentioning Rwanda. Had we gone in, it would have been EXACTLY the seemingly "religiously motivated incursion on a sovereign nation by the agressive superpower" Would you havew not said that the Hutus and the Tutsis have the right to sort out their country for themselves. How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq? It is a double standard.

there were antiwar people against action in Bosnia. There were antiwar people against action in Afghanistan. Both have been proved patently wrong. Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened. Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued. Children in Afghanistan are back in school and a cycle of ignorance and violence is being broken. Thousands upon thousands of Afghanis are able to return to their hometown and start to live again without the Taliban taking them away for having a radio. You really have to tell me what it is you wanted in Afghanistan - you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.

There are pockets of resistence that will surge up for years and years to come. thats okay, because the US hasn't left yet and those animals will get their due for trying to deny the people from being able to run their own country. are you against that?

as for the simplistic two groups you have defined(A or B) i belong in group B i guess because i don't think of killing as wrong if we are killing killers. Freedom has to be fought for - and this is self evident. i defy you to put forth an example of a nation with freedom that was not fought for. hard to do huh?

as for your assumption that the Iraqi's were "honky dorry" under Saddam, perhaps you should read about the rose tinted glasses we were all forced to wear thanks to prominent news organizations that refused to report the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

hornsofthedevil, I really like how you just skip over the point re: conflicts of interest, and our politicians all making a (financial) killing in the (human) killing business. But anyhow....

are you mad about Slobodan Milosovic? Are you ready to rally for his release?
Where did that come from? Because I oppose killing, you think I want to see a killer released? That makes no sense. The military action there was backed by a much larger number of countries, which made it more legitimate. As you accurately guessed, I do generally oppose military action at face value, but I am able to acknowledge that some of it is more justified than other. The action in Iraq violates international law; the actions in bosnia upheld it.

I do think, though, that the U.S. is hardly qualified to bring people to a war crimes court that it itself doesn't recognize for it's own people. American soldiers are far from faultless; they have had a history of committing warcrimes. To not turn them (, or President Bush 1, or Don Rumsfeld,) over to the warcrimes court is hypocrisy.

horns: as for equating the jubiilation over 9/11 with that of the invasion of Iraq - that is not a fair analogy. the people in our country weren't cheering over 9/11. understand - this is a regime that TORTURES on a wide scale my friend

Americans cheering military action in Iraq, which has mostly killed honorable people who were fighting not to defend saddam but to defend their home from the christian invaders, is a very accurate analog to arabs cheering 9/11. Both acts were cowardly, illegal, religiously motivated, and deadly. Both groups of people cheering these atrocities are doing it either (a) because they hate people of the opposite religion, and truly want more blood to be spilled, or (b) because they feel the other side is guilty, and it's a fair act of war, and they've been manipulated by propaganda to the point where they don't see the killing as wrong. Far more people, on both sides, fall in group (b) than group (a). Which are you?

horns: I bet there are a lot of people in Rwanda who wish that a military action would have taken place in their country and then maybe a little less than a million people would have been slaughtered there.

Now you're making my point for me! That is a prime example of an immediate threat to human life, where people were suddenly be slaughtered at a very fast rate. That is a prime example of when a simple peacekeeping force would have actually been useful. If our military's goals were really so noble, we would have done something there. But, as you know, we did not. Iraq, however, has been doing the same thing for years. There was no imminent invasion planned. There were no sudden mass-killings. There was no immediate threat whatsoever. What there was, was the same thing that exists in lots of lots of countries: A brutal dictator ruling his country with an Iron fist, and having a handful of leftover weapons that he bought from his old western allies. If there is justification to "liberate" the poor people of Iraq, then there are a whole lot of other places we better liberate too. Quite frankly, more places than we have resources to "liberate" at this point (assuming we keep with our bombs-are-liberation m/o).

I'll be glad if it turns out saddam has been removed at the end of this. Then, at least, the whole thing won't have been in vain (as it was in Afghanistan). But the point is, we didn't have a right to remove him. As get your war on reminds us, though, "You've got to break a few international law eggs to make a freedom omelet."

*sigh*

also phyx,
the assertation that killing and war only breeds killing and more war(i'm assuming you mean it does zero good) would be highly contested by many holocaust vistims for whom an invasion was there salvation. You can add to that the slaves in our own country who were freed because of a war. Plus the aforementioned muslims in the former Yugoslavia who were being killed. I bet there are a lot of people in Rwanda who wish that a military action would have taken place in their country and then maybe a little less than a million people would have been slaughtered there. that itself is an instance where i regret our "terrorist"(by your definition) soldiers had not gone in with guns blazing.

I'd also like to clarify the isssue with the Taliban. They were never recognized as a country by ANY country in the world. They were rejected a seat at the UN they were so barbaric. No one knew what to do with them they were so bloodthirsty with militant Islam. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have regrets about going in and doing what we did. there were extraordinarily few casualties from collateral damage. Less than any conflict in the last century. In fact, the people who bitch and moan that we never caught Osama in that country fail to realize that every operation there was hamstrung by our concern for killing civillians. every movement of people had to be relayed back to intelligence before they were fired upon and in the end, a lot of terrorists got away when they should have been gunned down.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...B8CDDAA0894DB404482

Edited by author 04-11-2003 01:45 AM
first off, its like we're in a room with each other here. heh heh.

real quick until later:
Phyx, i hate that poll about ameriucans linking Iraq to Saddam Hussein. Everyone i have ever met knows they weren't involved with that event(although there are a couple individuals in the US right now putting forth cases that Iraq might have been involved with the Oklahoma city bombing - i know its hard to believe off the bat, but you should read some of their evidence). as for equating the jubiilation over 9/11 with that of the invasion of Iraq - that is not a fair analogy. the people in our country weren't cheering over 9/11. understand - this is a regime that TORTURES on a wide scale my friend. I do not feel sorry for the paramilitary and fayahdeen(sp?) from the Baath party if they are killed(al Jazeera has been showing crews removing body parts from bombed buildings and claiming they were civillians when those headquarters were full of the Baath regime). those animals unleashed a reign of teror in that country for over 30 years. it is like saying i feel bad about SS troopers who were killed in WWII fighting. Please.

the anti war party is reluctant to support ANY military action in regard to a dictator. it is plain and simple PATHETIC. are you mad about Slobodan Milosovic? Are you ready to rally for his release?
 No? Well Saddam Hussein is ten times as worse. There are Bosnian Serbs who will tell you straight up that the day the bombs started falling - they felt liberated. After that kind of a confession - your argument doesn'ty have a leg to satnd on. A military action is NECESSARY and JUSTIFIED when not only does he slaughter his own people, bbut he stockpiles weapons that are inb their very capability meant to kill people outside his country.

Don't you see the IDEALISTIC and UNREALISTIC stance you are taking. it is the same on taken by most of Europe in 1939 and it is called "appeasement".


Lord - I'll get to you tomorrow. I'm bushed.

Thanks Horn, this discussion has made me think a lot about my position on this issue :) We haven't changed each other's minds, but I hope we're all learning something.

When I brought up the fact that the US has had cooperation with Irak in the 80's, I wanted to point out the fact that he was still a dictator back then. And at that time in history, the US did not choose to remove him from power. That makes me feel that the "let's free the Iraki people" is just a side story in this war. It is used as a justification for this war but if it was truly at the heart of this conflict, then Hussein would have been removed from power a long time ago.

But that doesn't only target the US. As you pointed out, (and to my short limited knowledge on this issue), no country has ever submited a "let's remove the dictator in Irak" to the UN. From my brief searches on the internet, I get the feeling that most countries feel that it is an "internal Iraki affair" and should be left to the iraki people to solve.

This reminds me of the Star Trek prime directive of non-interferance. No matter how well justified the cause, no man can see all the ramifications of his actions. Also, a difficult question to anwser would then be : where do you draw the line if you start removing dictators? How many deaths does it take before a countries involves itself? Is the death count relevant? What about benevolent dictators (sounds like a contradiction in terms :) ? What about people who don't follow your moral codes because of tradition or religion?

If your highest moral standard is religion, and your religion doesn't promote equality of the sexes or education (I'm not saying that middle east religions are such religions, again, I don't know enough about that.. That's a lot of things I don't know :) Still, hypothetically speaking, if such a moral standard existed and was being followed, who are we to say that it is wrong? I sure believe in equality of the sexes and in education, as do you, but what if that angried the god(s) of that religion? What if you picked the "wrong" god? :)

I often find myself thinking about how we are "supposed" to be a modern civilized people when I see the way some people are acting. In fact, that's not limited to the americans :) But being so close to americans (I'm from Canada), I find that "you people" scare the bejeezus out of us sometimes. Be it the religious ways, or the extreme patriotism (amongst other things). But I'm in no position to judge the american ways... The fact that I don't go to church might scare the bejeezus out of many church-loving people :)

Now back to our dictator example : where do we draw the line? When do we interfere and when do we not? Can we be sure that only benefits will come out of you actions/inactions in the long term? You might remove a dictator today, but won't another one just take his place? Are we better off doing nothing? I don't think we can answer those questions, so the world traditionnaly chose not to interfere in other country's "internal" affairs. Is that the best solution? I don't know.

