Anti-War "Activists" vs Sick Children.

[oedo]

it´s understood, that people must not use violence in an assembly. who ever doubted this? and what´s more paradox than an anti-war demonstration where people use violence? from what I heard, (nearly) all anti-war protests around the world were peaceful. unfortunately in a crowd of several 10.000 or even 100.000 people there´s always someone behaving like an *******.

I still wonder, why 2.300 people got arrested, since the article didn´t mention any violence. the article also didn´t mention any damage cause by injuries or broken glasses.

and I also wonder how people can feel so molested by demonstrators blocking streets, since this hardly ever happens. tailbacks, on the other hand, happen almost every day and also prevent us from getting to work in time. I understand Fez´ and Oerdin´s ignoring my bet-offer as an undestanding assent: qui tacet, consentire videtur.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, and if it wasn't for capitalism than no anti-globalization protests would be necessary so capitalism is what caused the loss of money in DC every few years and the loss of money in Seattle a few years back.

Suuuuuure.

Slippery Slope eh, Imran?

[Sandman]

This sounds like a prepared excuse for a budget cut. As the rightists gleefully tear into social programs, they'll say that it's the protestors fault.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read my response to this. The amount paid for the war wouldn't ever be used for what SF was going to be using the lost money for. SF doesn't care what wars the federal government goes on, that money isn't going to go to them anyway. Yet the money for police officers' overtimes does indeed go from other projects.

a typical lawyer´s argument. you may be absolutely right with what you say. but as soon as you start blaming protestors for US expense and tax policy, it becomes ridiculous.

[Tingkai]

Re: Anti-War "Activists" vs Sick Children.

Originally posted by Oerdin
"City agencies in San Francisco added up the costs of the war protests that disrupted the city in March and came up with more than $3.5 million in expenses and lost revenue," the San Francisco Chronicle reports. That's $3.5 million less for the city to spend on food for the homeless and medical care for AIDS patients and sick kids.

Uhmm. No. There's nothing in the story that says less money will be spent on the homeless, AIDS patients, or sick kids.

The money to pay for the overtime to cops and other civil servants could come from a lot of areas without affecting the homeless, AIDS patients, or sick kids.

However, good troll. I'd give it 7/10.

[Lazerus]

Surprised there wasn't a sign saying we support soldiers who shoot their officiers and then shoot themselves, since these activists agree with nothing that involves actually using some military power to get the job done.
Spend £100k shipping everyone who disgrees to north korea and save millions in future riots and then the opinion polls will be great for when the US wants to do anything else.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Fez the world is not so black and white as that. Being for peace does not imply support for anything but peace. Most leftists agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad person. They simply felt that there were ways other than war to deal with him.

Actually most leftists do not have a clue on how they would of dealt with Saddam if you asked them. Not a clue. There was no other option.

Right now, though, Iraq is in worse condition than it was under Saddam. Note that I do not approve of Saddam. I am merely saying that his ironfisted rule was at least stable, whereas the anarchy there now is not in the least bit. There is more starvation now, more crime now, more bad **** all over the place right now.

Wrong again. There was starvation before and there was crimes committed by the deposed regime itself.

Really what is your problem? This nation just got out of a war it lost. It has two plus decades of misrule. So really do you know what was happening? The people of Iraq have been starving long before the US went in there.

Hopefully that will change. And I still wish that the US could have killed fewer people.

The US didn't kill too many people in Iraq. To say that they did, is a lie.

And most of the people killed were press-ganged soldiers that didn't want to be there.

Really?

As far as the actual debate here goes, stupid leftist protesters that cause disruptions do not invalidate the arguments against the war. They merely point out that some leftist protesters are stupid and disruptive.

Exactly. Now let me make myself clear I was not saying all are stupid. Just some.

And a little fact to consider. The United States now spends more on defense than every other country in the world combined.

So what?

And it's spending more on the war and reconstruction. And it's got a huge tax break coming up. And the economy ain't lookin' too grand.

Boohoo.. that is also false. The economy is showing signs of pickup... take consumer confidence and increasing GDP growth.

The US government could certainly be doing a lot better to help its own people. This does not mean it doesn't do a good job, though. I'm not against America. Ugh...

Certainly be doing a lot better? It did a whole lot better than the previous adminstration.

It seems like you are though...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Fez


Actually most leftists do not have a clue on how they would of dealt with Saddam if you asked them. Not a clue. There was no other option.

Let's hear it for bald faced assertions. They actually did have other ideas, you just didn't agree with them. It doesn't matter now though, because the war is over.

Wrong again. There was starvation before and there was crimes committed by the deposed regime itself.

Really what is your problem? This nation just got out of a war it lost. It has two plus decades of misrule. So really do you know what was happening? The people of Iraq have been starving long before the US went in there.

