Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[chequita guevara]

I never thought I'd say this, and I know some bastard like Dino or Black Dragon is gonna sig quote me on it but,

YAY REPUBLICANS!







I feel ill.

[Chris 62]

You know Che, I find it laughable that people's opinion is predicated solely on what other's do, namely, the UN thing.

They say "You can't attack unless we have allies, THEN I would agree!"

Why?

If your against a war, why would it make any difference what other people thought, is it that you hold other's opinions so high you can't make up your own mind?
(not you personally Che, I know your totally against, I respect your opinion because you don't attach the foolishness that so many of our "friends" here do)

I laugh at the anti-war front for ENTIRILY that reason, they are against war, but if somebody else agree, then it's A OK!

Shows me the conviction of Stefu's Cataloupe.

Either you think getting rid of Saddam is the thing to do or you don't, forget all the smokescreens and buzz word bull about "unilateral actions", "Imperialism", and all that other crude.

Just leaderless lemmings looking for somebody to tell em what to think.

[MikeH]

I could say the same about anyone supporting the war. Anyone who supports it is just believing Bush's advisors propoganda.

A better analogy is that we're leaderless lemmings trying to work things out for ourselves rather than lemmings following the leader over the cliff.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
and I know some bastard like Dino or Black Dragon is gonna sig quote me on it but,

[DinoDoc]

Is the UN in danger of meeting it own proverbial Ethiopia?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MikeH
I could say the same about anyone supporting the war. Anyone who supports it is just believing Bush's advisors propoganda.

Your missing the point Mikey, not talking about whether war is correct or not, I'm pointing out how rediculous it is to have the idea that it's OK if Paris, Beijing and Moscow agree.

A better analogy is that we're leaderless lemmings trying to work things out for ourselves rather than lemmings following the leader over the cliff.

Not at all, you look at presented facts and make up your mind.

All that other stuff is simply people affraid of war grasping for a reason to avoid it.

I'm convinced NOTHING would motivate a large portion of the anti-war crowd to fight, they remind me of the jews of Germany "It will get better, go along, don't make waves" "Better to do nothing then to take a stand".
Remember how that turned out Mikey?

[MikeH]

The point of supporting it if the other countries agree is that it means there is compelling evidence that it's a good idea. Good enough evidence that would persuade the sceptical nations.

I think the German Jews were more of the opinion that if they said anything they'd be thrown into concentration camps or prisons. That would make me think very hard before protesting.

[Sandman]

Not everyone who is anti-war thinks that a UN rubberstamp will make it right. I don't.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush hasn't been seriously advocating inspections. Bush is only looking for an excuse for war, and is using Iraq to push all other topics of discussion out of the public consciusness. If it weren't for Iraq, this election would be about the inept handling of the economy, Bush's ties to corrupt CEOs, his failure to catch OBL, and the Administrations flubbing of pre-9/11 intelligence.

Iraq isn't the real issue here.

They used to say the same thing about Clinton and his various scandals. Kosovo is about Lewinsky!

Clinton's actions in the Balkans were entirely justifiable and laudable. It was the Republicans who were then playing politics with national security. Today it is the Democrats who have been delaying and footdragging for political reasons only. These same Democrats were all for eliminating Saddam when Clinton was president.

I recall now when the sanctions/inspections regime went seriously wrong. The trouble started with Saddam tried to assassinate the former president of the United States during a visit to Kuwait. Clinton didn't do anything to this extreme provocation, a virtual declaration of war on the United States. Saddam then knew he could do anything with Clinton in power and get away with it.

We cannot indefinitely live in a quasi state of war with Saddam. We need an exit strategy. Every year we stay in the ME makes matters worse. We need to finish the Gulf War, one way or the other.

[Bosh]

If your against a war, why would it make any difference what other people thought, is it that you hold other's opinions so high you can't make up your own mind?

