# Anti-War Views (bullshit) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 16, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520 "2003-02-16T23:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/61 "2003-02-17T06:54:55Z")
If you don’t start a war against the United States, Bush will stay in power. Therefore, if you are against a war on the United States, you support Bush. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/62 "2003-02-17T06:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\*Just curious – Are any of you who support war with Iraq actively involved in demonstrating your thinking? Where are the great pro-war marches? \*\* What for? But they do exist, mostly as small subsets of the anti-war ones. I agree with **Lemur866** and that’s more of a depressing thing than a rallying cry for most people, probably…the best way to avoid war in this particular case would a strong, unanimous call for him to resign, take the exile _or else_. We’ll never get that so it’s moot. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/63 "2003-02-17T07:04:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chula \* > \*\ ***mhendo** , you make some valid points, but I still object to the points you concede. I have never heard of a single instance of a protester becoming violent at globalization protests in the United States. Some protesters have engaged in property damage, which is not violence. Harming property is not comparable to harming objects. In every case that I know of, the police were not only the instigators of violence but the sole perpetrators. Most people are shocked at the way police behave when they attend their first large protest. \*\* I don’t want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate over anti-globalization protests, so i’ll make this short. I am in sympathy with your general position, but i did see coverage of some (admittedly very few) protesters throwing objects at police and other law-enforcement types, and lashing out at them when arrests were being made. I’m not really in a position to comment on how many such incidents there were, nor whether they were brought on by police actions. (The only protests i went to were in Australia, and i saw no violence at all - maybe i was at the wrong end of the march :)) I’m trying now to remember which demonstrations had the incidents that i refer to above; i seem to remember one or two in Seattle, but i may be wrong. My general position is that the media coverage of all these events was deplorable, and that police actions were often unconscionable. On the issue of property damage not being the same as violence, i generally agree with you, except when other people are close to (or inside) the property in question, and thus feel intimidated and scared. On this issue, you might want to duck and run before some others start flaming. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/64 "2003-02-17T07:09:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > **-You may not be actively supporting Saddam, but in being opposed to the removal of him and his party, you are giving defacto support to him. A ‘show of solidarity’. Hell, he thanked all of you yesterday. 6 in one hand…** So you are saying by being opposed to the removal of the regimes of Iran, North Korea, China, Half of Africa, and Pakistan (because of your “real world” view) you support the genocide there. [qoute]-Demonstrations, marches, and protests, are stupid. [/quote] Yep, damn uppity niggers best be keeping their place, beneath my heal. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/65 "2003-02-17T07:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*-You may not be actively supporting Saddam, but in being opposed to the removal of him and his party, you are giving defacto support to him. A ‘show of solidarity’. Hell, he thanked all of you yesterday. 6 in one hand… > > -Demonstrations, marches, and protests, are stupid. Especially in the case of the pro-Saddam marches, but in general as well. I show my support for whatever through my vote and my checkbook. \*\* Well, just because Saddam tries to use the protests for his own propaganda purposes does not mean that protesters support him. I don’t know how many times we need to say it, but anti-war protesters do not support Saddam. I, and many others on these Boards, have consistently made the point that, while we dislike Saddam and would like to see him removed from power, current US strategy will likely cause more problems than it will solve. The fact that you insist on calling them “pro-Saddam marches” demonstrates either wilfull ignorance or a total lack of reading comprehension. I don’t quite understand how you get from “We oppose making war on Iraq” to “We support Saddam Hussein.” The two statements are not synonymous, no matter how often you say otherwise. And maybe you could explain to me what there are 6 of, and why they are in one hand? I don’t quite undertand the reference. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/66 "2003-02-17T07:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\*Yep, damn uppity niggers best be keeping their place, beneath my heal. \*\* And you are a racist. Great. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/67 "2003-02-17T07:32:39Z")
> [@](#): > > And you are a racist. Great. Y’know, I realize that sarcasm is not always easily understood in a text-only medium, but **Tars** ’s sarcasm was pretty blatant. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/68 "2003-02-17T07:36:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\*Well, just because Saddam tries to use the protests for his own propaganda purposes does not mean that protesters support him. I don’t know how many times we need to say it, but anti-war protesters do not support Saddam. I, and many others on these Boards, have consistently made the point that, while we dislike Saddam and would like to see him removed from power, current US strategy will likely cause more problems than it will solve. > > The fact that you insist on calling them “pro-Saddam marches” demonstrates either wilfull ignorance or a total lack of reading comprehension. I don’t quite understand how you get from “We oppose making war on Iraq” to “We support Saddam Hussein.” The two statements are not synonymous, no matter how often you say otherwise. > > And maybe you could explain to me what there are 6 of, and why they are in one hand? I don’t quite undertand the reference. \*\* But anti-war protesters _are_ supporting Saddam, whether they want and intend to, or not. That is a indisputable fact. By hiding behind ‘Oh, but we shouldn’t so much as wipe our asses much less attack Iraq without UN approval’, which you hope and know that gutless France will not provide, you are (along with the French), blocking the move that will remove Saddam from power. What would a pro-Saddam demonstration be like? Gee, I bet there would be a lot of ‘No Attack on Iraq’ posters and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/69 "2003-02-17T07:38:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Y’know, I realize that sarcasm is not always easily understood in a text-only medium, but **Tars** ’s sarcasm was pretty blatant. \*\* No! Really? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/70 "2003-02-17T07:44:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*No! Really? \*\* What are saying? That you were smart enough to understand that it was sarcasm, but not smart enough to respond appropriately? Or that don’t know what sarcasm means? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/71 "2003-02-17T07:46:58Z")
I don’t know what ‘sarcasm’ is. Really. Isn’t ‘sarcasm’ a moderator here or something? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/72 "2003-02-17T07:50:28Z")
Brutus, if I used your logic then I would have to say that you are pro-death. ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/73 "2003-02-17T07:52:10Z")
I think at this point **Brutus** can only fairly be said to be pro-ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/74 "2003-02-17T07:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*But anti-war protesters _are_ supporting Saddam, whether they want and intend to, or not. That is a indisputable fact. \*\* How is it an indisputable fact? Just because you say so? As far as i see it, there are two types of support that one can give: moral support and material support. Protesters, by explicitly denying that they support Saddam Hussein, are not providing moral support, even if Saddam distorts their protests for his own ends. Whatever else Saddam is, i don’t think he’s stupid, and i’m sure he’s quite aware that anti-war protesters actually have no time for him or his actions as ruler of Iraq. And i can’t for the life of me see what material support these protesters are giving Saddam. Especially since the governments that are committed to war (US, UK, Australia, for example) have made it abundantly clear that these protests will not divert them from their war plans. You say it is a fact that anti-war protesters are supporting Saddam, whether they want to or not, but you have been unable to demonstrate that the protesters are explicitly expressing support for him (moral support) or that their protests are helping him in any practical way (material support). And Saddam’s own asinine gloating does not, in my opinion, qualify as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/75 "2003-02-17T08:23:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > **-You may not be actively supporting Saddam, but in being opposed to the removal of him and his party, you are giving defacto support to him. A ‘show of solidarity’. Hell, he thanked all of you yesterday.** After many hours watching the news, reading the newspapers, and hanging out in GD, I’ve come to the conclusion that waging an actual war is, in this case, probably not the hideously bad idea that I at first thought it was. I’m not rah-rah-rah-ing it, because I do prefer peace, but you’re not going to see me at any anti-war rallies, either. However. \*\*Brutus, \*\* this statement has got to be one of the most fuckwitted things I have ever read. Pull your head out, man. I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to politics, but even I can see that Saddam saying nice things about the anti-war protestors is simply his method of “spin.” In this case, being anti-war simply does NOT equal being pro-Saddam. Even before I changed my own mind regarding his war, I absolutely believed that Saddam Hussein is a miserable motherfucker who needs to be removed from power some way. “Anti-war” means just that–"anti-_war,_ " as in, “anti-soldiers having to travel to a foreign nation and shoot other soldiers and maybe die themselves.” It means “anti-bombing of cities where innocent non-combatants reside.” It means “anti-risking Saddam using WMD’s against anyone who’s pissed him off.” It does NOT mean “pro-letting Saddam stay in power because he really doesn’t suck.” My husband just got home from work, which means we’ve now got a few extra bucks. I’d be happy to loan you a few so’s that you can buy yourself a fucking clue. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/76 "2003-02-17T10:42:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > “this war is not about defending the Iraqi people. (If it was, why didn’t the US ever go in to save the Kurds, who were gassed years ago?)” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > America did put sanctions on Iraq for gassing the Kurds in 1988. So it wasn’t the UN who imposed sanctions then? Do you know the difference? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > Remember, the left was against Saddam and now you insist on keeping him in power. Every decent person is against Saddam. As for me ‘keeping him in power’, I wasn’t the regime who sold him weapons. (Can you guess who that was?) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > “If you wonder why the US has never helped the Tibetans (or as you would say ‘twiddles its thumbs’) : China is a formidable opponent and there is no oil in Tibet.