Screw these anti-war demonstrators

[resinate]

Quote from rs7:



...So if my statement appears to be contradictory, well, that is a result of two very strong feelings contradicting each other within my brain. I admit I have a problem with this. I can't see in black and white only. Nor do I want to. So I hope for a solution that will be short of war with a nation. But I am not so idealistic as to think it worth the risk of sacrificing our world in the hope of an easy solution. I never claimed to be a pacifist. I just claimed to be anti-war. I hope the distinction is not too unclear. Not too "contradictory". I personally have no problem making the distinction. War sucks. But when there is NO alternative, well then what sucks becomes a necessity. Hopefully we will find a cleaner way out of this mess. It has been done before. Kennedy avoided a war that was a lot more imminent. A danger that was a lot more "clear and present". (and therefore constitutionally permitted a "first strike" unlike what we are facing now)....

Peace,
rs7

Right on rs7!

Questioning this war for most of us has nothing to do with any affection or trust towards Hussain.

From everything I have read, he is truly a visious, paranoid, and murderous sadist. Also I would agree he would very destructive if cornered. However, I think we are all so deeply lost in the brainwashing, that we have lost track of the history showing that Hussain follows realpolitic and shows no signs being suicidal. Who is he going to attack and hope to survive at this point???? Why would he ever put himself in the position of being cornered? As others have pointed out, he is only happy with power.

Look at how brilliantly he has been acting the last few months. Opening the prisons, cooperating with inspectors and generally putting on a pretty good show. In terms of preventing him from acting outside his borders, its clear even the minimal presence of the US in Saudi Arabia over the last 10 years, coupled of course with weekly bombings, has been more than enough to keep Iraq in its box.

For probably just a tiny fraction of what we're about to spend on this war/occupation, we could continue the arms inspections and leave 1/10th of our current force in Kuwait and Quatar. Maybe we could even cut back the bombings to monthly. Saddam would be rendered paralyzed as he is now. According to the US State Dept, Iraq has never been involved in international terrorism (only neighborhood stuff in Iran and Israel).

Rs7 eloquently waxed about how much getting rid of Saddam is so just. I would agree, though I can't imagine that has anything to do with this war. Many dictators with almost as much blood on their hands are our allies in this war. We just love the totalitarian Stalinists from Central Asia who are now on our side.

OK, so why the need to brainwash everyone into thinking Hussain presents an imminent threat? Maybe, as others have said its not oil. I can't see outdoing Daddy as enough of a reason. What then?

If its not just oil, my guess would be that its just a strategic show of raw destructive power. The 9/11 enemy continues to completely allude us and/or reside in nations where we are not free to go after him. Afghanistan continues to deteriorate and Pakistan is grows more unstable. The US economy continues to flounder.

So what can the US do? This: Conquer a misbehaving state and set up a huge military occupation in the neighborhood of the enemy's family (Saudi Arabia). You show him how tough and serious we are. You scare him. Then because of our selection of Iraq, we are able to bankrupt him through breaking the hold of OPEC and even hope to pay the bills through pumping Iraq's oil.

Thoughts? I'm still real puzzled about why this war is so imminent and supposedly necessary.

 

[wild]

France Warns U.S. It Will Not Back Early War on Iraq
By JULIA PRESTON


UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 — In unusually blunt terms aimed at pre-empting the United States, France said today that it would not support any Security Council resolution for military action against Iraq in the coming weeks.

France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, accused Washington of "impatience" in the confrontation with Baghdad over illegal weapons and added, "We believe that nothing today justifies envisaging military action."

In a highly public rebuff, Mr. de Villepin would not rule out the possibility that France would use its veto power if the United States presses the Council later this month to authorize war against Iraq for failing to disarm.
...

Mr. de Villepin warned that if Washington did not win support in the Council and opted to go to war with only a handful of allies, it would be "a victory for the law of the strongest."
...

full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html

regard

wild

 

[Kicking]

I am so glad to see all these antiwar protests, they were 250,000 in D.C. from what I heard. In Santa Barbara where I spent a couple of years they had the biggest demonstration in 20 years with signs like BUSH , YOU EMBARRASS US. As I said there are lots of people in America who really do not share the hostile rethoric of the White House, but you rarely hear about the people of goodwill these days.

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from Kicking:

I am so glad to see all these antiwar protests, they were 250,000 in D.C. from what I heard. In Santa Barbara where I spent a couple of years they had the biggest demonstration in 20 years with signs like BUSH , YOU EMBARRASS US. As I said there are lots of people in America who really do not share the hostile rhetoric of the White House, but you rarely hear about the people of goodwill these days.

