Anti War Protestors

[icallmedan]

I don't know if you agree with me but I think all of these anti-war protestors, are getting more people mad at them. All of the protestor practicing civil disobiedience by blocking intersections and highway on ramps. I think they are upsetting a lot of people. Do you agree with me?

[whargoul]

What do they hope to accomplish, besides annoy? It's not like Allied forces are just gonna pull out because some people thing it is an "unjust war", I even heard some guy on the radio talking to about the Christian values of Bush and the United States, about "Thou shalt not kill" and stuff. Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves, maybe they think they are doing some good. But really, what are they doing? Standing around like a bunch of bums. Remember those human shields that were in Iraq? Where are they now? Running away once the crap hits the fan. But, hey, they did there part right? At least they tried. Give me a break.

Now don't get me wrong, I for one don't like war at all. But you know what, sometimes, sadly, it is a necessary evil. When it is all said and done, all those Kurds that Saddam has gassed may just rest a little more easy in their graves. You know that the ones still living will be at ease, not fearing death or being run out their homes.

I would like to quote a message I saw somewhere else.

"Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."

[TMAN]

The large majority of the movement, the part not reported- it just doesn't make good news to show sane law abiding demonstrators on either side- are protesting not for the sake of Saddam but because the use of force has not been justified. Well thats a broad and overreaching blanket statement but it is basically what I get from talking to a bunch of demonstrators and from listening to what other antiwar activists have said and are saying. Of course there are those who see no reason to go to war given any conceivable circumstance but these are the minority and they are heard because they take the tremendous effort to be heard and by virtue that it would make people insanely angry to see such gross dissent. No one loves Saddam. It's simply an evil moustache that even a mother despises Thats my 2c.

[shazam]

back in the early 50 s. I heared Billy Graham once say, when a women asked him if he and his wife ever fought. His reply was "madam if two people agree on everything You do not need one of them" I hope I made my point.

[Xayd]

hehe, and a good point it is.

"Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."

I don't think it has anything to do with Saddam, I think it has to do with who of the Texas companies that have supported the past Bush family political campaigns are already negotiating contracts to drill Iraqi oil.

To answer the complaints about war protests and the people who dismiss the arguments against countries that impose their government upon foreign lands based on military action, there was this little thing called the War for American Independence that was fought a couple hundred years back that you might want to read about.

We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure.

I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

[not important]

It is perfectly legal for anyone to protest anything.

[icallmedan]

True, but it pisses people off. Especially because I heard on the news that anti war protestors were blocking on ramps and stuff.

[Karel]

This "war" is supposed to be setting the Iraqi people FREE from oppression (cfr. GW Bush). To give it the same freedoms the American democratic society enjoys. (BTW, will they also enjoy the freedom to carry arms?)

If you support this war, you are bound to support its goals.

If so, why would you deny your own people one of the essential freedoms you claim they deserve?

[glc]

It's not a point of denying people freedom - demonstrations that are kept within the law and the scope of the permit are fine, but when it turns into civil disobedience that impacts on public safety I have a problem with that.

It's a requirement that anyone wanting to have a parade or demonstration in a city needs to obtain a permit, and the city is required to grant the permit. The ground rules are defined in the permit to preserve public safety - hence everyone else's freedoms. You have the right to protest, demonstrate, etc. but you do NOT have the right to block a major expressway in rush hour without approval of the people responsible for the expressway.

[doctorgonzo]

It is stupid to block freeways and ramps, but as TMAN said, the majority of protestors are doing no such thing. Of course, when the local nightly news comes on, which story do you think they will lead with? "Two thousand anti-war protestors march peacefully to the Capitol," or "One hundred anti-war protestors block the freeway."

Around here, by far most of the protests have done nothing to harm public safety. I don't know of any efforts to purposely block traffic, even though local law enforcement officials labeled anti-war groups as terrorist groups and threw them in the same basket as groups like the Posse Comitatus. So far, however, nothing has happened.

[Karel]

No argument from me about the required permit (as long as public safety is the only criterium considered...).

But who decides whether any action is to be considered civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience has often led to the true freeing of nations.

[Hot Rod]

Originally posted by Xayd To answer the complaints about war protests and the people who dismiss the arguments against countries that impose their government upon foreign lands based on military action, there was this little thing called the War for American Independence that was fought a couple hundred years back that you might want to read about. We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure. I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

The thing that really concerns me is that I read a story about the plan that Bush has in place once the war is over. They want to put an American in charge of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years so they can transition the government over.

That just really makes me uneasy. I understand the reasoning...so it is a smooth transition. But, it can become something that we just don't want to let go of. It's a little too like colonization in my book. That failed for the Roman Empire and it failed for Britain. I think doing that will be overstepping our bounds.

