What is the World Prepared to Do to Contain American Aggression?

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 18:49

Democratic governments that support US aggression do so at their own peril, especially if the war goes badly (however that is defined). Blair is putting his head on the chopping block. Chirac, a Conservative, is leading the oppostion in Europe. How many governments will be voted out for their support of US war-mongering?

Ninty percent of the population of the world is opposed to the U.S. aggression against Iraq (Osama bin Laden has succeeded in at least one of his goals). Most countries are opposed, with the exception of Israel and Kuwait, the majority populations in every other country are opposed to war without UN approval (including the United States).

What is the world prepared to do to stop us? War is out of the question (except in North Korea, which is completely out of touch with reality). What about sanctions? What if the opposed governments of the world threatened to impose sanctions against the US if the US attacked without UN approval? Maybe Europe could throw us out of NATO (it would never happen).

The world has a duty to stop the United States. While I don't wish war upon any people, especially my own, there are other methods of forcing our Hitler from invading Czechoslavakia.

Stand up to us, damnit! Stop us before we kill again.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 18:57

Che, sanctions are even less likely and at least have as severe of concequences. It's up to Americans, and it is probably too late

Dinner · February 8, 2003, 19:01

"What is the World Prepared to Do to Contain American Aggression? "

It appears they're prepared to allow school kids to march in the street, smoke pot, and wave sings with oh so witty slogons. That most of the slogon are no sense doesn't really matter to them just like solve real problems doesn't really matter to them.

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 19:03

Originally posted by DuncanK
It's up to Americans, and it is probably too late

We've never stopped a war before it happened, although we did stop the February bombings of Iraq (forget the year). Furthermore, short of a massive disruption in the US, i.e., strikes, the government isn't prepared to listen to us anyway. They know that once the bombs start falling, most of the American public will fall in line and support the troops. Remember, if this President cared about the democratic will of the American people, he wouldn't be President.

It's up to the world to stop Hitler before he annexes Czechoslovakia. We Germans don't have the ability to stop him.

orange · February 8, 2003, 19:04

Che - I had the exact same thought today. What if we expand war against Iraq and possibly North Korea to war against Iran Libya Syria, etc. etc. Is the world prepared to do something about it?

In the future will I be hailing France and England as my liberators from this land of lost hope?

Ted Striker · February 8, 2003, 19:05

orange · February 8, 2003, 19:07

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's up to the world to stop Hitler before he annexes Czechoslovakia. We Germans don't have the ability to stop him.

Who was our Austria?

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 19:07

Originally posted by orange
Who was our Austria?

Kosovo?

Ted Striker · February 8, 2003, 19:10

Texas

Shi Huangdi · February 8, 2003, 19:41

AMERIKA UBER ALLES!

orange · February 8, 2003, 19:45

I bet the German people rolled their eyes too

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 19:47

The world can't do much in the way of sanctions, without wrecking their own economies. Taking the US out of the global marketplace is ridiculously unrealistic. It's even more unrealistic to expect to challenge the US militarily (even against the rest of the world, the US would come out ahead).

Unfortunately, the only people who can stop this war are Americans. Hopefully we'll do our part by voting Bush out of office, and voting for a Libertarian or even a Green in 2004.

Which brings me to the next point. Seeing as how the Libertarian Party is the largest Third Party in the US, would Independents, Greens, Socialists, and Communists be willing to vote Libertarian in the 2004 elections, in order to secure the largest possible opposition to the main parties? If the LP gets 5% or even 10% of the vote in a national election, we'll finally start seeing anti-war, pro-freedom candidates in the debates, and possibly even start electing these people to Congress.

So, third party people, what do you say? Vote Libertarian as the best method to oppose the Republicrats!

orange · February 8, 2003, 20:00

wow...i'm shocked that you would prefer a Green party candidate...

but maybe you're onto something. We need someone to run for the 3rd party party, and all the 3rd parties can vote for him. Then we can get him to outlaw Republicans and Democrats, and have a fair election for everyone BUT

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 20:00

Originally posted by David Floyd
Seeing as how the Libertarian Party is the largest Third Party in the US

But the Greens get more votes. Why don't you support Ralph Nader?

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:01

I think a lot of the warmongering is due to sexual frustration.

So, in the spirit of self-sacrifice, I will go down on as many men as it takes to stop American aggression!*

*--Offer may not apply to smellies, oldies, fatties and/or baldies.

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 20:01

The first step towards a working democracy are clean election laws and public financing of elections, two things which strike at the heart of libertarian ideals. This is your achillies heel.

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:02

DF, would you be willing to vote for the Democrat if he is opposed to the war and the election is going to be close?

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:03

orange,

wow...i'm shocked that you would prefer a Green party candidate...

I'd probably take Nader over Bush or Gore.

che,

But the Greens get more votes. Why don't you support Ralph Nader?