The whole thing is bullshit. If you want to sell a war to the American people, then show us the evidence that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism. Why send over 100,000 troops to that region without showing the moms, dads, wives and husbands of these troops what evidence really exists for this war?

Where is Osama? Why aren't we hearing about him? What the hell is going on in Afghanistan? What are our priorities? Are we just going to attack every country because they might attack us -- or they have the capability to attack us?

However, we also have to back our troops. I never understood why one American would piss on another soldier (Vietnam) simply because they were FORCED TO GO. What kind of ignorance is that? "Oh, you got drafted and served in Vietnam and we think that the war is BS -- therefore you suck!" ..... ????

Likewise, if we're going to go in and "disarm" Iraq, what precisely are we going to take out of there? Empty shell canisters and old zip-lock bags of Anthrax?

Bush's administration is bullshit -- the anti-war demonstrators are bullshit -- the entire thing is just bullshit. Have you noticed that they send Powell out to deliver the news every time they come up with a new announcement? Is Powell just whoring himself out to that administration? Does he really support this bullshit?

Where's Cheney? Is he still alive? I haven't heard a peep from him or seen anything relating to him on the news. CNN is too busy running IRAQ headlines every day on their main page.

There are facts, but they're being twisted by the politicians to adhere to their own agenda.

So let's just go in and attack them. Let's not pretend that we're going in for some more noble reason. And Bush, do you have pictures or hard evidence that Iraq is linked to terrorism? If not, then what is with this war-hawk dog and pony show?

 

[Madison]

Quote from aphexcoil:


Why send over 100,000 troops to that region without showing the moms, dads, wives and husbands of these troops what evidence really exists for this war?

Where is Osama? Why aren't we hearing about him? What the hell is going on in Afghanistan?

the entire thing is just bullshit.

do you have pictures or hard evidence that Iraq is linked to terrorism? If not, then what is with this war-hawk dog and pony show?

great questions.

Independent of whether war is justified or not, 'wmd' or not, good or bad, etc., this is an interesting example of politics and group thinking.

for anyone who has asked how people let their leaders draw them into the horror of war, here you have it. in 16 months, they have managed to get a large number of Americans into a state of frenzy in anticipation of killing people in a country they can't even find on a map, on no more than unsubstantiated claims, 30-second McHistory lessons, and asinine slogans.

reasonable demands for justification or evidentiary presentation are met with draft-dodging career politicians lecturing the population that they aren't to be trusted with the reasons. stories change, urgent table-pounding calls for blood one week are replaced with patience when the polls dictate, experts are put on an endless tv-interview parade to sell it. any attention given to the obvious profit motives and special interest groups involved is met, ironically, with accusations of 'unpatriotism'. and despite the lessons of history, there is little protest. it would almost be comical how people just never seem to learn, if the situation weren't so serious.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

rs7 asks why a rogue state with nukes would arm terrorists. The answer is simple: to avoid retaliation. Pakistan is a good example. They pretend to be our allies, but shelter OBL and terrorists. They have nukes and their chief nuke scientist has traveled many times to N. Korea, as reported in Sunday's Washington Times commentary by Arnaud de Borchgrave. The Pakistani secret service and parts of the military are openly Islamist. Still, they need the US to deter India from a preemptive nuke attack so they cannot openly oppose us.

There is another motivation for arming terrorists with nukes. Money, pure and simple. It's the same reason N. Korea sells missiles to states like Yemen that have no use whatsoever for them.

 

[wild]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

rs7 asks why a rogue state with nukes would arm terrorists. The answer is simple: to avoid retaliation. Pakistan is a good example. They pretend to be our allies, but shelter OBL and terrorists. They have nukes and their chief nuke scientist has traveled many times to N. Korea, as reported in Sunday's Washington Times commentary by Arnaud de Borchgrave. The Pakistani secret service and parts of the military are openly Islamist. Still, they need the US to deter India from a preemptive nuke attack so they cannot openly oppose us.

There is another motivation for arming terrorists with nukes. Money, pure and simple. It's the same reason N. Korea sells missiles to states like Yemen that have no use whatsoever for them.

AAA,

where and how many times has America´s "chief nuke scientist" traveled during the past 57 years?