I said more Fez, read carefully. There is no governmental control at all in Iraq now, because we destroyed their government and their infrastructure. You don't think things are bad there?

You know how when the US wins large sports events there are riots and looting? Well right now, in Iraq, there is looting and rioting everywhere. There is violence in abundance because no police force exists to prevent the violence, and living conditions are worse because we pretty much knocked out power to all of Baghdad.

Things aren't better, yet. They will be, eventually, but not yet.

The US didn't kill too many people in Iraq. To say that they did, is a lie.

Actually the death toll given by American news media was a few thousand just for military personnel. Civilian death wasn't as high, but still in the thousand range.

Really?

Yes really Fez. Remember the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein? Part of what made it so horrible was that Saddam forced his people into the military. So yes, they did not want to be there. That's why they weren't trained very well, and that's why a good many of them surrendered before the first shots were fired.

The Republican Guard was an elite, voluntary thing, but they were in the minority as far as force composition goes.

Certainly be doing a lot better? It did a whole lot better than the previous adminstration.

It seems like you are though...

In terms of economy? That's not true at all. Under Clinton there was a surplus for the first time in a very large time. Dubbaya destroyed that surplus. The economy is not doing better now than it was under Clinton. If you think it is than you're having delusions.

Just because I make comments that are not totally in agreement with the United States does not mean I am against it. I agree that the United States is the best country in the world. I also agree that it does better than almost every other country in the world with regards to human rights and such. But that doesn't mean it couldn't do better, and that doesn't mean I can't think it's not making mistakes now.

Remember, my disagreeing with Bush does not imply disagreement with the country. The two are not the same thing. Dubbaya is a temporary representative elected by less than half the population of the country. America, as a nation and an idea, is much more long lived.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They actually did have other ideas, you just didn't agree with them. It doesn't matter now though, because the war is over.

Actually I have to agree with Fez here. The left DIDN'T have any other ideas for how to deal with Saddam except for the status quo... and that wasn't working too well.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Let's hear it for bald faced assertions. They actually did have other ideas, you just didn't agree with them. It doesn't matter now though, because the war is over.

None of which would of actually worked. So forget it. Their arrogance must be ignored.

I said more Fez, read carefully. There is no governmental control at all in Iraq now, because we destroyed their government and their infrastructure. You don't think things are bad there?

Things are bad there, ever since the 1980 Iraqi/Iranian war things have gotten to be really bad there. And this is just understating.

Well right now, in Iraq, there is looting and rioting everywhere.

Not as much anymore.

You should get real. This country just got out of a war it lost. Its government collapsed. The US is trying to best it can to prevent anymore crimes.

There is violence in abundance because no police force exists to prevent the violence, and living conditions are worse because we pretty much knocked out power to all of Baghdad.

There is the developing of a police force. Also living conditions weren't any worse than they already were with Saddam. Things have hit rock bottom long ago and haven't recovered.

Things aren't better, yet. They will be, eventually, but not yet.

Finally you say something right.

Actually the death toll given by American news media was a few thousand just for military personnel.

I must dispute that number. Find facts, not bald headed lies. I want to see facts right now.

Remember the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein? Part of what made it so horrible was that Saddam forced his people into the military. So yes, they did not want to be there.

I thought you were talking about US forces.

That's why they weren't trained very well, and that's why a good many of them surrendered before the first shots were fired.

Yes but quite a few of them were threatened by the Saddam militias to fight. This often involved threatening their families.

The Republican Guard was an elite, voluntary thing, but they were in the minority as far as force composition goes.

Even the Republican Guard lacked equipment but was better than the Iraqi Army.

In terms of economy? That's not true at all. Under Clinton there was a surplus for the first time in a very large time. Dubbaya destroyed that surplus. The economy is not doing better now than it was under Clinton. If you think it is than you're having delusions.

Oh here we go again. Typical lies. The economy was slowed down in the final months Clinton was in office, big time. You shouldn't put the blame on Bush. And by the way the surplus was a superficial thing, and it means nothing.

Just because I make comments that are not totally in agreement with the United States does not mean I am against it.

Well it seems to me you are... but that is my view.

I agree that the United States is the best country in the world. I also agree that it does better than almost every other country in the world with regards to human rights and such. But that doesn't mean it couldn't do better, and that doesn't mean I can't think it's not making mistakes now.

Fine go ahead and think that. Just let me be entitled to my opinion. Also people you discuss don't want to see you stating your opinion as it is gold... or the only possible option.

Remember, my disagreeing with Bush does not imply disagreement with the country. The two are not the same thing. Dubbaya is a temporary representative elected by less than half the population of the country. America, as a nation and an idea, is much more long lived.

