Massive World Protests Tomorrow

[Sava]

With fools like Lott in government, and Strom Thurmond not so far removed, Agathon is more correct than you give him credit. But at least a lot of that racist furvor has gone away. But only because it isn't as socially acceptable. How wrong can Agathon be when some Southern States still have parts of the Confederate flag in their State flags?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by faded glory
One thing that bothers me. I see all these signs and stuff the protesters are carrying. Half of them have nothing to do with war. Its about Kyoto, Israel, World Debt, and other stuff. The protest gave the impression it was more Anti-Bush than Anti-War..

Ah, the penny's dropped. All these issues are connected and the protestors are smart enough to see that:

Kyoto and the World Court are institutions that most people think should be given a try for all our sakes. The United States thinks differently for completely selfish reasons. Ditto with regard to obeying the UN Security Council. So the protest is in part about US unilateralism which is, correctly in my view, seen to be motivated by nothing more than selfishness.

Israel is the US chief vassal in the Middle East. It is a country that habitually defies the UN Security Council and harbors weapons of mass destruction. There is a double standard here - which furthers the impression that the US is acting from self interest and discounting the interests of everyone else.

It shouldn't be too hard to see why globalisation and third world poverty are relevant to international relations. After all we could feed the world tomorrow and cure most ailments if we really wanted to, but the greed of the powerful gets in the way.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

It's stupid stereotypes like this that hurt your case and make you look like a jackass.

Can't take a joke, huh?

[DanS]

Unless the question is: "Do you agree that the US should wage a series of agressive, pre-emptive wars to protect and advance its position as the sole global superpower, irrespective of the will of any other state, states, or the United Nations?"

The question is fairly muscular and has 66% support...

"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power? Would you say you favor/oppose military action against Iraq strongly or only somewhat?"

The following has 50% support...

"What if the United Nations opposes such action - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

The following has 57% support...

"What if the United Nations opposes such action but some U.S. allies such as Great Britain, Australia and Italy support it - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can't take a joke, huh?

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why was there no emphasis on the suffereing of the people of Iraq in these rallies?

What? That's the entire point of these protests, to try to stop the people of Iraq from having to experience another war.

At the Toronto march, one of the first speakers was a 15 year old girl who's family fled Iraq during the first gulf war, and there where a number of other refuges marching aswell. Many of the signs emphasised this, and there where very few that wheren't specifically about the war.

[SlowwHand]

avatar sized

Ready for use.

[Andydog]

Goodness me there are many posting on this thread who seem to be missing several important points. Here's a Kiwi perspective on things:

It looks ominously like Bush and his cronies are going to war - with or without the UN. Whilst we in NZ are half a world away from this problem in distance we are of course going to be caught up in whatever transpires.

We are feeling just as concerned and insecure as most others around the world. When we saw the terrible events of 9/11 we felt for the victims and their families, and all the other people involved. We struggled to understand why those people were prepared to sacrifice their lives and so many others by flying those planes into the twin towers. We understood Bush's wish to track down and deal with the terrorists who were behind this attack. We sent some of our troops to seek out Bin Laden and his men in Afghanistan. Most New Zealanders supported this because what was done on 9/11 can never be justified and so many innocent lives were lost.

But now we see this imminent threat of war with Iraq and we cannot see the connection. Saddam is undoubtedly an oppressive, cruel dictator, with much blood on his hands. It is a pity his own people haven't been able to rise up against him, or that he wasn't taken out at the time of the Gulf War. But there have been others like him in other countries and the US has not seen fit to attack their countries.

I see little connection proven between Saddam's regime and Al Quaeda - in fact it would appear that Bin Laden has been openly critical of Hussein in the past. The UN inspectors seem to be finding nothing of any substance and, if anything, they seem to be refuting all the claims from the Bush regime that he has all these weapons of mass destruction. And even if he did have some is there any evidence he has any intention of using them against any other country? He got a tremendous beating the last time he tried that - he must know he would be on a hiding to nothing. It seems to me that it's a major arrogance and a great hypocrisy for Bush to be itching to use his weapons of mass destruction to crush another regime that is already on its knees, with so many of its people suffering tremendous hardship from the sanctions in place.

I see Bush as a far bigger problem in the world than Hussein is right now, simply because he is hell-bent on using his war machine to prove his power and gain more control in the world. He says that he must protect the US from terrorism, but he hasn't clearly shown that Hussein or his people are behind the terrorism. It seems that he must make an example of someone - he cannot find Bin Laden, so Hussein will do. Quite frankly I don't think he knows how to deal with terrorists - he doesn't know where they are, or what they are doing, and more importantly, he doesn't seem to understand the factors that breed terrorism. Wouldn't it be great if Bush could use all the wealth and power at his disposal to do more to counter the causes of terrorism in the world - the differences between the haves and the have nots - famine, disease, ignorance, religious oppression, trade sanctions, and so on. Instead he is creating a wider chasm between the different peoples in the world, he is fanning the flames of fear and resentment.

If he strikes Iraq he will be doing more than any other person in history to provoke terrorism, because his actions will be seen by millions around the world as unfair, unjust and the actions of a playground bully boy who can only get what he wants by brute force.

The vast majority of New Zealanders agree with our Prime Minister when she says that we do not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the US and their handful of allies. She has said that the UN should decide what to do about Iraq, once the inspectors have had time to complete their work, and she has said that New Zealand, as a member of UN, will support its decisions on how to deal with the Iraq situation.

If the UN does intervene in Iraq it is likely New Zealand will send in supplies, medical assistance and be involved in peacekeeping, as they have done in other trouble spots of the world. So we are prepared to play our part as a member of the world community, BUT: We are not willing to be dragged into an unsanctioned war.

[SlowwHand]

[Sava]

I stand behind my stupid, childish remarks!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Andydog
The vast majority of New Zealanders agree with our Prime Minister when she says that we do not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the US and their handful of allies.

'Handful' is precious.

LOTR was made in NZ, wasn´t it? Wonderful country. If I *ever* considered moving to somewhere else, NZ would be top of my list.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

Apparently, you don't.

Are you familar with the English concept of a "wind up"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

Can't face the fact that whatever he thinks there most definetly IS a silent majority.

[Agathon]

If you say so, IS then is must be true. But some proof would be nice. All you fascists (sorry, "conservatives") seem to be genuinely annoyed that the majority of world opinion is against you - as it should be - after all, you're nuts. This seems to be the underlying cause of the whining on this thread.

Anyway, polls on the war question aren't up to much unless the polled persons are informed about the events concerning which they are being polled, which they aren't (esp in the US). After all a significant proportion of the US population think that SH was responsible for 911. In any case, no one has asked my poll question, which adequately represents what's going on IMHO. If the so called majority of US citizens did answer yes to my question, I (and many others) would start sending OBL and hsi friends donations as they would then be the lesser of two evils.

Nuff said.

[devilmunchkin]

here is something that bothers me:
the majority of the WORLD (and that is ALOT of people, to put it mildly) is against war and for peace. How is it, then, that a few old, male farts can pull the entire world's reign's and command that we go create mass destruction and blood shed? what gives this FEW guys this RIGHT? and can it be stopped?