Money, pure and simple, is the motivation behind America´s unrivaled position as the single biggest weapons dealer in the world ... period.

regards

wild

 

[miniTrdr]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


There is another motivation for arming terrorists with nukes. Money, pure and simple. It's the same reason N. Korea sells missiles to states like Yemen that have no use whatsoever for them.

these countries stand to make more money by dealing with the deeper US pockets. NK wants a nonaggressive treaty with the US - to me it sounds like they are saying 'hey we can make nukes - time to renegotiate our trade agreements'. nukes are big bargaining chips.

iraq is about oil first- in Iraq in the late 70s all the oil wells became state run. foreign companies where kicked out. Iraq presently has deals with Russia, France and i think china for access to its oil fields. in order for this to happen sanctions must be lifted. in order for sanctions to be lifted the UN inspectors must say iraq doesnt have any WMD. In a regime change - put in place by the US- who would get favorable contracts to the oil, whos would get canceled? who are the 3 of 5 permanent members of the UN security who oppose a war in iraq and want inspectors to finish the job? russia china and france.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from miniTrdr:



these countries stand to make more money by dealing with the deeper US pockets. NK wants a nonaggressive treaty with the US - to me it sounds like they are saying 'hey we can make nukes - time to renegotiate our trade agreements'. nukes are big bargaining chips.

Two problems. Buying off thugs is poor form. Also, who's to say they stay bought off. Clinton already tried this tactic and it blew up in our face , just by chance at a time when they thought we were too preoccupied to do anything militarily.

iraq is about oil first- in Iraq in the late 70s all the oil wells became state run. foreign companies where kicked out. Iraq presently has deals with Russia, France and i think china for access to its oil fields. in order for this to happen sanctions must be lifted. in order for sanctions to be lifted the UN inspectors must say iraq doesnt have any WMD. In a regime change - put in place by the US- who would get favorable contracts to the oil, whos would get canceled? who are the 3 of 5 permanent members of the UN security who oppose a war in iraq and want inspectors to finish the job? russia china and france.

You are right on your facts but I don't reach the same conclusion. Are you saying we would attack them to get oil concessions for US companies? We could have done that last time. This is what is behind the UN manuvering though, no question. French are trying to improve their position.

 

[KymarFye]

Quote from Madison:



in 16 months, they have managed to get a large number of Americans into a state of frenzy in anticipation of killing people in a country they can't even find on a map, on no more than unsubstantiated claims, 30-second McHistory lessons, and asinine slogans.

* * *

and despite the lessons of history, there is little protest. it would almost be comical how people just never seem to learn, if the situation weren't so serious.

What frenzy? Other than a few guys who maybe don't have a football team in the Super Bowl to cheer for, where is there a frenzy?

The line about "a country they can't even find on a map" sounds like a familiar "asinine slogan." Then, you assert that unspecified "claims" are "unsubstantiated," and imply that anyone in favor of the Bush policy must be doing so on the basis of "McHistory." You go on to describe unspecified "lessons of history," apparently presuming that anyone who disagrees with you must not be as well-informed, or even able to see the obvious. In short, you offer nothing but cliche, self-superior leftist-elitist insults. They would be "comical... if the situation weren't so serious."

Why don't you state what you think would be a good resolution of the crisis: Are you in favor of total US withdrawal from the Persian Gulf? Are you in favor of a reversion to status quo ante (sanctions + no-fly zones in perpetuity)? Or do you believe that, if the inspectors fail to turn up a "smoking gun," that Hussein should be given a clean bill of health - sanctions removed, foreign military forces withdrawn, freedom of action to the north and south? If not any of those alternatives, then what? Are there any conditions under which your "lessons of history" would support military action? Is there anything this Administration could say or do to change your mind?

We should anticipate that, when and if the Administration chooses to act or decides that it's ready to act, there will be an attempt to re-state their case, with as many specifics as they believe they need, and as few as they can get away with. For now, anti-war forces appear to be cresting, even as European governments seek to create as much daylight between their positions and the domestically unpopular American ones as possible. The scenario is familiar from the Persian Gulf War build-up: Some of you may recall that the congressional vote in support of action back then was barely above 50%, and seemed in doubt up to the last, while anti-war intellectuals were in full voice, and peace initiatives of various types were being put forward, especially by the Russians.

It will be easy for the French, if it suits their perceived interests, to back off their current stance once the Administration has made its case and its intentions clear - or if you're cynical, once backroom deals are cut to their satisfaction, if that's what it takes - just as it will be easy for Americans currently on the fence, or even voicing opposition, to change their minds, if they choose to. In other words, little of what's going on right now (especially on the internet!) amounts to much more than meaningless chatter, in my opinion, except to the extent that it happens to indicate some jockeying for position ahead of the start.

There's a rumor going round in certain big-money circles that the deal has already been done - Hussein has agreed to leave, the money (lots of it) has already been transferred. Anyone else been subjected to this one? If it's true, then even strident opposition to apparent U.S. plans is costless for the French and others - and most of the critics, other than the most virulently and irascibly anti-American ones, will soon be applauding the "brilliant" strategy that forced Hussein to give in without a shot (discounting anti-aircraft fire at the US and British).