As for the al-quaeda, it is almost the same problem as what I previously talked about. Give weapons, or technology, to someone who has not learned the value of these weapons, and you get problems. Who could have predicted 9/11 way back when the US was fighting communism with al-quaeda ? I think the US has some responsibility in that, but not all of the responsibility of course.

Ah religion! It caused so many wars. I'm tired, I'm going to sleep. I won't be on the internet for a couple of days, so don't take my future lack of replies personally :)

/m79 "I also don't like the argument "ping poing" you use when you state that we were allies with Hussein in the 80s. This is a subject many against the war bring up time and time again - "but we were his ally in the 80s!"
So what? Once nations are allies, we are bound to holding course with them?"

The point is, Saddam was just as "evil" when we were his ally as he is today, and there are other dictators who are just as bad as him that we still do support today. So the argument that "we must remove saddam, because he's evil and kills his own people" is the red herring. Obviously, Money, Oil, and U.S. Nationalism are the issues here. The American people are damn pissed about 9-11, and want to kill some Arabs. Saddam hasn't cooperated with the U.S. for years, and there is a lot of money to be made (by US Corporations, owned by our politicians) rebuilding shit after we blow it up. The fact that he kills his own people and, may have some leftover nerve gas we gave him 20 years ago, only puts him among a large number of other brutal dictators. It's quite relevant that he was once our ally.

hornsofthedevil writes ( /m74 ) "there is a CLEAR AND DEFINTITE distinction between soldiers and terrorists my friend. Soldiers are marked clearly as having the ability to use force in the name of an internationally recognized country.", but then follows it up moment later with "9/11 was an act of WAR by an organization that hid amongst other country;s sovereignity and used the world's freedom against it.".

And then he has the nerve to tell others "you can't have it BOTH ways"!

His logical fallacies are overwhelming, and his arguments are absurd. He says ""Bush invaded the country of Afghanistan"- no, the Taliban was NEVER a recognized country." Wtf? By that reasoning, anti-US terrorists could easily use the excuse that they don't recognize America as a country! Regardless of if he "recognizes" afghanistan, we invaded the place, killed a lot of people that had nothing to do with sept11, and installed a new government. As for the statement "Terrorists ... target civilian installations like discos in at night on a weekend, or crowded markets in the middle of the day., well, then, the US army has a long history as a terrorist organization. From Dresden to Mai Lai, US troops have been targeting civilians from decades. The recent atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly different. The fact that some murderers happen to wear a uniform and come from a "recognized country" doesn't change the reality of their actions.

Killing and hatred only breed more of the same. As long as "soldiers" are morally exempt from the thou shall not kill provisions of nearly every moral dogma, there will be people using that label to justify killing eachother.

Peaceful Americans who support our troops in Iraq today are as deluded as peaceful Arabs who supported 9-11.

(I can't believe I just mentioned the Iraq War and 9-11 in the same sentence, but it wasn't to say they're related any further than both being atrocities. By CNN polls, 70% of americans actually believe Iraq is tied to 9-11 somehow, despite zero evidence, and thats really why there is so much fucking public support for the war. It's fucking disgusting how easily the american public can be duped.)

good post Lord.

I do dispute the "racist" allegation though. I am simply calling it as it lies. I never said he middle east has YET to enter the modern world because of their race. Its is a plain and simple fact. 3/4 of its women are illiterate, human rights abuses are across the board and the COMBINED GDP of all the countries is less than that of Spain. With all of that oil revenue that is what those people get. That is NOT America's fault,any more that it is France's fault. That is the fault of the brutal regimes who have their people in a chokehold. they control the media(which blames you and me for all of their problems and support Islamic fundamentalism(which pushes desperate young men to kill themselves in the name of Allah) and refuse to provide education. Ever wonder why all of their leaders are schooled in the US but they refuse to build schools in their own country?

But again, you want it both ways - your allegation that we *created* al Qaeda is quite a leap of judgement i must say. i am assuming you are stating that because we funded the mujhadee, we are responsible for the militant fighters that banded together and started a holy war against us. Those fighters were banded against communist Russia's invasion of Iraq and we provided the weapons and support neede to turn away the cancer that was communism. That was a good thing(please- do not dispute this and equate the communist invasion with ours. communism is responsible for more deaths in world history than any other political movement. that should be self evident). Now we are responsible for what they became when they tried to figure out their country for themselves? Wasn't that what you were saying you wanted from people in their own countries? I mean, they turn into something ugly and its our fault, but if we go in there and establish a democracy, we are violating a sovereign state?

Its called a double standard.

I also don't like the argument "ping poing" you use when you state that we were allies with Hussein in the 80s. This is a subject many against the war bring up time and time again - "but we were his ally in the 80s!"
So what? Once nations are allies, we are bound to holding course with them? If our previous alliances trump the issues at hand then what kind of world would we live in. It sounds like a red herring to me- another excuse to discount this nations efforts at providing freedom for the people of Iraq. Alliances change. We were allies with Russia against Hitler - so are we then responsible for Stalin's attrocities?

jleader, the difference with Burma is that they are not mass producing VX nerve gas(the most deadly substance known to man) and seeking nuclear weapons. I am glad that you brought other brutal dictatorships to the topic though because the last time i checked, the UN's constituancy is full of totalitarian regimes. Libya is chairing the council of human rights?? Burma and Somalia and the rest of the governments that torture and oppress are an issue for the UN. Its funny how nothing ever gets done. this was an instance where we could not tolerate their inaction

"My problem with the anti war contingent regarding Iraq is the hypocracy."

I think that on both sides, the same thing can be said. I have to agree on one point though : while we try to find a way other than war to remove Hussein, he can continue being a dictator, and we'll all agree that this is a bad thing.

"If you do not have a reasonable solution to the problem to propose, then you really don't matter. Your viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt."

So basically, if I don't have the answer right now, I should'nt even try to find one? Of course not.

The question is "are we willing to wait while we are looking for a different solution?". Now that is an important question that does not get debated enough. (I think this is where you see the hypocrisy). Have you seen the final fantasy movie? Of course, in FF, they had an alternative solution. My point his, even if *you* can't see another solution, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

"The point of this war was to place ONE fucking regime in the middle east that doesn't trample all over its people"

Really? Is that what the resolution presented to the UN was about? I though it was about "weapons of mass destruction" and "internationnal security". There's where I think part of the hypocrisy lies. It is hard to disagree with the fact that there is(was) a dictatorship in Irak and that we should do something about it. Then why wasn't there a UN proposition that said something along the lines of "Is there and "evil" dictatorship in Irak? What can we do about it? Let's go kick his butt". No, all that talk about weapons of mass destruction and internationnal security and US security. If I remember Bush correctly, he said to the UN that the US could go "liberate" Irak because the US has an internationnal right to protect itself.

If it was really about the security of the Iraky people, from a profound desire to do good, then the US would have only needed that goal to convince everyone that this war was a good thing(tm). It would also have acted a long time ago.

"We're just pushing one nation towards a government that is run by its people. Arab people.
That should be enough since...its NEVER been done before."

Now we are coming to the other side of the debate. By removing Hussein from power, the killings are going to stop. hard to dissagree with that. But the question is, for how long? Is it going to be better in the long run? How do you plan on "show[ing] them how a modern society works" ? (quite a racist statement btw). Like wheeeeeeeee and Jeremy Hulette pointed out, the US has not been very sucessfull in Afganhistan.

"the US government wants legions of desperate ignorant suicide bombers coming to america to blow us up"

Maybe, just maybe, if the US wasn't interferring and *creating* organisations like al-queada, maybe people would not want to blow you up. Ever think of that? The US as betrayed such organisations that they have created on many occasions. Contrary to what you believe, they have reasons to hate the US. Again it comes to this : what can they do against the mighty US army? NOTHING. The only way they can fight is through terrorism. It's not in the Geneva convention? So if we all obey the Geneva convention, only the strongest should rule. All others should follow or be crushed. That's why war sucks. What if Hussein had the strongest army? What if it was 10 times more powerfull then the US's. Would *you* still follow the Geneva convention? I though so. War doesn't favor justice, if favors the strong.

