Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 13

Oerdin · February 17, 2003, 18:55

I'd chaulk the world wide ogranization up to the internet.

Ned · February 17, 2003, 19:20

Perhaps. This would mean that ad hoc anti-war groups talk to each other, etc. However, someone still has to go get the permits, arrange for posters and the like. Seems organized to me.

BTW, the story I saw on the protests ended with a story on a bearded man who said he was on his way to Iraq to become a human shield. He said he wanted to be tied up to a children's hospital because he had heard that 500,000 to a million children had died because of lack of access to cheap drugs!

No kidding. He actually said that.

Oerdin · February 17, 2003, 19:23

There are a great many people who will believe anything anyone tells them without first seeing if it makes sense or considering the agenda of the source.

HolyWarrior · February 17, 2003, 20:02

If you've played the card game Illuminati, you would know that Iraq cannot be destroyed because they still control the Anti-War Activists

. First the Anti-War Activists must be neutralized, THEN Iraq can be destroyed.

Ben Kenobi · February 17, 2003, 20:31

Osweld, Frogger, Agathon.

Thanks for your responses.

Perhaps I've been too hasty in my characterisation of the anti-war movement here in BC. I'll check out the next rally.

Oh and BTW Agathon, the United Church is not very respected among the Christian community.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Osweld, Frogger, Agathon.

Oh and BTW Agathon, the United Church is not very respected among the Christian community.

Isn't it the biggest Protestant Church in Canada?

Anyway, the Pope doesn't care much for war either.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

Who gives a s**t what you need or want, or if you are amused?

Call me a buffoon if you like, but I'd be willing to bet my intellectual and educational achievements would put yours to shame (given what I know about myself and the quality of your ravings). You are not in a position to accuse anyone else of stupidity.

How about trying to come up with some arguments instead of the witless rubbish you've posted so far?

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know who organized the demostrations? Communists? Iraq?

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

Chalk up another crazy conspiracy theory.

Most of them were organised by umbrella organisations which are comprised of everyone from church groups to communists. Trying to paint the protestors as some fringe left group is a waste of time. Most out on Saturday were ordinary folks.

At the Toronto protest the Socialist Workers (who supply all their bunch with placards) were in a small minority (there weren't many SW banners compared to everyone else).

If you don't like what the protestors said then organise a pro war rally. Nobody will come.

Darius871 · February 17, 2003, 20:51

Exactly, because pro-war people don't protest, not because there aren't many of them.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 21:55

They would protest if they really cared or if they were sure that they wouldn't be outnumbered. A better explanation is that lot of the pro-war people just don't give a damn.

Don't tell me the right doesn't protest - witness the big anti-abortion rallies. (BTW - I disagree with these people but I have immense respect for them for making the effort to protest).

There was a single pro Bush protestor at the Toronto peace rally. She must have had some guts, even though nobody bothered her or insulted her.

Ben Kenobi · February 17, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Isn't it the biggest Protestant Church in Canada?

Not for long, according to the latest numbers. They've been declining for quite some time, same as the Anglicans. As with anything, they are good United churches, and ones not so good. The Toronto Church falls in the latter category.

As for the pope, the Catholics have organised their own demonstrations. They call them prayer meetings.

Mazarin · February 18, 2003, 00:22

aren't they sweet...
some impressions from the demonstrations:

and Bush looking for his next ennemy

Robert Plomp · February 18, 2003, 04:32

I've talked with several people who went to the demo in Amsterdam or were intended but couldn't go.

I talked with them about the war, and the arguments against a war / pro-war arguments.

It appeared that all of them had no idea what they were talking about. They weren't capable to bring more arguments up than "Those poor children in iraque should be saved"

It's pathatic to read columns in newspapers that read: "The Bush administration should back it's opinion up with arguments. If there are Mass-destruction weapons, he should prove that. The only reason he wants a war is because of the oil"

it's pathatic how people can demand 'more arguments' from Bush but can make up things like 'he wants oil' without any backup for that.

It's easy and accepted to be 'anti-war'.
In fact 'anti-war' is de default choise.

unfortunately much people can't see that sometimes 'violence' is needed to keep peace. It sounds strange, but violence (war) is sometimes the only answer to criminals.

