Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[chequita guevara]

I never thought I'd say this, and I know some bastard like Dino or Black Dragon is gonna sig quote me on it but,

YAY REPUBLICANS!







I feel ill.

[Chris 62]

You know Che, I find it laughable that people's opinion is predicated solely on what other's do, namely, the UN thing.

They say "You can't attack unless we have allies, THEN I would agree!"

Why?

If your against a war, why would it make any difference what other people thought, is it that you hold other's opinions so high you can't make up your own mind?
(not you personally Che, I know your totally against, I respect your opinion because you don't attach the foolishness that so many of our "friends" here do)

I laugh at the anti-war front for ENTIRILY that reason, they are against war, but if somebody else agree, then it's A OK!

Shows me the conviction of Stefu's Cataloupe.

Either you think getting rid of Saddam is the thing to do or you don't, forget all the smokescreens and buzz word bull about "unilateral actions", "Imperialism", and all that other crude.

Just leaderless lemmings looking for somebody to tell em what to think.

[MikeH]

I could say the same about anyone supporting the war. Anyone who supports it is just believing Bush's advisors propoganda.

A better analogy is that we're leaderless lemmings trying to work things out for ourselves rather than lemmings following the leader over the cliff.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
and I know some bastard like Dino or Black Dragon is gonna sig quote me on it but,

[DinoDoc]

Is the UN in danger of meeting it own proverbial Ethiopia?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MikeH
I could say the same about anyone supporting the war. Anyone who supports it is just believing Bush's advisors propoganda.

Your missing the point Mikey, not talking about whether war is correct or not, I'm pointing out how rediculous it is to have the idea that it's OK if Paris, Beijing and Moscow agree.

A better analogy is that we're leaderless lemmings trying to work things out for ourselves rather than lemmings following the leader over the cliff.

Not at all, you look at presented facts and make up your mind.

All that other stuff is simply people affraid of war grasping for a reason to avoid it.

I'm convinced NOTHING would motivate a large portion of the anti-war crowd to fight, they remind me of the jews of Germany "It will get better, go along, don't make waves" "Better to do nothing then to take a stand".
Remember how that turned out Mikey?

[MikeH]

The point of supporting it if the other countries agree is that it means there is compelling evidence that it's a good idea. Good enough evidence that would persuade the sceptical nations.

I think the German Jews were more of the opinion that if they said anything they'd be thrown into concentration camps or prisons. That would make me think very hard before protesting.

[Sandman]

Not everyone who is anti-war thinks that a UN rubberstamp will make it right. I don't.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush hasn't been seriously advocating inspections. Bush is only looking for an excuse for war, and is using Iraq to push all other topics of discussion out of the public consciusness. If it weren't for Iraq, this election would be about the inept handling of the economy, Bush's ties to corrupt CEOs, his failure to catch OBL, and the Administrations flubbing of pre-9/11 intelligence.

Iraq isn't the real issue here.

They used to say the same thing about Clinton and his various scandals. Kosovo is about Lewinsky!

Clinton's actions in the Balkans were entirely justifiable and laudable. It was the Republicans who were then playing politics with national security. Today it is the Democrats who have been delaying and footdragging for political reasons only. These same Democrats were all for eliminating Saddam when Clinton was president.

I recall now when the sanctions/inspections regime went seriously wrong. The trouble started with Saddam tried to assassinate the former president of the United States during a visit to Kuwait. Clinton didn't do anything to this extreme provocation, a virtual declaration of war on the United States. Saddam then knew he could do anything with Clinton in power and get away with it.

We cannot indefinitely live in a quasi state of war with Saddam. We need an exit strategy. Every year we stay in the ME makes matters worse. We need to finish the Gulf War, one way or the other.

[Bosh]

If your against a war, why would it make any difference what other people thought, is it that you hold other's opinions so high you can't make up your own mind?

Yeah, good point I really don't give a flying **** what the UN says about the war, but on the other hand what the Arab states say about the war is enourmously important, since one of the major stated goals of the war is the increase of stability in the mid-east. But this is kind of a lose-lose situation for the US. Basically, if the arab regimes come out in support of the US they'll further alienate them from the arab street which is STRONGLY opposed to the war and only lend further crecedence to Islamist propaganda that the problems of the arab world are rooted in the corruption, secularism and willingness of co-operate with the West on the part of the current "Pharoahs" of the Arab regimes. Having Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. do what they did in the Gulf War all over again would be the best thing that could possibly happen from al-Qaida's perspective.
On the other hand, if the Arab states (with the exception of pocket-nations like Qatar) refuse to support the war, and this looks like what will happen what with the arab foreign ministers issueing a joint statement that the war would "open the gates of hell" and whatnot, then there would be massive alienation between the US and the Arab regimes that wouldn't do anything for the stability in the region. Also isn't it a bit strange for the US to say that its doing the Arab world a favor in this war when the Arab world is screaming at it not to attack Iraq?

As far as the three non-Arab countries in the region you've got other problems. Turkey will probably only help the US if the autonomous kurdish region in northern iraq (one of the few good things to come out of the gulf war) gets crushed, while Iran would probably only do much if the Southern Iraqi Shia get some kind of increased autonomy/power which would make the Saudis go nuts and would do a lot to destroy to destroy the US's alliance with the Saudis. That leaves Israel. I for one don't see how the US sticking a huge stick in the Mid-east bee-hive will do anything to increase Israel's security, and if this war is about making sure that Iraqi weopons don't get pointed at Israel (because Saddam certainly isn't anywhere CLOSE to getting delivery systems that could get weopons anywhere CLOSE to the US) then they really don't deserve American blood being shed on their behalf until, at the very least, they get their asses out of Gaza and the West Bank.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MikeH
The point of supporting it if the other countries agree is that it means there is compelling evidence that it's a good idea. Good enough evidence that would persuade the sceptical nations.