And remember, it took 9/11 for the US to get involved in this. It took Pearl harbor for WWII.) Face it, Hussein as been in power for many years, and when you get punched in the face (9/11, not even by Hussein), you fight back and cloak with words of liberation and freedom". That's where I see the hypocrisy.

Oh, and did the US ever have any economical relations with Irak while hussein was in power? Throughout the 1980s, the United States supplied Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars' worth of weapons, technology and food to help fight Iran. There's that darn hypocrisy again. Wasn't he a dictator back then?

horns, am I a hypocrite if I don't have a solution to _every_ problem in the world? Or only the ones _you_ claim to have solutions for? How is it hypocritical to say "your solution sounds like in the long run it might be worse than the problem"?

I might have been wrong when I claimed that a US invasion of Iraq was worse than leaving Saddam in power, but where do you get off calling me hypocritical? The war so far has gone a lot better than I feared, but it's not done yet, and there are some possible negative aspects still to come.

So what's your solution to (for example) brutal government repression in Burma? Don't have one? Sorry, you're intellectually bankrupt, according to your standards.

My problem with the anti war contingent regarding Iraq is the hypocracy. No one disputes that Saddam kills his own people indiscriminately but they won't propose any solution to the problem. I am not alone in my convistions-- in fact, Nat Hentoff a longtime cornerstone of liberal causes takes the same position.

 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

 If you do not have a reasonable solution to the problem to propose, then you really don't matter. Your viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt .
The point of this war was to place ONE fucking regime in the middle east that doesn't trample all over its people.
yes, thats right- there isn't ONE government there that isn't a dictatorship with an unelected tyrant who has a brutal police force who lifts dissidents off the street and locks tham away in a cellar. these governments are greedy barbarous and cruel and for decades the arab people have told the west "fuck off crusaders, we don't need you to tell us how to run things"
on 9/11 we learned that "No, they DO need someone to show them how a modern society works". we don't have to invade every damn country to do this. We're just pushing one nation towards a government that is run by its people. Arab people.
That should be enough since...its NEVER been done before.
The reason we didn't step in earlier is because of the venomous anti american feelings there. no one in the US government wants legions of desperate ignorant suicide bombers coming to america to blow us up, but for christs sake the governments there are churning them out ALREADY.
so maybe - just maybe, before a Jordanian or an egyptian or a syrian says "the west is to blame for all of the arabs problems!!!", they might say - "well hey, those people in Iraq are calling the shots for themselves and its working....thats what i want"

horns, you're playing the criminal/soldier (aka crime/war) having-it-both-ways game. You say that soldiers and terrorists are two different things. Then you say that 9/11 was an act of war. Typically, war is carried out by soldiers; terrorists act mostly in (nominal) times of peace. If 9/11 was an act of war, then by definition the perpetrators are soldiers (admittedly, unconventional soldiers who broke all sorts of international conventions about the conduct of war).

This is similar to the administration's attempts to say that Homeland Security needs extraordinary powers (PATRIOT et al) because this is a time of war, but that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are criminals, not enemy combatants.

Also, you say Salon is "dubious". At least Jeremy gave a source for his claims. Do have _any_ evidence (other than bad-mouthing Salon) for your claims of peace and prosperity in Afghanistan?

Incidentally, while I agree that not all soldiers are terrorists, and not all terrorists are soldiers, there's a large gray area where the two overlap, and sometimes the distinction is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of cases in history of military forces who fought conventionally for their countries, but were too poor to equip all their troops with uniforms. There are also cases of underground resistance groups, who engaged in clandestine violence and sabotage against occupying military forces. There are also plenty of cases of uniformed, authorized soldiers attacking and terrorising civilians.

phyx, you are seriously uninformed.
there is a CLEAR AND DEFINTITE distinction between soldiers and terrorists my friend. Soldiers are marked clearly as having the ability to use force in the name of an internationally recognized country. Therefore there is a nation responsible for their actions. Furthermore it is a universally regarded doctrine that soldiers target only military installations and not civilian ones unless threatened by such.

Terrorists are without a country, without a recognizable uniform, and target civilian installations like discos in at night on a weekend, or crowded markets in the middle of the day.

This is the same thing that antiwar people keep getting wrong.
"Bush invaded the country of Afghanistan"- no, the Taliban was NEVER a recognized country. The entire UN agreed on this. they would not give nation status to such a barbaric regime.

"The weapons inspectors weren't given a chance to FIND anything"- no, it is not their job to FIND anything. they are not detectives. they have no training for solving crimes or finding evidence. they are there to be brought to the weapons. Uzbekistan and S. Africa both disarmed in days while Saddam yanked our chain for five months.

The WTC tragedy was a terrible crime"- no, 9/11 was an act of WAR by an organization that hid amongst other country;s sovereignity and used the world's freedom against it.

As for Afghanistan. they have an aid package set aside for them in our military budget from the US larger than those given by any other country. The primary contributers are the US and Japan(oooh, remember how we colonized that country after our attack!) and right now there is a concerted effort underway to establish a national army. the word is not out on Afghanistan just yet no matter what the dubious Salon magazine has to say.

and another thing - you can't have it BOTH ways. You decry the US toppling of a dictator because of the life that is lost in collateral damage. Yet if we did nothing, in ten years time you would complain that the US is responsible for all of the deaths Saddam caused on his people because we "supported" him by not going in. The Arab people hate us because we support the governments that are unfair to them. Then, they hate us and yell if we go in and take out the most vicious of the dictators. Even if we backed the Iraqi people ibn their own uprising against Saddam, there would be deaths ten fold and we would be responsible for that too. so what exactly is your position? I'm assuming that you want to live in "Fanstasy Land"

Edited by author 04-09-2003 09:10 PM
I have the link to that story in my post already. thanks for the second note though.

"Now the US needs to prove that they will help any country that is under the boot of evil dictatorship, even if the country does not have a massive oil supply. Is the US ready for that?"

Considering the dismal failure in afghanistan, I think not:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/07/taliban/index.html

But you already knew that :

Edited by author 04-09-2003 08:51 PM
If you think that ANYONE in the anti-war movement is dissapointed that the war is apparently ending quickly and according to the US plans, then you are seriously misguided and morally corrupt. This has never been about "I told you so!". I am ecstatic to see what appears to be a positive resolution to this military action. But I will never change my mind about the false pretense this war was started under. It is being played out now as a liberation of the Iraqi people, whereas the UN debates were about disarmament from WMD. If that was the case, and Saddam was willing to use these weapons, why were they never used during this action? Where is the proof of these described weapons? Powell repeatedly stated that absolute proof existed, though the US was not willing to share the sources. When will this be brought up again? And if the liberation of Iraq is now the ad campaign they are going with, then this is far from over, as the nation will need years and years of support to come away from this as a free, self-sufficient people. Take a look at what has happened in Afghanistan, where the US has basically walked away, and there are reports that the warlords actually running the country are now helping with a reorganized Taliban. The US has an enormous responsibility now, and needs to step up to the plate where power and violence are not the answer.

And where do we go next? Now the US needs to prove that they will help any country that is under the boot of evil dictatorship, even if the country does not have a massive oil supply. Is the US ready for that?

I am honestly stunned that a desire for non violent resolution to matters of international tension can be mistaken for support of fascism. get real! there is no tit-for-tat on this issue! there is no need for chest thumping and ego stroking here.

"how would keeping Saddam Hussein in power promote peace?"

Actually, you are refusing to see any other alternative to war. And therefore, you wrongly conclude that if we are opposed to the war, we are supporting Hussein, which is wrong. I could just as easilly say that since you are supporting war, you support killing. And since it says it the bible "thou shalt not kill", then we can assume that you don't believe in god. Then if you don't believe in god, you're acting under orders from the devil, as your name suggests :) The same can be said about anyone who's pro-war. So what, half or more of the US is under orders from the Devil?

Anyway, I still stand behind the fact that the ends don't justify the means.

hornsofthedevil wrote ...and by "people" do you mean "soldiers"? are you going to make a distinction between soldiers and people? No? Oh, than i can see your completely adolescant and assinine comparison between US troops and terrorsits /m34

"People" includes soldiers. All soliders are people, yes?. Some people choose to call themselves "soldiers". Our troops do, and most people we call "terrorists" do. And many people would agree our "soldiers" are actually "terrorists". So terms like "terrorist" and "soldier" are clearly very relative. But they're all still people; that one isn't rocket science.

The misconception that "soldiers" are somehow exempt from the universal moral rules about killing is what allows terrorists to operate. That applies to both side's definition of soldier and terrorist. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

whats that?