Yeah, good point I really don't give a flying **** what the UN says about the war, but on the other hand what the Arab states say about the war is enourmously important, since one of the major stated goals of the war is the increase of stability in the mid-east. But this is kind of a lose-lose situation for the US. Basically, if the arab regimes come out in support of the US they'll further alienate them from the arab street which is STRONGLY opposed to the war and only lend further crecedence to Islamist propaganda that the problems of the arab world are rooted in the corruption, secularism and willingness of co-operate with the West on the part of the current "Pharoahs" of the Arab regimes. Having Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. do what they did in the Gulf War all over again would be the best thing that could possibly happen from al-Qaida's perspective.
On the other hand, if the Arab states (with the exception of pocket-nations like Qatar) refuse to support the war, and this looks like what will happen what with the arab foreign ministers issueing a joint statement that the war would "open the gates of hell" and whatnot, then there would be massive alienation between the US and the Arab regimes that wouldn't do anything for the stability in the region. Also isn't it a bit strange for the US to say that its doing the Arab world a favor in this war when the Arab world is screaming at it not to attack Iraq?

As far as the three non-Arab countries in the region you've got other problems. Turkey will probably only help the US if the autonomous kurdish region in northern iraq (one of the few good things to come out of the gulf war) gets crushed, while Iran would probably only do much if the Southern Iraqi Shia get some kind of increased autonomy/power which would make the Saudis go nuts and would do a lot to destroy to destroy the US's alliance with the Saudis. That leaves Israel. I for one don't see how the US sticking a huge stick in the Mid-east bee-hive will do anything to increase Israel's security, and if this war is about making sure that Iraqi weopons don't get pointed at Israel (because Saddam certainly isn't anywhere CLOSE to getting delivery systems that could get weopons anywhere CLOSE to the US) then they really don't deserve American blood being shed on their behalf until, at the very least, they get their asses out of Gaza and the West Bank.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MikeH
The point of supporting it if the other countries agree is that it means there is compelling evidence that it's a good idea. Good enough evidence that would persuade the sceptical nations.

Considering that nations never operate off moral agendas, it would be more of "what do we get out of it", not compelling evidence.
The US gets rid of a major pain in the ass and shows that rubbing it in our face gets you gone, there is the US motivation, promise Russia money and China trade and they will sudenlly agree there is "compelling evidence".
Do you believe differently?
(keep in mid only the security council matters, we all know the general assembly is uselss)

I think the German Jews were more of the opinion that if they said anything they'd be thrown into concentration camps or prisons. That would make me think very hard before protesting.

Basically, they feared speaking up, because they had seen anti-semitic periods in Europe in the past, and survived by saying nothing, but in the Nazi case, the rules changed and they ended up dead.
Move foward to the modern era, we have seen terrorism before, but never suicide attacks such as flying airliners into buildings, this is a "changing of the rules", and proof that nothing will restrain such enemies, no amount of talk or promises.
So against this kind of enemy, you must fight, or be killed, the "do nothing" option will only lead to more and more 9/11s.
Most here don't seem to understand human nature, they say "you will just make them madder", actually, man is easily intimidated, smack hard enough and even the toughest lose heart after a time if they see the cause is hopless.
Saddam acts as he does because he sees the protests and the arguments in the west, and believes nothing will happen, it's all talk.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Considering that nations never operate off moral agendas, it would be more of "what do we get out of it", not compelling evidence.
The US gets rid of a major pain in the ass and shows that rubbing it in our face gets you gone, there is the US motivation, promise Russia money and China trade and they will sudenlly agree there is "compelling evidence".
Do you believe differently?
(keep in mid only the security council matters, we all know the general assembly is uselss)

Basically, they feared speaking up, because they had seen anti-semitic periods in Europe in the past, and survived by saying nothing, but in the Nazi case, the rules changed and they ended up dead.
Move foward to the modern era, we have seen terrorism before, but never suicide attacks such as flying airliners into buildings, this is a "changing of the rules", and proof that nothing will restrain such enemies, no amount of talk or promises.
So against this kind of enemy, you must fight, or be killed, the "do nothing" option will only lead to more and more 9/11s.
Most here don't seem to understand human nature, they say "you will just make them madder", actually, man is easily intimidated, smack hard enough and even the toughest lose heart after a time if they see the cause is hopless.
Saddam acts as he does because he sees the protests and the arguments in the west, and believes nothing will happen, it's all talk.

Chris62, to be fair, the Jews were killed only because of WWII. Hitler order the killing to begin when Germans soldiers began to die in large numbers.

Appeasement cost tens of millions their lives, including six million Jews.