[doctorgonzo]

Colonialism has failed in the past, and I doubt this will be any different. Especially given that new reports are that the U.S. will be running Iraq alone, with a civilian administration under the direct control of the military. Unilateralism again.

There is no question that the world will be better off without Saddam. But at what cost will that come? Is it worth destroying U.S. alliances, enraging tens of millions in the Middle East, trashing cooperative international bodies, and damaging U.S. credibility with our bizarre and sometimes laughable lies to get rid of Saddam? That seems like fixing a leaky roof by burning down your house.

[Karel]

Hot Rod, doctorgonzo,

Both your remarks are grim, and accurate.

I want to add to your remarks my fear for escalation (the allegations of Russian technological aid to the Iraqi regime are only a small but telling sign on the wall). Do we really think that this train will stay on the tracks that Bush and Blair have theoretically laid out for it? Are there all of a sudden only three countries in this world? Do the leaders of these countries really expect all the others to sit back and just watch TV? The arrogance of it all...

[corosus]

first of all, do not dislike america in anny way, manny of my closse friends live there, and thoug i might diagree strongly with a friend of mine that still does not mean he is not my friend. furthermore do not wish to insult, or disrespect the people who are fighting for what they believe in.

Originally posted by whargoul When it is all said and done, all those Kurds that Saddam has gassed may just rest a little more easy in their graves. You know that the ones still living will be at ease, not fearing death or being run out their homes. I would like to quote a message I saw somewhere else. "Personally I think that if the anti-war protesters think we are wrong to take Saddam down, then we should send them all there to live under his regime and see what they think of him then."

first of all, the tuks did the same thng to the curds, are they next on the list of country's to invade ??????

do not think annyone approves of sadam, just that there are better ways than open war to get rid of him. annyway i do not see annnyone in iraq who s happy to see the us marines. I think that for the people who lve there this seems like a occupation rather than a liberation (esp. if an american will be put in charge), i am not saying that it is, but just the faxt that it seems this way to them will result n further conflict.
and that is the only substantial change that this war will bring, further alienating the easteern and western world. in the long run there will be a new dictator. have a look at the list of country's where the us interviend militairy ( not the un ) since 1950 and try to find one where a democratic regime that respected human rights was the result of that intervention

iran 1953
Guatemala, 1953-1990s
Middle East, 1956-58
Indonesia, 1957-58
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
Vietnam, 1950-73
Cambodia, 1955-73
......
Panama, 1989
........
none, not even one

i am not saying that all these country's where good country's to live in before the us intervention, i am just saying that the situation had not improved, so the only result was a lot of people dead.

if you are wondering http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...ns_WBlumZ.html

bush's way of talking and his actions remind me of a song dylan made about the cold war "god on our side" http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

i am not saying I have an answer i am only saying that history teatches that it's not war. But i guess man has to hit his head into the same wall agian and again hoping too find a soft spot.

as i sayd i do not have answers but this war, for me it raises the fundamental question, can one impose democrate on a people , even if they do not want it. (kindof reminds me of rightwing regimes in other parts of the world if they where legaly elected, can a people make a democratinc desision to abbolisch democratie????)
i've poderd these questions for manny nights and have yet to find an answer, and i suspect that when i do it will be a personal one.

[TMAN]

You forgot Afghanistan or should I say the city of Kabbul (2k2). I believe conflict CAN be necessary as it most definately was in Afghanistan. Oh, and remember the French have committed 5K troops and 2K bombers. Too bad we haven't really followed through. I don't believe THIS has proven to be the necessary time for war.

[Karel]

[corosus, from Brussels? Where? French or Flemish? Both?]

[Tiretool]

Xayd, your attempt at relating this Iraqi war to that of Vietnam is like comparing apples to oranges.

We also tried to impose a government in Vietnam once, history seems to consider that attempt a failure. I see no reason to think that we would have an easier time imposing a government in Iraq either.

In Vietnam, you had an entire southern half of a country that was trying their hardest to be a free Democracy, and a very stubborn Communistic northern half that was determined not to let that happen. That is a very different situation than what we have in Iraq at current.
Iraq is full of people who rarely, if ever, buck the system in place. You don't hear of alot of uprisings (until today in Basra) between people or parties that want to change the style of government there. You don't have half of Iraq openly wanting a Democracy. They don't dare try this because of the merciless dictator that rules them. If they dare attempt to disobey his wishes, he has them tortured, raped, uses them as chemical and biological guinea pigs, and even kills them executioner style.

The US will win this war, because it's a just cause. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen because we have the right people in the driver's seat running our country, the right people planning the war strategies, and an overwhelming majority of opressed people in Iraq who are sick and tired of living under an evil dictator. My belief is that the public uprising in Basra today was just a beginning. As soon as word spreads around Iraq that civilians have finally stepped up, it will spread like wildfire. It will make our soldiers' jobs easier beyond belief, and we will be able to get on with the lengthy task of helping these people get re-established under a democracy of some type or another.

