International Protests today 15/2

This forum is for actual topics of discussion that do not fit the above categories.
Locked
User avatar
akatoro
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 10:04 am
Location: Sweden
Org Profile

Post by akatoro » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:17 am

Yeah, we get shit about Bush too, but when war starts and finishes, respect will be directed back to the victors.
AAHAHA! That's one of the dumbest things I've heard and it's only morning. Why do you think a war, or a victory in one, would change the mind of anti-war people and give you respect?

Not that anyone has stated otherwise in this thread, but the Gov wants to bomb Iraq because of it's capability to produce nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, right? (which I think is bull)
- Why not go out against Korea in that case which are posing a larger threat just some day ago going out in the media and saying that they're ready for an attack, will answer it offensively and are prepared to burn the 'peace-treaty' from -53 or whatever.
// Just some speculations from my side.
People that rocks my socks: Uncle Milo
AnimeJedi
MistyCaldwell

User avatar
jonmartensen
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:50 pm
Location: Gimmickville USA
Org Profile

Post by jonmartensen » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:21 am

akatoro wrote:AAHAHA! That's one of the dumbest things I've heard and it's only morning.
Sweet, sweet, irony.
Image

User avatar
punistation
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by punistation » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:52 am

It's simple logic, really.

"Will American soldiers invading and occupying Arab soil result in MORE or LESS terrorist attacks?"


You can practically hear the explosions (tagged with the FREE IRAQ banners) already.

Sure, some say invading Iraq will end the attacks. Tell me, how has it helped Israel? They keep sending in troops and bombs, and weekly terror attacks are now the accepted norm.


"What do you call it, when the cafe you're drinking coffee at could just blow up?"

The answer used to be Israel, but wait a while and you'll still get full marks for answering "USA".



Kisses XXOOXX
Jen


Image

P.S. Pearl Harbour was deemed an illegal attack by the UN, rendering America's response as defence, and legal. If America invades Iraq (illegal), any response from Iraq... ANY AT ALL... will be legal as an act of defense. Me, I'd keep that duct tape.

MistyCaldwell
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 10:04 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by MistyCaldwell » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:29 pm

punistation wrote: P.S. Pearl Harbour was deemed an illegal attack by the UN, rendering America's response as defence, and legal. If America invades Iraq (illegal), any response from Iraq... ANY AT ALL... will be legal as an act of defense. Me, I'd keep that duct tape.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13055

For those of you who may not care to read that article (or any of it's many versions) I'll summarize.

By backing out of the War crimes Treaty, this means that no political or service citizen of the United States may be held to trial by the War Crimes Tribunal organized by the world court. That in other words, keeps the U.S. from being 'legally' stopped from commiting future offenses against human rights.

It's clear that talk won't make any difference..not here. not anywhere. Not because of trends or polls, not because of peace rallies..nothing. Bush said today that no amount of protests will make any difference to him.

So, I will say my last thoughts on the matter.

It's great we can protest in this country. Yes, freedom of speech is nice. But this crap about war being WHY we can do so just shows the speaker doesn't know much about our war history.

If you look back in time, the ones who start the wars aren't usually the ones who finish them. And even though the powerful may win, they make more enemies than friends. We can blow Iraq off the map but doing so will make us the enemies of many nations.

We live in a global economy. Although we export a great amount of food, if chemical weapons are used against us, don't think for a second the UN or China will want our exports. We are only opening up ourselves for more attacks like Punistation says.


There have been unjust wars in the past and unprovoked bombing too. No one said they were right either.


Thankfully, there is a movement to try and put the constitutional war proclamation back into the hands of congress and out of Bush's one track mind.


I agree there needs to be a regime change in Iraq. I totally belive that new regime change is best left to the UN to implant. There's not a dictator in the world I agree with.

Dictators do things like take money from the education, health and food monies of their country to buy things like weapons.

:?
Image

User avatar
UncleMilo
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:41 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by UncleMilo » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:58 pm

US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink
of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the
horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously,
dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our
own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only
on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this
particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simpl attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a
turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any
other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September
11.


Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with
little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members arem being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must
be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored
allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our
wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer
another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our
economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength,
not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the
peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in
that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This
Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the
absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil
fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to
hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating
attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,
bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide
recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased
the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even
more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the
savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged
with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is
under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days
before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of
chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I
pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in
for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always
be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment
of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack
on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions
of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
There are two kinds of people in this world:
Those who divide people into two kinds of groups
and those who don't.