Not to speak about silly arguments like 'the US has started more wars than any other country'

You completely are ignorant about the US wars if you say that. ALL of them were wars for freedom. Wars to free themselves or wars to free people.

Europe 1945, Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Koeweit, Afghanistan

All those countries were ruled by dictators who were a threath to their people or the people of the nations around it.

And of course in every case a discussion should be started about the question if a war is justified. Pherhaps you guys are right, and a war against Iraque is not justified. But use valid arguments in such a discussion instead of simplistic name-calling and come up with short-sighted arguments.

There ARE good arguments against war!
- the people of Iraque shouldn't suffer
- the post-war scenario should be good and solid
- the surrounding countries shouldn't be in (too much) danger during an attack.

Talk about these issues as adults but keep the bs away.

So far it morely feels like situations we have in The NEtherlands, when the police arrests someone who broke the law in which all the surrounding people turned against the police.

A good question is if the US is the police.
Pherhaps that's what's wrong in the situation, the US aren't the police, and they shouldn't be the police.

The question that comes forth out of that conclusion is, who else should be the police (UN) and IS this police funcationing?

I think the obvious answer is: "NO"

It's morely the disfunctioning of the UN that makes the US act this way. But no-one is putting that up as a topic for discussion.

I know I'm not 'allowed' to say this, but the big majority of the people at the demo's don't have any idea what they talk about. They simply have no clue.

And indeed, much of the 'pro-war' people have no idea either.

That's the failure of democracy, people who have no idea can voice their blatant opinion.

I don't know any better form of governament, thus let's keep it, but keep in mind that people who raise their voice don't nescecarily have the knowledge to do it.

Ned · February 18, 2003, 12:16

I heard a couple of interviews with protesters on CNN. They seemed to be purely anti-war and anti-US. Not one even mentioned Iraq or Saddam or anything about why Bush wanted to disarm him. The one with Ron Jerovic(SP?), ex Vietnam veteran, was particularly revealing. He was impassioned as hell about not going to war, about stopping the war, etc. However, when the reporter asked him about Saddam, he looked like a deer on the road starring blankly into the headlights. He never responded to the questions, and began shortly to repeat his rants.

One analyst concluded that the protest were more about America and anti-Americanism than about Iraq. As Che has suggested, there are lot of people who are against the war because they view it as American imperialism. To them, America has only one interest in Iraq: Oil.

Oerdin · February 18, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Mazarin Pictures made by some guy with a copy of photoshop and to much time on his hands.

Those pictures were photoshoped. Look at the shadow on Bush's left hand.

Oerdin · February 18, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
They would protest if they really cared or if they were sure that they wouldn't be outnumbered.

That is not correct. You claim unless people don't act the way you do then they must not care. The reality is most of the silent majority believe the correct way to voice their concerns isn't through rioting and street protests but instead by writing newspaper articles and through the election process. It's a difference of philosophy and I'd say their way achieves a greater success rate then a bunch of hoodlums writing stupid signs and smoking pot.

Agathon · February 18, 2003, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

That is not correct. You claim unless people don't act the way you do then they must not care. The reality is most of the silent majority believe the correct way to voice their concerns isn't through rioting and street protests but instead by writing newspaper articles and through the election process. It's a difference of philosophy and I'd say their way achieves a greater success rate then a bunch of hoodlums writing stupid signs and smoking pot.

What a load of c**p. You really are a clown.

- Womens suffrage

- Democracy

- Civil rights

- NZs anti nuclear stance

- The nation of India

All came about because ordinary people took action.

And you have forgotten the anti-abortion marches - so much for "silent".

If you want war then that's fine, just don't snipe at people who are of better character than you - people who care enough to stand up for their political opinions. I'm sorry but the people who act don't listen to the wet fish who don't.

Nuff said.

Jac de Molay · February 18, 2003, 15:15

[

Quote:

It's a difference of philosophy and I'd say their way achieves a greater success rate then a bunch of hoodlums writing stupid signs and smoking pot.

Blatantly stupid generalizations get you nowhere.

