Westerns as human shields in Iraq

[Kramerman]

Comrade Tribune, you have ignorance oozing out of every orifice on your body.

As for the human shields, i think it is sad they would want to do this. Gah... ignorance, activism, and geopolitics dont mix. I really hope, for their sake and ours that they chicken out before the bombs start falling.

[JohnT]

Aphorisms...

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Just because the depth of my wisdom always escapes you.

Even the smallest child is taught not to dive in the shallow parts of the pool...

[Japher]

I think that you missed the sarcasm, Japher.

No. I got it.

Still, do you have a better recipe for helping Iraq win the war? If it´s plausible, we can talk.

What war? If there is a war I wouldn't want Iraq to win and wouldn't mind the US plowing through those idiots to win.

I do however have a different stance on how to prevent it. I feel that these ppl think they are protesting the aggressor, when IMO it is Iraq that is the aggressor. Nonetheless protesting is a silly way to get what you want. Most of the time people in power just see it as whines and not as actual complaints. Instead of speaking out for what they don't like they should instead focus on what they do like.

Example: People protest agains nuclear power. It is dirty, dangerous, and evil and it should be eliminated. That is the general consensus of those who protest it. What about those who support it? They look at ways to make it less dirty and dangerous, and therefore less evil. In the end you no longer see these people who are against because the issues have changed. They now move on to saving the whales thinking they had a hand in changing it, when the actually did not.

I know, a lot of people feel that by complaining about something more attention will be drawn to fix it. Yet, it is those who support something that actually get the job fixed. Instead of a supporting a ban on something one should be supporting the fix of something.

Back to the Iraq case. The problem is everyone is fearing war and they don't want it. The US says that if Iraq does bend to their wishes that their will be a war so the people protest the US. No one bothers to asks themselves why the US wants this war. Oil, broken treaties, GW cleaning up daddies mess, blah, blah, blah... So they all head to Iraq to stand against the US (traitors) or the demonstrate in the US against the impending decision.

I see signs that say "No to War" and other clever things. What don't I see signs that "Give Peace A Chance" like I use to. Why don't I see signs that say "Cooperate Sadam... Please" or "We can work this out"? Why is the attack on the US why is the attack on the side that did uphold their end of the cease fire? Oil?

As I see it their are several options:

1. War, and that would suck
2. The US leaves them alone, and that will eventually suck
3. Sadam cooperating... why can't that work?

Why can't he live up to a deal he made several years ago? If he would just do as he was asked, and what he agreed to do then no one will get hurt and everyone will be the better.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Japher
Why is the attack on the US why is the attack on the side that did uphold their end of the cease fire?

They didn´t uphold anything. No non-flying zone was agreed upon. Enforcing that was the first break of the cease-fire.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


They didn´t uphold anything. No non-flying zone was agreed upon. Enforcing that was the first break of the cease-fire.

IIRC, the cease-fire never said we would stop enforcing the no-fly zones, it just never did say we would.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Example: People protest agains nuclear power. It is dirty, dangerous, and evil and it should be eliminated. That is the general consensus of those who protest it. What about those who support it? They look at ways to make it less dirty and dangerous, and therefore less evil. In the end you no longer see these people who are against because the issues have changed. They now move on to saving the whales thinking they had a hand in changing it, when the actually did not.

Yes, because of course we know that corporations and the rich always do things for the betterment of mankind when there is no profit motive involved. No protests, no incentive to clean nuclear power up.

According Nixon, the massive demos in 1969 led him to change his mind about nuking North Vietnam. He probably wouldn't have done it anyway, but the half million people marching against the war convinced him it would have been political suicide.

No, could you please explain to me how Iraq is an aggressor against the United States?

[monkspider]

God bless these noble protesters They truly have a great deal of courage. "Blessed are the peacemakers".

[chequita guevara]

If I thought it would do any good, I'd do it myself. However, I don't feel like sacrificing my life for something that has zero chance of success.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According Nixon, the massive demos in 1969 led him to change his mind about nuking North Vietnam.

Oh please. You don't seriously believe that was ever a serious consideration, do you?

PS Could you even afford a plane ticket to Iraq?

[chequita guevara]

I don't know how serious it was. Back when I was a kid, my dad told me he wished Nixon had gone through with his plan to nuke Vietnam.

I was wrong about the source, though. It was Daniel Ellsberg talking about Nixon, not Nixon himself.

[Japher]

No, could you please explain to me how Iraq is an aggressor against the United States?

That iss not my intention, nor do I want to get into that. Reasons for and against war can be argued until one is blue in the face without either side submitting.

What I was only trying to get at was that protesting in general is, IMO, a waste of breath; there are better ways to get what you want done then by just whinning about it.

According Nixon, the massive demos in 1969 led him to change his mind about nuking North Vietnam. He probably wouldn't have done it anyway, but the half million people marching against the war convinced him it would have been political suicide.

This is just the kind of response of was hoping to receive. Thank you.

If you could cite some reference where they indicate Nixon's thought process behind not nuking N. Korea I would gladly read it. Yet, 0.5 million people is not really a good representation of the voting public. I must admit that that many people would make some kind of statement. I just don't think it is a big enough statement to make any kind of difference in the political arena.

---Those with something to complain about do it the loudest. Those who are completely content have nothing to say.---

I think it should be the other way around. Yet, if that were so "protests" for the war may be just too big.

The best way for those who are heading to Iraq to protest are wasting their time. They should, instead, fight their battle within the government. If it is such a valid point they are making then someone will listen.

[Kramerman]

it would have been political suicide.

huh, that seemed to have happened anyway

[RGBVideo]

It is noble to stand up for your ideals, and even more noble to try and do something to see that these ideals are upheld. Yet, to die for them ensures that there will eventually be no one left with your ideals and that you will have failed.

I feel sorry for these stupid people.

I agree with this guy here.
There are better ways to stop the war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
That iss not my intention, nor do I want to get into that. Reasons for and against war can be argued until one is blue in the face without either side submitting.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place. You can't drop a turd in the middle of the swimming pool and expect no one to comment.

If you could cite some reference where they indicate Nixon's thought process behind not nuking N. Korea [Vietnam] I would gladly read it. Yet, 0.5 million people is not really a good representation of the voting public. I must admit that that many people would make some kind of statement. I just don't think it is a big enough statement to make any kind of difference in the political arena.

It works because in both the public's and the government's mind, if half a million people show up to protest something, then many more people are also opposed to it. Works along the same principle as sending a letter to your congressman. My understanding is that each letter is considered to represent 10,000 people.

Getting a half million people to D.C. to march means that there are tens of millions of people (at least) who are opposed to the war, since most people can't take off work or afford to travel across the country to register their opinion in person.

As for Nixon nuking the North Vietnamese, go read Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Kramerman
IIRC, the cease-fire never said we would stop enforcing the no-fly zones, it just never did say we would.

Do you understand the meaning of the term 'cease fire'?