Iraqis dancing in the streets and cheering at the toppling of Saddam Hussein!

so ishould be moved to tears over what? That a war took place with less collateral damage than any war in history and now a vicious dictator who would have killed and killed and killed his own people as long as hge was in power is now ousted?

removing this regime was just and the spineless antiwar contingent can count on the fact that they are now officially deemed "idiots".

The people of Iraq are the only ones who can comment and they are dancing in the streets. anyone who cries and moans about the war is refusing to answer the MAIN question:

how would keeping Saddam Hussein in power promote peace?

You can't answer that question and you can't defend your postion. Just admit you all support fascism. thats what it boils down to - "appeasement"

It's slightly misquoted, from "Enemy of the State."

Will Smith's character: Why'd you blow up the building?

Gene Hackman's character: Because you made a phone call!

(emphasis added)

Edited by author 04-09-2003 06:14 AM
(avoiding blows of an unstrung bow)
Terrorism is all relative.

Take note from http://news.independent.co.uk/
"Twelve minutes after the emergency order, they dropped four satellite-guided 2,000lb earth-penetrating bombs on a house in Baghdad's Mansur district (that's a suburb, think houses). They left a huge smoking crater where the al-Zaa restaurant used to stand, and at least nine civilians dead.

But their quarry, British intelligence sources signalled last night, may have escaped again: Saddam Hussein, they suggested, is thought to have left the restaurant minutes before the bombs homed in"

Now imagine you are an Iraqi. Do you really feel anyone is trying to free you when they blow up a whole building? Wasn't that in an American movie?

"Why'd they blow up the building?
Because you made a phone call!"

Is "that's war" enough to cover so many innocent and civilian casualties?

"The precision-guided 2,000-pound munitions left a smoking crater 60 feet deep in the upscale al-Mansour section of western Baghdad. A young woman's severed head and torso and a small boy's body were pulled from a crater made by the blasts, so powerful they yanked up orange trees from their roots. "

Can people really read that and not be moved to tears? Are you armchair generals so immune to death that you can't smell that you are willing to say "It's ok, it's worth it".

I gues so...

But the point of this thread (I thought) is "why the heck are people protesting".

Another thread would be the place to say "we need soldiers to risk their lives with less huge bombings while they find, arrest, or kill memebers of the Iraqi secret police and Baath party"

Thanks Jeremy! Mr. Devil, you keep making assumptions that are simply false on my part. Furthermore, name calling doesn't help your cause either :) But since there are no local anti-war parties going on, I have nothing to do. So here goes:

First of all :
"the problem is that you are willing to tolerate it"
Not at all. But I can understand your point of view if you think war is the only answer. I'm not saying I'm an expert on this situation with Irak, far from it, but I'm sure there are other ways. For example, one question I keep asking myself is who keeps Hussein in power, where does he get the money? Like you said, from the big french and russian petrolium empires. Why are we still tolerating this? No country should by oil that comes directly, or indirectly from Irak. Of course, we can't let the population starve so we should offer humanitarian aid. This "petrol for food" is just awfull from an ethical point of view. (don't extrapolate and think that I'm saying "let them starve to death). Like I said, I'm no expert, but I can't believe war is the only answer.

Also, as you pointed out, who has the most to gain ? The US oil companies if suddenly they get to buy iraki oil. The Bush administration is full of people that are close to big oil companies (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Donal Evans, Spencer Abraham, Crhistine Todd Whitman, Condoleezza Rice to name a few). I'm not saying they have hidden agendas, just that there is a big huge potential for conflict of interest situations. We can, and we should question our leaders when such situations arise. The price for freedom is eternal vigilance, or so they say. At first glance, it smells fishy at best. Not questionning our (your) leaders is, like you said, bordering on the insane :)

As for your second post, I won't hang my head in shame, far from it. Unless of course the ends justifie the means. I could counter with the list of people (if I had it) that died because of collateral damage. Or the list of soldiers that have died. Like someone in a pro-war post said in this thread (or another one, I can't remember), soldiers are soldiers, they don't get to question orders. Its their job to die and to kill. Is an iraki soldier's life worth less then a US soldier's ? Don't they have families too? You could then counter with a list of the people who died under Hussein's rule. And so forth and so forth. It has nothing to do with this discussion, which is way offtopic btw :)

To conclude, I don't have the answer, and I don't think war is the answer. That's my opinion. Oh, and you seem to like children : don't we teach them that violence doesn't solve anything. That's hard to do with Bush around. But I agree that doing nothing also doesn't solve anything. What do we do? I would'nt be wasting my time on online forums if I knew :)

Lord of the Cows, logging off.

hmmm, falsifications from the US gubmint? impossible...

"Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections."

link
more links
even more links

in fact, you should hang your head in shame:

BAGHDAD (AFP) - More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.
Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.
"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.
"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."
"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."
The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 07:19 PM
If you believe the US government has a cast of arab speaking actors on call to create fake intercepted phone conversations for the UN, then you'll never be convinced. Your argument is absurd.
you stated: "We can't dispute the fact that Hussein runs a brutal dictatorship"
No, we can't. the problem is that you are willing to tolerate it. History will judge the United States action against Iraq, not the lackadaisical european population who are shiftless and frightened when faced with a threat.

as for the oil part of the discussion - you clearly asked "who has the most to gain?" and i made the reasonmable assumption you were alluding to Irag's oil. A better question would be who has the most to gain if Saddam stays in power? Oh, the French maybe(the largest business dealing with Iraq for their oil since the gulf war) or Russia maybe($400 billion owed to their country in Iragi oil contracts).

The moral high ground you take about being against the war is a sham. You don't dispute Saddam is a vicious dictator(then you must concede that he WILL get worse if left in power) but you want peace forged with the blood of the Iraqi people he terrorizes. Take a stand aginst something please. have SOME resolve. you sound like a wimp plain and simple.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 07:01 PM
John, I am an out-of-context, knee-jerk buffoon. Profuse apologies.

Unless, of course, you're saying that our soldiers are terrorists...in which case, I must beat you about the head and shoulders with an unstrung bow.

Suddenly, I'm feeling very inadequate about my name.

hornsofthedevil : you make me laugh :) And no, I did'nt get my news from indymedia. I was refering to the silly recordings that were presented to the UN. You know, the ones about the iraki soldiers that were talking on the radio? Repeating themselves so the UN would be sure to understand :) Concrete evidence there. And in the nice pictures from spyplanes, where we could see cars and trucks next to houses "that we believe are used to [insert demonic action here]". Right. I stopped watching right there and then.

It might be true, of course, but that was not concrete evidence. I mean come on, you let O.J. go free :) I'm not arguing on the other facts since I don't know enough about them to do so. Notice also that I had deleted that last part from my message as I realized that it was more flamebait then discussion :) I should have deleted it completely I guess.

Oh, btw, when did I ever talk about oil? never! :) Sure I think its part of why the US is going there, but I'll never try to argue that with anyone.

"Behind every acknowledged truth there is a lie. Behind every action for good there is an evil plot brewing."

And That was my argument? Quite extreme. I really do generalize quickly! I didn't realize I spoke against every good action in the world. If you believe that this is what anti-war protesters think, I'll leave you at that and I'll just go back to wearing my tin-foil hat :)

Edited by author 04-08-2003 03:12 PM
Lord Of The Cows, your argument is bordering on the deranged.
Powell's evidence was DAMNINGof the Iraqi regime. Would sworn testimony from Saddam's nephew that he had an active nuclear program stanbd in a court of law - i think so(too bad Saddam executed him when he returned to the country). Then we can look no furhter than the former nuclear technician Karzai who states clearly that he worked on the nuclear program. Add to all this that Saddam ADMITTED he had the chemical and biological weapons in 1998. Then he refused to turn them over and kicked the weapons inspectors out.
why Saddam when there are so many dictators out there? Hmmmmmmmm- its so tough to figure out. Maybe because he is the only one with
A) a lonmg history of aggression
B) a unending effort to mass produce and stockpile WMD
C) he is in THE hotspot of terrorism - the middle east
again - if this was about oil then why did 1441 pass UNANIMOUSLY(15-0)!!! I guess every nation in the entire world wants the US to take the Iraqi's oil huh?

Your argument is based on ridiculous assumptions. Behind every acknowledged truth there is a lie. Behind every action for good there is an evil plot brewing.

let me guess- you get your news from indymedia?

I didn't see any of the discussion I read here as being particularly off-topic, as it all concerns what motivates people to put themselves in situations where they might be injured for stating their opinions and beliefs.

To address the specific picture, I agree: there are effective, intermediate methods of crowd control which are not so bruising as this young lady was subject to. But on the positive side, it seems to me that the media is really having to scramble to find many such instances of injuries from protests. I'm not paying particularly close attention to the whole protesting scene, and yet I get plenty of exposure (NPR is my main source of news, and they're definitely into covering every angle they can). I see lots of protests going on, and relatively few violent outbursts from protestors or police. Despite a small number of unfortunate incidents such as this one, people are having their say.