[Chris 62]

Please Ned, don't attempt to turn this into a WWII thread.

The final solution was ordered while Germany still had a chance, not as a desperation meassure, Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko

Yeah, good point I really don't give a flying **** what the UN says about the war, but on the other hand what the Arab states say about the war is enourmously important, since one of the major stated goals of the war is the increase of stability in the mid-east. But this is kind of a lose-lose situation for the US. Basically, if the arab regimes come out in support of the US they'll further alienate them from the arab street which is STRONGLY opposed to the war and only lend further crecedence to Islamist propaganda that the problems of the arab world are rooted in the corruption, secularism and willingness of co-operate with the West on the part of the current "Pharoahs" of the Arab regimes. Having Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. do what they did in the Gulf War all over again would be the best thing that could possibly happen from al-Qaida's perspective.
On the other hand, if the Arab states (with the exception of pocket-nations like Qatar) refuse to support the war, and this looks like what will happen what with the arab foreign ministers issueing a joint statement that the war would "open the gates of hell" and whatnot, then there would be massive alienation between the US and the Arab regimes that wouldn't do anything for the stability in the region. Also isn't it a bit strange for the US to say that its doing the Arab world a favor in this war when the Arab world is screaming at it not to attack Iraq?

As far as the three non-Arab countries in the region you've got other problems. Turkey will probably only help the US if the autonomous kurdish region in northern iraq (one of the few good things to come out of the gulf war) gets crushed, while Iran would probably only do much if the Southern Iraqi Shia get some kind of increased autonomy/power which would make the Saudis go nuts and would do a lot to destroy to destroy the US's alliance with the Saudis. That leaves Israel. I for one don't see how the US sticking a huge stick in the Mid-east bee-hive will do anything to increase Israel's security, and if this war is about making sure that Iraqi weopons don't get pointed at Israel (because Saddam certainly isn't anywhere CLOSE to getting delivery systems that could get weopons anywhere CLOSE to the US) then they really don't deserve American blood being shed on their behalf until, at the very least, they get their asses out of Gaza and the West Bank.

There is a lot I agree with here. If it were not for Israel, I would tell the erstwhile Arab allies that if the UN does not act decisively or if you do not support us independently of the UN in resolving the matter of Saddam, we are withdrawing from the region. You can then deal with Saddam all by yourself.

However, I understand that all of our former Arab allies, save for Syria, are "privately" on board for a renewed war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Please Ned, don't attempt to turn this into a WWII thread.

The final solution was ordered while Germany still had a chance, not as a desperation meassure, Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

I am not Chris62. We can debate the particulars of the Holocast later. However, if WWII never happened, the 6 million would not have died. German Jews would have been expelled, certainly. But, Hitler would not have had access to the majority of Jews who died.

My point it, the war was caused by appeasement. There seems to be a consensus view on this.

It is my point here that we are in the position we are in because of early appeasement by Clinton and Annan. We can avoid war now only by credibly threatening to use force if Saddam does not comply with ALL UN resolutions.

[Clear Skies]

I love how everyone thinks sources that contradict their view are useless...
It's a SOURCE, dammit! ICM get the general elections right to within 2% or so. They know what they're doing, and aren't idiots. Therefore the numbers stand against yours, unless you have inside information telling me why ICM shouldn't be considered to be reliable...

[Bosh]

Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

Hard to tell, really. But basically when it looked like he might lose the war there was only one way he could make any kind of solution final...

There is a lot I agree with here.

thanks

If it were not for Israel

The US has been dragged into enough trouble because of Israel, if they want any more help (if, of course, the war is about helping Israel) they should get their own house in order first (ie a return to '67 borders and compensation in lue (sp!!) of right of return) before we even think about fighting a bloody $200 billion war to crush Iraq.

However, I understand that all of our former Arab allies, save for Syria, are "privately" on board for a renewed war.

Yeah its hard to tell because if they come out publically they'll have large-scale PR problems at home, but I'm a bit doubtful about the Saudis and without them and the Syrians we're running fairly low on arab Persian Gulf War allies...

It is my point here that we are in the position we are in because of early appeasement by Clinton and Annan.

And Reagan and Bush Sr. aren't to blame in the least?

