Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 12

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 07:47

Quote:

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

Don't you find it a little strange that the two countries that will sacrifice the most if a war is fought are the ones who are most supportive of war? More importantly, if both the people of the United States and the people of Iraq are willing to go through a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, why should anyone else's opinion matter?

Alexander's Horse · February 17, 2003, 07:49

Quote:

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

Probably. But will it go well?

aaglo · February 17, 2003, 07:56

Quote:

(snip)...why should anyone else's opinion matter?

Because war isn't fun?

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 07:57

Quote:

But will it go well?

I certainly hope so, for the sake of the Iraqi people and our troops.

Az · February 17, 2003, 08:18

actually, Drake, this is a very interesting observation.

the people that risk the most, do support it the most. In Israel and in Kuwait too. I wonder why is that.

TheStinger · February 17, 2003, 08:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, Drake, this is a very interesting observation.

the people that risk the most, do support it the most. In Israel and in Kuwait too. I wonder why is that.

Well in Israels case war will result in a net reduction in the number of Arabs.
In kuwaits case they will be free to buy more BMW and Mercedes and horses becasue Saddam can't come and steal them.

General Ludd · February 17, 2003, 08:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

That's because it often takes an outsider to see the insantiy of a conflict, where the participants are hungry for each others blood and are blind to reason.

It's all that patriotism and nationalism.

General Ludd · February 17, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
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?

The march in Toronto had many religons there, some of the organisers where from religous groups and made it a point to have churchs and faiths of many denominations attending. There was no rioting or looting, the closest it came to that was some taunting of the police outside the embassy, otherwise people where just chanting, singing and dancing.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

That's because it often takes an outsider to see the insantiy of a conflict, where the participants are hungry for each others blood and are blind to reason.

It's all that patriotism and nationalism.

This makes no sense. The American and Iraqi people support the same goal; the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. How exactly does that make them "hungry for each other's blood"? I think both sides would love it if no Iraqi civilians and no US troops were killed in the coming war...

aaglo · February 17, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

I think both sides would love it if no Iraqi civilians and no US troops were killed in the coming war

Funny you should mention... what about Iraqi troops? Reading between the lines, they are expendable?

From your point of view that may be the case. But from my point of view the life of an Iraqi soldier is as valuable as life of an American soldier.

And not all Iraqi's support your cause. It's partly true, partly American propaganda.

GePap · February 17, 2003, 09:26

How many Iraqi's want the war, thsat is unknown: we will only really know once the war begins.

As for the US:

Someone did a very ineteresting study of American public opinion on war. If you look at all the polls going back, you find some things out; 30% of Americans always support war (in 1973 that's the % that supported the war in Vietnam). You could tell this 30% we have to invade antartica and they would sign up. 10% always oppose war (about the % that did not back the war in Afghanistan) and the remaining 60% are left to be convinced one way or the other. As of the lastest polls, 57% of Americans would support going to war with a "coolition of the willing". So the war side got its 30% plus 27% , while the anti's got their 10% plus 33% of those to be convinced.

As for the notion that Americans will be the ones bleeding: first, the Brits and Aussies have sent troops, so they also get a chance at dying. second, from all I have heard peope say, including Drake, this will be a 'cakewalk", so where does the great national sacrifice come from? there are 280 million Americans: how many of them might actually know someone who dies in that war personally? The fact is, if you ask people whether they support a war in Iraq that would, lets say, go on for a year and cost 10,000 American dead, and the majority spoken off all of a sudden disappears.

The Mad Monk · February 17, 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Eight cops were injured during confrontations with protesters here. One officer was kicked in the head and a deputy inspector was punched in the face, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

A police horse was hurt when a protester punched it in the face and dragged it to the ground by its reigns, Kelly added. The horse, Boots, and the riding officer suffered minor injuries.

These protestors didn't do their cause any favors.

Dauphin · February 17, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Don't you find it a little strange that the two countries that will sacrifice the most if a war is fought are the ones who are most supportive of war? More importantly, if both the people of the United States and the people of Iraq are willing to go through a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, why should anyone else's opinion matter?

The US is getting involved in the interests of another sovereign state. 3rd party nations should be allowed to object in self-interest. If the US is allowed to take action in a foreign and sovereign nation simply because its people want to then it is a step towards giving carte blanche to the US to do whatever it likes wherever it likes whenever it likes.

The Mad Monk · February 17, 2003, 09:33

Yes, and in the end, they should allow their self-interest to determine the strength of those objections.

Arrian · February 17, 2003, 10:45

I don't even remember which poster said this, it was so many pages ago, but I wanted to thank him for a good laugh:

Quote:

Interesting speakers included Rev. Jesse Jackson...

As for the protests: good for those who went out and had their say. Free speech and all that. I'll leave it at that.

-Arrian

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

second, from all I have heard peope say, including Drake, this will be a 'cakewalk", so where does the great national sacrifice come from?

One dead American soldier (or British, or Australian) will be a greater sacrifice than the rest of the world was willing to make...

Quote:

If the US is allowed to take action in a foreign and sovereign nation simply because its people want to then it is a step towards giving carte blanche to the US to do whatever it likes wherever it likes whenever it likes.

If that's your concern, then you're a few years too late. America has already intervened in another sovereign nation's affairs without UN approval, in Kosovo. The Euros didn't seem to have any problem with American action when it was an issue that threatened them, but now that we want to take out an even worse dictator in a land far from Europe and loaded with French oil contracts, they want to require that the US get UN approval. You can't have it both ways...