Broadly speaking, I think the US already has a strategy concerning dictators: if they conduct reasonable international business and do not pose a threat to us or countries we do business with, we generally leave them alone.

And now my unsolicited observations: The fall of Iraq will hasten a Palestinian state. China will agree to handle North Korea for Taiwan. We decline.

And, incredibly, an on-topic comment: Jerry Brown needs to talk with his Chief of Police about optional control tactics between the bullhorn and the wooden bullet.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 10:44 AM
We can't dispute the fact that Hussein runs a brutal dictatorship, but so do many other rulers of other nations. If the US is doing this for the good of the iraki people, I would expect the US to fight all the other dictatorship with the same force and determination. Which brings me to JohnR's question :

"Where do protestors envision the line that our enemies may not cross without consequences?". I think that the UN and the US should have clear policies on dealings with foreing dictatorships. Otherwise, it's easy to see conspiracies everywhere (from both sides). Why Irak? Why now? Why not before? Who next? Who stands to make the most profits? (don't answer here, please, these aren't real questions I'm asking, just examples)

We probably all agree that dictatorships are bad (I hope). If we had clear guidelines to follow on dealing with them, a prime directive if you will, there would be less reason to oppose such wars. Now we would only have debates on what guidelines we should follow :)

Otherwise, all wars seem arbitrary and filled with hidden agendas.

EDITED/deleted (Seems like flamebait now) :

The proof that the US presented to the UN was laughable at best. I ask you this : would this rock solid evidence stand in a US court of law? No way. And we can't say that Bush is the greatest diplomat that ever lived.

Wow Ian, I have NO idea what you mean.

My point was best elaborated on by Lord of The Cows. You seem to be saying that I'm comparing Americans to the recent terrorist. When I said "we know what American terroists can do" I was siting the Oaklahoma bombing. There's no WAY American terroists are as good as imported ones! Unless of course we have multi-millons dollar weapons and goverment backing.

phyxeld, you write, "there are many ways we could try to stop "institutionalized slaughter". Creating more of it by invading Iraq is not among them, however"

I'm curious--can you describe one of the "many ways", and explain how that way is a) effective and b) in keeping with your ideals of nonviolence and the total avoidance of killing?

And John E.--get back to us when a bunch of Americans fly airliners into the Pretonas towers in Malaysia, or when you develop moral sensibility, whichever comes first.

hornsofthedevil : "Ummm....exactly." . I was thinking more along the lines of "Run for your life that next missile might hit my home!" :)

Protesters won't change Bush's mind unless they form a huge majority of the US citizens. But is it pointless? Maybe it won't change anything, but whatever your position on the war may be, they're doing something about it (as opposed to writing on online forums from the safety of my home, like I'm doing). Of course, protests are only part of what people can do if they are against to war. But my point is, they are doing *something*. What are *you* actively doing to support your position? (note : I'm actively doing nothing. Shame on me).

As hornsofthedevil quoted "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature [...]". I don't think that "willing to fight" only talks about physical fights. We can fight each other in fist-fight cage battle, or using swords like civilized people, or by debating each other's idea. So we should respect the protesters. If it only means physical fights, then I don't like that quote :). As John E. pointed out, how long before the protesters start doing some collateral damage on their own?

Of course, there are rules concerning how protests can be done, just as there rules in war.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 10:12 AM
Unless you think everything you see in the media is a lie, it is pretty clear that Hussein was an evil despot, and was running a brutal dictatorship. No value was placed on Iraqi lives, per the evidence we've uncovered, and according to the testimony of numerous Iraqi exiles. There is no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, capable of great evil and brutalities.

Now, regardless of the US's perceived motivations for engaging in a conflict with Hussein's regime, I don't understand why people protest the removal of an evil man from power. Non-violent means of neutralizing Saddam have been attempted for nearly a decade, to basically no end. The UN methods were not working. I believe that is indisputable.

People were dying and suffering in Iraq, while we stood by and did nothing--not the US, the whole world. Even if that is a purely internal matter, Iraq was also threatening American allies, and had already demonstrated the will to act on those threats when they invaded Kuwait.

What I'm curious about, and the question that I would pose to those who protest the conflict, is, in your minds, at what point is the US justified in defending itself and its allies, with whatever force is necessary to overcome the opposition? Where do protestors envision the line that our enemies may not cross without consequences?

After reading all the posts, most points seem to have been covered. The first posts replies with a cynical "boo-hoo, you are all wimps for hating war" and criticizing people who wanted to protest. Then it was followed by saying "what good does it do to protest, I'm already against the war?". Others posted that "supporting the troops" means not objecting to the government. Finally someone posted "oh that pictures was Photoshoped", yea right. It's all over the net on mainstream sites, not just blogs. As far as your "what if", turn that phrase around and you might understand why people are protesting. I hope that in my post I can make clear a very real danger that's growing. Protesters are NOT "peace loving people". Some are, but most feel we are being lied to and are taking action.

First, let's make it clear why the US claims to be "at war". According to W we are planning to "rid Saddam of WMD", "free the Iraqi people", and "make everyone safe from terrorism". I know few people who don't want this to happen, but those who protest not only feel that this WON'T happen, but that it could make things worse and that other agendas are being met. Even if it does "work", there is a very high price to pay.

This includes hatred from other countries, dead Americans, dead children (now from bombs, before from sanctions, and later from DU). A common phrase is "that's war", but that only moves people to try even harder to stop it. This is what protesters don't want and are against and are being given ZERO voice. Not even allowed to talk about it.. hushed in the streets.. soon to be fired by bosses. By writing anything here that isn't "pro-war" I'll be shied and insulted myself.

Those for the war say "the price of a few lives is worth the result". I'd beware of the point when the protesters will think along the same lines. Mind you most of them feel that the USA is the terrorist now. I'm sure there will be a group that won't hesitate to do "whatever it takes". Just as "a few lives" don't matter to get rid of Saddam, just as collateral damage is "unavoidable".

Protests rise from writing letters, to making calls, then marching, and civil disobedience. This protest included rock and blot throwing, I'd call that UNcivil disobedience. Today there will complaints to the police due to workers who got hit by the rounds aimed at the protesters. What's next? The President will get angry letters from citizens who want the new "terrorists" stopped.

Not only will this war not stop future terrorism... you've already seen them. Those are the future terrorists of America because they feel oppressed and powerless.

You can argue any of these points with ME, but can you with someone who's been arrested twiced.. hazed.. spit on.

Let's all hope for a dead Saddam and SOME type of WMD found.. even if we need Powell to make it up. We've SEEN what American terrorists can do.

several of my friends were there. one had his hand shattered by one of those wooden dowl slugs, goes in for surgery tomorrow. he and the others had been trying to leave, but the police basically herded them all together and fired.

Your friend wouldn't be the "house mate" of that jerk over at Mean Mr. Mustand, would he? I can't believe somebody would write a thing like that about someone who lives in the same house. If I was that guy, I would wait for my hand to heal and then punch Mean Mr. Russell in the face.

Just to clarify, I'm with Tom Cross. When I wrote "this debate," I meant this debate, right here on this board. I think he's wrong about one thing, though...

There are moral absolutes. The people I called stupid and evil are stupid and evil, and it has nothing to do with their position on the war. It has everything to do with their lack of empathy and respect for human rights.

several of my friends were there. one had his hand shattered by one of those wooden dowl slugs, goes in for surgery tomorrow. he and the others had been trying to leave, but the police basically herded them all together and fired.

Um, an M-203 is a grenade launcher. IT's pretty handy, except that it needs to be attached to an M-16 in order to be of any real use. Nevertheless, if arming the populace makes them feel safer...

The world's always been mad, Tom.

The question is, as it always really is, when push comes to shove... which side are you on?

All this over a bruise that's about as bad as some of the ones I got when I played paintball?!?!? WTF?
Truly a clear sign of police brutality if I ever saw one.
I mean, the exit wound from a service slug would have been so much cleaner.

The whole world's going mad.

Everyone that I see everywhere online and irl seems to have formed opinions about this war based on how they feel about how the war relates to their identity rather then how they think about what is actually going on and why.

I find it harder and harder to grasp onto anything reasonable as people descend deeper and deeper into ravenous emotional conflict.

People are either on the left, or on the right. And they are on their side all the way. There are two ways to think and that is all that is possible. You are either with us, or against us.

Both sides have rationalized that the other side is evil (so that they can ignore the other side when it makes a valid point):

On the right this is done by concluding that dissent is unpatriotic.