Bush was elected by the majority.. so don't bring that up anymore.

Yes, I think you disagreeing with Bush at this point, is disagreeing with the country.

You see I am entitled to my opinions about world affairs and about other political groups.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Fez
None of which would of actually worked. So forget it. Their arrogance must be ignored.

Dubbaya never allowed other options to even be considered. How can you possibly say other ideas didn't work? Leftists were not just trying to keep things the way they were. Mostly they wanted to increase pressure on Saddam until weapons were actually found. They still haven't been found, I'll note. And Saddam also never used weapons of mass destruction, even when we annihilated his government.

Note that I'm not saying there aren't any WoMD, just saying that military force was not the right thing to get the WoMD out of Iraq. And I am also saying that the threat presented by Iraq couldn't have been that bad considering that even when faced with the destruction of the government, there was still no retaliation with WoMD.

As far as the crappy state of Iraq right now, I'm not saying Saddam wasn't bad. He was a god awful leader, but things are bad now, even without Saddam. The poor state of things now suggests that aggressive military war was not the best way to rebuild a country. Hopefully the process won't take very long. And hopefully Iraq won't collapse into bloody civil war as so many other former colonies have.

I must dispute that number. Find facts, not bald headed lies. I want to see facts right now.

I don't have statistics with me right now, and I'm kinda in a hurry (stupid prom I don't wanna go to), but I saw the figures more than once. I'll research them and present them later.

Oh here we go again. Typical lies. The economy was slowed down in the final months Clinton was in office, big time. You shouldn't put the blame on Bush. And by the way the surplus was a superficial thing, and it means nothing.

I know the surplus was a superficial thing because the US was still in debt, but it is usually a sign that things are doing pretty well. And Bush has not been successful in helping the economy. Remember how there was absolutely no improvement after the first tax cut?

Fine go ahead and think that. Just let me be entitled to my opinion. Also people you discuss don't want to see you stating your opinion as it is gold... or the only possible option.

When have I done that? Of course you can have your opinions. If you don't want people to offer their opinions and criticize yours, get off the board. This is a place of discussion. What am I supposed to do?

Bush was elected by the majority.. so don't bring that up anymore.

Yes, I think you disagreeing with Bush at this point, is disagreeing with the country.

Bush was elected by the majority of the electorate, which is what counts, but not by a majority of the voters. That is very true and not difficult to research. All I'm saying is that he doesn't really wholly represent the country when most people didn't even want him in office. I don't see why I have to agree with him.

Do you think disagreeing with Bush is disagreeing with the country because we're in such danger? We need complete unity? If so, realize that the threat to our country isn't that great. How many terrorists attacks in the United States since 9/11?

You see I am entitled to my opinions about world affairs and about other political groups.

I am the opinion Nazi! No more opinions for Fez!


Why do you think I am not allowing you to have your own views and opinions? I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to have your opinions.

[Giancarlo]

I don't have the time for this. You continue to ***** and moan about opinions I have. These are my opinions and you are not changing them. I am sorry but that is the way it is. You can continue with your little petty lies. You are arrogant too.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by elijah


I think its highly amusing that its the best people can do against the anti-war movement. One would have saved so much more by not going to war in the first place, not that money means anything to me for one, in this debate, althuogh the americans... a different story.

This isn't the best. There have been far better.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Fez
I don't have the time for this. You continue to ***** and moan about opinions I have. These are my opinions and you are not changing them. I am sorry but that is the way it is. You can continue with your little petty lies. You are arrogant too.

Arrogance, Fez? You have stated that you will not change you opinions, suggesting that you believe they are superior to everyone else's. That sounds like arrogance, if you ask me.

But if you don't wish to learn, then that's fine. I debate on Apolyton for two reasons Fez. I do it to see if I can't convince others of what I think, and I do it to learn. The learning process does not necessarily mean that I have my opinions disproved or any such thing, it just means that my view of the world is expanded a bit.

You're never able to see the other side of the argument. I was very wishy washy on what to do about the Iraq for a very long time, and I'm still not sure what is right. I'm not some die-hard leftist commie peacenik. I actually think about things before I come to conclusions. Or I at least try.

But you're done thinking. You believe what you believe so much that you won't let anything change your mind. You won't even consider alternate viewpoints. I find that very disappointing.

And I still don't see why you think I am attacking your opinions. If I am attacking anything, I am attacking your inability to change your opinions, not the content of your opinions.

[Giancarlo]

Well Mr. self proclaimed idealist.. let me tell you something... read the first quote in my signature. Then get back to me.

I know. I won't consider alternative viewpoints. I do listen but I won't consider them. That is called conviction. If you have a problem with that please disregard yourself right now. Call me a fanatic or a diehard. I am not going to fold to any leftist infact I will fight to the very end.