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

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

You said there 'never is' a silent majority.

Just proving you wrong.

GePap · February 17, 2003, 12:04

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
One dead American soldier (or British, or Australian) will be a greater sacrifice than the rest of the world was willing to make...

How many American servicemen have died from accidents in S.Arabia or elsewhere in the Gulf since 1991? The US has been more then willing to risk the lives of singles of American soldiers in the defense of the Gulf since then. How many people have died enforcing the War on Drugs? Every year, probalby dozens. I guess by your estimates, the war on drugs should be classfied as one of the vital conflicts of our time.

Cheap sentimentality is easy: we lost 58,000 men in Vietnam, and I don't remember people in the US back then screaming about how the UK or France or the Germans were unwilling to help in the mighty cause. Now we are about to embark on a war none of you hawks here think will cost more then 500 US dead and yet all of a sudden its WW2 all over again

The people of Britian and Australia know their men are being put in danger, just as those of the US, but at least they have the comon sense to know that Military men have duties to do, and death is part of the job they signed up for. It is the duty of civilians back home to make sure the cause they will die for is one they are willing to back and believe in. You Drake, keep talking about "our brave sacrifice". well, the men and women in the US military are fulfilling their duties. What about your duties to them, and to all other Americans living today and about to be born?

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

You Drake, keep talking about "our brave sacrifice". well, the men and women in the US military are fulfilling their duties.

What the hell are you on about? I never once said that America was making a "brave sacrifice". I said that the US and Iraq would sacrifice (aka lose) the most in the coming war and that's why I care about the opinions of the people in those countries more than the opinions of people who live in countries that will not be touched by the war.

You've been a real joy to talk with these past few days. You trying to take this thread off on an irrelevant tangent as well?

GePap · February 17, 2003, 12:25

Just my way of making your French bashing self feel more confortable here in Poly.

As for whos opinions matter most: If that is your attitude, then what do you say of the immense Anti_war demonstrations in the UK and Australia? Do they speak loudly enough for you? And you know, I have eyt to see any huge pro-war dmeonstration. Why don't you guys go out there, make banners saying "Save Iraqis", Death to Saddam", and make your voices heard? How many do you think you could pull in? You keep pointing to polls: should not those pro-war rallies be huge? I mean, right before WW1 there were some huge pro-war rallies. It can be done.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Just my way of making your French bashing self feel more confortable here in Poly.

At least I'm known for something...

Quote:

And you know, I have eyt to see any huge pro-war dmeonstration.

That's because us pro-war people are smart enough to get our way without having to resort to freezing our asses off outside at some stupid rally.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

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

You said there 'never is' a silent majority.

Just proving you wrong.

I was talking about the war you pillock. The fact that people voted for Nixon 35 years ago seems to me to be slim evidence for the claim you want to make (an enduring bunch of god fearing idiots who agree with you about everything).

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

I was talking about the war you pillock.

Well then you stated it idiotically. You said there 'never is' a silent majority. I didn't know I was supposed to read you mind and merely confine the word 'never' to this year

.

axi · February 17, 2003, 14:45

Now let's see what happens in the EU summit today. What will Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi have to say.

At least we jnow that war is off for another fortnight.

As for the demonstrator estimates, it's gone up to 13 million now. There were 200.000 people demonstration in San Fransisco and 100.000 in LA.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I was talking about the war you pillock.

Well then you stated it idiotically. You said there 'never is' a silent majority. I didn't know I was supposed to read you mind and merely confine the word 'never' to this year

.

The so called "silent majority" is supposed to be an everlasting fund of conservative opinion that always carries the majority of public opinion in spite of whatever opposing demonstrations there may be. That is the way the slogan is used. In reality there is no such thing - most of the silent are simply indifferent. In reality, if there is a silent majority in the US it is the people who don't vote.

And as for silent - conservative opinion in the US is rarely silent. I only wish they were, it would mean less pollution of the airwaves.

Anyway, the majority of world opinion is against the war. You can eat your heart out.

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

The so called "silent majority" is supposed to be an everlasting fund of conservative opinion that always carries the majority of public opinion in spite of whatever opposing demonstrations there may be.

Thank you for your redefining of a word, but it is not needed or wanted.

Oh, and your efforts to paint me as a conservative idelogue to attempt to score points is halfway amusing, but in general just makes you look more like a buffoon.

Ned · February 17, 2003, 16:38

Does anyone know who organized the demostrations? Communists? Iraq?

Since this was a world event, I would suggest the former.

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 17:14

Ned :
I am communist, and I didn't see so much effort from my party in this demo. There have been many parties associated, as well as many associations, student groups etc.
In Stuttgart, the most active have been single-issue anti war organizations. I wonder to what extent they have consulted internationally, and to what extent they have been manipulated by bigger fishes (such as countries)

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
the people that risk the most, do support it the most. In Israel and in Kuwait too. I wonder why is that.

Kuwaitis don´t support the war; they are just not allowed to protest.

And Israel is the sole beneficiary.

Ned · February 17, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned :
I am communist, and I didn't see so much effort from my party in this demo. There have been many parties associated, as well as many associations, student groups etc.
In Stuttgart, the most active have been single-issue anti war organizations. I wonder to what extent they have consulted internationally, and to what extent they have been manipulated by bigger fishes (such as countries)

The worldwide organization of this event is what is really impressive. The news mentioned the name of the organization that put it together. It went in one ear and out the other. But I would doubt that an ad hoc group would have the worldwide financing and organization to plan events in so many cities across the world.

Really impressive.