Anti-War Views (bullshit)

Lemur866, I don’t buy into “traditions” from a jargon dictionary all that much.

If I had referred to madkins as a Facist or a Nazi, or if I had compared George W. Bush with Hitler, then that would be trivializing the Third Reich and the Holocaust.

If a legitimate historian wants to correct me on the significance of the lack of protest against the German government in the 1930’s and 1940’s, then I will reconsider. Other than that, I stand by what I said.

True, but it seems that soem of the antiwar organizers sure are working on homogeneity.

Certainly there is room for mutual respect between opposing views, but the preponderance of the speech I’m seeing from protests around the world tend to be focused not so much specifically against Bush’s decision to enforce the UN resolution through a unilateral move to war as a more generalized anti-Israel/anti-US sentiment.

Coldfire, I agree with you about the use of the term “hippie peacenick.” I’m not personally insulted by it; maybe it applies to me. But the expression is too much of a stereotype to use for the variety of people who are protesting the war. I don’t think such generalizations are typical of gobear’s posts.

Then you’re seeing different things than I, gobear. I’m sure the phenomenon you describe exists, but it’s not the majority of the protests. Nor is it, in my opinion, a significant minority.

Also, don’t mistake anti-GWB sentiments for anti-US sentiments. I can assure you that a lot -the majority, even?- of protesters here in Amsterdam today would qualify as anti-GWB. I can also vehemently assure you that most of those anti-GWB protestors do not harbour any ill will to the US as a nation, its people, or its heritage.

It’s a simple fact of life that Republican presidents don’t get along as well with their European counterparts as do Democrat presidents. That doesn’t mean an entire continent is against the US all of a sudden. Sometimes, friends and allies disagree.

Don’t forget anti-Iraqi. The people of Iraq are the ones who are being tortured/raped/killed by the Baath party while the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs. Delaying the war extends their suffering.

Blow it out your ear. No signifcant anti-war protest has been organized behind an anti-Iraqi sentiment.

You’re welcome to your opinions on what would be the potential effects of different courses of action, but ascribing goals to protesters that you know perfectly well are inaccurate is ridiculous

Oh, I suppose it’s just a unfortunate side-effect of not taking out the Baath party in Iraq. The Iraqis can just deal with it, huh?

I must admit that I’ve got a strong suspicion that anti-war protests are actually making war MORE likely at this point.
See the following CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.protests/index.html

Saddam is just self-absorbed enough to think that these protests are for him rather than against GWB. Now, I most certainly do not agree that war, AT THIS TIME, is the answer to this situation. In fact, I’m shocked to find myself agreeing with the compromise plan that France and Germany proposed a few weeks ago (i.e. thousands of Peacekeepers to police Iraq for the foreseeable future and triple the number of inspectors). Hell, I’d probably be protesting the American ‘plan’ (if such an ill-thought-out exercise in foreign policy backasswardsness can be called such a thing) myself if some (SOME)of the most visible of the anti-war crowd didn’t seem almost as screwed up as GWB! Overly simplistic statements like ‘War is bad’ (or those stoopid butterflies the protesters in Athens were carrying around) don’t do anything but give Saddam confidence that he can get away with something. Protests that made it clear that they supported inspections over war (i.e. statements like ‘Inspections not War’ or ‘Saddam, you’re an asshole and the only thing standing between you and the biggest can of whoopass on the planet is the UN so shape up’) would stand a much better chance of achieving the desired end. Unfortunately, I not getting that message from the anti-war movement and I’m rapidly losing confidence that anything can derail this horrible, bloody machine.

Perhaps I could clear up several of your misconceptions:

  • 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?)

  • Tibet was occupied by the Chinese decades ago. Their peaceful religion is under fierce attack, and they are desperate for international help.
    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.

  • 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.

  • and if you don’t realise how preparing to attack without a UN mandate looks from outside the US (that Bush wants control of the oil / revenge for his father’s ‘failure’ / to persuade the US electorate that he is tough on terrorism), then you exemplify the ignorance and contempt of foreigners that characterises Bush’s Administration.

As an American, I’ve looked at arguments for both sides, and I can see the merits of both of them. I try to skip messages from either side that have deteriorated into name calling brawls. I suppose I am reluctantly on the side of war with Irag. I truly wish that a diplomatic solution could be found. I must comment Coldfire for his thoughtful, erudite explanations and his refusal to label those for war with Irag as unfeeling brutes. I must confess that whenever I hear diatribes against Bush from Europeans, I immediately think that foreign citizens are abandoning Americans who are terrified. I hope and pray for a better solution.

Read my post again, you blockhead.

“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?)”

America did put sanctions on Iraq for gassing the Kurds in 1988. Remember, the left was against Saddam and now you insist on keeping him in power.

“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.”

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.

“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.”

And if you are shown that Saddam will do something, you won’t believe it. Would it have taken Pearl Harbor for you to think Japan was a threat? Would it take Saddam firing weapons at Israel to believe he should be dealt with? Under your appeasement, you’re allowing for more time for the Iraqis to do whatever they are doing.

“if you don’t realise how preparing to attack without a UN mandate looks from outside the US”

The World also supported tyrants like Hitler and Stalin when they marched. The World’s opinion, in essence, is meaningless due to the fact of their bias. The Arab bias against Israel due to what they were taught. The European bias against America.

Two quotes for you.

“These demonstrations expressed in their spirit, meaning and slogans the decisive Iraqi victory and the defeat and isolation of America,” Al-Jumhuriya said in a commentary.

“I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history.”- Dr B Khalaf ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,895397,00.html )

Im not facist or a Nazi. I think strong government is essentail to run a country, but i love America theres no doubt in that. I just go to the basic point that people should support a government rather than protest it (of course if it is violationg civil rights, or human rights it should change) (i.e millon man march, probably the most rightous protest ever)

Absolutely absurd and wrong-headed. No person has the duty to support his or her government. In a democracy, in fact, we have the duty to hold our governments under constant scrutiny and review.

Besides, you may have noticed that a fairly hefty proportion of the protesters on Saturday weren’t protesting their own government so much as a certain other one.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, basically, you’re against the first Amendment?

This is Usenet now? Godwin needs to update his law…

Yeah, and remember all those anti-Iraqi Iraqi’s who oppose getting attacked.

Keeping it simple here.
I agree with the OP, but have to comment that at least we live in a society where the anti protestors can have their say.
I have non-WMD reasons for supporting the end of the Oraqi regime (and think we could easily throw a bunch of other countries into the mix as well).
I would ure as hell hate to live somewhere where they could NOT protest.

Oh, and I suppose you have a cite? Or are you going to point to the Baath-enforced demonstrations in Iraq as an example?

(just came from the anti-war march here in SF)

Where the fuck were you in 2000? 1999? 1998? 1997? 1996? 1995? 1994? 1993? You fucking liar, you don’t care for shit for the Iraqi people, so shut your fucking lie-hole, jackass!