On the left this is done by concluding that no deaths of people who aren't rich or western are acceptable for any reason regardless of the circumstances.

Both sides choose to beleive in facile conspiracy theories because its easier then facing the questions reality raises about their absolutism.

On the right this is done by hating the French and concluding that western opposition to this action is rooted in some sort of financial connection to the Iraqi regime.

On the left this is done by hating the rich and concluding that the United States invaded Afghanistan to clear right of way for an oil pipeline.

(I can just hear legions of clue deficient dolts reading their favorite statement of the above two and saying "What?! ITS TRUE!!!" Sigh... I'd explain in detail why you are confused but if you beleive either of these things you are too far gone to save.)
 
Both sides are completely incapable of thinking critically about their own positions.

On the right people seem to grasp a hold of whatever feels good in terms of a justification, whether its revenge for 911 or freeing the Iraqi people, despite the fact that they've nearly all been refuted. Poke a hole in someone's favorite explanation and in return you'll get rage, not reason.

On the left people seemed to be shocked and amazed that someone would accuse them of being anti-american while they attend rallies organized by International ANSWER.

Both sides think CNN is run by the other side.

******

You do not reach mutual understanding by screaming at eachother and calling eachother stupid and evil. Left? Right? You're all stupid and you're all evil. Absolutism is evil.

My message to the right is that your fear of questions makes you pliable slaves.

My message to the left is that you can't question authority if you don't beleive that its possible for authority to be correct. Always finding a reason to "dissent" as a matter of principal is not the same as questioning. You are also slaves, and in fact you serve the same masters.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 01:52 AM
Don't you mean, "Russ, over at Mean Mr. Mustand, pretty much spins this whole issue completely out of all proportion and/or rational context with?"

Again, this entire debate has nothing to do with the image of a young woman who has been shot in the face by a police projectile.

It has everything to do with national chauvinism and pig-headed disrespect for the suffering of others.

Nobody was "hindering military operations of the United States." No protester, to my knowledge, ever has. It's a fucking myth, and a convenient one, which fuels hate-filled rhetoric extremely well. Keep on reading Hitler's playbook. I'm sure there are more gems hidden in there.

When I go to the next local protest (hopefully the war lasts long enough!) I'll be sure to wear a T-shirt that reads: COLLATERAL DAMAGE with a big red bullseye. It would make my day if a pig actually aimed for the center of the bullseye. It would also make a fantastic photo opportunity.

Russ, over at Mean Mr. Mustand, pretty much nails this whole issue with:

====

The More I think About This...

...the madder I get.

Ok folks, now let's get this one thing real straight right now so that all you little kiddies smarting from the lumps you took today understand at least this much:

You do not have the constitutional right to physically hinder war operations of the United States.

Got it? Every one of you nitwits clear on this? Do you need some kind of visual aid to grasp it? Do I have to depict this concept with a puppet show or hand signals in order for it worm its way into your monstrously thick skulls?

What you are doing is not part of the "American tradition of dissent." It is not free speech. It is, at best, a morally repugnant and empty-headed gesture that should leave you ashamed of yourselves at your own stupidity. At worst, it's simple treason, no qualifications, equivocations, or rationalizations allowed. In aggressively putting yourself between our troops and the supplies that need to get to them in order to do their jobs and not get killed in the process, you have removed yourselves from the realm of rational consideration and damned your cause to even further irrelevance. You no longer warrant any attention, save for the amount of effort and energy required to drop-kick your collective ass out of the goddamned way and keep it there.

Yes, perhaps the cops exercised poor crowd control.

But you know what? In the grand scheme of things, I couldn't care less. I've changed my mind about this. I don't feel sorry for you guys that recieved a little rough treatment. At least, no more than it takes to register a half-hearted shrug. I'm hard-pressed to see how you got anything more than what you deserved and invited.

===

Check it out, with comments, at:
http://www.meanmrmustard.net/archives/000826.html#000826

That photo, plus this bit from Lileks.com pretty much wrap up a very satisfying day:
==
In one respect I'd come to hope that Saddam would be handed over to the crowds, strung up like Benito. It would be instructive for the region to see that when the Street finally rose up and accomplished something, it was not to wave signs and urge jihad, but to separate the tyrant from his mortal coil.

In the absence of that, atomization by bunker-buster is just fine. They say that four were dropped - hope the fourth one was the charm. First bomb: everyone stops. Second bomb: everyone looks at everyone else. Third bomb: everyone is overtaken by the electric sluice of fear; panic and denial exchange a flurry of blows. Fourth bomb: a great and horrible hand.

We’ll see tomorrow. If he’s dead, what a Monday: Saddam dead, WMD found, and US forces swipe the ashtrays at a Presidential palace. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, men.
===

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0403/040803.html

And from the Washington Post, this little reminder:
===

Reflecting the increasing confidence among U.S. military officials, the overall commander of U.S. and British forces in the region, Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, flew into Iraq for the first time to meet with his top generals and shake the hands of some troops. Franks, who has run the war from Doha, made no public statements, and officers who saw him described his private comments as largely perfunctory.

"I want you to be proud," he told Marines in a talk that lasted less than three minutes and was recorded by some in attendance. "I want you to hold your head up high. I want you to remember those we've lost. I also want you to remember what we've gained. I'm so proud of you. It's just such an honor to stand here with you. God bless all of you, God bless the Corps, the mission. God bless the United States of America. Get it done and we'll be moving on."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

========

The Peace Movement, like Saddam, is, like, so 1969, man.

People keep a comin' but the peace train done gone.

Lord Of The Cows posted:

 "I'm sure that the Iraki people are thinking 'Yay! Freedom!'"


Ummm....exactly.

THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT: It now commands 16 percent support in the population at large. Boomers, the group most likely to be seeing this war through the prism of Vietnam, now support it in greater numbers than any other age-group. Here's an email from someone perhaps typical of his generation:

I am part of that baby boomer generation and like many I demonstrated against that war in Viet Nam. But unlike some I do realize it is not 1969 anymore. Viet Nam was a very long, costly and ugly war. The divisions did not come overnight and for many they will not go away. It is part of their identity, their very purpose in life. Many felt the same after the American Civil War. It took a generation then and it might take a generation now for enough time and distance to come about to see that war and its legacy in proper perspective. I supported the government in this endeavor for the simple reason that I am an American and I don't like fascist dictators the likes of Saddam Hussein. They can call that simplistic, but then again so is their knee jerk anti Americanism. There is nothing sadder than an old hippie trying to regain his/her youth through the manipulation of others and at the expense of a suffering people they claim to feel sympathy for. I hate the destruction, but I also hate doing nothing while hundreds of thousands of people die. I guess some of my generation and the UN security council have no such qualms.

Has any large protest movement been this much of a failure so soon?

from:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Edited by author 04-08-2003 12:28 AM
So, why were all these dispicable comments about protestors being un-American posted again? Why does it seem like the rational thing to do, when you see a photograph of an injured woman, to trash her and others like her while cheering on the people who did it?

I thought it was kind of an interesting photograph, just because I always wondered what someone would look like after getting shot with one of those non-lethal weapons. From a pure technology viewpoint, it was an interesting post.

Possible topics for discussion could have included:

1) Was the portrayal of non-lethal weapons in The Last Castle accurate?

2) If Houdini died from being punched in the stomach, what would the effect of being shot in the gut by one of these weapons be?

3) Do they make a Hello Kitty model???

Instead, I see blood-thirsty, hate-filled, disgusting rants. I honestly believe you people would like to see more.

If protesters deserve more, why not shoot more of them? Why don't the police go find people who even think about protesting, and just shoot them?

Personally, you sick bastards make me want to go protest. I don't even care about the war that much. So far, it's only Iraqi civilians being killed. If the U.S. goes into Korea and starts killing Korean civilians, I'll be angry. With the current situation, what really worries me is the erosion of civil liberties and the hostile national atmosphere which is so perfectly represented by the comments on this board. I want to go protest, just to see if I can do it.

BTW, my previous two comments were trollish because I don't think any of you deserve the respect of a rational argument. I also want to be clear that saying you scare me is not a dirty debate tactic. It isn't a debate tactic at all. You just really scare the shit out of me.

Edited by author 04-08-2003 12:06 AM
"By you line of reasoming, suicide bombings in publiuc places like discos and shopping malls are "A-OKay"."

And I guess that "collateral damage" is "A-Okay" right? Fragmentation bombs are "A-Okay" since they'll never kill people.. just soldiers.. And you can bet your ass that those "civilians" that died from "misguided" US weapons were really soldiers! Hey, any iraky that's not opposing Hussein outloud must be with him. After all, haven't we heard bush say that "If you're not with us, you're against us". The opposite must also be true.