User avatar
Mroni
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:08 pm
Location: Heading for the 90s living in the 80s sitting in a back room waiting for the big boom
Org Profile

Post by Mroni » Wed Feb 19, 2003 4:45 pm

Yay Yay go go wow what a post above there huh? He rewrote something similiar in his journal also about How I am racist and he wants me banned! I am going to do one thing here I am going to rescind one thing I said. My fellow countrymen and ladies and if you happen to really be girls (I don't trust the internet) I apologize for calling you a pox on this countrys good history if you are against the war. At the time I wrote that I had just gotten back from a 5 hour drive in the snow to see protesters on the tv the first thing. This apology does not extend to people who are not from this country or the above person who won't be happy until the far left completely ruins this country. Saying this now humbly I am going to make two remarks.

Go BUSH

GO WAR


Mr Oni
Purity is wackable!
"Don't trust me I'm over 40!"

User avatar
jonmartensen
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:50 pm
Location: Gimmickville USA
Org Profile

Post by jonmartensen » Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:22 pm

That was a good speach, or at least the point of the senate needing to discuss the issue is good (just, reasonable, virtuous?)

Overuse/misuse of the word horror and the blaming of economic trends that are years in the making on a single addministration :? well, yeah.

But what is at the core of the speech is very important
NO WAR WITHOUT CAUSE.
Image

User avatar
Mroni
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:08 pm
Location: Heading for the 90s living in the 80s sitting in a back room waiting for the big boom
Org Profile

Post by Mroni » Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:46 pm

Well the above is true also


Mr Oni
Purity is wackable!
"Don't trust me I'm over 40!"

User avatar
Mroni
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:08 pm
Location: Heading for the 90s living in the 80s sitting in a back room waiting for the big boom
Org Profile

Post by Mroni » Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:49 pm

I think we have cause the cause is the fact that Iraq is not bending over like they need to do because they have been flaunting their flagrant violations of the treatys for years.

Mr Oni
Purity is wackable!
"Don't trust me I'm over 40!"

User avatar
SSJVegita0609
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Around...
Org Profile

Post by SSJVegita0609 » Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:55 pm

Mroni wrote:I think we have cause the cause is the fact that Iraq is not bending over like they need to do because they have been flaunting their flagrant violations of the treatys for years.

Mr Oni
That's hardly an adequate cause for running through Iraqui cities gunning down anyone with dark skin (Which is an inevitability considering the urban warfare training our armies of so called "Peace" are partaking in).

The point is, by pushing this war, Bush is placing the citizens of the United States in direct danger for three main reasons. #1: Saddam Houssein is a horrible person, but he knows how to stay in power. He also knows that the last thing he would do to stay in power is attack the US civil population. Why? Because we'd have adequate justification for a full scale invasion then. So, the only way he's use any of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Which there have been no concrete peices of evidence that he actually possesses), would be if he were backed into a corner, which is EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING! Reason #2: Every single Iraqui citizen who loses someone in this war to the US soldiers becomes a potential terrorist, why? VENGENCE. You see, what the government really should be doing is figuring out WHY terrorism exists, and stopping the CAUSES, not simply annhilating anything they deem potentially dangerous. That action only creates MORE terrorists. Reason #3: Our allies are losing support for us, and yes, we DO need them. If you feel that the US is some invincible entity then you are as stupid as you are ignorant. Having our allies always beside is is EXTREMELY crucial, or if we get backed into a corner, we're fucked (And don't expect the British to help, if their military history is used as evidence for what they would do, they would simply side with the winning team, like in the civil war. They also only seem to be good at fighting defensive wars, making them aiding us if we're in trouble useless).

Basically, the war is a stupid, illogical idea, that does nothing but place the American populous in MORE danger. On top of this, Bush's main motivation for the war is that Saddam is a danger. But those of you who are pro-war, ask yourself, how much safer will the world be without Saddam? Not much, why? Because another Saddam can easily be created. In fact, if we use war as a solution, this is an inevitability, because hatred begets more hatred, simple as that.

On a final note, ask yourself about the statement "War for Peace". Seems a little hypocritical, don't you think?
The best effects are the ones you don't notice.

Locked

Return to “General Off Topic”