Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 11

Spiffor · February 16, 2003, 19:22

Devilmunchkin :
Put simply, the war is supported by most of the US. And the US is always right. "La loi du plus fort est toujours la meilleure" (La Fontaine)

Comrade Tribune · February 16, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Devilmunchkin :
Put simply, the war is supported by most of the US. And the US is always right. "La loi du plus fort est toujours la meilleure" (La Fontaine)

[Picture with a guy showing the way to send the US packing:]

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
So you're going to flat out lie? You've said, numerous times, that these protestors are supporting Saddam with their actions. It's one thing to be wrong, Oerdin, which you are, it's another to lie. Misrepresenting? How did I misrepresent that assertion? I simply pointed out how stupid and ignorant it is.

Sava: One of three things is happening here. Either you are illiterate and unable to read, you are to stupid to understand the argument presented, or you are intentionally choosing to misrepresent what was said. I'd say you're not stupid and you're not illiterate so you must just be so rapped into your ideology that you are willing to blatantly lie in order to defend it.

For the third and last time; GO BACK AND READ EXACTLY WHAT I AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE WROTE!!! Pay close attention to key ideas like intent verses real world outcome. Several people have taken a great deal of time to try to explain a position to you and the only thing you can do is lie about what they said. What does that say about you, Sava?

Sultan Bhargash · February 16, 2003, 21:52

Ooh, ooh, my favorite debate. Protesters supporting Saddam? That's the spin a lot of people not intelligent enough to think in color give it, while nothing could be farther from the truth. Amazing how people can jump to the defense of Bush when he's managed to turn the whole world against himself. People who protest the war are standing up to Al Qaeda, a group thriving on the current climate of worldwide terror and opposition and interventionism which is hoping Bush is given free reign to ruin America and turn the world against us. People who protest the war are sick of the bullshit excuses these jar heads make up to cover their ass for being clueless on all policies foreign and domestic, who are substituting terror on a large scale for a rationale plan to fix the problems they've invited.

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 21:56

Nice to see Sava got himself a DL. If by some miracle you are not Sava's DL then please accompany Sava and go back and read the original thread. In it numerous people spent a great deal of time discussing the topic and I'm not going to rehash it here.

Sava · February 16, 2003, 22:31

Sorry, I don't DL... I don't need to hide behind another identity to say what I want to say.

Quote:

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

People should look at the big picture and not worry so much about the penny that they lose a pound.

Here... for all to see...

If I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to convey, then perhaps you need to rephrase it for all of us simple-minded, misguiding leftists "wrapped in our own ideologies".

I even left in your misspellings

You tried to leave a loophole in your trolling, but you failed.

Believe it or not, we both want the same thing. I want Saddam gone. I even support the use of a military operation to do so. But I don't trust Bush's plan, I don't think we should do it without UN support; and if the evidence that Saddam is a direct and immediate threat isn't there, I think we should fry the bigger fish and not waste 100 billion dollars getting Saddam when that money could be used for more productive things domestically.

Put UN peacekeeper troops in Iraq. Give the inspectors more resources. If Saddam is doing something sneaky, they'll find it, the world will see, and we'll have the support we need to get that f*cker. Until then, stop insulting the people you don't agree with, and try finding facts to base your silly assertions on.

Stop making stupid assertions that everyone protesting Bush's policies are helping Saddam. They're untrue, based on no facts, and not worth the memory bytes they take up.

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 23:04

Here is Sava's accusation:

Quote:

And there's a huge consensus among the ignorant Hawks that anyone who's against military action as now proposed is against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter.

Here is what I had originally said:

Quote:

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

People should look at the big picture and not worry so much about the penny that they lose a pound.

Please notice that Sava contended that anyone who advocated eliminating Saddam felt that Anti-war persons were "against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter". I have never said that nor will I ever say that. What I did say is that their intent is not to help Saddam but it is unavoidable that protests do help Saddam to some extent.