[Adam Smith]

THIS BBC article indicates that

the inspectors would have unconditional access to all sites of suspected weapons of mass destruction - but not to eight presidential palaces which are covered under a separate agreement between Iraq and UN.

Which takes us back precisely to where we were four years ago. What part of the words "all" and "unconditional" does the UN not seem to understand?? I read in other articles, which I can't lay my hands on right now, that the eight "presidential palaces" in question cover a total of 12 square miles and include over 1000 buildings. Clearly asking to inspect these areas is NOT like asking to walk into Saddam's living room unannounced.

Boshko:
I agree with much of what you say regarding mideast stability, but would you really have these corrupt Arab regimes, which have been decried in many other threads, acting as the canary in the moral coal mine?

Chegitz:
I knew you would like my type of Republicans.
Stick around and I will introduce you to our local congresswoman who has been endorsed by the Sierra Club over her Democratic challenger.

[Ned]

Bosko, Of course we were "soft" on Saddam prior to Kuwait. However, that entire prior "appeasement" flew out the window because of the war.

However, the war ended on a "conditional" note: Comply with these cease-fire terms or we renew the hostilities was the message we delivered to Saddam.

It is my understanding that the weapons inspectors made tremendous progress during the first two years, finding and destroying a large quantity of weapons. Thereafter, the defiance began in earnest - right about the time of the assassination attempt on Bush, April 1993. Clinton responded with a few missiles on a intelligence agency in June, citing the attempted assassination. What kind of response is this? This was the first attempt in history by a foreign power to assassinate an American president.

His is a snippet from a history of the dispute:

"July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands."

[chequita guevara]

Let me go out on a limb here and suppose why people who are opposed to the US acting unilaterally are okay with the US acting multilerally. I'm going to guess their major motivation isn't whether or not Hussein has WoMD. I would say their major motivation is the US's relationship to the rest of the world. Either they do not want the US to damage its image, and get even more people to hate us or they don't want the US to act like an empire, but rather a responsible member of the international community (and not a vigilante cop).

I had to deal with these types in the last Gulf War. Our coalition officially came out in favor of: sanctions, going to the UN, and going to Congress. Yeah, starvation is better than bombs, the US isn't gonna bribe all the SC countries, and the Democrats have suddenly developed a spine. One of their big "victories" was in December, where they had recieved a promise from a Chicago Alderman to put forward a resolution in April to oppose the war. As if we weren't going to already be at war by then. As if war fevor wouldn't have made that resolution more unwelcome than a skunk in tent.

Course, I was just a communist. What did I know? Once we started acting on our own we were able to really put together some action. Only reason anyone showed up to their rallies is because we mobilized hard and got TV attention when we publically created a new coalition. Made a lot of mistakes, then, but my positions weren't any of them.

At this point, I'm pretty close to saying, F*** it, the US is never gonna back down, there is no victory over imperialism to be had. Just let them get it over with and end the Iraqi people's misery. Even a short bloody war will cause less harm in the long run than these monsterous sanctions. But that's abstention, not support.

[Ned]

Che, I can almost feel your pain. Now you know what Vietnam felt like to many Americans. Even if you thought American was wrong to intervene in the first place, you had to hope for the best. But even when that turned sour.... It was really agonizing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez
I am sick and tired of the damn bias on this forum.

I am really pissed off in seeing these biased threads posted with some highly misleading garbage.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, honey-buns. I thought you were on self-imposed vacation? Besides, why don't you stick to commenting on your own political parties, since you stopped proclaiming yourself an American who's daddy is going to be the next ambassador to some hole in the ground, and now call yourself Spanish?

Pick a country and stick with it.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let me go out on a limb here and suppose why people who are opposed to the US acting unilaterally are okay with the US acting multilerally. I'm going to guess their major motivation isn't whether or not Hussein has WoMD. I would say their major motivation is the US's relationship to the rest of the world. Either they do not want the US to damage its image, and get even more people to hate us or they don't want the US to act like an empire, but rather a responsible member of the international community (and not a vigilante cop).

See, ther I was thinking that a nation acting on it's own against the wishes of the UN (Rest of the World) was a rogue nation...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither 20 missiles? Don't need 'em if you leave him alone. 20 warheads? That could blow up Vancouver, San Fransisco, San Diego, The Canal, Miami, Norfolk, New York, Philidelphia, Boston, Halifax, Montreal, London, Liverpool, Marseilles, St Petersburg... That would leave 5 more to deliver by container to other places.