But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs! HA! You're supposed to be this great nation with great technology yet you've probably killed more of your own soldiers than the iraki did. I'm sure that the Iraki people are thinking "Yay! Freedom!" when they hear those sirens warning them of incoming ""coalition"" missiles. Collateral damage is terrorism.

Think about this one too : who could attack the US ? No really? No one! You have the biggest freakin' army (with lasers attached to their freakin' heads). I'm not saying that terrorism is okay (far from it), but what other choice do they have really if they want to fight what they consider to be "Evil" ? An evil that has a bigger army?

I compare the US to a school bully. He does'nt care if he pushes other people around to get what he wants. What can the nerd do ? Fight with him? No way! Put ex-lax in his food.. There you go.

Liberating the iraki people from an oppressive regime is a noble cause. But I seriously doubt that this is the real goal behind the US actions. Didn't you enter WWII only after Pearl Harbor? Two years into the war? You now want to save the iraki people *after* 9/11. What, were they free before that?

Finally, to close this rant, please PLEASE take a look at what the US foreign policies are and were. The US created Al-queda for Jeebus's sake!!! The US keeps pushing other nations around untill they do what the US wants them to do. (look how you react to France) Someone was bound to snap.

I don't agree with this war. I don't agree with oppressive dictatorships. I don't agree with unilateral actions. I live in a perfect utopian world with flowers and bunnies. Sorry for the Engrish.

interesting that if you page thru the yaho! pictures the next ones are of dead US soldiers, so i really have no sympathy for a protester who was roughed up, while someone lost a son, father, daughter, etc...

 "I support the ones who, when faced with the reality of actually having to kill people, change their mind. I do not support the ones who ... are "supported" by the public. They are murderers. They are terrorists. Supporting them is no different than supporting any other terrorists."

...and by "people" do you mean "soldiers"? are you going to make a distinction between soldiers and people? No? Oh, than i can see your completely adolescant and assinine comparison between US troops and terrorsits. By you line of reasoming, suicide bombings in publiuc places like discos and shopping malls are "A-OKay". What you said in that post is about the most mind numbling ignorant thing i have read on here. You want peace - but at whose cost? You take some kind of fake moral high ground by saying you woun't figth when you aren't faced with the brutality of a regime that doesn't give people that choice. get a clue.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." JOHN STUART MILL

War sure brings out the assholes.

Hey, if all the soldiers objected and refused to kill, the war couldn't happen... By not objecting, and by doing (killing) as they're told, they're making the war happen. It is not possible to "support the troops without supporting the war", anymore than it's possible to support the 9/11 hijackers without supporting 9/11.

[OT] With boingboing's readership, I think it's greatly outgrown quicktopic. Are you guys looking into better discussion backends? Threads, moderation, real login names that can't be forged, all would be nice features... [/OT]

Ian Wood, there are many ways we could try to stop "institutionalized slaughter". Creating more of it by invading Iraq is not among them, however.

As for "you should have known when joining the marines you'd have to kill people"; yes, I agree. Thats why I don't much like marines. Nonetheless, I support the ones who, when faced with the reality of actually having to kill people, change their mind. I do not support the ones who participate in, well, institutionalized slaughter, and not only get away with it but are "supported" by the public. They are murderers. They are terrorists. Supporting them is no different than supporting any other terrorists.

And I take offense at Cap'N's reference to Mapplethorpe and urination!!! Give credit where credit is due!

Andres Serrano's 1989 masterpiece Piss Christ:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/p...ry/images/502bg.jpg

everyone needs rice to stop institutionalized slaughter?

"But explain, please, how you would stop institutionalized slaughter."

M-203s! For EVERYONE!

A fine line, from the wonderful 'get your war on' comic:

"All I have to say is, once this is over, the Iraqi people better be freest f*cking people on earth. They better be freer than me. They better be so f*cking free that they can fly. And they better get fed. They better get totally chubby. I want a f*ckin' five-mile-long buffet for those kids- and I want that buffet to be perminant."

One of the only things I think I can agree with someone on over this whole thing.

Edited by author 04-07-2003 08:29 PM
Police violence shocks activists, others at Port of Oakland protest

I think the remarks on this board hinting at protester violence were "photoshopped".

PS, I would like to add that I do not believe pulling the troops out now would be a logical step. That does not mean that I feel we can justify this war becasue we are "winning". I stand by the opinion that the long term repurcussions will be horrible to witness as they unfold over the years to come. And yet, I hope that I am wrong.

It looks like the photo has been touched. Not that I don't doubt that rubber bullets the size of marbles don't leave a big hurt. It just should be noted that the welt appears to have been "photoshopped".

In my opinion (you can stop reading hear mark): Protestors, go ahead and protest, but do so peacefully. It is your right, and I can respect that. Men have left fortunes, house, homes and given even their lives for that wonderful freedom of expression.
However, obstructing supplies going to aid Iraqi people is not going to help the cause. Injuring dock workers is not peaceful. If you choose not to obey the law in that way, be prepared for pain, imprisonment, disfigurement, or possible death. Don't cry about it, you chose to play the game that way. Don't hop back and forth across the line, your an anti-American dissident, not a peace protestor, if you were for peace, you would have demonstrated to demand that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. And the notion that supporting the troops by "bringing them back" is credible. Shame on you who claim to have a brain. The troops are there and they will not be back until at least October. If they were to come back now man many Iraqi would die as a result of the regime killing and punishing insurgents like last time.
What are you so afraid of, just say I do not support the troops, like Phyxeld who at least is honest. (Though misguided.) Don't block supplies going to the troops while saying that you support them, when they get back they might rightly kick your militant butt for that silliness.

My question is what will protestors do, if WMD are indeed found, Saddam is toppled quickly with minimal loss of life, and Iraq becomes a beautiful center of democracy that spurs reforms in many surrounding Middle Eastern countries. What then? Smoke weed and talk about how the man popped you while you were waving a Bush/Hitler photo? Save your pennies for the next military incursion, so you can REALLY protest?

I think many "liberals" (Gosh, I hate labels.) have had a change of heart, like Dennis Miller for example, I think we should focus on issues important to us. Like the 2 million "felons" now in our ever growing prison population, the fact that we are sending teenagers and women to war. It is not equality, as women fair far less in POW situations. Even barbarians don't send their women and children to war. Or like overcoming the growing corruption in government and in our judicial system.

I think anyone who joins the Marines and doesn't realize that part of the job may involve killing is a bit thick. After all, every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman.
I feel bad for people who join the services just because they want a college education. However, they are called the ARMED services for a reason, that reason being that they are provided with weapons and are directed to use those weapons in accord with the lawful orders of the civilian authority. I may not agree with the current administration, but I do not agree with soldiers questioning legitimate orders. A military that mutinies is a military that can have a coup d'état. We don't worry about coups in this country because we know our military obeys its orders.

This demonstration was not, as far as I've heard, peaceful. It included people throwing rocks and metal bolts at the police.

To paraphrase Larry Niven (exact words not handy), it is not a good idea to throw rocks at people with guns. It is also not a good idea to stand next to someone throwing rocks at people with guns.

So, sorry, lady. No sympathy here.

And you are deluded if you think you are doing anything "for the Iraqi people". They want this war more than anyone. All protestors should read the account of this human shield who admitted he was wrong:

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

"But explain, please, how you would stop institutionalized slaughter."

Supply them with weapons, precursor chemicals, and microbes?

Edited by author 04-07-2003 07:51 PM
"It's possible that the "rich Western twit" was protesting the war because she didn't want this to happen:

Sure, it's possible. Who would want that to happen?

It's also possible that she's ignorant of the B'aathist practice of setting dissidents' children on fire and raping their wives.

In fact, I think it's more than possible, I think it's probable.

Mark, why do you continually excuse two decades' worth of B'aathist inhumanity and focus on each and every American mistake?

I hope it's not just because the B'aathists weren't media-savvy enough to post pictures of their victims up for you to link to.

And phyxeld: yes, killing is not an ideal Good, and never will be.

But explain, please, how you would stop institutionalized slaughter.

It's obvious that mark is referring to those that use the statement "support our troops" to justify their argument that the protesters need to cease and desist. It is a mantra that amplifies the fact that legitimate dissent is being denounced as "un-American," when some of the proudest moments in US history are directly attributable to the voice of the people rising in outrage.

