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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

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)

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"