Not one of those places is reachable by any Iraqi missile. Try again.

Why is everyone so fixated on missiles? Note that every city mentioned is a port or can be reached by sea...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Possibly as many as 20 missiles, and an airforce that could only threaten Iran and Syria. You can have the biggest stockpile in the world, won't do you no good if you can't deliver them. Hussein can't take over the world with one or even a handful of tiny bombs. He couldn't even stand up to the US when had a viable stockpile and weapons platforms, let alone now.

And before you give me any crap about giving it to terrorists, there is absolutely no indication Hussein would turn his weapons over to anyone, let alone people who would just as soon use the weapons right back against him. It is far more likely that terrorist will get such weapons from the Former USSR or from Pakistan.

Your debating chi is weak, your form sloppy. Go and practice, grasshopper.

who said anyhting about taking over the world?
The reason why Saddam didnt use WoMD in the Gulf War was because his life was never directly threatened. Had he of used WoMD the entire world would have been calling for his head. However, if his very life would have been threatened, then he would have used them in a heartbeat because he would have been in danger anyway. But now, when there is a clear intention of a regime change, he may feel it necessary to protect himself with the WoMD. That is why this is a most dangerous situation.
And just because there is no indication of Saddam affiliating with terrorists doesnt mean there is no possibility, especially if one considers he uses his own men instead of outside terroists.

Kman

[notyoueither]

Imagine the Saddam who has 1 or 10 or 20 war heads.

Imagine the Saddam who used to (maybe still does) enjoy watching torture sessions.

Imagine the Saddam who has just been told by a third doctor that he is terminal and will be dead in 6 months.

Imagine the Saddam who says, what the f***.

There is no reasoning with such people. Reason is not their strong suit. I think they are called psychopaths...

[Lemmy]

Saddam is bad, right?
And the US want to take him out, but what about the nations that may have helped Iraq? Maybe sold weapon to them, or just have good relations with Iraq. What about them?
Should they be sanctioned or something, are those governments any better then Iraq's gov. Are there such nation btw?

[Roland]

As we are going simple terms here...

Why attack Iraq ?

- Saddam is evil... well, he's been evil for more than 20 years, didn't matter when the west liked his war against Iran

- Saddam has womd and will use them... well, Musharraf is a lot further, but since the Americans think he's their *****, no problem

- Saddam is linked to El Qaeda... nice try, Rumsie, but the only evidence you have are shifting claims about the Pargue meeting that is not even supported by circumstantial evidence

- bringing democracy to Iraq. That has to be the funniest one. The Bushies were oh-so outraged when Mubarak had a peaceful democracy advocate thrown into jail in a farce trial, or when there's a coup in Venezuela against some annoying Leftie... buy some bridges.

- Saddam could become a pain in the ass sitting on 2/3rds of the world's oil supplies ? Now there's a good reason.

- A war fits so well in the Rovian screenplay ? Excellent reason.


It's also unfair to equate Bush and Blair here. I can't for the **** of it imagine that Blair wants this war the way the Bushies want it. He is just playing it differently from Chirac or Schröder, and may even succeed....

[Ned]

Roland, Factor in wilful breach of UN resolutions, the no fly zones where combat is occurring on a daily basis, punitive sanctions that harm the Iraqi people and an attempted assassination of a US president.

Do you really want this violence to go on indefinitely?

Well if you do, send in the Austrian airforce to protect the Kurds and Shi'ites. The US should not have to carry the bulk of the burden to implement Roland's ideal future for Iraq.

[Roland]

Well dear Ned why don't you put your ass on the line, when we are at getting personal ?

"wilful breach of UN resolutions" - just like Israel.

"the no fly zones where combat is occurring on a daily basis"

- This is an argument for what ?

"punitive sanctions that harm the Iraqi people"

- This is an argument for what ?

"an attempted assassination of a US president" - really ? A pretzel attack ? Or did Saddam take a page out of the CIA's bestseller "how to fail at killing Fidel" ?

"Do you really want this violence to go on indefinitely?"

As if the US installing a puppet in Baghdad would solve it.