[drisley]

The keyword is "imposing". I don't think the plan is to impose a gov't on anyone.The goal is to put Iraqis themselves in charge and let them form their own gov't. I would imagine that as long as the new gov;t is not terroristic or problematic, nobody will get in the way.

Plus, parallels to Vietnam are unwarranted. I just shake my head at people who are saying this is another Vietnam, when only 5 days have done by here and we're practically on Baghdad's doorstep.

[Hot Rod]

drisley, what makes me nervous is that the Bush administration has said that they plan to put an American in control of Iraq for a minimum of 2 years. That sounds like a slippery slope to colonization to me. I support getting Saddam out of there....but not for us to take over the country.

Now I heard on the news last night that Halliburton was awarded the contract on the oil business in Iraq after the war has ended. Halliburton's former CEO was Dick Cheney...who I'm sure still owns a lot of stock in them.

I support the war but how far are we going to go after the war in ruling this country.

[doctorgonzo]

Iraqis may want freedom, but they don't want the U.S. around for any length of time. The problem I see is that the U.S. is once again refusing to let the U.N. have much say in what happens afterwards. There is a world of difference between the invading country sticking around for a couple years and an international group of people coming in later to rebuild.

[drisley]

Hot Rod, it is inevitable that a foreigner will need to control Iraq temporarily after this. I see no way around that, but I think claims of imperialisn are unfounded. This country has never been interested in imperialism. We will rule Iraq temporarily out of necessity, because not doing so would lead to chaos.

BTW, I think Cheney dumped all his Halliburton stock before assuming office so as not to introduce a conflict of interest. I may be wrong, but I think that's the case.

Gonzo, actually, I think you got it wrong. Powell is working on pushing resolutions through the UN to help with post-Saddam Iraq, and the same old players are opposing the resolutions. So, its not the US refusing the UN - it is France and Russia mainly.

[doctorgonzo]

drisley, I have yet to hear any stories about how France and Russia are blocking U.N. involvment after Saddam is gone, but I have read stories about how we have people waiting in Kuwait, such as Barbara Bodine, to take over when the fighting stops. I would like to see those stories that say France and Russia will block reconstruction.

[drisley]

France, Russia, China and Germany are opposing a UN resolution to rework and reimplement the oil-for-food program, thereby speeding the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Iraqi people and transferring authoritative power to Koffi Annan. Annan is for it, but these four countries are opposing it for one reason - the US is proposing it. and they are pissed at us.

There is no reason for them to oppose this. It gives the US no power over the region. It only gets supplies to the people. Yet, these countries are opposing it.

go figure.

[corosus]

as i understand it, they are not exactly opposing the plan, they just have a poblem with the us bombing the crap out of people and everyboddy else paying for the rebuild, and yes i know the us will pay part. I think they are feeling kind of like "you break it, you fix it"
the us started this opperation hpping that when placed for a "fait accompli" (= something that has been done and can no longer be changed ) the rest of the world would support the us. Mot country's seem to realise this and want no part of it, so i can understand thier unwllingness to accosate them with the us.

[doctorgonzo]

After reading about it, I don't think that the attitudes France, Russia, China, and Germany can be dismissed with a "go figure." You are right: this does look like a simple way to get humanitarian aid flowing again. But I also understand their concerns about taking any actions that will make it look like the U.N. is legitimizing this war. Under international law, this is a tricky situation.

Edit: if the U.S. does what I just read it will do -- cut its dues to the U.N. -- then the arguments that France, Germany, Russia, and China have about paying for a war the U.S. started will have even more merit.

[corosus]

indeed it would have been a whole lot simpler if bush had just waited for the inspectors to do thier job, and then, IF sadam did not cooperate, (even if you are sure he will not, you still could have waited a couple of months) work within the UN, instead of this unilateral action.
if he had waited the war would have been an intervention instead of the nvasion it is now. (according to international law)

[drisley]

(1) This is not unilateral by a long shot, corosus.

(2) I do dismiss it with a "go figure". The main reason these countries are opposing this is because they do not want the US to be seen as taking a leading role in providing humanitarian aid. They, instead, wish for the world to see us as an invading force. Its simple anti-Americanism, and it is all about "how it seems", not about actually getting aid to the people of that country. It is vain and selfish.

I can get into it more with you if you go to FC.

[corosus]

it is unilateral as it is not a concencus in the un,
i agree that it's not inly the us who are invading iraq, but the amount of nations that are is limited.
there is NO UN concencus therefor these actions are unilateral.

[drisley]

"uni" means "one". It is not one nation doing this. It is more around 40 or so. Therefore, its not unilateral.