That'll teach me to try and use html... bah. Why no preview? Urls again:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1596331.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../04/02/MN263095.DTL

<p>Pictures of the actual wooden bullets and grenades are online the local IMC:<br>
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1596331.php</p>;
<p>Mark, thankyou for your comments about not supporting our troops. I'm glad to hear more people realize that soldiers ARE responsible for their actions, and AREN'T "just doing their job". Killing is killing, even if president bush told you to. People who say "I support are troops" are nearly the exact equiv of most arabs who supported sept11: misled and uninformed. They're not bad people at heart, they just don't understand what they're saying they support. KILLING IS KILLING. Bombing _is_ terrorism.</p>
<p>I support our troops who choose not to go to Iraq.<br>
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...263095.DTL</p>;

Boswell, this feels like the Well! Glad to see that you are here. Thanks for saying that I was once a "liberal, eqalitarian, thoughtful and wonderful advocate of democracy." I never knew that I was any of those! And thanks for letting me know what I am now, because I didn't know that either. Seriously, I change my mind about political stuff frequently, because I hear good arguments on both sides from smart and persuasive people.

Edited by author 04-07-2003 07:28 PM
It would seem we are witnessing the last redoubt of the semi-intellectual and tragically hip mindset of a fading subculture.

Yes! The days of the pseudo-intellectuals and the Communists are over! March onward, Super Men! Onward, for the Homeland! Onward, for our troops! Onward, for the New Age!!!

Mark opines (without a shred of evidence other than his own internal voices and the rigid agreement of all his pals) that:
"People who say "support our troops" are really saying "do not object to the government's plans to send poor kids out to die for a questionable cause."

It is strange to me that such a statement could come from such an otherwise intelligent person. It is far more likely that people who say "support our troops" mean just that. No more and no less.

 It would seem that the War and its rolling and overwhelming success is driving folks such as Mark into premature dementia.

It would seem, from Mark's statement, that overwhelming numbers of his fellow citizens are just merely unthinking drones without a sense of what is morally wrong and morally right, without a whit of sense when it comes to what makes a cause worth fighting for.

Not really his sort at all, eh, wot?

It would seem we are witnessing the last redoubt of the semi-intellectual and tragically hip mindset of a fading subculture.

Very classist of you, Mark. Not at all the liberal, eqalitarian, thoughtful and wonderful advocate of democracy you once were.

 Mon Apr 7, 2:05 PM ET

A protestor, who refused to give her name, bears the wounds after she says was hit by Oakland police weapon during a anti-war protest in Oakland, Calif., Monday, Aug. 7, 2003 outside the port area. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

hmmm. August.. this glimpse into the future tells me its going to be a hellish summer.

People who say "support our troops" are really saying "do not object to the government's plans to send poor kids out to die for a questionable cause."

As George McGovern recently wrote, "the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them on mistaken military campaigns that needlessly endanger their lives and limbs."

Seems to me the Oakland Police have backed off. The last time I went up against them with a bunch of my deluded friends and fellow protestors in the streets they loaded those guns with real buckshot. I seem to recall helping one who was shot in the foot to a medical center. Another was dead on a rooftop. This woman and the others I've seen on TV reports got off light.

P.S. Oh, Mark, can you stop it with the pornography of violence? When we get Saddam's personal home video collection online there will be quite enought of that to go around.

It's possible that the "rich Western twit" was protesting the war because she didn't want this to happen:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/....html&e=10&ncid=996

And it's possible that the "the Iraqi soldiers who decided to fight to support a regime of terror" are less interested in saving Saddam as they are in saving their own asses:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/...7.html&e=9&ncid=996

Unbelievable. Who are you people? Sad to think we even visit the same site....

Take a look at this post from an actual Army Veteran, hopefully you'll learn something.

http://detroit.craigslist.org/det/pol/10122216.html

Edited by author 04-07-2003 06:43 PM
Wow Cap'n Leotard, you're a hoot.

Anyways, I've been at a total impasse about all the protests that have been going on here in the City. On one hand, I totally understand why they would protest here, for a protest that disrupts San Francisco or Oakland is much more likely to get noticed than a protest else ware; as well as the fact that there are relevant 'targets' here; such as federal offices, large corporations that will profit from the war, Bechtel, and the like.

But on the other hand, some of the protesters don't live here. They disrupt life here for those of us who do live here; and almost everyone I know who lives here is ageist the war. How is a protest that happens in the City gonna change people's minds when most people here agree with the protesters for the most part?

Also a lot of the protesters have other agendas; for example I've seen signs that support or protest issues from War to Corporations to Peace to Bush to Abortion and Minimum Wage! All at the same march! So what again was it that we were protesting?

Also the whole 'f*ck the man! Call in sick! Come protest instead!' vibe is really silly that some of the protest propaganda has; I don't work for a big corporation, I work for a mid-sized architecture firm. I don't come into work; I'm not 'sticking it to the man' I'm just screwing over a local small businessman, a friend, my boss.

Finally how are the protests enabling people to make real change? To learn to vote? To learn to get involved with their communities? To pay attention to the news, and to follow what their representatives are doing? To write letters? To Lobby? To learn how their actions, however small, can affect the world at large? How do the protests lead to Bush not getting re-elected, if most of the people who are coming to the protests and such either don't vote or didn't vote for him in the first place?

I know it's all rhetorical, and I'm not expecting any easy answers. Just wanted to get it off my chest; that I'm stuck in a paradox between fully supporting the protests and thinking that they are waste of time. I don't know what to think; I'm stuck.

Not saying that the protests shouldn't be happening, or that I'm for or agenst anything- just saying that I'm stuck!

wow, let's wallow in a load of our own vicious bile. FUN!

Please remember patriots, the kids dying in our army right now are fighting to protect the right to assemble and protest. And if the US ever gets to the point where war and military actions occur without humanitarian opposition, then it'll be time to polish up your jackboots and practice your goose-step, cause we're goin' for a ride.

That's a fine piece o' thinking, Cap'n! I'll bet she *really* got this bruise participating in some obscene public sex orgy held in BERKELEY.

Once again, you people scare the shit out of me.

Where, on this site or the linked page, was any opinion stated? This is a photo of a woman who was shot -- in the face -- by a police weapon. It is a brutal image. It would be brutal even if she had fallen on her face while jumping on a trampoline.

Why don't you people just go join the American Nazi Party? You can talk all the shit you want, and you'll meet plenty of like-minded friends.

Err, am I supposed to care about this? People dying every
second of every day, and I'm supposed to care about some rich* Western twit getting injured?

*yes, rich. You ever see a beggar in Madagascar, for example? Just about every damn person in the US is unimaginably wealthy when compared to vast chunks of the global population.

Just like the Iraqi soldiers who decided to fight to support a regime of terror, if this nitwit hadn't been there to begin with, she wouldn't have been injured and ended up as a media whore. But perhaps that was her intent: to show how the big bad authorities are the problem in the world and not the Iraqis. After all, George Bush isn't the real president, right? It's really Al Gore, and some day we're all going to see His Excellence return on a cloud from heaven in all his perfection!

This demonstration stuff does nothing! Should the American public and the troops suddenly experience an epiphany where they stand, think about these demonstrations and say, "Oh God, you know the demonstrators are right, we never thought of that!".....and then reverse course and give back all our gains instead of handing them over to the victimized Iraqi people who now deserve them?

What the people of Oakland, BERKELEY, and the Bay Area in general share with the now-almost-former Iraqi dictatorship is that neither group understand just how irrelevant they've become with TRUE free-thinking people! When Liberalism once meant human rights and helping the poor, it meant something noble and wonderful. But the Bay Area Liberalist and Libertarianism is as corrupt and as much a bastardization to those virtues as Saddam is to Allah and Islam. When the main push and agenda of the Bay Area movement involves the same thing every time: vomit (as in the recent protests), defecation (the "wonderful" anti-Catholic Virgin Mary artwork for which they all compliment each other), urination (can you say "Robert Mapplethorpe") and sexual preoccupations to exclude everything else in life, you know where America's mind is NOT. Oakland, BERKELEY, and the rest of the Bay Area has become a pathetic joke, and it's shameful that BoingBoing has become a prostitute to the cause.

A former "Liberal", who hasn't lost his way!

Im not going to tell someone what to think about the war thats fine if they dont like it, but I honestly dont understand the point in protesting, especially on the scale that has been seen in oakland and san francisco lately. If youre causing chaos in the streets its the cops JOB to clear you out. And I truly doubt this woman was sitting on the sidewalk eating a sammich and smelling the daisies when she was hit in the face with a beanbag.

She should count herself lucky that we only use rubber bullets to put down riots, and not live rounds, as less scrupulous governments do.

Moreover: Boo freakin' hoo. It's a bruise - a nasty one, to be sure - but that's all it is. When you go out with the express purpose of causing a disturbance, it shouldn't be a surprise to get a bit scuffed up in the process.

Check out "Jackass the Movie" to see what the 'less lethal' rounds that riot cops will do to someones stomach...