Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Massive World Protests Tomorrow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The diplomat
    Heck, I bet if France were to go to war against the US to stop our "evil anti-environmentalist policies", I bet these wackos would be all for it.
    If the French can win, they should go for it.
    Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

    Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.

    Comment


    • You don't necessarily have to be a pacifist to protest the war. For example, I am primarily against the war because we have much more pressing concerns in our country that Bush seems to be ignoring. I supported the afghan conflict as a just war, and I think this one is not. I don't think thats being inconsistent or politically biased.
      "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." --MLK Jr.

      Comment


      • DetroitDave

        And there's a huge consensus among the ignorant Hawks that anyone who's against military action as now proposed is against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter.
        To us, it is the BEAST.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DetroitDave
          You don't necessarily have to be a pacifist to protest the war.
          Who brought this idea up that you should be a pacifist? There are just and unjust wars, and this one is clearly the latter.
          Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

          Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sava
            Pacifism is not against the use of force at all cost and all situations. It is against the use of pre-emptive offensive force.
            Obviously there are different shades of pacifism.

            But the traditional definition of a pacifist is someone who opposes all forms of violence.

            from the merriam-webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
            Main Entry: pac·i·fism
            Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
            Function: noun
            Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
            Date: 1902
            1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
            2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance
            Note that the traditional definition says nothing about whether a war is preemptive or not. It simply says an opposition to war in general as a means of settling disputes.
            'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
            G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

              Who brought this idea up that you should be a pacifist? There are just and unjust wars, and this one is clearly the latter.
              So it is not just to remove a dangerous dictator who is oppressing his own people and has banned weapons of mass destruction?

              NATO went to war against Milosevic to stop his war atrocities. Was that a just war? And if so, how come it is not a just war then to stop Saddam from his human rights violations that he commits against his own people?

              In your view, what is a just war?
              'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
              G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"

              Comment


              • As a means of settling a dispute... exactly... that's my point. Not all pacifists would be against a war against Hitler, for instance. Just wanted to point out the shades of gray.
                To us, it is the BEAST.

                Comment


                • diplomat... NATO's war against Milosevic was not just. And there's a reason his Hague trial is going nowhere... because there were no atrocities outside of normal conflict casualties. Innocent civilians weren't being put to death in camps... illegal aliens and terrorists were simply being deported.
                  To us, it is the BEAST.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The diplomat
                    So it is not just to remove a dangerous dictator who is oppressing his own people and has banned weapons of mass destruction?
                    You say you oppose the fact that he has banned weapons of mass destruction?
                    Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

                    Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.

                    Comment


                    • I think that a pacifist is a very specific person that is always against war. Everyone is against war in general, but support certain wars because they believe thay are just. But not everyone is a pacifist.
                      "When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
                      "All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
                      "Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui

                      Comment


                      • I just noticed something.

                        People who are anti-war are very vocal. And great at influencing the media.

                        But nobody vocally supports the war.

                        I say we organize a pro-war rally. I could make a sign that says killing makes me feel good.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sava
                          diplomat... NATO's war against Milosevic was not just. And there's a reason his Hague trial is going nowhere... because there were no atrocities outside of normal conflict casualties. Innocent civilians weren't being put to death in camps... illegal aliens and terrorists were simply being deported.
                          So then you would agree with me that the war against Milosevic was not just and should not have happened. I just wish people were as eager to take to the streets then as they seem to be now.

                          The webster definition of "just" is:
                          acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good
                          Thus a "just war" is a military confrontation that is acting or in conformity with what is morally upright.

                          A war against iraq would liberate the Iraqi people from terrible inhumane oppression. Liberating people from oppression is morally upright. Furthermore, a war against Iraq would eliminate weapons of mass destruction that could be used to kill countless innocent people. Surely, getting rid of weapons that could kill so many people is also a good cause. So in both counts a war against Iraq has moral goals.

                          Last, a war against Iraq would be conducted in such a way as to minimize collateral damage and innocent loss of life with precision guided munition etc. Surely fighting in a way that seeks to reduce collateral damage and innocent loss of life is also morally upright. Thus, the methods would be morally upright.

                          A war against Iraq would be moral in both its goals and means. So in all respects, it would be a just war.
                          'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
                          G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The diplomat
                            ...
                            A war against Iraq would be moral in both its goals and means. So in all respects, it would be a just war.
                            *This is plain silly, all of it.

                            *A just war is a war of self-defense.

                            *No one appointed the United States to the office of World Judge.

                            *They have appointed themselves, which means they are usurpers.

                            *Usurpers, particularly powerful ones, are dangerous, and should be harshly dealt with.
                            Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

                            Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.

                            Comment


                            • I agree, and we should do this the way we should probably give Austria back to Germany also.
                              We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ted Striker
                                I agree, and we should do this the way we should probably give Austria back to Germany also.
                                The Soviet Union contributed ten times as much to the defeat of Hitler as the US.

                                By your logic, the Soviet Union should have been appointed World Judge.
                                Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

                                Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X