Sava lies and pretends that several other people and I have said protesters are deliberately pro-Saddam. This has never been said and is the construct of a lair and troll who deliberately misquotes in order to further his ideology. What he doesn't understand is that lying only makes him look foolish and untrustworthy.

Now, Sava, that I have proven how you lied I am going wash my hands of this and attempt to ignore you.

Zero · February 16, 2003, 23:09

So... did anyone protest? I heard about a rallying in NYC, because my friends cousin asked if I wanted to go. I didnt know it was some world-wide event...

If she was hot I would have said yes. But then again, she pointed out there might be other chicks out there.... I thought about it and now Im wondering if standing out in the cold making a fool of myself was worth the effort.... so did anyone reap the benefit?

Sava · February 16, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Please notice that Sava contended that anyone who advocated eliminating Saddam felt that Anti-war persons were "against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter

Wrong.

Quote:

And there's a huge consensus among the ignorant Hawks that anyone who's against military action as now proposed is against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter.

These are my words, cut and pasted. Notice I mentioned there is a "huge consensus among ignorant hawks"... this group of people is different from the other ignorant hawks who don't think that protestors are helping Saddam. And this is certainly seperate from the informed and intelligent hawks. I never recalled putting you or anyone else, personally, in any of these categories. You apparantly feel that everything I write is about you.
Perhaps it's you that needs to learn to read...

Quote:

Sava lies and pretends that several other people and I have said protesters are deliberately pro-Saddam

I don't recall mentioning deliberate. I don't recall specifically mentioning you are anyone else on 'Poly.

Don't get mad at me because you are wrong. And resorting to insults certainly helps your cause.

Also, I posting in an open forum and addressing broad groups of people. I didn't address my post to you, I specifically commented on a topic you just happened to bring up.

My point was that: There are people who think that the people protests against the war are helping Saddam. I said I thought those people were wrong. Done. End of story. You misinterpretted this post as a personal attack. It wasn't. And then you continued to insult me.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

I don't recall specifically mentioning you are anyone else on 'Poly.

You mentioned me specifically when you took my quote out of context. That's what started this whole argument.

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 01:24

Quote:

If you say so, IS then is must be true. But some proof would be nice

Nixon won the election in 1972 (I'm sure NO protesters were backing him over McGovern).

That, and the Republicans sweeping the Dems in the Senatorial and Congressional elections where a future Iraqi war was known to everyone.

Thanks, now you can commence the eating of the crow

.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 01:30

If they're a majority, how are they silent?

They've pretty much locked up the networks (who have been chanting for war for the last 6 months)

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 01:34

'Silent Majority' refers to the people who are NOT protesting.

And as someone said, they are also those that don't agree with New York and Hollywood, who basically control the media.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 01:36

Then why are the media so pro-war?

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 01:42

That ain't what I've seen. They are moderately pro-war, but then so are the Democrats. The media DEFINETLY favors getting UN approval before attacking, however.

Ben Kenobi · February 17, 2003, 01:42

Couple points...

I'm a part of the 'silent majority' which Agathon denies, who is against the war but didn't go to the anti-war rally here in Vancouver.

One reason I didn't go is the 'party mentality' of the protesters, as well as the behavior of the anarchists. Why support those who damage everyone else's cause with their terrible behavior?

Finally, how welcome are Christians at these kind of rallies?

What percentage of that 2 million people in London, or any of the protesters actually agreed with the cause of the rally?

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That ain't what I've seen. They are moderately pro-war, but then so are the Democrats. The media DEFINETLY favors getting UN approval before attacking, however.

Everybody favours getting UN approval before attacking. The question is whether or not you're in favour of attacking if the US can't get UN approval. Which a bare majority of Americans support (and even then that's only a recent development which arose after SOU address and Powell going in front of UN).

The fact that Democrats in power are in favour of something while the voters back home are mixed on it ought to tell you which side has been silenced.