Oerdin · February 18, 2003, 15:26

Go ahead and call people names but it doesn't help your cause and it doesn't make you look any better. The truth is in a democracy the best and most productive way to change the government's policies is to vote for people who have policies similar to your own. Colonial India wasn't a democracy so off course protests were they only thing which could effect change. Women's sufferage had a lot of rallies but in the end it was a democratic vote which made the changes reality.

BTW I happen to be a gore voting Democrate you dim wit! I don't agree with Republican stances on many issues but I take the time to understand their positions. Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to judge other people's moral character then you might have time to do the same.

Oerdin · February 18, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Blatantly stupid generalizations get you nowhere.

You would know. You are a master of them.

Jac de Molay · February 18, 2003, 15:35

How so? I'm not the one writing off an entire mass movement,of all ages and backgrounds, as criminals, drug users, or, better yet, "saddam supporters".

You should know better than that.

Oerdin · February 18, 2003, 15:36

I have never called them Saddam supporters Dave. Why don't you reread the posts, but, then again it is much easier for you to continue to generalize and make stupid statements. Isn't it?

Jac de Molay · February 18, 2003, 15:51

The "saddam supporters" jibe was directed to people in the thread who equate resistance to the war with support for Saddam. It wasn't necessarily directed to you.

Now, lets go back again......

Quote:

It's a difference of philosophy and I'd say their way achieves a greater success rate then a bunch of hoodlums writing stupid signs and smoking pot.

If you can back up this statement with one iota of evidence that the anti-war is some vast hippy conspiracy, I might take your posts half seriously. The fact is, you'd rather spout off and make generalizations about movements that dont fit your worldview.

In all of the examples you mentioned, civil protest and disobedience were the catalyst for change.

chequita guevara · February 18, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Tell me, how many times have the French moved for the sanctions to be lifted recently?

Define recently. A few years back, they, along with a few other countries, tried to sponsor moving to smart sanctions which would allow more food, medicine, and the like to go into Iraq. The US nixed it.

Really, what point is their continued trying when the US has stated clearly it will go for nothing less than full compliance or force?

chequita guevara · February 18, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
If they really are pacifists, they should protests all wars.

Being opposed to a specific war and being a pacifist are two different things. You write as if only pacificsts have a right to oppose war, and everyone else should support the war-mongers.

You're an idjit.

chequita guevara · February 18, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
In Gulf war one I remember lots of "peace" protests lead by leftist types. They didn't even think we should intervine when Iraq invaded Kuwait. As far as they were concerned the military should be disbanded and if we just showed our love for people like Saddam then they would be converted to socialism and give up their evil ways.

There were almost a dozen different attempts to negotiate a peaceful exit from Kuwait by Iraq, other Arab states, the USSR, Europe, etc. The US refused them all. The US did everything it could to ensure that it could fight a war, sabotaging every peaceful effort. That war had little to do with Kuwait, and everything to do with proving American military power in the waning days of the USSR. The whole point of that war was to say to the world, "See how mighty we are, we are in control now."

DinoDoc · February 18, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There were almost a dozen different attempts to negotiate a peaceful exit from Kuwait by Iraq, other Arab states, the USSR, Europe, etc.

What was there to negotiate? The only reasonable terms in that situation were leave or be forced out.

chequita guevara · February 18, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

What was there to negotiate? The only reasonable terms in that situation were leave or be forced out.

A redrawing of borders forced upon them by Britain was reasonable. Discussion of compensation for stoeln oil would have been reasonable. Discussion of Kuwaiti pumping rates would have been reasonable. Renegotiation of Kuwait's loans to Iraq would have been reasonable. When the rest of the world feels that these are reasonable opics for negotiation and the US is a lone holdout, then it is the US who is unreasonable.

DinoDoc · February 18, 2003, 16:55

None of which should have been on the table when they were occuping a foreign country. Since when are you want to reward aggression anyway?

chequita guevara · February 18, 2003, 16:58

Kuwait was deliberately trying to crash the Iraqi economy, was stealing their oil, and refused to negotiate with the Iraqis. Not that I condone military adventurism, but what was Iraq supposed to do when it was under economic attack by its neighbor?\

Granted, if it was me, I'd have just occupied the contested areas and defaulted on my loan to Kuwait. Better yet, occupy the whole country, arm the guest workers, and leave. That woulda messed up the Emirs.