Because the LP is larger. But if it came down to it, sure, I'd support the Greens against the Republicans. Not because I like the Greens, but because I want to take down the Republicans and Democrats.

It makes more sense, though, IMO to have a Libertarian candidate - I think he or she would appeal to more Americans overall.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:04

The first step towards a working democracy are clean election laws and public financing of elections, two things which strike at the heart of libertarian ideals. This is your achillies heel.

Who said I support democracy? Voting does not equal democracy.

Boris,

DF, would you be willing to vote for the Democrat if he is opposed to the war and the election is going to be close?

Probably not - Dems are too anti-freedom.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:04

orange, here's a compromise - a Libertarian candidate who supports reasonable anti-pollution laws. Fair enough?

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 20:07

Originally posted by David Floyd
Because the LP is larger.

Size doesn't matter. The largest political party in US history was the Communist Party of the 1930s, which had more than a million people pass through it in that decade. Membership doesn't equal support. The Democratic and Republican parties together have less than a quarter million dues paying members. Support is what counts, and the Greens have more support than the LP.

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:07

Originally posted by David Floyd
Probably not - Dems are too anti-freedom.

So if it's a choice between a Republican you know is going to start a war you oppose and a Democrat you know will not start the war, and that there's no way any other candidate is going to win, you'd rather, in effect, help the Republican? Seems bizarre.

Especially given that this administration has been the most brazenly anti-freedom in memory.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:12

Support is what counts, and the Greens have more support than the LP.

Oh, I doubt that. Greens can be easily (admittedly falsely) painted as communists, while most people would call the LP (again incorrectly) right-wing extremists. Which group do you think is gonna get more support in the US?

Boris,

So if it's a choice between a Republican you know is going to start a war you oppose and a Democrat you know will not start the war, and that there's no way any other candidate is going to win, you'd rather, in effect, help the Republican? Seems bizarre.

This is the same argument as the "Would I murder 1 person to stop 10 murders" discussion - I'm not responsible for what other people do, only for behaving morally myself.

Willem · February 8, 2003, 20:12

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

But the Greens get more votes. Why don't you support Ralph Nader?

It was because of Ralph Nader that Bush got elected in the first place. Voting for him split the Democratic vote, and gave Bush a clear field on the right.

orange · February 8, 2003, 20:14

floyd - as long as he/she wasn't a neo-liberal and had reasonable economic policies (not like your silly no taxes, government financed by lotteries ideas

) I'd definitely support him/her

After all, I'm as much a libertarian as I am a leftist.

raghar · February 8, 2003, 20:15

Simply capture US forces in EU and blocade them. US aren't so millitary strong compare to Rusia and China combined. Captured US forces would do pretty good argument for forthcoming discusion with US.

So war with US isn't totaly out of question, just difficult.

EU and other country could withdraw their money from US and say it is for compensation of war in Iraq damage to their economy. You know oil prices would go up. (Numbers are from few cents down to 160$ per barell)

Then again Europe states could harm US if they would do nothing. If US would be forced to pay all expenses for war in Iraq...

Well world could be without US, but US can't exist without rest of the world as reasonable state. (if they would be banished from rest of the world trade and so, US would degrade quickly)

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:15

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is the same argument as the "Would I murder 1 person to stop 10 murders" discussion - I'm not responsible for what other people do, only for behaving morally myself.

This is about what may become a practical reality. Given the vehemence with which you've opposed the war on Iraq, I just find it odd that you wouldn't throw your support to the candidate who also opposes it to give him more of a chance of winning, especially based on a generalization of Democrats being anti-freedom. If an "anti-freedom" person is going to win no matter what (Bush or the Dem), wouldn't it make sense to support the Dem who at least won't get us involved in the war?

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 20:16

Originally posted by Willem
It was because of Ralph Nader that Bush got elected in the first place. Voting for him split the Democratic vote, and gave Bush a clear field on the right.

Actually it was Gore's ineptitude and Republican crimes that won the day for Bush. Sure, if Nader hadn't run, then neither of those two factors would have been determinent, but Nader contributed very little to Gore's defeat. The major contributing factor was the Republican government of Florida breaking the law to hand the election over to Bush.

NeOmega · February 8, 2003, 20:18

I'd vote for a staunch Anti-War Democrat or Republican if they opposed the war unconditionally, with the exception of Iraqi bombers and troop transports crossing the Atlanatic and preparing for an invasion of the U.S.

Right now, besides Al Sharpton, it seems there is only one anti war Democrat..... and he is only an anti-unilateralist, which I cannot accept.

orange · February 8, 2003, 20:21

Floyd - in a Democracy, wouldn't you doing the 'moral' thing include voting for someone who is against the war? If you don't, how have you acted morally?