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > The fact that you had to bring up oil shows how idiotic you are at the core. It’s an unneeded bit of whining. Hell, even if Tibet did have oil, it’s not like it’d matter to the US because there’s oil in the Stan countries that Russia used to have and there’s oil in other places and if you want to reduce the use of oil then you are free to invent a miracle replacement. Ah, so this war has nothing to do with oil? And this is an idiotic view? So why did you mention reducing the use of oil? Perhaps you could demonstrate your incredible grasp of world politics by saying what you know about Tibet. Include the reasons why you don’t think the US should use military force to help a peace-loving democracy which has been invaded and kept under a dictatorship for decades. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > “being anti-war in my case means that I want a UN resolution before the US invades. I would like evidence presented to the UN that Saddam is planning something and has the weapons to do it.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > And if you are shown that Saddam will do something, you won’t believe it. Perhaps you could give evidence for this stupid assertion. Here’s a similar one for you: If **you** are shown that Saddam has disarmed, had nothing to do with Sep 11 and none of his neighbours want the US to invade, then you’d still want Bush to invade, wouldn’t you? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > Would it have taken Pearl Harbor for you to think Japan was a threat? Do you know anything about history? 😕 The British went in in 1939 to save Europe from a brutal dictator. It took Pearl Harbour to bring the US into the war. From this you conclude that the British don’t know about threats, but the US does? :wally > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > Would it take Saddam firing weapons at Israel to believe he should be dealt with? No. Can you read? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > I want a UN resolution before the US invades. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > Under your appeasement, you’re allowing for more time for the Iraqis to do whatever they are doing. Perhaps, Mr. Genius, you could tell us what they’re doing. Or do you just want to invade anyway?! :smack: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > “if you don’t realise how preparing to attack without a UN mandate looks from outside the US” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobbieFal \* > The World also supported tyrants like Hitler and Stalin when they marched. Do you know anything about World War 2? Do you know how many people fought and died to save Europe from tyrants? You are pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/77 "2003-02-17T17:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*Oh, and I suppose you have a cite? Or are you going to point to the Baath-enforced demonstrations in Iraq as an example? \*\* > **[Kanan Makiya: Our hopes betrayed](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/16/iraq5)** > > Kanan Makiya: How a US blueprint for post-Saddam government quashed the hopes of democratic Iraqis. http://dear\_raed.blogspot.com/ Heres two. They don’t exactly support Saddam either. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/78 "2003-02-17T17:39:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by White Lightning \* > \*\*I think at this point **Brutus** can only fairly be said to be pro-ignorance. \*\* What’s his credibility measured in these days, Kelvins? I make it a policy to laugh at war-mongering bigots, and so far, so good. But at the protest (y’know, where _2.5 million_ people were marching in the cold weather?) we had a new chant for these ridiculous asses such as Brutus: “Pro-America! Anti-War! Pro-America! Anti-War!” Repeat as necessary. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/79 "2003-02-17T17:46:52Z")
Just to be clear, nobody, not me, nor **Brutus** (I hope), is actually \*pro-\*war because war is horrible. Sometimes, however regrettable it may be, war is necessary to accomplish ends that cannot be accomplished by any other means. Inspections have been a miserable failure because Saddam has been able to fool the inspectors, who, being mostly European, were not eager to find anything anyway, since that would interfere with their cozy business arrangements with his regime. Adding more inspectors would be useless for only an insane person pursues the same method expecting a different result. We know Saddam has plans to acquire nuclear weapons. We know also that Saddam has plans for regional conquest that so far have been thwarted solely by the superiority of US military power. In addition, Saddam has shown himself to be utterly without scruples or limits in murdering populations wholesale. Let us say that the US calls off this war, and the peace protestors are victorious–what then? How do we guarantee that Iraq does not put itself beyond the reach of military retaliation by acquiring nuclear weapons, as North Korea has done? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520/80 "2003-02-17T18:13:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Inspections have been a miserable failure because Saddam has been able to fool the inspectors, who, being mostly European, were not eager to find anything anyway, since that would interfere with their cozy business arrangements with his regime. If you would not agree that the U.S. and U.K. members of the teams were willing to report findings that did not exist because it is “in their interest” to support their governments’ positions, then, barring _evidence_, this is simply a combination of wishful thiking and calumny. I do not recall any of the U.K. or U.S. team members making this accusation. > [@](#): > > Let us say that the US calls off this war, and the peace protestors are victorious–what then? How do we guarantee that Iraq does not put itself beyond the reach of military retaliation by acquiring nuclear weapons, as North Korea has done? By keeping the threat of war over Hussein’s head if he does not comply. The current build-up goes beyond what is necessary to maintain that threat. It would appear that Bush and Co. are going to invade, regardless. (And if they actually _would_ stand down if Iraq 'fessed up and disarmed, then the disruption to our economy to go through this build-up was unconscionable.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-war-views-bullshit/155520.md?page=5)