Considering that nations never operate off moral agendas, it would be more of "what do we get out of it", not compelling evidence.
The US gets rid of a major pain in the ass and shows that rubbing it in our face gets you gone, there is the US motivation, promise Russia money and China trade and they will sudenlly agree there is "compelling evidence".
Do you believe differently?
(keep in mid only the security council matters, we all know the general assembly is uselss)

I think the German Jews were more of the opinion that if they said anything they'd be thrown into concentration camps or prisons. That would make me think very hard before protesting.

Basically, they feared speaking up, because they had seen anti-semitic periods in Europe in the past, and survived by saying nothing, but in the Nazi case, the rules changed and they ended up dead.
Move foward to the modern era, we have seen terrorism before, but never suicide attacks such as flying airliners into buildings, this is a "changing of the rules", and proof that nothing will restrain such enemies, no amount of talk or promises.
So against this kind of enemy, you must fight, or be killed, the "do nothing" option will only lead to more and more 9/11s.
Most here don't seem to understand human nature, they say "you will just make them madder", actually, man is easily intimidated, smack hard enough and even the toughest lose heart after a time if they see the cause is hopless.
Saddam acts as he does because he sees the protests and the arguments in the west, and believes nothing will happen, it's all talk.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Considering that nations never operate off moral agendas, it would be more of "what do we get out of it", not compelling evidence.
The US gets rid of a major pain in the ass and shows that rubbing it in our face gets you gone, there is the US motivation, promise Russia money and China trade and they will sudenlly agree there is "compelling evidence".
Do you believe differently?
(keep in mid only the security council matters, we all know the general assembly is uselss)

Basically, they feared speaking up, because they had seen anti-semitic periods in Europe in the past, and survived by saying nothing, but in the Nazi case, the rules changed and they ended up dead.
Move foward to the modern era, we have seen terrorism before, but never suicide attacks such as flying airliners into buildings, this is a "changing of the rules", and proof that nothing will restrain such enemies, no amount of talk or promises.
So against this kind of enemy, you must fight, or be killed, the "do nothing" option will only lead to more and more 9/11s.
Most here don't seem to understand human nature, they say "you will just make them madder", actually, man is easily intimidated, smack hard enough and even the toughest lose heart after a time if they see the cause is hopless.
Saddam acts as he does because he sees the protests and the arguments in the west, and believes nothing will happen, it's all talk.

Chris62, to be fair, the Jews were killed only because of WWII. Hitler order the killing to begin when Germans soldiers began to die in large numbers.

Appeasement cost tens of millions their lives, including six million Jews.

[Chris 62]

Please Ned, don't attempt to turn this into a WWII thread.

The final solution was ordered while Germany still had a chance, not as a desperation meassure, Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko

Yeah, good point I really don't give a flying **** what the UN says about the war, but on the other hand what the Arab states say about the war is enourmously important, since one of the major stated goals of the war is the increase of stability in the mid-east. But this is kind of a lose-lose situation for the US. Basically, if the arab regimes come out in support of the US they'll further alienate them from the arab street which is STRONGLY opposed to the war and only lend further crecedence to Islamist propaganda that the problems of the arab world are rooted in the corruption, secularism and willingness of co-operate with the West on the part of the current "Pharoahs" of the Arab regimes. Having Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. do what they did in the Gulf War all over again would be the best thing that could possibly happen from al-Qaida's perspective.
On the other hand, if the Arab states (with the exception of pocket-nations like Qatar) refuse to support the war, and this looks like what will happen what with the arab foreign ministers issueing a joint statement that the war would "open the gates of hell" and whatnot, then there would be massive alienation between the US and the Arab regimes that wouldn't do anything for the stability in the region. Also isn't it a bit strange for the US to say that its doing the Arab world a favor in this war when the Arab world is screaming at it not to attack Iraq?

As far as the three non-Arab countries in the region you've got other problems. Turkey will probably only help the US if the autonomous kurdish region in northern iraq (one of the few good things to come out of the gulf war) gets crushed, while Iran would probably only do much if the Southern Iraqi Shia get some kind of increased autonomy/power which would make the Saudis go nuts and would do a lot to destroy to destroy the US's alliance with the Saudis. That leaves Israel. I for one don't see how the US sticking a huge stick in the Mid-east bee-hive will do anything to increase Israel's security, and if this war is about making sure that Iraqi weopons don't get pointed at Israel (because Saddam certainly isn't anywhere CLOSE to getting delivery systems that could get weopons anywhere CLOSE to the US) then they really don't deserve American blood being shed on their behalf until, at the very least, they get their asses out of Gaza and the West Bank.

There is a lot I agree with here. If it were not for Israel, I would tell the erstwhile Arab allies that if the UN does not act decisively or if you do not support us independently of the UN in resolving the matter of Saddam, we are withdrawing from the region. You can then deal with Saddam all by yourself.

However, I understand that all of our former Arab allies, save for Syria, are "privately" on board for a renewed war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Please Ned, don't attempt to turn this into a WWII thread.

The final solution was ordered while Germany still had a chance, not as a desperation meassure, Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

I am not Chris62. We can debate the particulars of the Holocast later. However, if WWII never happened, the 6 million would not have died. German Jews would have been expelled, certainly. But, Hitler would not have had access to the majority of Jews who died.

My point it, the war was caused by appeasement. There seems to be a consensus view on this.

It is my point here that we are in the position we are in because of early appeasement by Clinton and Annan. We can avoid war now only by credibly threatening to use force if Saddam does not comply with ALL UN resolutions.