So don't try to make it seem that Sean Penn and actual media sources are one and the same. The fact is that the US media has a hard-on for this war, and have been pushing it from day one. Whether that's because bombs and body parts are good for ratings or because they're afraid of getting accuseed of betraying their "silent majority" (

) audience is another question.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Couple points...

I'm a part of the 'silent majority' which Agathon denies, who is against the war but didn't go to the anti-war rally here in Vancouver.

One reason I didn't go is the 'party mentality' of the protesters, as well as the behavior of the anarchists. Why support those who damage everyone else's cause with their terrible behavior?

Finally, how welcome are Christians at these kind of rallies?

What percentage of that 2 million people in London, or any of the protesters actually agreed with the cause of the rally?

obi, I don't know is Agathon meant it this way, but the "silent majority" is usually painted by the right wing in the US as being pro-right wing (which includes pro-war at this juncture).

And I for one can tell you that the demos I've been to (I haven't been to an Iraq one yet, but they probably have the same demographic) make Christians very welcome. I have respect for the religious beliefs of others, and if those beliefs are what lead them to the same ethical conclusions that I've reached, then that's all the better.

As a matter of fact, Christians are usually a significant force at these demos...

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

The fact is that the US media has a hard-on for this war, and have been pushing it from day one.

You've been watching some wierd media, man. Every network source and major newspaper (with notable exception of the Wall Street Journal, but you know where they lay on the spectrum) has been very hesitant about the war. They only swung around when the polls came out so favorably for it.

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

the "silent majority" is usually painted by the right wing in the US as being pro-right wing

The silent majority was a term used by President Nixon, when people were talking about all the protestors in the '60. Nixon said there was a silent majority of people that want law and order and don't want to pull out of Vietnam pell mell. Seeing as all the protestors were very anti-Nixon (believe me, they'd probably vote for LBJ over Tricky ****), Nixon was right. He won in a landslide in 1972.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 02:18

No he wasn't. LBJ had just left an awful taste in people's mouths. It took a tricky **** to leave a worse taste in their mouths.

(I like that metaphor

)

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

If you say so, IS then is must be true. But some proof would be nice

Nixon won the election in 1972 (I'm sure NO protesters were backing him over McGovern).

That, and the Republicans sweeping the Dems in the Senatorial and Congressional elections where a future Iraqi war was known to everyone.

Thanks, now you can commence the eating of the crow

.

What's this got to do with anti-war opinion in 2003?

[Scratches head]

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 04:14

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

Finally, how welcome are Christians at these kind of rallies?

Very.

Many of the speeches are given by representatives of religious groups. The United Church was heavily involved in the Toronto demo.

You get all sorts at the demos, but most are quite ordinary people.

Alexander's Horse · February 17, 2003, 06:34

Up to a million Australians marched against war last weekend. For a country of 20 million people who mostly think politics is for the birds that is staggering.

Elden · February 17, 2003, 06:43

I attended the protest in Adelaide - ten thousand were there and it went well...

... Untill I listened to the new the next morning; Howard claimed that "The mob has not made there descision!"

90% of Australia is against war. Howard has esentially said me and ten thousand other Australians are a mob incabable of making descisions!!! That'll be great for next ellection

aaglo · February 17, 2003, 06:44

So, Howard made a political suicide there. Do you think it's a big loss for you?

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 06:46

When's the next election in Australia? Howard probably won't be in much trouble if the war goes well.

aaglo · February 17, 2003, 07:11

war goes well?

You couldn't think things more "Americanly".

The point is, that people don't want war in any case.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 07:31

I find it funny that the people who are most against war are the ones who will not be affected by it. It's American and Iraqi blood that is going to be spilt to remove Saddam Hussein, yet a majority of Americans support the war and there has been some evidence that the Iraqis do as well.

In the end, I value the opinions of these two groups more than any other, since they are the ones who are going to pay the price required to remove Saddam Hussein. Everyone else's opinion pales in comparison.

aaglo · February 17, 2003, 07:40

Drake -

It's propably because nobody else sees no reason in that war. Me included.